Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
ktchong

WTF happened to Xbox? Where are the REAL exclusives? "Console" and "timed" aka FAKE exclusives are NOT enough.

Recommended Posts

I do not understand why consumers want exclusives to exist.

 

Isn't the best scenario that we can play what we want, anywhere at anytime?

 

How do we as consumers win with games being shackled to a specific platform?

 

The only good thing about exclusives is that some games that might not have been funded otherwise do get funded, but even then if you own the platform you only get to know of its existence.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only good thing about exclusives is that some games that might not have been funded otherwise do get funded...

 

That is for me good enough reason to accept the exclusives. Newest God of War would never exist in current AAA universe in it's current state without SONY backing it. And I rather pay 300EUR for extra console to be able to play such an exquisite and refined game, than to give a single penny/cent/insert_any_random_currency to the likes of EA/Ubisoft/Activision for their "Player Choice" bull**** in lootboxes and other types of predatory Microtransactions.

 

The more such good games are released for the console, the lower is your initial investment in the end.

  • Like 1

Sent from my Stone Tablet, using Chisel-a-Talk 2000BC.

 

Let's Play/AAR Europa Universalis 1: Austria Grand Campaign (completed)

Let's Play/AAR Europa Universalis 2: Xhosa Grand Campaign (completed)

 

My PS Platinums - 19 games so far (my PSN profile):

1) God of War III - PS3 - 24+ hours

2) Final Fantasy XIII - PS3 - 130+ hours

3) White Knight Chronicles International Edition - PS3 - 525+ hours

4) Hyperdimension Neptunia - PS3 - 80+ hours

5) Final Fantasy XIII-2 - PS3 - 200+ hours

6) Tales of Xillia - PS3 - 135+ hours

7) Hyperdimension Neptunia mk2 - PS3 - 152+ hours

8.) Grand Turismo 6 - PS3 - 81+ hours (including Senna Master DLC)

9) Demon's Souls - PS3 - 197+ hours

10) Tales of Graces f - PS3 - 337+ hours

11) Star Ocean: The Last Hope International - PS3 - 750+ hours

12) Lightning Returns: Final Fantasy XIII - PS3 - 127+ hours

13) Soulcalibur V - PS3 - 73+ hours

14) Gran Turismo 5 - PS3 - 600+ hours

15) Tales of Xillia 2 - PS3 - 302+ hours

16) Mortal Kombat XL - PS4 - 95+ hours

17) Project CARS Game of the Year Edition - PS4 - 120+ hours

18) Dark Souls - PS3 - 197+ hours

19) Hyperdimension Neptunia Victory - PS3 - 238+ hours

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do not understand why consumers want exclusives to exist.

 

Isn't the best scenario that we can play what we want, anywhere at anytime?

 

How do we as consumers win with games being shackled to a specific platform?

 

The only good thing about exclusives is that some games that might not have been funded otherwise do get funded, but even then if you own the platform you only get to know of its existence.

(True) Exclusives are great for the consumer and the industry for a number of reasons.

 

The most obvious is competition, it pushes each console parent company to push themselves and this also ricochets to the pc population of indie/aaa exclusive studios who only evolve because consoles exists in the first place.

 

The second being choice and social variation, you get different fanbases, communities built up because of an exclusive - Zelda, Halo and most recently Spider-Man are all phenomenal examples of this fact.

 

Another great thing about exclusives is the ability to show the community that hardware isn't that important as pc eletists suggest, the fact that a "weak" console can run games that look as great as high-end pc's (thanks to optimization and advanced developer tools precisely made for the console of choice) is not only a great feat for the developer and console parent company but a great testiment that developers don't rely on hardware but software updates to get better looking games.

 

Lastly, exclusives offer validation for buying a "stupid plastic box" though pc eletists will get angry when you bring up the fact that their ports are better than pc ports 95% of the time. So much for master race. And that's coming from someone who's primary is Steam and GOG hehe

 

Anyway, I think those are reasons enough to why console exclusives should and WILL always exist. Though we do have PSnow (which is by every point, horrible) which allows you to run games on your pc at a variating fps, yeah, that bad. So avoid the crap official branded Sony emulation which is equally as horrible as ay other emulator on pc out there. They never learn.


Just what do you think you're doing?! You dare to come between me and my prey? Is it a habit of yours to scurry about, getting in the way and causing bother?

 

What are you still bothering me for? I'm a Knight. I'm not interested in your childish games. I need my rest.

 

Begone! Lest I draw my nail...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the fact that a "weak" console can run games that look as great as high-end pc's

That hasn't been possible for a very long time. Not since the 90's. Consoles really fell behind when the 360 was released. Just in terms of resolution and frame rate PC has been way ahead. Lets be realistic here, high GPUs have cost as much as consoles in that time as well. On PC you can either crank up our fps to 144+ or set it to 60 and play at 4K. Consoles targetted 30 for a long time. What may be confusing you is that exclusives obviously can't have PC comparisons, and artistry does not equal fidelity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

the fact that a "weak" console can run games that look as great as high-end pc's

That hasn't been possible for a very long time. Not since the 90's. Consoles really fell behind when the 360 was released. Just in terms of resolution and frame rate PC has been way ahead. Lets be realistic here, high GPUs have cost as much as consoles in that time as well. On PC you can either crank up our fps to 144+ or set it to 60 and play at 4K. Consoles targetted 30 for a long time. What may be confusing you is that exclusives obviously can't have PC comparisons, and artistry does not equal fidelity.
That's only true from a buyers perspective if we are counting polygons per pixel. Perhaps you didn't read the whole context but it's no longer about shaders, pipelines, polygons, resolution and all these things that pc gamers are usually obsessed with when buying a new gpu. Rather now, it's about what developers bring about while developing new techniques when developing art styles. This is mainly why a PS4 game can look as good as as a ultra-high end pc. Developer tools and great artists can go a long way and optimization whether in graphics or performance is something that even the best pc games often lack.

 

Sony and Nintendo are a shining example of publishers who care enough to fund their developers enough to optimize in the right way, squeezing every drop of power, milking a console by its "potential" teet. That's probably why PS4 games are on top of the list for graphics as of now. I mean, we have yet to see a 4K game on PC which looks as good as a PS4 exclusive at 4K and even when it does, it lacks the higher quality animations and what not. That's the power of creating in-house engines, superior funding, great artists and highest optimization teams out there. Pc will never have that, unfortunately. I mean, we can dream...

Edited by SonicMage117

Just what do you think you're doing?! You dare to come between me and my prey? Is it a habit of yours to scurry about, getting in the way and causing bother?

 

What are you still bothering me for? I'm a Knight. I'm not interested in your childish games. I need my rest.

 

Begone! Lest I draw my nail...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I mean, we have yet to see a 4K game on PC which looks as good as a PS4 exclusive at 4K and even when it does, it lacks the higher quality animations and what not.

I just can't agree with you at all on that one.You contradict yourself in that sentence because you know that's not true. I'm not sure about the animations, you could argue there some of the best in the industry but I don't think you could argue they're a step above.

 

Pc will never have that, unfortunately. I mean, we can dream...

At certain times in the past the PC has been a cut above, UT/Quake, when 3DFx arrived, then Nvidia, Half-Life 2 animation quality and physics (could not run properly on consoles), Crysis (had to be cut considerably to run on consoles). Physics effects have always been a PC strong point because console CPUs have almost always been awful. There were definitely numerous games in the 90's and 00's that could only run on high end PCs, if they had ports they were stripped down and ****. Many mutli-platform games have high and ultra settings that have effects unavailable to consoles.

 

PC exclusives in terms of pushing graphics have been very few for a long time, exceptional gains in graphics architecture has not been there on PC or console for a decade. Metro: Exodus and Squadron 42 spring to mind as games on PC that will be far better. Real Time Ray Tracing is going to be revolutionary, but it's not going to be on console for a long time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just can't agree with you at all on that one.You contradict yourself in that sentence because you know that's not true. I'm not sure about the animations, you could argue there some of the best in the industry but I don't think you could argue they're a step above.

How exactly did I contradict myself? If you don't know anything about console optimization vs pc optimization then I suppose that may make it hard to understand. Most pc eletists do indeed have a hard time accepting that a $300-400 console could somehow have games that are on par with a high end pc but that's due to the parent company (Sony and Nintendo) giving first-party (and in some case third party studios) superior development tools to the teams. You don't have to agree with it, just ask developers or research on youtube developer interviews and you'll see it's true.

At certain times in the past the PC has been a cut above, UT/Quake, when 3DFx arrived, then Nvidia, Half-Life 2 animation quality and physics (could not run properly on consoles), Crysis (had to be cut considerably to run on consoles). Physics effects have always been a PC strong point because console CPUs have almost always been awful. There were definitely numerous games in the 90's and 00's that could only run on high end PCs, if they had ports they were stripped down and ****. Many mutli-platform games have high and ultra settings that have effects unavailable to consoles.

 

PC exclusives in terms of pushing graphics have been very few for a long time, exceptional gains in graphics architecture has not been there on PC or console for a decade. Metro: Exodus and Squadron 42 spring to mind as games on PC that will be far better. Real Time Ray Tracing is going to be revolutionary, but it's not going to be on console for a long time.

And yet in the same era, high end pc's was not able to do the lighting and texture mapping work that consoles could.

 

PC wasn't always ahead of the curve, here's what I'm referring to:

https://youtu.be/q0WsS8R93_Y

^Sega giving superior tools to a third party studio is a great example, and there are many more. Optimizations have always gone a long way.

 

But I was talking about this generation, pc's are seeming to be more and more like a lamborgini without wheels and you have consoles that are like a ford focus but they seem to win the race in these terms. If you compare one of Sony's latest exclusives in 4k with one of pc's greatest looking games at 4k in ultra settings, the poor pc game would probably not look as good or the PS4 would be on an evel level with it. What does it prove? That software isn't limited by hardware, from a technical standpoint, on paper it is but in coding, it isn't - it's never been. We just didn't have the tools until recent and that makes all the difference in the world.

 

I don't doubt that the PC version of the new Metro will blow away any third party AAA console game away but by the time that comes out, Sony will probably have a better looking exclusive coming out. They just keep getting better and better. Right now as it stands, Sony is ahead of pc in graphics on a ultra-low end gpu, as someone who plays on a 1080ti, my consoles still blow me away :) Luckily though, gaming isn't the only thing I do on my pc so I don't ever feel too depressed about it or regret my purchase, plus I like to play everything, even colorful 2D indies so that puts the horsepower to good work too.


Just what do you think you're doing?! You dare to come between me and my prey? Is it a habit of yours to scurry about, getting in the way and causing bother?

 

What are you still bothering me for? I'm a Knight. I'm not interested in your childish games. I need my rest.

 

Begone! Lest I draw my nail...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's your opinion about the artistry of the game, not about the fidelity. It's not about optimisation. Consoles gain very little through optimisation to the GPU, they gain a lot for the CPU, even more before Vulkan and DX12, but the CPU is so under powered that it doesn't even compete with a mid range Intel CPU. You experience games differently on a console than a PC, you're further away from the screen, the FOV is wider.

 

I can say Deadfire is one of the best looking games I've ever played, I can say that about games on every generation of console, artistically but that's not the same as fidelity. In terms of fidelity PC is way ahead, it's not even close. In terms of artistry then that's just your opinion, and it has nothing to do wit the power or optimisation of the hardware. If you're suggesting the fidelity is better on consoles then that's just delusional because it's not even close.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not opinion to say that a weak-end console gets good enough optimization which keeps art/graphics in exclusives up to par with AAA multi-platform games. This has been been hit and miss in the past but for this generation, it is especially true.

 

I'm guessing you don't own a PS4 Pro or a high end pc, because you're basically feeding me a lie, one that's specifically already proven wrong by this generations games. If everybody who didn't own these consoles and a high end didn't agree with what I'm saying then maybe it could be registered and dismissed as bias/opinion but you've already dismissed the Soul Reaver video which proved games could look better on consoles due to developing tools, keep in mind there is a sacrifice, 60fps is sacrificed to 30fps whoch is the catch bit that's how this cheat for performance vs fidelity is often granted.

 

Okay, I'm going to go a bit further with this I can literally see more detail, from pores on characters faces and threads on clothing in PS4 games on like Spider-Man, Uncharted 4 and God Of War than I can on any AAA multi-platform PC on ultra settings. If you fimd it hard to believe, I'd recommend doing a side by side comparison on 4K screens or a Digital Foundry video to see what I'm talking about...

 

Or you can learn more by watching, in which explains what I've been saying in a better way:

In which most pc gamers still, for some reason, have a problem accepting that PS4 exclusives are the only games that get get upgraded since E3 reveals. Again, this is due to developer tools. Familiarity with old equipment and stability development process trumps new hardware with a differentiation to speed but consoles have have always been falsely locked into the other side of this, even moreso now because they have x86 architecture which doesn't really change anything for how Sony's development tools work for exclusive titles and how development tools bring about milkimg the hardware. Sony literally keeps their most advanced dev tools for exclusivity deals as they always have.

The graphical/detail upgrades for Spider-Man in the video isn't a lie, especially when playing in 4K is a great testemant to these statements. This indicates that the human eye cannot pick oyt the things that lack (the reflections on mirrors, cars and the buildings are static, literally) but they do pick out the greater details that are on oar with the high end pc running a game at maximum settings, and some details in the console exclusive outdoing actual detail. Ialways found this to be quite interestimg but as said before, new tricks and techniques are being created, developed and so on.

Edited by SonicMage117

Just what do you think you're doing?! You dare to come between me and my prey? Is it a habit of yours to scurry about, getting in the way and causing bother?

 

What are you still bothering me for? I'm a Knight. I'm not interested in your childish games. I need my rest.

 

Begone! Lest I draw my nail...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

60fps is sacrificed to 30fps whoch is the catch bit that's how this cheat for performance vs fidelity is often granted.

 

30 frames per second is dog **** and massive cost to fidelity. You can take that out of the equation and you're still wrong.

 

 

 

Okay, I'm going to go a bit further with this I can literally see more detail, from pores on characters faces and threads on clothing in PS4 games on like Spider-Man, Uncharted 4 and God Of War than I can on any AAA multi-platform PC on ultra settings.

 

That's a stylistic choice to do with colour and contrast, not performance or optimisation. You are trying to say that these games look a lot better than other 2018 games like Shadow of the Tomb Raider, Hellblade, or Far Cry 5 on the Xbox One X and that's just not true. They look even better on the PC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"console exclusive games look way better on console"

 

-SonicMage117

  • Like 3

- When he is best, he is a little worse than a man, and when he is worst, he is little better than a beast.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

30 frames per second is dog **** and massive cost to fidelity. You can take that out of the equation and you're still wrong.

It's not cost of graphical fidelity, it's a development choice for the platform, when people have a low end pc, they have a choice to up the graphical settings by lowering framerate or resolution so I'm not sure what you're trying to say. If people have no problem running a cinematic experience game like Detroit, that doesn't make the game somehow graphically inferior to a pc game with lower quality texture just because that pc game has the abikity to run in 60fps or an unlocked frame rate, that's the eletist mindset that always ends up backfiring on the master race community.

 

I'm curious, can you explain how exactly how I'm wrong instead of the usual "I can't accept it so you're wrong" per forum reply?

That's a stylistic choice to do with colour and contrast, not performance or optimisation. You are trying to say that these games look a lot better than other 2018 games like Shadow of the Tomb Raider, Hellblade, or Far Cry 5 on the Xbox One X and that's just not true. They look even better on the PC.

This has nothing to do with stylizing the graphics, I'm not talking about comparing a static cel-shaded console game to a photo-realistic pc game maxed out but 2 games from the same genre, with the same graphics style, the same features but one is a 2016 exclusive title, the other is a AAA multiplatform third party game.

 

I take it you're not going to watch the videos I recommended since you've made up your mind

 

Uncharted 4 came out in 2016 and is still better looking and possessing more fidelity than Shadow Of The Tomb Raider. Stop lol Just because time has passed, doesn't mean that third-party developers have evolved their techniques, dev tool software have updated so of course it wouldn't be true for right now.

 

Uncharted 4 having a further draw distance, more reflection shaders, detail in general, better texture mapping than Shadow Of The Tomb Raider maxed out on pc isn't a lie or an exaggeration, anybofy with eyes can see it:

https://youtu.be/N-WTHlM2fN0

Point being that first party resources do so much for the developer, more than pc gamers care to admit. You want a game to hold up well for years after it comes out? Get Sony or Nintendo to publish your games, don't go multiplatform because you'll be regressing rather than progressing. Another example of how third party tools are at disadvantage on pc are the Assassins Creed fiasco, there are many more but I just pulled one out of the hat. This is why first party support is so important.

 

Right now Spider-Man is the best looking game I've seen on the market, and I've been playing Shadow Of The Tomb Raider on max settings on pc and no, it doesn't look all that better than Rise Of The Tomb Raider. You're lying to yourself if you think that it didn't have downgrades (comparing from the last game) worth mentioning...

https://youtu.be/pjznpFYcCGo

^For example, her face, equipment and clothes are actually less detailed in Shadow Of The Tomb Raider. So that is a thing, console exclusives from Nintendo and Sony are naturally getting better, I'm talking about exclusives from PS4 Pro specifically, Xbox One X is basically a low-end pc with pc dev tools, it literally runs Windows 10. That's far different from the superior dev tools that Sony and Nintendo give their first party studios and/or third party who offer exclusive support.

Edited by SonicMage117

Just what do you think you're doing?! You dare to come between me and my prey? Is it a habit of yours to scurry about, getting in the way and causing bother?

 

What are you still bothering me for? I'm a Knight. I'm not interested in your childish games. I need my rest.

 

Begone! Lest I draw my nail...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I suppose if you guys want to put words in my mouth or mock me but I'd have to be a fool to say otherwise since so much evidence supoorts what I've been saying hehe :)

 

Mocking me doesn't make the proof of videos like this somehow vanish or become irrelevant but have fun!

 

Though, I mean, this is a Crpg forum meaning that most members here are biased towards pc. I am truly neutral and just giving credit where it's due.

Edited by SonicMage117

Just what do you think you're doing?! You dare to come between me and my prey? Is it a habit of yours to scurry about, getting in the way and causing bother?

 

What are you still bothering me for? I'm a Knight. I'm not interested in your childish games. I need my rest.

 

Begone! Lest I draw my nail...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't play Soul Reaver in the 90's, I remember playing Soul Reaver 2 and not liking it. So I couldn't really comment on that comparison before looking into it.

 

The PC is a straight port of the PS version. The two characters in the in-engine cutscene of that comparison are updated models, the game was released 6 months after the other versions. Most of the models in the game did not get an update, and the extra detail is not about PC performance. Soul Reaver is a terrible PC port.

 

DF Retro: Legacy of Kain Soul Reaver - A Classic Revisited on PS1/PC/Dreamcast!

 

Soul Reaver wasn't the best looking PC game of 1999. I notice you didn't decide to pick Quake III for comparison.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

...not cost of graphical fidelity...

 

 

...cinematic experience...

 

That's just marketing bull**** because of weak hardware. Cinema used to use 24fps anyway? So aiming at 30fps doesn't make any sense. And the history of frames per second in Cinema is down to cost and what they can get away with without causing people's brains to hurt and for them to not see fluid motion. In video games that thresh hold is higher than 24, and it's certainly not 30. Also they forget that cinema has frame processing that smooths the 24fps experience that video games cannot have.

 

So it's an absolute lie to change the "aim" so that fidelity means something else. In truth fidelity is to realism, and higher the frames the better, although you do get diminishing returns. I can definitely feel the difference between 60 and 144hz.

 

 

 

This has nothing to do with stylizing the graphics

 

I don't think you understand what that is.

 

 

 

Uncharted 4 having a further draw distance, more reflection shaders, detail in general, better texture mapping

 

On draw distance that's different priorities. Playable areas? Uncharted games are linear. Ryse had more fidelity than Crysis 3 on consoles. More reflection shaders doesn't even mean anything. Detail in general is just vague and also bollocks. Better texture mapping is artistry which I've tried to explain to you before.

 

 

 

^For example, her face, equipment and clothes are actually less detailed in Shadow Of The Tomb Raider.

 

No. And I think we've thoroughly established your bias towards aliasing, higher contrast, and unrealistic lighting. **** is it more detailed. WTF are you talking about.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Soul Reaver wasn't the best looking PC game of 1999. I notice you didn't decide to pick Quake III for comparison.

I didn't mention Quake III because this wasn't about which format had the best multiplatform version of the game, in fact the only reason I even mentioned Soul Reaver is for the fact that PC simply doesn't get the "best" version even though there's available superior hardware.

 

The point is that for every superior version/port of a game thats available on pc, there is one also on console to comtrast it. This has been true for nearly every generation and it's just one of the reasons why pc can't and never will kill off consoles (regardless of trolls who claim "consoles will never die because idiots will keep buying them).

 

Another reason is because the way the ecosystem works, engine/graphical evolution only pushes towards new console generational releases, that alone says alot. Yet pc gamers tend to claim that consoles are holding back pc from excelling in this area, ironic huh? We should get nVidia and ATi (or amd now) to make less gpu's and better drivers so developers won't be afraid to gamble making better games on pc but then pc's would become a console lol

That's just marketing bull**** because of weak hardware. Cinema used to use 24fps anyway? So aiming at 30fps doesn't make any sense. And the history of frames per second in Cinema is down to cost and what they can get away with without causing people's brains to hurt and for them to not see fluid motion. In video games that thresh hold is higher than 24, and it's certainly not 30. Also they forget that cinema has frame processing that smooths the 24fps experience that video games cannot have.

 

 

So it's an absolute lie to change the "aim" so that fidelity means something else. In truth fidelity is to realism, and higher the frames the better, although you do get diminishing returns. I can definitely feel the difference between 60 and 144hz

Not really... For example; A camera that features 60fps video capture is quite pointless unless you are shooting in slo-motion. 24fps/30fps is natural. This very same variable applies to cinematic gaming when a developer opts to vreate a cinematic game where storytelling and natural animation is needed, maybe you'll argue this if you're a fighter pilot who trains 12 hours a day in a 300fps simulation, and that's where games that run at higher than 60fps come in, such as first person shooters like Quake and Unreal Tournament where animation doesn't matter but response time does.

 

There is a PS4 exclusive that runs at 24fps, The Order 1886, to name one was a disappointment but that shame had nothing to do with 24fps with th framerate but rather the limited environment and interaction and very short game play it offered. Visually, like Detroit, it offers some very nice graphics and detailed textures which I still have yet to see Xbox One X and pc to match.

 

I think that's why first party development teams set their aim to games at a much earlier stage. Now in console exclusives, it tends to be 30fps for the single player campaign and then 60fps for the mulitplayer. I don't think most people realize a game is running at 30fps when it's designed to in engine and animations are tuned for it. It is possible to have buttery smooth animation at 30fps, if anything last generation proved that. I have played some games on pc though, that were made to be played in 60fps and woulf hurt my eyes and make me nauseated when playing them in 30fps, it's definitely noticable but that's where the development process and engine use differ. In no world is 30fps better but perhaps developers can be masterful trick our brains into thinking 30fps is as smooth (it's happened).

 

As far as inferior hardware, well, they rolled with ancient laptop gpu's/apu's equal to a 1050ti and they're doing rather well with what they have I'd say.

I don't think you understand what that is.

 

I understand exactly what it is but again, this isn't about stylization, that wasn't even remotely what I wasn't talking about.

On draw distance that's different priorities. Playable areas? Uncharted games are linear. Ryse had more fidelity than Crysis 3 on consoles. More reflection shaders doesn't even mean anything. Detail in general is just vague and also bollocks. Better texture mapping is artistry which I've tried to explain to you before.

 

Then why mention all the games you did in one as the same? Far Cry 5, Shadow Of The Tomb Raider, and whatever else you compared to the Sony exclusives I mentioned...

No. And I think we've thoroughly established your bias towards aliasing, higher contrast, and unrealistic lighting. **** is it more detailed. WTF are you talking about.

Hmmm.. When did I mention aliasing, unrealistic and higher contrast? You compared the games I mentioned to newer games and now that I posted the video comparison links, it just sounds as if you're making excuses and trying to claim I don't know what I'm talking about. Simple as that really.

 

Keep in mind, Steam and GoG are my main platforms and I only really use my PS4 when a new exclusive  (that I want comes out). I wouldn't say that counts me towards being biased for console at all. Additionally, I enjoy my pc games much more, but again, just wanted to give credit where it was due.

 

Uncharted 4 still surpasses Shadow Of The Tomb Raider at any rate, on any stance. The video proves that, if you want I guess you can try to excuse it by remedying the loss with implying Uncharted 4 cuts alot of corners, though as the othe video I linked you to states that Shdaow Of The Raider is the real corner cutter here. Uncharted 4 doesn't hate it's mistakes and bad textures, why are we punishing consoles for that when the developers deserve praise for it?


Just what do you think you're doing?! You dare to come between me and my prey? Is it a habit of yours to scurry about, getting in the way and causing bother?

 

What are you still bothering me for? I'm a Knight. I'm not interested in your childish games. I need my rest.

 

Begone! Lest I draw my nail...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

engine/graphical evolution only pushes towards new console generational releases

That's not even a little true.

 

 

A camera that features 60fps video capture is quite pointless unless you are shooting in slo-motion. 24fps/30fps is natural.

That's not true. I mean what? 24fps is "natural"? That doesn't mean anything. If you're suggesting that's what the eye can interpret that's just flat out false.

 

 

Then why mention all the games you did in one as the same? Far Cry 5, Shadow Of The Tomb Raider, and whatever else you compared to the Sony exclusives I mentioned...

Fidelity wise, console version to console version those games are on par with the Sony exclusives. You just can't seem to understand that there's different priorities and time investment. You can't even appreciate the improvement in lighting on the new Tomb Raider game, well of course you're not going to appreciate the PC version of games. You can't tell the difference between the artistry that goes into games and the improvement in performance the PC has overwhelmingly, it's not even close.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What happened to the Halo series? Wasn't that always the biggest selling point for the X-box? That and the Forza series

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah I just learned it was on PC too, had no idea. I miss out on all games that's not on Steam I guess

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Forza series is still going strong. Its probably the best ongoing racing series.

Assetto Corsa would like to have a talk with you :p


Sent from my Stone Tablet, using Chisel-a-Talk 2000BC.

 

Let's Play/AAR Europa Universalis 1: Austria Grand Campaign (completed)

Let's Play/AAR Europa Universalis 2: Xhosa Grand Campaign (completed)

 

My PS Platinums - 19 games so far (my PSN profile):

1) God of War III - PS3 - 24+ hours

2) Final Fantasy XIII - PS3 - 130+ hours

3) White Knight Chronicles International Edition - PS3 - 525+ hours

4) Hyperdimension Neptunia - PS3 - 80+ hours

5) Final Fantasy XIII-2 - PS3 - 200+ hours

6) Tales of Xillia - PS3 - 135+ hours

7) Hyperdimension Neptunia mk2 - PS3 - 152+ hours

8.) Grand Turismo 6 - PS3 - 81+ hours (including Senna Master DLC)

9) Demon's Souls - PS3 - 197+ hours

10) Tales of Graces f - PS3 - 337+ hours

11) Star Ocean: The Last Hope International - PS3 - 750+ hours

12) Lightning Returns: Final Fantasy XIII - PS3 - 127+ hours

13) Soulcalibur V - PS3 - 73+ hours

14) Gran Turismo 5 - PS3 - 600+ hours

15) Tales of Xillia 2 - PS3 - 302+ hours

16) Mortal Kombat XL - PS4 - 95+ hours

17) Project CARS Game of the Year Edition - PS4 - 120+ hours

18) Dark Souls - PS3 - 197+ hours

19) Hyperdimension Neptunia Victory - PS3 - 238+ hours

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry for the late response, my wife and I just watched India Eisleys new movie "Look Away" which was a pretty neat but I warn you horror/pychological thriller but I warn you guys, India Eisley does remove her clothing articles more than a couple times lol

That's not even a little true.

Unfortunately, it is actually.

 

That's the whole point of developers calling their games next gen and the expectations of next-generation software alike. If it was dependable on pc like you said, then we wouldn't have to wait on pc for graphics to shift in tide. If the developers acknowledge this, no reason why we shouldn't either.

That's not true. I mean what? 24fps is "natural"? That doesn't mean anything. If you're suggesting that's what the eye can interpret that's just flat out false.

For cameras:

 

24fps = cinematic and natural

30fps = mid-ground and meh but made a benchmark lol

60fps = crisp and sharp

https://youtu.be/-vyxdm5aIOk

 

Not sure if you were aware of this or not but Discovery Channel films their professional video at 30fps and edit 60fps shots for slow-motion in parallel with 24fps or less when you see animals running on water, humming birds and such. 24fps is and will always be the go-to for cinema though, because 60fps looks absolutely horrble when trying to make a high action movie with something like explosions or what have you, this is not going to change unless you see a 3D movie which is still going to be split in half per eye anyway - dual lens cams.

Fidelity wise, console version to console version those games are on par with the Sony exclusives. You just can't seem to understand that there's different priorities and time investment. You can't even appreciate the improvement in lighting on the new Tomb Raider game, well of course you're not going to appreciate the PC version of games. You can't tell the difference between the artistry that goes into games and the improvement in performance the PC has overwhelmingly, it's not even close.

I like the lighting, the game is beautiful, don't get me wrong and possibly my favorite of the new trilogy because they went all out with the environment. I think that is probably the main thing consoles suffer from as lighting and shadowing is so gpu taxing in a detailed photorealism aimed game. Perhaps that is a ram issue or a gpu heat issue.

 

However, I was just disappointed with the quality of animations and the downgrades in Shadow Of The Tomb Raider. The game is still great though.

 

 

 

My go to when talking about impressive lighting in a pc game is perhaps a game that doesn't require much gpu power, a game that I stumbled on a couple years ago, it uses real time lighting with reflective map on 2D sprites on isometric perspective. This is even a bit more impressive than what Deadfire did, and Deadfire is truly impressive to this regard as well.

https://youtu.be/BGTF_1J_Rvs

Assetto Corsa would like to have a talk with you :p

How do you feel about the second one?

 

Drive club the PS4 exclusive was a wreck but after two years of updates, it turned out quite nicely. Steange experiment for Sony and whatever the dev was.

Edited by SonicMage117

Just what do you think you're doing?! You dare to come between me and my prey? Is it a habit of yours to scurry about, getting in the way and causing bother?

 

What are you still bothering me for? I'm a Knight. I'm not interested in your childish games. I need my rest.

 

Begone! Lest I draw my nail...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's the whole point of developers calling their games next gen and the expectations of next-generation software alike. If it was dependable on pc like you said, then we wouldn't have to wait on pc for graphics to shift in tide. If the developers acknowledge this, no reason why we shouldn't either.

We saw many engine major engine developments in between console generations. Just look at the history of the Unreal Engine and iD Tech. Also Nvidia and AMD haven't spent the last 20 years waiting for console generations to continuously develop their GPUs. First two Xbox consoles launched with cutting edge GPU, but the development cycle meant they were surpassed in under a year. The Xbox One launched behind the PC market, well behind.

For cameras:

 

24fps = cinematic and natural

30fps = mid-ground and meh but made a benchmark lol

60fps = crisp and sharp

 

Not sure if you were aware of this or not but Discovery Channel films their professional video at 30fps and edit 60fps shots for slow-motion in parallel with 24fps or less when you see animals running on water, humming birds and such. 24fps is and will always be the go-to for cinema though, because 60fps looks absolutely horrble when trying to make a high action movie with something like explosions or what have you, this is not going to change unless you see a 3D movie which is still going to be split in half per eye anyway - dual lens cams.

Games are not movies, you can't apply the same effects to them. Also the reasons for 24fps or 30fps in film is historic and due to technological limitations, not because anything above looks bad.

 

I think that is probably the main thing consoles suffer from as lighting and shadowing is so gpu taxing in a detailed photorealism aimed game.

That's one of the most important features for fidelity and the things you want $600 worth of GPU for, and yeah the GPU in a console has half the processing power of the RTX 2080/GTX 1080 Ti. It does make a ****load of difference. Nvidia spent over a decade developing RTX just so they could make lighting more realistic and it looks incredible. You can't live in a world where consoles struggle with lighting and are also on par with the highest PC graphics.

 

If we're not talking photorealism and lighting, we're talking artistry and that's down to preference.

Edited by AwesomeOcelot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...