Chief Technical Officer made the prediction, a good way into the development. I don't quite understand why you ignore it.Absolute nonsense. But I'm sure you know that that this game was running using the last generational graphical pipeline. There is nothing about this last generational game running current generational graphical features that shows it won't be able to handle current generational games especially when all XSS games will be hitting PC and most PCs have lower specs than the XSS. But hey if you can't knock the cheapest current generation console what can you knock right? How do you feel about more expensive consoles falling below 1080p? Sign of trouble ahead?
These the same guys that admitted these consoles have more power than they thought? I really think it's cool how you leave out details like that but I'm well aware of how you roll. You've managed to ignore any developer who has no issues with the XSS after all.
Do you think they are talking about XSS? It doesn't read like that to me.. considering they finish their answer specifically mentioning 4k@60. That is a resolution that it would never hit, so think it's safe to assume they aren't talking about the XSS...ultimately, the consoles did actually prove to be a lot more powerful than that initial pessimism would have led us to believe. As you start putting things in, you gradually work up towards better and better frame rates. Ultimately, we got to the point where it actually looked like the next-gen consoles were doing well enough that we'd be able to bring essentially all of the entire feature set over. So at that point, you then have to ask 'Are we going to be able to make this hit 4K@60'?
Actually have commented on those comments a fair bit and you know this.You've managed to ignore any developer who has no issues with the XSS after all.
Not make me search in your post history please. Everytime say something about them you are defensiveness. I just said why you care so much.Who said I was defending them? Wtf are you even talking about? Lol.
I literally used figures from both sources. Leaving out the absolute low end and high end as I was clearly talking about the average.The more correct math it's around 18-23% but nice try.
Neither the resolution differenceXSX still wins in my eyes though, simply more time spent looking at a prettier image. And if you have a VRR screen (if you have an XSX, and you dont then you really shouldnt have a XSX in the first place) - you wont notice majority of those dips.
I am more interested in how two different architectures fare at a technical level, perceptual differences are near irrelevant to me.I personally prefer FPS to res if its within reason but really dude? You think that minor hitch will effect all that much over the course of the game?
Riky would be proud of this post.XSX still wins in my eyes though, simply more time spent looking at a prettier image. And if you have a VRR screen (if you have an XSX, and you dont then you really shouldnt have a XSX in the first place) - you wont notice majority of those dips.
What's the point of make the average of two different analysis? It has no sense at all.I literally used figures from both sources. Leaving out the absolute low end and high end as I was clearly talking about the average.
If using the highest vs lowest numbers both DF and VGtech were able to find, then the range would be from 15%-33% difference in favor of the XSX.
Because both analysis are valid? The DRS range appears to be quite large, but the 4 examples given from both sources are all remarkably close to each other.What's the point of make the average of two different analysis? It has no sense at all.
Not make me search in your post history please. Everytime say something about them you are defensiveness. I just said why you care so much.
Me ah? Quite convenient backpedal. But sure.Bit creepy but okay, you do you.
Let's not continue to derail the thread.
Remarkable close? There is an huge difference between the 2. One of the two should be wrong and looking to the sharpness difference in the DF video already suspected the counts wasn't correct at all. Ps5 would be more blurred if the DF difference was correct.Because both analysis are valid? The DRS range appears to be quite large, but the 4 examples given from both sources are all remarkably close to each other.
I'm referring to the 4 different like for like comparisons given. You know, the ones I listed in my post? 22/23.5% vs 25/25%. I'd say that is rather close.Remarkable close? There is an huge difference between the 2.
VGtech said the maximum resolution on both is 1660p doh. And how around 1200p-1500p Vs 1500p-1800p DRS is it comparable to 1440p vs 1660p?I'm referring to the 4 different like for like comparisons given. You know, the ones I listed in my post? 22/23.5% vs 25/25%. I'd say that is rather close.
As for the maximum vs minimum ranges, you do realize this is several million frames of data that needs to be gone over. They are both not going to check every single frame. DF found a higher maximum for the XSX, while VGtech found a lower minimum for the PS5. That does not mean one is right and the other wrong.
It hurts more itself with his analysis if I can say. They should never claimed such average resolution difference in the open area. Though I don't get it how the pixels counts can be so different between the two analysis. I start to suspect the broken contrast has interfered in the DF pixels counts.DF must've really hurt someone
Gamers should be happy with either version at the end if the day.
DF found the XSX to max out at 1728p. Just because VGtech did not find that number, does not mean DF is wrong. VGtech obviously did not pixel count every single frame.VGtech said the maximum resolution is 1600p doh. And how around 1200p-1500p Vs 1500p-1800p is it close to 1440p vs 1660p?
Just because DF "find it" doesn't means they are more correct. How did you know VGtech hasn't counted more properly every single frame compared DF? Why DF should be more accurate?DF found the XSX to max out at 1728p. Just because VGtech did not find that number, does not mean DF is wrong. VGtech obviously did not pixel count every single frame.
Your second point is rather amusing, 1440p falls in the range of 1200p-1500p while 1660p falls in the 1500p-1800p range.
Nobody is more correct, DF found a higher maximum on the XSX and VGtech found a lower minimum on the PS5. Both statements can be true at the same time.Just because DF "find it" doesn't means they are more correct. How did you know VGtech hasn't counted more properly every single frame compared DF? Why DF should be more accurate?
My second point could be amusing but DF never said the resolution stayed in the middle but it changed from a lower minimum and an higher maximum, between the 2 console, quite different grasp. You have a strange sense of logic and of the math
I stopped to trust of DF pixels counts after VGtech exists. Anyway I don't know how you can't see how specious are your correlations. It's as to listen the devil advocate. Apples and oranges are not the same things just because they are rounded.Nobody is more correct, DF found a higher maximum on the XSX and VGtech found a lower minimum on the PS5. Both statements can be true at the same time.
As for your other point, you literally asked how numbers found by VGtech that fall within in the ranges given by DF are close. That is because they are. You even have the different resolutions for different scenes given out by both. They are averaging between 22-25%.
NXGamer said that often the native pixel count are the same. But he found differences in some frames too. Look at 15:00 to 16:00 in the video.I stopped to trust of DF pixels counts after VGtech exists. Anyway I don't know how you can't see how specious are your correlations. It's as to listen the devil advocate. Apples and oranges are not the same things just because they are rounded.
Me ah? Quite convenient backpedal. But sure.
Slightly higher resolution or smoother framerate. Ok.
Correction:
25% better resolution on Series X. Both games are running at 60fps 99% of the time. Clear win for Series X.
It's going to be ok man, but either way let us know, we can hold your hand on the next comparison just in case.
Well he did say slightly higher resolution. If it was a 50% delta it would be a big deal but 25% (not always) isn't such a huge difference.
No one should feel scammed with either version of the game to be honest.
It's pretty minimal to be honest. If it was something like a constant 50%-80% that would be pretty massive.25% is still a large difference
Well he did say slightly higher resolution. If it was a 50% delta it would be a big deal but 25% (not always) isn't such a huge difference.
No one should feel scammed with either version of the game to be honest.
OK I'll bite. I didn't see that developer EXCLUDE the XSS from his assessment did he? You seem to be making that choice. Does this game run at 60 fps on any last gen platform? Did you know that the biggest change in this current generation is more games at 60fps? The XSS even has more games at 120fps than some more expensive consoles yet you keep on hoping it has a problem. It's so sad bro.Chief Technical Officer made the prediction, a good way into the development. I don't quite understand why you ignore it.
You mean this quote?
Do you think they are talking about XSS? It doesn't read like that to me.. considering they finish their answer specifically mentioning 4k@60. That is a resolution that it would never hit, so think it's safe to assume they aren't talking about the XSS.
But let's say they are.. how or why does it contradict their prediction? XSS version is displaying upto 6x less pixels than the XSX, at the worst times, that gap indicates it's been a struggle for them. And predicting it's going to get worse.. is hardly a shocking claim.
It's good to see you have stopped calling these developers lazy though. Some progress.
Actually have commented on those comments a fair bit and you know this.
I think everyone knows by now you like your Series S. You don't need to defend it like it's one of your kids tho man, and no need to make stuff up or lie.
It may not be a big deal for you, but some people are sensitive to this kind of stuff, especially since the PS5 version dropped as low as 1015p in their testing, that's lower than 1080p bruh. And they didn't even get to the tough section where it might go down to 900p or lower since Series X went down to 1080p YIKES! now that is definitely noticeable.
It depends on your display too, if you're sitting 5 feet from a 77" OLED, I think you want the higher resolution. In the analysis they said the PS5 version looks softer and I don't know anyone who doesn't want the sharper image.
Yeah Series S is FUCKING AWESOME.Hawking Radiation really liked his Series S until he sold it because he upgraded to a PS5 DE, IIRC.
Many are offended by its existence. At least you bought one and tried it before rendering a verdict on it. It's not for everyone but it is an undeniable value. You definitely get what you pay for.Yeah Series S is FUCKING AWESOME.
Anyone who says otherwise can suck a fat one. I love how this console was built. Its dead silent even sitting inches away from it on my work station and playing on my work monitor. Quick resume gets me hard every single time and just the general feel/build of the console is top notch.
This is an amazing piece of kit for anyone wanting to get into next gen on the cheap.
Correction:Correction:
25% better resolution on Series X. Both games are running at 60fps 99% of the time. Clear win for Series X.
It's going to be ok man, but either way let us know, we can hold your hand on the next comparison just in case.
lolNot if it causes stutter during aiming.
I agree but people seem to believe that the XSS runs at 500p all the time. It is held to a different standard for some reason.Do any of you remotely have any clue of how dynamic resolution works?
"Dur dur the resolution is 25% higher! BUT the framerate is 60fps 99% of the time!"
Dynamic Resolution only drops occasionaly - just like the framerate, it's at its highest 99% if the time.
For fuck's sake.
That is not always how DRS works, it depends on the game. In Star Wars: Fallen Order is stays locked quite often, but in this game the DRS range is so large it is often way below the maximum value.Do any of you remotely have any clue of how dynamic resolution works?
"Dur dur the resolution is 25% higher! BUT the framerate is 60fps 99% of the time!"
Dynamic Resolution only drops occasionaly - just like the framerate, it's at its highest 99% if the time.
For fuck's sake.
I know how DRS works. 99% is a figure of speech, obviously. And the range alone doesn't tell the whole story either. You can stay locked at max resolution all the time, save for that one area where the resolution drops to a very low value.That is not always how DRS works, it depends on the game. In Star Wars: Fallen Order is stays locked quite often, but in this game the DRS range is so large it is often way below the maximum value.
We are all Riky inside.XBOX win again
It's not 25% all the time. And no the wider gap is around 19-23%, where coming this 25%. Anyway it's ridiculous call 25% of more pixels a large difference with DRS lol.25% is still a large difference
So he is even more right. Try to argue which stay at higher resolution more often with such dynamic range it's mental gym and completely unfair.That is not always how DRS works, it depends on the game. In Star Wars: Fallen Order is stays locked quite often, but in this game the DRS range is so large it is often way below the maximum value.
It's like talking to a brick wall with this guy trust me, he's as dull as dishwater.Because both analysis are valid? The DRS range appears to be quite large, but the 4 examples given from both sources are all remarkably close to each other.
I guess GAF needed another hardcore sony shill after thelastword finally copped a perm.Remarkable close? There is an huge difference between the 2. One of the two should be wrong and looking to the sharpness difference in the DF video already suspected the counts wasn't correct at all. Ps5 would be more blurred if the DF difference was correct.
He's on a whole new level of stupid.I guess GAF needed another hardcore sony shill after thelastword finally copped a perm.
I look forward to seeing your absurd levels of shilling, stupidity and delusional fanboyism over the next few years.
All this wall of text, just because you are upset about the studios prediction.OK I'll bite. I didn't see that developer EXCLUDE the XSS from his assessment did he? You seem to be making that choice. Does this game run at 60 fps on any last gen platform? Did you know that the biggest change in this current generation is more games at 60fps? The XSS even has more games at 120fps than some more expensive consoles yet you keep on hoping it has a problem. It's so sad bro.
How does the XSS having lower resolution indicate a problem anyway? The X1X has a 'better' GPU than the XSS but it doesn't have raytracing or 60 fps. Do you think the only thing that matter for this gen is the resolution of the games? Did you know that the XSS was DESIGNED to run games at a lower resolution?
Have you seen any indication that the XSS will be unable to handle AI, physics, or level design of current generational titles? Graphics are already reaching a point of diminishing returns.
How is the XSS the bottleneck in game design when there are millions of PCs that have lower specs? Do you honestly believe that all other PCs out there have better specs than the XSS? Can you build a PC with better specs for $300 since you are unimpressed with what the XSS can do? I'd love to see what you come up with.
Do you think that the XSS' weaker GPU will affect game design more than its SSD and CPU which are matched across all the platforms? How did you base that conclusion?
MS games like Gears 5 Hivebusters have 60FPS and run at 1440p. Does that indicate a problem with the XSS too? It is less than 4k after all. Why are random 3rd party developers proof of some sort of XSS issue when other developers have no issues at all and why do you ignore those devs?
Why won't SFS and VA address the RAM complaints some developers have made? Can you provide a technical explanation why not?
Again you are the only one talking about lazy developers and that is pretty messed up man. Why would you denigrate their hard work especially in this title that has raytracing AND 60 fps on the XSS? I think they did a good job. Sad you don't respect their work but its not surprising.
It's clear you don't have an XSS and know nothing about it yet you keep on attacking the most affordable platform while ignoring shortcomings on other platforms that are even more expensive. Does that make you feel better about your purchase?
This is just sad. Not sure how you can managed twist this:Again you are the only one talking about lazy developers and that is pretty messed up man. Why would you denigrate their hard work especially in this title that has raytracing AND 60 fps on the XSS? I think they did a good job. Sad you don't respect their work but its not surprising.
It's good to see you have stopped calling these developers lazy though. Some progress.
That is why many developers drop the feature. It's not that it can't do it, it's that some developers don't want to take the time to make it work.