Metal Gear Solid V: Ground Zeroes | PS4/PS3/XB1/360/PC | Out Now

[Prince Akeem]

what xbox exclusives looked better than infamous 2, heavy rain, uncharted 2-3, god of war3 , beyond two souls?

Not a damn one.

Yo this thread, omg, I don't even know where to start. These Xbots are in full meltdown retard mode right now. All of a sudden 720p vs 1080p isn't a big deal anymore? All of a sudden 1080p isn't twice the pixel density as 720p also I guess right? And lol @ tryina rewrite history. The Cell BE has always been more powerful than the 360. The 360 had a better graphics card in it, but that didn't matter because the Cell BE wasn't even developed to have a graphics card accompanied with it, similar to the PS2. Xbots fail to realize that the 360, although using a PowerPC chip was still somewhat standard hardware and used DirectX which has been around what almost 2 decades, that helped a lot with development. The Cell BE was a highly specialized chip and took a while for developers to understand how to use it. It was a long time of getting shytty ports that were developed on the xbox platform. But like its been said multiple times in here already, the best looking PS3 games look better than the best 360 ones.

Man listen...

 

[chemicalsword]

^^There we go.

next gen eh?

 

[winb83]

I'm saying when you make your conclusions based of pure assumptions, you can't be changing your qualifications to whatever fits your agenda.


No we don't we know what neogaf said. We know what Sony stans have speculated but that's it.


Your making assumptions based on fanboy wars. And I'm the one that's illogical

we know because actual developers have spoken on the issue plenty of times. we know because we've seen the results of developers building games from the ground up for the PS3 vs porting. we know because developers complained about the PS3 architecture so much Sony abandoned the Cell for the PS4 and went to an x86 architecture to respond to their criticisms.

instead you're setting up here trying to pretend there's only one way to the same conclusion in the face of well established facts that suggest otherwise.
its as if i say to you Chuck and Tom went to Texas. the end result is Chuck and Tom are both in Texas. I tell you Chuck drove his car so you say that Tom must have drove his car as well when in actuality Tom caught a plane.

there's more than one way to the same conclusion. and acknowledging this isn't using faulty circular logic.

 

[winb83]

Yo this thread, omg, I don't even know where to start. These Xbots are in full meltdown retard mode right now. All of a sudden 720p vs 1080p isn't a big deal anymore? All of a sudden 1080p isn't twice the pixel density as 720p also I guess right? And lol @ tryina rewrite history. The Cell BE has always been more powerful than the 360. The 360 had a better graphics card in it, but that didn't matter because the Cell BE wasn't even developed to have a graphics card accompanied with it, similar to the PS2. Xbots fail to realize that the 360, although using a PowerPC chip was still somewhat standard hardware and used DirectX which has been around what almost 2 decades, that helped a lot with development. The Cell BE was a highly specialized chip and took a while for developers to understand how to use it. It was a long time of getting shytty ports that were developed on the xbox platform. But like its been said multiple times in here already, the best looking PS3 games look better than the best 360 ones.

exactly its well known the PS3 RSX was weaker then then Xenos because the Cell was supposed to carry the heavy load. The SPEs of the Cell had to have games built from the ground up for them. Hell the Cell wasn't really even designed specifically as a gaming device Sony just re-purposed it as one. most developers handed off porting their multiplatform games to lower ranked teams while the main team did the PC and 360 versions as it was easier to go from one to the other. then many of these games came out on the PS3 and couldn't get proper development support post-launch because the main developers weren't even the ones that did the port and didn't know enough about PS3 development to address the issues. on top of that the PS3 install base was smaller and they figured why bother?

 

[Fatboi1]

Need for speed, FIFA, 2K. Off the top of my head. COD ghost has a lower resolution, but the framerate is trash on ps4

So just what is going on? Well, a close look at our captures reveals that Call of Duty: Ghosts actually runs at higher frame-rates than 60fps on a fairly frequent basis, despite the video output being limited to 60Hz. In scenes where we experienced judder and perceived frame-rate loss, what we are actually seeing is the appearance of skipped and incomplete frames – an effect that is arguably far more noticeable than a few prolonged drops down to 50fps or so seen the 360 version of the game.....

http://www.kotaku.com.au/2013/11/call-of-duty-ghosts-frame-rate-on-playstation-4-is-too-high/
The FPS on COD is too high on PS4.

Halo 4 looked better than all of them except beyond two souls. But once again it's a silly comparison because the games
are very different in scope/performace.

You mean to tell me this looks better than all of them??

Really?

 

[MeachTheMonster]

we know because actual developers have spoken on the issue plenty of times.

devs have spoken on how the ps3 was slower than the 360,but y'all ignore that.

Devs have also said the the X1 and Ps4 are close in power, and as they get better with the ESRAM the performace will be closer. But y'all ignore that

we know because we've seen the results of developers building games from the ground up for the PS3 vs porting. we know because developers complained about the PS3 architecture so much Sony abandoned the Cell for the PS4 and went to an x86 architecture to respond to their criticisms.

We've also seen what devs building games from the ground up for Xbox one can do. But y'all will ignore that.

[Quite]instead you're setting up here trying to pretend there's only one way to the same conclusion in the face of well established facts that suggest otherwise.[/quote]
Problem is your not taking "well established facts" into account. You are using internet speculation, to draw the different conclusions, and your speculation is skewed toward making excuses for one console,

its as if i say to you Chuck and Tom went to Texas. the end result is Chuck and Tom are both in Texas. I tell you Chuck drove his car so you say that Tom must have drove his car as well when in actuality Tom caught a plane.

In this case we don't truly know what either of them used to get there. Only speculation in which we give Tom all the benefit of the doubt and we scrutinize chuck down to his shoe laces

there's more than one way to the same conclusion. and acknowledging this isn't using faulty circular logic.

There is. But once again when all the "details" are speculation then you have to keep the same speculation for both.

 

[LastEmperor2k2]

Any truth to the rumors that this is going to be a 2 hour campaign, if so why pay $40 for this?

 

[Bryan Danielson]

Sometimes I find the whole argument over graphics ridiculous and exhausting cuz cats sit around here and throw out all this shyt and it comes off they they only buy a game based off graphics..... But then I see the same cats rave about a game like The Walking Dead and I see this game and the graphics are shyt and the attentions shifts to "bu bu bu but dat storyline ."

I mean really, which is it gonna be?

 

[winb83]

We've also seen what devs building games from the ground up for Xbox one can do. But y'all will ignore that.

both systems are X86. they build the games on overpowered PCs then scale them more or less for the hardware they have. this isn't a 7 SPE vs 3 core architecture issue here. the architectures of the Xbox One and PS4 are built on the same base.

 

[winb83]

Sometimes I find the whole argument over graphics ridiculous and exhausting cuz cats sit around here and throw out all this shyt and it comes off they they only buy a game based off graphics..... But then I see the same cats rave about a game like The Walking Dead and I see this game and the graphics are shyt and the attentions shifts to "bu bu bu but dat storyline ."

I mean really, which is it gonna be?

so if you have an Xbox One and an PS4 like some of us do and The Walking Dead comes out and on one platform its 1080p 50-60 FPS and on the other it's 720p 25-30FPS which one would you buy? it's the same game and cost the same amount of money.

now what if you didn't have both and you were choosing between buying a PS4 or an Xbox One and one cost $100 more and the games preform worse but it has this neat camera with voice commands that's always on?

 

[Fatboi1]

devs have spoken on how the ps3 was slower than the 360,but y'all ignore that.

Breh how are you getting that the PS3 is slower than the 360 OVERALL??
People said the GPU was slower thats it!

exactly its well known the PS3 RSX was weaker then then Xenos because the Cell was supposed to carry the heavy load.

Is that ignoring to you?

Devs have also said the the X1 and Ps4 are close in power, and as they get better with the ESRAM the performace will be closer. But y'all ignore that

They're close in power but time after time a new game comes out with big disparities?? A console thats close in power would have 2-5 fps differences, same resolution and maybe, just maybe slight aliasing. That's clearly not the case. Games running at double the resolution, twice the framerate, missing effects is not what I see as "close in power". These "devs" saying that obviously don't want to sabotage one of their consumers so they'll play it safe and just say those things. Remember CD with Tomb Raider?? They never wanted to say TR was 60fps on PS4. Same with the other devs, they pretty much tried to avoid talking about differences but when they came out it was clear literally which version was superior.

We've also seen what devs building games from the ground up for Xbox one can do. But y'all will ignore that.

Yes like Ryse being at 900p ~30fps right?? Forza 5 being 1080p/60fps with major cutbacks right?? Killer Instinct 720p right?? Dead Rising 3 @ 720p with dips below 30fps right??? Titanfall running at 792p right?? Yea we seen what they can do

There is. But once again when all the "details" are speculation then you have to keep the same speculation for both.

 

[marcuz]

Sometimes I find the whole argument over graphics ridiculous and exhausting cuz cats sit around here and throw out all this shyt and it comes off they they only buy a game based off graphics..... But then I see the same cats rave about a game like The Walking Dead and I see this game and the graphics are shyt and the attentions shifts to "bu bu bu but dat storyline ."

I mean really, which is it gonna be?

what's wrong with appreciating both?

 

[MeachTheMonster]

http://www.kotaku.com.au/2013/11/call-of-duty-ghosts-frame-rate-on-playstation-4-is-too-high/
The FPS on COD is too high on PS4.

You mean to tell me this looks better than all of them??

Really?

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-call-of-duty-ghosts-next-gen-face-off

What's clear is that Xbox One enjoys smoother frame-rates - and a locked 60fps in multiplayer - while the native 1080p presentation on PS4 comes at the expense of an unfortunate, noticeable performance penalty."

http://www.gamrreview.com/article/89598/best-graphics-technology-of-2012/

 

[Bryan Danielson]

what's wrong with appreciating both?

Nothing when it's genuinely appreciation..... But come on Sunshine we all hear are smart enough to know that most times than not it isn't, it's used as a propaganda tool push an agenda


My thing is graphics shouldn't be hyped as the ingredients of a great game if anything it should just be mildly mentioned as a nice ingredient. Cuz in the end, if a shyt game is a beautiful game, all that 1080 p to the 4th power and 180 frames ain't gonna save it from being a shyt game

 

[MeachTheMonster]

Breh how are you getting that the PS3 is slower than the 360 OVERALL??
People said the GPU was slower thats it!

The same anonymous dev that said the X1 is slowe. Also said the ps3 was slower. You all read it and ignored it so you can keep pushing your agenda. Plus there's this

"We definitely would have loved to, but The Witcher 2 on PC was so big that making it work on Xbox 360 took us a year," he said. "The Xbox 360 was a more powerful and easier-to-code-on platform than PS3, so that would have taken us another year or year-and-a-half."

but I'm sure y'all will find a way to ignore this one too.

They're close in power but time after time a new game comes out with big disparities?? A console thats close in power would have 2-5 fps differences, same resolution and maybe, just maybe slight aliasing. That's clearly not the case. Games running at double the resolution, twice the framerate, missing effects is not what I see as "close in power". These "devs" saying that obviously don't want to sabotage one of their consumers so they'll play it safe and just say those things. Remember CD with Tomb Raider?? They never wanted to say TR was 60fps on PS4. Same with the other devs, they pretty much tried to avoid talking about differences but when they came out it was clear literally which version was superior.

The relative power of the consoles is clearly not the only reason for the perfomance differences. But y'all will ignore that fact as well.

Yes like Ryse being at 900p ~30fps right?? Forza 5 being 1080p/60fps with major cutbacks right?? Killer Instinct 720p right?? Dead Rising 3 @ 720p with dips below 30fps right??? Titanfall running at 792p right?? Yea we seen what they can do

Yup "cutbacks" matter when it comes to Xbox games, but lets ignore all the cutbacks to the supposedly superior ps3 exclusives.

Sony Stan hypocrisy