Should Halo Infinite drop Xbox One and go Scarlet exclusive?

[Mr Puggsly]

Pemalite said:

Mr Puggsly said:

I suspect the low end Scarlehitt died because they simply couldn't produce a Scarlett for the budget market, it just seems too ambitious. Perhaps making functional ports for X1/X1X (for a while) and pushing Xcloud makes more sense.

I don't think it was too ambitious, it wouldn't have been difficult to ditch the SSD, go with a smaller GPU, slower DRAM, smaller power supply and cooler and come in at a lower price.

I just think Microsoft didn't want developers targeting the base console and just using the more powerful console just to drive home resolution, it's a waste of hardware in the end if that is your only benefit.

Pushing XCloud does make more sense, if anyone has the gall to win the cloud-gaming wars, Microsoft has the infrastructure already in place for the most part.

Mr Puggsly said:

I'm saying GTA3 and Morrowind were impressive for different reasons. I'm not sure if anything like Morrowind was attempted for PS2. Maybe they could have created something seemingly like Morrowind, but obviously the spec disparity wouldn't allow for a direct port of Morrowind on PS2.

Agreed.

Mr Puggsly said:

Maybe you're focusing on how Halo 3 ran on 360 at launch versus now. I don't know and I'm moving on.

The frame pacing issues still exists in Halo 3 and Halo 3: ODST on the Xbox 360, it's an issue at the game engine level due to certain design choices that Bungie made, for better or worst.
Digital Foundry made those comments after the Master Chief Collection released, which was years after Halo 3 dropped on Xbox 360.

Again, I have provided the evidence needed to support my assertions on this matter, so we can pretty much agree and move on.

Mr Puggsly said:

Specs certainly matter but you're missing the point. GTAV on 7th gen specs is more impressive than most 8th gen games. Hence, better specs doesn't mean every project has the ambitions of GTAV. I'm really just saying we don't need a massive specs boost for developers to create more ambitious games per se. Frankly, making prettier games is easier than creating more ambitious or unique games.

From a rendering technical level, GTA5 isn't impressive than most 8th gen games, from a simulation level with the way assets, scripting and so on is loaded in, that is impressive.

But in order for Rockstar to achieve what it did, it had to spend allot of time and effort to pull it off on underpowered hardware... Which if they had more powerful hardware from the get-go, they wouldn't need to have spent as much time or effort in pulling off.

Mr Puggsly said:

Do you not recall I already withdrew my comment about GPU affecting load times? So why the fuck do you keep bringing it up?

Because I can.

Compromises to the storage medium and memory could impact game development for the high end model. GPU is less significant because that's mostly visual tweaks. Again, its a lot of compromise to make a lower budget Scarlett.

I think you're suggesting Halo 3 has a frame pacing thats unlike other games with obvious frame pacing issues. I'm gonna move on...

If Rockstar had better specs for GTAV's launch, then they would have just created a more ambitious game, atleast visually. They seemingly have more resources and talent than virtually any other studio.

Because I can? Good, then don't complain if I call you out on being immature. You just proved my point, it was fair criticism.