Call Of Duty: Advanced Warfare

[Inuhanyou]

that usually doesn't matter because in 99% of cases, the 360 was the lead platform and ps3 got the crap ports No one cared about wrestling with balancing the cell and RSX except Sony, and that definitely showed how bad Sony fucked up with their hubris designing the thing.

Only FF13, and LA.Noire and Naruto Ultimate Ninja storm franchise (first party games by default of course) were ever lead platform on PS3, and that definitely showed with much higher picture clarity for cut-scenes on PS3, and generally better performance.

360 by and large dominated the 7th gen in terms of games designed around its platform, even above the PC for a long time.

 

[djskribbles]

I wonder how you guys feel about all the times the X360 was held back by the PS3. But I'm sure it's not a case of double standards with you.

But the majority of multiplats were better on X360.

As a PS3 only owner last gen, I honestly wouldn't care if developers aimed for parity. But at the same time, I would understand if X360 owners would be annoyed.

Whether emotions are involved or not, it's wrong regardless. Developers should make the best product they can on each platform with whatever budget, time and hardware they're given.

Speaking of double standards. Some people all of a sudden feel that Digital Foundry comparisons are pointless.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Whether emotions are involved or not, it's wrong regardless. Developers should make the best product they can on each platform with whatever budget, time and hardware they're given.

I'd say budget tends to dictate parity. Why spend more on one version than another? Only if you're competing with other games on the high-end platform that look better and get more attention do you need to invest more. Otherwise, if your game is good enough to get the sales, spending more on a little more polish that yields little to no returns makes no business sense.

This is the world of the cross-platform. It's one of the reasons why multiple console platforms is becoming a hindrance - software is moving towards platform agnosticism, while hardware isn't.

 

[ultragpu]

If Sony released a bottom of the pit 7770 level console this gen I would be no less critical about it. MS has dropped the ball bad..

 

[RudeCurve]

Developers should make the best product they can on each platform with whatever budget, time and hardware they're given.

In an ideal world that would happen, but in the real world money talks.

 

[djskribbles]

I'd say budget tends to dictate parity. Why spend more on one version than another? Only if you're competing with other games on the high-end platform that look better and get more attention do you need to invest more. Otherwise, if your game is good enough to get the sales, spending more on a little more polish that yields little to no returns makes no business sense.

This is the world of the cross-platform. It's one of the reasons why multiple console platforms is becoming a hindrance - software is moving towards platform agnosticism, while hardware isn't.

If a considerable amount of effort is needed for gains on the more capable machine, then that's fair. But if the more capable machine is being held back because they're aiming for parity, then that's simply wrong IMO.

I also don't think it would be right if they allocated more time and budget on getting the less capable machine up to par, while giving the more capable machine less attention. The games cost the same amount of money, therefore, the same amount of effort should be expected to be put on both games (unless incentives were given, which I suppose could be the case here). But regardless, in either of my examples, I don't think it's right.

 

[Deleted member 86764]

I don't mind too much if the settings are essentially the same across both platforms providing the more powerful machine is allowed to run at higher fps/res (as with most multi-platform games released so far), but if the resolution/fps is artifically lowered to match the lowest specced machine, then yes, it is definitely annoying.

To be fair on Sledgehammer, they haven't suggested artificial lowering of the PS4's resolution.

Regarding the earlier point about double standards, I was a 360 owner last generation for much the same reason I'm a PS4 owner this one.

 

[Laa-Yosh]

The article on COD AW is not a comparison, and the reason I have issues with it is that it makes assumptions based on pre-alpha code.

 

[iroboto]

If a considerable amount of effort is needed for gains on the more capable machine, then that's fair. But if the more capable machine is being held back because they're aiming for parity, then that's simply wrong IMO.

The tldr is optimization and maximization will always come down to diminishing returns on both the effort and sales front. Increasing the feature set means increasing the amount of extra work you need to do.

Once you hit the goal I don't see why they need to keep pushing the ps4 more and more they still have other platforms that require getting up to target. Time is better spent squashing bugs, graphical glitches and performance hiccups then pushing the envelope on one platform over the other.

 

[Prophecy2k]

The article on COD AW is not a comparison, and the reason I have issues with it is that it makes assumptions based on pre-alpha code.

As long as the author clearly states that it's an assumption, based on early code, and that the final game can change, then what is the harm really?

 

[Laa-Yosh]

Just look at this thread, damnit. People already treat it as a fact that the final game will run at 30-40fps in single player. And this is B3D, it's supposed to be an elite forum and not some trolls' nest.

 

[BRiT]

Just look at this thread, damnit. People already treat it as a fact that the final game will run at 30-40fps in single player. And this is B3D, it's supposed to be an elite forum and not some trolls' nest.

I blame the console section...

 

[BRiT]

*ahem* back on topic to this single game or I'm gonna be handing out vacations from the site here. Take the feature parity talk to somewhere else too.

 

[SlimJim]

I think the depth of field in this game is unparalleled.

 

[ultragpu]

Overall a very good looking game, the only sore spot is the low res building texture. I'm quite impressed by the particle effects and swarming drones, I bet the latter is some gpu compute trickery.

 

[Prophecy2k]

I htink the graphics look really nice. The only that worries me slightly is after re-watching the gameplay demo they showed at the MS conference, it just seems as if the actual gameplay seems a bit... I dunno... dull.

I've played a few of the previous COD campaigns, and maybe its just rose tinted glasses, since it's been a while since I last played one, but I kinda remember COD games' gameplay being alot more lively and exciting than what they showed.

The guns in the demo sounded like BB guns, and there was barely any enemies around; and even the ones that were there showed pretty poor and lazy AI.

I was excited for this game after the first trailer, but after the Xboxconference footage, the wind has been sucked outta my sails a bit.

 

[Inuhanyou]

that's how every COD shoots

 

[Prophecy2k]

Maybe its for good reason then that I'd stayed out of the COD franchise.

I was hoping this one would be the one to entice me back. I'll still wait and see mor ethough.

 

[fearsomepirate]

COD gun sounds have been bad for a long time. It's not that they were good and got worse, it's that audio engineers at DICE, GG, and other developers made a lot of advances, and Infinity Ward simply never caught up, so their games just sound like trash in comparison. I guess they didn't feel like they had to, what with COD being the best-selling FPS and all.

Treyarch's audio has improved a lot, however. It's not top-tier by any means, but the Black Ops games had far and away better audio than either Modern Warfare title or Ghosts.

 

[RudeCurve]