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 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:
|
"Otherwise, differences between the two fall into nit-pick territory. Ground textures appear different during the campaign mode, with variations of the same texture being planted in the same spot. Neither one is especially greater in detail, suggesting these tiles are partially randomised, much like the soldier camo designs on our character's arms. "
