*split* multiplatform console-world problems + Image Quality Debate
- Thread starter DrJay24
- Start date
D
Deleted member 7537
Guest
125% difference in number of pixels rendered. Doesn't look good for XB1 users when it comes to multiplatform games.
Average Joe can't tell the difference .... that's what Albert told me anyway .
That is shocking, especially for a relatively basic game like COD.
Sony can hit it big with advertising that says Call of Duty - Only 1080p on PlayStation'.
But he's got no option but to tell you that. He's not going to say most people won't notice when you're stood perfectly still, but as soon as you move it'll become a blurry, chunky mess.
Sent from my Xperia Z using Forum Runner
shredenvain
Regular
You know thats a huge difference between the two. What could be the reason they couldn't optimize the xone version to at least 900p? The game is not as big of a leap in graphical quality as battlefield 4 or even Forza 5.
I know everyone blames the esram but if its the esram then why are other 1st and 3rd party xone games reaching 900p and 1080p? Others blame the dev tools but apparently everyone is using the same tools and the results arent all the same. IMO there is no reasonable excuse for call of duty ghost to not be at least 900p on xbox one.
For Christ's sake look at Ryse and then look at COD ghost!
I think that infinity ward took the easy way out knowing that the xbox one has a decent scaler.
I know everyone blames the esram but if its the esram then why are other 1st and 3rd party xone games reaching 900p and 1080p? Others blame the dev tools but apparently everyone is using the same tools and the results arent all the same. IMO there is no reasonable excuse for call of duty ghost to not be at least 900p on xbox one.
For Christ's sake look at Ryse and then look at COD ghost!
I think that infinity ward took the easy way out knowing that the xbox one has a decent scaler.
rockaman
Regular
This may be just cause of trying to release the game for launch, that is one of my suspicions. And maybe an old engine not playing nice with anything but "raw power" or something.
And I have a feeling that this was announced this early for a reason... I think that this floating around as a rumour for two to three weeks, then finally being revealed right at launch/just before launch would be more damaging.
Without the time lag between this revelation and other things... it could lead to more rash consumer decisions against Xb1.
Could have been a calculated move, that is my guess.
And I have a feeling that this was announced this early for a reason... I think that this floating around as a rumour for two to three weeks, then finally being revealed right at launch/just before launch would be more damaging.
Without the time lag between this revelation and other things... it could lead to more rash consumer decisions against Xb1.
Could have been a calculated move, that is my guess.
I'm surprised MS didn't camp their engineers at Infinity Ward to make sure that they have the best version of the game. COD is really one of the games that really made the 360 and given how it was a big feature at the initial reveal, I would have thought MS would have helped out with it.
It might be that the majority of Xbox owners will probably will be buying it on Xbox 360 instead of Xbox One anyway. Better to have that version fine tuned than to worry about the XB1 version. I've never played a CoD game, so no skin off my nose either way.
Tommy McClain
Tommy McClain
Hopefully Digital Foundry gets a tech interview. There are a lot of reasons the PS4 could be so far ahead: ROPs, CUs, ease of tapping bandwidth of RAM, tools, all of the above.
After reading the DF piece and their constant reference to balance I am curious to see if this is just a function of early days and incomplete/poor tools or something more. MS made a big deal about the importance of CPU and their upclock being more important than additional CUs so it would interesting to know if there was any basis for those claims or if it was just PR as some have alleged.
rokkerkory
Regular
PATHETIC! Lazy devs... jp!
That is really sad, I meant 720p for COD on X1? This has got to be driver or SDK not being mature right? I dearly hope next year we see COD at 900 or 1080p on X1.
If they cannot brute force a primitive engine like Cod , maybe there's not enough juice ...
Intriguing. What is this juice you speak of?
it certainly raises questions about the whole CPU>>>GPU argument... It will be interesting to see if we can some information about the reasons for this.
I don't think they actually argued that. They said they boosted the CPU because there were cases where games were CPU limited. That does not mean if they couldn't have 50% more CUs or 100% more ROPs that they'd take the slight CPU boost instead.
Rurouni
Veteran
Probably what he meant is that since the engine isn't specifically tailored for next gen, basically they just use brute force approach for both console without specific optimization that took advantage of each console strength. While X1 CU is only 2/3 of PS4, the memory bandwidth without ESRAM is only 2/5 of PS4. Coincidentally, 68 vs 176 is almost similar to the pixel count of 720p vs 1080p. If the game is limited by bandwidth and they don't utilize ESRAM, then I guess this kind of thing (720p X1 vs 1080p PS4) could happen.
