Quote:
Originally Posted by Arclight
Er, come again? 
Er, maybe not. Why does that matter? Those visuals with a constant minimum of 40fps isn't good enough? 
It is, kinda nice to have something that actually uses the resources of my PC for a change. Not much point buying decent hardware were it not for titles like these. 
Console ports tend to be the shodiest of them all. Playing on a console can be fun, granted, but their influence improves absolutely nothing.
If you want to skip it for TES5, then by all means. I just don't follow the reasoning.  |
In the past I've played my share of shoddy console ports, but in recent years the problem seems to have gone away, at least in terms of graphics (controls can still be an issue but that's something else). All of the console ports I currently own (Mass Effect 2, Dead Space, Batman: Arkham Asylum, DiRT, GRID, F.E.A.R. 2, Mirror's Edge, and some other's I'm too embarrassed to list here) run at a constant v-sync'd 60fps on my modest GTX 260, with all details turned on, 1366x768 resolution, and 4x MSAA. Seems to me that as a general rule, anything that runs on a console at 30fps will run on my machine at 60fps. In contrast, all of the PC-exclusives I own suffer frame rate drops and stutters, even old ones like F.E.A.R. and Company of Heroes.
And once you've gotten used to a v-sync'd 60fps, anything else looks bloody horrible.
My GTX 260 will soon be upgraded to a top-end card, but by the sound of it that won't help me in Witcher 2... at least not on Ultra. But then, if those shots you posted are taken on High... well, they do look nice...