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

Forums - Nintendo - After seeing Bayonetta 2 and 'X' in action today...

 

The PS4's power seems...

Better, but not THAT much better anymore... 241 15.42%
 
Are you crazy?! The PS4 is GOD! 349 22.33%
 
The Wii U is clearly unde... 741 47.41%
 
The PS4 is selling better... 36 2.30%
 
I think I'll be buying a... 191 12.22%
 
Total:1,558
drake4 on 14 February 2014
dahuman said:
drake4 said:
dahuman said:
drake4 said:
dahuman said:
drake4 said:
 

sure i guess beauty is in the eye of the beholder.


There is no beauty involved here, I can just catch flaws in both games graphically by just looking at them, the build of X they showed as of right now does look better than RDR and previous builds, it's not hard to catch on at all.

thanks for telling me what looks better, to me RDR pics looks much better, the X pic looks like a mess, graphics look terrible to me in that pic.


That's more a problem with HUD, which has nothing to do with it on a technical level, you are talking about art direction, which has nothing to do with what I'm talking about to start with, moot.


please explain to me how on a technical X looks better, mighty pc gamer, did you spot most of the grass in X is flat, looking like card board cut outs in the trailer, or that the image quality looks pretty bad and so are the jaggies, what about that horrible animation.

It has higher geometry(poly count,) better shadows, higher res textures, and more going on in the screen at once, animation is about as shitty as FF14 or any JRPG, there is nothing I can say about that one. The only JP studio that has my jaws drop on animations is PG+.

poly count looks lower to me, better shadows has to be a joke, textures on both look about the same, and lighting looks much better to me then the X gameplay vid.



Around the Network
supernihilist on 14 February 2014

the footage shown didnt make X justice IMHO, the quality was poor and what was shown was a battle with no vistas and such...
It didnt play for the games strenghts. But both look great for what they are (not really big budget games)



fatslob-:O on 14 February 2014
dahuman said:
fatslob-:O said:
dahuman said:
fatslob-:O said:
dahuman said:
 

I did, it was a dumb attempt to downplay the Wii U and overplay the other consoles when I keep iterating that they are all nothing super powerful to start with.

Just how exactly is it an attempt to down play the WII U ? 

by asking the question of whether it can do water physics or not naturally I'm letting it go though, I'm trying to get him to just stop going back and forth with you cause it's going exactly nowhere.

It's not exactly water physics ... It's more on the lines of a flexible animation. Simulating real fluids would consist of accounting for change in surfaces along the volumetric boundaries and surface tension.

You wish it was overplaying the new HD twins but it's quite obvious that the GCN's architecure at implimenting compute shaders really do show. 

Both the PS4 and X1 are very capable of SPH simulation using 80K particles with a voxel size of 512x128x128 at around 30 FPS. Whereas on the WII U this type of workload would mostly make it crash or run at sub 5 FPS. 

Of course the Wii U can do it, that was just a bad question to start with, the question would have made more sense if you talked about being able to do it on a massive scale to start with, which not even the PS4 can do, those numbers are not massive scales in which they will change gaming foreva! Can the X1 and PS4 do it better than Wii U? Obsolutely! Stop trying to justify your original stupid question and lets move on.

How exactly is it a bad question to begin with ? 

Massive scale ? Does everything have to be of massive scales ? Exactly ...  "Massive" is a relative term. While I don't think it's big it is somewhat meaningful.

Instead of jumping in this thread so brashly why don't you go and read the rest of thread ...

I'm not here trying to justify my question however why don't you justify your impudent response when a conclusion has already being made.



dahuman on 14 February 2014
drake4 said:
dahuman said:
drake4 said:


please explain to me how on a technical X looks better, mighty pc gamer, did you spot most of the grass in X is flat, looking like card board cut outs in the trailer, or that the image quality looks pretty bad and so are the jaggies, what about that horrible animation.

It has higher geometry(poly count,) better shadows, higher res textures, and more going on in the screen at once, animation is about as shitty as FF14 or any JRPG, there is nothing I can say about that one. The only JP studio that has my jaws drop on animations is PG+.

poly count looks lower to me, better shadows has to be a joke, textures on both look about the same, and lighting looks much better to me then the X gameplay vid.


Like I said, PC master race, you just don't have the eyes for them.



fatslob-:O on 14 February 2014
drake4 said:
dahuman said:
drake4 said:
dahuman said:
drake4 said:
dahuman said:
drake4 said:
 

sure i guess beauty is in the eye of the beholder.


There is no beauty involved here, I can just catch flaws in both games graphically by just looking at them, the build of X they showed as of right now does look better than RDR and previous builds, it's not hard to catch on at all.

thanks for telling me what looks better, to me RDR pics looks much better, the X pic looks like a mess, graphics look terrible to me in that pic.


That's more a problem with HUD, which has nothing to do with it on a technical level, you are talking about art direction, which has nothing to do with what I'm talking about to start with, moot.


please explain to me how on a technical X looks better, mighty pc gamer, did you spot most of the grass in X is flat, looking like card board cut outs in the trailer, or that the image quality looks pretty bad and so are the jaggies, what about that horrible animation.

It has higher geometry(poly count,) better shadows, higher res textures, and more going on in the screen at once, animation is about as shitty as FF14 or any JRPG, there is nothing I can say about that one. The only JP studio that has my jaws drop on animations is PG+.

poly count looks lower to me, better shadows has to be a joke, textures on both look about the same, and lighting looks much better to me then the X gameplay vid.

Both RDR and X looks like shit to me as a PC gamer ...



Around the Network
dahuman on 14 February 2014
fatslob-:O said:
dahuman said:
fatslob-:O said:

It's not exactly water physics ... It's more on the lines of a flexible animation. Simulating real fluids would consist of accounting for change in surfaces along the volumetric boundaries and surface tension.

You wish it was overplaying the new HD twins but it's quite obvious that the GCN's architecure at implimenting compute shaders really do show. 

Both the PS4 and X1 are very capable of SPH simulation using 80K particles with a voxel size of 512x128x128 at around 30 FPS. Whereas on the WII U this type of workload would mostly make it crash or run at sub 5 FPS. 

Of course the Wii U can do it, that was just a bad question to start with, the question would have made more sense if you talked about being able to do it on a massive scale to start with, which not even the PS4 can do, those numbers are not massive scales in which they will change gaming foreva! Can the X1 and PS4 do it better than Wii U? Obsolutely! Stop trying to justify your original stupid question and lets move on.

How exactly is it a bad question to begin with ? 

Massive scale ? Does everything have to be of massive scales ? Exactly ...  "Massive" is a relative term. While I don't think it's big it is somewhat meaningful.

Instead of jumping in this thread so brashly why don't you go and read the rest of thread ...

I'm not here trying to justify my question however why don't you justify your impudent response when a conclusion has already being made.

Your question was dumb because you worded it wrong(TBH I don't think you did, I think you honest didn't think the Wii U can even do it, but I know you don't like the Wii U, so I wouldn't be surprised,) then you tried to recover it by changing topics and shifting shit around, and Curl still kept going with you which I don't know why. It's not that complicated, it's not like the new consoles has the capacity to make anything game changing with the ability to do water physics a little better, it's the destruction part that will matter more, water is just for woo ahh pretty shit going on that doesn't do much with that kind of power to start with.



drake4 on 14 February 2014

fatslob-:O said:
drake4 said:
dahuman said:
drake4 said:
dahuman said:
drake4 said:
dahuman said:
drake4 said:
 

sure i guess beauty is in the eye of the beholder.


There is no beauty involved here, I can just catch flaws in both games graphically by just looking at them, the build of X they showed as of right now does look better than RDR and previous builds, it's not hard to catch on at all.

thanks for telling me what looks better, to me RDR pics looks much better, the X pic looks like a mess, graphics look terrible to me in that pic.


That's more a problem with HUD, which has nothing to do with it on a technical level, you are talking about art direction, which has nothing to do with what I'm talking about to start with, moot.


please explain to me how on a technical X looks better, mighty pc gamer, did you spot most of the grass in X is flat, looking like card board cut outs in the trailer, or that the image quality looks pretty bad and so are the jaggies, what about that horrible animation.

It has higher geometry(poly count,) better shadows, higher res textures, and more going on in the screen at once, animation is about as shitty as FF14 or any JRPG, there is nothing I can say about that one. The only JP studio that has my jaws drop on animations is PG+.

poly count looks lower to me, better shadows has to be a joke, textures on both look about the same, and lighting looks much better to me then the X gameplay vid.

Both RDR and X looks like shit to me as a PC gamer ...

based of those pics, i posted please view them direct feed which looks better to you techincally, and i agree they both look dated.



Samus Aran on 14 February 2014
fatslob-:O said:
drake4 said:
dahuman said:
drake4 said:
dahuman said:
drake4 said:
dahuman said:
drake4 said:
 

sure i guess beauty is in the eye of the beholder.


There is no beauty involved here, I can just catch flaws in both games graphically by just looking at them, the build of X they showed as of right now does look better than RDR and previous builds, it's not hard to catch on at all.

thanks for telling me what looks better, to me RDR pics looks much better, the X pic looks like a mess, graphics look terrible to me in that pic.


That's more a problem with HUD, which has nothing to do with it on a technical level, you are talking about art direction, which has nothing to do with what I'm talking about to start with, moot.


please explain to me how on a technical X looks better, mighty pc gamer, did you spot most of the grass in X is flat, looking like card board cut outs in the trailer, or that the image quality looks pretty bad and so are the jaggies, what about that horrible animation.

It has higher geometry(poly count,) better shadows, higher res textures, and more going on in the screen at once, animation is about as shitty as FF14 or any JRPG, there is nothing I can say about that one. The only JP studio that has my jaws drop on animations is PG+.

poly count looks lower to me, better shadows has to be a joke, textures on both look about the same, and lighting looks much better to me then the X gameplay vid.

Both RDR and X looks like shit to me as a PC gamer ...


So you're bragging about the fact that you need to spend a lot more money for the same effect? (i.e. thinking a game looks pretty)

That's actually incredibly sad. 



dahuman on 14 February 2014
fatslob-:O said:
drake4 said:
dahuman said:

It has higher geometry(poly count,) better shadows, higher res textures, and more going on in the screen at once, animation is about as shitty as FF14 or any JRPG, there is nothing I can say about that one. The only JP studio that has my jaws drop on animations is PG+.

poly count looks lower to me, better shadows has to be a joke, textures on both look about the same, and lighting looks much better to me then the X gameplay vid.

Both RDR and X looks like shit to me as a PC gamer ...

well duh :P they really do look like shit if you come from that angle, shit's laughable TBH, Wii U is underpowered as hell.



fatslob-:O on 14 February 2014
dahuman said:
fatslob-:O said:
dahuman said:
fatslob-:O said:
 

It's not exactly water physics ... It's more on the lines of a flexible animation. Simulating real fluids would consist of accounting for change in surfaces along the volumetric boundaries and surface tension.

You wish it was overplaying the new HD twins but it's quite obvious that the GCN's architecure at implimenting compute shaders really do show. 

Both the PS4 and X1 are very capable of SPH simulation using 80K particles with a voxel size of 512x128x128 at around 30 FPS. Whereas on the WII U this type of workload would mostly make it crash or run at sub 5 FPS. 

Of course the Wii U can do it, that was just a bad question to start with, the question would have made more sense if you talked about being able to do it on a massive scale to start with, which not even the PS4 can do, those numbers are not massive scales in which they will change gaming foreva! Can the X1 and PS4 do it better than Wii U? Obsolutely! Stop trying to justify your original stupid question and lets move on.

How exactly is it a bad question to begin with ? 

Massive scale ? Does everything have to be of massive scales ? Exactly ...  "Massive" is a relative term. While I don't think it's big it is somewhat meaningful.

Instead of jumping in this thread so brashly why don't you go and read the rest of thread ...

I'm not here trying to justify my question however why don't you justify your impudent response when a conclusion has already being made.

Your question was dumb because you worded it wrong(TBH I don't think you did, I think you honest didn't think the Wii U can even do it, but I know you don't like the Wii U, so I wouldn't be surprised,) then you tried to recover it by changing topics and shifting shit around, and Curl still kept going with you which I don't know why. It's not that complicated, it's not like the new consoles has the capacity to make anything game changing with the ability to do water physics a little better, it's the destruction part that will matter more, water is just for woo ahh pretty shit going on that doesn't do much with that kind of power to start with.

Changing Topics ? O RLY ?

/sarcasm

Game changing is on the eye of the beholder, personally speaking It is a massive jump in trying to do SPH simulation when the last gen consoles would just crash instead ...

It's all relative to one person or another here whether it is destructibility or SPH simulation that matters more ... (We can do this all day y'know ...)