| zeldaring said: I told you ps3 vs 360 was always subjective they both have strength and weaknesses |
I don't agree with it being subjective. So what you "tell me" is ultimately irrelevant and thus a redundant point to make... You are not an authority on the topic, thus your statements can and will be taken with a grain of salt.
Besides, I have provided enough evidence prior on this to determine this statement as false.
| zeldaring said: overall the most techically impressive game was gtav and most people agree |
Again... Another baseless statement that is not based in reality. No one here has talked about GTA5 except for you.
So to lie and assert that "most people agree" is false.
Have you ran a poll?
| zeldaring said: and there are more techically demanding games then ps3 exlusives that ran better on 360 |
Not that I have claimed otherwise.
But... Such as?
| zeldaring said: it was 360 and that makes it the superior hardware. notice that no one at beyond 3d actually acts like you, and saying ps3 i more powerful is a fact, because in reality it's a subjective opinion, but you can't seem to accept that and move on. you were are trying to imply i don't know what i'm talking when other people that know their stuff actually agree, so lets just leave at that and move on. |
No one is disputing that the Xbox 360 had the better hardware.
It just didn't have the best peak-performing hardware.
It's an important distinction to make... And if you actually read the Beyond3D forum in it's intended context and not just the tidbits you agree with (That falls into your limited scope of understanding) that conform to your own confirmation biases, you will see that they also agree with me. - Or do I need to pull quotes from their statements to point it out in plain black and white to prove that point? I have already made a mockery of your blind statements so far.
You should also probably keep in mind I am also not a Playstation gamer, so it's not a brand-bias.
| zeldaring said: but you can't seem to accept that and move on. you were are trying to imply i don't know what i'm talking when other people that know their stuff actually agree, so lets just leave at that and move on. |
Pot meet kettle, the hypocrisy in this statement is hilariously ironic and comical. Surely you jest and are attempting to take the micky out of me, right?
You don't know what you are talking about.
| zeldaring said: Any links or posts where you read the die shot and actually one of the first people to get it correct like function? He actually provides proof. |
I am involved in many enthusiast hardware circles and have done so for decades. I have built (8-bit) microprocessors. Keep that in mind, that kind of makes me more experienced/advanced in this field than yourself who has probably never even heard of something like electro-migration and it's implications in modern microprocessor design.
I have provided proof prior in this thread and you hilariously ignored it, so what's the point in wasting my time further? Clearly your bias runs deep and you are not open-minded enough to change your position when presented with evidence as you keep rambling with the same points provided being proven false.
| zeldaring said: I never said cartoony can't be more techically impressive of course they can, but it's impossible to compare these games on similar specced hardware because realistic graphics just require a higher computing budget for more detail on character models, and envoriments so a cell shaded game has more room for more effects. like if botw was not cell shaded and went for realistic graphics it would be impossible on wiiu. |
I'll quote you directly and leave it at that:
"zeldaring said: Also it's impossible to know which is techically more demanding game one is going for realistic graphics so it will require more computing power, and anyone with common sense will tell you need more calculations to make a living city then some barren wooded area"
| zeldaring said: As or wiiu not being maxed out after release i disagree mario kart 8 and black flag are proabably the best looking games graphically. As for the Cpu these developers are under NDA for them to complain that much, it must have been terrible and the ports show the results. as for GPU yea some developers talked it up but the results never really showed, like many would say its more modern and we will get better graphics but they could not pull it off. |
Breath of the Wild is a more technically impressive game than either.
Are you suggesting the developer is lying? What are -your- credentials that determine the developer is a liar?
Many games showed the proficiency of the WiiU graphics engine. Breath of the Wild being a prime example, making that statement false.
| zeldaring said: anyway come post in the beyond3d thread cause no one really cares about this discussion over here, the other one is very active. |
What makes you think I am not a member on that forum? Again... The fact I even need to keep repeating this ad-infinitum... I have been around for a long time in this field.
| zeldaring said: Well better is really up to each taste. |
They don't need to be photorealistic. Again... I point you towards the FarCry vs Links Awakening comparison as the "checkmate" moment.
Comparing different games that use different arty styles is fine, if you understand the rendering methods being employed and can thus deduct and break down a scene into it's individual parts for analysis.
I.E. Unreal Engine 3/4/5 games can use Cell-Shading and look impressive, doesn't make them less computationally intensive than a game pushing for realism.
...Actually. That has happened before. See: Borderlands on 7th gen. - It used Unreal Engine 3 and it's performance profile and rendering budget was similar to other Unreal Engine 3 games... So again. Checkmate.
The more you know.
--::{PC Gaming Master Race}::--
