Sooty

I don't think that's a particularly valid excuse when it's 8 years on and you're still not capable of resolutions above 720P. That is why it's so disappointing.

It's nothing to do with me not understanding something. I'm fully aware of that practice on the current generation, I can accept 1080P/30 on launch, but 720P/30? Come on!

Perfect Dark was terrible in every way, not just because it was a launch game. Call of Duty 2 and Condemned were pretty damn impressive at the time, but that was 8 years ago at 720P. It's silly that we are still at that resolution now on the successor, that is my issue here for the 500 bones.

This is both true and not true, while it's amazing stuff like GTA V came out on the 360, you'd be surprised how playable games are on old PC hardware so long as you're okay with 720P and 30 FPS + medium settings. You can get very similar results (often better) to current generation console games on pretty damn old PC hardware if you drop the res and settings a bit.

But yeah, it is pretty great what they can do. If the PS4 is putting stuff out like Killzone and BF4 at launch I'm pretty excited to see how much they can squeeze out of that thing.

I was playing on high without AA, it didn't run amazingly, about 30 FPS. (at 1920x1200)

Crysis felt weird, because it felt so smooth even at 30. I don't know how that worked. Now I aim for 60 on everything but for how good Crysis looked at the time I was happy that it ran even remotely smoothly to be honest.

Though, hey! Compared to the Xbox One that 8800GTX was a fucking beast.

I wasn't, I was just saying that the way you worded it could have been taken as saying you need a 660 or higher, so therefore a 560 or 460 would be incapable. I know it's annoying because of the way Nvidia brand their cards, but a lot of people do forget that 480s and stuff are still relevant and someone that doesn't know a lot could have certainly taken it that way.

I was kidding. I'm only gonna get an Xbox One if it gets a lot of exclusives I want (I don't care for Forza, Gears or Halo) and is sold without a Kinect. (or is just generally really cheap)

I think the point is, it's not a good representation of what more standard games are going to end up like. Either way 720P across the board for most games is definitely worrying.

I'm definitely going to continue playing games on PC but I always have at least one console for those experiences, I don't mind the odd framerate issue or potential resolution gaps between PC and console, but this 720P stuff is really quite insane to me.

I just don't understand how they are having such problems with games running at 1080P. No matter what, 8 years of hardware advancements should brute force through any sub-par optimisation. The argument that it's poor optimisation loses weight a bit when you consider how many games are coming in hot at 720P. Maybe Microsoft's devtools are ass.

Oh I am perfectly calm, don't get the wrong impression. I love all this controversial bullshit. I'd be saying the same if this was the PS4 so it's not a brand thing.

The difference between 60 and 30 FPS is very noticeable, but a locked 30 is perfectly fine, frame rate fluctuations, though, are horrible. Going back and forth from 30 to 20 and even as low as 16 would be very noticeable and feel like you're trying to play a game that your PC is simply outdated for.

The PS3 is 7 years old. We're talking about a brand new console, that in 2013, is struggling with 720P out of the gate.

Kind of a big difference...

and again I point back to what I said earlier; I had a video card that is 7 years old but was capable of Crysis at 1920x1200 on high settings, how can the Xbox One not be putting out 1920x1080 (so lower resolution) in 2013? Really? This is acceptable for a $500 machine?