curl-6 said:
DonFerrari said:
RDR1 and GTA V are though. And you understood the point. Most if not all technical limitations are surpaseable if you cut down enough on the game. And as pemalite said, the biggest plus Switch have that WiiU didn't for the ports is that the architeture is more modern and closer to PS4/X1 so the cuts are less heavy than if ported to last gen.
|
Agreed, all I meant was that both the more modern tech and the much larger RAM help, rather than it being primarily one or the other.
| Pemalite said:
Absolutely massive, probably the single largest leap in CPU capability in generations. - If there is only one criticism that I can give... Is that Sony/Microsoft doesn't go for more than 1 CCX grouping of cores... (But I had been saying that was the path they would take for years anyway due to cost reasons.)
Would have been nice to have 12-16 CPU cores for platform longevity, we just aren't there yet.
It does mean that the 10th gen consoles aren't likely to see the same kind of leap in CPU capability as well though, so the 9th gen is gearing up to be rather interesting.
Probably a bit difficult to get a Jaguar to Zen2 comparison. - But years ago I did a comparison and calculated that 8x Jaguar cores is roughly equivalent to a dual-core Core i3 at the time, operating at around 3ghz.
So taking any Sandy/Ivy-Bridge Dual Core and pitting it against Zen 2 is as accurate as you are probably going to get it at this stage unless I can source some hardware. (Working on it!)
|
Interesting stuff. Not sure if it's going to happen, it'll depend on devs, but I'd love to see a lot more simulation and interactivity in next gen games, that's kinda what I wanted from this gen but didn't really get.
|
Not and expert, but from what I can tell Switch is a pretty balanced HW for what Nintendo needs. And third parties have a good enough package that they can port most of the relevant games for it.
Pemalite said:
Mr Puggsly said:
Go buy Fable 3 (or better yet, 2) on Xbox if the prospect of stealing upsets you. Eitherway, that version on PC is dead.
|
Do you not ever read? I own a copy. I have stated this multiple times already.
Mr Puggsly said:
Simplifying the development process with better specs isnt relevant. Also your examples were more about visual aspects. Im talking more about gameplay mechanics and gameplay related design in general. But Im sure you will continue to drag on the argument instead of admitting you get my point.
|
Simplifying the development process with better specs is certainly relevant.
Many visual aspects play into gameplay mechanics... Which is made achievable thanks to increases in hardware capability. They are all part of the same construct.
For example... Remember when we were all blown away when Physics became a thing in games such as Half Life 2 making the gravity gun a possible gameplay mechanic? - That was only thanks to increases in CPU capability that made it feasible.
Mr Puggsly said:
Halo 5 on the X1X was basically just a resolution upgrade, you cant say that was an attempt to enhance or fix the visual quirks of that game.
|
The Xbox One X is just wasted potential for the most part, same with the Playstation 4 Pro. PC is still where it is at.
Mr Puggsly said:
Generally speaking just increasing things like draw distance is not a huge task, it would certainly be expected in a PC port. The only excuse I could come up with is incrasing those settings somehow impacts the game. Thus it could only be addressed in a remaster. I dont thats the case for all visual aspects though.
|
Not always black and white.
curl-6 said:
Interesting stuff. Not sure if it's going to happen, it'll depend on devs, but I'd love to see a lot more simulation and interactivity in next gen games, that's kinda what I wanted from this gen but didn't really get.
|
Indeed. One thing that irked me about the 7th gen is the lack of simulation quality... We saw a slight improvement in the 8th gen with ants crawling on a tree in Horizon: Zero Dawn, but that was hardly the norm... And they did have to make cutbacks to other parts of the games simulation quality to get those "little things" in. (I.E. Water.)
DonFerrari said:
Well considering CPU was basically skipped this gen (as far as being 4-8x better than previous gen), then it should really be the biggest jump, basically 2 gens worth. So when people were talking about only 4x gain compared to base consoles of 8th gen I thought it was to little.
|
That is likely to be the case!
The Jump from the Playstation 2 to the Playstation 3 on the CPU side was pretty monolithic, but only in floating point tasks, for things like Integers and more modern Instructions the jump from Jaguar to Zen is probably just as big if not bigger (Haven't checked), Zen's wider, smarter cores really lends itself well.
For the Xbox though who went from a P6 based chip to PowerPC to Jaguar to Zen... This is likely to be the largest jump for any Microsoft console.
HoloDust said:
Hm...done that, using Passmark - all normalized for single core (normalized additionally @1GHz by me):
- around 380 for Jaguar (Athlon 5150, E2-3000 and Opteron X2170)
- 510-530 for i3 (i3 2100, i3 3210)
- 765-810 for Ryzens (3600-3900X)
- 805 for i9 9900K
That's what surprised me the first time - I'm not sure what Passmark actually benchmarks, but I don't know of any other benchmark that has such a comprehensive data base and that has single threaded rating as well.
|
It benchmarks a bit of everything... But it doesn't use data-sets that really take advantage of more modern instructions sets that Ryzen is really really good at.
https://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu_test_info.html
We can safely assume developers will leverage Ryzen to it's strengths when it comes to gaming on next gen to eek the most of what they can out of the fixed hardware.
I'm actually excited for the gains on the CPU front.
|
I'm preparing myself to be surprised and happy once again as every gen have made me.
Mr Puggsly said:
DonFerrari said:
They are cutting a lot for Witcher 3, there is no other way around it. I guess what you mean is that the gameplay elements will be kept.
Mid gen upgrades I can agree weren't needed and that the games didn't really improve outside of graphics due to them, but the fault would be that they had to keep support for the baseline versions and also kept same architeture due to compatibility. So in this case very bad CPU that held down the GPU more than it should.
Nope, I the "all games" you are saying, which I don't remember saying, would be that any game could benefit from a better HW to improve scope. Still I wouldn't say all games, because there is plenty of shovelware and indies that would run "exactly" the same if released on PS3.
Plenty of games would have a very lower NPC count and physics if CPU was worse (that is a game design element), but also the bad CPU of both consoles also limited the ambition one could go for on PS4/X1 so it had more juice for graphics on GPU than gameplay on CPU.
If one was willing most of the games today with some heavy tweak could play on PS2 perhaps even PS1. But you can be sure a Halo designed exclusivelly for X4 would have potential to be better than having to launch on X1 base. If the game will be better than og Halo that we can only know when it releases and won't be fault of the better HW if it is worse Halo or game.
|
Well yeah... the point is visual compromises will be made but they claim the gameplay will be the same.
Were mid gen upgraded needed? No. But there is evidently enough demand for them, it was also needed to take advantage of 4K TVs which have become popular and decreased in price faster than I expected.
People tend to mock the CPU of 8th gen consoles, but GPUs aren't amazing either. I don't feel the 8th gen was held back by the CPUs, they were pretty much equal. Better CPUs wouldn't have changed much in the 8th gen because graphics was the focus.
Some games took advantage of the superior capabilities of 8th gen consoles to increase the scope of games, but most didn't. AAA games included, it was mostly visual.
I feel GTAV even on last gen was pretty impressive in regard to physics and NPC count, arguably more so than a lot of modern games. Which supports my original argument, better specs doesn't mean most games become more ambitious or increase in scope. And again getting back to point of thread, I don't feel a game like Halo Infinite would really benefit from being Scarlett exclusive, certainly not this far into development.
Arguably the best use of 8th gen specs that the 7th gen couldn't quite duplicate is large MP games like Fortnite and MMOs. However, that may have been more of a RAM limitation. MAG on PS3 was an exception I suppose, but I never played it so I don't have thoughts on it.
|
Sure there were demand, I bought Pro. Just didn't bought the better HW that X1X is because I mostly am interested in Sony exclusives and the few 3rd party I play wouldn't justify the extra cost. Unfortunatelly I'm not much into FPS or shotters in general where GoW and Halo would certainly be reason enough to buy it.
Of course the GPUs weren't impressive, but the CPU was even lower tier (but balanced for what they wanted on the gen, console games are much more GPU heavy), but needing to keep CPU the same for X1X and Pro (just small improvement to keep the processing for the improved pixel count) made most if not all games very limited.
Games are going to improve graphically, that is a marketing tool. So if the HW don't improve they will have to cut in other areas to keep the graphics improving.
