Neuromancer
Member
Not really being a 'techical fellow' myself, this article seemed very reasonable.
It's standard American journalism to add the suffix "gate" to any controversy name, but aren't these guys in Europe? They big Watergate history buffs?
I suppose YT hides a lot of the IQ advantages the PS4 has. I guess you can only appreciate the improved visuals in person.Arthur Gies was the only person there that claimed that there was little to no difference. Everyone else said that there was a big difference between the two versions. Jack Frags in his impressions video noted that multiple journalists agreed with him about the PS4's multiplayer looking better than the Xbox One's single player. And CV&G posted this in their review comments for BF4
http://www.computerandvideogames.co...a-slick-introduction-to-next-gen-multiplayer/
It's probably used more here than in America.Its well known over here of course and it is used all the time over here in paper headlines etc.
As long as games are 60fps, I could almost tolerate the absence of 1080p.
Why not have both?As long as games are 60fps, I could almost tolerate the absence of 1080p.
Indeed.Not really being a 'techical fellow' myself, this article seemed very reasonable.
I suppose YT hides a lot of the IQ advantages the PS4 has. I guess you can only appreciate the improved visuals in person.
Although his earlier articles were heavily slanted to one perspective, I for one welcome his new article. He's simply stating the facts as they are this time around.Whether he's writing more "balanced" articles now or not, leadbetters clear and obvious bias what should be objective pieces have ruined any chance for me to care about what he has to say. That bridge is burned.
As the metrics emerge on key next-gen launch titles, it's clear that Xbox One is under-performing against its rival - not just according to the spec differential, but actually beyond the difference in raw numbers. Our Battlefield 4 Face-Off preview reveals a 50 per cent resolution boost on PlayStation 4 with no appreciable compromise in effects or performance in single-player gameplay, while Infinity Ward's Mark Rubin confirmed rumours that Call of Duty: Ghosts runs at native 720p on Xbox One, with 1080p a lock for PS4. Assuming uniform features and performance, that's a massive blow for Microsoft.
Microsoft's "mono driver" for the AMD GPU had been known for months to be delivering sub-par performance prior to Gamescom in August (hence disappointing Ryse and Dead Rising 3 showings at E3) and while improvements have been - and apparently continue to be - delivered, developers have been working around a moving target, unsure exactly what the power of the graphics hardware will be in the final retail box.
A* for writing a negative article on Microsoft without actually being negative about Microsoft at any point.
As long as it looks good, I don't care what resolution it is. There are just too many other factors that determine how a game look.
Oh don't worry, they won't be.
That article was almost....TOO balanced.
What are you up to Leadbetter? Eh? EH?!
Yep.That or you need Gamersyde-quality comparison videos.
In our In Theory piece, we could only address the teraflop difference - we couldn't measure the impact of Xbox One's reduction in memory bandwidth, and we certainly couldn't factor in what was then the big unknown: the controversial 32MB of Embedded Static RAM (ESRAM) built into the Xbox One's central processor.
id take 60fps locked at 720p over 1080p at fluctuating lower fps. Just wish I didn't have to.
Still remember when the PS3 was supposed to do 2x 1080p screens at once...
At the end of the day, as long as the games are fun to play, right?
As long as it looks good, I don't care what resolution it is. There are just too many other factors that determine how a game look.
As long as games are 60fps, I could almost tolerate the absence of 1080p.
Jaggies and tearing, excessive blurring and/or slowdowns can definitely affect your enjoyment of a game.At the end of the day, as long as the games are fun to play, right?
There seem to be two mindsets here:
1) That the devkits were given later to Xbox One and that the gap will achieve parity soon enough as developers get used to Xbox One.
2) That the gap will continue to widen given that these launch games aren't exercising the potential of next gen hardware, and that if this is the state it is in now, it will only get worse given that developers will get more out of the PS4's potential.
I don't know which to believe.
As long as games are 60fps, I could almost tolerate the absence of 1080p.
Perhaps a mixture of both.
1) It seems like the software dev tools are still maturing on the XB1 side of things, and the OS (or rather, operating systems) on the XB1 still sounds like it's being fleshed out.
2) As well, the PS4's full power isn't being exploited in these early stages and as developers get more familiar with it, it'll shine more.
Ryse and KZ:Shadowfall are great early examples of this. Ryse being the example that the "weak" system can still "wow" people, and KZ being the example that the PS4 is just getting started in showing us what it is capable of.
I'm personally pretty excited to get past this launch.
id take 60fps locked at 720p over 1080p at fluctuating lower fps. Just wish I didn't have to.
Still remember when the PS3 was supposed to do 2x 1080p screens at once...
1080p matters as much as 60FPS.As long as games are 60fps, I could almost tolerate the absence of 1080p.
However, the hardware make-up itself could be more troublesome for multi-platform developers in the longer term, despite Microsoft's outline of how the Xbox One tech operates and the theoretical advantages it chose to highlight. In our In Theory piece, we could only address the teraflop difference - we couldn't measure the impact of Xbox One's reduction in memory bandwidth, and we certainly couldn't factor in what was then the big unknown: the controversial 32MB of Embedded Static RAM (ESRAM) built into the Xbox One's central processor.
We hear different stories about ESRAM from virtually every source we speak to, but two gripes are common. Firstly, the notion of operating between two memory pools for render targets is an additional pain that is not an issue on PlayStation 4's unified 8GB of GDDR5. Secondly - and perhaps most importantly - the most common compliant we hear is that developers really want more than 32MB for their high-bandwidth graphics work.
it doesn't require a pixel counter to tell that the PS4 game is crisper and cleaner either
Penello said:Look, I get some people claim such amazing eyesight as to be able to instantly distinguish native vs. upscaled when you're in a room watching and enjoying a game demo, despite the fact that it requires normal people access to a direct feed screenshot with very particular sections zoomed up 8x to pixel count, while also making sure you're accounting for other intentional environmental effects that may blur or otherwise impact the image.
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthre...pixel+counting
But hey, if you're saying you can tell the difference with enough accuracy to make a public disclosure about it, just by watching someone play the game, then I say wow.
I've seen a bunch of other 3rd party games running at various times, and I can't tell you the *native* resolutions of those either.
So me, I'm not making that claim. I'm sorry if you think that's a job requirement.
but it doesn't require a pixel counter to tell that the PS4 game is crisper and cleaner either.
I honestly never thought it would come to this. A next gen console from MS that can't run COD at 1080p. It's still a shock...
I prefer it looking good and having high resolution.
I honestly never thought it would come to this. A next gen console from MS that can't run COD at 1080p. It's still a shock and it's still raw to me.
Why have you done this MS, why?