Loading... hold tight!
If I didn't like it I would have took responsibility myself for buying a shit game, and that's it.
What a peculiar choice of name. I thought that foundations were something put in place first as a solid base on which to build rather than being renovations to a shambling wreck.
While Paradise evolved the series, and in a direction applauded by many, it took it away from the pure fun I had with Takedown and Revenge. I got bored driving from one side of the city to another to get to an event. I really missed proper Crash stages. And I wasn't a fan of those straight point to point races.
No solid 60fps @ 1080p. frequently dipping into 50s/40s/(even worse)on major AAA titles.
Total: $350 (tack on Ps+ if you want to be specific)
No guaranteed 30fps @ 1080p, but there you go.
I'm paying $1650 for a fluctuating 60fps. You know what: as nice as 60fps is it's not worth it. On top of that.. constant tweaks, fixes and monitoring (gnawing away at your enjoyment).
It's a mugs game. This will be my last upgrade.
Let's not forget you can lock the PC version at 30fps. Matching consoles performance but with better graphics
I've spent around $800 upgrading my PC this year and in almost every major game i've wanted to play there's serious issues maintaining 60fps @ 1080p
I won't be upgrading in future, will just move back to console gaming and get out of this scammy marke
I did the gaming PC thing for 15 years. I stopped when it became obvious that PC gaming, especially PC gaming as tech showcase, was dying.
It started with Crysis when PC gamers instead of going "Hey there's this great new game, better upgrade so I can play it" as they always had before just threw internet tantrums about not being able to run it at max settings on their current hardware
Personally, I didn't get on with this one. The car jumping took you out of the world of a driver which really was the point of the Driver games
Multiplayer parity on consoles has never existed, too many influences - network latency, controller latency, screen latency, player skill, player loadout etc
Who cares what platform any game feature originates from?
It doesn't matter, except for people like you who, with s sense of smugness, believe the method someone enters a game makes a difference - matchmaking being for "kiddies".
Eye rolling faux superiority.
BTW - I played Operations last night via matchmaking, on the PC!! Oh noes...
Yet BF has full server browser functionality with player rented custom servers on the PS4 and XO.
And one of the most popular and successful competitive MP shooters on the PC is matchmaking only.
My platform of choice for BF1 is PC.
This isn't a competition between the haves and have nots, although you act as if it is.
It doesn't rub me the wrong way as it is complete bollocks.
There is nothing "kiddie" about using matchmaking and there is nothing "adult" about using a server browser, or proxy such as Qizmo or ASE. Both are perfectly viable for getting into a game, with individual pros and cons.
It is funny seeing someone feeling internet superior due to using server browsers though.
Matchmaking is for kids and makes a game "kiddie"? Posting more bollocks I see.
Matchmaking is for convenience - I use it all the time.
...in addition to having more/exclusive trouble with cheaters.
I've upvoted you TWICE, today..
.. WTF is going on here? ;-)
for us it came down to whether the seamless multiplayer part of Watch Dogs 2 is significant or not. Our view is it is not significant, so we felt the review was justified.
It's really a game-by-game basis. We do our best to make the right call each time but it can often be tricky!
Surely EG you have to hold back the Recommended badge because components of the game aren't working at launch.
However, what's clear is that stability in performance is an issue, with the game tearing and dropping frames sporadically during city traversal
Why would Sony have bumped up the price of their new console for the sake of something that the majority of their customers don't really care about?
At worst there are 20fps dips - something that surely isn't acceptable for a Pro experience.
Does price matter? Well yes. Yes of course it does*. We're talking about consumer goods.
How much does your hypothetical UHD Player cost?
If it was a bargain price, genuinely improved on what I'd seen before, and impressed me enough that I didn't care..
.. Yes I would. As long as I was aware of what I was buying, I wouldn't feel shortchanged.
My PS4 Pro arrives next week.
I have visions of the sad sacks, cuddling their PC's, "There there. It's not real 4k, you're still my special girl"...
" 4K in this game is not a big achievement"
On a box that costs £350 it is.
There are no poor PC console ports. Every PC game released is a testament to the highest of quality standards.
Forza Horizon 3
Gears of War: Ultimate Edition
Oh look, the person who uses mental disorders as insults feels hard done by.
Bloodborne runs fine on PS4. What is the baseline for "good performance" on a mass market, inexpensive home console?
This is quite telling really - you're a PC guy, nothing else will cut it, we get it. You absolutely do belittle anything non PC, and insisting that there haven't been quite a lot of PC ports which don't live up to the high standards expected by PC gamers is a bit disingenuous.
It doesn't sting, because I'm typing this on my rather nice 2016 PC build.
The difference is I don't act like a wank who belittles anything non PC.
And I stand by my earlier statement, the past year hasn't been great for PC ports.
What has a mental health condition got to do with anything, apart from highlighting you are a bit of a prick using it as some form of barb. Not the first time you've used it in one of your posts ubiquitous with an over compensating sense of self importance/delusions of grandeur.
Congratulations. You own a PC. Something millions of us manage to achieve.
PC isn't having a great 12-18 months for ports.
But if you already own a PS4, the choice of whether to upgrade is a tricky one. There are no system exclusives, the library is the same, and existing games will only run better if developers go back and patch them.
Clearly there isn't a market for this.
Sure 50 million have bought a PS4 so far that doesn't exclude them from getting Pro for many different reasons but the Pro wasn't designed as an upgrade path
Sony aren't targeting PS4 owners directly
Are you serious?
Did you miss that thing called "console wars" the last 30 years or so?
Did you miss the main reason why DF became a success?
Of course you didn't.
It seems you're trying to make the point again that consoles are silly and everybody should be smarter and go for PC.
Just deal with the fact that millions of people are in the market for consoles, and they make the same kind of decisions that PC gamers make: Spend a bit more on a better box, or go for the cheaper option?
Some may not have bought a current-gen console yet, but did buy a new TV (or getting one soon), so they may be in the market for a console that does their shiny new TV more justice.
I'm a PC enthusiast too, but it's really not hard to understand why people might be fine with a console, it really isn't.
Console related thread and here you are with your negative spin...completely predictable.
But if you already own a PS4, the choice of whether to upgrade is a tricky one. There are no system exclusives, the library is the same, and existing games will only run better if developers go back and patch them. If you own a 4K screen or are considering a purchase, the upgrade will be highly worthwhile, but what's clear is that there's little here likely to make your existing console obsolete. With an installed base rapidly approaching 50m users, that's probably a very good thing.
Battlefield 4 (PC)