Support NeoGAF

[toddhunter]

The flaw in this is that you're solely focusing on hardware numbers, but if you look at past NPD's heck even today you can see where it hurt Sony the most, and is still feeling it (the software sales).

Quite correct. For this context of call of duty? It might also play a significant role in driving PS+ versus xbox live sales.

Another game might come along and dethrone COD, but if a "better" version helps the PS4 become the home of next-gen COD it could have repercussions for years to come.

For example are you going to buy Titanfall, a multiplayer only game if you are signed up to play COD on the PS4? Regular gamers may not understand why their friend told them to go for the PS4, but they'll probably still do it.

 

[Robbok]

We arl rdaedy know.
Titfall also.
not cooll2 hodl back on tstuff we acnt interact r tel truaths with, evnev if itns the job to obs>ffducate.


translaperncy is berter when dealing wtih this positition. whataev er tho

 

[Metfanant]

I'm saying that the end product is a lot more important than the statistic. Simple fact is that the single player campaigns of both KZ:SF and Ryse are on a par, and they're both running at the same frame rate.

Even if we say that they are equal in visual fidelity...

Then let's imagine what Ryse looks like if it has to render the extra 633,600 pixels...

Or the extra bells and whistles KZ could have if it didn't need to worry about those pixels...

 

[killatopak]

I'm saying that the end product is a lot more important than the statistic. Simple fact is that the single player campaigns of both KZ:SF and Ryse are on a par, and they're both running at the same frame rate.

Woah woah woah! You're telling me that if 2 games runs at the same frame rate, they're on par?

Guys, don't bother buying more than 1 30fps game they're all essentially the same. Especially sports games.

Spoiler

/s

Seriously though if you think fps is the only metric in games you're very wrong.

 

[IHaveCandy]

I'm saying that the end product is a lot more important than the statistic. Simple fact is that the single player campaigns of both KZ:SF and Ryse are on a par, and they're both running at the same frame rate.

You're also calling two things equal when there is a large resolution gap and when the multiplayer is running at 60 FPS. If this is merely a comparison of technical prowess, Killzone leads.

 

[AlexEfy]

When we were kids, we would go crazy talking things like how many bits this guy's console is, how many colors that guy's graphics card could display, how many sound samples an Amiga could play, how much better CD-ROM games look compared to floppy games.. You really underestimate kids' tendency to boast about having something superior and how much buzz it can create.

Dude i agree but I'm talking the average joe COD player isn't going care or even notice. I think we forget sometimes that there are hundreds of thousands of gamers out there who don't read gaf or any media outlet they just buy shit that gets advertised, hence that shitty gearbox aliens game selling a good few copies when we all knew it was a turd.

Vinny made a great point on the bombcast a few weeks back when his cousins back east didn't know that MS had done a full 180 on their original policies, they cited this as the reason they are buying a PS4.

All i'm saying is we live in a bubble were 1080p and 60fps matters but we do not make for the majority of the people playing video games

 

[not_so_special]

That machine will be 800$ next year and 400$ year after that.

.

im pretty sure you will be playing pc games at 4k max settings and 60 fps at 800$ and 400$


yeah..im pretty sure...

and the whole "only gaf cares" yeah..that was used when microsoft tried all the drm bullshit..."only gaf cares" my ass,if the news spreads and the people have the perception of the difference in power...people will care

 

[OlympicTechno]

Seems to me that this is just lazy developing, IW didn't want to tackle the ESRAM situation and decided that the average gamer wouldn't take notice (the main CoD fan base).

 

[Goku]

PS3 arguably is more powerful than the x360, it was just more harder to develop for.
Ps3 also had bluray, much much better [Read future proof] than the xbox's DVD, and the ps3 won Sony the HD format war.
But it is still considered a failure because it came from total market domination to fighting for a distant second place, pretty much till till the Wii fell from grace.

There is seemingly a clear unbridgeable gap between the XB1 and ps4. So unless XB1's HDMI in takes off or we get a Kinect sales explosion, or we get consumers opting for the xb1 games such as titanfall, the xb1 seems to be a tougher sell than the PS3 ever was.

No.Yes.

The flaw in this is that you're solely focusing on hardware numbers, but if you look at past NPD's heck even today you can see where it hurt Sony the most, and is still feeling it (the software sales).

I disagree.

 

[Toxa]

If by glorious you mean awful, then agreed.

GAF was in peace during PS2 days.
Gaf is still waiting for a console that could bring order and balance the world like the PS2 did

 

[Jack cw]

Dude i agree but I'm talking the average joe COD player isn't going care or even notice. I think we forget sometimes that there are hundreds of thousands of gamers out there who don't read gaf or any media outlet they just buy shit that gets advertised...

"Dude, why are you buying the shitty version of this game?"

 

[MysticGoujon]

Um, no, it's not just as good looking. At least not in pure technical terms.

The only people I've ever heard try and argue that Ryse competes with Killzone: Shadow Fall are Xbox fans. You may prefer the art style of Ryse, but that's a completely subjective argument. What we REALLY want to compare is the objective technical metrics: polygon counts per frame, texture resolution, texture variety, shader complexity, lighting, and scale of the maps. Oh, and screen resolution, also. Killzone: Shadow Fall, at 1080p, seems to trump Ryse (900p) on a purely technical level, and it does so with larger-scale maps, and more complex enemy AI. Let's also not forget that Shadow Fall's multiplayer runs at 60fps, and still manages to look stunning.

Again, we're not arguing what "looks better" artistically, because that's a subjective argument. But it's only logical that Killzone: Shadow Fall would handily beat Ryse in terms of pure technical visual fidelity, since it's already a known fact that the PS4 is a significantly more powerful machine than the Xbox One.

That's exactly what I don't want to compare. The basis of this discussion is that games on the PS4 are going to look much better than the Xbox One to the everyday user. I'm saying they're not, and Ryse is evidence of that, it looks every bit as good as Killzone, arguably better in places, and it's more than enough proof that the Xbox won't be "left behind" by a "significantly more powerful machine"

My point about art style was that that'll be a bigger decider between first party games than graphics in my opinion, and the decision between which game will look better to an end user will come down to their preference in art style. Personally I love both ancient rome and sci-fi, but sci-fi is probably my favourite.

 

[NemesisPrime]

kinda like how the master race has been bragging about their 16 gb rams and 8gb vrams yet they're stuck with the same ai, animation, and physics engines as the console owners in majority of their games? higher resolution, yay. better graphical effects, yay. those pc specs can do more than those. devs could've crammed in the best animations, the most intelligent ai, the most sophisticated physics engines, yet what? pc skyrim and console skyrim are the same experience. same dumbshit pathfinding ai, same repetitive animations, same arcadey physics. with master race specs, one would've assumed it's more than just for looking prettier or running faster. too bad the arma games come out every 3 years.

EmptySpace digresses.

I agree and that was my point.... and isn't this what people are arguing over here? I am glad you said this. People are focusing on this as if the X1 is total shit and the Ps4 is the incarnation of Buddha. I expect interesting stuff from both consoles for various reasons...

Next gen (console) gaming should be about new things, better AI, better blah blah, not just running looking prettier and faster that current gen.

That's exactly what I don't want to compare. The basis of this discussion is that games on the PS4 are going to look much better than the Xbox One to the everyday user. I'm saying they're not, and Ryse is evidence of that, it looks every bit as good as Killzone, arguably better in places, and it's more than enough proof that the Xbox won't be "left behind" by a "significantly more powerful machine"

Indeed. Well said.

 

[killatopak]

No 2D games. The controller was awful. Texture shimmering in every single game made my eyes bleed. No patches meant that bugs and glitches stayed in the game forever (problem not unique to PS2 obviously, but rectified with later consoles). The superambitious PC devs from late 90s were either closing shop or switching to streamlined console games development. Of course, the worst thing about the console is that its library is just dull.

Blatantly false.

lollololol. Odin Sphere says hello.

So wrong on so many levels. Everything before PS2 was shit too right? smh

Library is dull? You could not be more subjective than this.

 

[goonergaz]

Last gen:
Arrogant Sony, overpriced, complicated hardware, late out of the gates.
Aggresive MS, price advantage, uncomplicated hardware, year head start

Last gen sales ended neck and neck, but in reality - even with all the above Sony outsold MS year on year since PS3 came out.

This gen:
Humble Sony, price advantage, uncomplicated hardware, launching at the same time
Arrogant MS, overpriced, complicated hardware, confusing messages, weaker hardware

This time round Sony have all the advantages.

Back OT, it does make you think MS purposefully didn't go with Xbox 720 due to this technical limitation...and as pointed out, whilst in the early days it probably doesn't mean too much - long term I can see the XBO looking 'old' much quicker than PS4.

 

[Metfanant]

im pretty sure you will be playing pc games at 4k max settings and 60 fps at 800$ and 400$


yeah..im pretty sure...

This is the problem with the "master race"

 

[MysticGoujon]

Woah woah woah! You're telling me that if 2 games runs at the same frame rate, they're on par?

Guys, don't bother buying more than 1 30fps game they're all essentially the same. Especially sports games.

Spoiler

/s

Seriously though if you think fps is the only metric in games you're very wrong.

That's not at all what I was saying, everyone kept saying that Killzone was running at 60fps, when that's only the multiplayer, not the single player

 

[Jburton]

Now that 2K is having a conference today I am bracing myself for another thread. "PS4 version of NBA 2K14 1080p hi res textures, Xbox One 720p!"

Is NBA 2K coming out on Xbone?

 

[Goku]

Um, no, it's not just as good looking. At least not in pure technical terms.

The only people I've ever heard try and argue that Ryse competes with Killzone: Shadow Fall are Xbox fans. You may prefer the art style of Ryse, but that's a completely subjective argument. What we REALLY want to compare is the objective technical metrics: polygon counts per frame, texture resolution, texture variety, shader complexity, lighting, and scale of the maps. Oh, and screen resolution, also. Killzone: Shadow Fall, at 1080p, seems to trump Ryse (900p) on a purely technical level, and it does so with larger-scale maps, and more complex enemy AI. Let's also not forget that Shadow Fall's multiplayer runs at 60fps, and still manages to maintain a high standard of visual fidelity.

Again, we're not arguing what "looks better" artistically, because that's a subjective argument. But it's only logical that Killzone: Shadow Fall would handily beat Ryse in terms of pure technical visual fidelity, since it's already a known fact that the PS4 is a significantly more powerful machine than the Xbox One.


Not even close. I wouldn't put Ryse in the top 5 most technically impressive games of the next-gen. It doesn't even look nearly as impressive as the footage we've seen of Destiny, and that's a multiplatform game.

Lol, so much nope.

 

[Keihart]

If by glorious you mean awful, then agreed.

PS2 days...awful?... i can't even... i mean...what?

 

[IHaveCandy]

That's not at all what I was saying, everyone kept saying that Killzone was running at 60fps, when that's only the multiplayer, not the single player

You say that like its somehow a small thing. Multiplayer is biggest selling point of this game and where FPS is most critical.

 

[MysticGoujon]

Even if we say that they are equal in visual fidelity...

Then let's imagine what Ryse looks like if it has to render the extra 633,600 pixels...

Or the extra bells and whistles KZ could have if it didn't need to worry about those pixels...

You're also calling two things equal when there is a large resolution gap and when the multiplayer is running at 60 FPS. If this is merely a comparison of technical prowess, Killzone leads.

As I keep saying, I'm talking about the end product, not the specs. If Killzone would have looked better at 900p with more bells and whistles they would have done it, however they decided the opposite was true. Crytek on the other hand decided 1080p would look better than a few more bells and whistles. It's quite simple really. I come back to my only point here, both games look equally as impressive.

 

[Bgamer90]

"Only GAF will care" is just a comfort blanket at this point.

It probably wont change much for Ghosts, but it could absolutely have an effect on whatever COD is next and what platform people decide to play it on.

We'll see; that is if this is true.

Madden on the PS3 still did well after the whole 30 FPS on PS3 but 60 FPS on the Xbox 360 fiasco.

Think the same will be true of COD (again, if this is true). The series is just too big.

 

[Always-honest]

Wow,...

Again: predicting a tsunami of pre-order cancellations.
This will hit mainstream news.


Any gaffers who cancelled their preorder allready?

 

[MysticGoujon]

You say that like its somehow a small thing. Multiplayer is biggest selling point of this game and where FPS is most critical.

No I don't, I'm comparing the graphics, and the graphics look best in single player, hence the clarification. 60FPS for FPS multiplayer is 100% the right thing to do.

 

[Goku]

Last gen:
Arrogant Sony, overpriced, complicated hardware, late out of the gates.
Aggresive MS, price advantage, uncomplicated hardware, year head start

Last gen sales ended neck and neck, but in reality - even with all the above Sony outsold MS year on year since PS3 came out.

This gen:
Humble Sony, price advantage, uncomplicated hardware, launching at the same time
Arrogant MS, overpriced, complicated hardware, confusing messages, weaker hardware

This time round Sony have all the advantages.

Back OT, it does make you think MS purposefully didn't go with Xbox 720 due to this technical limitation...and as pointed out, whilst in the early days it probably doesn't mean too much - long term I can see the XBO looking 'old' much quicker than PS4.

I would call the PS3 expensive, not overpriced, because it's actually a decent price concidering the hardware it packs.

 

[Honey Bunny]

It is hilarious to watch the sides switch when it comes to the issue of multiplat technical differences. I'm not talking about the games themselves, but the arguments from each companies' supporters. The exact same arguments we've heard for the entire gen*, but coming from the opposite sides of the fence this time. Xbox fans using Playstation fan's testimonials about the differences being so small as to not matter and Playstation fans using those tried and tested rebuttals Xbox fans used against their own testimonials for years. Oh boy.


edit: and now we have PS fans saying how multiplats are the best way to determine power, and XB fans mentioning the exclusives instead. Hah. Love it.

*less so towards the end as PS3 dev became less of a minefield

 

[sTaTIx]

It's worrying, but then I look at Ryse and think maybe it won't be that big an issue.

Ryse, to me at least, looks like a generational leap title. Same for DR3, KZ, Knack.

The problem is that Crytek is an anomaly of a developer. They are extremely talented at creating engines, making games look good, and pushing the limits of a system. They've been pushing the graphical envelope of their respective platforms since 2004. When Far Cry 1 came out 9 years ago, it was already exceeding other high-profile FPS games, even ones that came out later like DOOM 3, and Half-Life 2.

Crysis 2 came out in 2011 for the dusty and antiquated 360 and PS3, and managed to be one of the most impressive looking titles of the generation, with a variety of advanced shader effects (albeit with a compromised sub-720p resolution and shaky framerate).

The point is that 95% of developers out there won't have the talent, know-how, or capability like Crytek does to push the Xbox One as far as they already have.

 

[szaromir]

lollololol. Odin Sphere says hello.

So wrong on so many levels. Everything before PS2 was shit too right? smh

Library is dull? You could not be more subjective than this.

Of course I'm subjective, I'm talking about my experience with the console.

 

[flipswitch]

Dumb down the fish A.I, get rid of the dynamic flea system they got running on the dog and we'll easily hit the target resolution of 900p.

 

[Chobel]

That's exactly what I don't want to compare. The basis of this discussion is that games on the PS4 are going to look much better than the Xbox One to the everyday user. I'm saying they're not, and Ryse is evidence of that, it looks every bit as good as Killzone, arguably better in places, and it's more than enough proof that the Xbox won't be "left behind" by a "significantly more powerful machine"

My point about art style was that that'll be a bigger decider between first party games than graphics in my opinion, and the decision between which game will look better to an end user will come down to their preference in art style. Personally I love both ancient rome and sci-fi, but sci-fi is probably my favourite.

You can't compare exclusives because they're using different techniques and artstyles, you could say Ryse is better than killzone but then someone else will say ryse is 900p and KZ is 1080p. The best games to compare are multipat games.

 

[killatopak]

Lol, so much nope.

I disagree with your disagreeing.

 

[Ashes]

No.

I guess a slew of ps3 exclusives pushing ahead in recent years is cause x360 developers are lazy or something. Unless of course you don't think these exclusives titles did push ahead, and continue to do so even this year.
Regardless, the Digital Foundary guys seem to have shifted from x360 being given 'victory' after 'victory' in the early years, to almost no difference, to whatever their their stance is now.

 

[IHaveCandy]

As I keep saying, I'm talking about the end product, not the specs. If Killzone would have looked better at 900p with more bells and whistles they would have done it, however they decided the opposite was true. Crytek on the other hand decided 1080p would look better than a few more bells and whistles. It's quite simple really. I come back to my only point here, both games look equally as impressive.

You realize you're just pulling stuff out of thin air, right? Why can't you just recognize that a large resolution gap is significant when discussing being "left behind"?

 

[Metfanant]

As I keep saying, I'm talking about the end product, not the specs. If Killzone would have looked better at 900p with more bells and whistles they would have done it, however they decided the opposite was true. Crytek on the other hand decided 1080p would look better than a few more bells and whistles. It's quite simple really. I come back to my only point here, both games look equally as impressive.

Wait what!?...so you're saying...that if GG lowered the native res of KZ they would not be able to improve the graphics in other areas?

GG set out from the get go for 1080p and designed their game accordingly...sacrifices in other areas were made to do so...

 

[LiquidSolid]

This is what is wrong with gaming today. People judge games by spec sheets.

Who are you talking to? They were specifically talking about the graphics, so how else are they meant to be compared? The 'feel' of 1080p and 60fps?

 

[Steroyd]

Dude i agree but I'm talking the average joe COD player isn't going care or even notice. I think we forget sometimes that there are hundreds of thousands of gamers out there who don't read gaf or any media outlet they just buy shit that gets advertised, hence that shitty gearbox aliens game selling a good few copies when we all knew it was a turd.

Vinny made a great point on the bombcast a few weeks back when his cousins back east didn't know that MS had done a full 180 on their original policies, they cited this as the reason they are buying a PS4.

All i'm saying is we live in a bubble were 1080p and 60fps matters but we do not make for the majority of the people playing video games

But that's if that average joe lives in an isolated bubble, if he asks a friend who so much as used google for a little bit of product research, and he tells that average joe that the PS4 is better (no detailed reason), it'll build up an undesirable narrative against Microsoft, much like how it happened against Sony's early days with the PS3.

I disagree.

Wait what? So you're saying that because someone bought the Xbox 360 version of a game instead of a PS3 version of a game hence Sony not getting licensing fees from said copy, it didn't hurt Sony overall?

As much as I applaud Sony for pulling a rabbit out their ass on hardware sales, you can't ignore how much money they lost in the process.

 

[Goku]

Even if we say that they are equal in visual fidelity...

Then let's imagine what Ryse looks like if it has to render the extra 633,600 pixels...

Or the extra bells and whistles KZ could have if it didn't need to worry about those pixels...

Dude, the whole point is that Ryse doesn't render extra 633600 pixels yet looks at least as good as KZSF.

 

[AlexEfy]

"Dude, why are you buying the shitty version of this game?"

"Dude, why are you buying this shitty game get BF4"

 

[Gemüsepizza]

We'll see; that is if this is true.

Madden on the PS3 still did well after the whole 30 FPS on PS3 but 60 FPS on the Xbox 360 fiasco.

Think the same will be true of COD (again, if this is true). The series is just too big.

But there won't be an "after". If devs choose to make the next CoD 1080p on X1 they have to reduce other graphical settings to achieve this. The X1 can't ever reach the exact same fidelity as the PS4 version.

 

[toddhunter]

You can't compare exclusives because they're using different techniques and artstyles, you could say Ryse is better than killzone but then someone else will say ryse is 900p and KZ is 1080p. The best games to compare are multipat games.

The interesting comparison would be a cryengine game on both platforms. Without it, you are pretty much comparing engines rather than relative console strength.

Once we see what Crytek can do on the PS4 we'll know what the real situation is.

But there won't be an "after". If devs choose to make the next CoD 1080p on X1 they have to reduce other graphical settings to achieve this. The X1 can't ever reach the exact same fidelity as the PS4 version.

Not necessarily, because they may significantly change the engine...and probably will at some point once they stop supporting previous consoles.

 

[Jburton]

Lol, so much nope.

What's wrong with what he states, technically K:SF trumps any launch game either on PS4 or Xbone.

 

[crun]

master race triumphing over consoles once again


if launch games are 720p it pretty much means zero 1080p games. just look on ps3 games, it had some 1080p at the beggining with less and less every year

 

[sTaTIx]

As I keep saying, I'm talking about the end product, not the specs. If Killzone would have looked better at 900p with more bells and whistles they would have done it, however they decided the opposite was true. Crytek on the other hand decided 1080p would look better than a few more bells and whistles. It's quite simple really. I come back to my only point here, both games look equally as impressive.

But they don't. The only people I've ever heard claim Ryse is as technically impressive as Killzone: Shadow Fall are Xbox fans.

Never mind that fact that Ryse is only 900p and 30fps. Let's also consider that Ryse is an extremely linear and scripted game, with tons of QTE gameplay. It's much easier to make a game have pretty visuals when your scope is so limited.

 

[Mihael Mello Keehl]

Is NBA 2K coming out on Xbone?

Of course why wouldnt it?

 

[Gertso]

The only reason for running at 900p is because they couldn't hit their render target and maintain the framerate so they lowered the resolution. That's it.

 

[Marvel]

Dumb down the fish A.I, get rid of the dynamic flea system they got running on the dog and we'll easily hit the target resolution of 900p.

 

[Aztechnology]

But that's if that average joe lives in an isolated bubble, if he asks a friend who so much as used google for a little bit of product research, and he tells that average joe that the PS4 is better (no detailed reason), it'll build up an undesirable narrative against Microsoft, much like how it happened against Sony's early days.

I agree somewhat, however I think you're forgetting cognitive dissonance, I mean look at apple.

 

[Dinjooh]

No 2D games. The controller was awful. Texture shimmering in every single game made my eyes bleed. No patches meant that bugs and glitches stayed in the game forever (problem not unique to PS2 obviously, but rectified with later consoles). The superambitious PC devs from late 90s were either closing shop or switching to streamlined console games development. Of course, the worst thing about the console is that its library is just dull.

Blatantly false.

Spoiler

Har-har-har-har-har-har!

 

[Ashes]

We'll see; that is if this is true.

Madden on the PS3 still did well after the whole 30 FPS on PS3 but 60 FPS on the Xbox 360 fiasco.

Think the same will be true of COD (again, if this is true). The series is just too big.

I actually agree with this. And Activision are probably hoping for this too.