By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Kyuu said:
EpicRandy said:

Yes mostly, There will be some extreme cases, but such extreme cases will also affect Series X and PS5 way out of their standard zone. I use a lot of Immortals of Aveum as an example because it's very recent and one of the most extreme cases, if not the most extreme, which creates a great tangible example of what we could expect of series S in such a scenario and probably what's closest right now to your "near-broken state". When you require Series X and PS5 to internally render at 720P there isn't much leeway left to create an acceptable console experience altogether. yet the S, despite being way down in resolution and preset, and it shows, still manages great draw distance, stable fps, and delivers the full experience of the game so the most "near-broken state" up to date is still not that bad.

The "Anger" that will come out of such a title is pretty likely not to be reserved for a Series S owner, being a Series X owner I question the design choice Ascendant Studios made that produced an experience requiring Series X/PS5 to render as low as 720P way lower than my expectation for a 9th gen title. So when people point fingers and say Look at the poor Series S performance with Title X, the reality is it's probably a poor experience across the board anyway. The Series S experience delivery will always be tied to the one its most powerful siblings can achieve. Have a game that delivers on the expectation of a Series X/PS5 owner, it will deliver on the expectation of a Series S owner, deliver a game subpar to X/ps5 owner, it will also be sub-par to Series S owner expectation.

At the end of the day, it's up to the devs to design their games the way they want and I want them to have the leeway they desire, but it's also their responsibility to remain within reason. If devs go berserk trying to create the next visual benchmark at the expanse of the overall game experience on all but the very high-end PC rigs while the vast majority of their customer will be bound to a substandard resolution and presets then what's the point of even targeting such demanding graphics even in the first place?

I agree on a lot of this, but we practically just entered this painfully slow generation. Sooner or later, I don't know if cases like Aveum would remain rare among AAA games. Anyone who insisted those consoles were [insert resolution/framerate] machines have no understanding of game development whatsoever, but I can't entirely blame them when we had literal developers misinforming people that midgen upgrades were "Not happening, because PS5 is a 4K machine as is".

There is no such thing as "4K machine". Even the PS4 Pro was 4K capable, but in the end it's the workload that decides the resolution or framerate. Like in workout terms the weight you're lifting determines your reps.

The anger should be more common towards the Series S, because Microsoft emphasized early into the generation on 1080p-1440p and 60-120fps being the expected experience. And FSR is useless at scaling from resolutions as low as sub 500p. To top the resolution and framerate reductions, Series S is also seeing huge visual cutbacks including more limited Nanite and Lumen utilization. Aveum Series S vs X is borderline generational difference.

But the average complainer will blame the developers, using silly arguments like Series S running indies at 4K.

"but it's also their responsibility to remain within reason"

720p at 60fps is acceptable imo, if barely. FSR helps the final image looking at lot crisper. "4K machines" not reaching their expected 4K image quality (which is an overkill anyway) is not as problematic as Series S rendering in native 400p-500p, where FSR is pretty much useless. We both know that high-end PC's won't be targeted as the primary systems to develop for, because their userbase is tiny. PS5 and midrange PC's were always going to be the default platforms for obvious reasons, the first of which is popularity/adoption rate.

720p can be acceptable in some scenarios but I'd still challenge the decision that led to this outcome and hope its uses remain pretty exceptional all through the gen. And, at the same time I'd find that outcome acceptable, I would also consider 400-500p acceptable for the series S to the same extent.

The anger should be more common towards the Series S, because Microsoft emphasized early into the generation on 1080p-1440p and 60-120fps being the expected experience.

1080p-1440p capacity of the S has not been emphasized any differently than the 4k capacity of the Series X or Ps5. I did put "Anger" in quotation marks because it's not actually a thing. Even with the most egregious example to date, there's no "anger" to speak of and there will most likely never be. The "Anger" or bad reviews for the games I've seen are targeted at the game's overall design choice, I'm yet to see one that specifically singles out Series S. So far the only actual anger I see towards the S is from non-user that deem the experience too subpart for actual user to enjoy meanwhile actual user simply enjoy the experience. And why would it be different, I mean if you find Series performance unacceptable then go for the X or PS5 or PC, if you cannot due to financial reasons then you were always going to be screwed anyway and the Series S at least still provide you with an option.

I enjoyed playing 224p titles on my NES and still enjoy it to this day, Why cannot I enjoy modern gaming features on a budget even if it means 400-500p in exceptional cases? Because someone else decided that this option should not exist to me? Or because someone else decided in my stead what should be acceptable to me? Or because someone else made a very dubious claim that it's somehow bad for the more powerful option to have a less powerful one?

And FSR is useless at scaling from resolutions as low as sub 500p

FSR 2.0 is intended to work with as low as 360p, it's not useless and will only get better with each iteration.

seeing huge visual cutbacks including more limited Nanite and Lumen utilization

Huge is subjective but even then it's still in line with users' expectations of the Series S.

To top the resolution and framerate reductions

In the vast majority of cases, framerate is maintained and the Series S is often the one producing the most consistent result due to lower output resolution and lower fidelity assets being used.

Aveum Series S vs X is borderline generational difference

It's way more akin to the diff you'll find on PC by swapping a low-tier GPU to a mid-tier one of the same gen, nothing really generational. In terms of gameplay, all the elements are present and the game simply would not work on Xbox One/PS4, and not even on the One X or PS4 Pro for the lack of CPU power. 

The case with Immortals produces mixed feelings as to whether it is reasonable though. This title was trying to push Nanite and Lumen from the latest UE version yet those appear to be resource-intensive. One of the points of those techs was to reduce some dev time by making it easier to use raw unoptimized assets throughout most of the dev's process and maybe even to some capacity in the retail version, it's not clear if Ascendant Studios achieved some budget saving with those. However, the result for us consumers is a product that did not really break any barrier in terms of visuals compared to other contemporary titles that successfully manage better performance and native resolutions by relying on more proven tech. It's in this context that the design choice becomes more questionable. 

In the same vein, a lot of devs push for graphics for the sake of it and create a marketing campaign stating their title push to limit the latest top-end GPU of the markets. There have been a lot of this throughout the years and all those titles almost always end up being only a bleep on gamers' radars that fade as soon as the title is released, too often lacking in other aspects or simply lacking the compatibility that would enable the title a larger crowd of player to build a fanbase on. This is relevant because, in all likely scenarios, this is the kind of design choice that would make it hard to produce a console experience and more so for the S.

To me, this quest for the best graphics has become so unappealing anyway, it has been used so much as PR to hide what titles lack that this kind of marketing does not produce the slightest bit of hype for me anymore. To me, great gameplay with OK graphics will produce a great game, and great graphics with OK gameplay will only produce OK titles. On top of that, I find that today, out of all periods in gaming history is the perfect time to not care that much about graphics as with minimal effort, the title will still look great anyway.

As far as the Series S's longevity goes, even in the case of some exceptions tackle it in a way that the Series S truly can't handle, so be it, the benefits for millions of gamers to enjoy gaming at a lower cost of entry far outweigh the cost of a handful yet to exist exceptional cases.