Should Halo Infinite drop Xbox One and go Scarlet exclusive?

[Mr Puggsly]

Pemalite said:

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.

Me being a moderator has absolutely nothing to do with it, don't delve into logical fallacies to try and win your argument.

Mr Puggsly said:

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.

It ran fine. It cold have been better, but it still ran fine.
The fact they retained the physics engine and the gravity gun was exactly my point though...

Mr Puggsly said:

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.

Of course they were struggling with Ram. Even the 8th gen struggles with Ram... 5-6GB isn't allot of memory when a few gigabytes of that is for the GPU as well.

Lack of memory is one of the Achilles heels of any fixed device that cannot be upgraded.

Mr Puggsly said:

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.

A base Xbox One port wouldn't be impossible, but how many cutbacks do you make to fit a game onto an inferior platform? And when do you reach a point when you probably shouldn't bother?

Sometimes a downgraded port isn't possible without seriously re-engineering large swathes of a game... Even some games that get ported to Switch get some extra changes in order for the game to be a better experience on that hardware. (Wolfenstein for example, with some extra objects to block the views and remove the need to render distant landscapes.)

Mr Puggsly said:

So X1X gets people more immersed? I can agree on that but I don't feel high visual fidelity is necessarily that important.

Then that just removes one of the single largest selling points of the Xbox One X... Good thing you don't speak for all gamers and what they need/want/desire.

Mr Puggsly said:

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.

I actually have an understanding of how Horizon achieved what it did on the processor it did. - It doesn't make Jaguar any less crippling.
Allot of simulation-level effects were absent in that game, water being one of the larger ones... But in return those extra CPU cycles were spent elsewhere like on ants crawling up a tree.

Yes, Jaguar is a piece of crap... It's AMD's worst CPU at a time when they had the worst CPU's... Keep that into perspective.

Yes, Ryzen for next gen is going to be amazing.

Mr Puggsly said:

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.

Halo games tend to be linear in the way you traverse the campaign, but with wider-vistas thanks to the sandbox... That allows for data streaming to be fairly effective.

Open World games have certainly become more common today... And that is thanks to the increase in hardware capabilities enabling such scope.

Mr Puggsly said:

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.

Ashes of the Singularity is running a degree of simulation that would cripple Jaguar.

Something like Supreme Commander runs well on consoles because the level of A.I simulation is kept relatively simple... That isn't the case for Ashes of the Singularity.

Mr Puggsly said:

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.

But you said that Jaguar was "capable". - If the hardware was capable, there would be more 60fps games, you need to stop contradicting yourself, especially in the same post.

The CPU bottleneck should be non-existent next-gen and a GPU/Ram bottleneck will become more pronounced... But just because the CPU bottleneck has been alleviated doesn't mean we are going to have 60fps games coming out the wazoo.

Apologies for the late reply, on Holiday.

DonFerrari said:

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.

My behavior is exactly the same before and after I was a moderator... So using that point to have a moan isn't really getting him anywhere.

Every console generation we have gotten more powerful CPU's... And yet in the history of consoles, we still haven't gotten 60fps guaranteed in any console generation, next gen is not going to be any different.

I clarified any confusion during our Fable 3 discussion, but you kept pressing. Give it a rest, I generally expect better from the mods. It wasn't even a discussion to win.

Half Life 2 on Xbox didn't run fine, but it certainly ran. Performance was the worst aspect of that port and makes it a difficult version to revisit.

You missed the point in regard to RAM. While 5GB certainly is not a ton of RAM for games, but the RAM requirements for PC gaming stayed relatively stagnant. Hence, modern games haven't seem to hit a wall due to struggling with RAM limitations like previous gens did. Even the Switch is doing impressive games like Witcher 3 with even less RAM, albeit struggling with textures.

I don't feel the disparity in specs between base X1 and X1X are significant enough. Therefore anything that could be developed to take full advantage of the X1X at 1080p/30 fps, should be able to scale back relatively easily for a base X1 if they mostly scale back GPU heavy effects. It seems like almost most 8th gen games can work on Switch because the specs disparity just isn't big enough, even if there are minor compromises. The example you gave for Wolfenstein 2 on Switch is mostly aesthetic and was likely done to boost performance. Anyhow, we all know the X1X's primary focus was making X1 games look and play better, which at the very least it certainly does that. Sometimes the disparity is so big it seems like the games were developed for X1X specs, Soul Calibur VI for example looks bad and loads horribly on base hardware.

Open world games were pretty common last gen as well. The big difference this gen is more online open world stuff. I imagine RAM was helpful for that but they still existed on last gen.

Well there isn't much a debate to have on Ashes of Singularity, maybe its complex AI is incredibly demanding, maybe its an optimization issue. I do see video of a FX-6300 running the game relatively poorly, but it runs. I mention that because that CPU in practice seems to give similar performance to consoles.

Oh lord... let me elaborate. I feel the Jaguar CPUs in the current consoles have shown great potential. For example, I'm playing Gears 4 (Gears 5 soon), Forza Horizon 4 and other titles that stick relatively close or stay at 60 fps. There are also games that did a good job hitting 60 fps on base hardware like Forza, GT, MGS, Halo, BF, CoD (some better than others), etc. In my mind, that's pretty good for CPUs people call trash. Either way, I can't deny there is CPU bottleneck in many games that make hitting 60 fps impossible. However, GPU was also limited for high quality visuals/effects, high resolutions (900p-1080p) and 60 fps at the same time.

People often say it was the CPU that was too limited in the 8th gen, but GPU was also a culprit. Because even when CPU bottleneck wasn't a primary issue for 60 fps, it still takes a lot of GPU power to achieve 60 fps with high visual fidelity. Limited GPU power is why dynamic resolution is common in 60 fps games.

In the next gen however, we seem to agree bottleneck on CPU shouldn't be an issue for 60 fps. Also, resolution at 1440p-4K will become even more common. Essentially the compromises needed for 60 fps become less work. For example, the X1X offers more 60 fps content because it has a little extra CPU power and they can drop the resolution (and effects) to reduce GPU bottleneck. Hence, less work to hit 60 fps means more games should (WILL) offer it.

Last edited by Mr Puggsly - on 23 July 2019