A couple of things to know – I’m not one of the PC “master race.” I am a console gamer. Always have been, and so long as consoles exist and make games worth playing, I will continue to be. My laptop (that I bought because it was cheap, and I am poor) can’t handle the kind of gaming that I do. Not to mention, I like having my LCD tv that is all big and pretty and makes things nice to look at. So yeah, the console is where I am, and for the foreseeable future, it is where I will remain. Which makes all the drama right now on Steam a total disconnect from me. I follow gaming news, because I am a graduate of journalism, and I believe in keeping on top of things. However, I see this as an outsider. Everything about this debate seems to center on PCs anyway, given that the current consoles have shown that they are just now powerful enough to handle it.
The other thing to know – I am currently all over Bloodborne. This game is addictive. I have gotten good enough at this game so that I’m able to play and be assured that I am not going to die every ten minutes. Once you level up to a certain point, your godliness is more-or-less assured. So yeah, there’s that.
I recently watched a video by Total Biscuit where he talked about the framerate debate, and I thought that I would give you all the chance to see his two-cents, and then counter a point that he made that I think is fundamentally wrong. More proof that I can have disagreements with someone without doing what is apparently going all over the place on Steam and resulting in threats and name-calling.
I respect your opinion, TB, but I think there is a crucial flaw that you miss in your analysis of the framerate issue. From what I gather, the whole 60 fps deal is about the smoothness of gameplay. I have The Last of Us Remastered, TB. It looks fine, but this smoothness that you talk about doesn’t mean a whole lot, to me. It just means that the cinematic cutscenes from the original game are now looking just like everything else. Which I suppose is fine. The story is still just as good. But that’s where your statement that 60 frames per second falls flat, in my eyes. You say that it is objectively better, but you forget one group of people who play games – story-seekers. I realize that I am in an EXTREME minority. But for a person whose first major concern is the story and characters, what does 60 fps do for me? That’s not a rhetorical question. What does this framerate mean for me? I’ll tell you – nothing. It means absolutely nothing. I couldn’t care less.
Don’t get me wrong, a game has to have gameplay that works. But I can play games like Life is Strange and A Wolf Among Us and enjoy the experience just fine. I don’t need to have a super-resolution 60 fps experience to improve upon those games. From what I can see, the 60 fps truly comes into focus during online games. That part I get. For real, a game that one is playing online, where the gameplay is fast, I get why you want to have the best specs possible. You want to get the most out of the experience. But for a story-seeker like me, all of this uproar seems so pointless and juvenile.
That’s where you, my audience, come into play. Since I don’t see the big issue, I will allow anyone to comment and pitch whatever position they have on this issue to me. No holds barred, if you think I’m dumb, you can say that. Or, if you maybe see where I’m coming from, then you can say that too. Or maybe you’re somewhere in the middle. That’s good too. I can already hear the PC master race people going, “if you wanted a game to be cinematic, just watch a movie!” Yeah, go play with your toys, kids. The grown-ups are talking. But, if that’s your point of view, then I will let you have it, and comment it. To anyone in my audience, feel free to hit me back and let me know.
Until next time, a quote,
“The mistake is thinking that there can be an antidote to the uncertainty.” – David Levithan