Mr Puggsly said:
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. |
A game that were developed to take full use of X1X on a 1080p30fps to run on X1 base would need severe cuts to cover the 4x difference on the GPU.
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."