• 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.

Adam Sessler's: On Xbox One and PS4's Resolutiongate, and Day One Patches

Status
Not open for further replies.

MrDaravon

Member
Lots of people seem to suffer from a persecution complex and a lack of introspection. Much has been made recently of the gaming media and their failings to report issues a certain way. Much has been made of commenters on other sites and their seeming disdain for neogaf. Notwithstanding the only conclusion many seem to draw is that everyone else is wrong and only the people on neogaf see the 'truth'.

I've seen a repeated trend where people have accused the gaming media of a double standard - claiming they made a big deal of the differences between PS3 and 360 versions of games, and are now downplaying the differences between the Xbox One and PS4 versions of games. I think this exists more in their memory then in reality. The gaming media did not make a big deal of the the platform differences - people on internet forums did. Some games received slightly higher review scores - something we may well see in this generation.

The other issue I've referred to is the near universal rejection of any outside criticism of neogaf. Like any other site neogaf has it's strengths and weaknesses. However there's a glaring lack of introspection when outside criticisms and suggestions of bias are dismissed without any examination. Personally it's a bit disconcerting to see nearly every thread loaded with dismissive gifs and jabs at the coming consoles. There's also a disturbing trend of some people who barely seem to hide their hope that one console fail.

Having been around for the last several console launches this is little different then most - some actual differences and lots of buzz words. One of the biggest mistakes a person who participates in enthusiast forums can make is assuming that everyone is (or should be) the same issues they are. Some people dismissing the differences as unimportant obviously are doing so based on a personal bias - however this is clearly not true for everyone doing so.

I largely agree with this.

I honestly think a lot of the furor this time though is that the consoles are launching head to head in the same timeframe and some members of the media/enthusiast press seem to be trying to hard to either downplay any differences or appear impartial which in some instances actually does readers a disservice. There was a pretty decent time gap between the launch of the 360 and PS3 which in hindsight makes a lot of the issues and price with the PS3 even more laughable. Here they're launching head to head, so outside of the console warriors who have made decisions either way people are looking for potential purchasing decisions and seeing some people/outlets gloss over what are some pretty objective performance issues and differences.

Couple that with Microsoft having unbelievably terrible messaging and multiple reverals on VERY unpopular policies (DRM, Kinect, etc) there's an audience already out for blood. So that's certainly part of it, but I do feel that certain people in the press are definitely underplaying things, intentionally or not. I feel it's a bit premature to start aggressively calling out most outlets though until both systems are actually out and we have direct head to head comparisons of multiple games on both platforms. If at launch direct comparisons between versions show clear and noticeable differences and there is little or no difference in the review scores between the versions and/or outlets start/continue to downlplay that then I think people will have a legitimate axe to grind.

I think certain people are just being given too much attention at the moment since everyone's in full on console launch mode and grasping at everything out there. Most of the individuals being called out for playing favorites or being fanboys on either side were almost all people I largely ignored already beforehand, so I'm seeing a trend there.
 

Nightfallfilms

Neo Member
Here is what people want:

Gaming journalists to admit that 1080p looks better than 720p, and that as a result of the PS4 being more powerful is more capable of providing those experiences and it has no fucking impact on the quality of gameplay so this isn't an either or problem.

I don't think anyone even cares about the press acknowledging that Sony has better first party studios, just stop trying to downplay the power differences between the consoles. The PS4 is more powerful, FACT. Spit it out and be done with the fence sitting.

There is at least 50 articles a day that I come across that state these very things. What more do you want? Maybe they should launch Blimps in every major city around the world that have PS4 IS MORE POWERFUL THEN THE XBONE written on them, maybe that would make you happy.
 
How is it a copout statement? Listen, for multiplatforms, yes the PS4 will have the graphically superior version. That is a selling point in the PS4's favor and no one is disagreeing with that. But, in the end, the games are always what matters, and exclusives will be a major selling point. That has been proven time and time again, and I don't know why people are so adamant about turning a (trivial to many) performance advantage into such a major selling point that it should overrule any other aspect of the system.

it doesn't. it's the gaming press who are saying, "they don't matter". they do. a game is the sum of its parts. both versions are the exact same experience so that's out of the gate in terms of comparison. now, there are graphical differences (bf4 having lower resolution and lacking global illumination system, plus running at a lower average framerate). that's where comparisons come in because that's where comparisons can be made. and why are comparisons being made? because these are both valued at $60 no matter what console.

it's the constant and massive downplaying of these differences that is such a copout. remember when all these "journalists" pointed out every damn difference the ps3 version of a multiplat had in their reviews? "the ps3 version looks washed out. the ps3 version had some hiccups. the ps3 version had less vibrant colours. you are better off playing the xbox 360 version if you want the best version out there outside the pc.


this takes the icing on the cake:
http://www.g4tv.com/videos/43049/mx-vs-atv-reflex-playstation-3-review/
"Get the lowdown on the PlayStation 3 version of MX vs. ATV Reflex in this review. Adam Sessler and Morgan Webb discuss the drawbacks of the PS3 version of MX vs. ATV Reflex and reveal the game's lower score."

360 version = 3/5 stars
ps3 version = 2/5 stars for being graphically inferior

or this:
http://www.giantbomb.com/reviews/bayonetta-review/1900-249/?review_id=249
Much of the potential of Bayonetta--potential that's realized on the Xbox 360--is lost to technical issues on the PS3.
(yes, that's the subtext of the review).

or what about this?
http://www.computerandvideogames.com/247305/red-dead-redemptions-sub-hd-ps3-display-analysis/
"Its resolution is 640 by 1152, compared to the Xbox 360's 720 by 1280 pixels. At first glance you might say that this is only a difference of "80 pixels," but in reality, when the missing area is calculated, the PS3 suffers an 184,320 pixel deficit - or 20 per cent lower than the Xbox 360 version. This rendering resolution is then upscaled by the PS3 to be displayed on your screen."

or how about this, arstechnica?
http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2010/05/read-dead-redemption-360-vs-ps3-our-thoughts/
"This is non-scientific, but after playing an hour of both games, and switching back and forth between the two systems on our display, it's clear that the 360 version has quite the graphical advantage. It's sharper, with much less aliasing. The faces of the characters were clearer in the opening section. Gameplay sections likewise looked better, with smoother graphics across the board. The PlayStation 3 version looked impressive, but there was a noticeable jump in quality while playing on the 360.

Keep in mind that the game doesn't look bad on the PS3—not by any stretch—but based on our time with the game and direct comparisons, the 360 version looks better. If you purchase the PS3 version of the game you're not going to be let down, but if you have the choice, pick up a copy for the 360.

Here's another reason to buy the game for the Xbox 360: if you dislike playing with strangers, there are 16 Ars Technica members in the game's thread playing online with the 360 version, compared to three on the PS3. If you're going to be playing, sign up!"


hypocrites.
 
Do you realize how insane it would be if the movie or home electronics media said Bluray doesn't matter since it's not resolution but the movies and even now there are more movies on DVD than Bluray?

Of course if matters. Nobody is saying it is the most important thing or it is all that matters but both systems largely have the same games, if one system is able to outperform the other one over and over again and it costs less then how on Earth can any one say that they are the same? That it's a wash? That's just a flat out disingenuous.

Games are interactive, movies aren't. Bad comparison.
 

Thaster

Member
Sessler's right about the all coming down to the games in the end, but I'm not so sure if the Xbox One would have enough exclusives to make consumers actually buy Xbox Ones.

A bunch of AAA titles are multi platform. So why wouldn't people want to get those games on the most powerful console? I don't want to hate on the Xbox One or anything but the truth is that the PS4 is more powerful.

Sure the Wii U is nowhere near as powerful but at least they got all those Nintendo IPs. And those IPs will be system sellers in the long run.
 

Azull

Member
After he was saying that PS4 is the same price as the XB1 because you HAVE TO factor in PS+ and the camera I just ignored everything he said.
 

ChawlieTheFair

pip pip cheerio you slags!
I think it's closer to

Demanding all media outlets make a public statement that one console is objectively better because it is better at displaying graphics = You only care about graphics and are a fanboy.

I actually think it's:
Demanding all media outlets make a public statement that one console is objectively better because it is better at displaying graphics = you are an empiricist
 

fallagin

Member
I think it's closer to

Demanding all media outlets make a public statement that one console is objectively better because it is better at displaying graphics = You only care about graphics and are a fanboy.

Wanting the press to be honest = you only care about graphics and are a fanboy.
 

Mugatu

Member
Games are interactive, movies aren't. Bad comparison.

Not really - you missed the point because that has nothing to do with it.

It's the same movies that come out on DVD and Bluray - the only real difference between getting one or the other is fidelity.

We're talking mostly about non-exclusive games, available on both consoles. The difference being again fidelity.

But somehow it magically doesn't matter only with games?
 

SRTtoZ

Member
it doesn't. it's the gaming press who are saying, "they don't matter". they do. a game is the sum of its parts. both versions are the exact same experience so that's out of the gate in terms of comparison. now, there are graphical differences (bf4 having lower resolution and lacking global illumination system, plus running at a lower average framerate). that's where comparisons come in because that's where comparisons can be made. and why are comparisons being made? because these are both valued at $60 no matter what console.

it's the constant and massive downplaying of these differences that is such a copout. remember when all these "journalists" pointed out every damn difference the ps3 version of a multiplat had in their reviews? "the ps3 version looks washed out. the ps3 version had some hiccups. the ps3 version had less vibrant colours. you are better off playing the xbox 360 version if you want the best version out there outside the pc.


this takes the icing on the cake:
http://www.g4tv.com/videos/43049/mx-vs-atv-reflex-playstation-3-review/
"Get the lowdown on the PlayStation 3 version of MX vs. ATV Reflex in this review. Adam Sessler and Morgan Webb discuss the drawbacks of the PS3 version of MX vs. ATV Reflex and reveal the game's lower score."

360 version = 3/5 stars
ps3 version = 2/5 stars for being graphically inferior

or this:
http://www.giantbomb.com/reviews/bayonetta-review/1900-249/?review_id=249
Much of the potential of Bayonetta--potential that's realized on the Xbox 360--is lost to technical issues on the PS3.
(yes, that's the subtext of the review).

or what about this?
http://www.computerandvideogames.com/247305/red-dead-redemptions-sub-hd-ps3-display-analysis/

or how about this, arstechnica?
http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2010/05/read-dead-redemption-360-vs-ps3-our-thoughts/
"This is non-scientific, but after playing an hour of both games, and switching back and forth between the two systems on our display, it's clear that the 360 version has quite the graphical advantage. It's sharper, with much less aliasing. The faces of the characters were clearer in the opening section. Gameplay sections likewise looked better, with smoother graphics across the board. The PlayStation 3 version looked impressive, but there was a noticeable jump in quality while playing on the 360.

Keep in mind that the game doesn't look bad on the PS3—not by any stretch—but based on our time with the game and direct comparisons, the 360 version looks better. If you purchase the PS3 version of the game you're not going to be let down, but if you have the choice, pick up a copy for the 360.

Here's another reason to buy the game for the Xbox 360: if you dislike playing with strangers, there are 16 Ars Technica members in the game's thread playing online with the 360 version, compared to three on the PS3. If you're going to be playing, sign up!"


hypocrites.

Good shit!
 

reKon

Banned
Lots of people seem to suffer from a persecution complex and a lack of introspection. Much has been made recently of the gaming media and their failings to report issues a certain way. Much has been made of commenters on other sites and their seeming disdain for neogaf. Notwithstanding the only conclusion many seem to draw is that everyone else is wrong and only the people on neogaf see the 'truth'.

I've seen a repeated trend where people have accused the gaming media of a double standard - claiming they made a big deal of the differences between PS3 and 360 versions of games, and are now downplaying the differences between the Xbox One and PS4 versions of games. I think this exists more in their memory then in reality. The gaming media did not make a big deal of the the platform differences - people on internet forums did. Some games received slightly higher review scores - something we may well see in this generation.

The other issue I've referred to is the near universal rejection of any outside criticism of neogaf. Like any other site neogaf has it's strengths and weaknesses. However there's a glaring lack of introspection when outside criticisms and suggestions of bias are dismissed without any examination. Personally it's a bit disconcerting to see nearly every thread loaded with dismissive gifs and jabs at the coming consoles. There's also a disturbing trend of some people who barely seem to hide their hope that one console fail.

Having been around for the last several console launches this is little different then most - some actual differences and lots of buzz words. One of the biggest mistakes a person who participates in enthusiast forums can make is assuming that everyone is (or should be) the same issues they are. Some people dismissing the differences as unimportant obviously are doing so based on a personal bias - however this is clearly not true for everyone doing so.

This might be true. Reviews haven't even come out yet for both platforms. In this past gen I saw that the Xbox 360 got better reviews in multiplats for the most part and I recall that in some ways the reviewer mentioned the differences were significant while in other cases they stated that it won't hurt your enjoyment of the game.

At the same time though, from what we have seen, the gap... has widened significantly. I'm guessing that it will be just a role reversal in reviews where the PS4 version comes out on top as being superior.

Still, it seems strange to me that the media has been downplaying differences before the consoles were even out.
 
I find the whole thing amusing and since it is some of this discourse has a purpose, so not a waste of time for me. But I do think some on gaf expect way too much from the press when there is no structure there to ensure they act how people want.

Getting outraged and doing nothing is silly as well. (Be it the Arab Spring or Occupy Wallstreet) This all being mad and lambasting things on the internet is all fine and dandy. But you have to act too.
If enough games don't sell for being 1080p and 60 fps guess what these guys will change their tune. Too much of the samey shit being made? Stop buying the samey looking shit then.

I was more in referencing that we here are always eager to jump on anybody. It doesn't matter who you are in the industry, media, or even a user on here. If thought's don't align, woo boy, watch your ass cuz the GAF force is on its way.

I don't see Adam as a journalist. I don't think he would refer to himself as a journalist either.

That's how I view a lot of these people. They may partake in some journalism, but the necessary integration and insight necessary to do investigative work just isn't there due to how young this industry is. Just as much as film journalists really aren't journalists.

They are professional [read: paid] commentators. Some, like our frequent member Jason from Kotaku may go a bit further, but the average games journalist isn't much different from the typical blogger or Youtube personality. Better insight and equipment perhaps, but that's generally where the line is drawn.
 
Not really - you missed the point because that has nothing to do with it.

It's the same movies that come out on DVD and Bluray - the only real difference between getting one or the other is fidelity.

We're talking mostly about non-exclusive games, available on both consoles. The difference being again fidelity.

But somehow it magically doesn't matter only with games?
I didn't miss the point, you made a dumb comparison and I pointed that out. I wasn't commenting on the rest of your post.
 
Wanting the press to be honest = you only care about graphics and are a fanboy.

This is not about honesty. It's about thinking the gaming media only exists to amplify the NeoGAF controversy of the week, and failing to acknowledge that they're often catering to a different audience altogether. The common gaming enthusiast does not care about 1080p, more than they care about launch lineups & other game-focused issues.
 

PBY

Banned
it doesn't. it's the gaming press who are saying, "they don't matter". they do. a game is the sum of its parts. both versions are the exact same experience so that's out of the gate in terms of comparison. now, there are graphical differences (bf4 having lower resolution and lacking global illumination system, plus running at a lower average framerate). that's where comparisons come in because that's where comparisons can be made. and why are comparisons being made? because these are both valued at $60 no matter what console.

it's the constant and massive downplaying of these differences that is such a copout. remember when all these "journalists" pointed out every damn difference the ps3 version of a multiplat had in their reviews? "the ps3 version looks washed out. the ps3 version had some hiccups. the ps3 version had less vibrant colours. you are better off playing the xbox 360 version if you want the best version out there outside the pc.


this takes the icing on the cake:
http://www.g4tv.com/videos/43049/mx-vs-atv-reflex-playstation-3-review/
"Get the lowdown on the PlayStation 3 version of MX vs. ATV Reflex in this review. Adam Sessler and Morgan Webb discuss the drawbacks of the PS3 version of MX vs. ATV Reflex and reveal the game's lower score."

360 version = 3/5 stars
ps3 version = 2/5 stars for being graphically inferior

or this:
http://www.giantbomb.com/reviews/bayonetta-review/1900-249/?review_id=249
Much of the potential of Bayonetta--potential that's realized on the Xbox 360--is lost to technical issues on the PS3.
(yes, that's the subtext of the review).

or what about this?
http://www.computerandvideogames.com/247305/red-dead-redemptions-sub-hd-ps3-display-analysis/
"Its resolution is 640 by 1152, compared to the Xbox 360's 720 by 1280 pixels. At first glance you might say that this is only a difference of "80 pixels," but in reality, when the missing area is calculated, the PS3 suffers an 184,320 pixel deficit - or 20 per cent lower than the Xbox 360 version. This rendering resolution is then upscaled by the PS3 to be displayed on your screen."

or how about this, arstechnica?
http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2010/05/read-dead-redemption-360-vs-ps3-our-thoughts/
"This is non-scientific, but after playing an hour of both games, and switching back and forth between the two systems on our display, it's clear that the 360 version has quite the graphical advantage. It's sharper, with much less aliasing. The faces of the characters were clearer in the opening section. Gameplay sections likewise looked better, with smoother graphics across the board. The PlayStation 3 version looked impressive, but there was a noticeable jump in quality while playing on the 360.

Keep in mind that the game doesn't look bad on the PS3—not by any stretch—but based on our time with the game and direct comparisons, the 360 version looks better. If you purchase the PS3 version of the game you're not going to be let down, but if you have the choice, pick up a copy for the 360.

Here's another reason to buy the game for the Xbox 360: if you dislike playing with strangers, there are 16 Ars Technica members in the game's thread playing online with the 360 version, compared to three on the PS3. If you're going to be playing, sign up!"


hypocrites.
Uhhhh the things aren't out yet, A. B, there will be many reviews, if not most, that do what you posted when the boxes drop.
 
This is pretty hilarious.

I wonder how you guys would react if they suddenly changed CoD and BF4 to run in 1080p at 60fps by ticking down the graphic settings.

If I ever believed there was a legitimate chance of this happening on a wide scale at the expense of improved graphics settings, just for the sake of being able to market 1080p at 60fps, I would very likely never support those developers ever again. BF4 and COD tells me that those two developers have their heads screwed on right. They could have done 1080p 60fps on the Xbox One also, but at what cost? Ryse may not even look as good as it does if it were 1080p instead of 900p. I think Forza looks great for launch, but it will be interesting to see what they manage with the follow-up. Will it still be 1080p 60fps, but look notably better, or will they decide to drop resolution some to give themselves a bit more horsepower to make the game look better?

It will be interesting to see what devs do with their second efforts on the Xbox One.It will tell us a lot more than the early releases.
 

MilkBeard

Member
I understand his point, but it is disappointing that one, and potentially both consoles are having issues pushing what should be a standard for this gen. The companies haven't pushed this so much as the fact that PC games have been pushing this for a while.

The fact that PC is starting to push 4K means that Consoles are just lagging further and further behind. The fact that Xbox One is having issues hitting 1080P on a pretty basic looking game (Call of Duty Ghosts) is worrisome.

We had an extremely long Generation this time so it's kind of telling if next gen is barely making it beyond the same specifications.
 
it doesn't. it's the gaming press who are saying, "they don't matter". they do. a game is the sum of its parts. both versions are the exact same experience so that's out of the gate in terms of comparison. now, there are graphical differences (bf4 having lower resolution and lacking global illumination system, plus running at a lower average framerate). that's where comparisons come in because that's where comparisons can be made. and why are comparisons being made? because these are both valued at $60 no matter what console.

it's the constant and massive downplaying of these differences that is such a copout. remember when all these "journalists" pointed out every damn difference the ps3 version of a multiplat had in their reviews? "the ps3 version looks washed out. the ps3 version had some hiccups. the ps3 version had less vibrant colours. you are better off playing the xbox 360 version if you want the best version out there outside the pc.


this takes the icing on the cake:
http://www.g4tv.com/videos/43049/mx-vs-atv-reflex-playstation-3-review/
"Get the lowdown on the PlayStation 3 version of MX vs. ATV Reflex in this review. Adam Sessler and Morgan Webb discuss the drawbacks of the PS3 version of MX vs. ATV Reflex and reveal the game's lower score."

360 version = 3/5 stars
ps3 version = 2/5 stars for being graphically inferior

or this:
http://www.giantbomb.com/reviews/bayonetta-review/1900-249/?review_id=249
Much of the potential of Bayonetta--potential that's realized on the Xbox 360--is lost to technical issues on the PS3.
(yes, that's the subtext of the review).

or what about this?
http://www.computerandvideogames.com/247305/red-dead-redemptions-sub-hd-ps3-display-analysis/
"Its resolution is 640 by 1152, compared to the Xbox 360's 720 by 1280 pixels. At first glance you might say that this is only a difference of "80 pixels," but in reality, when the missing area is calculated, the PS3 suffers an 184,320 pixel deficit - or 20 per cent lower than the Xbox 360 version. This rendering resolution is then upscaled by the PS3 to be displayed on your screen."

or how about this, arstechnica?
http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2010/05/read-dead-redemption-360-vs-ps3-our-thoughts/
"This is non-scientific, but after playing an hour of both games, and switching back and forth between the two systems on our display, it's clear that the 360 version has quite the graphical advantage. It's sharper, with much less aliasing. The faces of the characters were clearer in the opening section. Gameplay sections likewise looked better, with smoother graphics across the board. The PlayStation 3 version looked impressive, but there was a noticeable jump in quality while playing on the 360.

Keep in mind that the game doesn't look bad on the PS3—not by any stretch—but based on our time with the game and direct comparisons, the 360 version looks better. If you purchase the PS3 version of the game you're not going to be let down, but if you have the choice, pick up a copy for the 360.

Here's another reason to buy the game for the Xbox 360: if you dislike playing with strangers, there are 16 Ars Technica members in the game's thread playing online with the 360 version, compared to three on the PS3. If you're going to be playing, sign up!"


hypocrites.

tumblr_mhqahpa8pG1qiyloqo1_500.gif
 
It's harder and harder for me to take seriously Sessler anymore.

It seems to me he's trying too hard to be neutral, or he has a hidden agenda.
 
it doesn't. it's the gaming press who are saying, "they don't matter". they do. a game is the sum of its parts. both versions are the exact same experience so that's out of the gate in terms of comparison. now, there are graphical differences (bf4 having lower resolution and lacking global illumination system, plus running at a lower average framerate). that's where comparisons come in because that's where comparisons can be made. and why are comparisons being made? because these are both valued at $60 no matter what console.

it's the constant and massive downplaying of these differences that is such a copout. remember when all these "journalists" pointed out every damn difference the ps3 version of a multiplat had in their reviews? "the ps3 version looks washed out. the ps3 version had some hiccups. the ps3 version had less vibrant colours. you are better off playing the xbox 360 version if you want the best version out there outside the pc.


this takes the icing on the cake:
http://www.g4tv.com/videos/43049/mx-vs-atv-reflex-playstation-3-review/
"Get the lowdown on the PlayStation 3 version of MX vs. ATV Reflex in this review. Adam Sessler and Morgan Webb discuss the drawbacks of the PS3 version of MX vs. ATV Reflex and reveal the game's lower score."

360 version = 3/5 stars
ps3 version = 2/5 stars for being graphically inferior

or this:
http://www.giantbomb.com/reviews/bayonetta-review/1900-249/?review_id=249
Much of the potential of Bayonetta--potential that's realized on the Xbox 360--is lost to technical issues on the PS3.
(yes, that's the subtext of the review).

or what about this?
http://www.computerandvideogames.com/247305/red-dead-redemptions-sub-hd-ps3-display-analysis/
"Its resolution is 640 by 1152, compared to the Xbox 360's 720 by 1280 pixels. At first glance you might say that this is only a difference of "80 pixels," but in reality, when the missing area is calculated, the PS3 suffers an 184,320 pixel deficit - or 20 per cent lower than the Xbox 360 version. This rendering resolution is then upscaled by the PS3 to be displayed on your screen."

or how about this, arstechnica?
http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2010/05/read-dead-redemption-360-vs-ps3-our-thoughts/
"This is non-scientific, but after playing an hour of both games, and switching back and forth between the two systems on our display, it's clear that the 360 version has quite the graphical advantage. It's sharper, with much less aliasing. The faces of the characters were clearer in the opening section. Gameplay sections likewise looked better, with smoother graphics across the board. The PlayStation 3 version looked impressive, but there was a noticeable jump in quality while playing on the 360.

Keep in mind that the game doesn't look bad on the PS3—not by any stretch—but based on our time with the game and direct comparisons, the 360 version looks better. If you purchase the PS3 version of the game you're not going to be let down, but if you have the choice, pick up a copy for the 360.

Here's another reason to buy the game for the Xbox 360: if you dislike playing with strangers, there are 16 Ars Technica members in the game's thread playing online with the 360 version, compared to three on the PS3. If you're going to be playing, sign up!"


hypocrites.

First of all, you're being just a tad selective with history. Multiple 360 multiplats have been criticized in the same way - worse off than the PS3 version, and docked points as a result.

You're acting like footnotes on a review are the only thing they're saying about the game. These differences usually amount to very little on their overall reccomendation of a game - it's just not the sort of issue so massive, that it's worth talking at length about. Especially when it's possibly only the case with launch games.
 

reKon

Banned
You cant be serious?

I wouldn't be surprised if he was considering that this is the same guy who in a thread, specifically looked to buy apps from developers that only supported iOS devices and who refused to develop anything on Android.
 

LTWood12

Member
This is not about honesty. It's about thinking the gaming media only exists to amplify the NeoGAF controversy of the week, and failing to acknowledge that they're often catering to a different audience altogether. The common gaming enthusiast does not care about 1080p, more than they care about launch lineups & other game-focused issues.

Who is this 'common gaming enthusiast' that wouldn't want to know that the cheaper system plays multiplats at a higher resolution and with smoother performance?

Again, performance and price aren't everything; but it ain't nothing either.
 

fallagin

Member
This is not about honesty. It's about thinking the gaming media only exists to amplify the NeoGAF controversy of the week, and failing to acknowledge that they're often catering to a different audience altogether. The common gaming enthusiast does not care about 1080p, more than they care about launch lineups & other game-focused issues.

You think that neogaf should have a different opinion on this matter? Then convince us that it doesn't matter. Just saying it doesn't matter makes no difference.
 

diggler41

Member
So, after I watched today's Sessler's Something, I thought the whole argument was odd, since I remember Adam Sessler's pretty much arguing that his expectation were always 1080p/60 for these two new consoles, and that they needed to something more.

So I looked up the video from his panel he did last June for this year's Screw Attack Gaming Convention, and well....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=55mJl_zKAu0

Certainly, Adam Sessler has always said that games needs to innovate and show us(the consumers and the press) what a next gen concept is, but he certainly expected both the XBox One, and PS4 to be 1080p/60.

So now that we have confirmation that one system is clearly having issues with it, what changed in Sessler's expectations?


Goddamnit Sess... You used to be like the cool uncle everybody wanted.
 
Uhhhh the things aren't out yet, A. B, there will be many reviews, if not most, that do what you posted when the boxes drop.

oh you mean the same sites and the same people who just said this week that "resolutions don't matter"?

who cares about the review? from all the vids and podcasts, they've already disposed the notion of "a difference" let alone "an advantage", which they gladly pointed out in a paragraph or two in their reviews last-gen. the games aren't out yet, yet they've concluded and tried to convince their audience that the resolutions don't matter and to look the other way. really, now.
 

PBY

Banned
oh you mean the same sites and the same people who just said this week that "resolutions don't matter"?

who cares about the review? from all the vids and podcasts, they've already disposed the notion of "a difference" let alone "an advantage", which they gladly pointed out in a paragraph or two in their reviews last-gen. the games aren't out yet, yet they've concluded that the resolutions don't matter.
Wait for the reviews.
 

Ploid 3.0

Member
The guy showing the review quotes is proving that the differences in graphics do apparently matter to said journalists.
 
4 random reviews are enough?

Smdh. The same thing will happen when the consoles come out.

It's more than four reviews and quit being daft. As I've said before, overwhelmingly, 360 multi platform titles performed and looked better. Skyrim, Fallout, etc. You name it. And the PS3 was raked over the coals for that. Now we have people in the gaming press, the same very people that wrote those reviews last generation, stating that "it's all about the games, stupid" and sweeping hardware advantages under the rug.
 

coldfoot

Banned
Why don't you and other folks like you say these things when they give the likes of Beyond Two Souls 5/5 ?

No, not a fucking word then

Chillax, I don't even watch that channel and that's the first thing I noticed, obviously I'm trolling, didn't even know they gave Beyond Two Souls 5/5.

Based on this video and 5/5 for B2S, my true verdict is that this is a channel that doesn't know what they're talking about, and it'd be just as useful to read the financial times for video game information as this.
 
Chillax, I don't even watch that channel and that's the first thing I noticed, obviously I'm trolling, didn't even know they gave Beyond Two Souls 5/5.

Based on this video and 5/5 for B2S, my true verdict is that this is a channel that doesn't know what they're talking about, and it'd be just as useful to read the financial times for video game information as this.
Amen
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom