Consoles are FAR more powerful than people realize (AMD's Revolution)

#41SinisterSlayPosted 10/17/2013 5:30:26 PM
Foxx3k posted...
TheChiefWhip posted...
Foxx3k posted...
TheChiefWhip posted...
Joke topic.

Dev's are already hitting walls with the new console hardware. Plus the games are upscaled to 1080p in an age where 1080p is the ******* norm.


1080p isn't the norm for video games. Not at all. You can call it the expectation, but "norm" is flat out incorrect.


1080p is the norm. **** it's been 6/7 years since 1080p has been the norm & to top it off 30 fps in 2013? REALLY?

A game that is 30 fps & not 1080p is unacceptable in 2013.


In what way can you possibly support that the norm for video games is 1080P? I am deeply curious to see what you are using to support the claim that it's been the norm for the past seven years, which is a flat out laughable claim.

Here's my support that it isn't: There are barely any video games that are natively 1080P. Console market is bigger than PC market, and PC market isn't even 100% 1080P.


PC market is 100% 1080P?

What???

Are we stuck in 2003 before wide screen resolutions, then I guess we were all around 1600 x 1200.

Poor console peasants, you don't even realize that PC games don't have a "native" resolution, they are every resolution. If I want, I can play BF4 at 50,000 x 1080 if I want, or I can play at 200 x 100 if I want, the game doesn't care either way.
---
He who stumbles around in darkness with a stick is blind. But he who... sticks out in darkness... is... fluorescent! - Brother Silence
#42Foxx3kPosted 10/17/2013 5:32:33 PM
SinisterSlay posted...
Foxx3k posted...
TheChiefWhip posted...
Foxx3k posted...
TheChiefWhip posted...
Joke topic.

Dev's are already hitting walls with the new console hardware. Plus the games are upscaled to 1080p in an age where 1080p is the ******* norm.


1080p isn't the norm for video games. Not at all. You can call it the expectation, but "norm" is flat out incorrect.


1080p is the norm. **** it's been 6/7 years since 1080p has been the norm & to top it off 30 fps in 2013? REALLY?

A game that is 30 fps & not 1080p is unacceptable in 2013.


In what way can you possibly support that the norm for video games is 1080P? I am deeply curious to see what you are using to support the claim that it's been the norm for the past seven years, which is a flat out laughable claim.

Here's my support that it isn't: There are barely any video games that are natively 1080P. Console market is bigger than PC market, and PC market isn't even 100% 1080P.


PC market is 100% 1080P?

What???

Are we stuck in 2003 before wide screen resolutions, then I guess we were all around 1600 x 1200.

Poor console peasants, you don't even realize that PC games don't have a "native" resolution, they are every resolution. If I want, I can play BF4 at 50,000 x 1080 if I want, or I can play at 200 x 100 if I want, the game doesn't care either way.


You seem to be misunderstanding, well, basically everything. But, by all means, continue being that horrible type of person that you are.
---
[LanParty nF4 Ultra-D] [AMD64 3700+ San Diego] [2x 1gb Corsair XMS 3-3-3-8] [2x 250gb Barracuda] [Soundblaster Audigy 2 ZS] [X850XTPE]
#43MasteroftheArtsPosted 10/17/2013 6:10:59 PM
sworder posted...
Foxx3k posted...
The BF4 images look much better.


Look at the gloves. Extreme details and textures on KZ, low quality textures on BF. The lighting on the guns are better on KZ. Look at the ground, the water drops and the tiles look great while BF has crappy grass and paper that is literally painted on the road

You guys can be in denial all you want but lol PC


1) Once again because you just can't seem to get it through your head, it's a beta build. It will look significantly better at launch. There's already an article of DICE's producer explaining how the build that you're seeing in the screenshots is not remotely the same build they have now.

2) Those pictures do not look remotely better. Killzone does the exact same thing every past Killzone has done. They pull back the draw distances and add a fog effect to hide distant imperfections. They also completely over-saturate the colors to give it a futuristic/dreamy effect. It's even more over-the-top because the franchise isn't as linear as the previous installments, so there are plenty of these vista-shots which give the illusion of good graphics without actually having to optimize well.

Keep thinking a launch title on a system running middle-of-the-road specs will look remotely as advanced as a game that is releasing on PC.
---
"I refuse to prove that I exist" says God. "For proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing..."
#44sworderPosted 10/17/2013 6:37:48 PM
We shall see

http://www.gamepur.com/files/images/2011/bf3-pc-max-setting.jpg
http://www.gamepur.com/files/images/2011/mw3-pc-max-setting.jpg
http://images.bit-tech.net/content_images/2011/11/battlefield-3-technical-analysis/preset-ultra.jpg

Still looks better than BF3 at max
#45xHughJasxPosted 10/17/2013 8:35:08 PM
MasteroftheArts posted...
sworder posted...
Foxx3k posted...
The BF4 images look much better.


Look at the gloves. Extreme details and textures on KZ, low quality textures on BF. The lighting on the guns are better on KZ. Look at the ground, the water drops and the tiles look great while BF has crappy grass and paper that is literally painted on the road

You guys can be in denial all you want but lol PC


1) Once again because you just can't seem to get it through your head, it's a beta build. It will look significantly better at launch. There's already an article of DICE's producer explaining how the build that you're seeing in the screenshots is not remotely the same build they have now.

2) Those pictures do not look remotely better. Killzone does the exact same thing every past Killzone has done. They pull back the draw distances and add a fog effect to hide distant imperfections. They also completely over-saturate the colors to give it a futuristic/dreamy effect. It's even more over-the-top because the franchise isn't as linear as the previous installments, so there are plenty of these vista-shots which give the illusion of good graphics without actually having to optimize well.

Keep thinking a launch title on a system running middle-of-the-road specs will look remotely as advanced as a game that is releasing on PC.


You do know the kz pics are beta as well right? The bf pics look awful compared to kz in those pics. Sorry man. When both games launch, they will both look very very good.
---
If there wasn't people who blindly defended themselves when proven full of s*** time and again, there'd be no religious people.Or republicans. -jowephocks
#46DesperateMonkeyPosted 10/18/2013 5:58:21 PM(edited)
sworder posted...
We shall see

http://www.gamepur.com/files/images/2011/bf3-pc-max-setting.jpg
http://www.gamepur.com/files/images/2011/mw3-pc-max-setting.jpg
http://images.bit-tech.net/content_images/2011/11/battlefield-3-technical-analysis/preset-ultra.jpg

Still looks better than BF3 at max


Again, you go on the "subjective" qualification of looking better. Its the same as saying Mario 64 looks better than Killzone. It means nothing. You clearly haven't a clue as to what you are talking about. BF3 looks worlds better from a technical standpoint, not only because Killzone renders a draw distance and world size a fraction of that of BF3, with everything else covered up by smoke and fog. From a technical standpoint, KZ is crap.
---
GT: ZiiX360 PSN: BoxFighter85
PC: i7 930@4Ghz | EX58 UD5 | GTX 460 SLI | 8GB DDR3 | 500GB Spinpoint | Vertex 2 180 SSD | Cooler Master HAF X | VG236H
#47sworderPosted 10/18/2013 5:47:37 PM
I'm not talking about which renders more. I'm talking about which looks better

That's Killzone
#48DesperateMonkeyPosted 10/18/2013 5:58:53 PM
I've seen plenty of SNES games that look better than Killzone.
---
GT: ZiiX360 PSN: BoxFighter85
PC: i7 930@4Ghz | EX58 UD5 | GTX 460 SLI | 8GB DDR3 | 500GB Spinpoint | Vertex 2 180 SSD | Cooler Master HAF X | VG236H