My proof > Your proof
The eurogamer article is bullshit because the people who made the game said its 60fps
enough with that..
i never once said a ps4 is more powerful than all pc's
But this game do look better on ps4 because they made it that way..
and nothing is on minimum settings..
That's what you want to believe because you are a pc guy
I posted in game screen shots and compared it to actual gameplay footage of the definitive edition and showed that the definitive edition has lower textures and overall lower settings. It doesn't look better, I posted screen shots comparing it
My proof out matches your proof. You did this in PM's, you won't reply to my entire post because you cannot. Checkmate.
You must be registered for see images
Also one last thing. If you understood how hardware worked, you'd understand that the game is rated to be capable of performing at 60fps, but since hardware can't keep a steady frame rate on any platform or any game, it's going to drift up and down a bit depending on the visuals being loaded. So actually the article is correct, you just don't understand your own system. You see, I understand x86 hardware, you don't. You'll keep saying "Developers said blah blah 60fps magically 100% all the time constantly without going to even 59fps evar". But to a PC gamer or anyone who understands x86 hardware, you sound extremely stupid as a constant exact framerate isn't possible on any system unless the hardware completely out matches the game being played and then has the fps locked. Which it doesn't, the fps is also uncapped. FPS will drift up and down no matter what the game is, even if it's by 0.1 fps, it'll drift. It averages at 50fps because of this drift. It can have 60fps in some scenarios, but it isn't constant, it's completely impossible to have it constant. A framerate test was done, there's a video on youtube as well. They used frame rate monitoring software which is extremely common and you can see that it's not a constant 60fps. If you want to deny it, then I advise you to go and learn about how hardware/games work. If you seriously still deny it, I have nothing left to say about it, because it shows you do not understand and refuse to understand how those "Magic boxes that play games" work.
Also, the game was ported from Console to PC in early 2013 and it still is difficult for these "Next gen" consoles to surpass. I find that pretty amusing. Even if it did look better (Which I don't see, I'm probably blinded by the high contrast and bloom.) the game was originally ported from the PS3/360 gen onto PC and look at what it did with that. What amazes me is how some console fans back then would say "Derr Tomb raider on PS3/360 looks better than the PC version hurr". And now here it is with the PS4 and Xone and yet the PC is now a rival to it? Seriously console "fanboys" need to make up their mind. Now if you port a PS4/Xone game to PC you'll see some amazing things that won't be rivaled for the next 3-4 years. Code a game specifically on PC now and it won't be rivaled until the next gen after this one. The example of this is with the original Crysis which if moded well will still hold up against the PS4 and it came out in 2007. Crysis 3 which came out in feb of last year actually absolutely destroys the PS4. Then you can graphic mod it to hell. So I assume it's graphic abilities will be sticking around for a while. However, saying that PS4 is better than PC just because you think a console port from early last year before the next gen consoles were released looks better? Honestly you're scraping the bottom of the barrel. That's just sad.
Also here you go
You must be registered for see links
PC = More realistic.
