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

Forums - Gaming Discussion - My gripe with cross gen comparison videos

S.T.A.G.E. on 02 October 2014
zarx said:
the biggest problem with them is that they use low bitrate 30 fps videos...

You ain't gonna see shit


BrokenGamezHD was talking about that. He plays his games at a higher resolution than 1080p 60FPS on his PC, but his recording only gets 30FPS.



Around the Network
archer9234 on 03 October 2014
S.T.A.G.E. said:
zarx said:
the biggest problem with them is that they use low bitrate 30 fps videos...

You ain't gonna see shit


BrokenGamezHD was talking about that. He plays his games at a higher resolution than 1080p 60FPS on his PC, but his recording only gets 30FPS.

Yes. Most capture won't allow 60fps recording at higher res. My Haup 2 GE only allows 60 fps at 720. It will not allow it 1080.



Dark_Feanor on 03 October 2014
vivster said:
It's just bad that the comparisons aren't showing how big the difference really is. Most people look at it in a tiny picture or vide and won't see a big difference. Of course they won't because on that scale everything looks the same. No one really takes the time to actually make them full screen to see the real difference.

To make this a bit better they should demand of their readers to view it in a realistic setting i.e. blown up in full on the screen.

I splash all to full screen and still can´t see past minor differences in backgrownd textures and shadows.

And I can only tell they are different not that one is better than the other.



JazzB1987 on 03 October 2014
S.T.A.G.E. said:

Source: http://kotaku.com/shadow-of-mordor-on-xbox-one-vs-ps4-vs-pc-1641755295?utm_campaign=Socialflow_Kotaku_Facebook&utm_source=Kotaku_Facebook&utm_medium=Socialflow

 

So Kotaku and Gamespot seem to want to follow in the footsteps of IGN showing comparisons over and over again for titles which we know might have some framerate disparity. IMHO it isn't that great to be honest and as long as the game runs smoothly i'm happy. Now, the biggest issue that I see with these comparisons is when the next gen begins and graphically leap isn't great enough to separate one generational version of a game from another it makes the point to me useless. It would be expected that in a new generation with a console that has the High level PC graphics output to put up great results for a cross gen game. There is not enough of a difference to make this news. If there was then maybe, but it isn't. If it is a current gen game, then lets see the difference between the PC, XBox One and PS4 because being that it was designed only for the new gen we know the consoles are being pushed. I wish they could understand this but is this just my gripe or does it feeling reside with anyone else?

Any thoughts?

 

P.S.

I also believe Kotaku will take any story they can get.



The comparison in the video is LOL


first why limit PC to 1080p?  And then why record with different black levels etc?  Its completely stupid to compare something when the footage looks so different contrast/brightness/saturation wise.



ArchangelMadzz on 03 October 2014

You will not see a massive difference from the end of one console life cycle to the beginning of another life cycle. What you're seeing at the end of a consoles life cycle is every ounce of power within them being squeezed out. If you truly want to compare hardware just look at the beginning of the PS360 life cycle and compare it to the beginning of the PS One and that's the pure hardware difference with very little optimization to skew results.



There's only 2 races: White and 'Political Agenda'
2 Genders: Male and 'Political Agenda'
2 Hairstyles for female characters: Long and 'Political Agenda'
2 Sexualities: Straight and 'Political Agenda'

Around the Network
archer9234 on 03 October 2014
JazzB1987 said:
S.T.A.G.E. said:

Source: http://kotaku.com/shadow-of-mordor-on-xbox-one-vs-ps4-vs-pc-1641755295?utm_campaign=Socialflow_Kotaku_Facebook&utm_source=Kotaku_Facebook&utm_medium=Socialflow

 

So Kotaku and Gamespot seem to want to follow in the footsteps of IGN showing comparisons over and over again for titles which we know might have some framerate disparity. IMHO it isn't that great to be honest and as long as the game runs smoothly i'm happy. Now, the biggest issue that I see with these comparisons is when the next gen begins and graphically leap isn't great enough to separate one generational version of a game from another it makes the point to me useless. It would be expected that in a new generation with a console that has the High level PC graphics output to put up great results for a cross gen game. There is not enough of a difference to make this news. If there was then maybe, but it isn't. If it is a current gen game, then lets see the difference between the PC, XBox One and PS4 because being that it was designed only for the new gen we know the consoles are being pushed. I wish they could understand this but is this just my gripe or does it feeling reside with anyone else?

Any thoughts?

 

P.S.

I also believe Kotaku will take any story they can get.



The comparison in the video is LOL


first why limit PC to 1080p?  And then why record with different black levels etc?  Its completely stupid to compare something when the footage looks so different contrast/brightness/saturation wise.

People take shortcuts. Half the time they just record everything from different devices. Nor do any calibration checks to see if they match both setups. Record, edit, upload for clicks.



bradley012345 on 03 October 2014

I hate them cause they add oil to the console war. Back when i was on PS3 i always used to watch those videos and wish i was getting the better experience but sadly i felt a tad bit ashamed that my console of preferred choice didn't look as good as the competition. Now that i have a PS4 im glad the graphics are better but am still a bit sad that the xbox isnt reaching the same visuals. Im a fan of PlayStation but not a Fanboy and i hate it how PlayStation players keep bashing in these videos



vivster on 03 October 2014
Dark_Feanor said:
vivster said:
It's just bad that the comparisons aren't showing how big the difference really is. Most people look at it in a tiny picture or vide and won't see a big difference. Of course they won't because on that scale everything looks the same. No one really takes the time to actually make them full screen to see the real difference.

To make this a bit better they should demand of their readers to view it in a realistic setting i.e. blown up in full on the screen.

I splash all to full screen and still can´t see past minor differences in backgrownd textures and shadows.

And I can only tell they are different not that one is better than the other.

Then there is nothing wrong with your eyes.



If you demand respect or gratitude for your volunteer work, you're doing volunteering wrong.