Originally Posted by CSx121
It always seems silly to see people talk about how consoles hold PC back yet when I look at PC exclusives they all look inferior to similar multi-plats. Arma, one of the highest-regarded PC exclusives for example, has never touched a console therefor the engine should be 100% optimized and full of potential... yet falls short graphically in comparison to games made for "ancient consololo hardware ruining gaming".
Why is this?
You're kind of proving their point. Most exclusives for PC lately are indie games or just low budget titles since most of the triple A market is focused on consoles because that's where the money is at. When time and money is invested in actually using the potential (The Witcher 2 is a great example of this) of a PC, they will turn out looking much better than any console game that has ever existed up until now. So yes, in a way, that means consoles have kind of held PC gaming back.
Also, for ArmA 2.. their focus probably wasn't on graphics and more on scale, accuracy and authenticity. And for optimization, it's not as easy to optimize for PC due to the many possible hardware configurations.
I'm personally optimistic with how the next generation of consoles will effect PC gaming, however. There's really no excuse for not developing proper PC games. Even if the systems prove to be much weaker than mid-high end PCs, there isn't that huge difference in architecture as there was with the current gen (heck even the consoles themselves are very similar to each other).
On the topic of BF4 @ 720p on consoles, the reason this might be happening is for FPS stability which is possibly why it's still up in the air. If they can't keep a steady 60FPS @ 1080p it will result in a lesser experience due to constant dropping below 60FPS when things get a little intense in-game. Yes, you can say they could remove some eye-candy but that would probably just result in a worse looking game @ 1080p instead of a decent looking game @ 720p.