Anyone else surpised The One has better graphics?

  • 94 results
  • 1
  • 2

This topic is locked from further discussion.

#51 Posted by BeardMaster (1580 posts) -

@Wasdie: Maybe its a sandbox, i dont know, i havent played it yet.

Here is the thing, what you seem to be missing is the fact im pointing out you are making a ridiculous amount of baseless assumption.

Really COD isnt a lazy port? then why did the min requirements on the PC make a massive jump from black ops 2, when the graphics did not? Why is the 360 version practically on par with the X1 version... when the gap in hardware is far beyond the gap between x1 and ps4?

Why can BF4 manage less of a gap?

Of course COD is an extreme example, because its the most extreme example. Got an example more extreme than COD? no, didnt think so. Thus it is objectively the single most extreme example.

and no devs wont struggle for the rest of their life... GTA5 is better on PS3, despite GTA4 being far worse on PS3.

But launch titles, you cant judge launch titles. There are so many variables beyond simply hardware. If you got ideas and opinions thats fine, but when you cross over into definitive and undeniabkle territory, yur a fanboy. The information to make an educated conclusion like that simply doesnt exist.

#52 Posted by magicalclick (22548 posts) -

Gotta go drool on Ryse since GamesCom said it the best graphics. Aside from great graphics, it is an action game, so, it is not yet another shooter. I like shooter games, but, I also like to play other games on launch. Hell, I am quite excited for Zoo Tycoon and PowerStar Golf. They are not so called hardcore gaming, but, it satisfy my diverse gaming needs.

#53 Edited by Wasdie (49745 posts) -

@BeardMaster: The variables of the hardware just aren't there anymore. They are x86 machines with nearly identical GPU architectures. Only difference is the PS4's has more transistors and hardware to it. The CPUs are also practically identical. The major difference is that the Xbox One still relies on an ESRAM solution for high bandwidth RAM while the PS4 just uses 8 gigs of GDDR5. The rest of the differences are negligible.

I'm not making assumptions. CoD is a shit port on the PC but IW hasn't made a good PC version in years. CoD 4 was it, both MW2 and MW3 were terrible. The consoles have and always will be their focus and therefore they will always be better. Why is it that despite IW clearly favoring the Xbox 360 in the past that the Xbox One version has been so much more difficult for them? There is more going on there.

I can judge launch titles, especially when the PS4 and Xbox One are both PCs with no special or unique hardware about them. There is no Cell Processor or brand new Unified Shader GPU that puts it ahead of the competition by a year. There is none of that this time around. Both the PS4 and Xbox One are x86-64 PCs with a very similar APU and similar GPU that are all comparable to about mid-range gaming PCs today. There won't be any "hidden power" to be found this generation.

You keep calling me a fanboy while you are ignoring the obvious here and not understand the very evidence that has been provided over the past couple of months.

#54 Posted by stereointegrity (10706 posts) -

@Wasdie said:

@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.

the latency was already shown not to be an issue across the bus...it was not even far off from DDR3 i will dig up the link...and sony themselves have shown slides even showcasing the ps4 can utilize dx 11.2

actually i found the link

http://www.redgamingtech.com/ps4-vs-xbox-one-gddr5-vs-ddr3-latency/

and the link for ps4 and dx11.2 from sony themselves

http://twvideo01.ubm-us.net/o1/vault/gdceurope2013/Presentations/825424RichardStenson.pdf

#55 Edited by BeardMaster (1580 posts) -

@Wasdie said:

@BeardMaster: The variables of the hardware just aren't there anymore. They are x86 machines with nearly identical GPU architectures. Only difference is the PS4's has more transistors and hardware to it. The CPUs are also practically identical. The major difference is that the Xbox One still relies on an ESRAM solution for high bandwidth RAM while the PS4 just uses 8 gigs of GDDR5. The rest of the differences are negligible.

I'm not making assumptions. CoD is a shit port on the PC but IW hasn't made a good PC version in years. CoD 4 was it, both MW2 and MW3 were terrible. The consoles have and always will be their focus and therefore they will always be better. Why is it that despite IW clearly favoring the Xbox 360 in the past that the Xbox One version has been so much more difficult for them? There is more going on there.

I can judge launch titles, especially when the PS4 and Xbox One are both PCs with no special or unique hardware about them. There is no Cell Processor or brand new Unified Shader GPU that puts it ahead of the competition by a year. There is none of that this time around. Both the PS4 and Xbox One are x86-64 PCs with a very similar APU and similar GPU that are all comparable to about mid-range gaming PCs today. There won't be any "hidden power" to be found this generation.

You keep calling me a fanboy while you are ignoring the obvious here and not understand the very evidence that has been provided over the past couple of months.

you overestimate the architecture, for how long has PC had x86 machines? forever. And how long has PC had console levels of optimization? never. If its so easy to dev for, PC games shoulda been winning on the optimization front for years.

yet X86 makes the intial coding easier, but optimization is still just as tough as ever.

i get the evidence, but do you really think the ps4 gpu is so much stronger it can render 1080p when the xbone can only manage 720p? even in theoretical arguments this shouldnt be happening.

its launch consoles, they are rushed. Who knows their quality of middleware? who knows what other problems they have? I dont. Only fanboys know for sure.

EDIT: and i dont even care if you think something, or belief something. All i know is there isnt enough evidence on the plate for you to know something. Just admit you arent all knowing and this can be over.

#56 Posted by Wasdie (49745 posts) -

@stereointegrity: "DX11.2+" feature set means the API has the same features as DX11.2, not that it runs DX11.2. So anything DX11.2 does the PS4 can do but it will be using its own API and low-level implementation of a feature. In software there are always many ways of doing the same thing. They are actually not saying the exact API it's using because it's probably custom for the PS4 but written in such a way it has all of the same features as DX 11.2 and OpenGL 4.4. If I had to guess it's a version of OpenGL custom tailored for the PS4.

All this means is that it's going to be very easy to port DX11 games because the function calls and a lot of the programming is going to be very similar. How they are actually intepreted and run on the hardware is going to be slightly different than DX11.

@BeardMaster: You're falling back on "console optimization" as your argument? Even that doesn't work in your favor when the PS4 has a more game-friendly architecture than the Xbox One. They cannot make up power they simply don't have and the specs all point to them not having the power the PS4 has. If anything the low-level access consoles have will widen the gap between the Xbox One and PS4 because that 32 mbs of ESRAM requires more steps to utilize while the DDR3 ram has lower throughput so it's not that great for graphics memory. If what seterointegrity has linked is true, the latency of the GDDR5 isn't even that big of a deal so that further sets back the Xbox One.

I do really think the PS4's GPU combined with the GDDR5 memory is much more powerful than the Xbox One's combination and all of the early evidence points to I'm right. Of course this is just my opinion, but it's based upon a lot of things we can physically see now. The middleware isn't going to be an issue. It was only an issue for the PS3 at its launch because it was a horribly designed console. You're trying to make a problem out of something that simply won't be a problem.

#57 Posted by BeardMaster (1580 posts) -

@Wasdie Well there we go, we got you into think territory... and out of know territory. I also think its more powerful, but im willing to bet, the gap in performance will only shrink over the next 2 years and using the most extreme example isnt a good indicator of actual performance (never is)

You keep talking like im saying the X1 is more powerful, but im pretty sure ive never said that. And have in fact consistently said the opposite.

Its like you arent content with the ps4 being more powerful, you gotta make sure everyone knows its testicles in tnt more powerful.

you KNOW the middleware isnt an issue? Here is the thing, if you say you think something, i cant refute it outside of reasoning and argumentation. But when you say you know something, I can declare you are wrong (and im right
)... simply because its impossible for you to know.

#58 Posted by Wasdie (49745 posts) -

@BeardMaster: Just because I could be wrong doesn't make you right. That's an argumentative fallacy that doesn't work. The only reason I'm arguing the PS4's favor so heavily is because that's the theme of this entire thread. It's basically saying the Xbox One can do better graphics which is simply not the case. Sure OP says the Xbox One is less powerful but he goes onto saying how we're seeing better graphics on Xbox One games. However, what looks better is subjective, talking about actual graphical performance of a console isn't. Hence why I've focused on something that is not subjective but rather something we can base on evidence and fact.

Yes I'm assuming stuff about the middleware but logic and history dictates that I'm probably right. You can argue against that but at the same time you don't know either and the logic really doesn't stack up in your favor and you certainly haven't made a really strong case outside of just asking the question and then saying I'm wrong because I can't possibly know. As I said before, just because I could be wrong doesn't make you right by default. Arguing doesn't work that way.

#59 Posted by bizzy420 (2730 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.

not sure if you watched the youtube video or the 2gb videos that DF posted, the ps4 version looks a lot cleaner than the xb1 version of BF. The blacks get so crushed in the XB1 video that you can't even see the details in dark scenes, but you can definitely see them on the ps4 version. Also the AA on the xb1 version is way more jaggier than the ps4 version.

anyways, I do think Ryse looks really good. It's one of the better looking nextgen games I've seen. Hopefully an uncompressed video comes out soon.

#60 Posted by ShepardCommandr (2567 posts) -

It doesn't

#61 Edited by Caseytappy (2132 posts) -

Lemmings still stuck in stage 1 .

#62 Posted by TruthArisen (385 posts) -

Wonder Woman feels sorry.

"This is what happens when your console of choice has been in last for the last two gens in...

Exclusive goty titles

AAA exclusives

Console sales

And next gen isn't looking any better.

Delusion has taken another lem. :( "

#63 Edited by ronvalencia (15110 posts) -

@Wasdie:

Tiled resource's implementation details are different from the past texture streaming.

PS4's PSSL is similar to MS's HLSL. http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-how-the-crew-was-ported-to-playstation-4

Another key area of the game is its programmable pixel shaders. Reflections' experience suggests that the PlayStation Shader Language (PSSL) is very similar indeed to the HLSL standard in DirectX 11, with just subtle differences that were eliminated for the most part through pre-process macros and what O'Connor calls a "regex search and replace" for more complicated differences

-------------

Incidentally, AMD Mantle also supports MS HLSL. http://www.anandtech.com/show/7421/amd-expands-on-microsoft-blog-post

#64 Posted by BeardMaster (1580 posts) -

@Wasdie said:

@BeardMaster: Just because I could be wrong doesn't make you right. That's an argumentative fallacy that doesn't work. The only reason I'm arguing the PS4's favor so heavily is because that's the theme of this entire thread. It's basically saying the Xbox One can do better graphics which is simply not the case. Sure OP says the Xbox One is less powerful but he goes onto saying how we're seeing better graphics on Xbox One games. However, what looks better is subjective, talking about actual graphical performance of a console isn't. Hence why I've focused on something that is not subjective but rather something we can base on evidence and fact.

Yes I'm assuming stuff about the middleware but logic and history dictates that I'm probably right. You can argue against that but at the same time you don't know either and the logic really doesn't stack up in your favor and you certainly haven't made a really strong case outside of just asking the question and then saying I'm wrong because I can't possibly know. As I said before, just because I could be wrong doesn't make you right by default. Arguing doesn't work that way.

well the fact that humans with eyeballs, consider Ryse a graphically superior game is a thing.

You make a stellar argument as to why our eyeballs cant be trusted.

#65 Edited by PSP107 (11893 posts) -

@Chutebox said:

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

lol

#66 Edited by Thunder7151 (329 posts) -

Let's not forget that Microsoft has some of the best research and development in the world!! Therefore, it was somewhat expected that the XBOX ONE would have slightly better graphics than the PS4, and so far we are seeing this to be true. However, the PS4 is still a very capable console with excellent graphics as well.

I am getting both the XBOX ONE and PS4 when they launch; therefore, I am not bias towards either console. However, I think that so far the XBOX ONE has a slight advantage when it comes to graphics.

#67 Posted by greensand24 (379 posts) -

@BeardMaster:

Wasdie use to be one of the most rational posters here but I don't know what happened but every now and then he'll make some statements that just leaves you scratching your head.

Wasdie I'm sorry but the things you said are premature at best. It's way too early for you to make a long winded statement like that which is kind of going off the subject that Ryse is the best looking console game right now.

The fact that you went on a premature proclamation speech of sorts makes me really question some insecurities you have about the ps4. I mean reading what you wrote it almost sounds like you're upset.

#68 Edited by btk2k2 (389 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.

The rest of your post is perfectly fine but the bold is false.

Act to Act latency on DDR3 and GDDR5 is the same in terms of ns.

DDR3 Act to Act latency on page 51 here

GDDR5 Act to Act latency on page 133 here

These are not the exact figures for the memory that is in the consoles but the overall latency of the memory modules is the same. Sure on DDR3 the CAS latency is a lower number but that just tells you how many cycles the latency is and GDDR5 has much higher cycles/second than DDR3 making the actual latency in seconds about even.

#69 Posted by btk2k2 (389 posts) -

@Thunder7151: You must be blind or something. There is no way that a 77xx class GPU will beat a 78xx class GPU which is what the consoles are using. Secondly that 77xx class GPU is attached to a slow pool of DDR3 and a tiny amount of really high bandwidth ram making it a more awkward design to get the best out of.

Objectively the PS4 is better, it will have higher resolutions, better AA effects, better textures and at some point in the future better use of compute, hUMA and the advantages that will bring. This is already obvious in multiplats where the differences are purely objective (with the exception of stupid AA methods perhaps).

Subjectively art direction plays a huge part in how a game looks and with the right art direction the X1 can have a game that is more appealing to the eyes, it will be technically inferior(fact) but as @Wasdie says when comparing graphics you have to take the objective and the subjective together.

You cannot really argue with objective conclusions that are made soundly and based on the evidence, 1080p > 900p or 720p. 4xMSAA is > 2xMSAA, 4k textures are > 2k textures and so on. However on the subjective front if the artist who made the 2k texture is much better than the artist who made the 4k texture then the 2k texture might appear better even though it is technically inferior. In the end all multiplats will look the same or better on the PS4 because it has more GPU horsepower available and the art direction will be the same. Exclusives on PS4 will always be technically better but the art direction might not be as appealing to you as an X1 exclusive.

#70 Posted by Benny_Blakk (906 posts) -

@multipass35: Why do people like you create threads like this?

#71 Posted by bezza2011 (2408 posts) -

Of course Ryse looks good, it's crytek, but is the game any good, thats the question.

The fact this is the beginning of the gen all this useless bickering is nothing but boredom, launch is a battle not a war.

The fact remains PS4 has alot of room to work with over the next year or so we will see that, also the fact most games are coming out for last gen aswel is also keeping things back, but PS4 has enough stuff to allow developers to flow, Xbox One is already a struggle which means there isn't a ton of room to grow, bottleneck it will happen, we'll see

#72 Posted by 2mrw (4959 posts) -

Ryse looks great, but the more I see the gameplay, the more flaws that I can spot

The animations are so stiff

There aren't so many AI on the screen

There aren't a lot going on most of the time.

The blood splatter and the hacking doesn't looks anything special

The E3 demo wowed me, I give you that but right now, the game isn't doing it for me.

#73 Posted by remiks00 (1799 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.

Once again...

PS4 supports PRT (Tiled Resources) as well. It's nothing exclusive. Xbox is more likely to use the method more because it's gimped memory bandwith...

-dx 11.2

--faster memory

--a custom design as well, including a custom GPU. (credit to @stereointegrity)

http://www.psu.com/forums/showthread.php/314007-Next-Gen-Consoles-and-Partially-Resident-Textures-%28PRT%29

http://gamenmotion.blogspot.com/2013/09/playstation-4-partially-resident.html

#74 Edited by TheShensolidus (224 posts) -

Dumbest thread ever? Dumbest thread ever.

#75 Posted by nexus303 (204 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.

Mate, you're spending way too much time on the farm...

#76 Posted by murray69murray (126 posts) -

wasdie how much did ms pay u?

#77 Posted by gpuking (2826 posts) -

Living in denial is not healthy TC.

#78 Posted by Shewgenja (8774 posts) -

Lems posting like throwing spaghetti at a wall hoping it sticks? Interesting new tactic. Reality is overrated, anyway.

#79 Edited by Wasdie (49745 posts) -

I love how everybody is dissing my arguments as "premature" or that I have "insecurities" about the PS4 (that has to be the new System Wars buzzword) despite the only counter argument to what I have been saying is a subjective opinion by IGN and the whole "you can't possible know so you're wrong" argument.

#80 Posted by thedude- (2102 posts) -

Ryse looks like complete garbage to me. If it isn't I will be very surprised.

#81 Edited by stuff238 (618 posts) -

Ryse doesn't even look that good. Killzone SF looks better. Killzone SF has the best graphics I have seen yet for a next gen game. Not saying I'm impressed with next gen yet, but it's the best looking so far.

#82 Posted by Cali3350 (16130 posts) -

PRT means nothing to the Xbox One. The reason its talked about so much in console wars is a profound misunderstand of rendering. That 32MB of ESRAM is going to be used for framebuffer. Period. Textures dont live in the framebuffer.

Also, the truth of the matter is that in terms of graphics rendering the consoles are pretty close. The PS4 will hit a CPU limitation before it can use all of its 18CU's for effective rendering. i expect to see visual difference much like in a PC game with PHYSX or not. PS4 games will run a PHYSX like version on, the Xbox One PHYSX off. I think thats far more realistic as to what we will actually be seeing differentiating these consoles.

Thats mostly though. The Xbox One is really limited to a 32Mb framebuffer or a tiled framebuffer approach. I dont think it will kill it but I would expect lower resolutions throughout the life of the console.

#83 Posted by I_can_haz (6551 posts) -

Nope KZSF looks better. Nice try lem.

#84 Edited by Thunder7151 (329 posts) -

Cows can use all kinds of excuses, such as:

  • Crytek specializes in graphics, that's why.
  • Ryse is not as open world as KZSF, that's why.
  • Ryse has QTEs, that's why.

But at the end of the day, Ryse still has the best graphics yet seen on a console game!! So the excuses don't matter. Anyone can make up an excuse for anything. Reality is reality. And the reality is that right now XBOX ONE is showing better graphics than PS4. Cows need to accept this and move on to other debates.

#85 Posted by Crypt_mx (4021 posts) -

@Chutebox said:

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

You're missing out.

#86 Posted by OneInchMan99 (1127 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?

Not really troublesome,no(as its not true,LOL)

Its gonna be a long hard gen for lems,I hope they can stick it out,LOL

#87 Edited by jsmoke03 (12839 posts) -

crytek always put out pretty games...wouldnt be surprised but kz sf looks way better imo from what ive been seeing

#88 Posted by chikenfriedrice (10171 posts) -

I don't know what you are talking about...Knack is next gen at it's finest lol ( jk played demo and looks like shit )

Other than KZ:SF cows have nothing to brag about

#89 Edited by iambatman7986 (406 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.

Truth is spoken.

#90 Posted by danabo (2474 posts) -

I still can't believe it's not butter.

#91 Posted by Tighaman (880 posts) -

@Wasdie: i was wondering why you was locking my threads about overheating, mantel, and ps4 being a kickstarter console because you are a SONY FANBOY AT HEART! KILLZONE SANDBOX SAYS IT ALL AND YES RYSE AT 900p looks better than kz at 1080p battlefield looks sharper and have better textures on X1 than PS4 i dont know what sony be doing but they games always looked washed out.

#92 Posted by Multipass35 (295 posts) -
#93 Posted by X_CAPCOM_X (6107 posts) -

@danabo: That shit is nasty... gimme dat cholesterol

#94 Posted by Douevenlift_bro (5113 posts) -

LOL Wut?

Oh reassurance thread.

TLHBO!

#95 Edited by TheTruthIsREAL (761 posts) -

@Tighaman: ps4 version looks better overall but I do agree on the textures. But remember that Xbone does not have AO. Say goodbye to them textures