"best-selling racing game by console attach over the past decade"....(Forza 5)

[MeachTheMonster]

He wasn't expecting this

Everytime y'all post one of these I chuckle. If you have to blow up the picture and squint at it, then the difference truly doesn't matter.

It's funny y'all keep saying the jump from last gen to this one isnt much, but then You wanna turn around and pretend the differnce between X1 and PS4 titles is huge.

 

[MeachTheMonster]

So even though Titanfall is being ported to 360, the Xbox One version offers gameplay beyond what the 360 version will be capable of??
Killer Instinct couldn't have been done on 360?

Have you seen/played the 360 version of TitanFall?
And no KI couldn't be done on 360. Just the fact that it stays at 60fps no matter what's going on is something that was not done in a fighter last gen.

As for your last statement, please read what you said. How is spending $400-500 on a NEW console setting yourself up for disappointment?? No one is oblivious to the fact that a PC will always offer better graphics/performance granted you have the hardware, the issue here is when you spend more for a weaker console. We're comparing PS4/Xbox One here not PS4/Xbone vs PC. You're trying to throw PC gaming in the mix to offset how weak the Xbox One is compared the PS4. Stop it breh.

Actually the post I quoted mentioned PC. Learn how to read breh.

And it's totaly ironic to hear the "more money for a weaker console" line keep being repeated by PS3 owners

 

[MeachTheMonster]

But explain why the Xbox One is struggling to handle these marginal upgrades that the PS4 doing easily?

The ps4 is doing nothing easy. That's why these comparisons are so funny.

If we are standing by the assumption that "next gen" should be 1080p 60fps with graphics to compete with highe en PCs. Then the ps4 is failing miserably as well.

Still not one PS4 game is truly running at 1080p 60fps. But none of you care about that, as long as you can say its marginally better than Xbox then you are ok with that.

 

[B86]

If graphics was your main priority then you should have bought a PC. If you expected a mature system without any launch perks/bugs then you shouldn't have bought a launch console.

The games freezing starting over is a problem of the devs, not the system and they are appearantly on all platforms.

I guess it depends on what games you get. I've been very satisfied with dead rising, Forza, KI, and now TitanFall, and all of them offer both graphics and gameplay well beyond what the 360 is capable of.

In my opinion anyone who bought one of the new systems, just to play cross-gen titles are doing it wrong and set themselves up for disappointment. Those games truly are just last gen games with marginal upgrades.

I stopped reading after "should have bought a pc". If you actually read my post, you'd see that I have a gaming pc so you're totally missing my point about these consoles

 

[MeachTheMonster]

I stopped reading after "should have bought a pc". If you actually read my post, you'd see that I have a gaming pc so you're totally missing my point about these consoles

I read your post. And why the hell would you buy a console and play multiplats on it when you have a PC what the hell did you expect?

 

[Fatboi1]

Have you seen/played the 360 version of TitanFall?
And no KI couldn't be done on 360. Just the fact that it stays at 60fps no matter what's going on is something that was not done in a fighter last gen.

Are you for real?? You honestly believe that??" You've never played a 60fps fighter on PS3/360??
What's going on that's so taxing in Killer Instinct??
Super Street Fighter IV runs at 60fps on consoles.
Marvel VS Capcom 3 does
Soul Calibur IV
and even more. The particle effects could be toned down and you can call it a day. Freaking Destiny is being made on last gen consoles but you think a game as simple looking as Killer Instinct is impossible to do on Xbox 360.

Actually the post I quoted mentioned PC. Learn how to read breh.

And didn't I just tell you it's obvious PC will always offer better gfx/performance?

And it's totaly ironic to hear the "more money for a weaker console" line keep being repeated by PS3 owners

So despite almost every PS3 exclusive looking light years ahead of games on Xbox 360, the PS3 is weaker. The PS3 having a blu ray drive, built in wifi from the get go and a much more powerful CPU that showed it's strength means it was weaker? If the CPU on PS3 is faster than the CPU on the 360 but the GPU is slower than the GPU on 360 how can you come to that conclusion?? The end result should be what is used as a barometer and the games did that.

 

[ll_simon]

This nikka is one courtdog style post away from permanent did not read status

 

[MeachTheMonster]

Are you for real?? You honestly believe that??" You've never played a 60fps fighter on PS3/360??
What's going on that's so taxing in Killer Instinct??
Super Street Fighter IV runs at 60fps on consoles.
Marvel VS Capcom 3 does
Soul Calibur IV
and even more. The particle effects could be toned down and you can call it a day. Freaking Destiny is being made on last gen consoles but you think a game as simple looking as Killer Instinct is impossible to do on Xbox 360.

Why do people only play on the training level in competition?
Because the framerate is not totaly consistent in any of those games. The framerate in KI is. Even with the high particle counts and the dynamic backrounds.

And didn't I just tell you it's obvious PC will always offer better gfx/performance?

That's what I said.

So despite almost every PS3 exclusive looking light years ahead of games on Xbox 360, the PS3 is weaker. The PS3 having a blu ray drive, built in wifi from the get go and a much more powerful CPU that showed it's strength means it was weaker?

The first sentance is a lie you stans tell yourself to feel better. X1 has plenty of tech beyond graphics output that the ps4 does not have. And plenty of devs have said the X1 is more powerful. And thus far X1 exclusives look/perform better than ps4 exclusives

I guess all ps3/4 owners lost according to your logic

 

[Fatboi1]

Why do people only play on the training level in competition?
Because the framerate is not totaly consistent in any of those games. The framerate in KI is. Even with the high particle counts and the dynamic backrounds.

The PlayStation 3 version mirrors the coin-op in that it's rendering its visuals without the aid of anti-aliasing, whereas the Xbox 360 code gets the benefit of its more usual 2x multisampling edge smoothing. Both are running at an absolutely rock solid 60 frames-per-second, but it's clear that Capcom has had to nip and tuck the PlayStation 3 version in a number of ways to meet this goal.

We'll go into the differences in more depth in a minute, but the key change is that every single close-up sees the PS3 game dynamically downscale to 1120x630, whereas the Xbox 360 game continues to remain at the full 720p resolution. The combination of no AA, plus the enlarged pixels can result in a few ugly scenes, but in most cases it is barely noticeable - 60fps is maintained, and it's amazing how much a super-smooth refresh rate can hide, especially on a game as fast-moving as this one.

The overall lack of anti-aliasing in the PS3 game is hardly a big deal, as there are few 'jaggies' to be overly concerned about. Only on the bright, open stages such as the Airfield do you ever really become aware of it.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/face-off-street-fighter-iv-article

Anyone looking to split the two versions of the game based on its performance is also likely to come away disappointed. SoulCalibur 5 delivers 60 frames per second on both platforms, never wavering during gameplay, ensuring that the game looks consistently fantastic and that response from the controller is reassuringly consistent. As you'll see from the videos (we've produced one per platform since head-to-head gameplay doesn't really make sense), the game isn't operating at a locked 60FPS, however - frames are dropped when special moves are activated and the view zooms in for a more dramatic effect. However, it's safe to say that you'd need superhuman senses to detect any drop in the game's refresh.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-soulcalibur5-face-off

Other effects also are pared back in this way, but not all. Many still seem to be rendering at full res, or at least close to that, for the most part, with some looking poorer due to being upscaled at various points. In any case, the game's smooth 60FPS update and fast-paced nature makes these small instances fly by without impacting on the look of the game.

So far, in terms of the whole graphical make-up of the game, everything has been built around carefully achieving, and indeed constantly keeping a 60FPS update. The lightning-fast controller response time that such a frame-rate provides is absolutely paramount to the experience. The question is, can the developer sustain that all-important 16ms refresh on both platforms?

MVC3
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-xbox360-vs-ps3-round-29-face-off
I guess they did the face offs only in the training stages

That's what I said.

The first sentance is a lie you stans tell yourself to feel better. X1 has plenty of tech beyond graphics output that the ps4 does not have. And plenty of devs have said the X1 is more powerful. And thus far X1 exclusives look/perform better than ps4 exclusives

I guess all ps3/4 owners lost according to your logic

So I'm talking about PS3 and here you not only skip to current gen, you just make up something and run with it. Plenty of devs have said the X1 is more powerful??

Stating a fact =/= complaining.

I have no problem admiting that the Xbox one is less powerfull on paper. It's all the other crap y'all try to add to it, that's the problem.

The ps3 is underpowered, why is it so hard for you to admit this?

You're done here.

 

[Hiphoplives4eva]

How did you loose? Cause the Internet told you, you did?

Are the games not fun? Does your system not work? Does it not do what you thought it would?

Dude is fukking brainwashed i swear. Talking about "we lost."

 

[MeachTheMonster]

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/face-off-street-fighter-iv-article


http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-soulcalibur5-face-off
I guess they did the face offs only in the training stages

As you'll see from the videos (we've produced one per platform since head-to-head gameplay doesn't really make sense), the game isn't operating at a locked 60FPS, however - frames are dropped when special moves are activated and the view zooms in for a more dramatic effect.

http://www.dualshockers.com/2010/08...ivs-playstation-3-vs-xbox-360-lag-comparison/

So I'm talking about PS3 and here you not only skip to current gen, you just make up something and run with it. Plenty of devs have said the X1 is more powerful??

Typo I ment to say 360

You're done here.

That's not even the point of contention here.

It's all the hypocrisy coming from Sony stans.

It's ok that the ps3 was overpriced and underperforming multiplats cause it had some cool tech and some good looking exclusives.

Xbox one is more expensive with underperforming multiplats, and it has some cool tech and good looking exclusives, but it gets no passes from you. Why?

Xbox games are bashed for not being "next gen" due to framerate/resolution. But nobody cares that the PS4 isn't hitting those "next gen" goals either. Why?

When games aren't performing correctly on playstation consoles its the shytty/lazy devs fault. But when they aren't performing well on Xbox it's all Microsofts fault. Why?[/quote]

 

[Hiphoplives4eva]

Everytime y'all post one of these I chuckle. If you have to blow up the picture and squint at it, then the difference truly doesn't matter.

It's funny y'all keep saying the jump from last gen to this one isnt much, but then You wanna turn around and pretend the differnce between X1 and PS4 titles is huge.

Exactly. These clowns are so transparent its sad. Admittedly Assasins Creed looks like a last gen game ported to current gen consoles, because THATS EXACTLY WHAT IT IS. These idiots wont make unflattering gifs of Ryse, Killer Instinct, or Forza 5 though....

 

[ll_simon]

http://www.dualshockers.com/2010/08...ivs-playstation-3-vs-xbox-360-lag-comparison/



Typo I ment to say 360


That's not even the point of contention here.

It's all the hypocrisy coming from Sony stans.

It's ok that the ps3 was overpriced and underperforming multiplats cause it had some cool tech and some good looking exclusives.

Xbox one is more expensive with underperforming multiplats, and it has some cool tech and good looking exclusives, but it gets no passes from you. Why?

Xbox games are bashed for not being "next gen" due to framerate/resolution. But nobody cares that the PS4 isn't hitting those "next gen" goals either. Why?

When games aren't performing correctly on playstation consoles its the shytty/lazy devs fault. But when they aren't performing well on Xbox it's all Microsofts fault. Why?

Bruh this gen and last gen are two completely different scenarios and you know it, we've already been through why you can't compare them why you acting like a dummy. Last gen 360 dropped a year before PS3, was $200 less with a 9M install base that had an architecture using DirectX that had been around for what 20 years already? The PS3 had a highly specialized architecture that no developer had experience with. Which is why early multiplats looked and performed better on the 360. Calling devs lazy may have been a bit excessive, but tbh there was no real incentive early on to make ports comparable to their 360 counterparts when the PS3 was at a user base deficit and was at the time, too hard to program for. As the generation evolved, so did the games and familiarity with the system and by the end the best PS3 games looked better than the best 360 games. This go round, they launched at the same time, relatively same price and the architectures are nearly identical with AMD making both CPU and GPU for both systems, only difference is the PS4 has the better components (better GPU, much faster RAM, slightly slower CPU). Theres no hypocrisy here, your comparing two things that aren't the same at all and sound like a bozo cause if you claim to know as much as you say you do you should know all this already.

 

[MeachTheMonster]

Bruh this gen and last gen are two completely different scenarios and you know it, we've already been through why you can't compare them why you acting like a dummy. Last gen 360 dropped a year before PS3, was $200 less with a 9M install base that had an architecture using DirectX that had been around for what 20 years already? The PS3 had a highly specialized architecture that no developer had experience with. Which is why early multiplats looked and performed better on the 360. Calling devs lazy may have been a bit excessive, but tbh there was no real incentive early on to make ports comparable to their 360 counterparts when the PS3 was at a user base deficit and was at the time, too hard to program for. As the generation evolved, so did the games and familiarity with the system and by the end the best PS3 games looked better than the best 360 games. This go round, they launched at the same time, relatively same price and the architectures are nearly identical with AMD making both CPU and GPU for both systems, only difference is the PS4 has the better components (better GPU, much faster RAM, slightly slower CPU). Theres no hypocrisy here, your comparing two things that aren't the same at all and sound like a bozo cause if you claim to know as much as you say you do you should know all this already.

That's just the thing. The architectures are not "nearly identical" that is a line made by Sony stans in order to mask their hypocrisy. Outside of the CPU the consoles are not very similar at all. And the development environments are very different. Ports between the two, take just as much time as ever. Also ps4 devs got their dev kits almost 6 months ahead of the Xbox ones. The biggest difference is that the ps4 is almost identical to PC development, which is the lead platform for most titles. And the X1 is very different from PC development. Engines have to be built around the Xbox memory structure, and with the limited dev time for these early titles they just don't have the time or incentive to make those changes.

Your entire paragraph is a bunch of excuses for ps3s shortcomings, yet you refuse to give the other console that's in a similar position the same benefit of the doubt.

Devs have said plenty of time that the X1 was behind and would improve a lot as devs got better with it and the tools matured. Ryse and Forza show that with the correct experience/tools the X1 can push very impressive graphics.

But y'all will ignore all this to continue pushing your agenda. Hypocrisy at its finest.

 

[ll_simon]

That's just the thing. The architectures are not "nearly identical" that is a line made by Sony stans in order to mask their hypocrisy. Outside of the CPU the consoles are not very similar at all. And the development environments are very different. Ports between the two, take just as much time as ever. Also ps4 devs got their dev kits almost 6 months ahead of the Xbox ones.

Your entire paragraph is a bunch of excuses for ps3s shortcomings, yet you refuse to give the other console that's in a similar position the same benefit of the doubt.

Devs have said plenty of time that the X1 was behind and would improve a lot as devs got better with it and the tools matured. Ryse and Forza show that with the correct experience/tools the X1 can push very impressive graphics.

But y'all will ignore all this to continue pushing your agenda. Hypocrisy at its finest.

Bruh the biggest difference is memory architecture the CPU and GPU are made by the same company breh what are you talking about, this ain't no stan shyt just what it is. Theres no excuses in there, thats just exactly what happened and any logical person can understand why things played out the way they did its really not that hard. Talking about dev tools improving ain't helping your argument, they're going to improve on both sides. Problem for the Xbox is that the hardware will never improve, it will always be inferior.