Resolution (Pro) vs Framerate/Stability of a Game (Con) (Please read my post on the first round)

Rebuttals {“What about games like GTA 5 which became widely popular because of it's graphics and resolution.”} I thank my opponent for at least, participating in this discussion. But, I don’t mean to offend Pro or his stance here, but this isn’t an argument. Okay, you could say that this is somewhat of an argument because you can see that it tries to counter my position, but it’s merely a question and questions aren’t really “good” arguments, especially if it’s like this where you don’t really bring evidence to your point and plus, this “argument” doesn’t make your point apparent, as, again, it’s a question. So, I don’t see where Pro’s point is going here. So, enough of me bashing on him, to contend his argument, GTA 5 is the only example that my opponent has drawn. Okay, yes, the game has good graphics. And, it sounds like he's taking my position of the argumentation the wrong way. It sounds like that he's saying that I’m presuming that graphics are not important. Now, I’m not going to 100% believe that, as I could be wrong there. I’m not saying graphics aren’t important because let’s face the facts here, they are. Some of the best games or games that were critically acclaimed by both critics and consumers alike like Grand Theft Auto, like he said, Batman Arkham City, and Metal Gear Solid had at least decent or exceptional graphics; so, graphics are important to some degree and we can’t sit here and deny that. But, stability, the functionality, and the actual content of a game is the more important aspect of a video game. GTA 5 wasn’t widely popular solely because of its graphical capabilities, although it has astounding graphics, but the thing that makes Grand Theft Auto, Grand Theft Auto is the open-world, the fact that you can go around and do whatever you want, bang hookers, hijack cars, get chased by the police, and all of that, not because it has good graphics. That aspect is what the series is most known for. Since when have you heard someone say, “I only like Grand Theft Auto because of its graphics”? Sure, that may be one of their reasons, but not their only one. It’s the same thing for the Batman Arkham games, which are one of my favorite video game series ever. The thing that makes the Batman Arkham games is that you feel like you’re actually the Batman; you can sneak around and strike fear into your enemies and experiencing the darkness of the Batman, not because of the resolution, not because it’s 1080p. That goes for other popular video games. Assassin’s Creed: Parkour, Sword Combat, and Stealth. Splinter Cell: Stealth Combat. Call of Duty: Simplicity and Fun Multiplayer. None of these games that I listed have anything to do with being successful because of a game's graphics, even though they may have good graphics. So, the original subject that we’re supposed to be talking about is that developers shouldn’t risk games to reach a resolution number, and I said last round that I will continue on presenting my arguments. ______________________________________________________________________________ So, last round, I basically gave an overview of the hardware similarities between the Xbox One and the PS4 to debunk this notion that the PS4 is “significantly better” or more “powerful” than the Xbox One, which is basically the primary mentality and rationale behind this movement. Also, to put more evidence to that, another test from DigitalFoundry that tests on Grand Theft Auto 5 show that both consoles suffer and their tests are amazingly similar to each other. Oh yeah, did I mention that both consoles run GTA 5 at 1080p. (“In comparing PS4 and Xbox One, the end result is fascinating; it shows that while there are some scenarios that prove EQUALLY CHALLENGING for both consoles, specific areas can see one platform out-performing the other. On a native 1080p title like this, we might reasonably expect PlayStation 4's more powerful GPU to demonstrate an unassailable advantage across the game, but the reality is a little more complicated.”) (“Travelling at speed through city junctions - such as Strawberry Avenue - turns out to be a particular Achilles Heel on PS4, with sustained drops to around the 24-26fps range at their worst. It's a situation that also applies to Xbox One, but to a consistently lesser degree when testing under the precise same conditions (and borne out in repeated tests). Put simply, in areas where junctions are stacked up one after the other, the Sony platform suffers more prolonged frame-rate drops when burning through traffic with your foot jammed to the floor. It's an interesting, recurring scenario that points to a CPU bottleneck, where Xbox One's increased clock-speed has an advantage when racing around these busy sections.”) (“As it transpires, 1080p resolution is something of a doubled-edged sword.”) Now, before you get it twisted again, it’s great to have both aspects (resolution and framerate) and both consoles have proven that they can run some games at 1080p and at 60 frames per second. But, if you, as a developer, whose job is to develop a game at its fullest potential, are aiming to hit 1080p on your game, at least make sure your game is stable first because I’d rather skimp out on a game if the game can’t function correctly and the game stutter every 20 seconds than to play an unstable game, but the game to be at 1080p. Also, I’m not saying that the Xbox One is better than the PS4 either. Generally, the PS4 is better. [[http://www.eurogamer.net...] [] ______________________________________________________________________________ Argument 3 So, a reason for developers to stop sacrificing games for resolution is because resolution differences aren’t that noticeable. Okay, yes, generally they can. You can see a difference between 900p and 1080p. But, the problem is that you basically need a side-by-side comparison to notice the difference. Maybe there are some who can tell naturally, but the overall majority of gamers, especially those who support this NoParity movement, can’t tell the difference if a game is 1080p or not without whipping a side-by-side comparison or some other indicator that tells them what the resolution is. It's pointless. Why would you determine or judge a game by comparing the resolution of an in-game still shot to other still shots that you would, otherwise, not have noticed naturally anyway until you compared the screenshots, rather than concerning about the game's actual ability to function correctly and the content itself? That's like judging a car by what year edition it is or how it looks rather than its condition and other important aspects like acceleration, brake times, handling, steering, and top speed. But, you can notice framerate drops, especially if it’s really major like going from 60 frames per second to the high 30’s or 30 to 15. Think of it as lag. If you play Call of Duty or any game that has an online-multiplayer mode, you know what lag is like, especially when it’s bad. Lag can ruin the online experience, but it’s inevitable. The resolution of a game affects the game’s performance. It’s like an independent-dependent variable effect. The resolution is the independent variable and the performance such as frame-rate is the dependent variable. So, when Ubisoft announced that both consoles were going to be 900p, they were doing gamers more of a favor than injustice, even though the game still released as a buggy mess. The reason was because before the game came out, they confirmed that when the game was at 1080p, the best they could get was 15fps or somewhere around that, 9fps on average. 9fps can ruin any game and having the game at 1080p would make the game MUCH WORSE than the state it was released in. But, I guess 9fps is fine with these gamers who support this movement. I guess they would rather pay 60 bucks to stare at a 1080p slideshow that’s also buggy and full of glitches. [http://www.dualshockers.com...] ______________________________________________________________________________ As far as I’m concerned, that’s all of the arguments I can come up with the moment. I appreciate my opponent for his participation, but I wish that his arguments would be more…”substantial” because I don't want Pro to post arguments that are literally a sentence and mine are an essay. Voters will look at that and will assume me as the winner. Even if those arguments may be perfectly sound and true, people would still see that as insufficiency because some people assume that "bigger means better". That's how people think.