How is the context different? People want the best possible version....which is the entire point of visual/performance comparison threads. Context remains the same, your delusions keep changing though
Read posts before replying. I've explained two or three times why it's clearly different. Not my fault you're too stupid to let my words sink in upon repetition.
So basically just like last generation most people can't tell a difference but even so there is always one SKU that is better than the other regardless if you can or cannot tell a difference.
'Better' depends on a person's priorities and is subjective. We aren't talking about black and white differences here. Most games have an edge in one area on X1 and a different area on PS4. Others have areas where the difference, even technical ones, are a matter orf preference (see: thicker DoF in NFS as an example). And as noted, there are other areas for ppl to consider. I'm all for ppl picking a side, but they should do so after viewing the actual games side by side instead of hinging their wagon to the hivemind FUD machine you see repeated everywhere. I'd argue that if ppl weren't told which was which, they wouldn't be able to easily tell them apart graphically so championing one over the other only in that wishy washy area is stupid, as there are notable differences in online play, game-related feature sets tied into these games, controllers, etc.
I know, that's what we've been trying to tell you. Thankfully you've finally come to grips with reality.
Talk about projection. I've stated that as my position repeatedly since January. You were championing this idea that PS4 games would be vastly superior looking and only changed your argument after E3. When I argued they would look basically identical on each platform, you were always first in line to assert otherwise. I cited numerous devs stating as much on the record over and over (Kojima, Avalanche guy, EA's CTO, Carmack, lherre, ERP, etc). I was attacked every single time I made that (totally correct) argument. So was Flynn when he said the exact same thing. All the sudden my position is 'obvious' to you, eh? Ha! Mhmmm...
It takes much mental gymnastics to say the XBO version of BF4 is "better" or "equal" to the PS4 version. They are equal as long as we don't speak on framerate and resolution differences.
Resolution means precisely nothing if the assets aren't displayed more clearly. The X1 assets are every bit as cleanly displayed as the PC/PS4 version. It only comes into play with aliasing, which is present on the console versions in a noticeable manner regardless of platform.
Hah, there were many upon many people expecting a resolution difference between games with many people including Slynoius suggesting that PS4 games would render at 1080p while Xbox One games rendered at a lower resolution. You were constantly belitting the guy for having such thoughts...
He was arguing it would be noticeably clearer on PS4. It isn't. Check the side by sides for proof.
Opinion, both versions of Battlefield 4 are equal.
Visually, I agree that they are essentially identical. In other words, you wouldn't be able to play on on your tv one day, then the other the next, and easily pick them apart most likely. Seeing as that's how ppl actually play games (not side by side
Fact one version of Battlefield is better.
Better in what way? Certainly not in every way. Oops, forgot that context doesn't exist in Ketto's world.
I prefer the way the colors look in the X1 version over the PS4 version, just as I did on 360/PS3. I like the fact that on PS4 there's less aliasing due to the res bump, but the actual assets pop more on X1 imho. Seeing as you'll notice subpixel flicker on both anyhow, it's down to a matter of tolerance for such things. PS4 does have a notable lead in fps though, but only in heavy spots on occasion and that doesn't translate at all to MP. My point wasn't that the X1 version was superior on a tech level. My point was that it looks better to my eye and many would agree if they simply viewed the side by sides instead of worshiping at the altar of meaningless metrics.
The differences are small enough both ways that it can come down to preferences and priorities. And many ppl will likely appreciate the online functinoality of the X1 version being more stable, or the dedicated servers within MS's cloud for other titles, or SmartMatch, or the rumble triggers in the controller, or the Kinect integration, etc. Others will prefer other things favoring PS4 or a mixture of the two. When the differences are small as they are, those other things become much more important and declaring one 'better' while wholly ignoring those things is stupid. You need context, something you don't seem to understand. In the context of technical graphics, PS4 version is better. In the context of visuals, it's much more nuanced and complex an issue as that takes into account not only the more fluid fps on PS4 but also the asset's clearer depiction due to X1's scaler and hue saturation, etc.
The beauty about facts is they can be proven.
And the irony of your rant is that you don't even grasp what facts are and what opinions are. Saying 'X is better than Y' isn't a fact without context tied to it. That's a subjective commentary, not an objective measure. What you should be saying is something like 'X is better than Y at this specific metric presuming higher values constitute better performance'.
Holy crap at the backtrack, now you're saying that you were suggesting they would have more HUDs at 1080p?
What backtrack?! Go read those old posts at TXB. That's precisely what I said. I said they would likely have their marketing ppl championing a 1080p HUD as 'native 1080p for all games'. Turns out devs didn't even get access to the display planes until relatively late in the dev process so only a few use it for the HUD atm.
Oh yea I remember now, XBO would have more games at 1080p according to you...
Go read my actual posts instead of lying repeatedly about what I said. Again, I said they would be marketed as 1080p but really be mixtures of resolutions between HUD/game or HUD+game/backdrop and ppl wouldn't even notice in most cases. Which was...completely true as proven by games like AC4 and BF4 and RYSE. You only notice the res difference in BF4 on the thin distant diagonals but not in actual asset display.
because XBO has more bandwidth and developers have 8 years of experience using eSRAM/eDRAM+Local pool and because MS has better tools.
Which is all true, except MS was late on their dev tools, as I've noted for many months now ever since the Avalanche guy told us so. Do these facts upset you Ketto or have you come to terms with them after all these months?
The funny thing is, once this turned out not to be the case...
So MS's engineers are all lying. Ketto knows better than them and actual devs. Got it. /derp
, you then backtracked and started saying it's because they're not use to utilizing eSRAM and are still figuring it out and that MS's tools are still immature. Where as before when people suggested that/reposted the CBOAT rumor stating that, you were hella quick to dismiss it as nonsense.
They aren't utilizing it effectively yet because the dev tools aren't (weren't) done. Doesn't matter how familiar ppl are with it, which they are, if the dev tools aren't where they need to be yet devs can't build games to utilize them. How is this not common sense?
Where's that magical "pop" we argued about for 5 pages D: !? While I suggested that difference in contrast was a mistake on DF's end...
It wasn't. The black crush was an issue with the HDMI output on the X1 unit at the review event. DF had made no mistake whatsoever with their setup nor their capture process. Stop spreading this myth. And the pop is still there. And BF uses the scaler, so not sure why you are acting like it doesn't all the sudden.
I pretty much stated it won't look like that in the final comparison while you wrote long posts that I completely skipped over and I was right.
Keep rewriting post histories big guy. It's your story! Haha.
Because anyone who knows anything about gamma space and Full/limited RGB knew what the issue was immediately, while you went on about some magical scaler and it's contrast bull****.
You still don't understand it. Guess ya should go to B3d and remind everyone there who discussed it that they are all idiots and Ketto (all the sudden apparently) knows all. You butchered it here in this very post, and now you want to act like it's something obvious? Dafuq? It was an HDMI issue with the X1 unit at the review event. Not an issue with DF's capture process. The final comparison shows no black crush but retains the hue saturation and pop, EXACTLY as I said it would when the HDMI bug was sorted out. Stop trying to portray the display planes as magic btw. You're discrediting your entire pedastal that you've given yourself and it's very unbecoming for your claims. MAkes you look as petty and ignorant as those who try to turn any hardware nuance on X1 into a discussion about 'LOL secret sauce xbotz durrrrp!'. Wait...that's how you actually post. :/
Because quite frankly...you had absolutely no clue what you were talking about. I also have to love how you're now describing almost every GPU scaler since forever. When before only the XBO had the magical scaler that no other GPU had.
No other GPU that I know of has dual image planes that are processed independently in hardware. The additional layer makes all the difference. It's like talking about parallelism as being worthless just because single pipelines predated the use of groups of pipelines. Totally a r******d line of argument. Stop.
Thankfully DICE was smart enough to disable the sharpening filter or that aliasing would have looked much worse.
They didn't disable the sharpening. Jesus you guys love to outright lie about what others have said.
And Ryse uses its' internal scaler thus completely bypassing XBO's hardware scaler. Not that it matters
It doesn't bypass it. This simply tells me you've no clue how these planes are even handled in the hardware. Jesus Ketto. Stop.
Of course you don't care for Thomas, and obviously his articles are "slanted" (lol) so ironic you're singing the exact same tune GAF members do about Leadbetter.
Leadbetter's articles are good and balanced and ask probing questions. Morgan's pieces are very anti-MS. I noted it before in my criticism of his cloud article where he started the first 1200 words off by comparing the internet to internal bandwidths of a modern GPU as if that had ANYTHING to do with ANYTHING MS was even talking about. He also COMPLETELY missed the entire point of what MS was trying to do, which is free up local resources to do more there. His article there was completely worthless and only sowed more FUD. Here, he took the differences in areas like aliasing and trumped them up with hyperbolic nonsense as if they were making the game unplayable somehow.
GAF takes literally any article Leadbetter writes and dismisses it out of hand without reading it at all, even if it's not even his words but the words of MS's engineers, for instance. I can easily cite specific issues I take with the slanted commentary of Morgan's work. But hey, you love conflating things and removing context from nuanced discussions just to troll ppl, so cling to the simpletons online if it helps your pathetic lil ego Mr. Mod. :lol:
Too much conflation and outright lies in your posts to keep track of all of them.
