And that footage is running on?
Why the PS4 is better than the X1(160 posts)
X1 hardware, according to Respawn.
Can't find the link yet, though, so I'll have to try and look for it later. I've watched so many Titanfall interviews over the last few days...
From the mouth of Vince Zampella. (just after 9 minutes in) [link can't skip YouTube's annoying ad system.]
Fair enough. Bit odd there was no hands on or even hands off demo of the game given the maturity of the footage released. It's not released until Spring next year is it though?
So here's my thoughts on what you wrote earlier G1GA.
"No idea, but I know that Titanfall is 3rd party, it looks amazing, and it was running at 1080/60 on X1 hardware (according to Respawn)."
You completely missed his point, it's third party but not multiplat. You can't do a hardware comparison running completely different software. Possibly why Microsoft didn't want to showcase any.
"MGS5 was also shown at the MS conference, and that didn't exactly look last gen, either."
But.. But it is..
"They don't look lackluster to me. Not Forza, not Titanfall, not Killer Instinct, and like you, I could argue that DR3 still has time to pull its framerate up to a sold 60Hz."
That's what's called personal opinion, which can neither be wrong nor right. And I honestly hope they manage to get 60hz on dead rising 3, it has soo much going against it after all, glad you admit the same for PS4 games.
"Given Sunset Overdrive's style, I'd be surprised if it didn't run at 1080/60, too." Sunset overdrive is a teaser trailers years off my friend.
"At the end of the day, you're telling me that the PS4 is more powerful than the X1, and I don't necessarily disagree with you. However, for me, X1 has the slight edge in terms of how the actual games look, so far. Especially with so many exclusives hitting 60Hz."
"Don't necessarily disagree" With facts? sure.
"for me, X1 has the slight edge" Am I supposed to say that you're wrong for having that opinion. Be my guest. Mine is that it's due to the nature of these games. Like DrDamn said "60fps is a genre and design choice"
But if you want all do a postmortem on those games you're touting if you'd like. A fighter, a racer and a wannabe CoD.
Current forza- 60fps
current fighters- 60fps. And thank god none of the ps exclusives are fighters. I'd rather play fucking Knack.
wannabe cod- currently 60fps on PS3/360 as well. Guess what, we're gonna have a million CoDs on PS4 and Battlefields all in 60fps 1080p.
And all the rest were 30fps. But if you guys are to keep posting, please stop blathering about 60fps. Aside from personal preference, it's completely irrelevant.
Xbox One is better.
Sure it is you chunky monkey.
1. You can't do a hardware comparison with a multiplat game, full stop.
What's more powerful, 360 or PS3?
PS3, right? (You'd probably put this alongside your other "facts")
So why do most current gen multiplatform games run better on 360?
Because they were developed specifically for 360, and basically ported to PS3 later on.
So how do we know that PS3 is more powerful?
Because of games like Uncharted 3 and The Last of Us that have no equivalent looking game on 360.
You don't compare hardware power by looking at multiplatform games, or it would be a closed case that the 360 is more powerful than the PS3.
2. MGS5 is... is.. is not a last gen game: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-QElfD5mwkk
3. Sunset Overdrive might have been showed as a teaser, but the style was there for all to see.
4. Killzone Shadow Fall is a futuristic FPS on PS4 that runs at 1080/30 (or less, and suffers from "input lag" according to EG). Titanfall is a futuristic FPS that runs on the X1 at 1080/60.
Why is it that there's a 1080/60 CoD, a 1080/60 BF4, a 1080/60 Titanfall, but only a 1080/30 (or less, with "input lag") Killzone: Shadow Fall?
Design choice has nothing to do with it in this case.
5. Gamecube, Xbox and PS2 games ran at 60Hz. So what? They weren't 1080p, with directx 11, were they?
This is like watching two Autistic adults playing Top Trumps with the shit they've literally pulled out their arse.
You're not gonna be able to prove you've got the *better* hand, so stop dancing ladies.
keep trying sonybots try harder
xone games look better face facts
I don't think I'll ever understand people who click on a link when they know what's there, read it anyway, then complain...
Very strange individuals.
Giga - Your cracking me up with this nonsense regarding 1080p/60 and Titanfall.
Go read extremetech's and Anandtech's article on the performance difference between the Xbone and PS4. Xbone has a gimped 7790, PS4 has a GPU close to a ATI 7870. This translates to 33% performance difference and a whopping 50% difference in shading performance over the Xbone. Launch titles won't take advantage of it, but as time goes on multiplatform and first party games will look much better on PS4. Even if the lighting and geometry stays the same, PS4 has more horsepower for better filtering and antialising than xbone, games will look better.
It's like comparing a $150 video card to a $300 video card and saying the Xbone is just as good.
The memory has 176GB/sec vs Xbones 68GB/sec, about 2.5x the bandwidth the Xbone has. The memory is higher latency, but I doub't that would be a major factor. MS's eSram won't give it any performance edge over the GDDR5.
If you like the Xbone, great! I'll probably get one later. I am buying a PS4 though, I want the most powerful console and I don't want to support MS right out of the gate after their pro-corporate baloney.
@GIGA, Its not the content, it's the delivery.
Your gonna have ridiculous *debates* over hypothetical maybe's, at least throw in a funny or two.
Man, I miss Blerk :(
Yeah, more missassumptions. I've tried though.
@ fearmonkey: dude he just doesn't seem to get it, I don't know what's wrong with him he just keeps talking about 60fps 1080p.
I mean he still doesn't get the 60fps bit, and suddenly MGS5 isn't coming to PS3 and shits crazy. There's nothing more to say to him really, he just hears what he wants to.
@orbitmonkey yeah I know it's retarded. Where's that "internet fight" gif? If you read some of my posts you'll see that I've tried to use reason and logical thinking at the very least. G1GA just isn't able I'm afraid.
What's so funny about it?
You can quote me all of the percentage increases in the world, but if it doesn't equate to a better looking game, it's meaningless.
Launch titles won't take advantage of it...
Why in the world, would a launch title not possibly take advantage of all that super duper power??
The proof, as they say, is in the pudding, and some of the PS4 exclusives are looking a bit soggy in comparison to the X1's.
It's like comparing a $150 video card to a $300 video card and saying the Xbone is just as good.
No, it's not. It's like comparing Forza 5 to Drive Club, and Titanfall to Killzone: Shadow Fall.
No, wait... That's exactly what it is.
How does 50% more power turn into a 50% lower frame rate, then?
Listen, I've played CoD for the last 5 years. I have no problem playing something that looks poor in comparison to everything else.
But all of this huff and puff about how the PS4 can do more than the X1 is not being shown in the games, so far.
I'm just going to throw this out there I'm mostly done though, I can't count how many times we've repeated this in how many different ways.
Trading off fps for graphical processing is a common design choice. That simply means they're putting in more effects, tesselation etc.
here are some of the Xbox One titles that do this.
Spark ( the one interesting title they had )
Dead rising 3 ( they're not targeting 60fps giga. )
"Why in the world, would a launch title not possibly take advantage of all that super duper power??"
Maybe he means that we aren't going to see the best visuals right away with the first batch of games compared to later in the console's generation.
"some of the PS4 exclusives are looking a bit soggy in comparison to the X1's."
Is it hard to wait until the final product is released so we can have a more viable comparison?
"How does 50% more power turn into a 50% lower frame rate, then?"
Maybe due to it's still a WIP?
Patience people, it's a virtue nonetheless...
@CyberMarco dude, don't take him seriously. His arguments are completely retarded.. His 3 prime examples are.
A fighter. .....
A CoD clone.
All 60fps genre games, all pathetically easy given the hardware. his argumentation literaly carries no weight. All the rest of the X1 line up is 30fps. DC aims at 60fps but locked it at 30 for a stable preformance at E3.
If not GT6 is also going to be 60fps 1080p on PS4.
That's a 60 fps genre game. I think he just doesn't understand certain words or something.
Unless the kinnect shoots rainbows into my eyeballs, I very much doubt I'll be blown away.
Though if it does I'm defo day one!
"You can quote me all of the percentage increases in the world, but if it doesn't equate to a better looking game, it's meaningless."
Sigh.......... So, a Nvidia Titan won't make a game look any better than a GTX480? Even if the game is ancient, a Titan would have much better anti-alising and filtering, games would look better, and could look a ton better depending on the game.
Because all these games are being developed on PC's first and then moved to Dev kits, and it takes time to adjust to the new hardware. Think Halo VS Halo 2. When they start out creating these games on next gen consoles, they have to guestimate at performance, its the games that are written from day one on dev kits that get the real benefits. All next gens start this way.
Games like Battlefield 4 are on PC's and being migrated to Xbone and PS4, if EA wants it to, Battlefield 4 would look better on PS4 simply because of better tesselation, anti-alising, and filtering. Games that really take advantage of the difference will also have better lighting and increased geometry.
"ome of the PS4 exclusives are looking a bit soggy in comparison to the X1's" Did you notice that "The Division" was using a PS4? best looking game at E3....You are deluding yourself if you think there will be no difference as the consoles age.
"No, it's not. It's like comparing Forza 5 to Drive Club, and Titanfall to Killzone: Shadow Fall." - lol... Both Xbone's games look great. I didnt think titanfall looked all that amazing though. it looked good but not OMG, the opening scene for KZ:SF that was displayed at the PS4 reveal looked more impressive graphically, flying over the city and all the objects.
"How does 50% more power turn into a 50% lower frame rate, then?"
Well, we dont actually know polygon differences in the scenes between games, if the PS4 is rendering more objects that would require a less framerate. Titanfall is built on a very old engine (source), I would bet that engine wise, the KZ:SF has more bells and whistles in it.
"how the PS4 can do more than the X1 is not being shown in the games, so far." - Agreed. But the PS4's games look no worse than anything on the Xbone. As I said, All games starting out on a next gen console are less than what the console is truly capable of, as games take years to make and they have to start off on PC, and guess at the performance. Multiplatform games usually also release on the current console gen and thus the engines have to be backward's compatible as well, so they dont show the capabilities for that reason as well.
All I am saying, is unlike the PS3, where Sony gimped system with halved ram (256+256 vs 360's unified 512mb) and a complex Cell CPU, allowing the slightly less powerful 360 to look better especially early on, the hardware difference between the PS4 and the Xbone will come out. There is little difference in their architectures, but a good bit of difference in their power. Years from now, PS4 will be the system where multiplatform games play the best and look the best, and thats coming, the hardware makes it a fact. If the developers choose not to make a difference, thats their choice, but the power is there.
I play retro and older games all the time, I am not stuck on graphics. I do favor the most powerful consoles though as they tend to have the best looking games down the road.
@Fearmonkey Dude! don't do this to yourself. I know he's an easy target, his argumentation itself is like an invitation for you to rip it apart. But it wouln't get through to him! He's just going to make some lame counter argument based on even more far fetched logic while pretending he's somehow right. Seriously. Logic doesn't apply.
He'll just make a lame reply that completely overlooks all of your points... And then he'll keep pretending that he's right....
Not worth it, nuuuuuu!!
@wildboar - Lol, yeah I get it :) Im pretty much done. I just felt a bit annoyed (as i am a big tech geek) and had to step in a bit. I have nothing against Giga though, he loves the Xbox and I understand that, as I was a big Xbox fan until MS showed us that our loyalty means nothing to them. I have no loyality though, i tend to favor who is the most powerful and has the better games. I love The xbox exclusives and might get one some day, but for now I couldnt buy an Xbone, I can't bring myself to support MS anytime soon after all the shenanigans.
I guess me, Cyber and you will enjoy our PS4's, maybe Giga will get one someday.
I hope Titanfall does well, after the way Activision treated them, id love to see EA score a hit there.
@Fearmonkey yeah Giga definetely seems to be hyped about that one. I honestly hope they'll get a hit in there on Acti as well, BF4 is finally at 60fps giving the CoD fanboys little to diss about it anymore. And then there's Titanfall, it's really looking like CoDs reign is finally closing.
I'm a tad gay for Sony myself for lack of a better computer, but I try to be fair on all the platforms, it seems like every platform holder have made wild mistakes in these two last gens anyway.
More than anything I'm excited for Gamescom though, we'll propably be back here arguing with Giga in a month and a half or so. Though hopefully we can all be agreable.
I think it was Yoshida who teased that more PS4 exclusives are on the way, there are still so many 1st party devs that we haven't heard from.
Naughty, Media molecule, Quantic Dream.. I guess it's those exclusives we'll be aruging about next time. Hopefully they'll be 60fps though =P Or we'll hear it.
Don't want to piss on anyones parade but the same game played on a 480 and a titan will look exactly the same, unless software pre-sets are enabled or altered. Yes the titan would do the work faster, maybe give a higher frame rate, but above 60fps its a wasted effort anyway. The difference is all software based. Thus, if the software isn't designed to take account of the power of things like the titan, it won't look any better just because you have that horsepower. An example would be say Half life 2. Both cards would probably play with HL2 on maximum settings, neither would look any better.
Anyway extending this reasoning to the console war, the actual hardware involved whether better or worse, won't matter a damn- the difference will come down to how the game is ported and altered to suit the machine in question. In PCs they don't have such problems- they just set a lower limit and then build in as much complexity as they can until they know anything a quadro can handle is ok.
One would assume that how much effort is put into developing games to suit each console is dependent upon the actual volume of consoles sold, expected game sales and how much time or money they have availible. This is probably way many 360 games looked and played so well, because MS aren't exactly cash strapped and threw plenty of money at the problem, as well as using more off the shelf hardware which was simpler and easier to code for.
@nollie4545 - Yes the game wouldn't look any different if you didn't change the settings, well of course. The game wouldn't look any better (filtering and antialising wise) if the game was so old that there was no challenge to the hardware, well of course. I don't really understand your point. You think that its logical that someone would buy a Titan and run it at autodetect settings or its defaults?
"the difference will come down to how the game is ported and altered to suit the machine in question" - well yeah..of course... and if I was porting a game to the PS4 and i could have better antialiasing and filtering, which would be nothing to up, and my framerate stayed above 60, why wouldn't I do that? If I could have a more complex tessellation performance without lowering framerate, wouldn't I do that? Most developers would like the game to look and perform the best, publishers might try to slide out a game without enhancements, but its gets less likely as the generation goes on.
A game that would be on a next gen system would challenge the hardware, and thus a PS4 or titan would perform better and look better if the settings are bumped up. Your saying that a developer porting it over wouldn't take the time to enhance it if the power was there? to not enhance a game if there is no performance hit?
"This is probably way many 360 games looked and played so well, because MS aren't exactly cash strapped and threw plenty of money at the problem, as well as using more off the shelf hardware which was simpler and easier to code for. "
Had nothing to do with money being thrown.
Games looked better on 360 because of your 2nd line, but also that it used a less complex CPU (PowerPC isnt exactly off the shelf though), had unified 512mb which meant bigger textures, and it had the ability scale to 1080p with no performance hit (though it wasn't really being rendered at 1080p)
1: Ports used to be better on 360, that's before Santa Monica and Sony's other devs finally learned how to harness the cell. And shared that info with other devs.
If you look at Japanese, or tech savvy developers who are good at optimising their ports, PS3s have generelly started getting a bit better than the 360 ones. Certainly a higher potential for those who bother at least.
Metal gear rising comes to mind (vastly better on PS3)
Portal 2, Metro last light. Just to name a few I can think of.
2: If the build hasn't even been put on the dev-kit- the actual hardware it's supposed to run on. Then it can't be said to be very representative they haven't really tested the limits of the hardware yet, the current build they would show could be far too taxing for the X1...
It also shows a lack of preperation and perhaps even confidence in the hardware.
Ok, let's make one thing explicitly clear from the get go.
I do not "love" Xbox.
I love God. I love the Prophets and Messengers. I love my family.
Anything that comes off of an assembly line doesn't even nudge the scale.
"how the PS4 can do more than the X1 is not being shown in the games, so far." - Agreed.
This has been the entirety of my point, and you agree with me. So where's the problem?
This is essentially all that I've been saying since the middle of the second page, and you have clearly agreed with me now.
Right now, as a consumer, looking at everything that has been presented so far, not thinking about "the next 4-5 years.." (why would I do that?) there is absolutely nothing to suggest that PS4 games are ahead of X1 games in any way, shape or form.
Killzone not running in 1080/60, while Titanfall does, is just one single example that I could use.
And let's not get anything twisted here.
Sony are "actively pushing" for 1080/60.
They are "actively pushing" for it, but Killzone is hitting 25fps, and Titanfall is hitting 60.
I'm not even going to talk about the 'been there, done that' corridoor style shooting that has been shown. I'm not even going to talk about the way a target render from 2005 still looks better than a game due for release in 2013. All I'm pointing out at this stage, is that the more powerful machine isn't giving us the more impressive looking games. End of story.
Consoles are supposed to be about games, right?
I've never argued that the PS4 is less powerful on paper. Quote me where I said that.
I've never argued that PS4 games wouldn't become more optimised in the future. Quote me where I said that.
Is the PS4 more powerful? Fine. It's more powerful. Woop-ti-do.
My point is that this is not being shown in the games. Consoles are about games.
You do not have to "love" MS to acknowledge that.
Please keep your emotional rants to yourself. If you've given up trying to find an excuse for the PS4s inability to make use of its hardware, that's fine.
Keep it to yourself.
"Right now, as a consumer, looking at everything that has been presented so far, not thinking about "the next 4-5 years.." (why would I do that?)"
Ehm, is this a sprint or a marathon? I would suppose the latter. I believe when you buy a console you are making a long-term investment (same with PC, and other expensive hardware), so it would be a bit careless to not look what will come down the road.
"there is absolutely nothing to suggest that PS4 games are ahead of X1 games in any way, shape or form."
Yeah, but there isn't nothing that confirms that PS4 games wont be up to the task to deliver 1080p/60fps, and on the Titanfall vs Killzone matter, maybe in a scale from 1 to 10, Titanfall has 7 in graphics and Killzone has 9, justifying the 30fps, and other things like that. I'm making an assumption btw.
"Consoles are supposed to be about games, right?"
Yes and no, personally when I make a big purchase I'm looking for the best experience/feature possible delivered. With MS pushing the wrong buttons one after another it's not wise to jump ship right away, same thing for Sony who hasn't shown a lot of 1st games this far.
P.S. I would suggest you to listen to this track: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-L010ikbRdI A FF-VII remix, really calming! :)
Give it a rest G1GA no one cares anymore, I sure don't. And it seems like you're the one getting emotional now, woop di do.
"absolutely nothing to suggest that PS4 games are ahead of X1 games in any way, shape or form."
No one's said that, we've said the hardware is stronger. Glad to see you finally agree.
The problem is that you try to claim the xbox titles look better. yeeeey titanfall is 60fps.. and shadowfall looks better and has more dynamic lighting filters tesselation blablabla. And?
- I've explained before to you that it's a trade off, I wonder how long it'll take for you to understand that.
How about Ryse? Don't you wanna toot that horn? it looked really good? it's locked at 30FPS. How curious.
Just like Killzone games always have been 30fps but have had better graphics than bland military shooter warfighter 9. (now with mechs).
But please give it a rest now, I so don't care about Titanfall or Killzone, or fucking Forza for that matter.
Here's an argument you can make- Xbox is getting (1) more 60fps shooters than ps4. Yes, soo true, soo don't care.
"I'm not even going to talk about the 'been there, done that' corridoor style shooting that has been shown."
Except it's not. Much more open levels with objectives you can complete in the order you want. Don't just base it on the PS4 reveal level, more has been shown which demonstrates a more open approach to level design in Shadowfall.
You must log in to post.