Playstation 4 V Xbox One�.Power.

There are a lot of unhappy Xbox One future owners on the internet and lots of reports regarding how drop dead gorgeous Battlefield 4 looks on a P4 compared to the Xbox One.

Also its been confirmed that Cod Ghosts runs at 1080p on a Playstation 4 but only 720 on a Xbox One.

check this Read out.

Sort of glad they had run out of pre/orders of xbox one because i was tempted��.

Funny Stuff

Edited by time2die (Sat 02-Nov-13 10:14:11)

So developers are not using the infinite power of the cloud from day one as some people said they would? Very surprising

Before anyone says they will jump ahead of Sony in the future because of the cloud we have already established the PS4 offers the same capability if developers choose to use it.

to be honest although I think the xbox one is not having a good time with its weaker hardware situation, I think people moaning about a game been at 720p instead of 1080p are been silly. I can hardly tell the difference and I personally find 480p good enough for games.

it will be funny if the ps4 version has framerate issues as a price for that higher resolution.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i0Rmyvi9wew

I think people moaning about a game been at 720p instead of 1080p are been silly. I can hardly tell the difference and I personally find 480p good enough for games.

I totally disagree. Unless you are twitch shooting, COD or CS style, a locked 30 frames at 1080p is a much better compromise. Definition is far more important to me than high frame rates.

Online chess players might settle for 480p, but I wouldn't.

And if I'm totally honest although 1080p is obviously better when i watch the videos i hardly can notice any difference.

That's because the xbone is upscaling to 1080 and because YouTube reduces the definition too. I think the definition is absolutely crucial to claiming to be next gen. It's the key advantage PC has had over the consoles and IMO the main thing developers should be striving for, WITHOUT compromising on texture detail.

The Uncharted series and more recently TLOU looked fantastic visually. But on close scrutiny you would never be able to escape that "layered" look. The feeling that everything has been pasted together. A native resolution of 1080 is the logical next step. There is no point to increasing draw distance and the amount of textures without it and that is where the divide will become more apparent over the next 18 months. Where the PS4 will be clinging on to PC gaming's coat tails over the next couple of years, I expect the Xbone to struggle to do the same. And any methods it employs to try to match that resolution may mean IT will suffer from frame rate issues and not the other way round.

We all know the PC has had the best looking games, but argued over which is the best room in the house to play and that the sofa is better than the office chair. Now that the quality compromise has been dramatically reduced with the PS4 (for now at least), are we really going to claim it's not that important? Me thinks not, sire.

I much prefer my Sofa to some office desk and chair,especially now in a few short weeks when the new consoles finally give us that upgrade that we been longing for for years

In reply to a post by mrnelster:

I think people moaning about a game been at 720p instead of 1080p are been silly. I can hardly tell the difference and I personally find 480p good enough for games.

I totally disagree. Unless you are twitch shooting, COD or CS style, a locked 30 frames at 1080p is a much better compromise. Definition is far more important to me than high frame rates.

Online chess players might settle for 480p, but I wouldn't.

bear in mind I dont play FPS games, FPS seems to be the only genre where people are so paranoid about resolution. From where I sit FPS is the main driver behind the next gen consoles.

You talk as if 480p is some kind of unplayable resolution, when its not. Chess can be easily played at 100p.

In reply to a post by mrnelster:

That's because the xbone is upscaling to 1080 and because YouTube reduces the definition too. I think the definition is absolutely crucial to claiming to be next gen. It's the key advantage PC has had over the consoles and IMO the main thing developers should be striving for, WITHOUT compromising on texture detail.

The Uncharted series and more recently TLOU looked fantastic visually. But on close scrutiny you would never be able to escape that "layered" look. The feeling that everything has been pasted together. A native resolution of 1080 is the logical next step. There is no point to increasing draw distance and the amount of textures without it and that is where the divide will become more apparent over the next 18 months. Where the PS4 will be clinging on to PC gaming's coat tails over the next couple of years, I expect the Xbone to struggle to do the same. And any methods it employs to try to match that resolution may mean IT will suffer from frame rate issues and not the other way round.

We all know the PC has had the best looking games, but argued over which is the best room in the house to play and that the sofa is better than the office chair. Now that the quality compromise has been dramatically reduced with the PS4 (for now at least), are we really going to claim it's not that important? Me thinks not, sire.

AA, textures, performance, gameplay etc all more important than resolution, Bumping up resolution doesnt automatically make things look better. On a pc game (where have options to mess with visuals), a game will look better eg. on ultra setting at 800p than low setting on 1080p.

In reply to a post by Chrysalis:

In reply to a post by mrnelster:

That's because the xbone is upscaling to 1080 and because YouTube reduces the definition too. I think the definition is absolutely crucial to claiming to be next gen. It's the key advantage PC has had over the consoles and IMO the main thing developers should be striving for, WITHOUT compromising on texture detail.

The Uncharted series and more recently TLOU looked fantastic visually. But on close scrutiny you would never be able to escape that "layered" look. The feeling that everything has been pasted together. A native resolution of 1080 is the logical next step. There is no point to increasing draw distance and the amount of textures without it and that is where the divide will become more apparent over the next 18 months. Where the PS4 will be clinging on to PC gaming's coat tails over the next couple of years, I expect the Xbone to struggle to do the same. And any methods it employs to try to match that resolution may mean IT will suffer from frame rate issues and not the other way round.

We all know the PC has had the best looking games, but argued over which is the best room in the house to play and that the sofa is better than the office chair. Now that the quality compromise has been dramatically reduced with the PS4 (for now at least), are we really going to claim it's not that important? Me thinks not, sire.

AA, textures, performance, gameplay etc all more important than resolution, Bumping up resolution doesnt automatically make things look better. On a pc game (where have options to mess with visuals), a game will look better eg. on ultra setting at 800p than low setting on 1080p.

If you are playing Pokemon or Skylanders perhaps. If you want a greater draw distance there is absolutely no point in adding detailed texture to it if you don't improve the definition, whether FPS or not. And I want a greater draw distance when hurtling towards that digital horizon. If you don't play fast paced action games, you won't subscribe to the same criteria of "bleeding edge" game design.

And I haven't said 720p isn't any good, but it certainly isn't "as good" as 1080p. GTAV is probably not your cup of tea either, but if you had played it you would understand why 1080p could make a great game, a legendary game.

You can have great draw distance at 800p very easily.

visually there is little difference between 800p and 1080p.

The main artifacts come from lcd's not handing non native resolutions well, but that is fixed when there is upscaling.

when people have all these comparison shots of xbox one vs ps4 720p vs 1080p etc. I struggle to see the difference, and whats funny I seen some where people guessed wrong where they thought was 1080p when 720p.

Microsoft are also enforcing 2x msaa which enhances visuals. if the ps4 at its higher resolutions isnt using msaa then the differences may actually be in favour of microsoft.

The main artifacts come from lcd's not handing non native resolutions well, but that is fixed when there is upscaling.

No it isn't fixed, it's a compromise and increases overall resolution at the expense of texture. Native 1080p provides noticeably better overall visual fidelity.

If I said the PS4 was black, you would say it was white. I'm not sure why you go to such extremes to pedal your hypotheses, and that is all they are. The fact is native 1080p is better than upscaled 720p and 60fps is better than 30fps.

Many flat panel TV's (my plasma and my best mates LCD included) have game mode on them. It's not a new thing, they are both 5 years old. It turns off all of the post processing to prevent input lag. Those playing chess won't grasp that reality, but it is still the reality.

All of the videos you are watching are heavily compressed. All of the educated gaming press understand the difference. Many agree it doesn't have to be a deal breaker, but the improvement in quality is not in question. I doubt if you'll bother downloading the high bit rate link I offered, but that is indisputable evidence, whilst still being lightly compressed. The real thing will be better still. And even on the compressed YouTube videos, you haven't seen equivalent PS3 and Xbox 360 games and you never will.

And so say all of us

And so say all of us.

For he's a jolly good fellow.

For he's a jolly good fellow...!!!!!

La la la liii la

Boom boom



;0

talk about timing check this video skip to 14mins if you like.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AAgc43e-zp4
http://youtu.be/AAgc43e-zp4?t=13m50s

game looks pretty poor and is running at 1080p, even the reviewer stated its poor texture quality.

you are sadly mistaken if you think I just use videos to judge the affect of resolution, I can tell the difference using my own system.

what has input lag got to do with visual quality? dont talk down to me as if I know nothing. You seem to have some kind of superiority complex where you feel just because you play FPS games you know more about technology.

All higher resolution does is decrease pixel size and thats it, it does nothing else other than to place higher demand on hardware. Obviously there is a very visual difference between say 240p and 720p but as it gets higher and higher its the point of diminishing returns as the human eye cannot easily differentate so easily.

1080p is better than upscaled 720p if all other things are equal, I didnt say otherwise. What I said was resolution has less affect on visual quality than special affects, texture quality etc. For me the most important thing (gameplay) is not affected by 1080p vs 720p at all. Are you seriously trying to push the point that a game running with minimal graphical detail at 1080p looks better than a game with high quality shadows, lighting, fxaa, msaa etc. at 720p. All because pixels are bigger.

I did of course watch the higher bitrate video you posted and I dont consider it mind blowing visuals. I have played better looking games then that years ago. My modded oblivion looks far better visually then that. Oblivlion was released in 2006 although I dont know when the improved texture pack was released and the mods I use were released.

Edited by Chrysalis (Tue 05-Nov-13 22:54:33)

Without retracing old ground for arguments about the effects of higher resolution vs other graphical effects I think Nelly's link to an uncompressed video link made supreme sense for showing the deficiencies of YouTube video compression technologies compared to how we could expect to see an actual game played regardless of use of AA tech or whatnot.

If we're gonna get into the realms of what the human eye can discern in terms of resolution:distance then we're in the territory of pixels per inch and (Apple parlance) retina terminology. Yes. We can discern extra detail at a particular distance so 720p (which is 1280 x 720 = 9, 216, 000 pixels) is quite a bit less than the more than 2 million pixels proper 1080p provides but do we notice?

As you point out Chrysalis, having more dots per inch isn't everything. Nobody disputes that but only a silly person would say 720p is preferable given 1080p should now (given next gen hardware offerings) be a standard. Personally, and I expect this is true for all, graphical fidelity is more down to the artists vision and of course having a smooth and high enough frame rate is important to this experience of being in a world. I think the oft repeated 60 frames per second maxim is a little much but certainly a minimum playable framerate of 30-40 fps is what devs should be aiming for. As sites like BitTech acknowledge it's the minimum, not average of max framerate that's the clincher for experiencing a smoothly running game. I mean, we still watch most movies at 24 frames per second; we're human and can do so whereas flies or cats/dogs would see a slideshow.

Anyway, I personally am in the school of good artistry, a smooth minimum framerate of 30+ and as much detail as my puny human senses can absorb at <2ft from my monitor is the way to go. The only time I can really tell that a game has low resolution is in a game like GTA that has road signposts with small writing on. Otherwise you will, as you rightly say, notice that decals such as bullet holes, other damage and general graphical fidelity is lacking as it looks unnatural compared to what there could be. In an online FPS shooter though, such details might not be all that important though. But I'd think they're preferable and desirable: it's evolution and I'm all for enhanced graphics as immersive experience though I admit my bias as a FPS type gamer. Not all games need cutting edge graphical processing prowess but still, where it's available: gimme gimme gimme is my motto!

Are you seriously trying to push the point that a game running with minimal graphical detail at 1080p looks better than a game with high quality shadows, lighting, fxaa, msaa etc. at 720p. All because pixels are bigger.

This is complete nonsense Chrysalis, nobody has said that. What has been said is that all things being equal texture wise (as they obviously are which is why we are discussing the need to downgrade the resolution on the Xbone) 1080p is superior to 720p and hence desirable. 1080p locked at a minimum of 30fps is the compromise I have already stated I would find acceptable and it seems I'm not the only one. But 1080p is now a must as PC has been breezing it for years.

I'm not talking down to you, but you appear to be intent on pushing some sort of agenda. I'm just not even sure what it is anymore.

Edited by mrnelster (Wed 06-Nov-13 00:57:23)

The bigger the screen, the more exacerbated the difference.

I've had discussions with Swanny in the original GTAV thread. At times on PS3 it looks fantastic. When you are hurtling through the metropolis in a car however, it gets hard on the eyes.

so we agree then, seems was a misunderstanding.

I have no issue with 1080p when no compromises are made.

In terms of best quality visuals best to worst here is my order.

BF4 - this to me genuinly does look very good visually.
Killzone - Looks ok but not great.
COD ghosts - Looks like a game from 6-7 years ago, at least on the PC version, supposedbly the PS4 has better quality visuals so will try to find a PS4 video to see if I change my mind. Note I am not looking at things like smearing and pixel size (both affected by video compression) but rather texture quality, shadows, lighting etc.

No we don't agree ���.

Battlefield 4 does not look better than killzone��..Period����Think you should take a check up at Specsavers if thats what you see.

But we agree on Cod Ghosts��Old Engine same copy and paste scenario��.

Edited by time2die (Thu 07-Nov-13 00:20:19)