CaptainTiptop
Member
What Xbone game looks better than inFamous Second Son?Just look at the exclusives shown on both platforms thus far. I'm not seeing a 50% difference. I would even argue that X1 has the better looking games at this point.
What Xbone game looks better than inFamous Second Son?Just look at the exclusives shown on both platforms thus far. I'm not seeing a 50% difference. I would even argue that X1 has the better looking games at this point.
I'm no tech expert or anything, but...
As we all know, a 30% difference between the two consoles is only negligible, as it had been confirmed unanimously by the tech experts of the world. That would essentially mean that the PS4 is only 20% more powerful than the Xbone, because a 50% difference is only 20% above the margin of negligibility (the margin is set at 30%). And since 30% has already been declared as a negligible difference, that would mean that the 20% difference is even less significant - that[s another 10% below the margin of negligibility! If anything, this would mean that the Xbone is actually more powerful than the PS4, because 10% below the margin of negligibility would mean that the Xbone is actually 90% above the said margin. In that case, the Xbone would most definitely be 90% more powerful than the PS4!
It's in studios' best interest that there is no clear advantage in one platform over the other... And yet there were clear advantages in a ton of multiplatform games both this gen and last gen.
For just one example of a huge multiplatform title, then PS3 version of Assassin's Creed was crap. How did this negatively affect Ubisoft Montreal?
They can talk around it, but the fact is, they're selling a substantially weaker console at a higher price. They better lock down some fan-goddamn-tastic exclusives.
I'm no tech expert or anything, but...
As we all know, a 30% difference between the two consoles is only negligible, as it had been confirmed unanimously by the tech experts of the world. That would essentially mean that the PS4 is only 20% more powerful than the Xbone, because a 50% difference is only 20% above the margin of negligibility (the margin is set at 30%). And since 30% has already been declared as a negligible difference, that would mean that the 20% difference is even less significant - that's another 10% below the margin of negligibility! If anything, this would mean that the Xbone is actually more powerful than the PS4, because 10% below the margin of negligibility would mean that the Xbone is actually 90% above the said margin. In that case, the Xbone would most definitely be 90% more powerful than the PS4!
It will help the more informed gamers pick a new console. We've never had a console in recent time that was cheaper and more powerful than its competitor.
Single player looks great. Multiplayer looks like an incredibly hot mess graphically and gameplay-wise. It will drag down its review scores IMO, but the single player game is good looking.
They're two different games of wildly different quality from two different developers being smushed together. It's going to be interesting.
Then you would be crazy, Sony clearly has the more graphically impressive exclusives so far.
Lol. I'm not even purchasing an Xbox One but if I see a good looking game, I see a good looking game. Ryse looks damn good. Feel free to tell me what PC titles look substantially better? Consider that almost all current-gen titles are basically console ports too.Glad I don't have your PC.
Then you would be crazy, Sony clearly has the more graphically impressive exclusives so far.
I'm no tech expert or anything, but...
As we all know, a 30% difference between the two consoles is only negligible, as it had been confirmed unanimously by the tech experts of the world. That would essentially mean that the PS4 is only 20% more powerful than the Xbone, because a 50% difference is only 20% above the margin of negligibility (the margin is set at 30%). And since 30% has already been declared as a negligible difference, that would mean that the 20% difference is even less significant - that's another 10% below the margin of negligibility! If anything, this would mean that the Xbone is actually more powerful than the PS4, because 10% below the margin of negligibility would mean that the Xbone is actually 90% above the said margin. In that case, the Xbone would most definitely be 90% more powerful than the PS4!
I gotta chime in here. Looooong time Halo fan admittedly, but besides KZ2's multiplayer which I thought was excellent, I really can't see any sane person arguing that KZ comes close to touching the Halo franchise overall.
I'm no tech expert or anything, but...
As we all know, a 30% difference between the two consoles is only negligible, as it had been confirmed unanimously by the tech experts of the world. That would essentially mean that the PS4 is only 20% more powerful than the Xbone, because a 50% difference is only 20% above the margin of negligibility (the margin is set at 30%). And since 30% has already been declared as a negligible difference, that would mean that the 20% difference is even less significant - that's another 10% below the margin of negligibility! If anything, this would mean that the Xbone is actually more powerful than the PS4, because 10% below the margin of negligibility would mean that the Xbone is actually 90% above the said margin. In that case, the Xbone would most definitely be 90% more powerful than the PS4!
The other posts are I mentioned are just the confirmed specs. Forget what the devs said for just a second, and take a look at the specs. I'm sure whatever devs mentioned the disparity of 50%, when they ran their benchmarks, they found one is around 50% faster which there aren't too many metrics to use for comparison. The key one being framerate or background processing
If one graphics card is faster than another, it's not that confusing.
I'm no tech expert or anything, but...
As we all know, a 30% difference between the two consoles is only negligible, as it had been confirmed unanimously by the tech experts of the world. That would essentially mean that the PS4 is only 20% more powerful than the Xbone, because a 50% difference is only 20% above the margin of negligibility (the margin is set at 30%). And since 30% has already been declared as a negligible difference, that would mean that the 20% difference is even less significant - that's another 10% below the margin of negligibility! If anything, this would mean that the Xbone is actually more powerful than the PS4, because 10% below the margin of negligibility would mean that the Xbone is actually 90% above the said margin. In that case, the Xbone would most definitely be 90% more powerful than the PS4!
yep, some people here jumps to conclusions really fast. The results Adrian posted ate based on a limited experience of a few months with dev kits.
Well, if the PS3 was slower but ended up with the most impressive exclusives, then what happens when you give those same developers the faster system and let them go to work?
KZ3 is garbage, should have played 2.
Wasn't the Gamecube faster and cheaper than the PS2?
Dude how the fuck do you navigate reddit.
I think Adrian should jump into the conversation. He does it all the time in his blogs. Think about it this way. X360 is faster than PS3. Not just easier to program on, it's faster overall (although PS is faster/better in SOME areas). And yet no exclusive on X360 looks like The Last of Us. Halo 4 looks great. Gears blew my mind in 2006. And still, the best looking AAA game of this generation belongs to the supposedly weaker platform.
I really don't think so and I'm not crazy. Remember what Carmack said as well.
Just look at the exclusives shown on both platforms thus far. I'm not seeing a 50% difference. I would even argue that X1 has the better looking games at this point.
I really don't think so and I'm not crazy. Remember what Carmack said as well.
What Xbone game looks better than inFamous Second Son?
KZ:SF Infamous SS rightly destroy anything I've seen on the XBO on a technical level, sorry.
2/10. You're not even trying.Ooooh you!
Still funny to see how some people refuse to admit that 360 is faster and better than PS3. This is the first generation ever in wich Sony will have the better hardware, but even so they embrace their revisionism.
Lol. I'm not even purchasing an Xbox One but if I see a good looking game, I see a good looking game. Ryse looks damn good. Feel free to tell me what PC titles look substantially better? Consider that almost all current-gen titles are basically console ports tool.
Well, if the PS3 was slower but ended up with the most impressive exclusives, then what happens when you give those same developers the faster system and let them go to work?
That a entirely different, and generally game agnostic, thing.
I don't know their comparison metrics, so I would only be guessing. If the claim was "The graphics card in the PS4 performs 50% faster" I could make sense of that, because I could use graphics as a comparison point. However, "The collection of hardware performs 50% faster than this collections of hardware" ... doing what? Across everything it averages out to 50%? It can run its respective OS 50% faster, or stream textures 50% faster, or load objects 50% faster? It can processes data 50% faster, or update the screen image 50% faster? It can do all of the above, 50% faster?
It just seems like such as strange statement. "The PS4 is 50% faster". Ok, I can understand it being generally better, what does the statistic mean?
Coupled with statements such as the Xbox 360 being 'faster' than the PS3, I have no idea how useful this information is. But that's just me, trying to wrap my head around why I should be excited.
What Xbone game looks better than inFamous Second Son?
hahaha. ReverseFate indeed. Love the mathemagics.I'm no tech expert or anything, but...
As we all know, a 30% difference between the two consoles is only negligible, as it had been confirmed unanimously by the tech experts of the world. That would essentially mean that the PS4 is only 20% more powerful than the Xbone, because a 50% difference is only 20% above the margin of negligibility (the margin is set at 30%). And since 30% has already been declared as a negligible difference, that would mean that the 20% difference is even less significant - that's another 10% below the margin of negligibility! If anything, this would mean that the Xbone is actually more powerful than the PS4, because 10% below the margin of negligibility would mean that the Xbone is actually 90% above the said margin. In that case, the Xbone would most definitely be 90% more powerful than the PS4!
GC RE4 >>>> PS2 RE4.GameCube still got shafted graphically in multiplats compared to PS2. I specifically remember this in Neversoft and EA games.
Comparing open world games I would say Dead Rising 3 looks as good and is pushing an incredible amount of on-screen polys too.
What.Comparing open world games I would say Dead Rising 3 looks as good and is pushing an incredible amount of on-screen polys too.
I think Adrian should jump into the conversation. He does it all the time in his blogs.
Here I am. So...
1. I am not doing a damage control, but I do want to clarify one thing. But first, yes, devs I know -- and as someone has shown it before in this thread, some other devs already talked about it too -- claim that there's 50% speed difference WHEN DEVELOPING in cross-gen/next-gen PS4/XO games. So there we are, I said it and I stand by it. Notice: WHEN DEVELOPING. It'll become clear in a second.
2. Will this change in the future? WIll devs discover some tricks to narrow the gap? Will stuff like XO cloud computing help? Hell if I know. Uhm, maybe? I know that devs -- well, most of them -- will do whatever they can do get you the best games possible. You're going to see a lot of multiplatform games this next gen, just as you've seen them in this gen, so it's in studios' best interest that there's no clear advantage in one version over the other.
3. Does it mean studios will cripple PS4 versions to match XO ones? Not really, do not underestimate the devs. Even if this happens, you will not know that and that's okay. You've never seen most games in their most powerful form anyway (when we work on them on our ninja dev PCs in 1080p 120fps with all the antialiasings and stuff turned on for shits and giggles). But most of the time devs have a target and they meet this target. If it's a multiplatform game, it's designed with this in mind from the start. So maybe it's not maxing out one console while going 100% on the other. Maybe it's 100% on both, but they take extra time for super-extra optimizations on the weaker hardware to make sure things look the same as on the more powerful platform. Etc. etc.
4. So what is that "one thing" I want to clarify, that some people may consider "damage control", but really is just an explanation. Someone mentioned Titanfall, which looks money and enjoys a great hype. Exactly. A great dev will make a great game no matter what's the hardware. Current gen CoDs looks great and it's 60 fps, on both platforms (well, and PC . To most devs that is just impossible to achieve. And yet...
Think about it this way. X360 is faster than PS3. Not just easier to program on, it's faster overall (although PS is faster/better in SOME areas). And yet no exclusive on X360 looks like The Last of Us. Halo 4 looks great. Gears blew my mind in 2006. And still, the best looking AAA game of this generation belongs to the supposedly weaker platform.
So if you think that the war is over because PS4 is 50% faster TODAY, then you're delusional. This is far from over, and will probably never be over, at least not this upcoming gen.
Comparing open world games I would say Dead Rising 3 looks as good and is pushing an incredible amount of on-screen polys too.
Wasn't the Gamecube faster and cheaper than the PS2?
adrianchm said:I know that pure hardware specs are not the whole story, but man, all next-gen AAA devs I talk to say it's 50% speed difference...
Then you would be crazy, Sony clearly has the more graphically impressive exclusives so far.