Series S vs Series X (resolution, performance, etc.)

[Mr Puggsly]

SvennoJ said:

Mr Puggsly said:

I hear ya, but what I am saying is the first compromises Series S would have to make is lowering asset quality and resolution. RDR2 on PC for example uses about 3-4GB more VRAM when in ultra vs low settings. Then lowering resolution can save about 1GB depending how low the resolution goes. My numbers might not be entirely accurate by the way.

Anyway, I am suggesting developers don't have to build for Series S' 8GB per se. You have to consider 9th gen games are already using many GB on textures, certainly more then 8th gen did.

Hence, the Series S will probably have texture quality that resembles 8th gen when memory is being pushed. While Series X and PS5 are expected to go well beyond that.

Now I am not arguing Series S memory will never be a problem. I am only arguing higher end machines will use more RAM just on visual polish. Some Series S games are considerably smaller as well because of the lower quality assets.

Minecraft is for machines that vary wildly in RAM. Vita, 3DS, PS360, X1, PS4, etc. Several platforms mentioned have less than 1GB of RAM. So not a great example.

World complexity also depends on how efficiently menory is used. I mean 7th gen games like Skyrim and GTA5 have impressive worlds using a fraction of memory 8th gen has.

I am a tad confused how much memory 8th gen consoles used. I've read PS4 used 4.5GB. X1 used 5GB, maybe a little more. Eitherway, multiplat games were bulit for whatever PS4 had. So saying 8GB is zero progress is incorrect. Series S still has several GB more along with SSD to stream data quickly.

So I agree that memory could be an issue, I think there should have been less compromise. But I am also considering Series X and PS5 are expected to use considerably more RAM just on visuals. Maybe the SSD could also help in some cases.

I'm looking beyond our current static world design. Yes, Skyrim and GTA5 have impressive words, but they are made with tons of repeating static elements. I'm thinking more in terms of From Dust like deformable terrain for the entire world. Spin tires like mud and water interaction. Weather that has a real impact on the world with seasons.

Graphical fidelity is currently way ahead of interactivity and dynamic changing terrain. Anyhthing that changes or can be moved needs more memory than a simple static object. Hence Minecraft is so dependent on available memory while textures and characters are a non issue. Think of new games like minecraft, terraria, from dust, spin tires, that don't rely on super high res textures. BotW with more world interaction. What impact will the limited memory of the S have on that. Visual downgrades are to be expected, yet what do you do when visual downgrades are not an option.

It seems the S and X are just designed to make the same static games prettier. I wish we could move on from static worlds.

I think my previous post kinda addresses things you're touching on.

I am not sure about deforamable terrain in open world games. Is that a RAM issue? Can't SSDs help with streaming that data? I think we need to wait and see how games handle that and what specs are stressed. Don't expect it to be a big focus in average game design either.

We've already seen games in previous gens handling gamea that remember items that moved, doors that have been opened, any NPCs that dead, etc. And it would stress memory, but that was less of an issue in the 8th gen given memory given a massive increase.

Weather impacting gameplay is more of a game design issue I think. Forza Horizon 4 for example could instantly change the weather and have it impact how cars control. Or a storm could appear in recent Gears games that impact physics and player movement. Innovative game design could happen on 8th gen specs still.

If next gen games are static, it might just be a design issue, not specs. These new could do content even more ambitious than AC Unity with ease.