Pretty much.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Polygon COD: Ghosts Review update: (XBONE better version)
- Thread starter skynidas
- Start date
- Status
Pretty much.
Were? Well, obviously before my time lol. Strange that decision was overturned then.
Penello must be proud.
Call of Duty 2 looked fucking fantastic at launch, those smoke effects were top-dog for the time. I played CoD2 on my PC in 05 and it was awesome.
How can framerate be "subjectively more stable"? It's a technical/objective metric. Sounds like you're on the hunt for something to be outraged about.
"In my opinion, the framerate is 60FPS and rarely dips."
soul creator
Member
Maybe my glasses just suck at picking out resolution differences further than 5ft, haha. For another reference, I can very easily spot the differences between retina and non-retina iDevices. But again, obviously those are being held relatively close.
Again, it's not that I can't notice the differences, it's just something that doesn't blatantly jump out at me when watching moving content on a TV from 6ft away like other graphical issues can.
This post is a bottleneck for your reputation here. Why would you say something like this?
Zombie James
Banned
They broke the story on Playstation Home before it was announced. That brought them back to "competent".
It is only the leftovers in IW now. The REAL Infinity Ward is now Respawn Entertainment.
I should be doing hw
Member
"Upscaled to 1080p native". Can't think of a more misleading way to explain the resolution difference.
Because there have been people saying the XB1 isn't as smooth as you'd think either (though possibly more stable than PS4). Ghosts seems to be a mess across the board.
Now BF4... the game is obviously better on PS4 in every way yet that gets no recognition from Polygon.
Why the inconsistency?
Guerrillas in the Mist
Member
Almost needing a Titan to get a steady 60 at 1080p without AA is just unbelievable.
Edit: I may have misread that earlier benchmark.
I'm not sticking up for an angry, pitchfork-wielding Gaffer who posted something stupid. I'm questioning why you and quite a few others seem to hold someone's junior status over them. Then you go and talk about his arrogance? Several full members on here have called for a ban on Polygon, yet I don't see you calling them out.
Puppet Shadow
Member
Metacritic: COD Ghost is currently 80 XBox One, 78 on PS4
Wow, I didn't expect this at all (not being sarcastic). From the text of all reviews though, it sounds like it should be closer to 70 - 75.
In other words, it can't just be Polygon pulling down the PS4 score.
Wow, I didn't expect this at all (not being sarcastic). From the text of all reviews though, it sounds like it should be closer to 70 - 75.
In other words, it can't just be Polygon pulling down the PS4 score.
UPscaled, so it's more, it must be better
A lot of games journalists know so little about A/V that it's laughable. Whether the resolution difference is noticeable would come down to a multitude of factors in the particular environment in which the journalist is playing the game.
If the games were being played on, say, a 50" plasma (which is less prone to displaying aliasing from non-native resolutions) from 10 feet or more away, then they probably couldn't tell the difference without comparing closely. If, however, you're playing on a 32" 1080p LCD that's 2 feet away from your bed, you'll most certainly notice.
If the games were being played on, say, a 50" plasma (which is less prone to displaying aliasing from non-native resolutions) from 10 feet or more away, then they probably couldn't tell the difference without comparing closely. If, however, you're playing on a 32" 1080p LCD that's 2 feet away from your bed, you'll most certainly notice.
No, that's pretty much accurate. SLI is completely broken, too.
I have to disable one of my GPUs in order to play Ghosts, imagine how great the performance is then. Hell, Ghosts looks so dated that I still expect to be able to do 1080p/60fps with one of my GPUs turned off!
Context is key in order for everyone to view this objectively. A professional impartial review should be first and foremost objective. Statements like "maybe it's my imagination" in description to something as objective as 1080p vs 720p(upscaled) is disingenuous. They were properly objective towards frame rate so I don't understand why they decided on being subjective to the former.
Also, they were impartial with their scores when both these criterias were both greater in the BF4 review.
Now irregardless of fanboy theories of conspiracies or whatever. We can all agree objectively that this is a poor assessment by a professional to maintain consistent objectivity.
Also, they were impartial with their scores when both these criterias were both greater in the BF4 review.
Now irregardless of fanboy theories of conspiracies or whatever. We can all agree objectively that this is a poor assessment by a professional to maintain consistent objectivity.
A fair and balanced comparison:
Haha...
Parapraxis
Member
So..I didn't "pay" for COD Ghosts (yay FS Canada trade in deal), spent about 1hr in campaign on PS3, and went back to playing Bioshock Infinite LTTP I know.
But I feel I must congratulate Infinity Ward on being the first developer who:
a) Couldn't wrap their head around the PS4 architecture.
or
b) Knowingly chose to make the PS4 version poorer.
Given the state of every other multiplat game on PS4 and the fact that 1080p is NOT mandated by Sony, sadly it seems IW/Activision, chose to produce the game this way.
Seriously, i'm baffled as to what these people are thinking, given the way Ghosts s going over now, you'd think they'd want to make it shine on at least one platform.
But I feel I must congratulate Infinity Ward on being the first developer who:
a) Couldn't wrap their head around the PS4 architecture.
or
b) Knowingly chose to make the PS4 version poorer.
Given the state of every other multiplat game on PS4 and the fact that 1080p is NOT mandated by Sony, sadly it seems IW/Activision, chose to produce the game this way.
Seriously, i'm baffled as to what these people are thinking, given the way Ghosts s going over now, you'd think they'd want to make it shine on at least one platform.
A fair and balanced comparison:
Ha! ElTorro, the gif king, has returned.
Metacritic currently has 4 reviews for Xbone, and this isn't even one of them yet. PS4 has 42 reviews, including several PS specific sites.
Fish elsewhere.
Dreams-Visions
Member
without a steady frame rate, technical superiority doesn't mean shit.
If they made the game to run at 1600p, but only ran at 20fps it would score lower than if it ran at 1080p. At some point, performance is taken into account as it should be, and right now the One version is performing in a more stable manner. IW should have done better.
This isn't the way to start your nextGen reputation, and I feel sorry for anyone who may be uninformed about the quality control issues with this game before they buy it and open it up this weekend and next weekend.
A fair and balanced comparison:
this is gold
Portugeezer
Member
It also runs smoothly on Xbox 360...
It's subjective because they didn't measure it.
Ohhh I totally misread that. Sorry.
4k too, what a bloody waste of money!
Puppet Shadow
Member
Haha, I think that's the first time I've been accused of trolling. I feel like I've popped my cherry, lol.
It should be an objective measure, but to my knowledge pretty much only Digital Foundry goes in and checks the actual framerate numbers to make that type of analysis.
In Ghosts, from seeing a friend play the PC version on a GTX 770, it seems that the game chugs when you spin around 180 degrees quickly on a large map, or when ADSing (particularly with a sniper rifle scope) -- it's entirely possible that Polygon spent all of 5 minutes with the multiplayer of each version just to "check" the performance, and happened to do the thing that makes it chug while on the PS4 version.
That said, the state of their engine on next-gen platforms is simply unacceptable -- 64 player BF4 on ultra settings runs better than Ghosts on many high-end PC's despite looking orders of magnitude better.
A fair and balanced comparison:
OMG amazing!
Portugeezer
Member
But how else will game "journos" push the point that lower resolution doesn't matter? COD is the best way.
Because EA actually invested in allowing DICE the time to create a new, "next-gen" engine, while Activision has been forcing sweatshop labor work schedules that only allow for minor iterations on the same old, outdated engine.
It's showing.
fastford58
Member
CoD is dog shit on both platforms. And after coming from the Dead Rising thread, I certainly wouldn't be trumpeting this as a victory if I was an MS diehard.
Pop
Member
Seems the Microsoft ports work just fine.
Chobel
Member
A fair and balanced comparison:
#dead
EatinOlives
Member
So this is how biased journalists are going to spin their reviews to favor their console of choice. Claim objective advantages of the other console are arbitrarily "minor" while pretending the advantages of their preferred console are somehow more important.
Puppet Shadow
Member
Wow, I normally don't have a ton of respect for Metacritic, but one of those reviews for the XBox One version (by 'God is a Geek') gives the game a.... 100I'll respect you in the morning.
WTF? How can that be allowed? That totally skews things.
Edit: My bad... it's the PS4 version they gave the 100 to. A perfect score for Ghosts really should be enough to get them banned from Metacritic.
FranXico
Member
Can anyone provide a link about this?
- Status