@Dichotomy Disagree. One amazing game at launch (with a couple of solid indies alongside it) is better than a launch with a whole mess of mediocre games. While it's not a favorite of mine, it'll make my point anyway: would you not trade in most of the mediocre third party games that launched with PS4 for the ability to play Bloodborne at launch?
This logic isn't as compelling if you owned a Wii U, but come on: most people don't own a Wii U.
@Ralizah I find most launches don't do much for me these days, too few games to justify the price of the console. I waited around two years to pick up a PS4, probably around the same for the Wii U (not sure on this one, I just remember there were enough games out to justify it) so I'm probably not a good person to use as a gauge on what sells a launch. However, as good as Zelda likely is (I haven't played it yet), ~£320 for it is too much. I can play indies on other machines so that isn't a big draw either and I'm skeptical on if the Switch will get much in the way of 3rd party support. Once there is a decent catalogue of Nintendo games on it though I'll jump on-board. For me it is a one game machine at the moment, and that game I can play on my Wii U.
@Dichotomy I can respect that. If it wasn't a hybrid console that I'm excited for, I wouldn't have dropped the money for it at launch either. I usually wait until a system has multiple games I'm interested in, but, well... I had the money at the time, and I really love the idea of this device, so I went all in.
No regrets. I've had a ton of fun with my Switch so far.
Sony are committed - at the moment at least - to the traditional console generations. I cannot see them bringing out a PS4 Pro 2 (or whatever they want to call it) but a PS5 - a traditional style 'next' generational console. You cannot keep bringing out iterative hardware as at some point, the PS4 will no longer be able to run all the same games and/or content. Then it gets incredibly confusing - you can't play 'x' game on a PS4 but can on a Pro but the 'best' experience is Pro 2?? At most you can probably have 1 iterative hardware.
It also limits where you can go with the iterative hardware. The chip set, the architecture etc - everything. Sony might not even want to go with AMD with the PS5 and maybe intel has the 'best' option for them next time round. Sony are not shy at picking the best for them at that moment.
As for 'advantages' like Boost Mode may offer in MP, the chances are at most you will see an average of 10-15fps difference but there is much more difference between input lag on TV's, internet performance and PING. Its not enabling a game that's capped at 30fps to suddenly run at 60fps. In GPU bound games, the benefit is 11% boost which would make a game running at 50fps, run at 55fps on a Pro at that exact same situation - If the frame rate is unlocked, there could be occasions where the boost mode version has lower frame rates than players on base model - depends on whats happening on their screen, visual effects etc.
If games are made and optimised 'properly' with locked frame rates, Boost Mode and Pro offer NO frame rate advantage what-so-ever. Its certainly not the difference that PC gamers may be faced with. The only advantage is that the 'image' may be higher resolution on the Pro. On a 4k TV, 900p looks a lot more 'blurry' than on a 1080p TV with so much more interpolation. You can argue that a higher resolution may make it easier to see things but the main difference is more finer detail rather and characters etc are no different in size. Its not like an enemy suddenly appears much clearer and larger at 4k.
Another advantage of making a completely new generation is that developers can make a 30fps MP game run at 60fps on PS5. The only reason we have 'iterative' hardware this generation is because we are in a transition between display technology. The PS4 is a HD console and we are moving into the 4K era - the Pro is a half way step between these two eras but I see the PS5 being a 4k era console. Whether we see a technological jump during the PS5 era or not could determine whether or not we see another 'Pro' iterative console - not just in terms of TV's but maybe even in VR if that takes off and the PS5 is nt . This is why in the majority of titles we see 'resolution' gains only and frame rate gains are seen in Single Player modes. The few games that do give us the opportunity at 'higher' capped frame rates are only for single player campaigns - like Rise of the Tomb Raider and Infamous.
As for power, the current rumour is that the PS5 will have 10tflops which sounds like 2.5x that of the Pro BUT could translate into so much more. 4.2tflops 3-4 years ago was nowhere near as capable as 4.2tflops is today. The Scorpio 'could' have more than 4x performance despite being 4x the GPU power. It looks to have 50% more RAM with 2x more bandwidth. We don't know the CPU difference yet but it could turn out to be more powerful than the 40% GPU (in Tflops) difference over the PS4 Pro. Not only that, we could see a much more impressive CPU, more RAM and higher bandwidths to go with a much more efficient and capable GPU in the PS5 so if they do go for 10tflops - that could appear MUCH more compared to 10tflops appears today. Its 'rumoured' have photo-realistic graphics...
Time will tell but I wouldn't be surprised if the PS5 is a 'new' generation as we know it. I can see Sony offering PSNow more than offering Backwards Compatibility but maybe they will go down that route as it appears 'successful' on MS . I wouldn't be surprised if we also see an upgrade to the Bluray drive with a 4k HDR player added. It would nice to see the 'processing' unit incorporated 4k HDR output to TV. It would show that Sony are committed to VR long term...
@Ralizah I know some people will have weighed up the pros and cons and I've nothing against someone being an early adopter. In fact I would say without early adopters any console will likely fail in the long run (there is definitely a chicken and the egg scenario going on with sales and support that needs to be broken to get any console off the ground). However I do feel that a lot of sales for all the consoles in their first year are down to it being the (perceived) must have gadget - I've done the same when I was younger and am still prone to the odd bout of 'must have it now' syndrome.
@BAMozzy I think they could easily move to a system where the last two console releases are supported and also maintain a backwards compatibility model if they wished to. Given the move to x86 architecture I'd be surprised if they didn't do this and both Intel and AMD are interchangeable in regards to this so that wouldn't become an issue.
Sony have no control over things like ping, but they do over their hardware and any advantage to do with that is an advantage they said they wouldn't allow. Also unlocked frame rate will never lead to a lower frame rate on the Pro, only peculiarities with the coding that was never written with extra power in mind can cause this. As I say, as the console gets older developers learn new tricks to eek out the last ounce of power from the machine, so it is likely that a subroutine written to work with very specific timings on the base model, and thus get better performance, may have unusual side effects on a machine with different specs.
A machines power, of which tflops is just the latest way people try to quantify it, is subject to Moore's law and any gains beyond the ~1.5 multiplier will be down to better optimised algorithms rather than anything not scaling with that number. More power can give better experiences, but judging exactly how the breakdown in the increase of power is affecting your game is something far harder to quantify. When the cap is reached, if nothing new comes along, we will still see increases in performance for a time, albeit smaller ones, as people optimise what they have in both the software and hardware side. The PS5 will be 1.5 to the power of x more powerful than the Pro where x is the number between the Pro and the PS5 assuming a similar price tag.
There is no reason not to offer backwards compatibility other than for money on future consoles as it seems only a remote possibility that Sony will want to go through the expensive process of manufacturing its own propitiatory hardware again. I still play games from 20 years ago on my PC and the operating system for that is designed with businesses in mind over gaming, so it should be less of an issue on a console. PSNow is a way off being viable as too much of the world lacks the infrastructure for it to work now. I'd also be happier if Sony locked down doing 1080p/60 over worrying about higher resolutions first as that seems to me to being a case of running before you can walk.
@Dichotomy No doubt about people often buying at launch on impulse. I'm not monied enough to have that privilege most of the time, but things came together well for me early this year, and the promise of console gaming on the go is compelling. My time with BotW was all the proof-of-concept I needed: it felt right playing it, whether on the tablet or in a more traditional console configuration.
@BAMozzy It would be really nice if the PS4 Pro and the processing unit were actually compatible at all. In fact, even just running non-HDR via the processor causes disruption on the screen at least once on each game session. Small quibble but it annoys me.
@Dichotomy; @Ralizah Early adopters are a must with most products and the only way to gain success. However, as a consumer, it is important that people weigh up pros and cons and manufacturers need to give a good incentive to get people to take a plunge other than, in a few years it will be great. Nintendo have done pretty well with the form factor and a killer app in Zelda (even if all other content is a little thin on the ground).
Now I may be an idiot, but there's one thing I am not sir, and that sir, is an idiot
@Dichotomy Lets be honest about this whole 60fps vs 30fps on consoles. If you look back over the past 10yrs of games, the game that has won Game of the Year has been 30fps in the majority of cases and games are praised for their visual quality so what incentive would a developer have to push for 60fps over visuals? Guerrilla Games and Naughty Dog could both have targeted 60fps for Horizon: Zero Dawn and Uncharted 4 (in fact ND did originally) but both opted for a high quality visual experience. They could have targeted 60fps and dropped the visual quality down - not just resolution.
In the next generation of consoles, I can see 'native 4k' being this generations 1080p. Whether they hit 60fps at 4k or not remains to be seen - but could depend on their Hardware specs. For many developers, they will want to push the visual quality first with some games - like CoD for example favouring 60fps first and foremost.
In an ideal world, these next gen consoles will be able to deliver native 4k at 60fps with the visual settings at least on high if not Max but the reality is that consoles are often made to a budget and therefore not powerful enough. No developer will want to have 'that' game that runs at 1080p in a 4k era - like we don't get AAA games running at Standard definition. Its possible that with checkerboarding and the fact that there is 'diminishing' benefits with 4k, Developers could opt for 60fps first and foremost and not a 'native' 4k. Horizon:ZD runs at 4k - not a native 4k but still 4k - drawing half the image every frame and pulling the other half from the previous frame so its still a 4k image. With a few more years of experience, this technique could be polished and perfected to the point that its indistinguishable from Native - even on close inspection but this could be the method employed to ensure all games run at 60fps in the future.
The problem is though that their is a stigma attached to games that don't meet the visual quality first and foremost. Any 'poor' visuals can affect peoples opinions - look at Mass Effect. No one seems to care so much about the Story, the game-play etc and basing their decision on some poor lip synch and weird faces. Games like Watchdogs and the Division were criticised for 'downgrading' the visuals from their initial reveal. Like I said though, the majority of games to win Game of the Year have been 30fps so it seems that developers have to push visuals first and if that means having to drop to 30fps, so be it.
A pessimist is just an optimist with experience!
Why can't life be like gaming? Why can't I restart from an earlier checkpoint??
Feel free to add me but please send a message so I know where you know me from...
I've thought about this alot since the "PS5" thread, and for your consideration I submit that rather than 4k/8k or more FPS, the improvement may be things like draw distance, ground clutter, detail on walls/objects that is more than just a texture, NPCs that do more than walk in circles, and things like that which bring the game to life but are limited by capacity today may be the things that improve.
@Mega-Gazz I think that's a definite area for improvement and I think that all but the NPC's is achieveable. The main issue with NPC's is that they are 'programmed' rather than have the freedom of thought. They still have 'complex' AI but they don't have the same complex ability that a real human would. They have a set of rules and instructions and often if you stand in front of them, they stop rather than decide to walk around you. AI is often more CPU based than GPU too. In games like Hitman with a LOT of AI NPCs, the frame rate is affected more by the CPU - the XB1 often has a higher frame rate than PS4 here because of its faster CPU and directly related to its performance difference (around 10% faster CPU - around 10% better frame rates).
AI certainly isn't 'bad' in many games and we can see definite changes in behaviour in different circumstances. In Horizon, the more some robots are damaged, the more desperate they become - losing certain weapons also changes how they attack but on the whole, they are still quite limited compared to say a real animal or 'sentient' life would be. I see no point to a grazer sticking to specific areas endlessly grazing but would move to new pastures. I see no point to a Thunderjaw or Stormbird just traipsing around its allotted path if this was a 'real' world situation - they would move to areas to do what they were designed for, go on the prowl looking for 'prey'. But adding in that behaviour, over such a wide expanse as Horizon would be a logistical nightmare and maybe actually not 'fun' either. Some areas could appear very empty because the robots have 'free will' to roam anywhere and other areas could be over run by Thunderjaws, Stormbirds, Stalkers etc that virtually stops you from progressing - its just impossible to get through that area.
Personally I have no issue with 'textures' used to make walls or paved paths look like they were constructed brick by brick or slab by slab. These can still look incredible if high quality textures are used and often walls can have posters or some other details on them. Draw distances is more important to me - seeing the shadows, textures or even worse objects pop in when you reach a certain point does break the immersion. I couldn't care less if the objects too small to realistically see great detail on use lower quality textures but I don't want to see them suddenly pop in or change - a sliding scale if needed so that the transition to high quality isn't so obvious. In a perfect world all textures details etc would be high quality and therefore wouldn't need to change as you approach but I understand that in big open spaces, its using a LOT of resources for little/no benefit - resources that can be used to make the immediate area much more 'exciting' - not just visually but also from a game-play perspective - having enemies, action etc without compromising frame-rate etc because they are drawing these textures/details (every frame). Whilst it looks as though the world is 'static' so to speak and our 'characters' move through it, they are both drawn every frame - they don't draw the world and that's it - your character is just animated in that world they drew once but every frame is drawn, every shadow recalculated.
One of the big changes the PS4 era brought was the better lighting and particle effects, better shadows etc and I expect that will continue to evolve as well. We are seeing more games creating more 'realistic' worlds - not necessarily from a 'visual' perspective but in terms of behaviour - like rain creating puddles that fill up and create splashes and ripples, changing how objects look as they glisten with water rather than just darkening the scene and having a 'rain' effect (lines dropping down). Also seeing more wildlife, insects, birds etc rather than just using 'audio' to make us believe these exist - all this helps creates a more life-like world too
A pessimist is just an optimist with experience!
Why can't life be like gaming? Why can't I restart from an earlier checkpoint??
Feel free to add me but please send a message so I know where you know me from...
One rumour states that it may end up being called Xbox One X but I doubt it myself - it makes no sense (Maybe will then after '360' and 'one' LOL)
Even if you are not interested in buying, it maybe interesting to see what the 'competition' has to offer this coming year and what Sony may have to respond to.
@BAMozzy Awesome. Think I'll be at home then. Digital Foundry is an interesting choice for a console reveal, but it makes sense. Also means they're pretty confident. Anyway, this means we'll have an afternoon of potential game announcements, disappointment and laughing at the Xbox naming conventions.
@Octane Digital Foundry too me, aren't afraid to pull the punches and be critical if necessary. However they are also one of, if not the most, respected journo's for doing this. I know they get 'criticised' for comparing a PS4 Pro with a high-end PC running the same game at a full native 4k and with all settings on Max but that just shows how 'close' (or far off) the PS4 Pro gets to the maximum possible a game could be and what compromises we as console gamers have. Often though, its quite difficult to see that 'shadow' quality isn't on Max or some rocks in the distance are using low res textures until we as players get to a certain distance and these are then improved. Some may be upset that their £300 console (the rest is the price of a controller) is being compared to £1000+ PC's but I see it as how close a £300 console gets to matching a PC.
Its not just that though either as developers often respond to their findings on games. Try to patch and improve things based on their analysis. MS must feel quite confident that They will be fair and that their findings will be 'positive' for them. It could really work in heir favour too. People could well be more trusting of an independent reveal rather than listen to MS goo on and not believe a lot of what they claim. I will certainly be watching it with interest.
I still hope that MS don't make this an upgraded Xbox One though. Whilst I am happy that it will play XB1 games and maybe in a similar way to Pro enhanced versions, I would be unhappy that it is limited to software that MUST also be on XB1 - especially with the power difference. I can't see the XB1 lasting another 2-3 years - not if it wants to deliver a competitive gaming experience. Its already showing its lack of power and performance with games not running as well as PS4 and of course lacking the same visual clarity too. It doesn't seem to have much leeway to drop resolution to keep offering the same games. At least with Pro, the PS4 could see more and more games dropping to 900p or even 720p to keep delivering future games on both systems. I still recall that MS said at E3, one of the reasons its not releasing until late 2017 was to give developers a chance to develop games for it so whether that means that the Scorpio is the main focus and games will be ported down (pretty much like 3rd party games are nowadays as they are made to 4k standards for PC's and then ported down to consoles and 'optimised' to run as best as possible). We know Gears and Forza Horizon were already made to 4k and then downgraded to 1080p for XB1 so its possible we could see similar with this. I would hate to buy a Scorpio though and a year or 2 later, not get a game, DLC or some other content because it won't run on the much inferior XB1. I had less concerns over the Pro with this because the power difference isn't as significant and it also released 3yrs into the PS4 generation - not near the end like Scorpio is for XB1.
I know last gen was an oddity, but most consoles have a next gen replacement after 4-5yrs. The original Xbox was only 4yrs old when the 360 released. 3yrs may be at the 'closest' halfway point (rounded up) if the console lasts 5yrs and still allows a year or so for a crossover phase. Lets be honest though, can anyone really see the XB1 lasting 7yrs this time - especially as more and more upgrade to 4k TV's?
Anyway that's my view on it. I also think MS need to wipe the XB1 slate clean and start again so to speak. There are still people who harp on about that E3 reveal - even though everything that they were annoyed at are no longer relevant and stopped being relevant when MS dropped Kinect. The rest was all removed by launch or at least at launch - like the always online, DRM etc. If they wiped the slate clean and started again, it could also help them but linking it with the XB1 is still going to hang over their heads. Saying its Backwards Compatible with XB1 peripherals and Software is better than saying its a more powerful XB1 which people consider a 'flop'.
A pessimist is just an optimist with experience!
Why can't life be like gaming? Why can't I restart from an earlier checkpoint??
Feel free to add me but please send a message so I know where you know me from...
It'll be very interesting to see what comes out of the reveal tomorrow that's for sure. I am day one as long as the price stays sensible. TBH I don't know where consoles are going now, there is only so much graphical improvements to be made, I think that something along the lines of augmented reality (like having a HUD in your glasses or something similar) is where it'll go next. I'm not sure VR is going to be anything more than a passing fad, much the same as 3D.
@crippyd Of course there is a limited amount that games can achieve with Graphical advancements. In terms of resolution, there are of course diminishing returns. I do think that it is still 'obvious' when a game is running at 4k over 1080p on a 55" TV at my viewing distance. Gaming is a lot more obvious than with 'film' because its generally sharper. I still think we are a few years away from having a 'realistic' looking game with realistic looking animation and lip synch. I don't know if its feasible to have a game yet that looks like a film rather than a game - with realistic hair/fur for example. Considering the time and power needed to render 'special FX' for a film and games have to do this in real time, I think it could be a few years yet before we see this in console gaming.
VR is an interesting concept. I don't think it will be a passing fad like 3D but I do think it has its limitations. Mostly in the controls etc. I think it has a lot of potential outside of gaming - more than 3D does so I can see it evolving and maybe we will see something exceptional in gaming too. The ability to transport you to another place, like watching the World Cup final from the best seat in the stands, attending E3 and being able to play 'demo's' at one of the stands streamed to your headset as if you were there, Visit wonders of the world, concerts, theatres, museums etc etc, the possibilities are far more reaching than AR. Having the HuD on a an AR Headset is hardly game changing - its not like we don't have HuDs now overlaying the game - I guess they could be 'outside' the game screen but its not like we don't have HuDs at all to make this unique. In an ideal world, I would prefer a Headset that can double up as an AR headset but also as a VR headset. Images that can fill the whole screen and be 'solid' enough to work as a VR headset but also be more 'see-through' or even just 'partial/ limited to a certain area to work as an AR headset. My biggest issue with Hololens, not that I have used one myself, is that 'small' letterbox where AR functions. That means that if any 'object' is not in that letterbox completely, its cut off. That means that a 'human' would find there 'head' disappear if you looked down. In a AR based shooter for example, if that letterbox didn't exist, anything on the periphery would still be visible and in full, if you looked down, there heads still remain and if you looked up, there legs remain. Seeing them 'float' and not grounded to me is more of an issue than VR's limitations for gaming. I don't want to see through them either and want them to look 'solid' rather than 'holograms'. I know they have to start somewhere but ultimately, I hope we can see a headset that can do both AR and VR. If AR can do 'solid' looking objects anywhere in the field of vision, in theory, it could do VR by using the whole thing as a 'solid' image, but the background, environment in therefore removing the 'real' world. i do think AR is much more limited from a gaming perspective as it stands at the moment.
I can't see the Scorpio delivering the 'best' performance at the maximum capability of the displays they are connected too. In this case native 4k, 60fps with all the visual settings on Max. Compromises will have to be made. Whether that's on visual settings (lower quality shadows, lighting, draw distances etc), resolution (checkerboard techniques or less than Native 4k and upscaled, dynamic scaling), or frame rates (unlocked 60 or 30fps) for 'most' games when it finally arrives. Even the 'best GPU' with the best CPU and higher bandwidth RAM can't consistently hit 60fps/4k and max settings so its clear that whilst Scorpio may well be the most powerful console, its still having to make compromises to run games at the maximum possible level at which they were made. If consoles as we know them do continue to be made, we don't see any increase in resolution for displays, and games continue to evolve, grow etc, I can still see a need for an even more powerful console. In 5years, for example, its possible that we could see a console release that easily runs todays games at 4k/60 with max settings but whether they could run the more modern games to that standard, who knows. By comparison, the Pro can't run all games at the maximum standards of the last generation of displays - 1080/60 with all settings on max (look at Rise of the Tomb Raider for example)- Maybe Scorpio could - if the CPU is significantly better as RoTR is CPU heavy. Maybe we will see some 'revolution' in game technology - maybe some software or something that we haven't foreseen that requires a specific 'hardware' configuration and therefore could force MS/Sony etc to create a new console to offer this. It could be in the area of AI more than 'graphical' design or game layout/size. It could be to do with VR where you need a 'brain scanner' that reads your thoughts to control your character - you think to walk/run/aim/shoot/jump etc and you do it in game - really feels and transports you into the game - like we see in Movies using VR - not that I see this happening anytime soon of course.
Point is though, its quite easy to see the main areas where a console could progress and why they may need to. Consoles at the moment utilise a Display with a certain fixed resolution and maximum frame rate capability. With HDMI 2.1 and the 'next' gen 4k displays, we could see 4k/120 as a possibility as well as Game Variable Refresh Rate (VRR) which could - in theory - see the complete elimination of screen-tear from console video gaming without the judder associated with traditional v-sync, and could also allow developers to target arbitrary frame-rates as performance targets as opposed to the standard 30fps or 60fps. Essentially its similar to nVidias N-Synch and AMD's Free-synch on PCs but for TV's. Consoles also make a number of compromises to run on the hardware - understandably because they are not that expensive compared to a high-end PC set-up and as we know, costs drop and power increases so its relatively easy to see where consoles can improve in the short term - even within a certain resolution range like up to 4k for example. Maybe in 5yrs time, we could think of 60fps, the way some think of 30fps today because we have 120fps games and if that does happen, we would need a lot more power than we do now to render games at the resolution (or close to it) of the display they are connected to.
A pessimist is just an optimist with experience!
Why can't life be like gaming? Why can't I restart from an earlier checkpoint??
Feel free to add me but please send a message so I know where you know me from...
The point raised about graphics and Mass Effect animations stopping people from seeing the value in its story (and gameplay) seems a bit funny to me. Gaming is a visual medium first and foremost so of course graphics matter. Secondly, no one would think twice about criticising a film for bad acting, and yet ME should get a pass when their models try to deliver a serious line of dialogue with wonky eyes or walking around like monkeys. These things are no longer acceptable when you know what can be achieved in a game like Uncharted 4. This is all contributing to your immersion, how believable a story ends up being and how invested you become in the characters in it.
@finalstan Gaming is not always about graphics - look at Minecraft and the visuals that has. It hasn't stopped that becoming one of the best selling and most played games. I could list hundreds of Indie games that by todays 'standards' are 'poor' from a visual perspective but still immerse the player into the story. Fallout 4 didn't look much better than Fallout 3 - just a higher res with a wider colour palette version. It wasn't without its bugs and issues either. Its not just Uncharted that 'set' the standard - look at the visuals in the Order 1886 but that didn't make that game successful. Arguably the game-play of that broke immersion. Some games don't offer any spoken dialogue, just words to read but does that break the story, the characters? There is no emotion in written words, you can't hear the emotion in the way the character is feeling, can't hear any stress on certain words that can change the whole context of that sentence.
Much of Uncharteds dialogue comes in Cut-scenes with very few 'dialogue' options. Most of the banter we hear, we don't get to see the faces at all. Very few of Mass Effects dialogue is delivered in a Cut Scene comparatively. It doesn't use someones artistry, or motion capture to create the animation of speech but a computer algorithm to move the faces in a way to make them look like they are speaking. To motion capture every single line of dialogue isn't feasible in a game costing £40m to make and with the sheer volume of spoken words - most of which the majority will never be heard unless you play through multiple times. Would it have been better if the words were read instead of spoken - no animation just static characters?
If gaming is a purely visual medium to you, then why game on a Console? PC's can add more realistic Shadows, more depth to a scene as a result, higher resolution too with greater field of view, greater draw distances, higher texture quality, better anti-aliasing and anisotropic filtering etc etc. Chances are the Scorpio will have a higher PQ than PS4 Pro with the majority of games people buy - the Third Party multi-platform games so should be the second best place to play games after a PC based on 'visuals' alone. Nobody should buy a Switch based on that as their games are 'poor' because visually they can't offer the resolution, the visual quality of Uncharted 4 etc. Even the few games it has that are also on PS4/XB1 are worse visually - lower resolution, lower visual settings... Does that make Snake Pass for example unplayable on the Switch because its the 'worst' visual place to play.
Don't get me wrong, I understand the importance of first impressions. Our first impression from a game is that screen shot or video that can make or break a game. I am also aware of how people react when the final release isn't up to the standards we first saw the game - Watchdogs, Division etc. Even the snobbery of resolution - how 1080p looks great but 900p looks terrible yet both play identically, same story, same delivery of dialogue, same visual settings (apart from Res) etc etc
A pessimist is just an optimist with experience!
Why can't life be like gaming? Why can't I restart from an earlier checkpoint??
Feel free to add me but please send a message so I know where you know me from...
Forums
Topic: 'Next' step for consoles - a discussion...
Posts 81 to 100 of 120
This topic has been archived, no further posts can be added.