The review scene should probably stop treating PC like it's a single, max-spec platform that "wins" every time based on the fact that it can be as powerful as you want it to be (and are willing to pay for).
It's a variable platform by nature! You get exactly what you put in. The more useful question is, what is the gaming market's average gaming PC setup-- and how well will that setup run the game? We should use that for comparisons. Or at least, present that as another point of comparison.
It's supposed to be about the experience the majority of people will get from playing the game, and making the best choice for their real-world situation. Not some kind of "theoretical maximum" platform-based pissing contest.
...Even though it always turns into that.
PS: WE GOT 180 MORE P, SUCK IT XBO
PS4 4 LYFE
Well, how the game plays for the average PC gamer can also vary wildly. Some are ok with having lower resolution textures and disable some post processing in order to get a higher framerate. People like me are more concerned with making it look good and can handle sub-30 FPS. I don't know a single person who has a 1080p monitor who runs at a lower resolution, so it's all about graphical options.
All they can really do is use the systems they have in-house, and tune the graphics options for an equivalent framerate to the consoles.
Log in to comment