720p, 900p, and 1080p make no difference

This topic is locked from further discussion.

Avatar image for Basinboy
Basinboy

14559

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 19

User Lists: 0

#51 Basinboy
Member since 2003 • 14559 Posts

Y so butthurt TC?

You're making yourself look silly

Avatar image for superclocked
superclocked

5864

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#52 superclocked
Member since 2009 • 5864 Posts

If resolution and sharper images don't matter, then people wouldn't be upgrading to HDTV's. Resolution does in fact matter, especially for online gaming. You can see further in the distance when the resolution is higher...

Avatar image for emgesp
emgesp

7849

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#53 emgesp
Member since 2004 • 7849 Posts

Avatar image for LordOfPoms
LordOfPoms

1138

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#54 LordOfPoms
Member since 2013 • 1138 Posts

@Thunder7151: Yes, they do. This isn't a debate, 1080p is better than 720p. It's not an argument, it's just a fact.

Avatar image for xxgunslingerxx
xxgunslingerxx

4275

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#55 xxgunslingerxx
Member since 2005 • 4275 Posts

@kazrium said:

@FIipMode said:
@kazrium said:

@FIipMode said:

@kazrium said:

It's peculiar to me that after watching the side by side comparison of Battlefield 4, even at the lower resolution the XO seems to look better than the PS4. What trickery is this MS?

Could it be that resolution is not the only factor in a games graphical presentation? Couldn't be, ...right?

What comparison are you looking at where the XO version looks better?

Link

My fine sir.

Alright, odd that you cam to the conclusion XO looks better though, DF themselves say the PS4 version is noticeably better in looks and performance.

I can only speak to what my eyes perceive. What one says does not hold as much weight in my mind.

pause it at any point in the video and the x1 version has a lot of jaggies I am willing to be on a proper video feed the jaggies will be 10x more noticeable.

the x1 verison only looks darker which seems to make you think it looks better. Also there is a screen comparison going around showing that the x1 was missing a lot of background elements

Avatar image for Kingpin0114
Kingpin0114

2607

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#56 Kingpin0114
Member since 2008 • 2607 Posts

It has been a really rough year for lems so far.

Avatar image for danabo
danabo

2438

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#57 danabo
Member since 2003 • 2438 Posts

@superclocked said:

If resolution and sharper images don't matter, then people wouldn't be upgrading to HDTV's. Resolution does in fact matter, especially for online gaming. You can see further in the distance when the resolution is higher...

Have you tried to buy a new SDTV?

I still use my 32' SDTV, for watching TV. Most stations don't broadcast HDTV here, and the difference doesn't, in fact, matter.

Avatar image for Murderstyle75
Murderstyle75

4412

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#58  Edited By Murderstyle75
Member since 2011 • 4412 Posts

@AmazonTreeBoa:

You can see the difference based off of what? Another set you have? Those differences aren't always based off of resolution. Example? I have a 720p Panasonic which was the best in its class when I bought it which outperforms both my 1080p Vizio and entry level 1080p Samsung in every single way.

And as I said earlier, settings mean a lot as well.

You say you see the difference yet all the experts as well as enthusiasts at sites like AVS say you are full of shit.

Avatar image for Zophar87
Zophar87

4344

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#59 Zophar87
Member since 2008 • 4344 Posts

@Thunder7151:

Still trying to justify that $500 purchase?

Avatar image for APiranhaAteMyVa
APiranhaAteMyVa

4160

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#60  Edited By APiranhaAteMyVa
Member since 2011 • 4160 Posts

@danabo said:

@APiranhaAteMyVa said:

@danabo said:

@wingman3030 said:

It's not a big deal, but the system that's 100 dollars less shouldn't be the system with the better performing games.

Yep.

MS need to drop the price, fast.

It's not as if they are making $100 profit on each console, Kinect 2 cost a significant amount to include. Both consoles are likely to be breaking even at best. Microsoft deem the inclusion of kinect necessary, and as the original sold 24 million+, they deem it more of a worthwhile inclusion than improved graphics (and only in a couple of launch games so far), that the majority of gamers outside of forums won't care about.

I also think Live has a greater impact than the improved hardware of PS4, I guess we will see what sales figures are like. I can see the Xbone selling extremely well, and there will be no need for a price drop for a while.

I was one of the original Kinect buyers, and I actually enjoyed my time with Kinectimals, Adventures, and the Kinect Labs mini-games/apps.

But at $100 (£75 here) extra with inferior hardware. Kinect + XBL don't make up the difference when the core hardware isn't performing. The price should be cut as fast as the original Xbox, to compete, and they should offer some free games up for early adopters (like the original Xbox 1).

I still abide by my comments that I prefer the Xbox One launch line-up.

So what about the Xbone hardware isn't worthwhile? GDDR5 ram (which graphics cards on PCs are coming with 6+ now) and a better GPU? What about the other components and services the Xbox offers? dedicated servers for all games, HDMI in, the superior upscaler and audio chip.

Kinect 2 does make up the difference, it might not to you, which in the grand scheme of things along with every other person on system wars is pretty much irrelevant to what matters to the average gamer in the real world. Kinect is the fastest selling consumer electronic device, and selling 24 million for a console add on is no easy task.

Microsoft unless sales are dreadful which at this point people have zero evidence for, have no reason to reduce the price. Just because COD plays at 720p on the console is not a reason, this is a 6-7 year cycle, and judging how games will look and perform from two launch games is hardly the best way to judge. Ryse looks great, Forza is 1080/60 and there are other third party games that are 1080/60 too. I fully expect the PS4 to be the most powerful console, but how many wanted Sony to drop the price of the PS2 to compete with gamecube? zero, because no one cared (well no one but the Sheep, who had 1 game a year to keep them occupied on their superior hardware).

Avatar image for kazrium
kazrium

1634

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 4

User Lists: 0

#61  Edited By kazrium
Member since 2006 • 1634 Posts

@FIipMode said:
@Thunder7151 said:

@FIipMode said:
@kazrium said:

@FIipMode said:

@kazrium said:

It's peculiar to me that after watching the side by side comparison of Battlefield 4, even at the lower resolution the XO seems to look better than the PS4. What trickery is this MS?

Could it be that resolution is not the only factor in a games graphical presentation? Couldn't be, ...right?

What comparison are you looking at where the XO version looks better?

Link

My fine sir.

Alright, odd that you cam to the conclusion XO looks better though, DF themselves say the PS4 version is noticeably better in looks and performance.

Based on pictures and videos online, the XBOX ONE version of Battlefield 4 does looks better than the PS4 version. I think that's obvious to anyone who is not a Cow. However, a real-life side-by-side comparison of the two versions of BF4 might be a different story.

I just hope you're not using DF videos as a source, they admitted to not having much time to capture and fix the settings for their capture devices.

The issue here is simple; Tom had a limited amount of time to capture this stuff and was not able to do so in a normal environment. If mistakes were made normally, it would be easy to go back and correct, but with the way this worked, it wasn't really possible.

Why so different? DF uses their own hardware for capturing while DICE were handing out Elgato boxes to everyone else. The DF hardware is actually much more capable but it works differently and, without the experience of working with these new consoles, I can see a situation where settings were dialed in wrong.

Surely there must be a video online that shows the comparison in the PS4's favor. Where would one find this, so I can ease the thoughts and souls of my poor children and wife. Their lives cling only to the hope that this question will be answered. Thank you kind sir.

Avatar image for AmazonTreeBoa
AmazonTreeBoa

16745

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#62  Edited By AmazonTreeBoa
Member since 2011 • 16745 Posts

@Murderstyle75 said:

@AmazonTreeBoa:

You can see the difference based off of what? Another set you have? Those differences aren't always based off of resolution. Example? I have a 720p Panasonic which was the best in its class when I bought it which outperforms both my 1080p Vizio and entry level 1080p Samsung in every single way.

And as I said earlier, settings mean a lot as well.

You say you see the difference yet all the experts as well as enthusiasts at sites like AVS say you are full of shit.

I couldn't care less what the sites say. They don't override my eyes and the difference they see.

Avatar image for Alucard_Prime
Alucard_Prime

10107

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 23

User Lists: 0

#63  Edited By Alucard_Prime
Member since 2008 • 10107 Posts

I agree with you OP, however I will say resolution does matter to a certain extent. I went out of my way to make sure my 32 inch TV supported 1080p when I bought it a few years ago, because I knew it was going to become a standard feature soon, and I want the best possible picture. However, it's not like the X1 is going to be running games at 720p, it will be 1080p, just not native, that's all. In my case, with a 32 inch TV, and from what I've read on the internet, I will barely be able to tell the difference when I play.

The thing is I'm really looking forward to getting DR3/Ryse/KI/Forza 5/Titanfall/Crimson Dragon on the X1, and none of these games are coming out on the PS4......so am I supposed to pass all those games up because the PS4 is capable of running more games at 1080p res.??!? That is the ludicrous proposition that Sony fanboys want you to swallow.

Avatar image for superclocked
superclocked

5864

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#64  Edited By superclocked
Member since 2009 • 5864 Posts

@danabo said:

@superclocked said:

If resolution and sharper images don't matter, then people wouldn't be upgrading to HDTV's. Resolution does in fact matter, especially for online gaming. You can see further in the distance when the resolution is higher...

Have you tried to buy a new SDTV?

I still use my 32' SDTV, for watching TV. Most stations don't broadcast HDTV here, and the difference doesn't, in fact, matter.

I'm mainly a PC gamer, and yes, resolution definitely matters. Going from 720p to 1080p is big, but the difference between 480p and 1080p is HUGE...

Avatar image for Murderstyle75
Murderstyle75

4412

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#65  Edited By Murderstyle75
Member since 2011 • 4412 Posts

@AmazonTreeBoa:

And again. Do you know why your eyes are seeing what they see? How are you do sure its the resolution that's making the difference? And for the third time. Have your sets seen any type of calibration ?

Avatar image for PAL360
PAL360

30574

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 31

User Lists: 0

#66  Edited By PAL360
Member since 2007 • 30574 Posts

Performance doesn't define a good game, but it's a big deal to me. 1080p should be standard by now.

Avatar image for danabo
danabo

2438

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#67 danabo
Member since 2003 • 2438 Posts

@APiranhaAteMyVa said:

@danabo said:

@APiranhaAteMyVa said:

@danabo said:

@wingman3030 said:

It's not a big deal, but the system that's 100 dollars less shouldn't be the system with the better performing games.

Yep.

MS need to drop the price, fast.

It's not as if they are making $100 profit on each console, Kinect 2 cost a significant amount to include. Both consoles are likely to be breaking even at best. Microsoft deem the inclusion of kinect necessary, and as the original sold 24 million+, they deem it more of a worthwhile inclusion than improved graphics (and only in a couple of launch games so far), that the majority of gamers outside of forums won't care about.

I also think Live has a greater impact than the improved hardware of PS4, I guess we will see what sales figures are like. I can see the Xbone selling extremely well, and there will be no need for a price drop for a while.

I was one of the original Kinect buyers, and I actually enjoyed my time with Kinectimals, Adventures, and the Kinect Labs mini-games/apps.

But at $100 (£75 here) extra with inferior hardware. Kinect + XBL don't make up the difference when the core hardware isn't performing. The price should be cut as fast as the original Xbox, to compete, and they should offer some free games up for early adopters (like the original Xbox 1).

I still abide by my comments that I prefer the Xbox One launch line-up.

So what about the Xbone hardware isn't worthwhile? GDDR5 ram (which graphics cards on PCs are coming with 6+ now) and a better GPU? What about the other components and services the Xbox offers? dedicated servers for all games, HDMI in, the superior upscaler and audio chip.

Kinect 2 does make up the difference, it might not to you, which in the grand scheme of things along with every other person on system wars is pretty much irrelevant to what matters to the average gamer in the real world. Kinect is the fastest selling consumer electronic device, and selling 24 million for a console add on is no easy task.

Microsoft unless sales are dreadful which at this point people have zero evidence for, have no reason to reduce the price. Just because COD plays at 720p on the console is not a reason, this is a 6-7 year cycle, and judging how games will look and perform from two launch games is hardly the best way to judge. Ryse looks great, Forza is 1080/60 and there are other third party games that are 1080/60 too. I fully expect the PS4 to be the most powerful console, but how many wanted Sony to drop the price of the PS2 to compete with gamecube? zero, because no one cared (well no one but the Sheep, who had 1 game a year to keep them occupied on their superior hardware).

The Gamecube price was dropped here to compete with the PS2, the Xbox price was dropped here to compete with the PS2, the Dreamcast price was dropped here to compete with the PS2.

The Xbox One hardware is inferior to their competitor's at $100 (£75) extra. I'm sold on the features, games, and content - these are are all purchased separately or behind paywalls. I'm not sold on buying inferior hardware for extra cash, and I don't see the added value, myself.

Avatar image for SirSlimyScrotum
SirSlimyScott

275

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 6

User Lists: 0

#68  Edited By SirSlimyScott
Member since 2013 • 275 Posts

If it was the other way round I'm sure you'd be saying otherwise.

Avatar image for APiranhaAteMyVa
APiranhaAteMyVa

4160

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#69 APiranhaAteMyVa
Member since 2011 • 4160 Posts
@superclocked said:

If resolution and sharper images don't matter, then people wouldn't be upgrading to HDTV's. Resolution does in fact matter, especially for online gaming. You can see further in the distance when the resolution is higher...

Many reasons, but how many are regularly watching HD content on them? Judging by dwindling sales of Blurays and the sales the Wii had compared to 360/PS3, not many seem to care. A lot of people update every 5 years or so, so now if you upgrade to a new TV it is HD or nothing.

People will buy something new if they are told it is better without actually understanding how it is better. I have been in many houses that have HDTVs watching SD content and they think it is HD because that is what the TV is sold as.

Avatar image for deactivated-58e448fd89d82
deactivated-58e448fd89d82

4494

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#70 deactivated-58e448fd89d82
Member since 2010 • 4494 Posts

@danabo said:

@APiranhaAteMyVa said:

@danabo said:

@APiranhaAteMyVa said:

@danabo said:

@wingman3030 said:

It's not a big deal, but the system that's 100 dollars less shouldn't be the system with the better performing games.

Yep.

MS need to drop the price, fast.

It's not as if they are making $100 profit on each console, Kinect 2 cost a significant amount to include. Both consoles are likely to be breaking even at best. Microsoft deem the inclusion of kinect necessary, and as the original sold 24 million+, they deem it more of a worthwhile inclusion than improved graphics (and only in a couple of launch games so far), that the majority of gamers outside of forums won't care about.

I also think Live has a greater impact than the improved hardware of PS4, I guess we will see what sales figures are like. I can see the Xbone selling extremely well, and there will be no need for a price drop for a while.

I was one of the original Kinect buyers, and I actually enjoyed my time with Kinectimals, Adventures, and the Kinect Labs mini-games/apps.

But at $100 (£75 here) extra with inferior hardware. Kinect + XBL don't make up the difference when the core hardware isn't performing. The price should be cut as fast as the original Xbox, to compete, and they should offer some free games up for early adopters (like the original Xbox 1).

I still abide by my comments that I prefer the Xbox One launch line-up.

So what about the Xbone hardware isn't worthwhile? GDDR5 ram (which graphics cards on PCs are coming with 6+ now) and a better GPU? What about the other components and services the Xbox offers? dedicated servers for all games, HDMI in, the superior upscaler and audio chip.

Kinect 2 does make up the difference, it might not to you, which in the grand scheme of things along with every other person on system wars is pretty much irrelevant to what matters to the average gamer in the real world. Kinect is the fastest selling consumer electronic device, and selling 24 million for a console add on is no easy task.

Microsoft unless sales are dreadful which at this point people have zero evidence for, have no reason to reduce the price. Just because COD plays at 720p on the console is not a reason, this is a 6-7 year cycle, and judging how games will look and perform from two launch games is hardly the best way to judge. Ryse looks great, Forza is 1080/60 and there are other third party games that are 1080/60 too. I fully expect the PS4 to be the most powerful console, but how many wanted Sony to drop the price of the PS2 to compete with gamecube? zero, because no one cared (well no one but the Sheep, who had 1 game a year to keep them occupied on their superior hardware).

The Gamecube price was dropped here to compete with the PS2, the Xbox price was dropped here to compete with the PS2, the Dreamcast price was dropped here to compete with the PS2.

The Xbox One hardware is inferior to their competitor's at $100 (£75) extra. I'm sold on the features, games, and content - these are are all purchased separately or behind paywalls. I'm not sold on buying inferior hardware for extra cash, and I don't see the added value, myself.

Wrong, Dreamcast was always cheaper, also a superior console for games.

Avatar image for danabo
danabo

2438

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#71 danabo
Member since 2003 • 2438 Posts

@superclocked said:

@danabo said:

@superclocked said:

If resolution and sharper images don't matter, then people wouldn't be upgrading to HDTV's. Resolution does in fact matter, especially for online gaming. You can see further in the distance when the resolution is higher...

Have you tried to buy a new SDTV?

I still use my 32' SDTV, for watching TV. Most stations don't broadcast HDTV here, and the difference doesn't, in fact, matter.

I'm mainly a PC gamer, and yes, resolution definitely matters. Going from 720p to 1080p is big, but the difference between 480p and 1080p is HUGE...

I'm not saying there's not a difference, it's just I could care less as long as the content is good. I'm still playing SNES titles.

Avatar image for princeofshapeir
princeofshapeir

16652

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 8

User Lists: 0

#72 princeofshapeir
Member since 2006 • 16652 Posts

Lemmings would like to have another gen where 720p and below is standard.

Avatar image for treedoor
treedoor

7648

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#73 treedoor
Member since 2004 • 7648 Posts

Humungous difference between 720p and 1080p. 720p is unplayable, blurry mess, and 1080p resembles real life in some cases.

However, the difference between 1080p and 1440p? Unnoticable. PS4 = PC Cool

Avatar image for danabo
danabo

2438

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#74 danabo
Member since 2003 • 2438 Posts

@AMD655 said:

Wrong, Dreamcast was always cheaper, also a superior console for games.

The Dreamcast was cheaper at launch, and the price was cut.

Avatar image for APiranhaAteMyVa
APiranhaAteMyVa

4160

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#75 APiranhaAteMyVa
Member since 2011 • 4160 Posts
@danabo said:

@APiranhaAteMyVa said:

@danabo said:

@APiranhaAteMyVa said:

@danabo said:

@wingman3030 said:

It's not a big deal, but the system that's 100 dollars less shouldn't be the system with the better performing games.

Yep.

MS need to drop the price, fast.

It's not as if they are making $100 profit on each console, Kinect 2 cost a significant amount to include. Both consoles are likely to be breaking even at best. Microsoft deem the inclusion of kinect necessary, and as the original sold 24 million+, they deem it more of a worthwhile inclusion than improved graphics (and only in a couple of launch games so far), that the majority of gamers outside of forums won't care about.

I also think Live has a greater impact than the improved hardware of PS4, I guess we will see what sales figures are like. I can see the Xbone selling extremely well, and there will be no need for a price drop for a while.

I was one of the original Kinect buyers, and I actually enjoyed my time with Kinectimals, Adventures, and the Kinect Labs mini-games/apps.

But at $100 (£75 here) extra with inferior hardware. Kinect + XBL don't make up the difference when the core hardware isn't performing. The price should be cut as fast as the original Xbox, to compete, and they should offer some free games up for early adopters (like the original Xbox 1).

I still abide by my comments that I prefer the Xbox One launch line-up.

So what about the Xbone hardware isn't worthwhile? GDDR5 ram (which graphics cards on PCs are coming with 6+ now) and a better GPU? What about the other components and services the Xbox offers? dedicated servers for all games, HDMI in, the superior upscaler and audio chip.

Kinect 2 does make up the difference, it might not to you, which in the grand scheme of things along with every other person on system wars is pretty much irrelevant to what matters to the average gamer in the real world. Kinect is the fastest selling consumer electronic device, and selling 24 million for a console add on is no easy task.

Microsoft unless sales are dreadful which at this point people have zero evidence for, have no reason to reduce the price. Just because COD plays at 720p on the console is not a reason, this is a 6-7 year cycle, and judging how games will look and perform from two launch games is hardly the best way to judge. Ryse looks great, Forza is 1080/60 and there are other third party games that are 1080/60 too. I fully expect the PS4 to be the most powerful console, but how many wanted Sony to drop the price of the PS2 to compete with gamecube? zero, because no one cared (well no one but the Sheep, who had 1 game a year to keep them occupied on their superior hardware).

The Gamecube price was dropped here to compete with the PS2, the Xbox price was dropped here to compete with the PS2, the Dreamcast price was dropped here to compete with the PS2.

The Xbox One hardware is inferior to their competitor's at $100 (£75) extra. I'm sold on the features, games, and content - these are are all purchased separately or behind paywalls. I'm not sold on buying inferior hardware for extra cash, and I don't see the added value, myself.

The Gamecube launched at £129 in the UK and $199 in US, the PS2 was £299 in the UK and $299 in the US at launch. I know for sure the PS2 didn't hit £100 in its first year on the market. The PS2 was inferior to Gamecube, yet commanded a higher price and outsold it by about 120 million units. Clearly power meant very little in the year 2001.

Avatar image for coleworldd_nc
ColeWorldd_NC

25

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 5

#76 ColeWorldd_NC
Member since 2013 • 25 Posts

Damage Control >

Avatar image for danabo
danabo

2438

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#77 danabo
Member since 2003 • 2438 Posts

@APiranhaAteMyVa said:

The Gamecube launched at £129 in the UK and $199 in US, the PS2 was £299 in the UK and $299 in the US at launch. I know for sure the PS2 didn't hit £100 in its first year on the market. The PS2 was inferior to Gamecube, yet commanded a higher price and outsold it by about 120 million units. Clearly power meant very little in the year 2001.

Aye, and the added value was in the games, to me. I'm just saying I don't see enough added value to justify the additional $100(£75).

Avatar image for GhoX
GhoX

6267

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 26

User Lists: 0

#78  Edited By GhoX
Member since 2006 • 6267 Posts

It matters on multiplats. It doesn't matter for exclusives. Multiplats dominate the games library of both PS4/X1, therefore resolution matters.

Avatar image for Murderstyle75
Murderstyle75

4412

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#80 Murderstyle75
Member since 2011 • 4412 Posts

@treedoor:

And I'm sure you are basing all of this off of sitting inches away from a PC monitor.

Avatar image for YearoftheSnake5
YearoftheSnake5

9731

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 55

User Lists: 0

#82 YearoftheSnake5
Member since 2005 • 9731 Posts

Well yeah, but the games tend to be made even better when in high resolution in 60fps. Can you still have great games in 480p? Yes, that's not in doubt. I can play Twilight Princess on my Wii in 480, but I much prefer to play it in high definition with anti-aliasing on Dolphin.

Avatar image for FIipMode
FIipMode

10850

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 8

User Lists: 0

#83 FIipMode
Member since 2009 • 10850 Posts

@kazrium said:

@FIipMode said:
@Thunder7151 said:

@FIipMode said:
@kazrium said:

@FIipMode said:

@kazrium said:

It's peculiar to me that after watching the side by side comparison of Battlefield 4, even at the lower resolution the XO seems to look better than the PS4. What trickery is this MS?

Could it be that resolution is not the only factor in a games graphical presentation? Couldn't be, ...right?

What comparison are you looking at where the XO version looks better?

Link

My fine sir.

Alright, odd that you cam to the conclusion XO looks better though, DF themselves say the PS4 version is noticeably better in looks and performance.

Based on pictures and videos online, the XBOX ONE version of Battlefield 4 does looks better than the PS4 version. I think that's obvious to anyone who is not a Cow. However, a real-life side-by-side comparison of the two versions of BF4 might be a different story.

I just hope you're not using DF videos as a source, they admitted to not having much time to capture and fix the settings for their capture devices.

The issue here is simple; Tom had a limited amount of time to capture this stuff and was not able to do so in a normal environment. If mistakes were made normally, it would be easy to go back and correct, but with the way this worked, it wasn't really possible.

Why so different? DF uses their own hardware for capturing while DICE were handing out Elgato boxes to everyone else. The DF hardware is actually much more capable but it works differently and, without the experience of working with these new consoles, I can see a situation where settings were dialed in wrong.

Surely there must be a video online that shows the comparison in the PS4's favor. Where would one find this, so I can ease the thoughts and souls of my poor children and wife. There lives cling only to the hope that this question will be answered. Thank you kind sir.

I guess you would find it in any comparison video not digital foundry.

Avatar image for kazrium
kazrium

1634

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 4

User Lists: 0

#84  Edited By kazrium
Member since 2006 • 1634 Posts

@FIipMode said:

@kazrium said:

@FIipMode said:
@Thunder7151 said:

@FIipMode said:
@kazrium said:

@FIipMode said:

@kazrium said:

It's peculiar to me that after watching the side by side comparison of Battlefield 4, even at the lower resolution the XO seems to look better than the PS4. What trickery is this MS?

Could it be that resolution is not the only factor in a games graphical presentation? Couldn't be, ...right?

What comparison are you looking at where the XO version looks better?

Link

My fine sir.

Alright, odd that you cam to the conclusion XO looks better though, DF themselves say the PS4 version is noticeably better in looks and performance.

Based on pictures and videos online, the XBOX ONE version of Battlefield 4 does looks better than the PS4 version. I think that's obvious to anyone who is not a Cow. However, a real-life side-by-side comparison of the two versions of BF4 might be a different story.

I just hope you're not using DF videos as a source, they admitted to not having much time to capture and fix the settings for their capture devices.

The issue here is simple; Tom had a limited amount of time to capture this stuff and was not able to do so in a normal environment. If mistakes were made normally, it would be easy to go back and correct, but with the way this worked, it wasn't really possible.

Why so different? DF uses their own hardware for capturing while DICE were handing out Elgato boxes to everyone else. The DF hardware is actually much more capable but it works differently and, without the experience of working with these new consoles, I can see a situation where settings were dialed in wrong.

Surely there must be a video online that shows the comparison in the PS4's favor. Where would one find this, so I can ease the thoughts and souls of my poor children and wife. There lives cling only to the hope that this question will be answered. Thank you kind sir.

I guess you would find it in any comparison video not digital foundry.

Please link this for a poor old man, my hands are failing, typing is a struggle.

Avatar image for FIipMode
FIipMode

10850

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 8

User Lists: 0

#85  Edited By FIipMode
Member since 2009 • 10850 Posts

@kazrium said:

Please link this for a poor old man, my hands are failing, typing is struggle.

You can type, look for jack frags on yt. peace

Avatar image for bumsonfire
bumsonfire

250

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 1

#86 bumsonfire
Member since 2013 • 250 Posts

Its not if u have bad Eyesight or if 1020 is the best, its seriously, ALL THE SAME. doesnt matter if xbox one is only 720p, both consoles will have amazing graphics close to what the PC will look like.

Avatar image for jhonMalcovich
jhonMalcovich

7090

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#87  Edited By jhonMalcovich
Member since 2010 • 7090 Posts

It´s pretty easy to see the difference. Just open youtube to full screen and choose diferent resolutions. By a good reason, we want to see youtube videos at hd resolutions.

Avatar image for shawn30
shawn30

4409

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#88 shawn30
Member since 2006 • 4409 Posts

@Alucard_Prime said:

I agree with you OP, however I will say resolution does matter to a certain extent. I went out of my way to make sure my 32 inch TV supported 1080p when I bought it a few years ago, because I knew it was going to become a standard feature soon, and I want the best possible picture. However, it's not like the X1 is going to be running games at 720p, it will be 1080p, just not native, that's all. In my case, with a 32 inch TV, and from what I've read on the internet, I will barely be able to tell the difference when I play.

The thing is I'm really looking forward to getting DR3/Ryse/KI/Forza 5/Titanfall/Crimson Dragon on the X1, and none of these games are coming out on the PS4......so am I supposed to pass all those games up because the PS4 is capable of running more games at 1080p res.??!? That is the ludicrous proposition that Sony fanboys want you to swallow.

I could not agree more. Its like even when you agree the PS4 versions look better, and that the PS4 specs are superior to the Xbox One, and even when you refer to sites that universally say that Battlefield looks better to them on the PS4 than the Xbox One its only when you say the difference isn't so great that they lose their minds. Heaven forbid you like the other systems games better when they aren't 1080p native. It is the most stupid argument in System Wars history, this resolution gate.

Fact: 1080p is better clarity than 720p

Fact: Those that don't see the difference being so great have a right to that opinion, and yours being different does not invalidate theirs.

Fact: If the game sucks no one will give a **** that its 1080p or not.

Fact: If the game is great no one will give a **** if its 720p or not

Avatar image for Murderstyle75
Murderstyle75

4412

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#89 Murderstyle75
Member since 2011 • 4412 Posts

@jhonMalcovich:

Another person with zero understanding about screen sizes and viewing distances.

Avatar image for superclocked
superclocked

5864

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#90 superclocked
Member since 2009 • 5864 Posts

@APiranhaAteMyVa said:
@superclocked said:

If resolution and sharper images don't matter, then people wouldn't be upgrading to HDTV's. Resolution does in fact matter, especially for online gaming. You can see further in the distance when the resolution is higher...

Many reasons, but how many are regularly watching HD content on them? Judging by dwindling sales of Blurays and the sales the Wii had compared to 360/PS3, not many seem to care. A lot of people update every 5 years or so, so now if you upgrade to a new TV it is HD or nothing.

People will buy something new if they are told it is better without actually understanding how it is better. I have been in many houses that have HDTVs watching SD content and they think it is HD because that is what the TV is sold as.

The regular channels looks awful. I only watch the HD channels. If it doesn't come in HD, then I don't watch it...

Avatar image for handssss
handssss

1907

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#91 handssss
Member since 2013 • 1907 Posts

@Suppaman100 said:

HAHAHAHAH! The damage control is epic.

Srs lemmings get over it, the Xbone is a failure. You get less for more.

Have fun with your cableboxes. LOL

Avatar image for Suppaman100
Suppaman100

5250

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#92 Suppaman100
Member since 2013 • 5250 Posts

@handssss: LOLLLLLLLLLL

Xbone 720p getting owned.

Avatar image for StriateEnd
StriateEnd

521

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#93  Edited By StriateEnd
Member since 2013 • 521 Posts

I agree. 100%. But it's not fair on the lems when they have:

1. A crap first party to depend on

2. MS money-hatting low level devs for mediocre games like Ryse

3. A weaker console with 100 quid higher price tag.

Avatar image for shawn30
shawn30

4409

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#94 shawn30
Member since 2006 • 4409 Posts

@StriateEnd said:

I agree. 100%. But it's not fair on the lems when they have:

1. A crap first party to depend on

2. MS money-hatting low level devs for mediocre games like Ryse

3. A weaker console with 100 quid higher price tag.

But you PS4 Cows have:

1. The worst launch lineup by far with literally nothing exclusive

2. A system that only has better graphics than the PS3 and nothing more

3. A parent company edging ever so closer to bankrupcy

You're welcome :)

Avatar image for princessgomez92
PrincessGomez92

5747

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 201

User Lists: 5

#95 PrincessGomez92
Member since 2013 • 5747 Posts

Indeed, they all look the same.

Avatar image for SKaREO
SKaREO

3161

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#96 SKaREO
Member since 2006 • 3161 Posts

720p is SUB-HD graphics. Dmage control more, lems.

TLHBO

Avatar image for deactivated-59d151f079814
deactivated-59d151f079814

47239

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#97 deactivated-59d151f079814
Member since 2003 • 47239 Posts

I am honestly fine with 720p upscaled to 1080p if it meant that we would see a consistent 60fps in games for both PS4 and Xbox One.

Avatar image for Suppaman100
Suppaman100

5250

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#98  Edited By Suppaman100
Member since 2013 • 5250 Posts

@shawn30 said:

@StriateEnd said:

I agree. 100%. But it's not fair on the lems when they have:

1. A crap first party to depend on

2. MS money-hatting low level devs for mediocre games like Ryse

3. A weaker console with 100 quid higher price tag.

But you PS4 Cows have:

1. The worst launch lineup by far with literally nothing exclusive

2. A system that only has better graphics than the PS3 and nothing more

3. A parent company edging ever so closer to bankrupcy

You're welcome :)

"Bu..bu..bu...launch line-up, 720p is as good as 1080p and sony will go bankrupt!" HAHAHAHAHAH! Dat damage control

Meanwhile in the real world:

Xbox made no money at all for MS and its biggest shareholders want to get rid of the Xbox division.

Xbone had the worst publicity ever and a lot of people are switching to PS.

Xbone is a kinect, casual orientated, 720p inferior multiplats, spying, bad first-party support, cablebox that will be abandoned after its first years just like the 360.

Enjoy your fail.

You're welcome :)

Avatar image for StriateEnd
StriateEnd

521

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#99  Edited By StriateEnd
Member since 2013 • 521 Posts

@shawn30 said:

@StriateEnd said:

I agree. 100%. But it's not fair on the lems when they have:

1. A crap first party to depend on

2. MS money-hatting low level devs for mediocre games like Ryse

3. A weaker console with 100 quid higher price tag.

But you PS4 Cows have:

1. The worst launch lineup by far with literally nothing exclusive

2. A system that only has better graphics than the PS3 and nothing more

3. A parent company edging ever so closer to bankrupcy

You're welcome :)

1. It is a shit line up. Same with the X1. I'm not buying the ps4 until Sony bring the big guns.... Unfortunately the only elite devs MS have are turn 10 and they are just bringing out a shinier Forza 4.. So there is literally no point in getting the x1.

2. What... What... What.... I don't think it's possible for you to make any less sense. You do know the ps4 is FACTUALLY the most powerful console ever? So it has better graphics than any other console. Including your beloved xbox 1 and 360. Why I even replied to this post I do not know....

3. I thought we were discussing games?

Keep grasping at straws!

Avatar image for handssss
handssss

1907

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#100 handssss
Member since 2013 • 1907 Posts

@shawn30 said:

@StriateEnd said:

I agree. 100%. But it's not fair on the lems when they have:

1. A crap first party to depend on

2. MS money-hatting low level devs for mediocre games like Ryse

3. A weaker console with 100 quid higher price tag.

But you PS4 Cows have:

1. The worst launch lineup by far with literally nothing exclusive

2. A system that only has better graphics than the PS3 and nothing more

3. A parent company edging ever so closer to bankrupcy

You're welcome :)

1. Incorrect on many levels and we can also add multiple free online titles (not just indies) to the list so long as you insist on trying to claim titanfall is an exclusive.

2. Incorrect. Not only have comparisons shown better graphics, but also better framerates. With better hardware, many more things than just visuals can be improved.

3. Completely irrelevant unless you own stock in the company. Also, there have been talks of Microsoft splitting off Xbox so that it is not even a division of the same company anymore.