shinra-bansho
Member
The differences are damn near impossible to see.
The differences are damn near impossible to see.
I definitely agree. I don't think that any console will dominate like the PS2 did again since the PS2 was a perfect storm -- cheap DVD player + that large PS1 to PS2 graphical jump alongside a ton of games.
However, it is an example of people paying "$100 more for less power" since (again) more people bought a PS2 after the GameCube launched -- at it wasn't like the GameCube had terrible multiplat support either. Many EA games came out for it.
Anyway, it's definitely going to be interesting to see how all of this will play out for the upcoming gen. There have been examples in video gaming of more consumers buying the more expensive product regardless of power but that's usually due to game quality. We won't know how well the games/features on each system are received until after the consoles are out.
What an absolutely asinine argument.
But hey the PS2 was $100 more then the Gamecube when it launched! Lets lash on to that and draw comparisons! See guys, see, sometimes the more expensive hardware does come out on top!
- The PS2 launched a year before the Gamecube or Xbox, but lets ignore that.
- Sega discontinued the Dreamcast shortly after the PS2 launch which briefly left the PS2 alone as the the only current-gen console available, but lets ignore that.
- The PS2 came off the overwhelming sucess of the PS1, but lets ignore that.
- The PS2 had 3rd party support that no other console could touch (especially the Gamecube), but lets ignore that.
Oh, by the way, the PS2 got a $100 price reduction shortly after the Gamecube launched but lets ignore that too.
This argument of as long as the games are fun is true, but kind of annoying. I don't understand why we can't and don't want both?
Come on, dude. Be serious. Bro, be serious.
The differences are damn near impossible to see, besides one looking a lot cleaner and smoother, and the other seeming to have more visual pop with what seems a more aggressive lighting. BF4, as far as videos I've watched, is damn near identical on the two systems. .
This argument of as long as the games are fun is true, but kind of annoying. I don't understand why we can't and don't want both?
The differences are damn near impossible to see, besides one looking a lot cleaner and smoother, and the other seeming to have more visual pop with what seems a more aggressive lighting. BF4, as far as videos I've watched, is damn near identical on the two systems.
I hate to defend the guy...but I think those that have spent the past few months blasting Leadbetterand his anti PS4 bias can now shut up...
This is about as scathing an article as you can possibly expect from a mainstream journalist...
Without directly doing so, he is calling MS' bluff on all their chatter...using that quote from the MS Technical Fellow to start this article is a direct stab at MS...
He admits his own comparison article didn't show the true gap...
And he basically lays out his belief that the Xbone architecture just doesn't have the juice (sauce?) To keep up with the PS4...
Come on, dude. Be serious. Bro, be serious.
http://misterxmedia.livejournal.com/
The David Icke of videogames.
According to his insiders (aka the voices in his own head), the Xbox One is a 3-4TF machine, with dual GPUs and 64MB of ESRAM. It is just waiting for MS to release a special 'stereo driver' to unlock it.
I don't recall anyone ever calling it a "win" for Xbox. Only downplaying it. That would be preposterous.
I hate to defend the guy...but I think those that have spent the past few months blasting Leadbetterand his anti PS4 bias can now shut up...
The bias blind spot is the cognitive bias of failing to compensate for one's own cognitive biases
http://misterxmedia.livejournal.com/
The David Icke of videogames.
According to his insiders (aka the voices in his own head), the Xbox One is a 3-4TF machine, with dual GPUs and 64MB of ESRAM. It is just waiting for MS to release a special 'stereo driver' to unlock it.
It's not really comparable that way because the PS2 architecture was such an oddity that developer had to do all kinds of things to squeeze the power from it, but the upcoming consoles are straight up PCs where it won't take long to get the most of, and so won't be long before we see the full difference. Not in these launch games though that are being rushed for a deadline.So its safe to say the gap between the ps4 and xbone is like the gap between the ps2 and xbox? Bigger maybe?
I recall a few people saying 720p will scale better than 900p because of mathemagic in the Battlefield thread, but I don't know if there's any basis to that whatsoever.I don't recall anyone ever calling it a "win" for Xbox. Only downplaying it. That would be preposterous.
The differences are damn near impossible to see, besides one looking a lot cleaner and smoother, and the other seeming to have more visual pop with what seems a more aggressive lighting.
http://misterxmedia.livejournal.com/
The David Icke of videogames.
According to his insiders (aka the voices in his own head), the Xbox One is a 3-4TF machine, with dual GPUs and 64MB of ESRAM. It is just waiting for MS to release a special 'stereo driver' to unlock it.
Yes you can multitask on ps4. You cant put the console to sleep and resume game later not yet that will come later in a patch.Still to be seen how well the XO multitasking will work out. If it does then I'll be happy to sacrifice resolution to have multitasking without needing to suspend the game. Or has Sony announced the PS4 can run a game (not suspend it) while also browsing the web?
Don't know if people saw this already.
While this is true, it's a meaningless quibble because even you don't think the situation is the same this time. It's like somebody saying "I doubt the Seahawks will win by 200 points over the Raiders" and you responding "Well, don't forget about that old Georgia Tech game." It's a total non sequitur.However, it is an example of people paying "$100 more for less power" since (again) more people bought a PS2 after the GameCube launched....
Looking at it on my iPad. Holding it 4" away I can notice differences. Some of these are pro xbone as the textures on some objects (that seat fabric) look more defined and less washed out. Those cables in the distance sure are superior for fhe PS4 version.
Holding my iPad 10-12" away all I notice are diferences in textures and brightness and some other details changing.
Overall I would say the xbone version looks more like a blu-ray transfer with some visible film grain, which I prefer for movies.
I am sure I can't notice any difference when playing at my usual distance from TV nor would I be able to tell when not looking at both versions side by side.
It's not really comparable that way because the PS2 architecture was such an oddity that developer had to do all kinds of things to squeeze the power from it, but the upcoming consoles are straight up PCs where it won't take long to get the most of, and so won't be long before we see the full difference. Not in these launch games though that are being rushed for a deadline.
Overall I would say the xbone version looks more like a blu-ray transfer with some visible film grain, which I prefer for movies.
The XB1 version looks like someone just hired the sharpness option on your TV to the max. There seems to be no anti-aliasing filter on at all either.
Don't know if people saw this already.
I can agree with the sharpness option. It makes detail in texture more visible in the xbone version at a standard viewing distance. That detail is still there in the PS4 version but looks washed out when not looking very close. So this might be a fight of people playing close to huge monitor or sitting at standard viewing distance from a TV. I know which group is the majority here on GAF and which is in the real world.
I think I like the lower res look a little better (playing Alan Wake PC on TV lately and set res to 720p as I preferred the look over 1080p, just feels more 'natural' to me).
I can agree with the sharpness option. It makes detail in texture more visible in the xbone version at a standard viewing distance. That detail is still there in the PS4 version but looks washed out when not looking very close. So this might be a fight of people playing close to huge monitor or sitting at standard viewing distance from a TV. I know which group is the majority here on GAF and which is in the real world.
I think I like the lower res look a little better (playing Alan Wake PC on TV lately and set res to 720p as I preferred the look over 1080p, just feels more 'natural' to me).
I can agree with the sharpness option. It makes detail in texture more visible in the xbone version at a standard viewing distance. That detail is still there in the PS4 version but looks washed out when not looking very close. So this might be a fight of people playing close to huge monitor or sitting at standard viewing distance from a TV. I know which group is the majority here on GAF and which is in the real world.
I think I like the lower res look a little better (playing Alan Wake PC on TV lately and set res to 720p as I preferred the look over 1080p, just feels more 'natural' to me).
Yeah and the sharpness also makes it a pixel crawling jaggy festival of nightmares in motion...
I set 8ft from a 67" 1080p Samsung...which group am I in?
Are you going to deny the Xbone version is full of aliasing issues??...someone cue up that gif of the power lines!GAF Elite obviously. Upper 10,000. Whatever you want to call it. I am surprised 1080p is enough for you, I recommend PC + 4K TV.
They're there in the Xbox One version, in the exact same spot actually. They're just a much lighter color and blend into the sky. It's odd that they'd be a different color. Maybe a different implementation/shader or something.Symbolically, it's weird how there's more clouds in the PS4 version.
What does this even mean? How does lower resolution feel more natural? Is your vision in 720p?
This is kinda different discussion. What do you believe looks more "natural", a movie on a SD TV or Doom 1 in 1080p resolution? I would not be surprised if many here opt for the second option.
Resolution increases what people call the IQ but not the look of the "content". Higher IQ can make polygon edges look more smooth but it can't hide missing polygonal detail or effects/shaders/lighting. Especially faces still look far from realistic if you put them side by side with a photo. Higher resoultions just make these difference more obvious.
720p: It Just Feels More Natural.