Game Lineup Comparisons, v. 1.3
- Thread starter Andy
- Start date
- Status
Some PS2 defenders might try and argue this but. NG Blew away GOW2,Halo CE blew away any FPS PS2 game,DOAU Blew away any PS2 fighter to name a few examples the OG XB was a beast.
I can name 2 off the top of my head.....
Tomb Raider and Murdered Soul Suspect
Fair enough. Although I do have to wonder if a frame rate that changes so much from 30-60 is actually better than a more constant 30 FPS. I guess that is up to the individual.
This isn't true at all.
The lower a resolution is, the more obvious the visual differences are (or at least should be). Lower resolution means larger pixels. 1080p vs. 900p with both games having the same visual effects is much better than 480i (PS2) vs. 480p (Xbox) with the latter having better visual effects on top of that.
The gap between the original Xbox and PS2 was the largest power gap of any gen. Even almost every sports game had major visual differences between those two consoles (which isn't the case for this current gen). Every EA Sports series looked far better on the original Xbox for example.
There were also games that had "50% better frame rates" that gen too. Sonic Heroes for example was 60 FPS on Xbox and GameCube while it was 30 FPS on the PS2.
Hence, why I find it a bit funny that people who owned a PS2 in the past (and it was MANY considering the huge sales difference between the PS2 and Xbox/GC) somehow think it's "stupid" for a person to get an Xbox One. PS2 came out first during its gen but the majority of its sales obviously came after 2001 -- thus meaning that millions of people still willingly bought the "weaker console" (including me).
Last edited:
That doesn't matter when you running sub hd already. The games were coming out completely altered visually in most cases, that doesn't happen today. I'm not even sure you watched the video is you trying to spin that. You realize that some games were not brought to ps2 because of the hardware? That will never happen this gen. Not sure how I have to explain this to you for you to be able to understand.
Where are 40% better and 50% fps bumps in the same game? That happened once or twice maybe out of all these ports? That's a spin. There are things called bad ports. Just look at the large, respected devs like Rockstar, bungie DICE etc, not the smaller devs, we pretty much get the same game all the way around with DICE being the only exception. It doesn't matter to you any way, you have the parity clause thing you will say if a xb1 port does well.
Overall that's what you get with that power, 720-900 or 900-1080p, that's it for the most part, many times you get less. Resolution is a power hog, just sucks there isn't enough juice to see drastic differences and not have it all spent on small res bumps.
Also, back to sales, ps4 doing well has no reflection on its lineup. sony has proven it can sell units with almost no lineup. They did it ps3 for the first two years, so this is nothing for them.
Last edited:
Pre SDK update. Name a single game that has done that since afterwards? If anything, many games run at like for like settings after that, before it wasn't often at all. Even games like AC:U saw a performance gain in some areas over ps4, but you are the only one that believe the parity bs I guarantee no one else in this thread does. If so, why aren't ps4 exclusive games pushing all these crazy numbers you want us to believe?
Someone needs to make a parity thread. It's an interesting discussion but spills over into other threads.
This example is perfect. THAT is what 'significant' looks like, not "I can see the pores on the faces from a little further away".
The most significant differences were at the beginning of the generation with Watchdogs (resolution sure- the -PS4 version was 900p wasn't it? Mostly from a lack of AO on the X1 version), and, well, I'm sure there are others where there were missing effects? I would say 720 vs 1080 could be called significant, but not 900 vs 1080.
The Tomb Raider difference was a toss, imo. It was locked on X1 but not on PS4, so we don't know where that would have gone. I suspect maybe a difference of 10 frames or so.
Last edited:
Agreed. That video is exactly what significant looks like. There is no significant difference this gen like the YouTube video on display here that even remotely looks like that. Not even in the same ballpark. But you would believe the differences this gen are comparable to this video if the internet is to be believed. lol. Crazy.
I think your definition of "significant" needs to be updated, VaL. Either that or you may need glasses or contact lenses. I think this video proves that you and those who think like you are greatly over exaggerating the differences this gen. In fact, I'm sure of it. Your opinion looks closer to 720p as nearly 90% of it is conjecture. lol
Last edited:
I definitely agree that the differences aren't all that big.
I do find it funny though, that it was like:
Last gen - those incredibly small differences equated to 360 version curb stomping PS3 version.
This gen - the larger differences than last gen equates to...."the differences are so small, I can't really see it unless I put my nose to the screen".
lol
I do find it funny though, that it was like:
Last gen - those incredibly small differences equated to 360 version curb stomping PS3 version.
This gen - the larger differences than last gen equates to...."the differences are so small, I can't really see it unless I put my nose to the screen".
lol
Nah, most likely the same people overreacting this gen about this stuff were the same ones that overreacted last gen about it. The 360 and PS3 were pretty even too, just like the PS4/X1 are now. It's always been an issue of personal preference, which is hopefully based on what content they offer.
I get that you are referencing some of you experiences- often- but I saw a lot of s*** talk both ways. While I don't support the fools who did that, he main reason a lot of that sort of talk came around is because the Playstation fanboys constantly talked smack about how much more powerful the PS3 was. So the response would be "yeah, look at how much more powerful it is".
It's often tit for tat BS, and a reason I personally try not to do it as to not perpetuate the issue. Doesn't seem to matter though. Still, to imply that it wasn't a two way street is silly.
I don't know how many people responding in here engaged in that sort of talk, as I have only been to this version of the forum and not TXB. It was stupid all around at the other forums I visited last gen.
MSS was after the update.
I don't care if people here don't believe it or not.
I have been and will continue to say this as I actually read and compared the specs its not rocket science.
The only site I went to early last gen was TXB, so I really don't know what the PS crowd was saying (I don't deny it, just wasn't part of it).
With that said, towards the the half way mark of last gen, TXB was chock filled with those lensoftruth comparison threads, where the differences were so minor, and yet plenty of xbox fans were on that band wagon of "the 360 curb stomps the PS3" in visuals.
I'm not implying that it wasn't a two way street, it certainly was...but as nonsensical as it was back then...it's still nonsensical now. What is "silly", is this idea that the differences are barely noticeable, yet people convince themselves that the differences were larger last gen.
(for the record, I acknowledged the differences last gen, but just like this gen....it really doesn't matter)
I always thought the PS3 was more powerful, but harder to get the most out of. Both had amazing looking games, but if you take the top games-visually- Gears 3 and TLOU/Uncharted, the Playstation had the edge. That said- why does it matter? Both were excellent, beautiful games.
I don't think curbstomp was the vibe at all towards the end of the generation. The differences were so minor that the comparisons became stupid.
Maybe at one point there was more room to gloat.
Maybe at one point there was more room to gloat.
That was my understanding as well, but again, I really didn't follow the tech stuff back then, so which one was supposed to be more powerful is something I wasn't aware of, until members of the site were saying that PS fans claimed more power.
PS3 did indeed how great looking exclusive games, but when it came to multiplats, the differences for most of the games, were incredibly small, sometimes, so small, that the differences were resolved by adjusting contrast, brightness and sharpness.
It went on until pretty close to the end. What was even more funny, was them claiming large differences, yet claiming not much difference between PC and 360.
My question to Val or anyone else is besides the 40% difference in resolution and or framerate, what more do you expect from the PS4 beyond those advantages?
I think the generation is going almost exactly as predicted by the people who analyzed the hardware before launch.
The PS4 has its own limitations. At what point will that be taken into consideration?
I think the generation is going almost exactly as predicted by the people who analyzed the hardware before launch.
The PS4 has its own limitations. At what point will that be taken into consideration?
I said nothing in my post to warrant your cry for help.
I told you to many are in denial/bias for Xbox so such a thread wouldn't and never does last here.
Not much due to parity.
I expect the real lookers to be exclusives.
The gen is going the way I said it would before it started but being XB was on the losing side I got flack about it here just like I am now.
- Status