*split* multiplatform console-world problems + Image Quality Debate

That assumes resolution is important to them of course. Since you mention small devices used close to ones eyes, let's take the iPad Mini as an example. It's the lowest resolution of all the iPads, yet it outsells the others even though it's not "retina". That's probably because resolution isn't their #1 priority when making a purchase, even though they will be looking at the thing just 15 inches from their eyes.

I would put the success of the iPad mini down to a lot more than just resolution. But that wasn't exactly my point - my point was that the every day consumer has become a lot more aware of technical differences because they are bullet-point-features in a huge market of tablets and smartphones.

With the huge amount of information available on the internet, it's pretty easy to come by articles that covers pretty much anything. If one game looks less sharp than another, the chance is pretty high that it's not only picked up by forum warriors, but that these things make it into fan sites and from there into big scale publications.

As an example, I'll name a post I did a few years ago on the performance of SSDs in the PS3. I bought one, used a simple stopwatch and did a few benchmark using GT5. Eventually, there was an article on one of the gaming sites about it, quoting my post and my numbers. Information like this spreads.

There are some big newspapers here who have had articles on the supposed "inferiority" of the Xbox One compared to the PS4. Not facts, but pretty much articles picking up on hot topics like 50% more CUs etc. Or that the PS4 supposedly has a huge headstart in pre-orders nex to the graphical advantages. These things aren't as factual as it once was and a lot of these articles originated probably in some technical orientated forum like B3d.

While the most basic consumer might be pretty ignorant, he's also that ignorant to believe what he reads in his local newspaper. And a lot of what he reads originated in some forum.
 
I would put the success of the iPad mini down to a lot more than just resolution. But that wasn't exactly my point - my point was that the every day consumer has become a lot more aware of technical differences because they are bullet-point-features in a huge market of tablets and smartphones.

Right but in that case they were totally aware of the iPad Mini's lower resolution according to you, and yet they still bought it. Why is that if resolution is so important in a bullet point list?
 
Right but in that case they were totally aware of the iPad Mini's lower resolution according to you, and yet they still bought it. Why is that if resolution is so important in a bullet point list?

Because there are different tablets targeting different segments of a very big market. The iPad mini is small and due to its size attractive. Then there's also the lower entry price point and it being a Apple device - dipping into the price point of many Android devices. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if many of the iPad Mini's customers already have a larger tablet device.

But that wasn't exactly the point. My point was, irrelevant of the success of this one device or not, that the most basic customer is probably aware of what resolution is, which is quite a giant leap in itself. I'm not arguing that Microsoft will lose customers because some of their multiplatform games will be at a lower resolution than their nearest competitor will. At the same time though, I don't necessarely agree that the entire market is as ignorant as being argued in here.

IMO the biggest danger to the success of Microsofts console are their current fanbase. If many start jumping ship and PS4 takes off, it will create headlines. Headlines that will sooner or later end up in mass market newspapers, being read by the most mainstream customers outthere. Success attracts success, so people are less likely to buy the more successfull product. This won't make the One "fail", but it might hurt them in marketshare in the long run. I think this was precisely one of the things that hurt the PS3 - and it was kept alive mostly by Bluray, strong 1st parties and a very loyal fanbase willing to spend top dollar for a console that was effectively 'equal' (not better) but a year late. I think Microsoft is in danger of running a similar course and I'm not sure all the gambles they've taken will pay out.

At the end of the day though, I expect the Xb One to be strong enough to be looked at as a successfull console, and in America at least, not too far behind PS4. That's my current feeling.
 
when you talked about higher resolution you meant "higher resolution" depth buffer when the discussion was clearly about how much geometry resolution affects IQ? yeah right...
no Im talking about both depth & color buffers, the geometry gets rendered into both depth&color buffers.

the reason the the edges of the 2xAA version look better is cause its using effectively a higher resolution depthbuffer (60% more samples) its not because its using better shaders/better quality pixels or whatever but simply because its using higher resolution. So in affect you are agreeing the higher resolution/more sampled image looks better.

Now if you had of choosen 1024x720@1aa as looking better than 1280x720@1aa then you would have a point, I dont think you understand how MSAA works heres a link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multisample_anti-aliasing not much info though, the references will most likely have more info
 
Looks like AC4: Black Flag is joining the sub 1080p club

I always believed that the Anvilnext engine was built to support the next gen consoles. But it seems to be having the same issues as CoD and BF4. I wonder what it is that has changed that has thrown the multiplatform engines off so much?
 
Its almost like the N64 versus the PS1 all over again except the cartridges versus CD aspect.

Its getting to point that its like a bunch of highly respected chefs arguing who has better culinarians, McDonalds or Burger King.

You don't go to McDonalds for fine dining no more than you buy a console for exquisite IQ as thats what a PC is for.

I doubt as time goes by we will see native 1080p become standard on "whats to be current gen consoles". Native 4K isn't around the corner so as we move forward and PC visuals progress, consoles will have a hard time keeping up if console devs are stuck trying to produce native 1080p games. I think both the PS4 and Xb1 will deploy more advanced upscaling techniques and try to imitate PC visuals by pushing less pixels while providing the same quality per pixel.

We will see a ton of 1080p games but it probably be pretty much what we have now on consoles, where most 1080p titles are PSN or Arcade titles.
Technically, what differences a gaming experience in a console from anything else is consistency, at least for me.

I remember a guy showing some images of BF4 running on a very high-end PC at max settings and an incredible resolution. It looked slightly better than on consoles for sure, and at some point he said that the framerate was 60 fps "most of the time", and that the game dropped to the 20-30fps range from time to time.

I would never expect that on a console, but a fine quality per pixel and consistent framerate. I think the PS4 is up to the task when it comes to that because of the super fast GDDR5 memory, the extra CUs, and ROPs, so higher resolutions could be possible without losing much detail.

On the other hand, the Xbox One might need some tweaking when the games need the eSRAM to process graphics, but with its low latency and ability to read/write at the same time, it could produce a very consistent image quality at a high framerate and a pretty decent resolution.
 
Looks like AC4: Black Flag is joining the sub 1080p club

I always believed that the Anvilnext engine was built to support the next gen consoles. But it seems to be having the same issues as CoD and BF4. I wonder what it is that has changed that has thrown the multiplatform engines off so much?

I'm not sure anything has changed. They can only work with what they're given, and that's 1.2tf available for games. Go look at benches for AC3 on PC, account for AC4 visual upgrades and it seems it would be in line with similar spec'd cards to hit 30fps.
 
Apple says Retina or not but rarely talk about specific resolution or the fact that the Retina products have 4 times the pixels.

TVs are advertised primarily on resolution. Sure they will talk about smart TVs which can access Youtube and Netflix but screen size and resolution are what drives the pricing.

It remains to be seen if resolution will matter in consoles since both output 1080p and we don't know if it will always be the case that one console is always rendered in higher resolution than the other.

The Wii shows that graphics don't matter to casuals but Sony and MS is touting better graphics than Nintendo and mobile devices.
 

So 900p at 30fps and most likely a PPAA, wow...the PS360 versions run at 720p/30fps IIRC, is there a reason that XB1 has a hard time rendering this at 1080p (like esram limitation)? I thought 1080p/30fps would've been doable due to the 30fps target. Does the next gen version even have any substantial improvements graphics wise over the current gen versions? I don't follow the series that much.
 
^ There are things...like improved textures, much better draw distance. Sea physics and shaders are much more advanced. Lighting is also much improved, and specular surfaces(IE after rain) look great.

But at a glance, the current gen version and the next gen versions are intended to look identical. This is still a current gen game with tacked on DX11 features after all.
 
For the record I still don't think it's fair to be reviewing games on console until the consoles have shipped. The os's are still being worked on so for all we know the frame rate drops were due to os issues and not the game itself. These guys really need to wait until the consoles are out and patched, only then they can be deemed to have the shipping os and have games reviewed fairly. Or I guess what I really want to say is these websites jumping the gun with game "reviews" really need to be kicked in the nuts.
 
I would wait for day one patch before looking at performance. PS4 shipped so early with last-gen versions

The guy who leaked the resolution issue


http://m.neogaf.com/showpost.php?p=87636724&postcount=1261
Resolution is not without its merits, but for me the best version is the one offering the more consistent experience.

If the consistency of the Xbox One's version means that it has a perfect framerate, nothing can quite come close to it and it would be the best version for me.

I would wait for DF article. That and what joker454 said.
 
http://www.giantbomb.com/articles/a-few-last-minute-bits-of-playstation-4-info/1100-4785/

The early reviews of Call of Duty: Ghosts--including mine--mentioned that the PlayStation 4 version of the game suffers from occasional frame rate issues. For me, it usually showed up whenever there were a lot of particle effects on screen, but it'd pop up at random, too. I'm told that Infinity Ward is working on a patch to correct the performance issues. As our review currently doesn't apply to the PS4 version of the game--I want to play that and the Xbox One version on real multiplayer servers before assigning it a number--I'm going to see if that patch makes its way live this week and see if it helps.

...
 
What's taking so long? If they already had that much frame time as overhead why are they still cleaning it up? The reviewers are trying not to look like shills but it's a little late for that.
 
It sounds like the upcoming patches will address issues on both consoles. So probably need to keep the branches "synchronized".
 
Back
Top