Mr Puggsly said:
For a moderator you sure like pushing an argument, very mature. I'm trying to end the Fable 3 talk but you keep going. I won't backpedal, I'll just admit you're a great person with a thick cock. Half Life 2 ran pretty crappy on the OG Xbox from my memory. A nice mix of CPU and GPU bottleneck with soupy textures given the lack of RAM I'm sure. Its a shame we don't see developers making slide shows to push physics! Might have been different if it were really built for Xbox. As I mentioned before, we saw the 6th and 7th gen really struggling with limited RAM. PC's were taking advantage of significantly more RAM than consoles had during those generations. However, the 8th gen is the first time it felt like consoles have plenty or at least enough RAM. Even on PC 8GB is generally fine. Even if the X1X were supported as a lead platform, I don't think that would mean a base X1 port would be impossible. The primary difference of X1 and X1X GPU power, that's seemingly the easiest aspect of games to scale back given its mostly effects. So yeah, the biggest benefit of X1X is resolution and frame rate... but sometimes textures improve given the RAM increase, some games also use the extra GPU power to enable or increase effects. So X1X gets people more immersed? I can agree on that but I don't feel high visual fidelity is necessarily that important. The 8th gen CPUs are the most capable trash I've ever seen. I mean a game like Horizon 4 at 60 fps!? What a pile of shit. Either way, I'm glad more capable CPUs will be in the next gen consoles for practical reasons. The funny thing about games in MCC, they're old but their scope seems bigger than many modern games that are more linear in comparison. Which gets back to a point I made many times already, better specs doesn't always mean increased scope. I believe the only content that isn't 1080p/4K at all times is the Halo 2 Anniversary campaign with enhanced visuals enabled. The resolution does become 1080p/4K with classic graphics though. Ashes of Singularity simply wouldn't work on console CPUs? Also, is there an optimization issue or would scaling back its CPU needs really changes the experience of the game? I've seen the game and it seems to be a fairly standard RTS, maybe it would just run like shit on consoles during heavy action? For the record, I was already aware of this game because it often looked at for its CPU demands. The 8th gen consoles are too limited to achieve 60 fps in many games. There would be too much resolution/graphics compromise and there is already too much CPU bottleneck to achieve that. In the next gen though, if the CPUs are as capable as we hope, CPU bottleneck is going to be less of an issue. Meanwhile 1440p to 4K will likely become pretty standard. Taking all that into consideration, it should be easier to give 60 fps options in the next gen versus current gen. |
A lot of work that could be better made at the CPU have been made on the GPU because of the lower performance of the CPU compared to it. So for games like competitive online, fighting and racing 60fps is usually the first target, then resolution second. And for that they may have to simplify effects and other IQ elements to hit the performance budget.
Also I don't see anything wrong on pemalite posts. He isn't breaking any rules nor using his position as moderator to demand you shut up or accept his argument. So I don't see what a moderator have to do different than you, like I also find strange when people demand better behavior from others because of the position/job, behavior they don't uphold themselves.

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
Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."







