wildstyle96 said:
I think it's more a problem with optimization than with the manufacturer of the Graphics, just look at games that came out at the beginning of last gen's iteration and games that came out at the end like GTA V
Either they can't figure out how to code for these new consoles or would rather not bother and just make maximum profit and terribly optimized games; I think we know the answer here.
No.
The difference here is that last generation consoles used unique hardware that was much different to code for. Now they use standard 86x architecture that has been around for over 2 decades. somone as multiplayform as Ubisoft definatelly knows the architecture. i can understand some small indie PS3 only dev knowing only cell architecture, but not Ubisoft.
Another fact is that they simply dont have raw power. You can optimize all you want, weak hardware is still weak. and tests show that Xbox GPU component is weaker than a 480GTX - a over 4 year old PC GPU.
Lightknight said:
Resolution only matters to focal point because it's your focal point that is able to resolve the pixels the best. If you can't resolve pixels with your focal point then you absolutely wouldn't be able to do so outside of your focal range whereas if you can't resolve pixles outside of your focal point you may still be able to do so with your focal point. Right now while you're looking at the screen, keep your focus on the screen but pay attention to the objects you see outside of the screen. Note that they're likely blurry or certainly not as a clear as where your eyes are focused on.
So, focal point is the only relevant component to evaluate when addressing resolution. If your focal point is catered to, then everything else will work too. Again, as far as resolution is concerned.
Resolution would only matter in the focal point if focal point was covering whole screen at the same time. It is not unless you are VERY far away from the screen. when it is covering only part of the screen,
resolution of that part of the screen is what matters. since focal point is less than 2% of all vision, and this chart was drawn based on assuming focal point is whole vision, this chart is wrong.
The "blurry" effect outside of focal point often comes from our depth of field vision (we see in 3D) and not so much because of our eyes being blurry. since we are focused on a dot on a screen, other parts are unfocused and thus we cannot correctly have 2D vision. Its like if you look at a 3D movie without glasses - lack of eyes focus at these points. Now as i type that sentence my focal point is smaller than a single sentence on this screen. and yet it probably takes less than 5% of whole screen area. you see the problem with assuming focal point is on whole screen?
WildFire15 said:
I see no real excuse for Next-Gen systems not doing 1080p. The Wii U does it happily, so why shouldn't XB1 and PS4?
This is incorrect. Too often I hear people praise the Wii U by saying that it runs games at "1080p" while the other two consoles can't. This is NOT true. Nearly all games on the Wii U run at UPSCALED 1080p (fake 1080p). Do some research you'll see that only two AAA titles run at native 1080p (real 1080p). Those being WW HD and Rayman.
What resolutions are the games upscaled from? It's usually 720p, but can be as low as 600p. Fucking 600p!
You know what this means? There's more native 1080p games on the PS4 and Xbox One than there are on the Wii U. Much more, in fact.
Nintendo often distorting the truth about the technical aspects of their games. They like to lie about upscaled 1080p being the same as native 1080p.
pilar said:
Didn't think anyone would ever mention Black Flag and PC in a positive context as frame rate is the only real advantage over the consoles because you've still got to use Ubisoft's much beloved launch software Origin to play it.
That's why most PC users will avoid that hassle altogether just to slip the disk into a console and play = +1 consoles
Battlefield 4 is indistinguishable between the Playstation & the $400 780 = +1 consoles
A 750 TI is more power than the Playstation; that is, if it ever gets optimized, or you'll have to lower the textures considerably to double the frame rate. Same for the 760; but you never even glanced at the article linked in the last post, so I wouldn't expect you to know this.
Reading = Knowledge
Why is it whenever i see your post i want to laugh and leave it at that.
You do not seem to even know the name of Ubisofts launch software - UPlay (Origin is from EA) and you claim to be knowledgable on thier games. While you may not have though of anyone mentioning Black Flag, it actually ran quite good on PC and was much more graphically impressive than console counterparts provided you had the hardwarare for better graphics.
then you go on to list
FALSEHOODS as points for consoles.
A 750 TI is more powerful than PS4. You do not optimize hardware. they are as they are. you do not need to lower textures to get better performance. you may need to lower textures to get double performance than that of a console, but you are getting
twice the performance of console so its not really something you want to dismiss. And yes, i did "glance" At the article, which is why i noticed their broken methodology that i pointed at.
Yes, reading is knowledge. Like, say, reading the name of distribution platform your criticizing....
LGC Pominator said:
Thing is I don't think that the whole 1080p-60fps thing really is the important thing in gaming tech nowadays, I mean realistically speaking, aside from pixel density and image smoothing, that isn't what makes a game look good is it?
Yes and no. No, pixel density does not make a game look good. it allows good looking game to look good. Resolution alone does not bring asthetics. but you cannot have same asthetics without the resolution. Its an enabler if you will.