CGI-Quality said:
Too_Talls said:
CGI-Quality said:
In some cases, yes, the differences were pretty significant, especially 7th gen launch games. Call of Duty 3 ran @ 30fps on the PS3, while running at much higher 60 on the 360, for example, and don't even get me started on Splinter Cell: Double Agent, which was horrific on the PlayStation 3.
In the case of In the case of these launch titles, beyond missing textures, AO, shadows, and lighting, a resolution difference of double the rate is not a minor one. Will it remain that way? Who knows. For right now, the differences aren't slight and there isn't a double standard when this stuff was picked apart on the PS3 as well.
|
I don't see the ps4 supporters bringing this up though. and for missing textures, looking at the B4 screens the PS4 was more consistently missing them than than what I saw from x'1 screens.
look at the floor in this:
-gif
|
I thought you didn't care to look at Digital Foundry's articles? That pic's from their site. You can't see what they see. What changed now? 
Anyway, yes, that was an area where the X1 had an advantage (something said in the DF analysis, in fact, and it wasn't ignored here), but that doesn't change the other aspects of the game that put the PS4 version ahead, overall.
|
I never went there, apparently I only have to stay here to get all the scoops. I pulled that image from the battle feild is superior on ps4 topic on this website. So guys from here will bring all the stuff I need to know in front of me.
In a short time being here I realised that people have been very reliant on negaf for interesting information. Negaf however has an ugly old looking forum layout so I'm cool staying here were I can see what the neogaf is talking about on a prettier website :)
FATALITY said:
Too_Talls said:
CGI-Quality said:
Too_Talls said:
michael_stutzer said:
NobleTeam360 said:
I didn't think people on this website cared about CoD so much? |
It is not about COD, it is what it indicates that is truly alarming. You do realize that having the significantly superior version in every multiplatform game means one of the consoles is significantly stronger than the other, right? Or you think this is an isolated case, though I vaguely remember you were around in Battlefield threads as well.
Or maybe, I don't think that is true but maybe, you are a bit biased.
|
But 360 had the better verisons of multi plats, was it significantly superior? Is there a double standard?
|
In some cases, yes, the differences were pretty significant, especially 7th gen launch games. Call of Duty 3 ran @ 30fps on the PS3, while running at much higher 60 on the 360, for example, and don't even get me started on Splinter Cell: Double Agent, which washorrific on the PlayStation 3.
In the case of In the case of these launch titles, beyond missing textures, AO, shadows, and lighting, a resolution difference of double the rate is not a minor one. Will it remain that way? Who knows. For right now, the differences aren't slight and there isn't a double standard when this stuff was picked apart on the PS3 as well.
|
I don't see the ps4 supporters bringing this up though. and for missing textures, looking at the B4 screens the PS4 was more consistently missing them than than what I saw from x'1 screens.
look at the floor in this:
|
are u serious?
maybe thats why people who actually played both versions said mp ps4 is superior sp xbone
and we all know what happened to this leadbetter comparisons
but u can keep the fight
|
What, please rephrase that, your overall comment didn't make sense.
