dane007 said:
CGI-Quality said:
dane007 said:
Lol the difference last gen was far bigger then the difference this gen. It seems people were forgetting the difference seen in games such as COD games, where the ps3 version had lower resolution , less aa, less detail in textures and more frame drops . Thats just COD. Other games that suffered alot was RDR. The ps3 version was horrible compared ot xbox 360 version in resolution , textures and so on. Same with fallout game, skyrim which had frame drop to single digit and more screen tearing. Then there was bayonetta athat had horrible frame rate , less detail in textures. stright from DF for bayonetta " The resulting game featured washed-out colours, a choppy frame-rate, lengthy load times and control issues.". Not to mention crysis 2 and 3 on ps3 were terrible in all aspects from AA, textures, frame rate and resolution. Compared to this gen at most you have a tiny resolution advantage towards ps4 as most games on xbox one are 900p with the exception of a few which are 720p. The textures most of the tiem are the same . The only next real difference is frame rate . sure 60fps is good but 30 ain't bad and alot payable then the fps from last gen in terms of games being built for ps3. For games like tomb raider definitive edition the frame rate of the ps4 version is all over the place and you can feel it when you play. ( i have the game and nearly finished it) compared with more constant 30fps. in that way i rather prefer constant 30fps then a variable frame rate. So yes in terms of this the difference this gen far smaller then last gen |
All of those last gen's discrepancies have already happened this gen, just 9 months in. What we didn't have was such a difference in res as often as we do now. The hardware gap is bigger and the differences in multiplatform games, thus far, have been as big and/or even bigger in some cases (720p/30 fps vs 1080p/60fps).
Edit: Just look at Metro Redux:
(1920x1080) vs (1620x912) = 1,4035. The PS4 is pushing about 40% more pixels. This just didn't happen very much last gen.
|
Again this gen the difference jus comes to resolution. Frame rate not so much unless teh evelopers decides to do 60fps vs 30fps. Yea but last gen they had resolution deffierence, AA differemce, Frame rate difference, Texture detail difference. Thats far bigger difference then current gen. For me i rather take slightly lower resolution and a stable frame rate then a game that lower resolution, lower extures, unplayable frame rate and poorer AA.
Also to note even though its 44% more pixels,, you pu tthem on a 50inch tv and most peopel won't be able to tell teh difference in resolution , clearly seen by KZ multiplayer debacle. Whereas last gen those difference were more pronounced and obvious
|
Not sure if you are in denial or just uneducated. I posted a link already in this thread shkwing the diff in COD an avg of just 3% fps so that is equal or larger than than the 720P vs 1080p diff this gen?
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-call-of-duty-ghosts-next-gen-face-off
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/call-of-duty-4-engine-analysis
