Resolution doesn't matter when your game is as ugly as COD.
Why CoD is 720 on X1.....
- Thread starter Plainview
- Start date
- Status
BO 2 on pc looked decent though @1080p with its added DX11 effects.... I expect Ghosts to look even better...
I like how hrudey put it.
I know that the PS4 is more powerful. And that's why those games look better. But let's wait and see what more games developed exclusively for each system or for next gen in general look like before we judge completely.
Is that fair, or too fanboyish?
I wouldn't say its a bad assertion By Hrudy.
Just to me I wouldn't make any assumptions about the Power of the XBO based off of ports. I mean there are many plausible explanation.
Was it too late to take into account the clock upgrade?
Did they just use the scaler because the game looks just as good and it was easier than re-writing code for the special processors?
If you run a game company and are given a choice
A. re-write the game code to take advantage of the special XBO processors at the cost of x amount of programming hours
B. Just use the scaler at 0 hours
Both a and B achieve the same result of a game displaying at 1080P that most people wouldn't notice that it was being scaled. What call would you make?
Just to me I wouldn't make any assumptions about the Power of the XBO based off of ports. I mean there are many plausible explanation.
Was it too late to take into account the clock upgrade?
Did they just use the scaler because the game looks just as good and it was easier than re-writing code for the special processors?
If you run a game company and are given a choice
A. re-write the game code to take advantage of the special XBO processors at the cost of x amount of programming hours
B. Just use the scaler at 0 hours
Both a and B achieve the same result of a game displaying at 1080P that most people wouldn't notice that it was being scaled. What call would you make?
Not to late for clock upgrade and the audio processor has been around day 1 so it should really be mature API wise right now. Also entropy says that the scaled image cannot be as good as the native image.
But the whole point of more powerful hardware is to have 1080p and effects. Why does it need to be 1 or the other. It should be both, thats why I laugh when people say things like "it's up to the devs". Obviously if the system was strong enough they'd do 1080p and the effects they want. You only make concessions when the hardware can't handle it......
I agree, though we already have some exclusive games to look at. If Ryse does indeed look like all of those videos then that is amazing. I don't think Forza looks that great though but maybe that's just me. I also think Killzone is one of the nicest looking games I've ever seen. I really can't wait to get Ryse home and play it though tbh. I really want to see it for myself. It makes no sense for that game to be so far ahead of all the other xb1 games graphically. It makes me think it's too good to be true lol.
KB-- That's not what I'm suggesting. I'm sure the native is superior. My point is the Dev willing to spend the money to achieve that difference when it is slight. I mean the tech heads with massive tvs could probable tell the the difference. Is the average COD gamer? Its a cost benefit analysis. Why spend x money more to achieve something most people won't even notice when you can use the scaler and turn that into profits.
It seems like the tables have turned somewhat from this gen. Lazy developers, unoptimized tools, 'takes more time to getting used to the hardware' were excuses that playstation fanboys were coming up with in the early years of ps3 when multiplats were looking inferior compared to 360.
Not that it matters in this case, because cod is looking crap regardless of resolution. But some of the talking points of playstation fanboys from this generation are being plagiarized by xbox fanboys now.
Not that it matters in this case, because cod is looking crap regardless of resolution. But some of the talking points of playstation fanboys from this generation are being plagiarized by xbox fanboys now.
I think the role reversal is a total over simplification at this point. I mean the PS3 had games released on it that were more than just resolution issues. There were some really shabby ports released that went beyond just resolutions, but that had horrid frame rates and alaising issues. In a way Sony really created the focus on graphics last gen with their whole Xbox 1.5 comments.
I actually think what the devs are saying is probable true. They never really thought being native 1080p would be an issue. What excuse do XBO fans need?
There is just a lot of assertions being made based on the resolutions of game everyone agrees is an ancient engine and looks like crap?
The one piece of actual evidence I have seen regrading power that seems to be coming from multiple big named dev is that the systems are close. Closer than last gen. Given where I thought the consoles where in june when I pre-order I have nothing to worry about.
I actually think what the devs are saying is probable true. They never really thought being native 1080p would be an issue. What excuse do XBO fans need?
There is just a lot of assertions being made based on the resolutions of game everyone agrees is an ancient engine and looks like crap?
The one piece of actual evidence I have seen regrading power that seems to be coming from multiple big named dev is that the systems are close. Closer than last gen. Given where I thought the consoles where in june when I pre-order I have nothing to worry about.
Nonsensical gibberish insult post to avoid admitting you were wrong and likely still don't understand opinions and facts, despite the helpful (for kids) link. This is what's going through your head apparently.
Now here's some more raw PS4 footage. Pretty much the best looking game at PS4 launch. Watch if you're serious.
http://killzone.dl.playstation.net/killzone/kzsf_multiplayer/KZSF_HIGHTBITRATE_H264.zip
& to add, not even working properly (kinect), or limited (TV) in many nations. I have in the past defence Kinect, as well as media features, but NOT when they are at the expense of the game experience!The PS4 maybe more powerful, but the XB1 has Kinect 2.0 and TV to balance everything out.
MS made a lot of right decisions; delicated servers, cloud compute, great ads, exclusive deals, voice commands etc to name a few, but the 2 big mistakes they made (in my view), price & spec, happened to be the 2 of the most critical points of a eletronics product, let alone a game console, & dimnishes massively on the positives they have added to the box. These will cost them dearly in my view.
Ouch!
I feel the X1 will have the upper hand on this by running the game at 720p.
Granted this is pure laziness from the developers and bad quality control from Sony.
MS quality control is light years ahead of Sony regarding games certification.
Dat PS4 1080p!
Call of Duty: Ghosts PS4 review: Haunted by the past | Joystiq
I feel the X1 will have the upper hand on this by running the game at 720p.
Granted this is pure laziness from the developers and bad quality control from Sony.
MS quality control is light years ahead of Sony regarding games certification.
Dat PS4 1080p!
Call of Duty: Ghosts PS4 review: Haunted by the past | Joystiq
Not good for PS4 folk, but the real question is...does it slow down in MP ? if not then not many people will care. I do find it odd how they do not mention it at all when talking about the MP. You would have thought they would have said right offf the bat that the technical slowdowns didn't happen here.
It sounds to me like only on campaign however game magazines barely touch MP aspects of the games. Such a shame.
So if they find it acceptable to release the PS4 version like this, how bad was the XB1 version that it had to have its resolution reduced?.
That's my point. Someone was paying attention.
Who knows how the partnership works between IW and MS but I know games has to go through a certification.
I'm betting the X1 version will run smoothly. Just because they relaxed the resolution.
This new Ghost game has to be the most un-optimized version ever when the PC version will not start if you don't have 6 Gigs of RAM. Imagine on a console.
I can imagine on a game such BF4 or Crysis where lot is going on but COD? Really? Is it the dog or the fishies?
http://www.incgamers.com/2013/11/pc-users-suggest-call-duty-ghosts-6gb-ram-requirement-artificial
Last edited:
COD:G doesn't look THAT bad...kinda...on PC
The game looks the same as always just higher res on PC, looks terrible.
Thank goodness the mode most will actually play (mp)runs good
Actually also happens in MP. I just found out from Giant Bomb
http://www.giantbomb.com/reviews/call-of-duty-ghosts-review/1900-603/
Not sure. IGN review doesn't mention it:
http://www.ign.com/articles/2013/11/05/call-of-duty-ghosts-review
This is possible, in part, because of cross-generation, cross-platform feature parity. Character customization, maps, dynamic events, weapons, gametypes, and constant 60fps multiplayer framerates are ubiquitous across current- and next-gen platforms. (So far I’ve tested the Xbox 360, PlayStation 3, and PlayStation 4 versions.) The biggest variations between platforms falls upon visuals and player counts. On the current-gen versions Ghosts looks nearly identical, though I did encounter occasional framerate issues during the single-player campaign on PS3 and PS4.
- Status