Metro remaster set is 1080p/60fps on PS4, 900p/60fps on Xbox One

#131vigorm0rtisPosted 7/12/2014 8:16:21 PM
BushidoEffect3 posted...
Yikes wish ps4 would release some games

Same old argument again. On a multiplatform game topic. You or someone said the same on COD topics.




Thing is, I do wish this. There are no PS4 exclusives I want. So I'm left with choosing an inferior machine because the better one has nominally better specs but no games. I mean, the TV in my nerdcave is only 720p, since owning 1080 in a TV under 50" is fairly pointless. I'm likely to drop the dime on a 4k tv and upgrading my PC before I worry about the PS4's tiny degree of superiority on games I don't care about.
---
"'Grab the guns!' 'What about the troll?' 'Leave the troll.'"--ATHF http://i.imgur.com/D9R0iaQ.gif
#132quincy2000aPosted 7/12/2014 9:25:00 PM
Sin_Angelus_ posted...
Nah, I'm going call to you out, especially when it's an argument that you started by posting that link to nitpick. Don't play the "ignore" card, that's not how mature people discuss things.


You consider it nitpicking--I consider it telling the truth. You accused me of "wasting your time" above, that's why I suggested the ignore feature. I have not problem discussing with anyone--but if I feel that you are "wasting my time," I'm not going to bother. I view a discussion as just that--not a "waste of my time."


Sin_Angelus_ posted...
Stop being so defensive. If you're going to post on these boards, especially when scrutinizing over minor details, posting links and bolding words as if it's something major, expect to be criticized.


I bold and italicize for emphasis, drawing the readers' attention to points I think are of importance, not necessarily major, just warranting some emphasis. And criticism? I have no problem with that, especially with the denial many here revel in.


Sin_Angelus_ posted...
Yea, the hardware is so second class that the difference in multi-plats at this point is "minor". This is why I asked you not to waste everyone's time here. You seem to have some kind of agenda by calling a piece of plastic "second-class", even though that's clearly not the case (and both systems are second class to PC anyway). When you behave like that expect your opinions to be disregarded because of your obvious bias. And then, what's the point of posting anyway? If you want to be taken seriously, pick your battles and stop going tit for tat like that. Totally identical and "identical in every way except for that one little thing that only happened once and we couldn't replicate again" is not worth arguing for 6 posts over.


Right now, of the two systems we are discussing, you get first class performance from one--the other one comes in second--that's second class. Gold, silver, bronze. That's the way it's done. If your performance isn't the best, you come in second. In terms of being taken seriously, that's not a concern--because I see the denial taking place on these boards and the way most people deal with it. And in terms of use of the word identical, you might want to check a good dictionary for the definition. If you don't mean identical, you shouldn't say identical.


Sin_Angelus_ posted...
Good for you. If you want to scrutinize over minor differences as a basis for your own game selection that's fine, just don't exaggerate.


If you can point out one time I exaggerated, I'd appreciate it. As always, I stress the use of words like subjective and preference. What might be minor to one person might be major to another, depending on how it affects that person. That's subjective.
---
"Correct. Xbox One is Kinect." Microsoft VP
Really...seems this Day One Edition purchaser was "Madoff-ed by Microsoft."
#133Sin_Angelus_Posted 7/12/2014 10:52:32 PM(edited)
GuiltySoul2005 posted...
multiplats will ALWAYS, ALWAYS better on ps4. xbone hardware is inferior compare to ps4. no contest.

why does Wolfenstein look totally identical on both consoles?

He then tells you the differences and you cry that they are minor. What is wrong with you?


I think the better question is what's wrong with your brain. First of all, that second quote isn't from me (since you seem to be implying that it was), and I never said they were totally identical. I said it was silly to nitpick over minor differences when the article said they were basically identical except for a minor occurrence or 2 that they couldn't even replicate. Next time, make sure you know what you're talking about before giving me middle-school-girl-attitude there.

quincy2000a posted...
You consider it nitpicking--I consider it telling the truth.


And that's your opinion which is fine, but my opinion is that it's a waste of everyone's time to continue to post about such minor differences. You said your piece about it, there's no need to keep posting it in italics and bold print, making it seem more serious than it is when even the article is downplaying the differences. And don't tell me to put me you on ignore because I disagree with what merits a post and what doesn't. That's basically telling me to put you on ignore because I don't agree with you, and surely you don't want to be that kind of person.

quincy2000a posted...
I have no problem with that, especially with the denial many here revel in


You're watering down your opinion here by revealing your bias again. At the very least, the alleged denial shown from the Xbox fans is equal to the persistent trolling from the Sony side. To only mention one without mentioning the other shows that your arguments are too subjective to taken seriously.

quincy2000a posted...
And in terms of use of the word identical, you might want to check a good dictionary for the definition. If you don't mean identical, you shouldn't say identical.


I never said they were totally identical, I said it's dumb for you to keep harping about minor differences that the reviewers couldn't even replicate once. You may want to look up "beating a dead horse to the point where everyone ignores your opinion."

quincy2000a posted...
If you can point out one time I exaggerated, I'd appreciate it.


I personally think that drawing out the discussion like this over only a minor difference is an exaggeration in and of itself, but you're right, that's just my opinion. Nonetheless, you asked me to point it out, so there it is. You seem like a decent guy and all but honestly, issues like this don't need to be drawn out so far. There's already enough posts on this board that just waste people's time with biased nonsense, from both sides. Let's drop the little stuff and move on to something else.
#134Trigg3rH4ppyPosted 7/12/2014 11:00:41 PM
LEGEND_725 posted...
Yikes wish ps4 would release some games


be careful, it's a moddable offense to say that around here.

I'm not joking either
---
http://i.imgur.com/9J7Prgg.jpg
TWSSted since~ 3/27/12
#135BushidoEffect3(Topic Creator)Posted 7/12/2014 11:11:44 PM
Sin_Angelus_ posted...
minor differences

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UzuT0uA9snE

More can and will be done by developers in the future. You will see. Fallout 4, Elder Scroll 6. The shoe will be on the other foot this time around. And it will be very noticeable, as it was when FO3 and Skyrim were compared between PS3 and 360.

Remember the mass frustration for PS3 users when Bethesda initially said PS3 would never get the DLC for Skyrim due to hardware issues they had? Well they did, but they had to go directly to Sony engineers to help them figure how to optimize for the Cell processor better. And only 3 months later PS3 finally got Dawnguard and Dragonborn. Long wait for many who assumed it would be on time. Then there's the game itself- PS3 Skyrim framerate was BAD for several weeks until new patches. 360 was better. More stuttering on PS3 as well.

So keep that in mind for future huge open world games games like Fallout and TES, those are the ones that require a lot of power and RAM. But this time it's X1 with the older DD3 and eSRAM bottleneck. Time will tell how Bethesda adapts to it, and if it will affect framerate and stability like what PS3 FO and Skyrim had to deal with. As well as delayed DLC.
---
http://i.imgur.com/exzrVRj.jpg, http://i.imgur.com/35CqqSt.gif
http://youtu.be/lyOHNjZ-2qM
#136Darkshadow6400Posted 7/12/2014 11:50:24 PM
BushidoEffect3 posted...
Sin_Angelus_ posted...
minor differences

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UzuT0uA9snE

More can and will be done by developers in the future. You will see. Fallout 4, Elder Scroll 6. The shoe will be on the other foot this time around. And it will be very noticeable, as it was when FO3 and Skyrim were compared between PS3 and 360.

Remember the mass frustration for PS3 users when Bethesda initially said PS3 would never get the DLC for Skyrim due to hardware issues they had? Well they did, but they had to go directly to Sony engineers to help them figure how to optimize for the Cell processor better. And only 3 months later PS3 finally got Dawnguard and Dragonborn. Long wait for many who assumed it would be on time. Then there's the game itself- PS3 Skyrim framerate was BAD for several weeks until new patches. 360 was better. More stuttering on PS3 as well.

So keep that in mind for future huge open world games games like Fallout and TES, those are the ones that require a lot of power and RAM. But this time it's X1 with the older DD3 and eSRAM bottleneck. Time will tell how Bethesda adapts to it, and if it will affect framerate and stability like what PS3 FO and Skyrim had to deal with. As well as delayed DLC.


You know the PS4 has DDR3 in it as well right? GDDR5 is different to DDR5. From my understanding of it, GDDR5 is built on DDR3 but has a higher bandwidth and mainly used for graphics, hence the 'G'. But at the end of the day, it's just the same DDR3 found in the Xbox One, but with an increased bandwidth.

Anyone can feel free to correct me, as I'm not tech savvy when it comes to building PCs and the like.
---
There are things worth fighting for. And then there is optional DLC in a video game...
#137BushidoEffect3(Topic Creator)Posted 7/12/2014 11:53:58 PM
its still slower. period. My point about intensive games is the same. I said time will tell how Bethesda deals with both.
---
http://i.imgur.com/exzrVRj.jpg, http://i.imgur.com/35CqqSt.gif
http://youtu.be/lyOHNjZ-2qM
#138JiZamezPosted 7/12/2014 11:54:51 PM
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/3522383/memes/AcceptanceGraphic1.jpg

All of you are step 4.
---
http://psnprofiles.com/MapleStory
#139Darkshadow6400Posted 7/13/2014 12:05:17 AM
BushidoEffect3 posted...
its still slower. period. My point about intensive games is the same. I said time will tell how Bethesda deals with both.


I wasn't arguing it that it was slower, I just wanted to point out the fact that you said that the Xbox One uses "older" DD3, which I'm going to assume you meant DDR3. DDR3 is the latest implementation of DDR. The GDDR5 found in the PS4 is built on that, but pools in graphics resources as well, so the RAM is shared across the CPU and the GPU. This allows for community processing and address transferring which is a highly effective means of transport because it doesn't have to transfer data to a gpu, back, then back again
---
There are things worth fighting for. And then there is optional DLC in a video game...
#140BushidoEffect3(Topic Creator)Posted 7/13/2014 12:09:38 AM
Darkshadow6400 posted...
uses "older"


I mean an older implementation. sorry for not putting that there the first time. PS4s setup is longer lasting for developers yes. GDDR5 is better for graphics and gaming. DDR3 is still good for PCs since it's a multipurpose machine.
---
http://i.imgur.com/exzrVRj.jpg, http://i.imgur.com/35CqqSt.gif
http://youtu.be/lyOHNjZ-2qM