PlayStation 4 vs. Xbox One

[Pemalite]

zeldaring said:

You saying red dead poops on GTAV really shows how subjective this is. I'm not talking about here but EVERY forum i visit like resetera, neogaf, and beyond3d all  have GTAV at the highest technical achievment on 7th gen consoles, and Like i said no one can look at a game and really tell how technically  demanding it is, that why it's better to use multiplatform games in a large number to compare consoles, same method used for PC'S. Did you even know GTAV uses PBR? with scale it has is insane.

Crysis 3 literally has a better, more robust, more extensive array of visual effects, techniques and presents superior graphics on 7th gen consoles.

This isn't "subjective". This is fact. CryEngine is technically more proficient than the RAGE engine.

If you can find where GTA5 is visually more technically impressive than this... I will eat my hat... Until then. You don't have an argument.

zeldaring said:

scale and sadboxy-ness impose a lot more performance costs and complications, so it makes every achievemnts much more impressive. But it trully is hard to weight scope vs. detail.

Open world games were a dime-a-dozen on 7th gen. I already listed a heap... So I will repeat myself yet again and make a notable mention of titles such as GTA4, Oblivion, Skyrim, FarCry, Fallout, Borderlands and more.

GTA5 isn't special in this regard.

zeldaring said:

If you were to put games in distinct categories though (like weight classes in combat sports) we could divide them in order of technical complexity created by scope/scale/freedom like this:

-2D games (mostly hand-crafted art);
-Fighting games;
-2.5D platformers and top down games (3d graphis with very constrained/predictable cameras);
-Free roam linear 3D games and racers;
-Open World games;
-Free roam Space Sims;
-Roy (full simulation of the universe in VR)

This is bullshit.

You can have some very technical 2.5D games like Links Awakening on Nintendo Switch with it's material shaders, depth of field and smart use of specular highlights, which is arguably more technically proficient than say... Mario Odyssey.

The "type" of games and how they are presented is thus irrellevent, the underlying technology is what's important.

Case in point... Gamebryo powered Oblivion... A sprawling open world game with ample use of shader model 3.0 features and bloom... Yet that same engine powered another "2.5D" game like Defense Grid... Which ironically deployed the same visual effects, but just in a different manner.

Technically same feature visual sets, artistically and mechanically very different.

And before you ask, I have very low-level understanding of Net-Immerse turned Gamebryo turned Creation Engine as I have done a ton of modding and reverse engineering of shaders.

Because apparently... Qualifications and experience means everything to you, but doesn't apply to you.

zeldaring said:

In GTAV's category, it pulls no punches in terms of ambition while still having asset detail at least in the same league if not better than many games that are trying to do less.

No one in the history of this thread has ever said that GTA5 lacked ambition or scale.

This argument is redundant.

zeldaring said:

GTA has fully explorable world, no well masked invisible walls, seamless interior/exterior integration, full dynamic ToD and weather with realistic sun shadow tragectories, and it lets you both walk at a slow pace throught that world right close to everything but also fly through it at speed (real strain on streaming).

Isn't the point of all open world games is to have an explore-able world?

Isn't the point of all games in general is to have a new world to explore?

Different scales and scope, but that tends to be the entire point of a video game environment.

Many games list everything you list on 7th gen. I mean shit... FarCry had fire propagation and moveable foliage.

zeldaring said:

While on foot the world is highly interactive: many NPCs with high quality animations and physics (for the time) and many physically simulated 3D objects, tons of traffic, and you can also fly high enough that you can see the entire map on screen at once, and fall back down at reasonable speed without a hitch from the game and relatively discrete LOD transitions.

I would argue Breath of the Wild was more interactive with significantly more simulated aspects that you can interact with.

Same goes for many other open world games like... Again. FarCry... And ironically Minecraft even.

Do you even understand how they enabled such draw distances with such seamless LOD transitions? They used a technique called "impostering" where essentially they use a 2D photo of the 3D asset... This technique got popularized with Halo: Reach and was a massive efficiency boon.

I.E. This is another cutback from Halo 3 to Halo: Reach/Halo 4, where they abandoned the use of high quality geometric assets.

zeldaring said:

It tacled both Interior and exterior Urban environments, Forests, Farms, Deserts, Mountains, Rivers, Under Water etc... It does all of them very servicibly, and no city that gen looks as plausible and rich in its execution as Los Santos (no building fucking repeats ever)

I have deep respects for Rockstars achievements there, and many feel the same. It also doesn't take a genuis to tell which is one is  techically more demanding in this case.

I am going to call you out on this lie.
Houses in Mirror Park are duplicated with some tweaks, they are the same model.

But unique assets isn't a technical achievement, it's a time/money limitation, not an engine limitation.

GTA5 is an impressive game, but it's not the most technically impressive on 7th gen, not by a long mile.