Sony already beats MS on the visual front and quality of the games even when MS can use X1X that is stronger than PS4Pro to showcase their first party, and big part of the guilt would go to baseline X1.

So comes a new gen Sony first party go straight for PS5 (and sure thing may even do some enhanced version of their latest 2-3 years PS4 games to have a good start), 3rd parties will do crossgen no doubt, but first party haven't been focusing much on crossgen after finishing their last project that may have missed a gen only release (delays or the like).

Do you really think MS developing whatever game they may have to go on X1 baseline will look better even on Scarlet than whatever Sony puts exclusively on PS5?

I agree that Sony makes more visually impressive games. That may happen in the next gen as well, cinematic experiences has been Sony's focus. Quality or gameplay in general is very different though. I spend more time with Gears, Halo and Forza then pretty much any of Sony's stuff. That's because those MS IPs I mentioned are fun to play versus Sony's narrative driven games. Which is fine, I like that Sony and MS focus on different styles of games.

You're missing my point. I believe games can be built to function on a base X1 or PS4 and still offer next gen visuals on 9th gen hardware. Off the top of my head consider Crysis 3. If was designed to work on 7th gen but its still considered a great looking PC game because the PC version was truly the lead on visual effects and assets.

Or another title, Battlefield 4 which was crossgen. Again, built to function on 7th gen but the 8th gen version still shows a significant generational leap in performance, effects and assets.

Again, I'm just saying games can support last gen while looking much better on the next gen platform. I'm also not suggesting all games should be crossgen.

Fundamentally though it is the same game with some design limitations.

Crysis being a prime example...

Crysis 1 was built with PC hardware in mind first and foremost... Which meant various design philosophies were made possible for the first time, almost an open world, industry-leading graphics effects, physics, destruction, lots of freedom.

And then Crysis 2 dropped with it's console-optimized game engine, levels were smaller and more claustrophobic, less player choices, smaller draw distances and  didn't push the PC or technology front as hard. - It used more modern effects like deferred lighting, tessellation and so on... But Crysis 1 had a multitude of technical edges in the rendering department despite being on the older CryEngine 2.

This is an example where having to build a game with inferior platforms (from a technical perspective) can hold back a games design choices in an extreme case to the detriment of gameplay.

Crysis 3 did turn things around as Crytek placed the PC as the priority platform, but rendering wise it was still being hamstrung by 7th gen hardwares rendering paradigms... Imagine what that game could have potentially been if Crytek weren't spending time, resources and money on making sure the game ran efficiently on 7th gen hardware?

That is because it's using Path Tracing which can be "bolted on" easily to current games using screen-space data, games aren't being built from the ground-up with Ray Tracing in mind.

In-fact, Ray Tracing has been a technique that even some 7th gen titles used... Like. *Drum Beat* Crysis 3 with it's Cone Tracing... Ray Tracing isn't a new "thing". It only seems like it because nVidia has dedicated transistors to aid in rendering Ray Tracing and PC modders have taken it and ran with it, adding it to all the games.

...Exactly my point?

Er. Yeah. I do mean Dead Rising 3.

Many engines get iterative updates at the start of a generation as developers rush to support new features in the new generation, but try and support the older generation. - Which is why many games towards the 7th gen actually had a regression in visual quality towards the end of the cycle... As developers were leveraging more expensive dynamic effects that had to be deactivated for older devices.

But things like texture quality and geometric complexity didn't really increase much on the newer generation until the umbilical cord of the 7th gen was cut with most games and engines.

The pretty average hardware of the Xbox One didn't help matters either though, especially compounded with a reservation of hardware for Kinect/Other features.

But the point I am trying to convey is that certain game design choices need to be made in order to continue support for older devices.
But yes, we can agree, goes without saying as the precedent is there.

Maybe it should be a focus? Either way, the point is moot. We don't get to choose the CPU that console manufacturers opt for, but we can provide constructive criticism in the hopes that the Console manufacturers might do better next time around.

I am genuinely excited for the first time since the Original Xbox about what the increased CPU capabilities of next-gen consoles will mean.

Gears 5 should be pretty scalable... It is leveraging Unreal Engine which has shown to scale well between GCN performance tiers whilst being conservative with the CPU.
But... It's also Unreal Engine. - Not really a selling point for me.

The CPU is often tasked with driving visuals though...

I just want to leave behind the 8th gen sooner rather than later, obviously I won't get my way, console transitions take time for ecosystems to build up in population and be more commercially viable for developers to sell for.

Can it show a generational leap? Yes. I am not saying it is impossible.
I am saying that the leap would be larger if a game isn't being built for inferior platforms from the outset.

It will be interesting to see what concessions are made to Infinite on the base Xbox One, I am guessing significantly reduced rates of various components like character animations... Just like Halo 5.

Yeah. Game quality and gameplay is very subjective... And not an argument that is ever winnable.
I certainly prefer some PC exclusives over anything the consoles offer... But those same titles might put someone else to absolute sleep.

I'm in two minds on this; on the one hand, yeah, some crossgen 7th/8th gen games looked very pretty on PS4/Xbone like Far Cry 4 and COD Advanced Warfare. But on the other hand, those games still didn't really hold a candle to the best looking games actually made from the ground up for PS4/Xbone, like Ryse or Killzone Shadowfall.

Not great comparisons.

Far Cry 4 is an open world game, much more ambitious than games like Killzone:SF or Ryse. Yet it still had visuals fairly par with those 8th gen exclusives and more impressive in other ways.

When making comparison you should always consider 30 fps vs 60 fps. Advanced Warfare is a 60 fps game and visually is built around that.

Battlefield 4 on X1 and PS4 look arguably better than both Killzone:SF and Ryse. But since its a 60 fps game, it had to pull back on polish.

Honestly, I wouldn't say any crossgen games at all were in Ryse or Shadowfall's league.

Well I played all the games mentioned. You can give the edge to games like Killzone:SF and Ryse, but they're linear games aiming for 30 fps.

Its also worth noting the most ambitious game mentioned is Far Cry 4. Its a dynamic open world with tons of AIs running around, but it worked fine on 7th gen specs. Yet people seem to have impression we need 9th gen consoles to create experiences like that. I'm not sure why people think X1 is holding back a Halo game. What do they expect 9th gen specs to do for the series?

There is a noticeable technical difference though between games built for the 8th gen systems and those built as crossgen. Doubtless the same will apply to 8th and 9th gen systems, is all I'm saying.

The technical differences were more like effects and assets over game design. The only game at launch that really felt next gen was Dead Rising 3, albeit one of the most unpolished launch 8th gen exclusives.

I mean there are more ambitious games on 7th gen than Knack, Killzone:SF, Ryse and Forza 5 (Forza 4 with more bugs, less content and better graphics). We never saw anything quite like Dead Rising 3 on 7th gen though.

Sorry but quality Sony also had MS beat hands down this gen, it isn't even a point of opinion and preference. General public acclaim and reviewers would give the edge to Sony.

We are missing your point simply because you are wrong and won't accept it. Pemalite have gone the length to explain everything to you but you dismiss as "just better graphics that are easy to implement on the better HW, not being hold down by the baseline". Devs won't develop two maximized, well polished, quite different games to have the best possible on X1 and Scarlet at the same time. They will just like this gen, make the game work on X1 and them just give a pixel bump for Scarlet.

Sure you can have a significant difference between the two versions, but the more difference the more money expended and that is something third parties don't like very much. There is a reason for all the complains of parity between versions, and although people thought it was MS bribing the devs the truth was that they made a game that worked on both HW and them just gave some small touch ups, nothing extraordinary.

The more you keep expecting X1 baseline for games and that it won't impact the port on Scarlet the more you'll be disappointed.