It could simply be a dynamic resolution averaging around 720p with decreased settings to compensate for the GPU disparity.

But if a X1X game was built to utilize the additional 4GB of RAM for the game engine, that could be an issue for a base hardware port.

Frankly, imagine if Battlefield V on X1X had a 1080p/60 fps mode with the highest effects and textures of PC. That's probably what a game that really utilized X1X looks like. BFV on X1 and X1X is more like medium settings and textures. The X1X is using the extra power for resolution instead of better effects and textures found on PC.

I think its a mix bag. GTA3 on PS2 had impressive physics like driving, draw distance probably varied between the games, but Morrowind was certainly more impressive in regard to the world's memory use and effects.

I showed you a video of Halo 3 on 360 with no frame pacing issues. The link you gave me did not demonstrate frame pacing issues, there was just a claim. I know what frame pacing issues are and that's why I am referring you to Halo Anniversary on 360, so you learn what frame pacing issues actually look like.

Okay, you're a PC gamer so all the impressive stuff we've seen Jaguar CPUs do on consoles, thanks to great optimization, simply doesn't exist. There is really no where else to go with that discussion. If you want a last word, feel free.

I agree, better specs does mean more impressive games become easier to make from a technical limitations perspective. However, I'm pointing out creating games like GTAV isn't just about specs, it also requires time and talent to create something like that on any specs. If GTAV was built on better specs, they probably would have just raised the bar further like RDR2 aimed for because Rockstar has that kind of money and talent.

No need to stress the load times discussion, we agree I am (mostly) right. Mods are supposed to be more mature... even when there is a lack of people that want to be mods.

There is a difference between a game made for PC with even lower baseline than X1, than making a game to be focused entirely on the best X1X have to offer at 1080p30fps and then cutting to put on X1. But yes it is feasible.

I think Microsoft recognized that, hence why they dropped their low-end next-gen console, they didn't want the more powerful consoles extra hardware just sunk into resolution.

Morrowind was heavier on the scripting, which is a CPU cycle hog, which is why it couldn't work on a Playstation 2... It's actually always been a big thing in Net Immerse/Gamebryo/Creation Engine powered games... Which is why Elder Scrolls was PC exclusive until the Original Xbox with appropriate hardware came along.

GTA3 on the PS2 did have it's detractions, it's certainly not the prettiest PS2 game... But Morrowind was a very pretty Original Xbox game, especially it's novel pixel shader water at the time.

The video you showed, showed no frame rate issues.
I showed you a link with frame pacing issues... There is a difference between frame rate and frame pacing.

Digital Foundry most certainly demonstrated frame pacing issues... Here is the link for you to re-read.
https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2014-what-works-and-what-doesnt-in-halo-the-master-chief-collection

And here is a print screen of it so you can't miss it again.

GTA5 probably wouldn't have been very different if it was on 6th gen.

Specs are certainly important.

I wasn't stating you were incorrect, I was taking a point of contention that GPU's accelerate load times which is false, so lets try to stick with what is true.

I am also going to ask you to refrain from making statements that question anyone's maturity or other ad hominem going forward, it's not constructive rhetoric.

Morrowind was certainly a very technically impressive original Xbox game, but even at the time I remember thinking it was frightfully ugly with its short draw distance and muddy palette. That's just me though.

But yeah, it definitely wouldn't have run on PS2. And perhaps more pertinently to the topic, neither would Combat Evolved.

It was like that on PC as well though. - I think it was needed, the CPU hardware wasn't available for the distant lands until Oblivion came along on PC/Xbox 360 several years later.

Yeah good point. And as per my edit, I think it's perhaps even more pertinent that Halo 1 wouldn't have run on PS2 either.

My main point is something truly built to take advantage of X1X can still be scaled back, especially when much of extra power is basically just better graphics. Therefore the baseline changes.

It was hard to imagine games really built for 8th gen consoles working on Switch, but developers are accomplishing it.

I suspect the low end Scarlett died because they simply couldn't produce a Scarlett for the budget market, it just seems too ambitious. Perhaps making functional ports for X1/X1X (for a while) and pushing Xcloud makes more sense.

I'm saying GTA3 and Morrowind were impressive for different reasons. I'm not sure if anything like Morrowind was attempted for PS2. Maybe they could have created something seemingly like Morrowind, but obviously the spec disparity wouldn't allow for a direct port of Morrowind on PS2.

Maybe you're focusing on how Halo 3 ran on 360 at launch versus now. I don't know and I'm moving on.

Specs certainly matter but you're missing the point. GTAV on 7th gen specs is more impressive than most 8th gen games. Hence, better specs doesn't mean every project has the ambitions of GTAV. I'm really just saying we don't need a massive specs boost for developers to create more ambitious games per se. Frankly, making prettier games is easier than creating more ambitious or unique games.

Do you not recall I already withdrew my comment about GPU affecting load times? So why the fuck do you keep bringing it up? Maybe its because you're too mature? You like to press it just to be obnoxious, but for some reason we aren't allowed to use the words describing of the exact behavior being used. Its strange...

I don't think it was too ambitious, it wouldn't have been difficult to ditch the SSD, go with a smaller GPU, slower DRAM, smaller power supply and cooler and come in at a lower price.

I just think Microsoft didn't want developers targeting the base console and just using the more powerful console just to drive home resolution, it's a waste of hardware in the end if that is your only benefit.

Pushing XCloud does make more sense, if anyone has the gall to win the cloud-gaming wars, Microsoft has the infrastructure already in place for the most part.

Agreed.

The frame pacing issues still exists in Halo 3 and Halo 3: ODST on the Xbox 360, it's an issue at the game engine level due to certain design choices that Bungie made, for better or worst.
Digital Foundry made those comments after the Master Chief Collection released, which was years after Halo 3 dropped on Xbox 360.

Again, I have provided the evidence needed to support my assertions on this matter, so we can pretty much agree and move on.

From a rendering technical level, GTA5 isn't impressive than most 8th gen games, from a simulation level with the way assets, scripting and so on is loaded in, that is impressive.

But in order for Rockstar to achieve what it did, it had to spend allot of time and effort to pull it off on underpowered hardware... Which if they had more powerful hardware from the get-go, they wouldn't need to have spent as much time or effort in pulling off.

Because I can.