Support NeoGAF

[FairXchange]

Either way, gameplay >>>>> resolution.

Sure, that's always a good position to take except Xbox One was released roughly 9 years after its predecessor the Xbox 360. Consumers have the right to want high fidelity graphics on a console that costs $499 at retail, right now. So the gameplay > graphics argument is always a winner, but not when we're talking about what consumers should have got with their newly purchased consoles in the year 2014. I own an Xbox One, and I'm upset with things like Titanfall's performance, or even Dead Rising 3's poor image quality. Stronger hardware would have certainly enhanced my experience with the console, though I still enjoy it regardless.

 

[blueplancha]

How much is this game?

 

[FairXchange]

How much is this game?

$19.99 for standard edition, $39.99 for version bundled with season pass.

 

[Dezzy]

Either way, gameplay >>>>> resolution.

Yeah, I agree gameplay is always more important than graphics. It's a bad argument though when we're talking about multi-platform games like Trials. The resolution being higher on PS4 doesn't make the gameplay worse. It's the same, it just looks better.

 

[blueplancha]

$19.99 for standard edition, $39.99 for version bundled with season pass.

Season Pass costs half the price of the game? Fuck me, is it even worth getting the game by itself?

 

[Zeth]

I love how they always say the PC version will run at 1080P.

Ok, pretty sure I was playing 3200 x 1800 this afternoon.

 

[jordan0386]

Sure, that's always a good position to take except Xbox One was released roughly 9 years after its predecessor the Xbox 360. Consumers have the right to want high fidelity graphics on a console that costs $499 at retail, right now. So the gameplay > graphics argument is always a winner, but not when we're talking about what consumers should have got with their newly purchased consoles in the year 2014. I own an Xbox One, and I'm upset with things like Titanfall's performance, or even Dead Rising 3's poor image quality. Stronger hardware would have certainly enhanced my experience with the console, though I still enjoy it regardless.

Graphics chip in X1 is about ten time better than 360s. However you wanna calculate that.

First party games should look great if the chip is that much better. And 3rd party games will look slightly worse than PS4 games if down the line everything goes about 900p.

This game got patched to 900p. I don't think I played a X360 game at that resolution. So I would still be getting an upgrade in graphics.

Controller is good. Xbox Live is good. Games are good. 900p is good enough. If not, buy a PS4.

 

[FairXchange]

Graphics chip in X1 is about ten time better than 360s. However you wanna calculate that.

First party games should look great if the chip is that much better. And 3rd party games will look slightly worse than PS4 games if down the line everything goes about 900p.

This game got patched to 900p. I don't think I played a X360 game at that resolution. So I would still be getting an upgrade in graphics.

Controller is good. Xbox Live is good. Games are good. 900p is good enough. If not, buy a PS4.

I have a PS4, thanks.

My argument stands, my experience with the Xbox One would be improved if there were stronger performance in two of the games I have for the platform, which are Titanfall and Dead Rising 3. Gameplay is important, but MS had many years to figure out how to maximize performance in their new console launching in 2014. Yet they made sacrifices on a very important element, that of the graphics capability. Allow me to reiterate, I am thoroughly enjoying my Xbox One, but I believe its current value proposition is marred by its weaker graphics performance. So when people bring up the gameplay > graphics argument, right at the start of a new generation, I take it as a serious misstep on the part of MS for delivering a console that has necessitated that argument so early into its lifespan.

 

[jordan0386]

I don't really agree because it still has better performance than X360 in almost every way.

Infamous is the only title that has no equal on X1. However, Sunset Overdrive may change that.

900p is still better than 99 percent of the games on X360. But within the context of console wars, it is a negative in relation to PS4.

 

[FairXchange]

Season Pass costs half the price of the game? Fuck me, is it even worth getting the game by itself?

I definitely find it kind of strange, which is why I'll wait and see if it's worth it down the line. That way I can get a feel for the game on my PS4, and if it really grabs me then I'l decide to spend the extra $19.99 for the season pass. It's definitely a weird new approach to DLC pricing.

 

[AgentP]

Infamous is the only title that has no equal on X1. However, Sunset Overdrive may change that.
.

Ya, those unreleased games with no release date or game play videos are usually the best.

 

[BruiserBear]

I don't really agree because it still has better performance than X360 in almost every way.

Infamous is the only title that has no equal on X1. However, Sunset Overdrive may change that.

900p is still better than 99 percent of the games on X360. But within the context of console wars, it is a negative in relation to PS4.

I think what you're trying to say is that the XB1 offers enough of a graphical upgrade from the previous gen, that it's good enough for the vast majority of people. I agree, this discussion is pretty much a hardcore topic, as the average dude doesn't even know what 900p means.

 

[MYeager]

Glad I'm getting the drama-less 360 version.

 

[jordan0386]

Ya, those unreleased games with no release date or game play videos are usually the best.

Should come out this year. And reveal trailer graphics should not be that hard to come by. Resolution it runs at is another story.

 

[Bishop89]

The buildings look like they've been redesigned, but they don't look to be any less detailed.



Either way, gameplay >>>>> resolution.

More accurately, gameplay AND resolution/graphics >>>>>> gameplay

 

[Abdul Hafeez]

And this game comes out on disc at retail so I don't see your point when it comes to Trials.

Oh wow. I thought it was a digital-only game. That's weird.

 

[RoadHazard]

I definitely find it kind of strange, which is why I'll wait and see if it's worth it down the line. That way I can get a feel for the game on my PS4, and if it really grabs me then I'l decide to spend the extra $19.99 for the season pass. It's definitely a weird new approach to DLC pricing.

Thinking of doing this as well. The season pass will be available separately, right? For how long? Until the first DLC is released, or even after that? If so, I don't really see why I should pay $20 for that content now.

 

[Abdul Hafeez]

Devs still have to send their games for certification even if it's only digital. This doesn't happen 3 days before they release date of these games.

Well the release dates should be decided on in accordance with when devs send their games for cert.

 

[stryke]

Wonder what the framerate is like prepatch...

 

[AyaisMUsikWhore]

Why couldn't the XB1 verison be 1080p? I really don't understand seeing as the game does not look that graphic heavy? This makes no sense at all.

Either way it doesn't matter to me because I'm buying it on the PS4 anyways; but it does make me feel some type of way that the XB1 seems under developed. It's kind of getting to me now.

 

[Metfanant]

In that original post it says the patch improves the frame rate of the PS4 version, but if it is locked 60fps, what does this mean? Is it not locked on PS4?

It's not going to be "locked" on any of the consoles...it may not dip below 60fps (it likely will drop a few frames here or there on all consoles)...and it may be capped at 60fps...

 

[The Albatross]

Season Pass costs half the price of the game? Fuck me, is it even worth getting the game by itself?

Yes. But red lynx will support the hell out of it if their track record hold up. The trials evo dlc was awesome, well paced, well priced.

The user content for trials is really excellent too

 

[TheAdmiester]

Why couldn't the XB1 verison be 1080p? I really don't understand seeing as the game does not look that graphic heavy? This makes no sense at all.

Either way it doesn't matter to me because I'm buying it on the PS4 anyways; but it does make me feel some type of way that the XB1 seems under developed. It's kind of getting to me now.

Two possibilities:

1. It's physics/"backend" heavy so the PS4's extra power makes the difference despite the graphics.

2. Ubisoft incompetence.

 

[BruiserBear]

Why couldn't the XB1 verison be 1080p? I really don't understand seeing as the game does not look that graphic heavy? This makes no sense at all.

Either way it doesn't matter to me because I'm buying it on the PS4 anyways; but it does make me feel some type of way that the XB1 seems under developed. It's kind of getting to me now.

This game is more demanding than it looks. It renders that entire environment in the background, etc. it's also got some high end lighting.

Pushing 1080p at 60fps is no easy task, and the XB1 simply doesn't have enough power to do so easily.

 

[AyaisMUsikWhore]

Two possibilities:

1. It's physics/"backend" heavy so the PS4's extra power makes the difference despite the graphics.

2. Ubisoft incompetence.

I'm going to go with number 2. The fact that they both need patches for two similar reasons means that Ubisoft is rushing things for the deadline which is straight bull. At this point, I don't understand why, especially for a game like this, the XB1 verison could not be on par with the PS4. Resolution wise specifically, are you serious? Ubisoft is a joke.

This game is more demanding than it looks. It renders that entire environment in the background, etc. it's also got some high end lighting.

Pushing 1080p at 60fps is no easy task, and the XB1 simply doesn't have enough power to do that easily.

Maybe it's me but when I watched the trailer, I hardly see this as a game that's struggling on the XB1. I don't think the system can't handle it at all but purely feel that this is a development issue. Maybe it could be that Devs are still fresh in learning the system, but I can't wrap my head around why it's so hard for a game like this to hit 1080p.

 

[BruiserBear]

I'm going to go with number 2. The fact that they both need patches for two similar reasons means that Ubisoft is rushing things for the deadline which is straight bull. At this point, I don't understand why, especially for a game like this, the XB1 verison could not be on par with the PS4. Resolution wise specifically, are you serious? Ubisoft is a joke.

Do you know how long the list is of games that don't run at 1080p on XB1? And you want to blame the developers? I guess you think almost all the dev teams working on XB1 are also a joke, OR the console really isn't powerful enough to make it happen.

There is a huge list of reasons that point to the XB1 hardware as the problem here.

 

[Mutagenic]

A little worried about PS4 framerate even after the patch.

 

[Metfanant]

At this point, I don't understand why, especially for a game like this, the XB1 verison could not be on par with the PS4. Resolution wise specifically, are you serious? Ubisoft is a joke.

Im gonna have to disagree with you...

1. There certainly is a lot more going on under the hood with games like trials than just the pretty visuals...

2. The Xbone version certainly could be 1080p...but you'll have to make sacrifices somewhere else (frame rate, lighting, physics, etc)...if the Xbone version is gonna chug at 1080p then cutting res is the best route to take...most won't notice the res drop unless seen side by side...and you keep all the other assets equal...

 

[SlickShoesRUCrazy]

The xbox one was not design as a game console first. It's pretty obvious.

It's a media box with gaming capabilities. It just has better gaming capabilities at 4x-5x the price than any other media boxes lol.

I mean, come on, ddr3, in 2013? 1.3tflop gpu, not that the ps4 is that much better(Wii U should have been 1.8tflops lol)....esram that, directx 12 that, the thing is just a poorly designed game console. there is no way around it. It was never designed to be great gaming hardware because being great gaming hardware was never the design philosophy.

Now, that's not to say the box can't have great games.

It's why I bought one. I've enjoyed the games I have bought so far on the xbox one. .

 

[BruiserBear]

The xbox one was not design as a game console first. It's pretty obvious.

It's a media box with gaming capabilities. It just has better gaming capabilities at 4x-5x the price than any other media boxes lol.

I mean, come on, ddr3, in 2013? 1.3tflop gpu, not that the ps4 is that much better(Wii U should have been 1.8tflops lol)....esram that, directx 12 that, the thing is just a poorly designed game console. there is no way around it. It was never designed to be great gaming hardware because being great gaming hardware was never the design philosophy.

Now, that's not to say the box can't have great games.

It's why I bought one. I've enjoyed the games I have bought so far on the xbox one. .

So they packed in a 1.3tflop GPU for media capabilities? Okay.

The Wii U should have a 1.8tflop GPU? Okay. I'm sure Nintendo fans who aren't buying the $300 U would be lining up for a $400 U.

The XB1 was designed as a gaming console first. The problem was that someone decided it had to include Kinect, and that meant less money would be spent on the GPU. It's still very much a gaming GPU though. The other mistake they made was locking down the memory specs too early, which is why they ended up with ddr3 instead of gddr5.

 

[AyaisMUsikWhore]

Do you know how long the list is of games that don't run at 1080p on XB1? And you want to blame the developers? I guess you think almost all the dev teams working on XB1 are also a joke, OR the console really isn't powerful enough to make it happen.

There is a huge list of reasons that point to the XB1 hardware as the problem here.

I know the list of games but if NBA2k14 can be 1080p on the XB1, which is more graphically demanding, then how the hell can't this one as well?

I'm not saying all developers are a joke but I just don't understand why this game, of all AAA games out there, could not run at 1080p. What is this game doing so drastically that's causing this issue? Is the hardware this terrible that it can't even run this game on it? Is it due to the lack of knowledge
for the hardware on how to make it perform better?

Im gonna have to disagree with you...

1. There certainly is a lot more going on under the hood with games like trials than just the pretty visuals...

2. The Xbone version certainly could be 1080p...but you'll have to make sacrifices somewhere else (frame rate, lighting, physics, etc)...if the Xbone version is gonna chug at 1080p then cutting res is the best route to take...most won't notice the res drop unless seen side by side...and you keep all the other assets equal...

I've never played trials before but from what I've seen, it looks like by default it should be manageable.

I guess however cutting the rest is fine but is that the only way? Do things need to be severely sacrificed before they were better optimized? Part of the blame is on MS for not well considering what architecture is good for this system, but if Devs could figure out the PS3, I'm having a hard time believing it's hard to do the same with the XB1.

 

[TAJ]

The resolution is one thing, but the advantage of no scaling really is worth maintaining above almost anything else. It's a bigger difference than the resolution to me.

It's definitely a big difference, which is also why not using 1:1 mapping on a 1080p TV makes baby Jesus cry.

 

[PacMonster]

...lot of people just now learning the ps3 and xbox 360 didn't have the capability for HD resolutions past 720p (most didn't reach that and were upscaled to 720p)

 

[Nethaniah]

...lot of people just now learning the ps3 and xbox 360 didn't have the capability for HD resolutions past 720p (most didn't reach that and were upscaled to 720p)

There are 1080p games on both the ps3 and 360.

 

[Cider X]

There are 1080p games on both the ps3 and 360.

Not many and those that where had simple graphics.

 

[Nethaniah]

Not many and those that where had simple graphics.

Read the post i quoted.

 

[RoadHazard]

I know the list of games but if NBA2k14 can be 1080p on the XB1, which is more graphically demanding, then how the hell can't this one as well?

I'm not saying all developers are a joke but I just don't understand why this game, of all AAA games out there, could not run at 1080p. What is this game doing so drastically that's causing this issue? Is the hardware this terrible that it can't even run this game on it? Is it due to the lack of knowledge
for the hardware on how to make it perform better?

Why do you assume NBA is a more demanding game? Is it just because Trials has 2D gameplay? Well, that doesn't really matter, because the graphics are still full 3D with huge draw distance (NBA has nothing like it), advanced real-time lighting, etc. And it uses deferred rendering (don't know whether or not NBA does, but I doubt it), which increases the amount of memory needed for render targets. That's a problem on the XBO, because it only has 32 MB of fast memory.

 

[BWJinxing]

Two possibilities:

1. It's physics/"backend" heavy so the PS4's extra power makes the difference despite the graphics.

2. Ubisoft incompetence.

Or

3. 32MB of ESRAM is not enough for a proper, deferred frame buffer at 1080p. Forward rendering seems to be the only thing possible at the moment at 1080p on xbone. Ubisoft is competent (this time), made the best comprise they could. Microsoft is at fault for not targeting 1080p gaming, hence that really awesome upscaler.

 

[Terrordactyl]

Can we just drop the p from resolution talk now? When was the last time an interlaced game was released?

 

[Surface of Me]

Different aspects of graphics use different parts of the hardware, some are CPU reliant, some GPU, and some on RAM. Just because a game isn't graphically demanding, doesn't mean you can throw all of the machine at the wall to bump the resolution up.

 

[Timu]

Can we just drop the p from resolution talk now? When was the last time an interlaced game was released?

Since gen 6 I believe.

 

[stryke]

Different aspects of graphics use different parts of the hardware, some are CPU reliant, some GPU, and some on RAM. Just because a game isn't graphically demanding, doesn't mean you can throw all of the machine at the wall to bump the resolution up.

In a resolution discussion, CPU isn't really all that relevant.

 

[Metfanant]

I know the list of games but if NBA2k14 can be 1080p on the XB1, which is more graphically demanding, then how the hell can't this one as well?

I'm not saying all developers are a joke but I just don't understand why this game, of all AAA games out there, could not run at 1080p. What is this game doing so drastically that's causing this issue? Is the hardware this terrible that it can't even run this game on it? Is it due to the lack of knowledge
for the hardware on how to make it perform better?



I've never played trials before but from what I've seen, it looks like by default it should be manageable.

I guess however cutting the rest is fine but is that the only way? Do things need to be severely sacrificed before they were better optimized? Part of the blame is on MS for not well considering what architecture is good for this system, but if Devs could figure out the PS3, I'm having a hard time believing it's hard to do the same with the XB1.

You're making elephant sized assumptions all over the place with nothing really to back them up...

- NBA looks great...bit its got rather limited AI...extremely small environment sizes..very limited lighting...

You can't simply look at the great character models and say its more graphically intensive...

There is probably exponentionally more physics calculations going on, more advanced lighting, and certainly bigger draw distances going on in Trials than NBA...


- you're also assuming optimization is the answer here..of course optimization will help...and games will look DRASTICALLY better in 5 years than they do now...but at some point you simply hit a hardware wall...

No amount of money/man power/optimization is ever going to allow the PS3 to run TLoU at 60fps...or even a rock solid 30fps...just not possible with some sort of sacrifice...

 

[Putty]

Lazy devs argument is rather insulting. 95% of XB1 games are not 1080p, thus sloppy coding. Armchair developers clearly know more about the XB1 and it's inner workings.

 

[Surface of Me]

In a resolution discussion, CPU isn't really all that relevant.

Did my point fly over your head?

 

[TAJ]

...lot of people just now learning the ps3 and xbox 360 didn't have the capability for HD resolutions past 720p (most didn't reach that and were upscaled to 720p)

Wrong. Over 70% did last time I checked.

 

[Piggus]

Either way, gameplay >>>>> resolution.

True. Though this is irrelevant for people who own a gaming PC or a PS4 since we get practically all games at 1080p+ anyway. It's nice not having to even notice resolution because it's always at my TV's or monitor's native res.

People blame eSRAM because it was not enough to make up for the deficiencies...

They are having trouble to deal with 1080p because 32MB is little for a 1080p game with good AA processing... Forza dropped the AA for a 1080p framebuffer and added a lot of motion blur to try to hide these drops.

For example... if the eSRAM had 45MB or even 64MB then you won't see the resolution difference between the games.

Games right now are not stressing the GPU in these new system... there are a lot of GPU power to be used yet (more on PS4 due the Asyncronous Compute).

Considering the architecture of the system, it's not really fair to demand that more ESRAM be retroactively added. It already takes up a massive amount of space on the APU and 48 or 64 mbs would take up significantly more. The blame should be directed at Microsoft's pussy attitude when it comes to taking risks with hardware. They were so hell-bent on having 8 GBs of RAM for all their media capabilities that they refused to entertain the idea of using a memory solution designed for GAMES. You know... Those things that people buy the system for. This created a chain reaction of poor design choices that results in the underpowered system we have today. The need to make up for DDR3's lack of bandwidth resulted in the ESRAM. The ESRAM resulted in less available space on the APU for GPU cores. The reduced number of GPU cores and other features result in a GPU that simply will never match the competition no matter what kind of optimizations are made. It's sad seeing MS go in this direction after building such a well-designed console (the 360) previously.

 

[SlickShoesRUCrazy]

Lazy devs argument is rather insulting. 95% of XB1 games are not 1080p, thus sloppy coding. Armchair developers clearly know more about the XB1 and it's inner workings.

no the first gen it's been used as a "logic" as to why one console is lagging behind.

 

[Piggus]

no the first gen it's been used as a "logic" as to why one console is lagging behind.

Sadly people still don't "get it" even when the systems are practically identical in architecture. It's lagging behind because it's less powerful. People can come up with as many excuses as they want (like "lazy devs") but the truth is in the numbers for people to clearly see. The people making these excuses are people who don't understand what those numbers mean or how the system actually works.

 

[Metfanant]

The buildings look like they've been redesigned, but they don't look to be any less detailed.

let's be real...Forza got the downgrade smack down between reveal and launch...period...

Either way, gameplay >>>>> resolution.

Absolutely...but this goes out the window when comparing multiplatform games and everything else is equal...

You can't use that argument when the game play on both consoles is the same, and one has a much higher resolution...