pap Posted 17 February, 2014 Share Posted 17 February, 2014 MGS: Ground Zeroes has been confirmed as 90 minutes long. I think if you pay 40 quid on either platform you're foolish, no matter the resolution. Sent from my LG-D802 using Tapatalk If nothing else works, a total pig-headed unwillingness to look facts in the face will see us through. Baaah! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nolan Posted 17 February, 2014 Share Posted 17 February, 2014 Like the fact that people with an XBox One enjoy their XBox One and are happy with their purchase. Sent from my LG-D802 using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap Posted 17 February, 2014 Share Posted 17 February, 2014 Like the fact that people with an XBox One enjoy their XBox One and are happy with their purchase. As I've pointed out several times (unnecessarily given that Jamie bought a PS4) the thread is about PS4 or XBox One. It is not entitled "Are some XBox owners happy with their purchases?" or "My wife can't see the difference". As the title implies, it's about choosing one over the other. At this point, your unfettered apologism for the XBox One's faults is very much of the "thou doth protest too much" school of Shakespeare. The arguments presented on this thread to support the One have been ridiculous, which anyone without a foot in either camp will recognise. "There's no difference between 1080p and 720p". Only a million pixels every single frame. "Titanfall!" 792p, also coming out on 360, how next-gen is it, exactly? Isn't the PC version better? "TV integration!" but little recognition of the fact that it's permanently broken in UK. Wives unable to see the difference. "Kinect!" always on, always watching, always consuming around 10% of CPU resource, whether the game needs it or not My personal favourite "I'm playing timed exclusive content that Microsoft paid a huge f**king wedge for" PS4 has exclusives too. Like 1080p http://uk.ign.com/wikis/xbox-one/PS4_vs._Xbox_One_Native_Resolutions_and_Framerates Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap Posted 18 February, 2014 Share Posted 18 February, 2014 Going to have to stop doing this, otherwise I'll be doing it every day for the rest of the generation. All from Eurogamer. PS4 sales shoot through 5m ahead of Japan launch Thief 1080p on PS4, 900p on One More developers on PS4 than any other home console Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap Posted 19 February, 2014 Share Posted 19 February, 2014 Nice comparison video showing all four versions of Metal Gear Solid : Ground Zeroes. Looks to be a bigger leap between PS3 and PS4 than the 360 / One. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CylonKing Posted 19 February, 2014 Share Posted 19 February, 2014 Nice video, Thanks pap. For me, it just backs-up my decision to stick with the PS3 for a few more years! There currently isn't a good enough reason for me to upgrade at all. The improved textures and lighting are just not enough over my PS3 to justify paying the extra at this stage. And to be honest, I'm still in awe of the PS3 running on a HD TV after only upgrading the old tellybox last year! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap Posted 19 February, 2014 Share Posted 19 February, 2014 Nice video, Thanks pap. For me, it just backs-up my decision to stick with the PS3 for a few more years! There currently isn't a good enough reason for me to upgrade at all. The improved textures and lighting are just not enough over my PS3 to justify paying the extra at this stage. And to be honest, I'm still in awe of the PS3 running on a HD TV after only upgrading the old tellybox last year! Yeah, the experience is always going to be relative to the user. I've still got a pile of shame from last gen that I'll probably never get around to playing, so I should probably take a leaf out of your book. Anyone (myself included) who buys a console in the first year of release is slightly mad. Your jumping on point will be the same as most; when there are enough reasons to do so. Main differences between the versions are resolution and framerate. The last-gen stuff runs at sub-HD @ 30FPS. Next-gen is 60 FPS regardless, but the PS4 is doing 1080p. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap Posted 24 February, 2014 Share Posted 24 February, 2014 I've been a bad boy. After weeks of tirelessly griefing Nolan and the more rabid XBox One owners over their console choices, I've left this thread alone for days. DAYS! In truth, it's been a bit quiet on the game announcement front, although there's an interesting article over at tech dirt from a week ago arguing that the reason One is lagging so far behind is because Microsoft tried to tell customers what they wanted. http://www.techdirt.com/blog/innovation/articles/20140218/11375526268/microsofts-struggle-to-give-consumers-what-they-want-instead-what-microsoft-thinks-they-want-is-hurting-xbox-one-sales.shtml In slightly better news for XBox One owners, Call of Duty has now been achieved at 1080p! A bloke put his PS4 through the XBox One's HDMI input port, and the resolution was achieved. Unfortunately, due to input lag, the bloke ended up putting his PS4 directly through the TV. Light at the end of the tunnel, XBox One owners? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nolan Posted 24 February, 2014 Share Posted 24 February, 2014 I was waiting for you to post the Strider digital foundry findings that it was better on the One actually. And don't worry the 50hz issue is definitely fixed in the March Update. Sent from my LG-D802 using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap Posted 24 February, 2014 Share Posted 24 February, 2014 I was waiting for you to post the Strider digital foundry findings that it was better on the One actually. And don't worry the 50hz issue is definitely fixed in the March Update. Yeah, don't worry about a source or anything, Nolan. Link, please Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nolan Posted 24 February, 2014 Share Posted 24 February, 2014 http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2014-strider-next-gen-face-off For owners of all three platforms it's worth keeping in mind the strange texture filtering issue on PS4, which does reduce image quality just a touch from the XO and PC versions of the game Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap Posted 24 February, 2014 Share Posted 24 February, 2014 http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2014-strider-next-gen-face-off I've read the part on how Strider is slightly better on One. That's not up for debate. Read the bit in bold. Where have Microsoft announced the 50Hz fix? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nolan Posted 24 February, 2014 Share Posted 24 February, 2014 I'm in the update preview... there's a new option in the settings to output video at 50hz. Sent from my LG-D802 using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap Posted 24 February, 2014 Share Posted 24 February, 2014 I'm in the update preview... there's a new option in the settings to output video at 50hz. So when you say "fixed", all that has actually been achieved is a means of switching between 60Hz and 50Hz, which the XBox original was able to do. Makes you wonder why it wasn't there to begin with. Prospective owners; you'll still need to change a setting on the XBox One every time you switch between watching TV and playing games. It's "fixed", apparently. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nolan Posted 24 February, 2014 Share Posted 24 February, 2014 Probably for the same reason half of the functionality they originally announced for the PS4 isn't available. http://www.computerandvideogames.com/450362/features/one-year-later-has-sony-kept-to-its-ps4-promises/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap Posted 24 February, 2014 Share Posted 24 February, 2014 Probably for the same reason half of the functionality they originally announced for the PS4 isn't available. Like??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nolan Posted 24 February, 2014 Share Posted 24 February, 2014 See above Sent from my LG-D802 using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap Posted 24 February, 2014 Share Posted 24 February, 2014 See above Sent from my LG-D802 using Tapatalk You mean your hastily edited post to make it look as if you knew what you were talking about? Blimey, if you're this inept on just bunging a few words out, then the decision to buy a One doesn't seem so inexplicable. Have you actually read that article you linked? I think they missed around 3 of the things they promised for launch, and most of the missed ideas are F**KING BARMY, like "Player Assist", the ability to allow a friend to complete a section of the game for you remotely. I'm sure that with the time you've wasted in your p!ss-poor defence of your kidnappers, you could have bought a PS4 by now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nolan Posted 24 February, 2014 Share Posted 24 February, 2014 So are you saying Sony over promised? And under delivered? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap Posted 24 February, 2014 Share Posted 24 February, 2014 So are you saying Sony over promised? And under delivered? Oooh, Nolan - you fancy defence lawyer you. Here's what happened. Sony announced a load of stuff a year ago. Most of that stuff has been delivered ( read the article ) and some hasn't. Most of what hasn't been delivered isn't important, and if you think that it is, give me an example instead of this one-liner boll*cks. I'm not convinced you're even reading what you're posting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nolan Posted 24 February, 2014 Share Posted 24 February, 2014 And the strength of the pound (£1 to $1.52 in May last year, £1 to $1.65 now) has meant Microsoft can drop the UK price to under £400 pounds. Let's see if Sony use the exchange rate in their favour too. Sent from my LG-D802 using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap Posted 24 February, 2014 Share Posted 24 February, 2014 And the strength of the pound (£1 to $1.52 in May last year, £1 to $1.65 now) has meant Microsoft can drop the UK price to under £400 pounds. Let's see if Sony use the exchange rate in their favour too. Wouldn't expect Sony to be dropping their price anytime soon, Nolan. They have demand for their product at the current RRP. Microsoft don't, and won't at £400 either. I think £250 will be my entry point. Christmas 2014, then Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nolan Posted 24 February, 2014 Share Posted 24 February, 2014 So you're happy with Sony fleecing the UK market too, Pap.? Sent from my LG-D802 using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap Posted 24 February, 2014 Share Posted 24 February, 2014 (edited) So you're happy with Sony fleecing the UK market too, Pap.? Arf. 1) November 2013. PS4 launches at £349. XBox One, a less capable machine, launches at £429. 2) February 2014. After the rush of early adopters, XBox One sales tank, getting outsold 2:1 in its home market in January 2014. MS reduces price to £400, still £50 more expensive than the more powerful PS4. 3) 24 Feb 2014 : Nolan comse onto SaintsWeb and accuses Sony of "fleecing" the UK If anyone's getting fleeced here, Nolan - it's you. Anyone buying an XBox One will be getting it £30 cheaper than you did. I hope they're at least going to compensate you with a free game, like Nintendo did after their price cuts. Nolan on launch day Edited 24 February, 2014 by pap Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nolan Posted 24 February, 2014 Share Posted 24 February, 2014 Actually on launch day I was about to punch the people in game for being so disorganized. But at the current exchange rate Sony should be reducing the price to £320, and it wouldn't cost them a penny. Sent from my LG-D802 using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap Posted 24 February, 2014 Share Posted 24 February, 2014 Actually on launch day I was about to punch the people in game for being so disorganized. But at the current exchange rate Sony should be reducing the price to £320, and it wouldn't cost them a penny. It would deprive them of £30 of additional revenue on every unit. There is no lack of demand for this product. Why on earth would they reduce the price? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nolan Posted 24 February, 2014 Share Posted 24 February, 2014 With Sony's "junk" credit worthiness they certainly could do with the extra money per console. Sent from my LG-D802 using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap Posted 24 February, 2014 Share Posted 24 February, 2014 With Sony's "junk" credit worthiness they certainly could do with the extra money per console. Defo, which makes your demand for them to drop the price on their best-selling product even more bizarre. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap Posted 25 February, 2014 Share Posted 25 February, 2014 Meet Stephen Elop, the new boss of XBox. http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2014-02-25-and-the-new-boss-of-xbox-is Wiki opener:- Stephen Elop (born 31 December 1963) is Executive Vice President, Devices & Services at Nokia. He is also the former CEO of Nokia Corporation. A Canadian citizen, Elop was the first non-Finn to be named CEO of Nokia, on 21 September 2010. During the 3 years Elop was Nokia CEO, Nokia revenues fell 40%, Nokia profits fell 95%, Nokia market share collapsed in smartphones from 34% to 3.4%, Nokia's credit rating went from A to junk, Nokia's share price dropped 60% in value and Nokia's market capitalization lost 13 Billion dollars in value. The Financial Times calculated that Nokia shareholders ended up paying Elop a bonus of 1 million Euros for every 1.5 billion in market capital that Elop was able to destroy while Nokia CEO. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Elop Not an appointment that inspires confidence, then Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nolan Posted 25 February, 2014 Share Posted 25 February, 2014 He was also the man who took Nokia, found a strong partnership with Microsoft and made it back into a growing company again. One that has a very fast growing share of the phone market with Windows phone 8. We can all cherry pick details. Sent from my LG-D802 using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap Posted 25 February, 2014 Share Posted 25 February, 2014 He was also the man who took Nokia, found a strong partnership with Microsoft and made it back into a growing company again. One that has a very fast growing share of the phone market with Windows phone 8. We can all cherry pick details. No cherry picking; that's his wiki opener verbatim. People can do their own research if so inclined, just as they can draw their own conclusions. The numbers don't lie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint_Jonny Posted 25 February, 2014 Share Posted 25 February, 2014 You remind me of the HD luddites who insisted they can't see any difference. The maths is pretty simple. 1280 x 720 = 921,600 pixels. 1920 x 1080 = 2,073,600 pixels. That's over twice as much detail. No it isn't. The internal resolution defines the precision of how the polygons on screen are drawn. The texture sample size will be exactly the same across platforms. Same lighting, same textures, same number of particles wizzing about the screen. You will tell the difference on a huge TV, but the draw distance and other boring crap I just mentioned will be exactly the same. Anyone who says the PS4 is "miles ahead" just because of the internal render resolution is talking out of their arse. Am I qualified to say this? Yes. Yes I am. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap Posted 25 February, 2014 Share Posted 25 February, 2014 No it isn't. The internal resolution defines the precision of how the polygons on screen are drawn. The texture sample size will be exactly the same across platforms. Same lighting, same textures, same number of particles wizzing about the screen. You will tell the difference on a huge TV, but the draw distance and other boring crap I just mentioned will be exactly the same. Anyone who says the PS4 is "miles ahead" just because of the internal render resolution is talking out of their arse. Am I qualified to say this? Yes. Yes I am. No-one is saying that the PS4 is better just on the basis of resolution. It is also better on frame rate and many other areas. Some more cherries for you to pick, I feel. Also, can you define "huge TV"? I can see the difference between 720p and 1080p on a 22inch panel. How tall are you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap Posted 25 February, 2014 Share Posted 25 February, 2014 PS4 off to "strong" start in Japan. Better than PS3, worse than PS2. http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2014-02-25-ps4-off-to-strong-start-in-japan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint_Jonny Posted 25 February, 2014 Share Posted 25 February, 2014 No-one is saying that the PS4 is better just on the basis of resolution. It is also better on frame rate and many other areas. Some more cherries for you to pick, I feel. Also, can you define "huge TV"? I can see the difference between 720p and 1080p on a 22inch panel. How tall are you? The stats I've read on frame rate put them on a par. The whole point in lowering the internal resolution on Xbone, from a developers point of view, is to keep the frame rate the same across platforms. Frame rate > visual fidelity, that is their focus. They could easily keep the internal res of Xbox One at 1080p, with minimal frames dropped, but they would rather their game ran smoothly 100% of the time. What this basically boils down to is nit picking. You can tell the difference on a 22-inch panel? Give me a break. The benefits of 1080p over 720p are only worth it if you sit 5 inches from your PC monitor, or your TV size is 32-inch and above in a normal living room environment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap Posted 25 February, 2014 Share Posted 25 February, 2014 The stats I've read on frame rate put them on a par. The whole point in lowering the internal resolution on Xbone, from a developers point of view, is to keep the frame rate the same across platforms. Frame rate > visual fidelity, that is their focus. They could easily keep the internal res of Xbox One at 1080p, with minimal frames dropped, but they would rather their game ran smoothly 100% of the time. What this basically boils down to is nit picking. You can tell the difference on a 22-inch panel? Give me a break. The benefits of 1080p over 720p are only worth it if you sit 5 inches from your PC monitor, or your TV size is 32-inch and above in a normal living room environment. I took you at your word when you said you were qualified, Saint_Jonny. You seem to be talking a lot of crap to divest me of that trust. You don't seem to know much about gaming. For starters, how many people would sit 6 feet away from a 22 inch monitor? My office monitor is around 2 feet from me; I can see a difference. Got a 32 inch screen in the bedroom, which I sit 5/6 feet away from. I see the difference. Finally, there is a 42 inch screen in my living room which I sit around 8/9 feet away from. I can see the difference. Now to me, a "huge" TV is 50inches plus, which none of these are. Yet you're saying that you can only see the difference on these huge screens, which is not accurate in my experience, on large screens or small. Going by your "it only matters on big TVs" logic, that'd mean an 1280x800 phone is "just as good" as a 1920x1080p phone. That ain't the case, and neither is it the case with the fuzzy 720p visuals the XBox kicks out. Frame rate is not "on a par" if the resolutions are different. The One sacrifices resolution for framerate. That's not to mention the numerous issues that developers have raised with regard to a 32Gb ESRAM bottleneck. At best, the One is going to need to do some memory paging trick ( like the 640K swap-in-out of PCs of old ). At worst, it'll never be fixed. Anyway, it's your right to respond. Let's see some of those stats you're referencing, the ones that prove I'm "nit-picking". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint_Jonny Posted 25 February, 2014 Share Posted 25 February, 2014 I took you at your word when you said you were qualified, Saint_Jonny. You seem to be talking a lot of crap to divest me of that trust. You don't seem to know much about gaming. For starters, how many people would sit 6 feet away from a 22 inch monitor? My office monitor is around 2 feet from me; I can see a difference. Got a 32 inch screen in the bedroom, which I sit 5/6 feet away from. I see the difference. Finally, there is a 42 inch screen in my living room which I sit around 8/9 feet away from. I can see the difference. Now to me, a "huge" TV is 50inches plus, which none of these are. Yet you're saying that you can only see the difference on these huge screens, which is not accurate in my experience, on large screens or small. Going by your "it only matters on big TVs" logic, that'd mean an 1280x800 phone is "just as good" as a 1920x1080p phone. That ain't the case, and neither is it the case with the fuzzy 720p visuals the XBox kicks out. Frame rate is not "on a par" if the resolutions are different. The One sacrifices resolution for framerate. That's not to mention the numerous issues that developers have raised with regard to a 32Gb ESRAM bottleneck. At best, the One is going to need to do some memory paging trick ( like the 640K swap-in-out of PCs of old ). At worst, it'll never be fixed. Anyway, it's your right to respond. Let's see some of those stats you're referencing, the ones that prove I'm "nit-picking". I studied Games Tech at university for 3 years, wrote for a meta-critic affiliated Games Review site for 2 years and worked at a AAA studio for 6 months while at uni. I don't work in games related software now, but I would say that I am more than qualified. You can throw all the stats at me you like, but I just don't care. This thread is about which console people should buy, and for me it is about the games. You know, playing games. Not getting 1 inch from the screen to fascinate over the minute difference in anti-aliasing between platforms. This is nit picking, absolutely. People that need 300ppi screens on their mobile phones and 4k output on their TV's are in the gross minority. Most people either don't care or won't see the difference, because they are not nit picking, like you are. I love games because I love playing games. I will have the same overall gaming experience on my PS4 or Xbox one, which ever I choose to pick up. It'll probably be an Xbox One because its use as a multi media tool, at this moment, far outweighs the experience offered with a PS4, that and the controller on the PS4 is still doesn't do it for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bucks Saint Posted 25 February, 2014 Share Posted 25 February, 2014 (edited) I took you at your word when you said you were qualified, Saint_Jonny. You seem to be talking a lot of crap to divest me of that trust. You don't seem to know much about gaming. For starters, how many people would sit 6 feet away from a 22 inch monitor? My office monitor is around 2 feet from me; I can see a difference. Got a 32 inch screen in the bedroom, which I sit 5/6 feet away from. I see the difference. Finally, there is a 42 inch screen in my living room which I sit around 8/9 feet away from. I can see the difference. Now to me, a "huge" TV is 50inches plus, which none of these are. Yet you're saying that you can only see the difference on these huge screens, which is not accurate in my experience, on large screens or small. Going by your "it only matters on big TVs" logic, that'd mean an 1280x800 phone is "just as good" as a 1920x1080p phone. That ain't the case, and neither is it the case with the fuzzy 720p visuals the XBox kicks out. Frame rate is not "on a par" if the resolutions are different. The One sacrifices resolution for framerate. That's not to mention the numerous issues that developers have raised with regard to a 32Gb ESRAM bottleneck. At best, the One is going to need to do some memory paging trick ( like the 640K swap-in-out of PCs of old ). At worst, it'll never be fixed. Anyway, it's your right to respond. Let's see some of those stats you're referencing, the ones that prove I'm "nit-picking". I'm actually bored with commenting on your commentary chaps. I'm just going to post articles and let people make their minds up. You carry on, though Phew Edited 25 February, 2014 by Bucks Saint Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap Posted 25 February, 2014 Share Posted 25 February, 2014 I studied Games Tech at university for 3 years, wrote for a meta-critic affiliated Games Review site for 2 years and worked at a AAA studio for 6 months while at uni. I don't work in games related software now, but I would say that I am more than qualified. You can throw all the stats at me you like, but I just don't care. This thread is about which console people should buy, and for me it is about the games. You know, playing games. Not getting 1 inch from the screen to fascinate over the minute difference in anti-aliasing between platforms. This is nit picking, absolutely. People that need 300ppi screens on their mobile phones and 4k output on their TV's are in the gross minority. Most people either don't care or won't see the difference, because they are not nit picking, like you are. I love games because I love playing games. I will have the same overall gaming experience on my PS4 or Xbox one, which ever I choose to pick up. It'll probably be an Xbox One because its use as a multi media tool, at this moment, far outweighs the experience offered with a PS4, that and the controller on the PS4 is still doesn't do it for me. I've got mates in the games industry. Most of them did unrelated degrees, forcing their way into the industry through a mixture of demo work and connections. Without exception, every single one of them will go for the definitive version of any game. Definitive isn't always the highest specification. I know people who are strong advocates for the Vita and will parrot the "Best on Vita" line. Another viewpoint I can completely get behind is WiiU love; it's Nintendo, they're masters - I get it. Those considerations aside, performance and quality win out. I have to say, I find it amazing that you've done so much practical work in the field and are so grossly misrepresenting the differences between the machines. Your argument is null and void the moment any prospective consumer walks into GAME and sees COD running on both, which is what I'd advise anyone with a decision to make to do, yourself included. That's a decision that'll last you a console generation, seven or eight years by last reckoning. Do you really want to be playing sub-standard versions of games for that long? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap Posted 25 February, 2014 Share Posted 25 February, 2014 Phew Massive contribution, son. You've done yourself proud. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint_Jonny Posted 25 February, 2014 Share Posted 25 February, 2014 (edited) I've got mates in the games industry. Most of them did unrelated degrees, forcing their way into the industry through a mixture of demo work and connections. Without exception, every single one of them will go for the definitive version of any game. Definitive isn't always the highest specification. I know people who are strong advocates for the Vita and will parrot the "Best on Vita" line. Another viewpoint I can completely get behind is WiiU love; it's Nintendo, they're masters - I get it. Those considerations aside, performance and quality win out. I have to say, I find it amazing that you've done so much practical work in the field and are so grossly misrepresenting the differences between the machines. Your argument is null and void the moment any prospective consumer walks into GAME and sees COD running on both, which is what I'd advise anyone with a decision to make to do, yourself included. That's a decision that'll last you a console generation, seven or eight years by last reckoning. Do you really want to be playing sub-standard versions of games for that long? Your point on Nintendo is a good one. I am a Ninty gamer first and foremost, always have been. 8 out of the 10 best games I played in the last 12 months were on Wii U / 3DS. The 3DS has absolutely killed it this year, with its 400×240 screen resolution. Its disappointing, I agree, that the Xbox One isn't up to outputting some pretty bang average looking games (technically speaking, COD and BF4 for example 100% last gen spec, with a few of the scale-able specifications cranked up to 11..) in 1080p. Heck, even Super Mario 3D world on Wii U is native 1080p. As is Assassins Creed 4 on Wii U, a point that passed nearly everyone by, because people were too busy comparing the pretty insignificant differences in the PS4 and Xbox One versions of the game. The PS3 had a smattering of games (the wonderful Uncharted, Last of Us and GOD of WAR) that harnessed its technical superiority. While the Xbox 360 had a handful of exclusives of its own that made the system worth owning, and playing, in its own right, even when they (Halo!) couldn't hold a candle to the beauty of God of War or Uncharted. It will be the same this generation. My time in and out of the industry merely told me that when it comes to games, even the people that make them are like sheep, people own what their social circle owns. Infact, the majority of the devs I have come in to contact with hardly play games at all, they are coders and artists first, gamers a distant second. The scrutiny that certain gamers put every little piece of news regarding the new generation is utterly laughable. I played far too many games for my own good in my time as a games journo, for every platform going, from every genre you can think of. It's gameplay that matters most, not negligible differences in visuals and performance. Edited 25 February, 2014 by Saint_Jonny Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap Posted 26 February, 2014 Share Posted 26 February, 2014 Your point on Nintendo is a good one. I am a Ninty gamer first and foremost, always have been. 8 out of the 10 best games I played in the last 12 months were on Wii U / 3DS. The 3DS has absolutely killed it this year, with its 400×240 screen resolution. Its disappointing, I agree, that the Xbox One isn't up to outputting some pretty bang average looking games (technically speaking, COD and BF4 for example 100% last gen spec, with a few of the scale-able specifications cranked up to 11..) in 1080p. Heck, even Super Mario 3D world on Wii U is native 1080p. As is Assassins Creed 4 on Wii U, a point that passed nearly everyone by, because people were too busy comparing the pretty insignificant differences in the PS4 and Xbox One versions of the game. The PS3 had a smattering of games (the wonderful Uncharted, Last of Us and GOD of WAR) that harnessed its technical superiority. While the Xbox 360 had a handful of exclusives of its own that made the system worth owning, and playing, in its own right, even when they (Halo!) couldn't hold a candle to the beauty of God of War or Uncharted. It will be the same this generation. My time in and out of the industry merely told me that when it comes to games, even the people that make them are like sheep, people own what their social circle owns. Infact, the majority of the devs I have come in to contact with hardly play games at all, they are coders and artists first, gamers a distant second. The scrutiny that certain gamers put every little piece of news regarding the new generation is utterly laughable. I played far too many games for my own good in my time as a games journo, for every platform going, from every genre you can think of. It's gameplay that matters most, not negligible differences in visuals and performance. As I said, unique considerations aside, such as the fact you can only really play Mario Kart et al on Nintendo hardware, performance and quality win out. Didn't know about AC4 on WiiU being 1080p, but it does beg the question of where the XBox One sits in the console pecking order. Not the only thing either - there isn't a f*ckton of difference between the 360 and One stills of the new MGS game. I know that the One version does 60FPS in motion to the 360's 30FPS, so there's that. The big worry for One owners is this potential bottleneck on the ESRAM. It's only 32Mb in size and has to be navigated to put a frame on the screen. According to this Daily Star article (yeah, I know), it's sorted. http://www.dailystar.co.uk/tech/366665/Joy-for-Xbox-One-gamers-as-consoles-graphics-issues-are-finally-sorted I doubt it, but I genuinely hope that's the case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nolan Posted 26 February, 2014 Share Posted 26 February, 2014 Just applied the new Xbox One update and the 50 hz issue is indeed fixed on the TV. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap Posted 26 February, 2014 Share Posted 26 February, 2014 Just applied the new Xbox One update and the 50 hz issue is indeed fixed on the TV. You now have an option to switch between 60Hz and 50Hz? How many button presses? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nolan Posted 26 February, 2014 Share Posted 26 February, 2014 You now have an option to switch between 60Hz and 50Hz? How many button presses? None. Only uses 50 hz in tv mode and switches automatically as long as "set video output to 50 hz while watching tv" is checked in settings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Essruu Posted 26 February, 2014 Share Posted 26 February, 2014 None. Only uses 50 hz in tv mode and switches automatically as long as "set video output to 50 hz while watching tv" is checked in settings. Well that's no good - what the f*** is pap going to bore everyone stupid about now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap Posted 26 February, 2014 Share Posted 26 February, 2014 None. Only uses 50 hz in tv mode and switches automatically as long as "set video output to 50 hz while watching tv" is checked in settings. Very nice solution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap Posted 26 February, 2014 Share Posted 26 February, 2014 Well that's no good - what the f*** is pap going to bore everyone stupid about now? 1080p Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bucks Saint Posted 28 February, 2014 Share Posted 28 February, 2014 Anyone who says the PS4 is "miles ahead" just because of the internal render resolution is talking out of their arse. Am I qualified to say this? Yes. Yes I am. No-one is saying that the PS4 is better just on the basis of resolution. 1080p > 720p mate. Play BF4 or COD on both and you'll see the miles. 1080p Lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap Posted 28 February, 2014 Share Posted 28 February, 2014 Lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now