Support NeoGAF

[reson8or]

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.

Beautifully cited and exemplified. Its this kind of bullshit that's gotta stop. I could care less what website, or journalist is saying it, just stop, you make yourself look idiotic. You can't have it both ways.

 

[jmdajr]

I just want the facts.

So far facts look like PS4 has the better hardware and will therefore be my platform of choice for third party.

Xbone will still serve it's purpose with unique content. (OS will probbaly be superior, but that's my opinion, no one knows yet.)

Anyhow, seems easy enough.

 

[disastermouse]

Good examples. I'm sure that game reviews this gen will point out the same issues if they exist. I'm going to go ahead and believe than until/unless I'm proven wrong. Or, of course, those differences don't exist.

What does worry me a bit is the bandied about rumor that along with embargoes of XB1 games until noon on launch day, that MS is also somehow disallowing comparisons with the PS4 version of the games? I don't know how MS could actually DO that but if they can, that's not right.

That'll only hold for press with pre-release access. YouTube commentators will tear their assholes out and wear them as smelly necklaces.

Actually, ignore that metaphor - an asshole necklace only punishes the wearer.

 

[Donny]

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.

 

[disastermouse]

I just want the facts.

So far facts look like PS4 has the better hardware and will therefore be my platform of choice for third party.

Xbone will still serve it's purpose with unique content. (OS will probbaly be superior, but that's my opinion, no one knows yet.)

Anyhow, seems easy enough.

To which OS of the THREE OSes are you referring?

 

[avaya]

Is Stuart Mr. Biffo? Digitiser was my go-to spot for video game news and info.

Similar to what I was pining for earlier on TBH: http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=88746599&postcount=2077

I miss that place, I'll have to take a look at Metro now.

Yeah when the Digitiser guys (or was it just Mr.Biffo?) called it a day, Games Central took over.

Digitiser was the absolute shit. Those halcyon days.

 

[Psi]

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.

I'm really looking forward to seeing how this compares to reviews in the coming generation. I have a feeling the hypocrisy will be quite prevalent with more spinning than a whirling dirvish.

 

[Hot Coldman]

Is Stuart Mr. Biffo? Digitiser was my go-to spot for video game news and info.

Similar to what I was pining for earlier on TBH: http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=88746599&postcount=2077

I miss that place, I'll have to take a look at Metro now.

I believe Mr Biffo was one Mr Paul Rose, IIRC. Think he contributed to Digitiser in some form. That was before my time, mind.

 

[blindrocket]

So he's caught shilling again. What a tool.

 

[grumble]

I'm really looking forward to seeing how this compares to reviews in the coming generation. I have a feeling the hypocrisy will be quite prevalent with more spinning than a whirling dirvish.

More than that though, I just don't understand it. If the games journalists are so biased, hypocritical and full of it then WHY are they so biased? If they treat the xbox and the ps3 the same way as they treat the xbone and the ps4 then they should be ripping the xbone a new one but they're defending it to the point where i wnder if they're being PAID by microsoft.

What should be happening is a genuine article offering objective reporting. NeoGAF has a front page! Why not get volunteer articles from members, pooled reviews and basically crowdsource content for an actually decent, objective website?

 

[Phades]

Good examples. I'm sure that game reviews this gen will point out the same issues if they exist. I'm going to go ahead and believe than until/unless I'm proven wrong. Or, of course, those differences don't exist.

What does worry me a bit is the bandied about rumor that along with embargoes of XB1 games until noon on launch day, that MS is also somehow disallowing comparisons with the PS4 version of the games? I don't know how MS could actually DO that but if they can, that's not right.

I'd love to take credit for that digging, but I can't as it belongs to emptyspace.

I agree though that it will be interesting to see how the situation unfolds over time, but I find it saddening to think that this is the normal we should expect and accept from those publications and individuals using these kinds of practices at present.

 

[Psi]

More than that though, I just don't understand it. If the games journalists are so biased, hypocritical and full of it then WHY are they so biased? If they treat the xbox and the ps3 the same way as they treat the xbone and the ps4 then they should be ripping the xbone a new one but they're defending it to the point where i wnder if they're being PAID by microsoft.

I'm sure your guess is as good as mine, but I think that part of it is that many of these people are simply big fans of the Xbox brand. It's probably largely a social thing to them as well, and naturally it affects their jobs whether they're willing to admit it even to themselves or not.

Or maybe they're just happy to pick a team and "play ball" for their careers.

 

[Raist]

How many open world first person games came out on the ps2? The fact no one even tried it speaks volumes on what the quality of the game would be.

Well how many first person open world games came out on the ps2?

The entire experience would not have been possible. Due to technical limitations, I'd bet that a ps2 fallout game would be top down. It's impossible to argue that the game design wouldn't be drastically different

Not sure why you responded thrice to the same post... but OK

Well, open world games have been around for ages. Just look at GTA. Whether it's a FPS or not is more of a design choice than technical limitations. You could make a Fallout-like game on a PS2. It would just look a lot worse. But there's nothing technically preventing a PS2 to provide the same kind of gameplay. I mean there were games like this on PC which wouldn't be anywhere close to running PS2 games.

Uncharted 2, Crysis, GT5, MW2, etc... Basically every game could not have been done on the PS2. Maybe you should go back and see how PS2 games actually looked and ran.

These games' gameplay was no different than other TPS, FPS, or racing games on PS2 though. Of course they wouldn't look as pretty and run as good. But the gameplay hasn't been revolutionized by the PS2 > PS3 transition.

 

[NinjamicWZ]

Does he really enjoy them, though? Or does he resent his workload and anything that doesn't respect his time like most media?

 

[Phades]

How many open world first person games came out on the ps2? The fact no one even tried it speaks volumes on what the quality of the game would be.

Are you being deliberately dense? Below is one example of a series of games. They aren't super detailed, but not everything was super detailed in the PS2 era. The "cut scenes" using the in game assets invariably highlighted this. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.hack_(video_game_series)

The game was not out of line of the poly counts used for other games such as this
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Final_Fantasy_XI
(also on PS2 and by definition, don't get much more "open world" than a full blown MMORPG)

or this

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_of_Warcraft

My advice would be to find a different windmill to tilt at Mr. Quixote.

 

[Jburton]

Jenkins has been in the UK games media for a very long time.

In fact Games Central started out on teletext, which didn't rely on the rather incestuous relationship between games advertisements and media outlets.
They were part of UK games culture for at least a decade probably more, before teletext got shut down and found a home on the Metro site.

In those days they had a lot of games mysteriously not turn up in the post.

Games central? ........... What channel on teletext?


Digitiser was "the" teletext read and that was Channel 4.

 

[le.phat]

perfect. also gilf.

 

[Ninja Scooter]

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.

 

[sirap]

More than that though, I just don't understand it. If the games journalists are so biased, hypocritical and full of it then WHY are they so biased? If they treat the xbox and the ps3 the same way as they treat the xbone and the ps4 then they should be ripping the xbone a new one but they're defending it to the point where i wnder if they're being PAID by microsoft.

What should be happening is a genuine article offering objective reporting. NeoGAF has a front page! Why not get volunteer articles from members, pooled reviews and basically crowdsource content for an actually decent, objective website?

You just answered your own question. Doritos man, and not even any cheese

 

[Nealand Liquor]

The best thing about all off this prenextgenlaunchbullshit is we are getting a clear picture on who to follow and who to ignore. I foresee by the middle of next gen, many of the Journalists' who have had a following and been heard will have tiny voices with a lesson in integrity learned.

 

[BakedSardine]

More than that though, I just don't understand it. If the games journalists are so biased, hypocritical and full of it then WHY are they so biased? If they treat the xbox and the ps3 the same way as they treat the xbone and the ps4 then they should be ripping the xbone a new one but they're defending it to the point where i wnder if they're being PAID by microsoft.

What should be happening is a genuine article offering objective reporting. NeoGAF has a front page! Why not get volunteer articles from members, pooled reviews and basically crowdsource content for an actually decent, objective website?

I don't know if we'll ever get this answer, but there has to be incentive somewhere. With someone like Gies, it's transparent - MS bankrolled Polygon to the tune of $700k. With someone like Sessler, it's probably pressure from the advertising department of Revision3. I don't know how much MS advertises on there, but regardless of how objective you think you are, in an ad supported model, you are ALWAYS beholden to your advertisers.

EDIT: Check that, forgot that Revision3 is owned by Discovery. MS is probably a huge advertiser.

 

[spatenfloot]

I would look at it like this:

Two car dealerships across from each other selling Porsches:
Dealer A says you can get a current year model for $60,000 stock.
Dealer B says $50,000 for same model and year with an upgraded engine and suspension.

Everything else being equal, who the hell would buy from Dealer A ?

At present we aren't even talking about XBL vs PSN, we are talking about pure performance and value for money. I don't get what about that the "journalists" don't understand.

They understand perfectly. They simply have goals other than presenting the unbiased facts and letting the audience decide.

 

[Quadraphonic]

Good examples. I'm sure that game reviews this gen will point out the same issues if they exist. I'm going to go ahead and believe than until/unless I'm proven wrong. Or, of course, those differences don't exist.

What does worry me a bit is the bandied about rumor that along with embargoes of XB1 games until noon on launch day, that MS is also somehow disallowing comparisons with the PS4 version of the games? I don't know how MS could actually DO that but if they can, that's not right.

That hasn't happened so far. While Xbox One game reviews are still embargoed, Polygon gave the same 6.5 to PS3, Xbox 360 and PS4 for Call of Duty: Ghosts.

 

[Guri]

First of all, sorry for taking a bit to answer!

I think people have already posted reviews from him when he was on that show with Morgan Webb, that did that very thing, except it was when PS3 versions were performing worse than 360 versions.

I don't really care much for those comparisons, but I remember they were very frequent for a time. I don't really know how it is now. It could be his decision to do a comparison at the time or G4's, I can't be sure. But either way, I'm glad he doesn't do that more.

If he doesn't know about tech stuff then why did he bring up 1080p @ 60fps being the standard previously?

In his mind, it "better be 1080p/60 fps", but if not, it won't take the fun away. But I don't think he doesn't know about these stuff, it just is something he's not interested in discussing. He wants to discuss new possibilities of the next-gen, which I think it's fine. I do care for the performance part and definitely wish 1080p/60 fps can be used together with new game design experiences and I'm all for discussing both, but I think it's smart to also have people focusing on one or the other. Generic example: Digital Foundry discussing the technical aspects and Rev3 the game design.

But he has downplayed consoles, or rather the PS4 specifically. A few months back he was saying that Sony is no better than Microsoft and to expect that Sony would come out with similar policies. And while Sony has had a few issues leading into launch, the other shoe hasn't dropped. He's been very apologetic in relation to Microsoft asking for time to allow more information to come forth. Again, the desire to wait is fine, but not all the minute details need to come out before a reasonable conclusion can be reached.

That's fine is Adam doesn't focus on the technical side of things but it doesn't excuse the back and forth statements he makes.

The Potatoman gave a summary.

I remember that video. He definitely made a mistake. But I also saw him saying he'd rather wait to see the console and play with its games and thinking that people would be buying the story (of both companies) and maybe not getting that. In one "Address the Sess", the one right after XB1's DRM removal, I asked him about the possibility of MS eventually going back to the old DRM and, if I'm remembering correctly, he said something like "that's what I said before, people would be buying the story. Remember to read those Terms of Service!" and I also remember him talking about how Dead Rising 3 having more zombies and a bigger map is expected and he wanted to see if there were new experiences gameplay-wise.

I'm showing these examples because I don't believe he's been downplaying either console. He wants to see more experiences and I get why he said that thing about only judging their library at the end of next year. For example, Xbox 360 launched in 2005, but its big first exclusive only launched in the end of 2006, Gears of War. And PS3 launched in 2006 but only in the end of 2007 it got Uncharted.

So he's talking about something else than what you have been talking about. And what you're worried about (same game, different performance) is fair and people should know more about that. But, in my opinion, Adam Sessler just wants to discuss the game design aspects.

 

[reKon]

Yes. Context is key here.

And the context in this very case is a comparison between two different versions of the same game. In this case, his argument about "new experiences" or whatever is completely irrelevant. We are talking about a comparison of two different platforms on which to have more or less the same experience, in which one machine is performing at a higher level than the other.

That's the context. That's the subjject he's addressing.

So, in context, by bringing up this "new experiences" argument in a discussion about the measurable, technical differences between two versions of the same game, Sessler is not only moving the goalposts...he's trying to burn down the scoreboard.

You don't see how, in talking about two versions of the same game, this sudden blindspot towards measurable technical deficiencies in the XBone version is troubling? You honestly can't reason past his trumped-up argument about "new experiences" to see that it's a classic fallacy of "false choice?"





Look, for months we've known about the numbers. The numbers say the PS4 is the more powerful console. More FLOP performance, more ROPs, more ACEs, faster RAM, ect. We've known that. But the dialog we've gotten in response from Microsoft, (both in the media and even directly here with executives like Albert Penello and his "technical fellow" here on GAF,) the media pundits, and the XBone fans has been basically, "the numbers don't tell the whole story...wait until you see the games!"

Well, we're seeing the games. Now they want us to ignore what we're seeing.

But what we are seeing is important. The reason why multi-platform console titles are important is because, in the console world, the public doesn't have access to benchmarking results. If any multi-plat dev teams do benchmark the hardware, those results are locked behind licensing agreements and NDAs. While multiplatform games will never be a true benchmark, they are a valuable "snapshot" look at the state of the boxes and what these very smart teams of developers can wring out of them at the time.

Why is the technical performance of the box so important? Because, even though framerate and resolution are way more important than some pundits are now trying to claim, it won't always be about putting more pixels on screen, or refreshing the screen at a higher framerate. The same power that lets you do those things is the same power that lets you present more immersive art assets, makes an AI routine a little smarter, makes a character animate better, or makes more physics possible.

...and that gets us right back to Sessler's core point about making better games.

...and that gets us right back to Sessler being a huge hypocrite.

...and that gets us right back to the part where he and his defenders try to make US GAMERS the bad guys for pointing out his hypocrisy.

 

[Nestersan]

They understand perfectly. They simply have goals other than presenting the unbiased facts and letting the audience decide.

I'm really ashamed for all of these guys. It's sad and pathetic to watch. The responses they give are sadder and ever more pathetic.

I will miss GOW 4 and Forza Horizons, cause I can't afford both consoles, but in no universe am I going to choose the weaker, more expensive hardware when I play 99% multiplats.

Xbone in 2017 refurb from Gamestop maybe.

 

[Jomjom]

And yet we get 50 page threads talking about resolution.

The 50 page threads are not talking about resolution.

They are mostly discussing the inconsistency of video game media of often talking about resolution and game performance this current gen, but suddenly wanting to silence any talk about resolution and game performance for next gen games.

Nobody's keeping a 50 page thread going about how more power equal higher resolution. That's a given.

Your posts originally were stating that threads discussing what hardware power could mean for future, innovative game mechanics and features get buried after a couple of pages. That really has nothing to do with what's being discussed here and is a false equivalency used to say that people here on GAF only care about resolution and not what power means for gameplay.

 

[Mudkips]

Bettered

 

[BakedSardine]

That hasn't happened so far. While Xbox One game reviews are still embargoed, Polygon gave the same 6.5 to PS3, Xbox 360 and PS4 for Call of Duty: Ghosts.

7.0 confirmed, somehow, some way.

 

[SatelliteOfLove]

It's Fawlty Towers with them and appearing unbiased. "Whatever you do, DON'T MENTION THE RESOLUTION." Cue guys like Sess goosestepping into videos, articles, and forum threads blaring it at the top of their lungs.

Wince comedy at its best/worst, I guess.

 

[Ploid 3.0]

Yes. Context is key here.

And the context in this very case is a comparison between two different versions of the same game. In this case, his argument about "new experiences" or whatever is completely irrelevant. We are talking about a comparison of two different platforms on which to have more or less the same experience, in which one machine is performing at a higher level than the other.

That's the context. That's the subjject he's addressing.

So, in context, by bringing up this "new experiences" argument in a discussion about the measurable, technical differences between two versions of the same game, Sessler is not only moving the goalposts...he's trying to burn down the scoreboard.

You don't see how, in talking about two versions of the same game, this sudden blindspot towards measurable technical deficiencies in the XBone version is troubling? You honestly can't reason past his trumped-up argument about "new experiences" to see that it's a classic fallacy of "false choice?"





Look, for months we've known about the numbers. The numbers say the PS4 is the more powerful console. More FLOP performance, more ROPs, more ACEs, faster RAM, ect. We've known that. But the dialog we've gotten in response from Microsoft, (both in the media and even directly here with executives like Albert Penello and his "technical fellow" here on GAF,) the media pundits, and the XBone fans has been basically, "the numbers don't tell the whole story...wait until you see the games!"

Well, we're seeing the games. Now they want us to ignore what we're seeing.

But what we are seeing is important. The reason why multi-platform console titles are important is because, in the console world, the public doesn't have access to benchmarking results. If any multi-plat dev teams do benchmark the hardware, those results are locked behind licensing agreements and NDAs. While multiplatform games will never be a true benchmark, they are a valuable "snapshot" look at the state of the boxes and what these very smart teams of developers can wring out of them at the time.

Why is the technical performance of the box so important? Because, even though framerate and resolution are way more important than some pundits are now trying to claim, it won't always be about putting more pixels on screen, or refreshing the screen at a higher framerate. The same power that lets you do those things is the same power that lets you present more immersive art assets, makes an AI routine a little smarter, makes a character animate better, or makes more physics possible.

...and that gets us right back to Sessler's core point about making better games.

...and that gets us right back to Sessler being a huge hypocrite.

...and that gets us right back to the part where he and his defenders try to make US GAMERS the bad guys for pointing out his hypocrisy.

Yes yes yes, well said man. I'm sure Adam knows this or we wouldn't need a new generation of game consoles to begin with.

 

[reKon]

7.0 confirmed, somehow, some way.

I really wish there was less these kinds of comments. How about you wait a few days.

 

[Portugeezer]

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

Daaaaaamn.

For texture pop in, lol. Sessler pls.

 

[VanWinkle]

In a world where third party developers are beholden to first parties to not speak to the full extent of the power differences between PS4 and XB1, it's far, far more sad to see the same seemingly applied to journalists.

 

[Donny]

Bettered

Damn.....

 

[reKon]

Daaaaaamn.

For texture pop in, lol. Sessler pls.

Wow, I actually watched the that review video this time. Just wow...

There were PS3 vs Xbox 360 differences in other games that were MUCH more bigger than the ones presented in that game.

But, hey it's all the past now right! PS3 having worse performance/visuals in games, Gabe Newell's comments about how the PS3 was a failure.

This is a new day and age where discussion about platform differences is stupid now because it's just fanboy fuel and no one will really care anyways! It's about the games now!

 

[HeroesInAHalfShell]

I was away for a few days when the whole resolution thing went down and the internet exploded, but the general twitter consensus seems to totally misunderstand the point of Gaf's frustrations. It's not specifically an issue of resolution, and the fanboyism has been pretty tame. We're all in this for the games and the betterment of the industry. Not sure I can say the same for the gaming press as a whole at the moment... and that worries me.

 

[Shmuely Bully]

I'm late arriving on this one obviously, but it's PARTICULARLY upsetting to see Sessler pull this kind of crap given his background and history.

He came into the industry as a complete outsider, someone who had really just started discovering games and seemed to have developed a genuine passion for it and as such has often seemed to bring a different perspective to the issues facing gaming than many people out there.

His experiences with G4 and his independent efforts really went a long way to distinguish him from other game journalists out there and endear people to him too, even if he could be a bit of a windbag at points. That he is now so obviously attempting to minimize and appear 'non-biased' isn't just silly, it's sad. The guy who started as an outside voice in the industry is now a creature of it.

 

[vpance]

I blame it all on latent racism or nationalism. It's the only thing that makes sense. They probably don't even know why they're doing this on a conscious level...

 

[Shinta]

Wow, I actually watched the that review video this time. Just wow...

There were PS3 vs Xbox 360 differences in other games that were MUCH more bigger than the ones presented in that game.

But, hey it's all the past now right! PS3 having worse performance/visuals in games, Gabe Newell's comments about how the PS3 was a failure.

This is a new day and age where discussion about platform differences is stupid now because it's just fanboy fuel and no one will really care anyways! It's about the games now!

I think we've established extremely well that there are significant, clear double standards at play here.

The real question is, why? Why is it so consistent that a Japanese system just 7 years ago was run through the mud for graphical issues on multi-plat games and now an American system is not?

I'm looking for anyone to discuss what they seriously think the reasons might be.

1) Irrational fanboy devotion to MS brand?
2) Racism?
3) Bribery?
4) MS PR is more aggressive about threatening with ad revenue and early access privileges?
5) MS hires more journalists who play ball for PR positions?

I know no one will believe it, but I have to think that given all the rest of the coverage we've gotten over these last 7 years, #2 is really my best guess.

Any other serious suggestions?

 

[vcc]

I blame it all on latent racism or nationalism. It's the only thing that makes sense. They probably don't even know why they're doing this on a conscious level...

Yesterday I saw Adam Sessler giggle like a twilight fangirl when that dirty foreigner Mikael Haveri was demoing that dirty foreign game resogun on that dirty foreign PS4 console while Anthony Carboni was stoking that dirty foreign controller like was paying for the room hourly.

I don't think it's racism or nationalism.

I just think Sessler and Co. just don't want to fan the flames. Some of us (maybe not me) have well measured criticisms of XB1 and a objective tempered view of the PS4 but a lot of the noise is fanboism and many many game press people don't want to feed the flames. The ones that do are rightly looked down upon.

 

[NoirVisage]

Yesterday I saw Adam Sessler giggle like a twilight fangirl when that dirty foreigner Mikael Haveri was demoing that dirty foreign game resogun on that dirty foreign PS4 console while Anthony Carboni was stoking that dirty foreign controller like was paying for the room hourly.

I don't think it's racism or nationalism.

I just think Sessler and Co. just don't want to fan the flames. Some of us (maybe not me) have well measured criticisms of XB1 and a objective tempered view of the PS4 but a lot of the noise is fanboism and many many game press people don't want to feed the flames. The ones that do are rightly looked down upon.

Link? Or it didn't happen,Adam is above dirty foreigner shooters!

 

[RurouniZel]

Here's the thing. I could understand if the roles were reversed. For example, if the PS4 were the $500 machine and the XBone the $400 machine, then the argument would make sense to an extent. "Is 1080p worth the extra $100 for you? Or is 720p enough when the game is basically the same otherwise?"

Except it's the $400 PS4 that's outputting the game at 1080p, and the $500 machine that's outputting at 720p. As a Wii and Wii U owner I honestly don't give a fuck what systems display games at what resolutions but that doesn't mean that the differences should be brushed off by the media as non-issues. Because for many people in this audience, it is an issue, and they want to know this information. They expect actual honesty on the subject. They expect consistency. I remember how Wii games were non-entities because lol the resolution is so low, and now apparently resolution isn't an issue? It's about the games, right? You know, that argument that Nintendo fans cheer on over and over only to get slammed back to the 16-bit era because it's not the only thing that matters? Remember that? I do.

It strikes me that the media is desperately trying to ensure that both consoles are successful, not just one. We saw it when the Xbone was revealed and apparently we were jumping to conclusions about stuff that the fucking head of Xbox was saying that Xbone was about. "We haven't heard all of the information," they cried.

Except we had heard all of the information. They just didn't want us to think that. For whatever reason, they HAD to keep us as interested in the Xbone as the PS4.

 

[ThisWreckage]

I don't know what to think of this whole situation. A part of me feels like Sessler is biased because this type of thing has happened before in the past several times. Another part of me thinks he is doing this for controversy. If he's doing the latter he has to realize that it's an awfully thin line to walk because I am done giving him any clicks whatsoever.

 

[Shinta]

Yesterday I saw Adam Sessler giggle like a twilight fangirl when that dirty foreigner Mikael Haveri was demoing that dirty foreign game resogun on that dirty foreign PS4 console while Anthony Carboni was stoking that dirty foreign controller like was paying for the room hourly

Isn't Anthony Carboni the guy who was laughing and making fun of the Japanese developer in the Phil Fish incident? He was honestly almost worse than Phil Fish in that whole exchange. It came off as very, very rude.

It's possible to have racist beliefs about one group, but not all other groups. I don't know where Resogun was made, but the name sounds European or Russian? A lot of people would still call that "western," since every country but Japan, China, and Korea gets lumped into "western" in terms of game design. Even Poland, and The Witcher.

 

[Raist]

Isn't Anthony Carboni the guy who was laughing and making fun of the Japanese developer in the Phil Fish incident?

It's possible to have racist beliefs about one group, but not all other groups. I don't know where Resogun was made, but the name sounds European or Russian? A lot of people would still call that "western," since every country but Japan, China, and Korea gets lumped into "western" in terms of game design. Even Poland, and The Witcher.

Finland.

 

[BurnOutBrighter]

I blame it all on latent racism or nationalism. It's the only thing that makes sense. They probably don't even know why they're doing this on a conscious level...

I blame it on egos, actually.

These "journalists" always get early access to games and previews, and see a lot of the stuff that happens behind the scenes, and they get to play most games for free. They love to humblebrag about how they've already finished GTAV two weeks before it comes out. They love acting like they're in the know and they love when their fans validate their opinions. They love pretending they're "above" what the plebes are doing on launch day.

As such, they also love throwing their opinion around like it means something. They get off on going against the popular view to try to show off how ahead and enlightened they are. Just like the hipster music fan says "Meh, their new album sucks, their early stuff is way better", these game hipsters say "720p30 is
no big deal, it's about the games".

 

[TacticalFox88]

I think we've established extremely well that there are significant, clear double standards at play here.

The real question is, why? Why is it so consistent that a Japanese system just 7 years ago was run through the mud for graphical issues on multi-plat games and now an American system is not?

I'm looking for anyone to discuss what they seriously think the reasons might be.

1) Irrational fanboy devotion to MS brand?
2) Racism?
3) Bribery?
4) MS PR is more aggressive about threatening with ad revenue and early access privileges?
5) MS hires more journalists who play ball for PR positions?

I know no one will believe it, but I have to think that given all the rest of the coverage we've gotten over these last 7 years, #2 is really my best guess.

Any other serious suggestions?

If the PS4 was made by an African based company I'd agree with you 1000% no questions asked.

But alas...eehhhhhh

 

[Portugeezer]

Isn't Anthony Carboni the guy who was laughing and making fun of the Japanese developer in the Phil Fish incident? He was honestly almost worse than Phil Fish in that whole exchange. It came off as very, very rude.

It's possible to have racist beliefs about one group, but not all other groups. I don't know where Resogun was made, but the name sounds European or Russian? A lot of people would still call that "western," since every country but Japan, China, and Korea gets lumped into "western" in terms of game design. Even Poland, and The Witcher.

Finland I believe.

I agree with what you said about the Phil Fish incident, but I feel like Anthony was a bit embarrassed by the whole thing and just didn't know how to react so he tried to shrug it off as a joke; suffice it to say he only made the matter worse.

 

[Shinta]

If the PS4 was made by an African based company I'd agree with you 1000% no questions asked.

But alas...eehhhhhh

In a way, I think people are more alert about racism against Africans and African Americans. It of course still exists, but people are a lot more aware of it.

Racism against Asians kind of flies under the radar a lot of the time, and it allows racist beliefs to fester even in people who may not harbor any real malice, and may not even be aware they are being unfair with their beliefs.

There are a lot of people who think all Japanese games are inferior, and are made with inferior technology. Who think that all Japanese gamers are pseudo-pedophiles with body pillows. And who have a weird "now it's our turn!" mentality about the west triumphing over the east in gaming dominance.