Quantcast
Should Halo Infinite drop Xbox One and go Scarlet exclusive?

Forums - Microsoft Discussion - Should Halo Infinite drop Xbox One and go Scarlet exclusive?

Tagged games:

Should it?

Yes, dump Xbone, next gen exclusive 22 34.38%
 
No, keep it cross gen with Xbone 42 65.63%
 
Total:64
Mr Puggsly said:
DonFerrari said: 

Sure there were demand, I bought Pro. Just didn't bought the better HW that X1X is because I mostly am interested in Sony exclusives and the few 3rd party I play wouldn't justify the extra cost. Unfortunatelly I'm not much into FPS or shotters in general where GoW and Halo would certainly be reason enough to buy it.

Of course the GPUs weren't impressive, but the CPU was even lower tier (but balanced for what they wanted on the gen, console games are much more GPU heavy), but needing to keep CPU the same for X1X and Pro (just small improvement to keep the processing for the improved pixel count) made most if not all games very limited.

Games are going to improve graphically, that is a marketing tool. So if the HW don't improve they will have to cut in other areas to keep the graphics improving.

Well the mid gen upgrades came when it was too soon to start a new gen but people wanted better graphics. I'm happy they came and my X1X will likely be a great way to play Halo Infinite.

I disagree, the CPU and GPU are fairly balanced in base hardware. Frankly, much of the bottle neck has been on the GPU which is why resolutions have varied and dynamic resolutions became common. People keep saying the 8th gen CPUs are too limited, but I don't think developers are even pushing its limits. I mean Just Cause 4 shouldn't exist if the CPUs were so limited.

In practice, it seems to me the CPUs in 8th gen consoles had enough power for what developers were generally looking to do. You have a theory and I don't feel evidence supports it.

I don't think graphics are just a marketing tool, its something many gamers care about. The 9th gen consoles will have vastly superior CPUs, but generally that will simply mean more 60 fps games.

Considering most games had bad drops in fps and some even passed long time below 30 while dynamic res and sub fullhd wasn't that problematic on ps4. gpu cpu were balanced, but when comparing to pc the cpu were lower tier to gpu.



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

Around the Network
DonFerrari said:
Mr Puggsly said:

Well the mid gen upgrades came when it was too soon to start a new gen but people wanted better graphics. I'm happy they came and my X1X will likely be a great way to play Halo Infinite.

I disagree, the CPU and GPU are fairly balanced in base hardware. Frankly, much of the bottle neck has been on the GPU which is why resolutions have varied and dynamic resolutions became common. People keep saying the 8th gen CPUs are too limited, but I don't think developers are even pushing its limits. I mean Just Cause 4 shouldn't exist if the CPUs were so limited.

In practice, it seems to me the CPUs in 8th gen consoles had enough power for what developers were generally looking to do. You have a theory and I don't feel evidence supports it.

I don't think graphics are just a marketing tool, its something many gamers care about. The 9th gen consoles will have vastly superior CPUs, but generally that will simply mean more 60 fps games.

Considering most games had bad drops in fps and some even passed long time below 30 while dynamic res and sub fullhd wasn't that problematic on ps4. gpu cpu were balanced, but when comparing to pc the cpu were lower tier to gpu.

We would have to look at games individually to assess why there were frame drops below 30 fps, but it was often bottleneck on the GPU. Sometimes it might just be poor optimization especially if its a relatively linear game, yet seemingly more complex games can hit 60 fps.

Its worth noting Just Cause 3 really struggled with console CPUs, while Just Cause 4 was a huge improvement. Look at Mass Effect 1 or Oblivion on 7th gen, that gave me the impression they were already fully utilizing the hardware. Then better optimized games came not long after that.

There are also games on the perform better on mid gen upgrades because much of the bottleneck was primarily on GPU.



Recently Completed
Crackdown 3
for X1S/X1X (4/5) - Infinity Blade III - for iPad 4 (3/5) - Infinity Blade II - for iPad 4 (4/5) - Infinity Blade - for iPad 4 (4/5) - Wolfenstein: The Old Blood for X1 (3/5) - Assassin's Creed: Origins for X1 (3/5) - Uncharted: Lost Legacy for PS4 (4/5) - EA UFC 3 for X1 (4/5) - Doom for X1 (4/5) - Titanfall 2 for X1 (4/5) - Super Mario 3D World for Wii U (4/5) - South Park: The Stick of Truth for X1 BC (4/5) - Call of Duty: WWII for X1 (4/5) -Wolfenstein II for X1 - (4/5) - Dead or Alive: Dimensions for 3DS (4/5) - Marvel vs Capcom: Infinite for X1 (3/5) - Halo Wars 2 for X1/PC (4/5) - Halo Wars: DE for X1 (4/5) - Tekken 7 for X1 (4/5) - Injustice 2 for X1 (4/5) - Yakuza 5 for PS3 (3/5) - Battlefield 1 (Campaign) for X1 (3/5) - Assassin's Creed: Syndicate for X1 (4/5) - Call of Duty: Infinite Warfare for X1 (4/5) - Call of Duty: MW Remastered for X1 (4/5) - Donkey Kong Country Returns for 3DS (4/5) - Forza Horizon 3 for X1 (5/5)

Mr Puggsly said:

I didn't mean YOU should buy Fable 3. Also, Since YOU already own it, MS doesn't need to sell it anymore.

You referenced me in that sentence. Here I will provide the appropriate quotation in bold:

Mr Puggsly said:

Go buy Fable 3 (or better yet, 2) on Xbox if the prospect of stealing upsets you.

So obviously I am going to ascertain that you were referencing me from the get go.
But sure... Backpedal and all that.

*****************

Mr Puggsly said:

The cool physics in Half Life 2 isn't what made that a great game though, it was more like a neat feature. In case you forgot by the way, I'm simply arguing you don't need a vast improvement in specs (like Scarlett) to make interesting new games. Hence, Halo Infinite wouldn't suddenly become a much more ambitious project if it were simply moved to Scarlett exclusively. Many 8th gen games feel derivative or smaller in scope than many 7th gen games.

The cool Physics in Half Life 2 certainly helped make it a great game, you take away all those small "touches" that were simply awesome... And you end up with a droll game like all the other clones at the time, it's the little things that set it apart from all the other shooters.

Halo Infinite specifically has already spent years in development with the anemic base Xbox One hardware in mind, thus even if Microsoft/343i were to remove base Xbox One support, the game will already be limited by that hardware unless years more of development work was spent to fully take advantage of newer hardware.

Mr Puggsly said:

X1X has untapped potential, but I wouldn't say its mostly wasted. Even if we argue it not properly utilized, it still delivers a better way to play X1 games. It takes a lot of GPU power to increase them to 1800p, 4K, or whatever.

If it's not properly utilized, then it's wasted.

That doesn't mean there aren't benefits to having an Xbox One X... But the bulk of benefits are resolution and framerates, even then... Many games that were 720P locked on the base Xbox One are locked to 720P on the Xbox One X unless there was a specific patch... It's less of an issue on the Sony side of the equation as 720P titles were an extreme rarity even during the early years.

I mean, lets take Dragon Age: Inquisition, it's a few years old at this point but it was a 1600x900 game on the base Xbox One and a full 1920x1080 on the base Playstation 4 Pro. - But because there isn't am enhanced patch for that title, the Playstation 4 variant of the game looks better than the Xbox One X. - It's wasted potential... A large part of that blame certainly lays on the developers though rather than the hardware itself.

It will be interesting to see if Microsoft will "enhance" titles from the Xbox One family of consoles with Scarlett by bumping up resolutions like they did with some Original Xbox and Xbox 360 titles.

Mr Puggsly said:

I disagree, the CPU and GPU are fairly balanced in base hardware. Frankly, much of the bottle neck has been on the GPU which is why resolutions have varied and dynamic resolutions became common. People keep saying the 8th gen CPUs are too limited, but I don't think developers are even pushing its limits. I mean Just Cause 4 shouldn't exist if the CPUs were so limited.

In practice, it seems to me the CPUs in 8th gen consoles had enough power for what developers were generally looking to do. You have a theory and I don't feel evidence supports it.

I don't think graphics are just a marketing tool, its something many gamers care about. The 9th gen consoles will have vastly superior CPUs, but generally that will simply mean more 60 fps games.

There are plenty of cases when physics and A.I Calculations increase that performance tanks, which is why a certain Assassins Creed game on the base Xbox One actually had the edge over the Playstation 4 version... Because the higher CPU clock and lower-latency eSRAM and DDR3 Ram gave the Xbox One an advantage in those scenarios.

As for the GPU's, they are clearly the shining star of the 8th gen devices.

But one thing we need to keep in mind is that consoles are a closed environment, so developers will work with whatever limited resources and bottlenecks they have in order to achieve various targets... So if we have anemic CPU's in the consoles, games will be developed with those in mind.

But when games end up ported to the PC, then developers are able to relax as they have orders-of-magnitude more hardware capability at their disposal, so we do get better Physics, Particles, A.I characters and so on than the console releases... And that is all thanks to the CPU.

Mr Puggsly said:
DonFerrari said:

Considering most games had bad drops in fps and some even passed long time below 30 while dynamic res and sub fullhd wasn't that problematic on ps4. gpu cpu were balanced, but when comparing to pc the cpu were lower tier to gpu.

We would have to look at games individually to assess why there were frame drops below 30 fps, but it was often bottleneck on the GPU. Sometimes it might just be poor optimization especially if its a relatively linear game, yet seemingly more complex games can hit 60 fps.

Its worth noting Just Cause 3 really struggled with console CPUs, while Just Cause 4 was a huge improvement. Look at Mass Effect 1 or Oblivion on 7th gen, that gave me the impression they were already fully utilizing the hardware. Then better optimized games came not long after that.

There are also games on the perform better on mid gen upgrades because much of the bottleneck was primarily on GPU.

Just Cause 4 took advantage of allot of more modern CPU instructions and became more parallel in it's CPU workloads, hence why it was a step up over Just Cause 3, there is still significant room for improvement though.

Oblivion though wasn't fully utilizing the Xbox 360/Playstation 3 hardware... The bulk of the work was done on 1 CPU core... I spent allot of time working with Oblivion to run it on Original-Xbox equivalent PC hardware. (Pentium 3+Geforce 3.) It looked like a dogs breakfast as I had to strip/reduce the shader effects and even went to the extent of polygon reductions in models...

It wasn't until Bethesda severely reworked large swathes of the Net Immerse turned Gamebryo turned Creation Engine with Skyrim that we saw better CPU utilization across all platforms, hence the relatively large leap in visuals and general simulation quality... But even on that front there is still substantial room for improvement, it doesn't scale well across more than a few threads... And the 7th gen had 6/7 threads to optimize for.

Last edited by Pemalite - on 15 July 2019

Pemalite said:
Mr Puggsly said:

I didn't mean YOU should buy Fable 3. Also, Since YOU already own it, MS doesn't need to sell it anymore.

You referenced me in that sentence. Here I will provide the appropriate quotation in bold:

Mr Puggsly said:

Go buy Fable 3 (or better yet, 2) on Xbox if the prospect of stealing upsets you.

So obviously I am going to ascertain that you were referencing me from the get go.
But sure... Backpedal and all that.

*****************

Mr Puggsly said:

The cool physics in Half Life 2 isn't what made that a great game though, it was more like a neat feature. In case you forgot by the way, I'm simply arguing you don't need a vast improvement in specs (like Scarlett) to make interesting new games. Hence, Halo Infinite wouldn't suddenly become a much more ambitious project if it were simply moved to Scarlett exclusively. Many 8th gen games feel derivative or smaller in scope than many 7th gen games.

The cool Physics in Half Life 2 certainly helped make it a great game, you take away all those small "touches" that were simply awesome... And you end up with a droll game like all the other clones at the time, it's the little things that set it apart from all the other shooters.

Halo Infinite specifically has already spent years in development with the anemic base Xbox One hardware in mind, thus even if Microsoft/343i were to remove base Xbox One support, the game will already be limited by that hardware unless years more of development work was spent to fully take advantage of newer hardware.

Mr Puggsly said:

X1X has untapped potential, but I wouldn't say its mostly wasted. Even if we argue it not properly utilized, it still delivers a better way to play X1 games. It takes a lot of GPU power to increase them to 1800p, 4K, or whatever.

If it's not properly utilized, then it's wasted.

That doesn't mean there aren't benefits to having an Xbox One X... But the bulk of benefits are resolution and framerates, even then... Many games that were 720P locked on the base Xbox One are locked to 720P on the Xbox One X unless there was a specific patch... It's less of an issue on the Sony side of the equation as 720P titles were an extreme rarity even during the early years.

I mean, lets take Dragon Age: Inquisition, it's a few years old at this point but it was a 1600x900 game on the base Xbox One and a full 1920x1080 on the base Playstation 4 Pro. - But because there isn't am enhanced patch for that title, the Playstation 4 variant of the game looks better than the Xbox One X. - It's wasted potential... A large part of that blame certainly lays on the developers though rather than the hardware itself.

It will be interesting to see if Microsoft will "enhance" titles from the Xbox One family of consoles with Scarlett by bumping up resolutions like they did with some Original Xbox and Xbox 360 titles.

Mr Puggsly said:

I disagree, the CPU and GPU are fairly balanced in base hardware. Frankly, much of the bottle neck has been on the GPU which is why resolutions have varied and dynamic resolutions became common. People keep saying the 8th gen CPUs are too limited, but I don't think developers are even pushing its limits. I mean Just Cause 4 shouldn't exist if the CPUs were so limited.

In practice, it seems to me the CPUs in 8th gen consoles had enough power for what developers were generally looking to do. You have a theory and I don't feel evidence supports it.

I don't think graphics are just a marketing tool, its something many gamers care about. The 9th gen consoles will have vastly superior CPUs, but generally that will simply mean more 60 fps games.

There are plenty of cases when physics and A.I Calculations increase that performance tanks, which is why a certain Assassins Creed game on the base Xbox One actually had the edge over the Playstation 4 version... Because the higher CPU clock and lower-latency eSRAM and DDR3 Ram gave the Xbox One an advantage in those scenarios.

As for the GPU's, they are clearly the shining star of the 8th gen devices.

But one thing we need to keep in mind is that consoles are a closed environment, so developers will work with whatever limited resources and bottlenecks they have in order to achieve various targets... So if we have anemic CPU's in the consoles, games will be developed with those in mind.

But when games end up ported to the PC, then developers are able to relax as they have orders-of-magnitude more hardware capability at their disposal, so we do get better Physics, Particles, A.I characters and so on than the console releases... And that is all thanks to the CPU.

Mr Puggsly said:

We would have to look at games individually to assess why there were frame drops below 30 fps, but it was often bottleneck on the GPU. Sometimes it might just be poor optimization especially if its a relatively linear game, yet seemingly more complex games can hit 60 fps.

Its worth noting Just Cause 3 really struggled with console CPUs, while Just Cause 4 was a huge improvement. Look at Mass Effect 1 or Oblivion on 7th gen, that gave me the impression they were already fully utilizing the hardware. Then better optimized games came not long after that.

There are also games on the perform better on mid gen upgrades because much of the bottleneck was primarily on GPU.

Just Cause 4 took advantage of allot of more modern CPU instructions and became more parallel in it's CPU workloads, hence why it was a step up over Just Cause 3, there is still significant room for improvement though.

Oblivion though wasn't fully utilizing the Xbox 360/Playstation 3 hardware... The bulk of the work was done on 1 CPU core... I spent allot of time working with Oblivion to run it on Original-Xbox equivalent PC hardware. (Pentium 3+Geforce 3.) It looked like a dogs breakfast as I had to strip/reduce the shader effects and even went to the extent of polygon reductions in models...

It wasn't until Bethesda severely reworked large swathes of the Net Immerse turned Gamebryo turned Creation Engine with Skyrim that we saw better CPU utilization across all platforms, hence the relatively large leap in visuals and general simulation quality... But even on that front there is still substantial room for improvement, it doesn't scale well across more than a few threads... And the 7th gen had 6/7 threads to optimize for.

I'm clarifying, I meant anybody uncomfortable with stealing products no longer for sale on PC. Give money to MS via Xbox instead. I didn't mean just you, because I know you own the product. Wanna keep talking about that? Feel free.

Those cool effects were achieved on the Xbox port of Half Life 2, albeit not as great as a gaming PC, but that's how I played it. 7th gen took what 6th gen was doing to the next level, while 8th gen was more like added polish. Some limitations of the 7th gen may have been overcome with additional RAM, there was evident bottleneck there.

I'll just keep it simple. Is the X1X an upgrade worth getting? I believe many who have it say yes. Therefore I don't think its being wasted. Personally I also like have access to more 60 fps content or more stable performance.

Again, your examples of what comes from better specs is more visual. There was also impressive use of physics in 7th gen content. Just depends on what developers are attempting to do.

My point about games like Just Cause 3, Mass Effect 1 and Oblivion was optimization matters. Many say the CPUs in 8th gen consoles are trash, but primarily on the X1X where GPU bottlenecks are less of an issue, it seems like a very capable CPU.

Last edited by Mr Puggsly - on 15 July 2019

Recently Completed
Crackdown 3
for X1S/X1X (4/5) - Infinity Blade III - for iPad 4 (3/5) - Infinity Blade II - for iPad 4 (4/5) - Infinity Blade - for iPad 4 (4/5) - Wolfenstein: The Old Blood for X1 (3/5) - Assassin's Creed: Origins for X1 (3/5) - Uncharted: Lost Legacy for PS4 (4/5) - EA UFC 3 for X1 (4/5) - Doom for X1 (4/5) - Titanfall 2 for X1 (4/5) - Super Mario 3D World for Wii U (4/5) - South Park: The Stick of Truth for X1 BC (4/5) - Call of Duty: WWII for X1 (4/5) -Wolfenstein II for X1 - (4/5) - Dead or Alive: Dimensions for 3DS (4/5) - Marvel vs Capcom: Infinite for X1 (3/5) - Halo Wars 2 for X1/PC (4/5) - Halo Wars: DE for X1 (4/5) - Tekken 7 for X1 (4/5) - Injustice 2 for X1 (4/5) - Yakuza 5 for PS3 (3/5) - Battlefield 1 (Campaign) for X1 (3/5) - Assassin's Creed: Syndicate for X1 (4/5) - Call of Duty: Infinite Warfare for X1 (4/5) - Call of Duty: MW Remastered for X1 (4/5) - Donkey Kong Country Returns for 3DS (4/5) - Forza Horizon 3 for X1 (5/5)

Should they ditch low settings on PC in favor of ultra settings?
> No!

Should they ditch a Xbox One version of Halo Infinite in favor of a Xbox Scarlet version?
> No!


Honestly i see no benefit in ditching the Xbox One version from a technical standpoint.
New console generations aren't that much more powerful compared to their previous generation as they used to be in the early days. You could never downgrade a Playstation 1 3D game to a SNES in a playable fashion. But you can very much downgrade current gen games like Doom or Wolfenstein to Nintendo Switch without losing too much of their vision. Or think about Rise of the Tomb Raider. A stunning looking game when it was released and yet it was possible to run on a Xbox 360.
Architectures of modern machines are very similar, so you don't have to rewrite huge parts of your engine to appease the specific hardware and modern engines are very scaleable too.
If developers target 4k resolutions and 60fps on the new console generation it will be even easier to downgrade them to current gen by simply halfing the framerate and quarter the resolution or go even lower, aside from lowering the overal details, because a lot of the extra power will be wasted for that.


So no, ditching the Xbox One version would be an absolutely dumb move because it would make no sense from a technical standpoint and would only limit the audience and the possible sales of the game.



Around the Network

The CPU in the Xbone (and the PS4 for that matter) was low end even in 2013, and by the time Scarlet and Infinite release that will be 7 years ago. When the biggest leap forward for your next gen platform is in the CPU department, you're not going to really be able to showcase that muscle if you have to accommodate a platform with a CPU that could be 8-12 times less capable. Granted, it's probably too late in the dev cycle to really take advantage of Zen 2 anyway, but still, its definitely going to limit Infinite's possibilities, that's a simple matter of fact.

Now, whether stronger hardware leads to better games is a whole 'nother matter; but it's not really debatable that accommodating the Jag is going to hold back the Scarlet version from what it could potentially be.

Last edited by curl-6 - on 16 July 2019

curl-6 said:

The CPU in the Xbone (and the PS4 for that matter) was low end even in 2013, and by the time Scarlet and Infinite release that will be 7 years ago. When the biggest leap forward for your next gen platform is in the CPU department, you're not going to really be able to showcase that muscle if you have to accommodate a platform with a CPU that could be 8-12 times less capable. Granted, it's probably too late in the dev cycle to really take advantage of Zen 2 anyway, but still, its definitely going to limit Infinite's possibilities, that's a simple matter of fact.

Now, whether stronger hardware leads to better games is a whole 'nother matter; but it's not really debatable that accommodating the Jag is going to hold back the Scarlet version from what it could potentially be.

The CPU needs of PC and consoles are evidently not equal given what the 8th gen consoles accomplished. We see ambitious AAA games hitting 60 fps for example, yet we have to pretend its a trash CPU?

Halo Infinite on X1 isnt holding back Scarlett because this was not a project created for Scarlett. We also dont know how this game could better utilize the Scarlett's CPU. For example, maybe some modes will have lower frame rates that can only be improved by Scarlett.

We could say Halo 1, 2, 3 and 4 doesent take advantage of the X1 because they were built for 360. But I feel those games make great use of the increased CPU and GPU power of X1. I look at MCC as the definitive way to play those games because it actually has the power to achieve 60 fps with 1080p/4K. That is seemingly what the Halo Infinite on Scarlett will be but with better assets as well.

Edit: You were too late. I already had the response open.



Recently Completed
Crackdown 3
for X1S/X1X (4/5) - Infinity Blade III - for iPad 4 (3/5) - Infinity Blade II - for iPad 4 (4/5) - Infinity Blade - for iPad 4 (4/5) - Wolfenstein: The Old Blood for X1 (3/5) - Assassin's Creed: Origins for X1 (3/5) - Uncharted: Lost Legacy for PS4 (4/5) - EA UFC 3 for X1 (4/5) - Doom for X1 (4/5) - Titanfall 2 for X1 (4/5) - Super Mario 3D World for Wii U (4/5) - South Park: The Stick of Truth for X1 BC (4/5) - Call of Duty: WWII for X1 (4/5) -Wolfenstein II for X1 - (4/5) - Dead or Alive: Dimensions for 3DS (4/5) - Marvel vs Capcom: Infinite for X1 (3/5) - Halo Wars 2 for X1/PC (4/5) - Halo Wars: DE for X1 (4/5) - Tekken 7 for X1 (4/5) - Injustice 2 for X1 (4/5) - Yakuza 5 for PS3 (3/5) - Battlefield 1 (Campaign) for X1 (3/5) - Assassin's Creed: Syndicate for X1 (4/5) - Call of Duty: Infinite Warfare for X1 (4/5) - Call of Duty: MW Remastered for X1 (4/5) - Donkey Kong Country Returns for 3DS (4/5) - Forza Horizon 3 for X1 (5/5)

Mr Puggsly said:
curl-6 said:

The CPU in the Xbone (and the PS4 for that matter) was low end even in 2013, and by the time Scarlet and Infinite release that will be 7 years ago. When the biggest leap forward for your next gen platform is in the CPU department, you're not going to really be able to showcase that muscle if you have to accommodate a platform with a CPU that could be 8-12 times less capable. Granted, it's probably too late in the dev cycle to really take advantage of Zen 2 anyway, but still, its definitely going to limit Infinite's possibilities, that's a simple matter of fact.

Now, whether stronger hardware leads to better games is a whole 'nother matter; but it's not really debatable that accommodating the Jag is going to hold back the Scarlet version from what it could potentially be.

The CPU needs of PC and consoles are evidently not equal given what the 8th gen consoles accomplished. We see ambitious AAA games hitting 60 fps for example, yet we have to pretend its a trash CPU?

Halo Infinite on X1 isnt holding back Scarlett because this was not a project created for Scarlett. We also dont know how this game could better utilize the Scarlett's CPU. For example, maybe some modes will have lower frame rates that can only be improved by Scarlett.

We could say Halo 1, 2, 3 and 4 doesent take advantage of the X1 because they were built for 360. But I feel those games make great use of the increased CPU and GPU power of X1. I look at MCC as the definitive way to play those games because it actually has the power to achieve 60 fps with 1080p/4K. That is seemingly what the Halo Infinite on Scarlett will be but with better assets as well.

Edit: You were too late. I already had the response open.

I stand by my statement, but as evidenced by my edit, I don't care enough about it to enter into a debate.



curl-6 said:

I stand by my statement, but as evidenced by my edit, I don't care enough about it to enter into a debate.

Okay... but one last thing.

PC exclusive games still exist. Yet I can't seem to think of any between 2013-2019 that really push PC CPUs in way that's innovative or changes the gaming experience. It seems in gaming powerful CPUs are primarily just for making games run north of 120 fps.

I look forward to 9th gen having more CPU power so 60 fps becomes almost standard and maybe split screen becomes easier to achieve. Essentially I want more CPU power for practical purposes. I don't really expect big changes in how games are GENERALLY designed just because there is more CPU power per se.

I mean not every game is gonna be an open world experience with tons of complex NPCs, tons of water particles engulfing the city and every building crumbling like the Crackdown 3 prototype. I mean it sounds cool as fuck, but its just not practical or necessary for the typical game.



Recently Completed
Crackdown 3
for X1S/X1X (4/5) - Infinity Blade III - for iPad 4 (3/5) - Infinity Blade II - for iPad 4 (4/5) - Infinity Blade - for iPad 4 (4/5) - Wolfenstein: The Old Blood for X1 (3/5) - Assassin's Creed: Origins for X1 (3/5) - Uncharted: Lost Legacy for PS4 (4/5) - EA UFC 3 for X1 (4/5) - Doom for X1 (4/5) - Titanfall 2 for X1 (4/5) - Super Mario 3D World for Wii U (4/5) - South Park: The Stick of Truth for X1 BC (4/5) - Call of Duty: WWII for X1 (4/5) -Wolfenstein II for X1 - (4/5) - Dead or Alive: Dimensions for 3DS (4/5) - Marvel vs Capcom: Infinite for X1 (3/5) - Halo Wars 2 for X1/PC (4/5) - Halo Wars: DE for X1 (4/5) - Tekken 7 for X1 (4/5) - Injustice 2 for X1 (4/5) - Yakuza 5 for PS3 (3/5) - Battlefield 1 (Campaign) for X1 (3/5) - Assassin's Creed: Syndicate for X1 (4/5) - Call of Duty: Infinite Warfare for X1 (4/5) - Call of Duty: MW Remastered for X1 (4/5) - Donkey Kong Country Returns for 3DS (4/5) - Forza Horizon 3 for X1 (5/5)

Mr Puggsly said:

I'm clarifying, I meant anybody uncomfortable with stealing products no longer for sale on PC. Give money to MS via Xbox instead. I didn't mean just you, because I know you own the product. Wanna keep talking about that? Feel free.

If you feel you need to backpedal to save face, go for it.

Mr Puggsly said:

Those cool effects were achieved on the Xbox port of Half Life 2, albeit not as great as a gaming PC, but that's how I played it. 7th gen took what 6th gen was doing to the next level, while 8th gen was more like added polish. Some limitations of the 7th gen may have been overcome with additional RAM, there was evident bottleneck there.

That is exactly my point.
Halo Life 2 on PC didn't have requirements that dramatically outstripped the original Xbox, hence why it was such a solid port... But the extra CPU overhead did enable some new graphical and gameplay mechanics.

Ram is always a bottleneck, you can never have to much, it can never be fast enough.

Mr Puggsly said:

I'll just keep it simple. Is the X1X an upgrade worth getting? I believe many who have it say yes. Therefore I don't think its being wasted. Personally I also like have access to more 60 fps content or more stable performance.

I never stated the Xbox One X wasn't a console worth getting... For some it certainly is the best purchase right now.
The bulk of it's improvements over other consoles is just resolution and framerate though... And not everyone actually gives a crap about those, hence the Nintendo Switch and Wii being such a success.

Mr Puggsly said:

Again, your examples of what comes from better specs is more visual. There was also impressive use of physics in 7th gen content. Just depends on what developers are attempting to do.

Visual fidelity adds to gameplay, better visuals can drive up the realism which bolsters immersion allowing you to get lost in a games world.

They aren't disconnected as much as you think.

Mr Puggsly said:

My point about games like Just Cause 3, Mass Effect 1 and Oblivion was optimization matters. Many say the CPUs in 8th gen consoles are trash, but primarily on the X1X where GPU bottlenecks are less of an issue, it seems like a very capable CPU.

Jaguar is trash, no two ways about it.
The Xbox One X is certainly GPU limited because it's chasing 4k... At 4k you are always GPU limited even on PC, but that doesn't mean the CPU isn't a bottleneck either, far from it.

Mr Puggsly said:

The CPU needs of PC and consoles are evidently not equal given what the 8th gen consoles accomplished. We see ambitious AAA games hitting 60 fps for example, yet we have to pretend its a trash CPU?

As consoles become more PC like and the PC gets more console liked... And the baseline hardware of the consoles haven't shifted much on the CPU side of the equation... The CPU needs of the PC is stagnating for gaming.
I mean shit... I have a Core 2 Quad PC as a spare/test/modding rig that is running 8th gen games, that wouldn't have happened if the 8th gen consoles had decent CPU's.

If you were to point to any other console generation transition you would have needed to upgrade your CPU at-least once... People with rigs from a decade ago can still play the latest games.

Mr Puggsly said:

We could say Halo 1, 2, 3 and 4 doesent take advantage of the X1 because they were built for 360. But I feel those games make great use of the increased CPU and GPU power of X1. I look at MCC as the definitive way to play those games because it actually has the power to achieve 60 fps with 1080p/4K. That is seemingly what the Halo Infinite on Scarlett will be but with better assets as well.

Edit: You were too late. I already had the response open.

Halo 1,2,3 and 4 are clearly last generation games held back by last generation technology in terms of scope and mechanics though, the Master Chief Collection "touches them up" a little, but it's not entirely a new or better experience.

Also I don't think all the titles in the MCC are 1080P/4k either. Halo 2 was 1328x1080 on base hardware, no idea what it is on the Xbox One X, I would assume dynamic? Can't be arsed looking it up.

Mr Puggsly said:

PC exclusive games still exist. Yet I can't seem to think of any between 2013-2019 that really push PC CPUs in way that's innovative or changes the gaming experience. It seems in gaming powerful CPUs are primarily just for making games run north of 120 fps.

I don't think you pay enough to the PC to make such an assessment though.

Ashes of the Singularity, 2016. - Direct X 12 and a CPU showcase.

Mr Puggsly said:

I look forward to 9th gen having more CPU power so 60 fps becomes almost standard and maybe split screen becomes easier to achieve. Essentially I want more CPU power for practical purposes. I don't really expect big changes in how games are GENERALLY designed just because there is more CPU power per se.

I mean not every game is gonna be an open world experience with tons of complex NPCs, tons of water particles engulfing the city and every building crumbling like the Crackdown 3 prototype. I mean it sounds cool as fuck, but its just not practical or necessary for the typical game.

60fps is not going to be guaranteed... Having a more powerful CPU is also not going to guarantee 60fps. - Because you know what also influences framerates? GPU. - If you are GPU limited you are still not going to get 60fps.

You have a render time budget remember.