That doesn't even really mean much in this case. The graphics on the Xbox One version seemed to be about the same as the low settings on PC and PC high settings actually do look quite close to the original reveal version.
I have my criticisms of The Division but graphics are not one of them. The game looks absolutely amazing and for me actually ran decently well.
He mentioned something about in the console version being able to turn down shadows to up the frame rate...not sure if that's a mistake or not.
Regardless, wouldn't that be fucking rad if Devs added two presets to games. One was a "beautiful" preset which would look the best but the frame rate would be in the 30's while another preset would be "fast" or something and would lower the graphics but get the frame rate up to 60. I guess like PC with our low, med, high, ultra presets.
I played the game waaay earlier than it came out, and it still looked like shit compared to what they showed.
[QUOTE=surfur;49692004]He mentioned something about in the console version being able to turn down shadows to up the frame rate...not sure if that's a mistake or not.
Regardless, wouldn't that be fucking rad if Devs added two presets to games. One was a "beautiful" preset which would look the best but the frame rate would be in the 30's while another preset would be "fast" or something and would lower the graphics but get the frame rate up to 60. I guess like PC with our low, med, high, ultra presets.[/QUOTE]
That's what Last of Us Remastered did on the PS4, with the faster preset being the default.
[QUOTE=eirexe;49692027]I played the game waaay earlier than it came out, and it still looked like shit compared to what they showed.[/QUOTE]
I don't know what you played then cause the beta on PC on highest settings looked pretty close to the original and still looked pretty beautiful.
The title on the article has been changed to: [quote]Ubisoft say it's "simply not true" that The Division was "held back"[/quote]
Apparently Ubi responded with a statement denying that it was "held back" and reiterating their stance that The Division's PC version was "developed from the ground up". I just can't bring myself to completely believe that. A little sure, but no company in there right mind would actually admit to something like this, that's just bad PR.
Regarding the original article though, how can it be considered unfair if there is the possibility of substantially better hardware? Not everyone on PC would have access to stupid power, but there are those that do, how is it unfair to restrict those that are capable? That's silly.
[QUOTE=simkas;49692426]I don't know what you played then cause the beta on PC on highest settings looked pretty close to the original and still looked pretty beautiful.[/QUOTE]
No it did not, it even had the typical "greyness aids layer" that AAA games have multiplied by 30.
Yeah well just work on the console graphics and say "it's not fair"
Also well lock it to 30 fps and say it's too much work.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.