Anyone else surpised The One has better graphics?

  • 94 results
  • 1
  • 2

This topic is locked from further discussion.

#1 Edited by Multipass35 (295 posts) -

We all know The One has weaker hardware (Roughly 15% which is huge in the PC world). However with all those specs, I think we all expected to see a difference graphically and we do..... But not in the way things stand currently.

As things stand, The One is currently the Graphics King of next gen. IGN calls "Ryse the best looking game graphically for next gen hands down". Ryse also won Best Graphics at GamesCom (Killzone got 4th behind The Witcher 3 and Forza).

Is the PS4 having development issues or is it not capable of rich details like its competitor?

Also, is the fact a weaker console producing better graphics troublesome to PS4 buyers?

#2 Posted by John_Matherson (2031 posts) -

We all know The One has weaker hardware (Roughly 15% which is huge in the PC world). However with all those specs, I think we all expected to see a difference graphically and we do..... But not in the way things stand currently.

As things stand, The One is currently the Graphics King of next gen. IGN calls "Ryse the best looking game graphically for next gen hands down". Ryse also won Best Graphics at GamesCom (Killzone got 4th behind The Witcher 3 and Forza).

Is the PS4 having development issues or is it not capable of rich details like its competitor?

Also, is the fact a weaker console producing better graphics troublesome to PS4 buyers?

: \ Why?

#3 Posted by NathanDrakeSwag (4883 posts) -

Reassurance thread. Move along folks.

#4 Posted by lundy86_4 (41677 posts) -

Provide links, along with dates for statements. Newer information seems to rebut yours.

#5 Posted by psymon100 (6138 posts) -

Nothing surprises me any mo... what the hell? When did Gamespot change?

#6 Edited by ReadingRainbow4 (11130 posts) -

The xbone does have one hell of a sharpening filter, I'll give it that.

dvd quality movies should come in crisper than ever before, I may just buy one for that.

#7 Posted by BeardMaster (1438 posts) -

Graphics only matter on multiplats now, not exclusives. And gameplay doesnt matter anymore unless its ryse, in which case graphics doesnt matter its all about the gameplay.

#8 Edited by kingoflife9 (1987 posts) -

I've said it before, better animation outweighs better hardware. It could just be that Crytek drew their game with more talent. But to me Killzone looks the most next gen-ish, even though I'm not buying it.

#9 Edited by Jakandsigz (4512 posts) -

I am more surprised that both are using CPU's only barely 2 years older than the ones in their almost 10 year old older brothers.

#10 Posted by Multipass35 (295 posts) -
#11 Posted by MajesticShea (695 posts) -

This is sad

#12 Edited by Vatusus (3811 posts) -

great thread. would read again

9/10

#13 Posted by Multipass35 (295 posts) -

This is sad

I know, I think we all expected the PS4 to show better.

#14 Posted by lundy86_4 (41677 posts) -
#15 Edited by Multipass35 (295 posts) -

@multipass35 said:

@lundy86_4 said:

Provide links, along with dates for statements. Newer information seems to rebut yours.

http://www.ign.com/videos/2013/11/06/ryse-son-of-romes-redemption

I'm referring to your general post. He specifically states that it's what he's seen, and that it's the best looking. Your quote is off. Furthermore, it's a single opinion. You're going to need to show, that it's objectively correct.

Its not objective opinion. In the gaming world, when describing how a game looks visually, it is always graphically. He brings up visuals AKA graphics and said its easily the best looking game hands down. Are you so butthurt by this? LOL

#16 Edited by lundy86_4 (41677 posts) -

@multipass35 said:

@lundy86_4 said:

@multipass35 said:

@lundy86_4 said:

Provide links, along with dates for statements. Newer information seems to rebut yours.

http://www.ign.com/videos/2013/11/06/ryse-son-of-romes-redemption

I'm referring to your general post. He specifically states that it's what he's seen, and that it's the best looking. Your quote is off. Furthermore, it's a single opinion. You're going to need to show, that it's objectively correct.

Its not objective opinion. In the gaming world, when describing how a game looks visually, it is always graphically. He brings up visuals AKA graphics and said its easily the best looking game hands down. Are you so butthurt by this? LOL

Do you mean "subjective?" Thanks for validating my post, lol. At least get the terms right. The visuals are always subjective. Objective facts are rendering resolution/AA method/texture resolution/etc. These need to be scientifically measured.

#17 Posted by Gaming-Planet (13467 posts) -

The colors look sharper and crisp, but I'm not sure if that's a hardware thing or a software thing.

Other than that, the aliasing is terrible and it can't reach to native 1080p on most games. This is something that should have been considered during its development.

Ryse does have nice textures and lighting but shadow casting and blood are missing.

#18 Edited by BeardMaster (1438 posts) -

@lundy86_4 said:

@multipass35 said:

@lundy86_4 said:

@multipass35 said:

@lundy86_4 said:

Provide links, along with dates for statements. Newer information seems to rebut yours.

http://www.ign.com/videos/2013/11/06/ryse-son-of-romes-redemption

I'm referring to your general post. He specifically states that it's what he's seen, and that it's the best looking. Your quote is off. Furthermore, it's a single opinion. You're going to need to show, that it's objectively correct.

Its not objective opinion. In the gaming world, when describing how a game looks visually, it is always graphically. He brings up visuals AKA graphics and said its easily the best looking game hands down. Are you so butthurt by this? LOL

Do you mean "subjective?" Thanks for validating my post, lol. At least get the terms right. The visuals are always subjective. Objective facts are rendering resolution/AA method/texture resolution/etc. These need to be scientifically measured.

So if i made a 4k resolution, 120fps version of pong, where the ball was made with 1 trillion polygons, and i wrapped both the ball and paddles in the highest res textures the world has ever seen... would this game objectively be the best looking game ever created? measurable stats arent always a great indicator.

Lighting, shader quality, animation, particle effects, physics, model accuracy etc... there is so much crap that cant be objectively measured, so does that mean nothing has better visuals? Has to be opinion based. And you cant show opinions are objectiely correct.

#19 Edited by blackace (18552 posts) -

I've said it before, better animation outweighs better hardware. It could just be that Crytek drew their game with more talent. But to me Killzone looks the most next gen-ish, even though I'm not buying it.

Infamous SS and Quantum Break looks more next gen to me.

#20 Posted by Chutebox (35699 posts) -

I'm really glad I don't do drugs.

#21 Edited by lundy86_4 (41677 posts) -

@BeardMaster said:

@lundy86_4 said:

@multipass35 said:

@lundy86_4 said:

@multipass35 said:

@lundy86_4 said:

Provide links, along with dates for statements. Newer information seems to rebut yours.

http://www.ign.com/videos/2013/11/06/ryse-son-of-romes-redemption

I'm referring to your general post. He specifically states that it's what he's seen, and that it's the best looking. Your quote is off. Furthermore, it's a single opinion. You're going to need to show, that it's objectively correct.

Its not objective opinion. In the gaming world, when describing how a game looks visually, it is always graphically. He brings up visuals AKA graphics and said its easily the best looking game hands down. Are you so butthurt by this? LOL

Do you mean "subjective?" Thanks for validating my post, lol. At least get the terms right. The visuals are always subjective. Objective facts are rendering resolution/AA method/texture resolution/etc. These need to be scientifically measured.

So if i made a 4k resolution, 120fps version of pong, where the ball was made with 1 trillion polygons, and i wrapped both the ball and paddles in the highest res textures the world has ever seen... would this game objectively be the best looking game ever created? measurable stats arent always a great indicator.

Lighting, shader quality, animation, particle effects, physics, model accuracy etc... there is so much crap that cant be objectively measured, so does that mean nothing has better visuals? Has to be opinion based.

Where did I state that scientific facts are the be all, and end all? I simply stated that they were important. Don't skew my argument, please. Subjective still means that it is an opinion, and one that may not be wholly shared. I'm also saying that your evidence takes a great deal, at a subjective level. As is quoted in his video.

I'm simply stating that scientific measures need to be employed, otherwise it's Opinion VS. Opinion. Please understand my posts, before replying.

#22 Edited by Multipass35 (295 posts) -

@multipass35 said:

@lundy86_4 said:

@multipass35 said:

@lundy86_4 said:

Provide links, along with dates for statements. Newer information seems to rebut yours.

http://www.ign.com/videos/2013/11/06/ryse-son-of-romes-redemption

I'm referring to your general post. He specifically states that it's what he's seen, and that it's the best looking. Your quote is off. Furthermore, it's a single opinion. You're going to need to show, that it's objectively correct.

Its not objective opinion. In the gaming world, when describing how a game looks visually, it is always graphically. He brings up visuals AKA graphics and said its easily the best looking game hands down. Are you so butthurt by this? LOL

Do you mean "subjective?" Thanks for validating my post, lol. At least get the terms right. The visuals are always subjective. Objective facts are rendering resolution/AA method/texture resolution/etc. These need to be scientifically measured.

Apples and oranges kid. Going by your theory of scientifically measured, That would mean graphically my PC copy of Halo running on max 1080p AA ect looks better then Halo 4 on a 360 correct (BTW I have duel 690'S)? But it doesnt.

you wanted a recent updated link to where IGN makes this claim. I show you a link and you hear it for yourself and yet instantly you go straight to denial. This is where your defensive instinct kicks in, or inner Fanboy comes out. See nothing is going to convince you of anything you are told when you already convinced yourself otherwise, and when faced with these facts, you try and counter it with your own logic that i already debunked.

http://www.ign.com/videos/2013/11/06/game-scoop-analyzing-the-xbox-one-launch-lineup

Thats a link were they all agree Ryse is the best visually looking game next gen.

#23 Posted by kingoflife9 (1987 posts) -

@blackace said:

@kingoflife9 said:

I've said it before, better animation outweighs better hardware. It could just be that Crytek drew their game with more talent. But to me Killzone looks the most next gen-ish, even though I'm not buying it.

Infamous SS and Quantum Break looks more next gen to me.

Yes Quantum Break and SS too, I forgot them since they aren't launch, any word on when QB comes out?

#24 Edited by lundy86_4 (41677 posts) -

@multipass35 said:

@lundy86_4 said:

@multipass35 said:

@lundy86_4 said:

@multipass35 said:

@lundy86_4 said:

Provide links, along with dates for statements. Newer information seems to rebut yours.

http://www.ign.com/videos/2013/11/06/ryse-son-of-romes-redemption

I'm referring to your general post. He specifically states that it's what he's seen, and that it's the best looking. Your quote is off. Furthermore, it's a single opinion. You're going to need to show, that it's objectively correct.

Its not objective opinion. In the gaming world, when describing how a game looks visually, it is always graphically. He brings up visuals AKA graphics and said its easily the best looking game hands down. Are you so butthurt by this? LOL

Do you mean "subjective?" Thanks for validating my post, lol. At least get the terms right. The visuals are always subjective. Objective facts are rendering resolution/AA method/texture resolution/etc. These need to be scientifically measured.

Apples and oranges kid. Going by your theory of scientifically measured, That would mean graphically my PC copy of Halo running on max 1080p AA ect looks better then Halo 4 on a 360 correct (BTW I have duel 690'S)? But it doesnt.

you wanted a recent updated link to where IGN makes this claim. I show you a link and you hear it for yourself and yet instantly you go straight to denial. This is where your defensive instinct kicks in, or inner Fanboy comes out. See nothing is going to convince you of anything you are told when you already convinced yourself otherwise, and when faced with these facts, you try and counter it with your own logic that i already debunked.

http://www.ign.com/videos/2013/11/06/game-scoop-analyzing-the-xbox-one-launch-lineup

Thats a link were they all agree Ryse is the best visually looking game next gen.

You're taking my post as what is being objectively superior, is wholly superior. That's incorrect. Simply that a subjective analysis and objective analysis are needed. End of story.

#25 Edited by Multipass35 (295 posts) -

@multipass35 said:

@lundy86_4 said:

@multipass35 said:

@lundy86_4 said:

@multipass35 said:

@lundy86_4 said:

Provide links, along with dates for statements. Newer information seems to rebut yours.

http://www.ign.com/videos/2013/11/06/ryse-son-of-romes-redemption

I'm referring to your general post. He specifically states that it's what he's seen, and that it's the best looking. Your quote is off. Furthermore, it's a single opinion. You're going to need to show, that it's objectively correct.

Its not objective opinion. In the gaming world, when describing how a game looks visually, it is always graphically. He brings up visuals AKA graphics and said its easily the best looking game hands down. Are you so butthurt by this? LOL

Do you mean "subjective?" Thanks for validating my post, lol. At least get the terms right. The visuals are always subjective. Objective facts are rendering resolution/AA method/texture resolution/etc. These need to be scientifically measured.

Apples and oranges kid. Going by your theory of scientifically measured, That would mean graphically my PC copy of Halo running on max 1080p AA ect looks better then Halo 4 on a 360 correct (BTW I have duel 690'S)? But it doesnt.

you wanted a recent updated link to where IGN makes this claim. I show you a link and you hear it for yourself and yet instantly you go straight to denial. This is where your defensive instinct kicks in, or inner Fanboy comes out. See nothing is going to convince you of anything you are told when you already convinced yourself otherwise, and when faced with these facts, you try and counter it with your own logic that i already debunked.

http://www.ign.com/videos/2013/11/06/game-scoop-analyzing-the-xbox-one-launch-lineup

Thats a link were they all agree Ryse is the best visually looking game next gen.

You're taking my post as what is being objectively superior, is wholly superior. That's incorrect. Simply that a subjective analysis and objective analysis are needed. End of story.

I rest my case, you can not accept facts. You admit this by continually avoiding the obvious. I am not going by my opinion. I am going by the opinion of experts that analyse the games. As well as GamesCom who awarded Ryse best graphics. But this isn't the point. You have clearly shown that no matter what, you will refuse to accept that the PS4 could ever be inferior to The One. I understand that. You want to believe you are paying for the absolute best, but this round, you lost.

#26 Posted by danabo (2474 posts) -

I can't believe it's not butter.

#27 Edited by kuu2 (6441 posts) -

Not really since it happened last Gen with the 36o and Sony talking about the hidden power of the Cell.

#28 Posted by silversix_ (12570 posts) -

It certainly surpassed 360/PS3, GZ on that MS.

#29 Edited by Wasdie (48814 posts) -

Ryse's graphical prowess is derived from a fantastic engine and game design choices (super linear). It's not even running 1080p or 60fps. They decided to go all in on the assets rather than the overall presentation and playability. It's meant to showcase what the Xbox One can do, and it does that well. However They had to make some obvious cuts to get there.

Here's the facts. Ryse looks great, however the cuts they had to make that other devs didn't on the PS4 only shows that the Xbox One is not as capable as the Playstation 4 in the graphics department. We've got Killzone Shadow Fall looking almost as good, and better in a lot of ways (sandbox, more colors, larger levels), while running at 30fps at 1080p for single player, CoD running at 1080p on the PS4 compared to 720p on the Xbox One, and BF4 running at 900p on the PS4 and only 720p on the Xbox One.

At this point there is absolutely no denying it. The Xbox One both on paper and in real world performance is the weaker console by a measurable amount. In a lot of ways more measurable and larger than the difference between the PS3 and Xbox 360.

#30 Posted by Heil68 (40664 posts) -

Xbox One is not as capable as the Playstation 4 in the graphics department.

#31 Posted by casharmy (6754 posts) -

@Wasdie said:

Ryse's graphical prowess is derived from a fantastic engine and game design choices (super linear). It's not even running 1080p or 60fps. They decided to go all in on the assets rather than the overall presentation and playability. It's meant to showcase what the Xbox One can do, and it does that well. However They had to make some obvious cuts to get there.

Here's the facts. Ryse looks great, however the cuts they had to make that other devs didn't on the PS4 only shows that the Xbox One is not as capable as the Playstation 4 in the graphics department. We've got Killzone Shadow Fall looking almost as good, and better in a lot of ways (sandbox, more colors, larger levels), while running at 30fps at 1080p for single player, CoD running at 1080p on the PS4 compared to 720p on the Xbox One, and BF4 running at 900p on the PS4 and only 720p on the Xbox One.

At this point there is absolutely no denying it. The Xbox One both on paper and in real world performance is the weaker console by a measurable amount. In a lot of ways more measurable and larger than the difference between the PS3 and Xbox 360.

there it is

#32 Posted by cainetao11 (14457 posts) -

Ryse sure is a pretty game........but from last I read its not much fun to play

#33 Edited by BilkeLegenda (1928 posts) -

You guys are blowing things way out of proportion.

Real gamers do not discriminate against either console, or any games, or any fellow gamer, but rather enjoy and appreciate them all instead.

Competition is a good thing, have some respect not only for the machines but your fellow gamers.

Both offer different but equally great experiences, to deny that is to deny being a real gamer.

#34 Edited by BeardMaster (1438 posts) -

@Wasdie said:

Ryse's graphical prowess is derived from a fantastic engine and game design choices (super linear). It's not even running 1080p or 60fps. They decided to go all in on the assets rather than the overall presentation and playability. It's meant to showcase what the Xbox One can do, and it does that well. However They had to make some obvious cuts to get there.

Here's the facts. Ryse looks great, however the cuts they had to make that other devs didn't on the PS4 only shows that the Xbox One is not as capable as the Playstation 4 in the graphics department. We've got Killzone Shadow Fall looking almost as good, and better in a lot of ways (sandbox, more colors, larger levels), while running at 30fps at 1080p for single player, CoD running at 1080p on the PS4 compared to 720p on the Xbox One, and BF4 running at 900p on the PS4 and only 720p on the Xbox One.

At this point there is absolutely no denying it. The Xbox One both on paper and in real world performance is the weaker console by a measurable amount. In a lot of ways more measurable and larger than the difference between the PS3 and Xbox 360.

While I wont deny that the PS4 is likely the more powerful console.

Trying to measure the difference in practical graphical power based off a couple probably rushed ports, on probably rushed consoles... is pretty silly. Especially since the consoles havent even released yet.

Anyone that tries to pretend they know the practical difference in power this early in the game, is simply full of it.

and killzone is a sandbox now? I havent seen footage to suggest that. Killzone has larger levels than Ryse now? To my knowledge even the press has played these games to completion, so thats simply impossible to know. Both seem pretty colorful, so im not sure how much the colors are stressing the hardware...

Seems to be alot of logical leaps, with minimal information at this point.

EDIT: frankly you usually seem a little more measured and rational, there is just the bare minimum of evidence right now and to be drawing opinions is one thing, but to be saying its absolute and undeniable... thats fanboy stuff man.

#35 Posted by remiks00 (1090 posts) -

@blackace said:

@kingoflife9 said:

I've said it before, better animation outweighs better hardware. It could just be that Crytek drew their game with more talent. But to me Killzone looks the most next gen-ish, even though I'm not buying it.

Infamous SS and Quantum Break looks more next gen to me.

I actually agree with you, who would've thought. But KZ looks great as well. Fun too ;)

#36 Posted by M8ingSeezun (1920 posts) -

@casharmy said:

@Wasdie said:

Ryse's graphical prowess is derived from a fantastic engine and game design choices (super linear). It's not even running 1080p or 60fps. They decided to go all in on the assets rather than the overall presentation and playability. It's meant to showcase what the Xbox One can do, and it does that well. However They had to make some obvious cuts to get there.

Here's the facts. Ryse looks great, however the cuts they had to make that other devs didn't on the PS4 only shows that the Xbox One is not as capable as the Playstation 4 in the graphics department. We've got Killzone Shadow Fall looking almost as good, and better in a lot of ways (sandbox, more colors, larger levels), while running at 30fps at 1080p for single player, CoD running at 1080p on the PS4 compared to 720p on the Xbox One, and BF4 running at 900p on the PS4 and only 720p on the Xbox One.

At this point there is absolutely no denying it. The Xbox One both on paper and in real world performance is the weaker console by a measurable amount. In a lot of ways more measurable and larger than the difference between the PS3 and Xbox 360.

there it is

Yep, I agree

#37 Posted by AK_the_Twilight (257 posts) -

All of the games that have interesting graphics are either on PC or current-gen consoles. Realism means nothing in graphics; that's why people complain about brown/grey games. They're not interesting and lack originality. Bioshock Infinite looks sharp. Saints Row IV looks techo-chic. Hell, Donkey Kong Country Returns had more interesting graphic design than anything in the PS4/Xbox One launch lineup. The games that look good in the new consoles are the ones like The Witness, Destiny, and to a lesser, extent Watch_Dogs.

The technology in the new consoles is best used for improved physics, less load times and better AI. If you think a game needs "better graphics" to be a better game, you're completely uninformed in the world of gaming.

#38 Edited by Pray_to_me (2483 posts) -

When the same game with the same effects and assets are running at 921,600px per frame on Xbone and 2,073,600px per frame on PS4 and you're trying to say xbone looks better you probably have a 720Pbrain

LMFAO!

#39 Edited by Kingpin0114 (2500 posts) -

Hmm honestly I've only been wowed with Infamous SS and The Witcher 3.

#40 Posted by KarateeeChop (4585 posts) -

i knew the One would be graphically superior, but never expected the difference to be this big. looks like we'll have another gen of broken ps4 multiplats.

#41 Edited by StrongBlackVine (7846 posts) -

i knew the One would be graphically superior, but never expected the difference to be this big. looks like we'll have another gen of broken ps4 multiplats.

You just look like an idiot now. Time to make a new alt.

#42 Posted by Wasdie (48814 posts) -

@Wasdie said:

Ryse's graphical prowess is derived from a fantastic engine and game design choices (super linear). It's not even running 1080p or 60fps. They decided to go all in on the assets rather than the overall presentation and playability. It's meant to showcase what the Xbox One can do, and it does that well. However They had to make some obvious cuts to get there.

Here's the facts. Ryse looks great, however the cuts they had to make that other devs didn't on the PS4 only shows that the Xbox One is not as capable as the Playstation 4 in the graphics department. We've got Killzone Shadow Fall looking almost as good, and better in a lot of ways (sandbox, more colors, larger levels), while running at 30fps at 1080p for single player, CoD running at 1080p on the PS4 compared to 720p on the Xbox One, and BF4 running at 900p on the PS4 and only 720p on the Xbox One.

At this point there is absolutely no denying it. The Xbox One both on paper and in real world performance is the weaker console by a measurable amount. In a lot of ways more measurable and larger than the difference between the PS3 and Xbox 360.

While I wont deny that the PS4 is likely the more powerful console.

Trying to measure the difference in practical graphical power based off a couple probably rushed ports, on probably rushed consoles... is pretty silly. Especially since the consoles havent even released yet.

Anyone that tries to pretend they know the practical difference in power this early in the game, is simply full of it.

and killzone is a sandbox now? I havent seen footage to suggest that. Killzone has larger levels than Ryse now? To my knowledge even the press has played these games to completion, so thats simply impossible to know. Both seem pretty colorful, so im not sure how much the colors are stressing the hardware...

Seems to be alot of logical leaps, with minimal information at this point.

EDIT: frankly you usually seem a little more measured and rational, there is just the bare minimum of evidence right now and to be drawing opinions is one thing, but to be saying its absolute and undeniable... thats fanboy stuff man.

Killzone Shadow Fall is a sandbox, it has more open levels, some destructible environments, and larger levels overall due to its design.

If you look at the specs and what we've seen even by early ports it's pretty clear. The PS4 has a more power GPU by a decent margin and a much more developer friendly architecture thanks to unified GDDR 5 ram instead of 32mbs of ESRAM. The early ports are a good indication of how easier it is to port to the PS4 and get access to the power. The ESRAM has pretty much screwed the Xbox One into being more difficult to fully utilize. It's going to be a bottleneck.

There isn't just a bare minimum of evidence right now. We've seen both the specs and the launch titles, the PS4 doesn't just have have the lead, it has a clear and measurable lead. This was due to Sony risking quite a bit with GDDR 5 and focusing more on pure gaming. Microsoft played it safe and did something they knew they could keep a profit margin on while still given devs the tools. The PS4 was originally only going to have 4 gbs of GDDR5 total. They got really lucky at the last minute and their budget allowed them to move to 8 gigs. If they didn't get lucky they would be stuck at 4 gigs of RAM and the Xbox One would have a clear advantage in that department.

It's a simple matter of Sony better engineering their platform for video games. The DDR3 ram in the Xbox One is going to prove better for multitasking and non-gaming related applications as it's actually lower latency than GDDR 5. It was a design decision from the beginning that set the two consoles apart so far.

#43 Edited by Multipass35 (295 posts) -

@Wasdie: that wasn't the point. The point is KZ is using a new engine so is Ryse it's a fact Ryse is the best looking and it's on Xbox One. Not only that but Ryse is not currently using ESRAM. The PS4 hasn't shown one shred of evidence it can show better graphic as proof by Battlefield 4 and CoD even without the patch.

The PS4 is seriously lacking in the detail aspect. It runs a 150p better on BF4 while looking worse. We know it's more powerful. But Killzone was supposed to show us just how powerful that system truly is, and yet Ryse looks better.

#44 Posted by BeardMaster (1438 posts) -

@Wasdie said:

@BeardMaster said:

@Wasdie said:

Ryse's graphical prowess is derived from a fantastic engine and game design choices (super linear). It's not even running 1080p or 60fps. They decided to go all in on the assets rather than the overall presentation and playability. It's meant to showcase what the Xbox One can do, and it does that well. However They had to make some obvious cuts to get there.

Here's the facts. Ryse looks great, however the cuts they had to make that other devs didn't on the PS4 only shows that the Xbox One is not as capable as the Playstation 4 in the graphics department. We've got Killzone Shadow Fall looking almost as good, and better in a lot of ways (sandbox, more colors, larger levels), while running at 30fps at 1080p for single player, CoD running at 1080p on the PS4 compared to 720p on the Xbox One, and BF4 running at 900p on the PS4 and only 720p on the Xbox One.

At this point there is absolutely no denying it. The Xbox One both on paper and in real world performance is the weaker console by a measurable amount. In a lot of ways more measurable and larger than the difference between the PS3 and Xbox 360.

While I wont deny that the PS4 is likely the more powerful console.

Trying to measure the difference in practical graphical power based off a couple probably rushed ports, on probably rushed consoles... is pretty silly. Especially since the consoles havent even released yet.

Anyone that tries to pretend they know the practical difference in power this early in the game, is simply full of it.

and killzone is a sandbox now? I havent seen footage to suggest that. Killzone has larger levels than Ryse now? To my knowledge even the press has played these games to completion, so thats simply impossible to know. Both seem pretty colorful, so im not sure how much the colors are stressing the hardware...

Seems to be alot of logical leaps, with minimal information at this point.

EDIT: frankly you usually seem a little more measured and rational, there is just the bare minimum of evidence right now and to be drawing opinions is one thing, but to be saying its absolute and undeniable... thats fanboy stuff man.

Killzone Shadow Fall is a sandbox, it has more open levels, some destructible environments, and larger levels overall due to its design.

If you look at the specs and what we've seen even by early ports it's pretty clear. The PS4 has a more power GPU by a decent margin and a much more developer friendly architecture thanks to unified GDDR 5 ram instead of 32mbs of ESRAM. The early ports are a good indication of how easier it is to port to the PS4 and get access to the power. The ESRAM has pretty much screwed the Xbox One into being more difficult to fully utilize. It's going to be a bottleneck.

There isn't just a bare minimum of evidence right now. We've seen both the specs and the launch titles, the PS4 doesn't just have have the lead, it has a clear and measurable lead. This was due to Sony risking quite a bit with GDDR 5 and focusing more on pure gaming. Microsoft played it safe and did something they knew they could keep a profit margin on while still given devs the tools. The PS4 was originally only going to have 4 gbs of GDDR5 total. They got really lucky at the last minute and their budget allowed them to move to 8 gigs. If they didn't get lucky they would be stuck at 4 gigs of RAM and the Xbox One would have a clear advantage in that department.

It's a simple matter of Sony better engineering their platform for video games. The DDR3 ram in the Xbox One is going to prove better for multitasking and non-gaming related applications as it's actually lower latency than GDDR 5. It was a design decision from the beginning that set the two consoles apart so far.

Its a sandbox because its slightly more open than previous iterations? i mean maybe, but from the vids ive seen, it still seems pretty small scale compared to any halo game... and i wouldnt even call halo a sandbox. Its less of a corridor shooter, but far from a sandbox... at least from the vids ive seen. If you are privy to other information ill concede.

Like i said, i do believe the ps4 is more powerful and the architecture is more dev friendly. If its a raw power argument i think you will find little dissension from me.

And i got no problem with your info, but you did seem to concede the point of X1 being more difficult to develop for, strictly from a hardware stance. Which in itself would invalidate any serious conclusions from rushed game ports.

And yes sony made a better engineered console from the getgo for all the reasons you listed, i agree with your history lesson. But we also dont know about the middleware available, the drivers and dev tools. In the same way the Ps3 largely closed the gap after having more difficult hardware, it seems rational to think the console this gen with more difficult hardware will also see better scaling improvements.

So yea if you wanna say the ps4 hardware is more powerful, sure... seems fairly obvious. if you wanna use the most extreme example of a lazy ass port like cod ghosts... to somehow dictate the capabilities of the hardware...thats fanboy BS.

#45 Edited by Thunder7151 (304 posts) -

I would assume that the XBOX ONE is showing slightly better graphics than the PS4 because of:

  • Custom Design
  • ESRAM
  • Tiles Resources
  • DirectX 11.2


However, that being said, PS4 graphics are very comparable and extremely good as well.

#46 Edited by Krelian-co (9139 posts) -

poor lems, reduced to clowns and trolls :(

thats what happens when you follow microsoft and you cant compete with facts

#47 Posted by 22Toothpicks (11126 posts) -

Um, it does?

From the footage I have seen the difference between the two consoles is marginal if there is any.

#48 Posted by stereointegrity (10538 posts) -

@Thunder7151: ps4 has

-tiled resources

-dx 11.2

-faster memory

-a custom design as well

#49 Posted by Wasdie (48814 posts) -

@multipass35: Ryse is not using a new engine. It's using the CryEngine 3, an engine that has proven to be a great DX 11 engine made by a very talented developer. Also BF4 looks better on the PS4. Crushed blacks that make textures pop and introduce more contrast into the scene while covering up detail is not actually better. Then the whole issue of it running at a noticeably lower resolution doesn't help either.

The PS4 doesn't "lack in details". That's a per-game thing that has nothing to do with the hardware. The fact is the PS4 has a better GPU and faster ram with a better architecture. So far we've seen multiplats that are running better on the PS4 and Xbox One exclusives that have to be rendered at sub 1080p to get a playable 30fps (Ryse, Dead Space 3).

@BeardMaster: It's a sandbox even if you don't agree with that title, your opinion doesn't change that. The drivers and dev tools for the PS4 are going to every bit as good as anything for the Xbox One, especially when they are using a standard x86 chipset and have a modern GPU using OpenGL. That's not an issue. It's such a little issue that it's never even been brought up other than to say that Sony has done a good job providing the tools necessary for making the best games possible.

CoD isn't just a lazy port. It's proof that the Xbox One is harder to port too which, going by the history of consoles, means devs are going to struggle with it for the rest of its life. That's something you cannot ignore and it's not fanboyish just because you clearly disagree with it. CoD 4 isn't an extreme example either. It's a console focused shooter that's base is built from a well established game engine. If they had a hard time porting it to the Xbox One that says a lot about the architecture. Last I heard the PS4 version isn't flawless either so there is always that to consider.

It's not fanboyish to say what we all see. Trying to spin my arguments as pure fanboyism doesn't really work when im not saying anythiing that is known and observable fact. People trying to make assumptions and say things that are both not observable nor have any real basis cannot counter what we see as obvious fact in front of us.

#50 Posted by Wasdie (48814 posts) -

@stereointegrity:

-Tiled resources doesn't mean squat. Streaming has been around for a long time.

- It's not DX 11.2. The API is DX like but it's most likely OpenGL

- True, but GDDR5 is higher latency so for basic processing and multitasking it's not as great, for gaming it's better

- That means nothing. A custom design applies to the Xbox One too.