Graphics Comparison

I'm not sure why everyone has to squabble about minor graphical differences. I realize this is system wars, but really when I see someone make a thread saying that _____ game looks horrible, I'm left scratching my head in wonderment how such a statement can be honestly stated.

Aging myself a bit, I grew up on NES and Genesis. Everything was blocky unless we were lucky and got something that looked close to cartoon graphics. I as well as many other older gamers know what horrible graphics are and the next gen doesn't have horrible graphics. Not even WiiU regardless that it's graphically a generation behind.

I think you younger gamers are simply spoiled. I think you guys would do well to take a month and only play NES, SNES or Genesis and only those systems for that month. Then maybe you'll appreciate what you guys actually have.

Trying to take the fun out of SW's? :P

This is not the nineties unfortunately, although i wish it was as we would have much better games.

im also from the snes era and i disagree, at the time games, expectations and standards were different, ffs windows 98se was considered one of the best, would you go back to it? As time passes those things change, standards get better and we come to expect better things. My standard right now is 1080p and 60fps, its been around for too long on pc and machines released in 2013 are still 720p and 30 fps? thats disgraceful

No !

They where minor last gen , this gen it's a pretty big gap actually .

@Krelian-co: I agree that times and expectations change but I still appreciate what next gen brings. I'm sure you remember far less bickering back in the 16bit days. Sure, you told people which system you liked better and why but at the end you shut up and played what was in front of you happy to try out something different.

And yes, I go back to previous gen systems and games all the time. Just two nights ago, I put Destruction Derby (PS1) in my PS3 and did a few "races". I had a blast. Even my Genesis still works after 22 years and I play that from time to time.

LMFAO. Minor graphical difference?

Let's get something straight: PS4 games running at 1080P vs 720p on Xbone? That's 1,152,000 pixels per frame, on the console that's $100 cheaper.

The resolution difference between PS4 and Xbone is bigger then the difference between Xbox 360 and PS2.

lots of system warriors use graphics to slander the opposition's machine.

hence why hiding behind the PC is so common.

that and PC has better games

I remember when the xbox launched, obliterated PS2 in power and was even ahead of PCs.. 360 launched and was ahead of PCs, and still had a better gpu than the PS3 even though it came out a year eariler.. Now the xb0ne is coming out with a 2 year old, entry level, irrelevant GPU. Focus on that irrelevant camera.. Times have changed son. Microsoft is a joke right now

So you can "see" a difference?

From 720p to 1080p? It's not exactly very hard to see a difference between the two.

low-high settings also generally bring a small graphical improvement.

It all depends how far back from the screen you are and if your vision is 20/20 or not.

also a high bloom level is generally better looking than having a correct HDR algorithm. I really don't see how anyone can dispute this.

Standards were different and always change. The same graphics battles raged on between SNES and Genesis versions of games. People were awed by how realistic those blocky graphics were. MK was basically the point were photorealistic became part of the gamer dialect. When watched from todays perspective and standards it's complete nonsense, but that's how it was back then with those standards.

what are you talking about? Yoshi's island on the snes has better graphics than most platformers today

I still think some Mega-Drive games look better than games released today.

I had the huge inconsistencies with people around here in regards to comparing graphics.

i think ps4/0ne games look awesome so far....and will get even better in the future

TC, what can I tell you? Things change. Standards change. The Sega Master had much better graphics than the NES....

Seems like a big deal if you ignore diminishing returns.

I mean the difference between 30 and 60 fps is only 30 frames. The difference between 60 and 120 fps, is twice as large! Yet the difference between 30 and 60fps is far more noticeable while the difference between 60 and 120fps is barely noticeable.

I dont expect a major noticeable difference in graphics, and COD is the greatest example, other titles have more parity and i imagine the gap will likely only shrink as time goes on.

However price is a major concern. To myself and i think most normal people, the deciding factor will probably be the price and features offered by the OS and online service... things that are far more obvious. I know thats why im personally waiting to see featuresets of the consoles reviewed once they are released in order to make up my mind. Outside of rabid fanboys on the internet, thats probably what its going to come down to for the average gamer. For instance having a hands free universal remote and media hub is a pretty awesome feature if it works properly, and its something far more noticeable to the average consumer than a 720p upscaled vs 1080p native image in a single title.

EDIT: And frankly to any true gamer, the deciding factor should be which console has the games that interest them the most. While better graphics is certainly something to think about, its probably the least important factor for me, and i imagine most people.