By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
thismeintiel said:
d21lewis said:

And this is why I don't think 720p vs 1080p is a big deal (a welcome improvement nonetheless).  I've been around for a loooong time.  I've seen Nes vs Master system where the Nes was so weak that many games couldn't even handle two players.  I've seen Super Nes vs Genesis where Genesis games didn't even have animations in the background or voices.  Some Genesis fighting games didn't even have as many characters as their Super Nes counterparts.  Then again, the Genesis and its faster processor could run certain games that made the Super Nes flicker and slow down.  I've seen PS1 vs N64 where the PS1 games had much more music or CGI cutscenes while the N64 game had still pictures with subtitles.  I've seen Gamecube vs Xbox vs Playstation 2 where Gamecube games like SSX Tricky missed out on many of the bonus featurettes or a game like True Crime didn't have as many missions or sound track songs as the PS2/Xbox version (which is why I traded my Gamecube version for the PS2 version!).  Xbox games had to have levels redesigned and leave out features just to run on the Gamecube and PS2. Resident Evil 4 on PS2 left out a lot of graphical detail that the Gamecube version had.  There were even some minor examples in the PS3 vs Xbox 360 (and definitely the Wii) where one version had features that the other didn't (ie: pressure sensitive buttons in MGS HD).  Dead Rising on Wii was a totally different game than the Xbox game because the Wii just couldn't handle as many characters on screen.

Those, to me, were REAL differences!  Those things may very well be issues again as the Wii U struggles to have features found in Xbox 360/PS3 versions of games and the PS4 is obviously more powerful than Xbox One.  When/if the PS4 has games that have like more characters on screen or smoke comes from a pipe in the PS4 version and not on the Xbox One version--that's the kind of thing I look for.  I played Arkham Asylum on PS3 and Xbox 360 at the same time and (aside from exclusive DLC), the PS3 had things like smoke coming from pipes that the Xbox 360 version didn't.  It effected my buying decision.  I got Arkham Origins on Wii U and PS3 and it definitely looks noticeably sharper on PS3 plus it has online mode.  

THAT'S A BIG DEAL TO ME!  When it comes to me and my personal opinion, one version slightly sharper (1080p vs 720p) doesn't even register.  And that's the source of my entire argument in this thread.  Like I said before, I have a TV with a Wii U, PS3, Xbox 360, DirecTV, and PC connected to it.  Of course all of them are set for 1080p, even if the content is sub-1080p.  I want the best and, comparing PS4 to Xbox One, PS4 offers the better option.  I admit that.  It's just not that big of a deal FOR ME.

I'll have my PS4 when Tomb Raider releases.  See ya online.

And here your arguments are getting silly.  Smoke coming out of pipes is a BIG DEAL to you?  Even if the games are around the same graphical quality?  Yet, pushing twice the pixels, with better AA (so incredibly less jaggies), at native 1080p isn't?  And if you actually went through the games together, you would probably find things that the One version is missing.  Been awhile since I read the DF analysis, so they may have pointed some of those out.

Let's be honest, again, here.  Consoles of the past have always been different architecturally, but have been pretty close when it came to graphical capability (many of your big deals involve format limitations, not what the system was capable of, though that is also important.)  They each had their positives and negatives when compared to their competition.  I'd say the biggest difference we've had in a gen was the PS2 vs Xbox.  Though, after playing Doom 3 (even on the PS3) those claims were a little overblown.

This gen, we have two systems that have the same x86 architecture, same CPU, and the same brand of GPUs (Radeon), so the comparisons between parts and their performance has never been easier.  And its the first time that a system seems to have NO negatives when compared to its closest competition.  The PS4 has faster RAM (more of which is available to devs), unified RAM, and a much beefier GPU.  So, once we get even more demaning games, you will start to see them scale back what they do on the Xbox One (maybe even cut back on smoke coming out of pipes ) to get the game running on it, while trying to push out the same polycount and texture quality as the PS4 counterpart.

A quick side note about some of your points in the first paragraph.  Not sure which Genesis fighting game had fewer characters than their SNES counterpart, since it was the SNES that had HW limitations concerning that type of thing.  At least, that was the excuse given when Final Fight for SNES was released with only 2 characters, instead of 3, and didn't have 2 player co-op.  May have just been a BS excuse.  I also wouldn't put too much into the difference's between the PS2 and GC RE4, as it was probably a quick port.  When the director says they will kill themselve if it comes out on anything but the Gamecube, something tells me they aren't going to pour their souls into a PS2 port.


Off the top of my head, TMNT Tournamen Fighters had more characters on Snes than Genesis. I think TMNT Turtles in Time was missing levels in the Genesis version, too.  And out of everything I posted, your only concern was the steaming pipes in Arkham Asylum?  Not the exclusive DLC I mentioned?  (though I did wind up getting the 360 version, too. I loved that game so much.)

 

Anyway, how about we agree to disagree?



Around the Network
J_Allard said:
brendude13 said:

Then he's not just calling others out for it, he's putting everyone in the same boat. I don't recall him saying Sony fans didn't do the same in the past.

As for him engaging in the same behaviour, that's your opinion. I think his stance on 720p vs 1080p has been reasonable, and pretty much in line with what everybody thought before all this next-gen cock waving began.

You don't talk down to people if you're right there "in the same boat". And his reply about how what he said "actually happening" could easily be interpreted as what I said didn't actually happen. And really no point in continuing this exchange if you're going to say my comment about the behavior is opinion, LOL.

You lost me.

Stating your opinion as fact and adding "LOL" at the end of your comment. Come on.



d21lewis said:

And this is why I don't think 720p vs 1080p is a big deal (a welcome improvement nonetheless).  I've been around for a loooong time.  I've seen Nes vs Master system where the Nes was so weak that many games couldn't even handle two players.  I've seen Super Nes vs Genesis where Genesis games didn't even have animations in the background or voices.  Some Genesis fighting games didn't even have as many characters as their Super Nes counterparts.  Then again, the Genesis and its faster processor could run certain games that made the Super Nes flicker and slow down.  I've seen PS1 vs N64 where the PS1 games had much more music or CGI cutscenes while the N64 game had still pictures with subtitles.  I've seen Gamecube vs Xbox vs Playstation 2 where Gamecube games like SSX Tricky missed out on many of the bonus featurettes or a game like True Crime didn't have as many missions or sound track songs as the PS2/Xbox version (which is why I traded my Gamecube version for the PS2 version!).  Xbox games had to have levels redesigned and leave out features just to run on the Gamecube and PS2. Resident Evil 4 on PS2 left out a lot of graphical detail that the Gamecube version had.  There were even some minor examples in the PS3 vs Xbox 360 (and definitely the Wii) where one version had features that the other didn't (ie: pressure sensitive buttons in MGS HD).  Dead Rising on Wii was a totally different game than the Xbox game because the Wii just couldn't handle as many characters on screen.

Those, to me, were REAL differences!  Those things may very well be issues again as the Wii U struggles to have features found in Xbox 360/PS3 versions of games and the PS4 is obviously more powerful than Xbox One.  When/if the PS4 has games that have like more characters on screen or smoke comes from a pipe in the PS4 version and not on the Xbox One version--that's the kind of thing I look for.  I played Arkham Asylum on PS3 and Xbox 360 at the same time and (aside from exclusive DLC), the PS3 had things like smoke coming from pipes that the Xbox 360 version didn't.  It effected my buying decision.  I got Arkham Origins on Wii U and PS3 and it definitely looks noticeably sharper on PS3 plus it has online mode.  

THAT'S A BIG DEAL TO ME!  When it comes to me and my personal opinion, one version slightly sharper (1080p vs 720p) doesn't even register.  And that's the source of my entire argument in this thread.  Like I said before, I have a TV with a Wii U, PS3, Xbox 360, DirecTV, and PC connected to it.  Of course all of them are set for 1080p, even if the content is sub-1080p.  I want the best and, comparing PS4 to Xbox One, PS4 offers the better option.  I admit that.  It's just not that big of a deal FOR ME.

I'll have my PS4 when Tomb Raider releases.  See ya online.


Lots of contradictions here.

You can notice noticeable difference of sharpness in two 720p versions of the same game (because of better AF on PS3 probably) but 2.25 times more pixels doesn't register? and you don't have a PS4?

I don't have a PS4. But I sure have read all the positive posts everywhere on Internet (not just on console war forums like here), where people where really impressed by the noticeable difference in playing game 720p versus 1080p or even 900p versus 1080p (for COD, AC4 and BF4 mainly).

Quick question, is you TV a real native 1080p? Because I have also a TV which says "1080p" when I output 1080p games but I know for a fact it is a downsampled image because this TV is native 768p. That's why you can't see difference between 720p and 1080p.



globalisateur said:


Lots of contradictions here.

You can notice noticeable difference of sharpness in two 720p versions of the same game (because of better AF on PS3 probably) but 2.25 times more pixels doesn't register? and you don't have a PS4?

I don't have a PS4. But I sure have read all the positive posts everywhere on Internet (not just on console war forums like here), where people where really impressed by the noticeable difference in playing game 720p versus 1080p or even 900p versus 1080p (for COD, AC4 and BF4 mainly).

Quick question, is you TV a real native 1080p? Because I have also a TV which says "1080p" when I output 1080p games but I know for a fact it is a downsampled image because this TV is native 768p. That's why you can't see difference between 720p and 1080p.

Well yeah, if you just point out samples, then it does appear to be contradictions.  Thing is, in the case of Arkham Origins, the Wii U version is actually a graphical downgrade for the Wii U version of Arkham City.  It's an anti-aliasing issue,not a resolution issue.  The PS3 version is smoother.  Plus, I got it for free with The Last of Us when I got another PS3 on Black Friday.  The game is still the same and it has the exclusive Knightfall DLC plus the online mode that the Wii U version was lacking.  The sharpness of the picture in Arkham Origins is noticeable but still, compared to the other things the Wii U version was missing, the anti-aliasing was the least of my concerns.  And even though I have the PS3 version of Origins, I still got the "Initiation" DLC on the Wii U because I preferred the Wii U's touch screen map.

 

I said that compared to the REAL differences that consoles had in the past, resolution didn't register.  I'd rather have 100% of the game at a lower resolution than 80%-90% of certain games as we've experienced in past generations.  The experience is still the same.  Of course, PS4 owners will have the whole experience and the best presentation.  I feel like I'm repeating myself and banging my head against the wall. 

Here's an analogy:  say a video game is a movie.  The Xbox One is a DVD and the PS4 is a Blu Ray.  At the end of the day, you've still seen the entire movie.  In the past, imagine having two different formats of the same movie--one version left out certain scenes or certain lines of dialog or special effects.  That would be unacceptable, right?  So, if you still follow me, what I'm saying is I'd be more concerned with the missing content than the sharpness of the image, espescially if both of them are technically HD.  

So, as I'll say again, resolution is the least of my concerns.  I'm more concerned with content.  If both versions of the game have the same content, I'm happy.  When/If the PS4 version of a game has realistic water and the Xbox One version has plastic looking water, or if the ground on a PS4 game looks like actual dirt and the Xbox One version looks less real, THEN I'll be concerned.  Who knows?  That day may come.  Right now, I don't see it.

And no, I don't have a PS4 yet.  I was tempted to buy one yesterday but decided I'd be better off waiting until a game I actually want to play is available.  The only game I see on the horizon for either PS4 or Xbox One is Tomb Raider--which I already own on Xbox 360.  It's better than nothing, I guess.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And yeah, my TV is a real 1080p LED HDTV.  I put a lot of effort into finding a great one, even made a thread here on VGChartz and looked up comparisons on CNet and Endgadget before making the purchase.  I know that even though the TV is set for 1080p, most of the content running on my TV isn't 1080p but I'm okay with that.



d21lewis said:
thismeintiel said:

And here your arguments are getting silly.  Smoke coming out of pipes is a BIG DEAL to you?  Even if the games are around the same graphical quality?  Yet, pushing twice the pixels, with better AA (so incredibly less jaggies), at native 1080p isn't?  And if you actually went through the games together, you would probably find things that the One version is missing.  Been awhile since I read the DF analysis, so they may have pointed some of those out.

Let's be honest, again, here.  Consoles of the past have always been different architecturally, but have been pretty close when it came to graphical capability (many of your big deals involve format limitations, not what the system was capable of, though that is also important.)  They each had their positives and negatives when compared to their competition.  I'd say the biggest difference we've had in a gen was the PS2 vs Xbox.  Though, after playing Doom 3 (even on the PS3) those claims were a little overblown.

This gen, we have two systems that have the same x86 architecture, same CPU, and the same brand of GPUs (Radeon), so the comparisons between parts and their performance has never been easier.  And its the first time that a system seems to have NO negatives when compared to its closest competition.  The PS4 has faster RAM (more of which is available to devs), unified RAM, and a much beefier GPU.  So, once we get even more demaning games, you will start to see them scale back what they do on the Xbox One (maybe even cut back on smoke coming out of pipes ) to get the game running on it, while trying to push out the same polycount and texture quality as the PS4 counterpart.

A quick side note about some of your points in the first paragraph.  Not sure which Genesis fighting game had fewer characters than their SNES counterpart, since it was the SNES that had HW limitations concerning that type of thing.  At least, that was the excuse given when Final Fight for SNES was released with only 2 characters, instead of 3, and didn't have 2 player co-op.  May have just been a BS excuse.  I also wouldn't put too much into the difference's between the PS2 and GC RE4, as it was probably a quick port.  When the director says they will kill themselve if it comes out on anything but the Gamecube, something tells me they aren't going to pour their souls into a PS2 port.


Off the top of my head, TMNT Tournamen Fighters had more characters on Snes than Genesis. I think TMNT Turtles in Time was missing levels in the Genesis version, too.  And out of everything I posted, your only concern was the steaming pipes in Arkham Asylum?  Not the exclusive DLC I mentioned?  (though I did wind up getting the 360 version, too. I loved that game so much.)

 

Anyway, how about we agree to disagree?

Tournament Fighters was basically a completely different across all platforms, with different characters.  It did have 2 fewer characters, but considering Ultimate MK3 had the same amount of players as the SNES, plus more stages, I'm guessing it was a design choice.  And technically, Turtles In Time wasn't made for the Genesis.  They got a game called Hyperstone Heist, which borrowed many gameplay elements from Turtles In Time, but was its own game. 

As for the exclusive DLC, that's more a business decision.  I was trying to focus more on things that were changed due to HW.  And yes, we can agree to disagree. 



Around the Network
brendude13 said:
J_Allard said:

And yet at the same time, what I said is also exactly what happened. Which was the morale of the story.  You can sit and say "well lulz ur just downplaying cuz ur console is weak" or whatever but that creates the equally valid point that you're only making it a big deal now because the disparity exists right now. It's known as the pot calling the kettle black. Or, you're throwing stones in your glass house. etc etc.

And please, "close to a last gen game"? No need for such hyperbole if you were actually making a valid point.

Or maybe you can tell me I am wrong and you actually did not own a PS2 or a PS3 or a GCN or a Wii or a Wii U? Or a PSone or etc etc? I guess it's only this gen that a slight graphics advantage on some games matters. Why? Because that advantage is for your toy of choice. Carry on preaching down to others for being part of that same charade though, toodles.

That's not his point at all. His point was that Xbox and Ninty fans did exactly the same things when they were in the same situation.


That is called aswering what you want and ignoring what don't make your point.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

I'm not a tech guy but i'm able to say people who dont see the huge difference in BF4 are just blind, it's shimmering to death on X1 !!



Predictions for end of 2014 HW sales:

 PS4: 17m   XB1: 10m    WiiU: 10m   Vita: 10m

 

brendude13 said:
J_Allard said:
brendude13 said:
J_Allard said:

And yet at the same time, what I said is also exactly what happened. Which was the morale of the story.  You can sit and say "well lulz ur just downplaying cuz ur console is weak" or whatever but that creates the equally valid point that you're only making it a big deal now because the disparity exists right now. It's known as the pot calling the kettle black. Or, you're throwing stones in your glass house. etc etc.

And please, "close to a last gen game"? No need for such hyperbole if you were actually making a valid point.

Or maybe you can tell me I am wrong and you actually did not own a PS2 or a PS3 or a GCN or a Wii or a Wii U? Or a PSone or etc etc? I guess it's only this gen that a slight graphics advantage on some games matters. Why? Because that advantage is for your toy of choice. Carry on preaching down to others for being part of that same charade though, toodles.

That's not his point at all. His point was that Xbox and Ninty fans did exactly the same things when they were in the same situation.

I know that was his point. And my point is he is engaging in the exact same type of behavior, so why bother trying to call others out for it.

Then he's not just calling others out for it, he's putting everyone in the same boat. I don't recall him saying Sony fans didn't do the same in the past.

As for him engaging in the same behaviour, that's your opinion. I think his stance on 720p vs 1080p has been reasonable, and pretty much in line with what everybody thought before all this next-gen cock waving began.


I think the problem is that very few games ran at 1080p on the consoles, so saying you wanted it on your console was kind of a moot point, and as hardware evolve our expectations on it change over time as well, otherwise why have a new console generation at all? (These consoles bring much more than better graphics to the table, the entire experience of owning them is better) however for most games the graphical upgrade will be the first thing you notice... Even on the weaker console it's obvious people pay attention to it, just look how Ryse is brought up by xb1 fans every chance they got... Same for forza 5..  Now imagine a version of ryse running at a better frame rate and 1080p, it would be just ad boring, but very impressive to see! Forza with less jaggies and maybe night/day cycles! Etc...



Actually, I got my first 1600 x 1200 PC monitor back in 1999 and have been playing games at that resolution since that time!



alabtrosMyster said:

Actually, I got my first 1600 x 1200 PC monitor back in 1999...

Which model?