Mixed Information on Consoles or How I learned to loathe PR *spin off*

[iroboto]

I get that you appreciate the improvement in res, but how much is that better than the HDR? That is, using figures for illustration, if someone feels 4K HDR is 100% better than 1080p SDR (worth the upgrade), is 4K HDR 50% better than 1080p HDR, or 25%, or 75%? There are two improvements brought from 4K HDR over the original consoles, but one of those is mitigated, which is where the improvement could be seen as a bit 'meh' from the mid-gen consoles.

Having neither seen HDR nor 4K, I've no personal view.

As per Brit's note, it's a concert of improvements coming together. The improved textures an AF settings are more pronounced with higher resolution. And in many ways even more desirable to have set at higher settings as resolution increases because at those weird angles where at a certain distance details fade off, it doesn't with 4K, you can see see detail and you want it to go on showing you detail from your POV all the way to the horizon. But with lower settings, details start to blur well before the horizon vanishing point.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

There is also improvements in Textures, Texture Filtering, AntiAliasing, game Loading Speed (by 40 to 60%), Image Quality in AO and other small rendering items, and Smoother Framerates that is brought to the table by the One X. Its not just raw Resolution. All of those make for a substantial and non disappointing upgrade. To say otherwise is a lie.

You're taking that to a fairly emotional extreme. A lie is a deliberate factual falsehood. The Kotaku article and this discussion has been about what's on screen as subjectively perceived because, as I said, disappointment is relatively entirely to expectations.

As per Brit's note, it's a concert of improvements coming together.

good points, but you have skirted the question about how much difference HDR itself makes. If you've already seen 1080p HDR, a very visceral difference to SDR, you've already had 'half' (or a third, or 5/8ths...) of the 'mid-gen' improvements, so I can see why Kotaku said what they did. And to reiterate, I have no personal opinion because I haven't seen any of these consoles so don't know if it'd be a disappointment to me or not. Kotaku itself was dissing both mid-gen machines...

"For all the noisy hype leading up to their release, both the PS4 Pro and the Xbox One X already feel much like 4K TVs themselves: just something to get when the good-enough thing you already have breaks and/or it’s on sale. Whee."
​

Which of course comes down to personal values. For some, $400-500 on a new console with faster loads and sharper textures is worth it. To others, it's not (and disappointing as not offering what they were hoping for, which might well be unrealistic as is often the way with expectations ).

 

[BRiT]

You're taking that to a fairly emotional extreme. A lie is a deliberate factual falsehood. The Kotaku article and this discussion has been about what's on screen as subjectively perceived because, as I said, disappointment is relatively entirely to expectations.

It was Kotaku that already started it with emotional words first with using the word "disappointment", I merely responded in kind.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

But disappointment is a subjective emotion. You can't tell someone not to be disappointed! That's how they feel, and it's not a lie. Well, unless actually they weren't disappointed and are just saying they are because that's cool. If someone watches Bright on Netflix and is disappointed, are they liars because the film has aspects that make it good??

 

[bunge]

It was Kotaku that already started it with emotional words first with using the word "disappointment", I merely responded in kind.

Maybe you should respond in kind directly to them instead of towards those of us here so we can keep the conversation elevated....

 

[BRiT]

@Shifty Geezer I think you're entirely oversimplifying comparison points down to simply resolution when it's the entire collection of improvements, so your questions don't really matter because the entire experience can't be summed up by only a single aspect. It's more complex than just resolution. While your questions might carry some weight to help quantify you need to also have questions for every aspect that's improved such as Textures, Texture Filtering, Antialiasing, Image Quality, Smoother Framerates, and Game loading speed.

TL;DR: The overall quality of the midgen consoles can not be reduced down to just resolution.

 

[bunge]

@Shifty Geezer I think you're entirely oversimplifying comparison points down to simply resolution when it's the entire collection of improvements, so your questions don't really matter because the entire experience can't be summed up by only a single aspect. It's more complex than just resolution. While your questions might carry some weight to help quantify you need to also have questions for every aspect that's improved such as Textures, Texture Filtering, Antialiasing, Image Quality, Smoother Framerates, and Game loading speed.

TL;DR: The overall quality of the midgen consoles can not be reduced down to just resolution.

Map each one of those across generations and then predict the “half way” point between current and next gen. Did these half step machines make a half generation jump or not? It appears “no”, but of course we won’t know for sure until the next gen arrives. We can however judge previous full generation technology jumps and compare to our current mid gen machines.

 

[BRiT]

Map each one of those across generations and then predict the “half way” point between current and next gen. Did these half step machines make a half generation jump or not? It appears “no”, but of course we won’t know for sure until the next gen arrives. We can however judge previous full generation technology jumps and compare to our current mid gen machines.

That's a good start, and I think it may be more complex because of possible considerations including the following, specifically as you pointing out with the huge unknown about "next-gen":

1) What will Next-Gen bring? And When? And for how much? There is a huge set of unknowns about next-gen consoles.
2) The scoring would be different if it's done within each respective eco system (xbox to xbox and playstation to playstation) as opposed to across eco systems. The jump from the anemic Xbox One to Xbox One X is large. The jump from the solid PS4 to PS4Pro is large for VR.
3) How much disposable income does the user have and how important is gaming to them?

For issue 1 we have entire thread with hundreds if not thousands of posts on it and it's really difficult to come to any sort of consensus at all, other than the "we really don't know because it's complex".

For issue 2, if you're really into VR then the answers for 4Pro may be more heavily weighted towards Yes and if you're not then the answers may be more weighted towards no, and if you have a 4K HDR set then the answers might be more weighted towards Yes. If you're in MS land I think the answers more likely weight towards Yes because of such a weak base console where results can be seen even on 1080p sets.

For issue 3, if you can afford upgrading consoles and enjoy it then it's more weighted towards Yes because why not enjoy what you can as early as you can? If you didn't get into the current generation until it hit the sub $200 US range then priorities are rated differently.

Even if you found various demographics that were statistically similar to survey, they would likely have different answers.

*shrug*

To me, the One X and 4Pro mid-gen consoles weren't disappointments because the overall experience is better and I get robotic dinosaurs and eventually freakers from Bend Studios! That however won't stop me from wishing it was overall cheaper. I'm glad for the mid-gen upgrades now, regardless of what next-gen materializes as.

 

[iroboto]

You're taking that to a fairly emotional extreme. A lie is a deliberate factual falsehood. The Kotaku article and this discussion has been about what's on screen as subjectively perceived because, as I said, disappointment is relatively entirely to expectations.

good points, but you have skirted the question about how much difference HDR itself makes. If you've already seen 1080p HDR, a very visceral difference to SDR, you've already had 'half' (or a third, or 5/8ths...) of the 'mid-gen' improvements, so I can see why Kotaku said what they did. And to reiterate, I have no personal opinion because I haven't seen any of these consoles so don't know if it'd be a disappointment to me or not. Kotaku itself was dissing both mid-gen machines...

"For all the noisy hype leading up to their release, both the PS4 Pro and the Xbox One X already feel much like 4K TVs themselves: just something to get when the good-enough thing you already have breaks and/or it’s on sale. Whee."
​

Which of course comes down to personal values. For some, $400-500 on a new console with faster loads and sharper textures is worth it. To others, it's not (and disappointing as not offering what they were hoping for, which might well be unrealistic as is often the way with expectations ).

It’s christmas LOL. I will Be slow to respond.
But merry Xmas to everyone and happy holidays.

That bring said, HDR and 4K is something you need to know what you’re looking for before it becomes obvious.

With HDR they get hit with bright whites, people get that part. But they don’t look for subtle bright whites (like the tiny star patterns in destiny for instance. With HDR you can see a galaxy full of stars, without it you see less. It’s one of those things you’ve never noticed consciously unless someone points it out to you.

Same with 4K. You need to know where to look to see the point where 1080p drops off and 4K is still going.

Each game implements these differently, as anti aliasing solutions have a big part to play, ie Destiny 2 still shimmers, and Assassins Creed Origins is just brilliant. So despite both being 4K and Destiny 2 being native, it had a lot of bad edge cases where AssO doesn’t for instance.

I’ll notice both for sure though. Lines are extremely crisp to the point that fabric textures will need to be redesigned to have more flaws to look real, right now everyone looks like they just bought new clothes That never scratch; the super hero syndrome I suppose.

I don’t have a percentage. It will vary per title. Halo and Forza are the sharpest of all titles. AssO has the best lighting and HDR. Forza is super clean perhaps too clean, and it has some AA issues even at 4K.

So it’s per title specific but perhaps in time as mid gen continues we will see all titles elevated, solutions specific for both 4K and HDR as opposed to the bolt ons that they are today.

 

[DrJay24]

As per Brit's note, it's a concert of improvements coming together. The improved textures an AF settings are more pronounced with higher resolution. And in many ways even more desirable to have set at higher settings as resolution increases because at those weird angles where at a certain distance details fade off, it doesn't with 4K, you can see see detail and you want it to go on showing you detail from your POV all the way to the horizon. But with lower settings, details start to blur well before the horizon vanishing point.

Resolution, AF, textures, etc. are all part of the ability to resolve finer detail, they are all related. If one is too far to resolve pixel density improvements they are going to have a hard time resolving better AF or some distant textures being higher. Hence we have DF to take stills and zoom for us. I have a feeling blind testing from typical viewing distances would be disappointing to 4k evangelicals. Give us better AI, better frame rates and good AA. I'm sure next gen will be a leap, but due to 4k, but from the new CPUs and what they can do with them.

 

[iroboto]

Resolution, AF, textures, etc. are all part of the ability to resolve finer detail, they are all related. If one is too far to resolve pixel density improvements they are going to have a hard time resolving better AF or some distant textures being higher. Hence we have DF to take stills and zoom for us. I have a feeling blind testing from typical viewing distances would be disappointing to 4k evangelicals. Give us better AI, better frame rates and good AA. I'm sure next gen will be a leap, but due to 4k, but from the new CPUs and what they can do with them.

Yea those are excellent points. I mean the thing that gets me in this post is that I don't know what the typical viewing distances are, I sit 7' from my 65" TV. I've had lots of people tell me that it's too close, but hell, any further would make big screen TV feel really small.

It's an interesting debate, I think going too extreme would be to explain how we can see the detail of planets surfaces despite the distance we are from them. Magnification is all about gathering more light. Seeing more light in the lens that would otherwise be lost. With 4K and specifically HDR working with 4K, you're getting a lot better per pixel lighting. I think this is something that most people need to realize. Using my analogy to viewing planets at a distance, without light you have no detail, but with tons of light you can actually see what's going on.

1080p resolution without HDR is tougher to see the detail at distance, it must be scientifically. The nits are not there to project a distance far back. But that may not be the case with HDR. Thus I can see why 4K is bundled with HDR, to see such fine pixels, you probably should require monstrous lighting power.

So in end, I like your post. I'd be up for a blind test challenge. Give me 4K with HDR, I'll spot it, likely at range as well. 4K without HDR, I think you're onto something. I think we need those two in conjunction to break the technical barriers of viewing fine detail at range.

As for next gen, I agree, 4K graphics won't wow anyone since we're doing it now.

And I see no reason for next gen to not follow every other generation; how last generation ends graphically is how next generation begins. Basically after 3-4 years of mid gen, that's going to the be the beginning of next.

We can talk lighting, global illumination, dynamic GI, etc. We've seen it all. At lower resolution. And we're likely to see it all in higher res. And as the mid gen technologies mature, we'll see even more things that are better suited for higher res and HDR. And then we transition to next gen, and we'll see those same technologies until it matures further.

But yea, I guess for next gen the big thing will have to be more things on screen, more AI, more enemies, more 'action' complexity, scene complexity.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

We can talk lighting, global illumination, dynamic GI, etc. We've seen it all. At lower resolution.

I dispute that. Been playing Fat Princess Adventures and the lighting on that is typical of the old-school computer game and a clear generation or two behind what we'd want. It doesn't look 'real' or solid because of the lack of lighting. X1X could probably do some great new lighting with 6 TFs at 1080p.

 

[iroboto]

I dispute that. Been playing Fat Princess Adventures and the lighting on that is typical of the old-school computer game and a clear generation or two behind what we'd want. It doesn't look 'real' or solid because of the lack of lighting. X1X could probably do some great new lighting with 6 TFs at 1080p.

Drive club? Order? TLOU 2? GTS? Unity and AssO?

It’s not to say we haven’t seen great things this gen.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

None of those has a full GI solver; they all look gamey, save maybe DC which is a specialist situation (no people or interiors, and only in certain weather conditions). It should be ubiquitous as part of the core lighting models. Take something like The Tomorrow Children's tech which looked amazing but was still heavily compromised, low res sampling on the geometry and no GI on the characters. There's definitely a generational advance possible in lighting that'll look head-and-shoulders above what we've seen previously save a few specialist cases.

Or basically, games don't yet look like real life.

 

[Globalisateur]

Drive club? Order? TLOU 2? GTS? Unity and AssO?

It’s not to say we haven’t seen great things this gen.

TLOU2 ? Isn't a bit early to technically judge this game ? We are comparing released games with 2 polished cutscenes now ? And I was much more impressed by the last trailer of Death Stranding anyways.

I'll never understand the praise the trailers of TLOU2 constantly receive. Maybe some overrating factor because of the previous game.

 

[iroboto]

TLOU2 ? Isn't a bit early to technically judge this game ? We are comparing released games with 2 polished cutscenes now ? And I was much more impressed by the last trailer of Death Stranding anyways.

I'll never understand the praise the trailers of TLOU2 constantly receive. Maybe some overrating factor because of the previous game.

It's a little early, I don't expect it to be worse than UC4 though The probabilities are in favour for TLOU 2 to look better than UC4.

 

[iroboto]

None of those has a full GI solver; they all look gamey, save maybe DC which is a specialist situation (no people or interiors, and only in certain weather conditions). It should be ubiquitous as part of the core lighting models. Take something like The Tomorrow Children's tech which looked amazing but was still heavily compromised, low res sampling on the geometry and no GI on the characters. There's definitely a generational advance possible in lighting that'll look head-and-shoulders above what we've seen previously save a few specialist cases.

Or basically, games don't yet look like real life.

I suppose, but we evolve towards the goal slowly. 1080p with 6TF isn't going to get you real life either. It still won't look like ray tracing and the world will moan about that. There's no end to our desires. Once we move to the next graphical milestone, we will demand the next. We don't have 'looks like real life' for CGI movies, how could it be possible to hold computer games to that standard if we aren't there with movies yet?

 

[Shifty Geezer]

I'm not saying we'll get there any time soon. What I'm saying is there's still room for obvious improvement over what we have now. Next-gen should offer the same sort of generational advance in visuals as every other generation has. It's that sort of visual advance that some will be disappointed at looking at mid-gen consoles, because their expectations weren't set accordingly. There probably does exist an interim visual improvement if mid-gen was targeted specifically, but that's not what it's there for. If XB1X was getting exclusives at 1080p, it probably could produce some games that offer visual wow in keeping with what people expect from new machines, but it's not going to get them. Or not. That's not its job though.

The expectations of Kotaku led to their disappointment, which is understandable, and they're not wrong, nor liars, just a little unrealistic.

 

[iroboto]

It's that sort of visual advance that some will be disappointed at looking at mid-gen consoles, because their expectations weren't set accordingly.

Still early into 'mid gen' refresh titles. Kotaku can cry all they want about games, but we had the same problem when Call of Duty Ghosts came out or Destiny 1. They were only marginal improvements over the 360 version. Same issues have always plagued console games at the start of every generation. Games advance over time and as they get better with both kits they'll be spending more time in maturing the tech for both of them. It's not as cut and dry as just, upping the resolution and features. When games are starting to be designed with 4K in mind, I think you will notice a significant up tick in quality.

I imagine this will start to happen right before the move to next gen (where next gen machine are 4K mainstream). Right now they are developing today towards that.

 

[Jay]

The expectations of Kotaku led to their disappointment, which is understandable, and they're not wrong, nor liars, just a little unrealistic.

I've not read article, not been to kotsku for couple years now, so any thing i say is based on our discussion here.

if your going to say your disappointed, and claim it's because of hype from Sony and MS, and it's like buying something that your told you need when what you have is adequate, etc.

then i can't see the reasoning behind the context that is being painted.
when has Sony ever hyped the 4pro? In fact i would say most people think they've not pushed it much at all.
MS is pushing the 1X as the best place to play console games, and have been very open about it not being for everyone, and the base XO may be more than adequate, and don't have to upgrade as they play same games.

the context that the discussion being framed in seems to be wrong, therefore it may be someone's opinion but the way its portrayed is incorrect imo