I was playing it for a couple hours today and the sad thing is the frame rate isn't even the biggest issue with this game. The game is just boring, the poor frame rate is just another reason to not play it.

Its kinda like a boring version of Frontlines: Fuel of War. That wasn't a notable game either.

This made me chuckle.  I mean if dropping to 900p only got them 1fps more, then something is horribly wrong to begin with.  Smoother. How low have our expectations gone?

Average difference is 3fps, not 1.

Got it but they clearly say in the analysis that neither version actually plays smooth.  He even goes as far as to say that both have frame pacing issues that causes inconsistent motion throughout.  This litterly means its not smooth. Framerate and delivery of frames are two totally different things.

Even if the framerate is higher, the pacing issues preclude smoothness of any kind.  Do you understand what I'm getting at? 

If they solve the frame pacing issues and Xbox One stays ahead then we can say Xbox One is smoother. If you have pacing issues it means frames aren't being delivered consistently and that produces fluctuations in motion during gameplay...

Smoother =/= smooth, in the same way that if you have two big mountains of different sizes, we still call one of them the "smaller" one even though it is not small.

How did this thread become controversial? Why are people questioning Curl's motives and challenging anything that makes Xbox look better than PlayStation.

Anyway I've played the game for about 8 hours so far. On the technical side it's very messy. Incredibly long load times, freezing when missions end/begin, and a bunch of weird audio and visual glitches. But I'm digging the gameplay. There's a decent amount of choice here. You can choose how to take on objectives, or whether to bypass them completely. The weapon customization system is among the best I've used. And it just feels like you're a resistance fighter, outgunned and outmatched.