VGCollect Forum
General and Gaming => Modern Video Games => Topic started by: stethebubble on October 30, 2013, 08:05:45 pm
-
COD only 720p on XBOX1 and 1080P on PS4
what do you guys make of this?
is it because the developers are not used to the architecture of the Xbox1.
or is it more like the xbox1's hardware is not up to the standard required to do 1080p 60fps. (if this is the case then xbox1 is in a whole loads of trouble if it cant handle a launch title)
what do you think?
-
Both of them are based on the same AMD Jaguar architecture, with relatively minor differences between them overall, and any developer or publisher claiming they're "not used" to this kind of architecture is lying through their teeth; it's standard x86-based stuff, and virtually every programmer on the planet knows their way around that. The main benefits are that the GPU and CPU are on the same chip, and the overall architecture being oriented toward low cost, low power consumption, and low heat. Whether the games being developed are natively 64-bit is anyone's guess, but both systems are capable of it.
That said, the XBox One has some deliberate, inborn deficiencies that were implemented in order to lower the cost of the console, since the inclusion of stuff like Kinect drives the price a bit higher than the PS4 as it is, and matching it spec-for-spec would push the cost up into a less marketable range than it's already sitting. They've already gone on record with stating, in PR speak, that some games will be running at lower resolution - the spin being that this is a benefit that will allow for better performance. It's technically true, but overlooks all the associated negatives, and is hugely misleading to people who don't understand how all this works.
Shorter version: They took low cost hardware, made it even cheaper by stripping some shit out in order to justify the cost of a big camera, and tried to excuse it by claiming that running games at a sub-HD resolution that isn't the native resolution of any modern HDTV is somehow a competitive advantage.
-
thank you
thats what i figured it was (obviously not in as much detail ;) )
does this mean titanfall will be 720p
-
thank you
thats what i figured it was (obviously not in as much detail ;) )
does this mean titanfall will be 720p
Depends on the developers. It's entirely possible for people to create 1080p games, but shadow quality, antialiasing, etc has a big impact on framerate. I don't know offhand if they're shooting for 30fps or 60fps, but most companies (and gamers) want games at 60.
For comparison, a decently equipped PC will do anywhere from 60-80fps average, if not higher, even on fairly demanding games.
-
thank you
thats what i figured it was (obviously not in as much detail ;) )
does this mean titanfall will be 720p
Depends on the developers. It's entirely possible for people to create 1080p games, but shadow quality, antialiasing, etc has a big impact on framerate. I don't know offhand if they're shooting for 30fps or 60fps, but most companies (and gamers) want games at 60.
For comparison, a decently equipped PC will do anywhere from 60-80fps average, if not higher, even on fairly demanding games.
60 is what they are aiming for.
killzone is only 30fps and the fans of that game are not impressed (from what i've read)
-
Not for nothing -but- I don't think that there's any 2 things that I care less about thanCoD + the X-Bone :P
-
Not for nothing -but- I don't think that there's any 2 things that I care less about thanCoD + the X-Bone :P
i know but its news
-
Not for nothing -but- I don't think that there's any 2 things that I care less about thanCoD + the X-Bone :P
i know but its news
true...
-
I'm not much interested in COD or the Xbone, but I do get annoyed at how bad the average gaming site is when it comes to touching anything remotely technical. Loads of half-truths, ambiguous commentary, reposted press releases, and very little in the way of actual understanding what they're even talking about.
So I'll run across posts from these so-called journalists occasionally, and half the time, it's just regurgitated quips from PR idiots, community managers, or the occasional exec, like "these architectures are a generation ahead of the highest end PC on the market." Every single PC gamer on the planet who's built a computer within the last few years know this is a total fabrication that has no basis in reality. A considerably larger number of people will just reguritate that kind of nonsense like a crappy mime, and it won't dawn on any of them that what they're saying is utter nonsense.
I usually can't resist jumping in to clarify things like this, partially because I love computer hardware, but also because it'd be a very positive step forward if gamers were collectively more educated, and better equipped to call companies out for being deceptive.
(The above quote came from Rajat Taneja, CTO at EA, and a former MS exec - http://www.linkedin.com/today/post/article/20130522214715-10904058-the-technology-behind-xbox-one. LinkedIn, it should be noted, is actually a lead generation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lead_generation) company.)
-
If some of the rumors are to believed, MS's dev tools are not currently up to par with Sonys. CoD isn't pushing anything fancy with its old ass engine so it leaves me to believe its SDK maturity and platform specific nuances as the XOne is not as close to a PC as the PS4 is. BF4 is also 720p, but its doing far more than CoD from a technical standpoint.
I watched this earlier and while not CoD it was still impressive.
http://www.battlefield.com/battlefield-4/showdown
-
Personally, I don't think that COD being reportedly only 720p is the benchmark to go on. I'm sure Microsoft wouldn't make a console in the age of fancy visuals and decide to limit the video output short of full 1080p. The console wars being what it is, each side latches onto snippets of information to use as ammo. But if they are true and the Xbox One can't produce full HD visuals, there are going to be a lot of sad Microsoft fans.
But, seeing the reaction the Wii got for it's complete lack of HD capabilities. I don't think Microsoft would limit their new toy in the graphics department. But then again, maybe the choice to go to 720p had something to do with the original decision to go digital and save space?
-
Personally, I don't think that COD being reportedly only 720p is the benchmark to go on. I'm sure Microsoft wouldn't make a console in the age of fancy visuals and decide to limit the video output short of full 1080p. The console wars being what it is, each side latches onto snippets of information to use as ammo. But if they are true and the Xbox One can't produce full HD visuals, there are going to be a lot of sad Microsoft fans.
But, seeing the reaction the Wii got for it's complete lack of HD capabilities. I don't think Microsoft would limit their new toy in the graphics department. But then again, maybe the choice to go to 720p had something to do with the original decision to go digital and save space?
I never even considered that... After looking at killzone's digital download of 50GB+ I could see that definitely taken into consideration. Maybe MS asked devs to target a specific resolution much like they did with the 360.
Resolution doesn't make a good game. It makes a prettier game(sometimes) sure, but thats not a deal breaker in my book. If it was I wouldn't be able to stomach classic gaming. A steady framerate is more of what I look for in newer titles.
-
Resolution doesn't make a good game. It makes a prettier game(sometimes) sure, but thats not a deal breaker in my book. If it was I wouldn't be able to stomach classic gaming. A steady framerate is more of what I look for in newer titles.
Right, once I played through the whole of Half-Life: Blue Shift and didn't realize I was the lowest resolution setting. Having never played it when it was new I just thought the game hadn't aged well. Then I set it to max resolution and was like, whoa this game still looks pretty sexy! (That was like 6 years ago).
-
Resolution doesn't make a good game. It makes a prettier game(sometimes) sure, but thats not a deal breaker in my book. If it was I wouldn't be able to stomach classic gaming. A steady framerate is more of what I look for in newer titles.
I hear the gameplay vs. graphics argument all the time, but I've always considered this to be a superfluous discussion. They're different facets of a video game, and debating between them is like arguing whether good music or good controls are more important. Every game is lacking in one way or another, but generally speaking, it's preferable if developers try to put their best foot forward across the board. If a game has shitty graphics, that doesn't mean it's a bad game... it just means it has shitty graphics.
Bayonetta is a great example. Fantastic controls, looks great (on 360, anyway), tons of fun... but GAHH, the music is absolutely horrific. It doesn't make the game bad, per se, but the overall experience would've been improved a bit if the music weren't so cringe-inducing.
With multiplatform games though, if you're comparing two versions of the same thing, there's absolutely no reason to overlook the fact that the resolution has been chopped down substantially in order to achieve comparable performance. It's possible that some people would prefer one controller over another, or just want to consolidate as many games as they can on one system, but neither of those things have to do with anything inherent to the game itself.
-
I feel like this generation will measure standards by resolution and frame rate combos a lot.... It seems to be the hot key point lately that everyone wants to debate.... Don't get me wrong, I want more pixels crammed on my screen and a refresh rate that my eyes can't keep up with, but I was hoping to find more a refreshing capability measuring this generation as oppose to regurgitated vitriolic response for the par....
-
720p seems to be a trend for Xbone at the moment for their launch lineup except for Ryse which is 900p. However, NBA 2K14 and Forza 5 are stated to be 1080p on Xbone which is great.
Dead Rising 3 is also 720p locked at 30fps. For me it's all about gameplay and artistic style of the game and Dead Rising 3 looks awesome in the latest footage. However it would be nice to game at 1080p at 60fps for future next gen titles... I'll probably get the Xbone somewhere down the line when more exclusives come out. Resolution is not a deal breaker for me though, but I'm definitely gonna grab a PS4 soon after launch.
-
I feel like this generation will measure standards by resolution and frame rate combos a lot.... It seems to be the hot key point lately that everyone wants to debate.... Don't get me wrong, I want more pixels crammed on my screen and a refresh rate that my eyes can't keep up with, but I was hoping to find more a refreshing capability measuring this generation as oppose to regurgitated vitriolic response for the par....
I think the problem is that people are even looking to argue it. Console wars have always been a thing, but I see this coming gen as more of an ideological war. There were seeds of that being sewn last gen, but now that there's a relative degree of parity across all three platforms, that's really the only thing left to argue. Unlike previous gens though, I think it's a viable argument - if the industry were to push more in the direction of what Microsoft was attempting with the Xbone initially, it represents more than just, "That guy likes Xbox and he is dumb lololol."
Discussing things like framerate, resolution, and so on should always remain the domain of people with multiple systems who're looking to make an educated decision on which version of a game to buy, imo.
-
its sad that the thing that people are arguing about is the game's resolution and not the fact that the campaign is only 4 to 5 hours long
-
Every game is lacking in one way or another, but generally speaking....
Borderlands 2?
-
Every game is lacking in one way or another, but generally speaking....
Borderlands 2?
Glitches, graphical tearing, invisible walls, frame rate drops, etc.... Though, that being said, it is still my favorite game this generation....
-
Unless you have it on PC, in which case you run into none of those issues and get sweet PhysX effects on top of it :D
-
Unless you have it on PC, in which case you run into none of those issues and get sweet PhysX effects on top of it :D
Even then you can get some issues. I very frequently get stuck in the environment, for example.
I also de-activate PhysX because it gives me fairly high slowdown even though my computer should technically handle it :P
-
Even then you can get some issues. I very frequently get stuck in the environment, for example.
I also de-activate PhysX because it gives me fairly high slowdown even though my computer should technically handle it :P
Hrm, odd. I haven't run into any of those problems. What kind of rig are you running?
-
So it seems both versions of COD Ghosts are currently running @ 720p with the ps4 version having more frame drops.
reviewers see what they want I guess.
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2013-11-13-day-one-patch-makes-call-of-duty-ghosts-single-player-1080p-on-ps4
-
Thinking more on it, and I wouldn't treat CoD as a great benchmark. Last gen, the series was almost entirely sub-720p, except Black Ops II, and it still drops resolution to cope at certain points. The first Black Ops was so poorly programmed, it was damn near 480p.
It's hard to optimize performance or visuals when a new game is being churned out every single year, and the underlying engine used has only been modestly upgraded over almost a 7 year period. Sloppy, sloppy, sloppy.
-
Thinking more on it, and I wouldn't treat CoD as a great benchmark. Last gen, the series was almost entirely sub-720p, except Black Ops II, and it still drops resolution to cope at certain points. The first Black Ops was so poorly programmed, it was damn near 480p.
It's hard to optimize performance or visuals when a new game is being churned out every single year, and the underlying engine used has only been modestly upgraded over almost a 7 year period. Sloppy, sloppy, sloppy.
This^