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
Pemalite said:
Mr Puggsly said:

Supporting X1/X1X is very different than a low end/stripped down Scarlett. If a low end Scarlett were to exist, that may become a baseline for developers. If there is only one Scarlett, the high end model, that becomes the lead hardware for Scarlett development.

While X1/X1X ports doesn't necessarily need to affect games that use Scarlett as the lead. Developers would simply have to strip those games down into functional products for 8th gen specs. But this is assuming MS will keep bringing AAA games to X1 after Scarlett launches.

The transition to the 9th gen is going to take years... Just like the transition from 7th to 8th gen... Many games just looked like enhanced 7th gen titles early on.
So for years, the base Xbox One will be the baseline for developers on Scarlett.

A lower-end Scarlett would still be a step up and won't be the baseline until that transition was entirely completed.

Now to state that developers will build games for Scarlett as a lead platform and strip them down for the Xbox One/Xbox One S/Xbox One X, but not a lower-end Scarlett is a pretty bold claim, one that I can't adhere to.

Will be interesting to see how Microsoft supports the 8th gen devices once Scarlett is on the Market, I am hoping for a quick cut-off.

Mr Puggsly said:

Alright, you're saying Halo 3 has frame pacing issues that evidently isn't reflected in frame counters. Okay, that's fine. Perhaps the frame pacing issues that really bothers people is what you see in Halo Anniversary on 360.

I think we can blame the lack of polish in GTAV being from early hardware optimization.

Correct, because the frame time variances happens far to quickly for frame counters to typically log.

Frame pacing issues also occurs in Halo: Anniversary on 360. - I think it just feels more pronounced on Halo 3 and Halo 3 ODST because of the way the buffering systems are set up. (Which were a necessity for some rendering aspects.)

Back during Halo 3's heyday, I didn't really care though, it was a fantastic title that I sunk hundreds of hours into and had a blast in it's multiplayer... And it was a visual showpiece for the platform with it's HDR lighting, tessellated water effects, long (for the time) draw distances and so on... But going back to it doesn't feel great, it's a better experience on Halo: The Master Chief Collection with it's 60fps lock.

That is a testament to the MCC collection as a package though and why any Halo fan should pick a copy up over the original releases... Unless you are a purest.

Well we have to assume its gonna take years for developers to really squeeze the potential out of new machines. Engines will improve, it seems developers adopt more advanced effects over time, etc.

I dont necessarily see it as the transition from generations takes time per se, I see it as trends in development changes. I mean early, mid and late gen content has looked very different on 7th and 8th gen.

Its evident that around 2013-2014 games were already using the 8th gen consoles as the lead. Cross gen games of that period remind me of Switch ports. It was simply obvious the 7th gen ports were getting muddy and compromising resolution more than usual, but also pushing more advanced lighting/shadow techniques.

I don't know if X1 and PS4 will be treated as lead platforms for AAA projects, perhaps more on the CPU and RAM. They could do that while still pushing graphics because that scales more easily.

Its worth considering X1 and PS4 support could deter some studios from making ambitious experiences that absolutely require 9th gen power. However, I also feel developers are interested in pushing GPU more than CPU. I just don't feel CPU has really been a very limiting factor on gameplay most developers are trying to create.

I'm suggesting if a low end Scarlett did exist, that could be treated as the baseline for Scarlett software optimization. If there is only one Scarlett and it has more cutting edge specs, that becomes the baseline Scarlett optimization. In comparison games are optimized for X1, not X1X.

I took another look at that Halo 3 video from VGTech and youre right. What youre referring to is a slight judder that may not even happen in some places, it actually is reflected in that video. When most games have frame pacing issues its constant which makes the experience feel rough. Halo 3 in comparison is nothing like that, so I didnt consider it frame pacing.

People might play 360 versions of Halo for MP stuff like playlists, crossplat for 360 and X1 users, fire fight modes from ODST, achievments, maybe forge stuff, etc. Some of that may seem minor but 360 versions have activity.



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)

Around the Network
Mr Puggsly said:
Pemalite said:

The transition to the 9th gen is going to take years... Just like the transition from 7th to 8th gen... Many games just looked like enhanced 7th gen titles early on.
So for years, the base Xbox One will be the baseline for developers on Scarlett.

A lower-end Scarlett would still be a step up and won't be the baseline until that transition was entirely completed.

Now to state that developers will build games for Scarlett as a lead platform and strip them down for the Xbox One/Xbox One S/Xbox One X, but not a lower-end Scarlett is a pretty bold claim, one that I can't adhere to.

Will be interesting to see how Microsoft supports the 8th gen devices once Scarlett is on the Market, I am hoping for a quick cut-off.

Correct, because the frame time variances happens far to quickly for frame counters to typically log.

Frame pacing issues also occurs in Halo: Anniversary on 360. - I think it just feels more pronounced on Halo 3 and Halo 3 ODST because of the way the buffering systems are set up. (Which were a necessity for some rendering aspects.)

Back during Halo 3's heyday, I didn't really care though, it was a fantastic title that I sunk hundreds of hours into and had a blast in it's multiplayer... And it was a visual showpiece for the platform with it's HDR lighting, tessellated water effects, long (for the time) draw distances and so on... But going back to it doesn't feel great, it's a better experience on Halo: The Master Chief Collection with it's 60fps lock.

That is a testament to the MCC collection as a package though and why any Halo fan should pick a copy up over the original releases... Unless you are a purest.

Well we have to assume its gonna take years for developers to really squeeze the potential out of new machines. Engines will improve, it seems developers adopt more advanced effects over time, etc.

I dont necessarily see it as the transition from generations takes time per se, I see it as trends in development changes. I mean early, mid and late gen content has looked very different on 7th and 8th gen.

Its evident that around 2013-2014 games were already using the 8th gen consoles as the lead. Cross gen games of that period remind me of Switch ports. It was simply obvious the 7th gen ports were getting muddy and compromising resolution more than usual, but also pushing more advanced lighting/shadow techniques.

I don't know if X1 and PS4 will be treated as lead platforms for AAA projects, perhaps more on the CPU and RAM. They could do that while still pushing graphics because that scales more easily.

Its worth considering X1 and PS4 support could deter some studios from making ambitious experiences that absolutely require 9th gen power. However, I also feel developers are interested in pushing GPU more than CPU. I just don't feel CPU has really been a very limiting factor on gameplay most developers are trying to create.

I'm suggesting if a low end Scarlett did exist, that could be treated as the baseline for Scarlett software optimization. If there is only one Scarlett and it has more cutting edge specs, that becomes the baseline Scarlett optimization. In comparison games are optimized for X1, not X1X.

I took another look at that Halo 3 video from VGTech and youre right. What youre referring to is a slight judder that may not even happen in some places, it actually is reflected in that video. When most games have frame pacing issues its constant which makes the experience feel rough. Halo 3 in comparison is nothing like that, so I didnt consider it frame pacing.

People might play 360 versions of Halo for MP stuff like playlists, crossplat for 360 and X1 users, fire fight modes from ODST, achievments, maybe forge stuff, etc. Some of that may seem minor but 360 versions have activity.

I'll just say that if MS focus baseline on X1 while sony dump it and go for PS5 (after the release of Death Stranding, TLOU2 and Ghost of Tsushijima all games that haven't been announced are already being made for PS5 and with time to have releases on the first year) the gap on the games will be pretty big and the bloodshed won't be pretty.



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

DonFerrari said:

I'll just say that if MS focus baseline on X1 while sony dump it and go for PS5 (after the release of Death Stranding, TLOU2 and Ghost of Tsushijima all games that haven't been announced are already being made for PS5 and with time to have releases on the first year) the gap on the games will be pretty big and the bloodshed won't be pretty.

Just speculation and nobody thinks the 8th gen hardware is gonna go completely unsupported when 9th gen consoles launch.

Even if some games are built to function on a X1, they could still have vastly superior visuals and performance on Scarlett and maybe add features for the CPU disparity. It could also be the opposite where games are built for Scarlett but a scaled back port for X1 is feasible.



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:

Well we have to assume its gonna take years for developers to really squeeze the potential out of new machines. Engines will improve, it seems developers adopt more advanced effects over time, etc.

Of course. That goes without saying.

Mr Puggsly said:

I dont necessarily see it as the transition from generations takes time per se, I see it as trends in development changes. I mean early, mid and late gen content has looked very different on 7th and 8th gen.

The trends in development are typically enabled by new baseline hardware. - We see it on the PC every time the consoles finally catch up in regards to technological feature sets.

PC was dabbling in Tessellation back in 2010, but it wasn't a mainstream tech feature in games/engines until the 8th gen dropped years later with the hardware feature sets to support it. - I mean we can go back farther to when the PC first started dabbling in Tessellation back when the Playstation 2 was on the market...

Mr Puggsly said:

Its evident that around 2013-2014 games were already using the 8th gen consoles as the lead. Cross gen games of that period remind me of Switch ports. It was simply obvious the 7th gen ports were getting muddy and compromising resolution more than usual, but also pushing more advanced lighting/shadow techniques.

Not really. Some games were using the 8th gen as the leed, but it was certainly not the norm.
But titles like Call of Duty: Ghosts and Call of Duty: Advanced Warfare were clearly being held back by 7th gen rendering paradigms as evident by their texturing, lighting and shadowing.

Titles like Dragon Age: Inquisition, Battlefield 4, Assassins Creed: Black Flag and so on had some of it's rendering roots clearly stuck in the 7th gen as well with 8th gen enhancements. - Basically what the PC had been doing for years prior.

Even a game like Dead Rising 4 whilst taking advantage of the increase in CPU headroom on the Xbox One, still had allot of it's technical visual underpinnings in the 7th gen, Capcom didn't really build the game and engine from the ground up to take advantage of the new hardware on a graphics front, they took the old Forge Engine instead to expedite development, which makes business sense, but not an ideal way to show off brand spanking new hardware.

It wasn't until the shackles of the 7th gen was removed that games started to come into their own visually...

Mr Puggsly said:

I don't know if X1 and PS4 will be treated as lead platforms for AAA projects, perhaps more on the CPU and RAM. They could do that while still pushing graphics because that scales more easily.

CPU tasks can scale as well.
Many CPU-tasks can be toggled off and on just like graphics settings.

Heck some graphics effects are very CPU heavy as well.

Mr Puggsly said:

Its worth considering X1 and PS4 support could deter some studios from making ambitious experiences that absolutely require 9th gen power. However, I also feel developers are interested in pushing GPU more than CPU. I just don't feel CPU has really been a very limiting factor on gameplay most developers are trying to create.

Pushing GPU has always been the status quo, graphics is what you can easily represent in a trailer or on a poster to help sell your title.

The CPU has most certainly held us back for the last few generations... During the 7th gen we saw some titles leverage the CPU to do things like decompression duties... If it was more capable, then Virtual Texturing would have probably been more impressive.

The 8th gen we have higher character counts, better CPU driven physics and so on, but on a simulation level things haven't really progressed significantly as the jump in CPU capability was not a catastrophic one, only so much Jaguar can do.

We are doing less graphics work on the CPU these days in general though, for instance we aren't using the CPU for Anti-Aliasing or Blur filters anymore... And even Particle effects are being GPU accelerated, so that CPU time has been spent elsewhere.

Mr Puggsly said:

Its worth considering X1 and PS4 support could deter some studios from making ambitious experiences that absolutely require 9th gen power. However, I also feel developers are interested in pushing GPU more than CPU. I just don't feel CPU has really been a very limiting factor on gameplay most developers are trying to create.

Once the middleware and game engines catch up they will take advantage of it, but it's going to take a few years, just like with the transition from 7th to 8th gen and 6th to 7th gen... That doesn't mean games on newer hardware won't look and run better, far from it.

It will be interesting to see how the Playstation 4 Pro and Xbox One X go in regards to the comparisons between 8th and 9th gen in graphics comparisons.

Mr Puggsly said:

I'm suggesting if a low end Scarlett did exist, that could be treated as the baseline for Scarlett software optimization. If there is only one Scarlett and it has more cutting edge specs, that becomes the baseline Scarlett optimization. In comparison games are optimized for X1, not X1X.

A low-end Scarlett wouldn't be a baseline if developers are still targeting the Xbox One/Xbox One S and Xbox One X, Playstation 4, Playstation 4 Pro and low-end PC's.

It will become the baseline once those devices have been phased out.

Either way... A Low-end Scarlett doesn't seem to be happening anyway, anymore. - So the point is moot.

Mr Puggsly said:

I took another look at that Halo 3 video from VGTech and youre right. What youre referring to is a slight judder that may not even happen in some places, it actually is reflected in that video. When most games have frame pacing issues its constant which makes the experience feel rough. Halo 3 in comparison is nothing like that, so I didnt consider it frame pacing.

People might play 360 versions of Halo for MP stuff like playlists, crossplat for 360 and X1 users, fire fight modes from ODST, achievments, maybe forge stuff, etc. Some of that may seem minor but 360 versions have activity.

You are better off playing the Xbox 360 versions on the Xbox One via backwards compatibility most of the time.

Although, last time I tried Reach (That was allot of patches ago) it was almost unplayable on the base Xbox One, the frame pacing and frame rates made it unplayable.
In saying that, it was never a perfect experience on the Xbox 360 either... I would assume it would be a much better experience now though, especially on X hardware, it's probably been a few years since I gave it a spin.




Pemalite said:
Mr Puggsly said:

Well we have to assume its gonna take years for developers to really squeeze the potential out of new machines. Engines will improve, it seems developers adopt more advanced effects over time, etc.

Of course. That goes without saying.

Mr Puggsly said:

I dont necessarily see it as the transition from generations takes time per se, I see it as trends in development changes. I mean early, mid and late gen content has looked very different on 7th and 8th gen.

The trends in development are typically enabled by new baseline hardware. - We see it on the PC every time the consoles finally catch up in regards to technological feature sets.

PC was dabbling in Tessellation back in 2010, but it wasn't a mainstream tech feature in games/engines until the 8th gen dropped years later with the hardware feature sets to support it. - I mean we can go back farther to when the PC first started dabbling in Tessellation back when the Playstation 2 was on the market...

Mr Puggsly said:

Its evident that around 2013-2014 games were already using the 8th gen consoles as the lead. Cross gen games of that period remind me of Switch ports. It was simply obvious the 7th gen ports were getting muddy and compromising resolution more than usual, but also pushing more advanced lighting/shadow techniques.

Not really. Some games were using the 8th gen as the leed, but it was certainly not the norm.
But titles like Call of Duty: Ghosts and Call of Duty: Advanced Warfare were clearly being held back by 7th gen rendering paradigms as evident by their texturing, lighting and shadowing.

Titles like Dragon Age: Inquisition, Battlefield 4, Assassins Creed: Black Flag and so on had some of it's rendering roots clearly stuck in the 7th gen as well with 8th gen enhancements. - Basically what the PC had been doing for years prior.

Even a game like Dead Rising 4 whilst taking advantage of the increase in CPU headroom on the Xbox One, still had allot of it's technical visual underpinnings in the 7th gen, Capcom didn't really build the game and engine from the ground up to take advantage of the new hardware on a graphics front, they took the old Forge Engine instead to expedite development, which makes business sense, but not an ideal way to show off brand spanking new hardware.

It wasn't until the shackles of the 7th gen was removed that games started to come into their own visually...

Mr Puggsly said:

I don't know if X1 and PS4 will be treated as lead platforms for AAA projects, perhaps more on the CPU and RAM. They could do that while still pushing graphics because that scales more easily.

CPU tasks can scale as well.
Many CPU-tasks can be toggled off and on just like graphics settings.

Heck some graphics effects are very CPU heavy as well.

Mr Puggsly said:

Its worth considering X1 and PS4 support could deter some studios from making ambitious experiences that absolutely require 9th gen power. However, I also feel developers are interested in pushing GPU more than CPU. I just don't feel CPU has really been a very limiting factor on gameplay most developers are trying to create.

Pushing GPU has always been the status quo, graphics is what you can easily represent in a trailer or on a poster to help sell your title.

The CPU has most certainly held us back for the last few generations... During the 7th gen we saw some titles leverage the CPU to do things like decompression duties... If it was more capable, then Virtual Texturing would have probably been more impressive.

The 8th gen we have higher character counts, better CPU driven physics and so on, but on a simulation level things haven't really progressed significantly as the jump in CPU capability was not a catastrophic one, only so much Jaguar can do.

We are doing less graphics work on the CPU these days in general though, for instance we aren't using the CPU for Anti-Aliasing or Blur filters anymore... And even Particle effects are being GPU accelerated, so that CPU time has been spent elsewhere.

Mr Puggsly said:

Its worth considering X1 and PS4 support could deter some studios from making ambitious experiences that absolutely require 9th gen power. However, I also feel developers are interested in pushing GPU more than CPU. I just don't feel CPU has really been a very limiting factor on gameplay most developers are trying to create.

Once the middleware and game engines catch up they will take advantage of it, but it's going to take a few years, just like with the transition from 7th to 8th gen and 6th to 7th gen... That doesn't mean games on newer hardware won't look and run better, far from it.

It will be interesting to see how the Playstation 4 Pro and Xbox One X go in regards to the comparisons between 8th and 9th gen in graphics comparisons.

Mr Puggsly said:

I'm suggesting if a low end Scarlett did exist, that could be treated as the baseline for Scarlett software optimization. If there is only one Scarlett and it has more cutting edge specs, that becomes the baseline Scarlett optimization. In comparison games are optimized for X1, not X1X.

A low-end Scarlett wouldn't be a baseline if developers are still targeting the Xbox One/Xbox One S and Xbox One X, Playstation 4, Playstation 4 Pro and low-end PC's.

It will become the baseline once those devices have been phased out.

Either way... A Low-end Scarlett doesn't seem to be happening anyway, anymore. - So the point is moot.

Mr Puggsly said:

I took another look at that Halo 3 video from VGTech and youre right. What youre referring to is a slight judder that may not even happen in some places, it actually is reflected in that video. When most games have frame pacing issues its constant which makes the experience feel rough. Halo 3 in comparison is nothing like that, so I didnt consider it frame pacing.

People might play 360 versions of Halo for MP stuff like playlists, crossplat for 360 and X1 users, fire fight modes from ODST, achievments, maybe forge stuff, etc. Some of that may seem minor but 360 versions have activity.

You are better off playing the Xbox 360 versions on the Xbox One via backwards compatibility most of the time.

Although, last time I tried Reach (That was allot of patches ago) it was almost unplayable on the base Xbox One, the frame pacing and frame rates made it unplayable.
In saying that, it was never a perfect experience on the Xbox 360 either... I would assume it would be a much better experience now though, especially on X hardware, it's probably been a few years since I gave it a spin.


PC versions of games during the 6th and 7th gen software often had effects that simply couldn't be duplicated on consoles. Hence, developers were raising the bar on high end gaming PCs even while supporting vastly inferior consoles. People often blame consoles for slowing down gaming visuals, but developers have the option to push visuals on PC even while supporting consoles. A recent example is PC software experimenting with ray tracing.

CoD Ghosts looked like a 7th gen game, there was just some added effects for 8th gen. Battlefield 4 is one of the most impressive looking games on 7th gen, it also had to be relatively low overhead to achieve 60 fps on 8th gen. Dragon Age Inquisition looks like trash on 7th gen, that's exactly the type of game that wasn't using 7th gen as the lead. AC4 was obviously built for 7th gen, not a debate.

I think you mean Dead Rising 3, not 4. Also, that was clearly a horribly optimized game for launch reasons but developers were also struggling with X1 hardware early on. They surprisingly turned that into a game that stuck to 30 fps over time.

I actually played Thief and The Evil Within on 360, they're functional but you can clearly tell they were really built for 8th gen. I think its possible early 8th gen games were using less demanding engines, like stuff that works on 7th gen because they were getting their bearings on the new specs.

I think we agree 8th gen specs can be lead while still allowing support for 7th gen, just depends on the route developers go.

Maybe we can blame consoles for not pushing CPU in games harder, but I just don't think that was a focus of many games.

For a game like Halo Infinite, I think we'll get a big disparity between base X1 and X1X. Sound like Gears 5 is really being built to take advantage of X1X. For most other games though, I think it will be the same. Base hardware is the focus and mid gen upgrades add polish.

While crossplat software of 8th and 9th gen is being done, perhaps developers might use some aspects of 8th gen as a baseline, like CPU to make sure a game can function on 8th gen. But visually games can still treat 9th gen as the lead, as in just make the 9th gen versions much more visually impressive and add extra effects, high quality assets, etc. There are many examples of this in crossplat years of previous generations.

I remember the 360 version of King Kong looked stunning because it used higher quality assets and effects along with glorious HD resolution. It looks terrible now, but that made the generational leap evident even while using an ultimately 6th gen game. That's kinda my point from the start, Halo Infinite can show a generation leap even if X1 is the lead. We don't know if MS is doing that though, might just focus on 4K and increase effects settings.



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)

Around the Network
Mr Puggsly said:
DonFerrari said:

I'll just say that if MS focus baseline on X1 while sony dump it and go for PS5 (after the release of Death Stranding, TLOU2 and Ghost of Tsushijima all games that haven't been announced are already being made for PS5 and with time to have releases on the first year) the gap on the games will be pretty big and the bloodshed won't be pretty.

Just speculation and nobody thinks the 8th gen hardware is gonna go completely unsupported when 9th gen consoles launch.

Even if some games are built to function on a X1, they could still have vastly superior visuals and performance on Scarlett and maybe add features for the CPU disparity. It could also be the opposite where games are built for Scarlett but a scaled back port for X1 is feasible.

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?



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

DonFerrari said:
Mr Puggsly said:

Just speculation and nobody thinks the 8th gen hardware is gonna go completely unsupported when 9th gen consoles launch.

Even if some games are built to function on a X1, they could still have vastly superior visuals and performance on Scarlett and maybe add features for the CPU disparity. It could also be the opposite where games are built for Scarlett but a scaled back port for X1 is feasible.

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.



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:

PC versions of games during the 6th and 7th gen software often had effects that simply couldn't be duplicated on consoles. Hence, developers were raising the bar on high end gaming PCs even while supporting vastly inferior consoles. People often blame consoles for slowing down gaming visuals, but developers have the option to push visuals on PC even while supporting consoles.

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?

Mr Puggsly said:

A recent example is PC software experimenting with ray tracing.

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.

Mr Puggsly said:

CoD Ghosts looked like a 7th gen game, there was just some added effects for 8th gen. Battlefield 4 is one of the most impressive looking games on 7th gen, it also had to be relatively low overhead to achieve 60 fps on 8th gen. Dragon Age Inquisition looks like trash on 7th gen, that's exactly the type of game that wasn't using 7th gen as the lead. AC4 was obviously built for 7th gen, not a debate.

...Exactly my point?

Mr Puggsly said:

I think you mean Dead Rising 3, not 4. Also, that was clearly a horribly optimized game for launch reasons but developers were also struggling with X1 hardware early on. They surprisingly turned that into a game that stuck to 30 fps over time.

Er. Yeah. I do mean Dead Rising 3.

Mr Puggsly said:

I actually played Thief and The Evil Within on 360, they're functional but you can clearly tell they were really built for 8th gen. I think its possible early 8th gen games were using less demanding engines, like stuff that works on 7th gen because they were getting their bearings on the new specs.

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.

Mr Puggsly said:

I think we agree 8th gen specs can be lead while still allowing support for 7th gen, just depends on the route developers go.

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.

Mr Puggsly said:

Maybe we can blame consoles for not pushing CPU in games harder, but I just don't think that was a focus of many games.

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.

Mr Puggsly said:

For a game like Halo Infinite, I think we'll get a big disparity between base X1 and X1X. Sound like Gears 5 is really being built to take advantage of X1X. For most other games though, I think it will be the same. Base hardware is the focus and mid gen upgrades add polish.

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.

Mr Puggsly said:

While crossplat software of 8th and 9th gen is being done, perhaps developers might use some aspects of 8th gen as a baseline, like CPU to make sure a game can function on 8th gen. But visually games can still treat 9th gen as the lead, as in just make the 9th gen versions much more visually impressive and add extra effects, high quality assets, etc. There are many examples of this in crossplat years of previous generations.

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.

Mr Puggsly said:

I remember the 360 version of King Kong looked stunning because it used higher quality assets and effects along with glorious HD resolution. It looks terrible now, but that made the generational leap evident even while using an ultimately 6th gen game. That's kinda my point from the start, Halo Infinite can show a generation leap even if X1 is the lead. We don't know if MS is doing that though, might just focus on 4K and increase effects settings.

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.

Mr Puggsly said:

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.

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.



curl-6 said:

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.



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)