Please, be honest gamers

The only metric I care about really is 60fps. It genuinely affects gameplay and, while I could live without it if the game delivered in other areas, really there's no excuse not to have it fr todays games and consoles.

I could live with 720p personally, but I understand that it will piss off people with larger/higher resolution displays.

Graphics are just another area where the industry has let go of progress. There are many others.

>gaymers
Fuck off.

>tfw I just want 144hz instead of all this 4k

I'm happy with 1080p60. For now. Probably will be for a few years yet. Consistent playable framerate is more important than resolution and fancy graphics. But there's nothing wrong with adding in some fancy graphics and higher resolutions, as long as the framerate doesn't suffer.

I don't care too much if a game looks bad, I've been playing games since the mid 90's and even among modern games I play stuff like Mount & Blade. I also don't care too much if a game runs at 30 or 25 FPS or something. I enjoyed Dark Souls, I enjoyed Xenoblade Chronicles and Shadow of the Colossus.

It doesn't actively bother me, however I'm not poor and if I can play a game in better quality then why the fuck wouldn't I. So yeah, in that sense I do give a shit and I do want every game coming out for PC with a decent port.

My personal requirements

>Run at a steady 60fps
>At 1080p
>Not look like absolute shit

Basically, I want Medium settings for most games but if I can go higher and still be 60, then I'll do it.

Most niggas here don't have 4K monitors or tvs. The just spew what the hear and what they think, take everything with a grain of salt.

I'm pretty happy playing anything. but i def have preference for 1080p I'm even willing to drop fps to get 1080p but luckily i have never had to with my set up. but that won't stop me from playing a game at a lower res if the game is good.

Man I dont even care about 60fps. I can even play with sub 30 fps if the game is good and not a shooter/platformer. I've never understood Cred Forums obsession with maxed out graphics honestly.

I know a guy who refunded the Dead Rising remaster because of the hitstop that dropped a few frames when you would swing the sledgehammer at a large crowd of zombies.

Like, what? You can play the game at 60+ fps but that's the deal breaker.

In my opinion, resolution isn't as important as frame rate. I can deal with 720p, but goddammit, it better be at least 60 fps.

This. I don't even want 4k especially considering the fps will still be dogshit.

I get the 60 requirement for action games, but would you care if a turn based game ran at 60?

>as long as the framerate doesn't suffer.
this

60fps has more priority than higher graphics.

I would prefer Nintenfag to release Zelda Breath of Wild in 60fps even if it would lower so details in the graphics.

Animation lag.

gameplay>graphics
I couldn't care less about graphics. Its just worthless trash shitting up the AAA industry. If everything looked like Amnesia or Warband I'd be happy. Just decent textures without stupid filters everywhere beats out any modern game.

I see. I mostly feel shifts in fps rather than seeing them. I'm not overly observant. If I can't feel the sluggishness it doesn't really affect me.

Idgaf about graphics, I just want good gameplay.

If you want to watch pretty things go fucking watch a movie.

See I was about to tell you that no, I don't need such a high resolution, and can content myself with 1080p at 60FPS for now because you don't need more to enjoy all those fucking console ports we get.

But then, it's not like I even care, because gaming has gone to complete shit, and I can certainly content myself with 640x480 at 25FPS to play those nextgen turds.

I need more good games more than I need more pixels.

>Idgaf about graphics, I just want good gameplay

These are the worst kinds of posts.

I try to get games running at 60 FPS and 1080p which is the most I'll actually notice with my shit setup.
That doesn't mean that being able to aim higher in terms of framerate, resolution and graphical fidelity is a bad thing though.

MGSV should never have been on PS3 and 360. It's nice they got visual parity to saome degree, but it's obvious that it ruined the game mechanically.

I've seen worse.
The worst are those that think graphics doesn't matter.

They don't really. Or they do insofar as they serve the gameplay. A pretty game isn't necessarily a good game, but a game that plays well is.

I honestly never cared about graphics as long as I know what is going on in game and that THE GAME its self has a good art direction that meshes well with the existing game play mechanics.

Beyond that better graphics are just the cherry on top and if you are some autist that think that that cherry is the most fucking important thing in the world then you are a raging retard and are the reason why the gaming industry is so shit right now.

Man Leon never should have hooked up with Ashley.

I finished Hitman Absolution in 640x800, best gameboy experience ever

A game that plays well but looks like shit is a shit game.

A game that looks well but plays like shit is a shit game.

It's one of those things where it's to each their own.

Personally I'd rather have a game look nice and running smooth and I don't need to have every game run max settings so long as its fun and enjoyable.

FPS will always be more important to me than graphics

If setting the graphics to look like a PS2 game gives me good FPS I'll do it

Nah the first one is still a good game. Especially if we're talking graphical fidelity. That's unimportant. A good art direction can improve a game though.

Legend of Mana looks better than 99% of the games on the ps1 that tried to push graphics.

Not really true, it's got a special upscaling algorithm that predicts the pixels in between, it's not true 4k but it's not just stretched pixels.

Well let me put his point a different way: do you want to play Big Rigs in 320x240 at 20FPS, or do you want to play Big Rigs in 4k at 120FPS.

I don't know about you but I'd rather play Tetris. So yes, gameplay is important, because if you don't want to play something, the resolution and framerate won't make any difference.

And there's a crucial lack of good games these days.

High resolution is awesome.
My 1440p screen was worth every cent.
But the PS4 wont run games at 2160p.
Most games will be at 1080p, 1440p or something in between. Thats what the GPU is capable of.

Framerate>Resolution.

The issue with current consoles is that they can't even do both right, it's one or the other, and sacrifices are only hurting games in the industry. Imagine Bloodborne at 60fps, for example.

Not really. 60fps, 1080p is the absolute limit of what I give a shit about.

1080p 144hz is much more satisfying than 4K desu.

That said stability/FPS > graphics always, if I wanted pretty power points I'd just make one myself.

Depends on the game.
Slow games like The witcher 3 are just fine at 30fps.
But in fast action games 60fps is a must.

Posting N image of the game on minimum settings and one on max helps you fight Op's opinion on 720-1080 vs 4k how?

4k is too expensive to adopt at the moment. It's only plausible if you're rich or brain damaged.

I also care more about fidelity and framerate then I do about poly count.

However, there's no reason why we can't have nice graphics. If tojo could do this for the PS2 15 years ago, then I expect the same level, if not better, today.

>uhh fancy words
thats how sony's marketing team would describe stretched out resolutions

>those ps3/xbox 360 textures
BAHAHAHAHAHHAHA

I think that current-gen graphics are fine as they are, and until hardware's technical capabilities grow significantly the devs should focus on improving the framerate while paying attention to detail, not the 4k and excessive texture quality.

I think the only recent games that interest me and I can't do 1080p 60 fps even on low are Doom and Hitman. Honestly, even a shitty i3/gtx 950 PC is perfectly capable of delivering a reasonable experience if you don't care about super ultra max graphics. It's nice if you can afford better visuals, but perfomance is what matters the most.

Hyping up consoles with 4k when they can't even run games at 4K is obviously a marketing sham. But actually increasing the resolution does make games look better. There's no logical reason to be opposed to making things better in principle, aside from the fact that it costs more money.

>Hyping up consoles with 4k when they can't even run games at 720p

ftfy

For me its resolution and fps.
I dont care how it looks but sharp and smooth is important to me.

No that guy but seriously it isn't that simple it's actually pretty innovative tech, Cerny might look like a pedophile and talk sexy but he and other engineers at Sony are doing something great

IIRC MGSV development started before Konami knew about the 8th gen consoles. They didn't have the next gen console kits until Ground Zeroes and the prolouge were almost finished.

>60fps
t.pc

literally no one gives a shit about 4k
it's just sony trying to use the new ps4 to sell sony tv's

Pretty much this right here.

There's a tomb raider comparison running around, it does look better than a straight upscale but lacks the true fidelity of native 4k.

You clearly have never used a screen with a resolution greater than 1080p. Hell, given that you're playing MGSV at 720p I bet you're typing this on a shitty low res monitor from a decade ago because I'm sure there are poorfags out there that can't even afford 1080p let alone 4k. For the record I'd rather play MGSV on the lowest settings at 1080p than max settings at 720p.

4k doesn't mean much for PC gaming in particular, I maintain that 24" or 27" at 1080p/1440p respectively is optimal for gaming at a desk. 144hz is also fantastic and that's something that consoles will never be able to manage and is rarely found in TVs anyways. Small monitors just don't benefit that much from insanely high resolutions and big monitors on a desk with your head only a few feet away are harder to game on since the HUD is usually in your peripheral vision. Like most PC gamers I don't care about streaming my games to the TV in my living room.

That being said, if you ever saw 4k on a 50" TV and then 1080p on the same size screen you'd understand immediately why 4k is being lauded as this great big thing and you wouldn't have made this thread. You might be okay with 720p but you probably haven't used anything greater to compare it to. Same goes for 60hz vs. 144hz. Don't get all worked up when other people won't settle for your low standards that might have been acceptable 10 years ago. I'm sure at least some autists complained about not needing the 720p/1080p of the PS3 when the 480p of the PS2 looked since all they had was 480p TVs

Some people just aren't that sensitive to differences like that. My tv does 1080 and during gameplay I can't really tell a big difference between 720 and 1080. It's easier with still screenshots, but that's not how you experience the game.

and will be good enough while autist scream not native like those crazy audiophiles and meme extreme bit rates

Resolutions are not vidya.

As long as they don't look like complete ass I'm fine with it. Art direction is more important to me than EXTREME GRAPHICS.

People who complain about the technical side are either autistic, trolling, or both.

I think it's a waste of time, if you're not hitting true 4k then why bother? Just use the better performance to hit 60fps in games that couldn't.

But I guess that's harder to market than 4K!!!!!!!!!

I think it's like the guy above us said, they're like audiophiles that can't understand that no one else really cares.

ITT: Pcucks who once boasted about pc's superior graphics are now on damage control after new consoles confirm 4k resolution.

>do you seriously give a shit about perfect graphics and 4k bullshit?
only in western trash games because the gameplay sucks dick.

>pc's superior graphics
>consoles resolution

You what user?

>Fox Engine can do miracles in a fucking 2005 hardware
>Konami still fucks it up and shit all over PES 2017 PC port using the same fucking engine

youtube.com/watch?v=VaiPMpRS82E

>I'm playing MGV on pc in 720p on highest setting in 60fps and I fucking love it

Are you literally brain dead? Those """highest""" settings are being completely washed out by the upscaling process when playing below native res. It literally looks and performs worse than if you had it at native res and all lowest settings.

You "people" who turn down resolution BEFORE messing with graphical settings are truly enigmatic, in the sense that it's difficult to comprehend how you can be so stupid and subhuman.

yes i do give a shit. its just too expensive right now.

you've seen the comparsion this user mentioned the not even comes close to pc quality

I remember playing Dragon's Dogma all the way through 3 times before Dark Arisen came out with the graphics update. Didn't even notice how bad the original game apparently looked until anons showed me side-by-side comparison shots. As long as something is above 30fps and fun to play, I don't really give a shit how purty dem pixels look.

MGSV looks pretty nice with the extended ultra settings, but it's mostly rocks or a dirty half-jungle you'll be admiring half the time

Photorealism in games is a mistake.

God, those rocks really do look gorgeous, though.
I love how shiny everything looks.
Fuck me, I need to go play me some more MGS V again.

1080p/60fps should be the standard for everything if it's not tied to game mechanics or something. I'm honestly not a whore for graffix tho, it's nice but a great style is more important (Killer7, Okami, etc) and really helps a game in terms of aging.

>mfw playing Overwatch with the lowest settings, 50% render scale, and 30 fps
1080p and 60 fps would make so happy, I wouldn't ask for more.

The first thing you should do as a wall licking PC gamer is changing texture filtering to high quality if you own an Nvidia card, makes a big difference on close up details in MGS:TPP.

what is mgsvs native resolution then?

I never asked for 4k. We're not even ready for 4k. Let's try to get 1080p resolutions running at a steady rate of 60fps on consoles before we make a jump to a resolution we can't even run natively, let alone run natively at a decent fps.

4k is the stupidest thing to come out of this generation and it baffles me that people give a shit about it.

That said I'd buy a PS4 Pro if it gave substantial performance enhancements to games running at 1080p, so maybe I'm part of the problem.

Sure I like some eye candy and pretty graphics, but to me the most important thing is the fun factor.

I unironically enjoyed playing XCOM 2 in 720p at 15-20 frames per second on my old toaster.

In the Nvidia control panel that is, not in-game.

my nigga. i emulated persona 3 at native res on a shitty laptop, enabled performance hacks and still had slowdowns and played it for over 120hs.

everything is so good when you don't know any better. i actually prefer being like this, taking one small step at a time, people who play at 1440p 144hz can never go back.

yeah but WHO CARES about aging? we're supposed to be focused on the short sighted future, not doing logical things like building a distinct brand identities or interesting premises that will stand the test of time. thats for suckers

There's nothing wrong with 4k, anything with a 1060 or 480 in it will be able to handle most 1+ year old games at 4k 60fps. It's only the most recent games that starts pushing beyond what current gen mid tier PCs can handle, should it not be able to keep up it isn't hard to scale it back a bit on a PC.

I get that you're joking but it's really unfortunate. A game like crysis will never look as good as something like Legend of Mana or even Dungeons of the Endless to me.

When will I finally play a Zelda console game in 60fps.

Lutsch mein Dick Nintendo.

MGS V on PC has no fixed internal resolution. The native resolution is simply the resolution of your display. LCDs are terrible for displaying content below their native resolution, unlike their CRTs predecessors.

The only reason it's tolerated for consoles is because people generally sit far away enough from TVs that it lessens the impact, and console players almost universally have lower standards anyway.

I currently have 1080p, going to upgrade to 1440p soon. 4K is nice but it demands too much unless you're playing some easy to run game. I'd rather have 144hz, anyhow.

When you convert to islam you cuck.

144hz is nice if you play fps games, other than that it's not that useful since a lot of games are capped at 60fps, it's nice to have the option when they aren't though.

it is really tragic. we're playing games in suboptimal framerates and resolutions now because developers refuse to understand art over fidelity. this will only carry on as we go forward, and as we look back all we'll see is that it really just wasn't worth it. i personally have hope though. if studying art has taught me anything, its that when man can perfectly mimic reality down to the most minute detail, he finds himself getting bored with it, and then looks towards the medium itself as inspiration for originality. all we can hope is that that happens with a bit less of the pretentiousness associated with it

Nope, give me quality of games like PS2 and similar visuals and I'll be happy.
Too bad nowadays vidya is all about graphics because they have nothing else for show.
Recently there was Time Splitters FP thread, a good reminder how good vidya once was.

All I want is good gameplay. I don't give a shit what it looks like as long as I can tell what's going on. I used to be a poorfag, and played almost every game at 800x600 resolution to max out my performance. As long as a game doesn't stutter, I will enjoy it, fuck all you graphics fags.
You're holding back the industry by whining for more graphics when you should be holding out for more content, better ai, more focus on sound design, better gameplay, basically everything except graphics.
So what if a game looks almost perfectly realistic if its a shit game. I can walk outside and have the same experience. I want more from my games.

I actually want them to focus less on graphics, I'm tired of the following bullshit:

>bloom
>blur
>dof
>chromatic aberration
>vignetting
>intrusive and massive UI for consoles and controllers
>quick time events aka press X to awesome
>cutscenes (everything should be in-game letting me in control like in half life 2, fuck your cinematic bullshit)
>forced 30fps hurting my god damn eyes when most TVs go well beyond 60hz

who here 480p240hz

kill yourself

t.indie shit

Theres definitely a scaled price justification thing going on with some PC gamers,

I mean a GPU/APU processor can handle a good amount of work reducing the need for a top of the line, brand new graphics card. Yet I can pick up on this "oh wait you can run that game on a 150$ computer? well fuck you I hope it crashes, I spent 400$ on my GPU".

I mean I care about graphics, but not to the degree of forking over 100-400$ just for the MSLAAx128 SSAOx512 which seems to make everything a thick ps3 port fog anyways.

High res+60fps is fun, but neither is a deal-breaker without. Alot of console gamers think you HAVE to buy a 400$ PC or a 200$ PC, for 150$ I made one that runs everything and is cooled by tears of the hardcore 1200$ gold monster cable PC gamer master race.

There's PC gamers, there's master race, then there's HEY LOOK AT ALL THIS MONEY I SPENT TO VALIDATE MYSELF AMONG A GROUP OF PEERS Pc gamers.

Having shitty eyesight must be a blessing because I don't have to worry about spending a shit load of money on having shit still look like shit. That stuff must look really good though if people actually go crazy for it. As long as a game is fun, I'll enjoy it. I still play Gauntlet on my N64, as it's one of my favorite games, and that shit doesn't look so good.

>"oh wait you can run that game on a 150$ computer? well fuck you I hope it crashes, I spent 400$ on my GPU".

Said nobody ever.

It's simple: people always downsize the importance of the things they don't have.

Consoles have shit graffiks and cucksoles are jelly. PC has no games and jelly about the attention consoles get.

/thread
/v

Why do console players complain about devs/publishers holding back the industry by focussing on graphics, when the real reason is clearly that the industry is catering to them; the lowest common denominator?

Looks inwards, and try to stop with the escape goating.

I don't care. I've never met a person with a 4K tv. Graphics wanking is what causes 5 year development cycles.

People need to quit memeing about this shit and go play some video games.

how shitty is your eyesight?

show me a photo of how you see the world.

>bloom
>blur
I understand why you'd think that considering the early implementations of said effects but the modern equivalent does actually make it look way better if done right, bloom is just essential these days for any light sources to "pop" and blur can make any game running at 60 fps look silky smooth, contrary to popular belief 60 fps is not silky smooth.

The other stuff on your list can burn in hell though.

I don't really care, as long as it looks decent, has good framerate and has good gameplay (BB, for example).

Graphics don't matter except when they do

t. console gamer

You don't have to be a console player to be sick of bloated devcycles and lack of risktaking. I can guarantee you those millions aren't going into gameplay, they're going into graphics and advertising, aka shit I don't care about.

Technically impressive graphics never look as good as really good artstyles and you pretty much never get both.

I hated the N64 due to its piss poor performance and smudgy textures, having grown up on 60 fps consoles that shit gave me a headache if i played for more than one hour.

I don't care about quality i just want silky smooth 60fps

>console game has shit graphics
>"the gameplay is great! graphics aren't important!"
>console game has good graphics
>"HAHAHAHA PC IS DEAD"

But really most of the time graphics do matter.

Not him, but I'm in the same situation.
Imagine everything has a slight static filter and anything that is a small detail is just not there.

Nintendo consoles have neither graphics nor games

PC has no games, only graphics

NO. I happily play in 240p and i give a shit about textured polygons.

Considering many PC gamers can acquire hundreds of games without spending a fortune i'd say their argument is lacking.

>A steady 60fps on 1080p
This. Anything above is unnecessary.

What did he mean by this?

t. Sonygger

Subtext
>Yet I can pick up on this "oh wait you can run that game on a 150$ computer? well fuck you I hope it crashes, I spent 400$ on my GPU"

Helps to read instead of hunting for your best zero-input jab to insert.

What subtext? I read your shitty bait post, It's the literal definition of a strawman falacy

144fps is pretty sweet though, the input response is something else.

>those grapes are likely sour anyway, I'll stick to my hot pockets

Something along those lines.

1080p 60fps all I ask for

I prefer playing games with my feet, it adds to the challenge.

I secretly wish I had hands.

So are you serious right now?

Is it worth my time or are you just going to reaction image/"lol what a marvelous troll I did" your way out of this?

Im saying there are pc gamers who WANT the suckier hardware to fail because its apparently unfair to play games in 2016 without throwing down loads of money. Its like "hey can you even play DOOM? Oh you can? not interested then..."

_xXPassive_Agressive_PCGAMER is now playing Assassins Creed 9

If you havent google'd what "subtext" means yet, just read that last paragraph. That is provided you're not jumping to conclusions from just one sentence and setting yourself up again to look more retarded.

^^ this guy got it ^^

I agree with op

As a 30 yo who grew up with the super Nintendo, current gen graphics are all very satisfying to me, whether it be ps4, xbone (which I have) or pc.

for me phantom pain can only run at 60 when its at the lowest possible resolution :(
so i do 30fps at 1440x900

Pixel shimmer gives you cancer.

It's fucking disgusting on HD screens I don't care what anyone says.

I like 4K, but obviously games are extremely playable at any modern resolution.

I like having the highest quality experience available. Modern post processing AA simply isn't sufficient to properly remove all aliasing in a scene at lower resolutions. Back in the days of Supersampling and cheap MSAA it was different. But now I prefer 4K native.

>Im saying there are pc gamers who WANT the suckier hardware to fail

There aren't. Nobody cares that you decided to cheap out on one of the cheapest hobbies out there. Half the point of gaming on PC is that people can scale their hardware congif to their own preferences. You set yourself up to look completely retarded from the beginning with your hamhanded analysis of graphics options and framerate and self felating over " tears of the hardcore 1200$ gold monster cable PC gamer master race"

Your comparision between Anti alisaling/ambient occlusion and ps3 port fog completely discredits anything you have to say on you have on graphics

There is no subtext to your shitpost. It was never anything but bait that signaled you had the reasoning skills of a 5 year old.

>gamers

Consoles have had 4k resolution ever since 4k screens have been out. They just still can't do it natively at 4k and still can't.

4K/30 FPS is doable on fairly mainstream hardware. Especially if you adjust quality settings.

I've never truly understood AA above 2x, I kinda like it "sharp" to see every fuckin' jag. First things I turn down or off is all the god awful excessive motion blur, AA, and blooooooom. Im wondering if bloom is one of those things that needs a slider now because we cant trust devs to make a game withouit 400 layers of grime, dirt, dust, smoke, fog, haze, AA, motion blur, lens flare and then a fucking flashlight in your face in the form of bloom.

I guess its good to at least have the option of messing with some settings. But sometimes I think good graphics isnt the same thing as cranking bloom/blur/vaseline/ up to ultra

I don't even care about 60 fps thq, I played V on both PS3 and PC with everything maxed and there really wasn't any difference for me, still a fun experience on both.

My main concern is stable perfomance. 30fps without dips is all I ask for in most genres.

I played dark souls 2 in 1080p and then in 4k with the durante gedosato and i enjoyed it much more in 4k
I guess to each its own shit

Every upscaling algorithm extrapolates additional pixels except nearest neighbor, dumbass.

>400 layers of grime, dirt, dust, smoke, fog, haze, AA, motion blur, lens flare and then a fucking flashlight in your face in the form of bloom.
Some games actually do have a slider for all this shit grouped together under something generic like 'effects' or 'post processing' or whatever, rather than letting you pick and choose each thing individually. Fun times, thanks devs!

>There aren't. Nobody cares that you decided to cheap out on one of the cheapest hobbies out there.

Ok so this has never happened to me because you said so? Good, I thought I'd actually have to take you seriously for a second there.

>You set yourself up to look completely retarded from the beginning with your hamhanded analysis of graphics options and framerate and self felating over " tears of the hardcore 1200$ gold monster cable PC gamer master race"

So clearly there's a reason you're so dedicated to this argument, Ive struck a cord with you on that one, hence the "I dont know what you're talking about and any stories that prove me wrong are fake and gay" theory.

And now for the homestretch of someone with no argument; the "this is over before it even started, I dont care, although I do"

>There is no subtext to your shitpost. It was never anything but bait that signaled you had the reasoning skills of a 5 year old.

Its great to see you squirm and everything, but its very transparent that you got hung-up on trapping yourself in some "I skimmed and now I look stupid, so you're a 5 year old and anything that proves me wrong didnt happen"

Lucky for you there's no evidence anywhere on any of the internet in regard to PC gamers bragging about hardware superiority. That was all an elaborate lie I constructed. Nowhere anywhere has a PC gamer ever had to justify their purchase.

Sorry I hurt your feelings, but dont pull the trigger if you cant handle the blowback, goddamn. Maybe next time you go in for a quick "lol this is all gay and summer and shitposts you cukcing cuck" you might read the entire post before summarizing your face negotiation.

But hey new word! "Subtext", congrats.

i turned off post processing in tpp and it helped bump the frames up a lot. it seems to just add bloom and a photo-ey filter, i cant tell if i like it more off or on

Generally bloom and filters wouldn't have too much effect on frame rate so my guess would be it also includes shit like particle effects and motion blur, they're common culprits for performance hits. And while particles are nice, motion blur is disgusting, who the fuck wants that in a game.

>all these troll images
And FYI, without a 4k monitor, you're not going to be able to see the differences in comparison screenshots. I have no idea why people even bother to make them.

All i do is play nes games on my 5:4 monitor

Some will.
Some won't.
So who cares anyway ?

WE

>A game that plays well but looks like shit is a shit game.
Uh, think again darling ;)

Wtf. I hate pc now.

>I would prefer Nintenfag to release Zelda Breath of Wild in 60fps even if it would lower so details in the graphics.
even worse than it already looks?

Not really, I've got PS4 and Xbone and even Metro Redux on Xbone looks good to me.

>60fps

I don't give a fuck about graphics
GAMES HOLY SHIT