...x-box controller...

not sure what you guys are so pessimistic about, graphics look like an infinite improvement. cant wait for the update!

...x-box controller...

Someone isn't paying attention. You aren't getting those graphics, that's the PC dev build. The PS3 can't handle those textures.

You'll excuse me if i dont take your unqualified opinion as gospel. Logic says that if they had no intention of using it, they would not have built it.

I dont think you know what an opinion is.

It's a fact the PS3 can't handle those full textures. The PS4 can, but you sure as hell won't be playing with that anytime soon.

You can say I'm unqualified, but then, you really don't know a thing about me or my background so that's just ignorance on your part. You COULD attempt to do your own research into the PS3's terrible RAM limitations, but something tells me you would rather stay ignorant.

I dont think you know what an opinion is.

It's a fact the PS3 can't handle those full textures. The PS4 can, but you sure as hell won't be playing with that anytime soon.

You can say I'm unqualified, but then, you really don't know a thing about me or my background so that's just ignorance on your part. You COULD attempt to do your own research into the PS3's terrible RAM limitations, but something tells me you would rather stay ignorant.

PS3 can-¦t handle thit, PS3 can-¦t handle that. Kitten.

Try Unreal Tournament 3 on PS3 from 2007. Same engine, hi-res textures, big open maps, smooth 30fps framerate.

Smooth and 30 fps don't belong in the same sentence.

Smooth and 30 fps don't belong in the same sentence.

Start at 60 and we can go from there.

There isn't a single competitive FPS out there that runs in any kind of E-sports league at sub-60 FPS right now, and there is a reason for that. It looks like crap, it plays like crap, and it lowers the skill ceiling.

Dust isn't going the E-sports route in most likelihood, but it doesn't change the fact it lowers the skill ceiling and looks terrible compared to 60.

not sure what you guys are so pessimistic about, graphics look like an infinite improvement. cant wait for the update!

First you wrote about textures and RAM in PS3. Now when you haven-¦t vauable argument about what you wrote before you writing about 60fps now. You are amazing.

Would like to point out call of duty runs on 30.

Would like to point out call of duty runs on 30.

Far cry 3 uses massive maps and view distance and it looks great.

The PS3 doesn't need ram, its designed differently. The PS3 isn't a desktop PC it doesn't require a RAM cache to store an OS, working documents or other memory overheads while you go get coffee or figure out what a Spearman Rho is. PS3 streams tiny pieces of information through high bus bandwith. Console are optimised to play games. The issue that many games production companies have its almost like computer programming in the 1980s, its basically bloody hard work. None of this middlewear bollocks, to optimise you have to get into the engineering of the console.

So basically your statement about RAM is irrelevant. Sorry the PS3 doesn't fit into your a schema of how a computer should work.

/Theskyisn'tfalling

First you wrote about textures and RAM in PS3. Now when you haven-¦t vauable argument about what you wrote before you writing about 60fps now. You are amazing.

Would like to point out call of duty runs on 30.

First you need to remember that 60Hz is not 60 FPS, which is what most of our computer monitors are actually set at. When a game or movie or anything really is running at 30 FPS You will be perceive it as a smooth motion. But honestly we will be able to see all the way up to 1000 FPS because our eyes don't have shutters on them, well unless you blink several hundred times a second. The FPS issue only really matters when you have extreme peaks and valleys during play. As your eyes will perceive the change in the information stream.

It matters all the time.

If its not 60+, it's garbage.

This is a reflex sport. If you think having half of the frames shaved off of an animation isn't a big deal when it comes to recognition you should go play fighting games competitively and see how many pros agree with you.

You say that, but I would bet money that you wouldn't be able to tell the difference between a solid 30 FPS and a solid 60 FPS. But I know, you will protest that you are a '1337' player and can definitely tell the difference and it effects your game and blah blah blah. Fact of the matter though, nothing is interlaced anymore. Unless you are still playing on an old CRT monitor or first gen tube HDTV, the entire image is written for every frame. So you see every animation, and see the exact position that the enemy is at in every screen.

No, you don't. And there is a thing called "tracking" which you need the additional fluidity for. One frame alone is enough to make a difference at the start of a change of direction.

Your argument has been made by poor console players for a decade who can't afford decent graphics. Again, take your crap logic to a fighting game tournament and see how long it takes for you to get laughed straight out of the building. We are all intimately aware of how important a 60 FPS minimum is.

And yes, I am a 1337 player, obviously superior to you in both looks, women, gaming skill, and swag.

https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-ySnJX6fjySE/UGKc3QzmKDI/AAAAAAAAAaM/LRylwpYzAQA/w800-h450-p-k/Rikuto.png

Get that money, son.

You know pro players? That's cute, I am one.

Get on my level.