Many sites like IGN and Digital Foundry have been doing graphical comparisons of video games between PS3 and Xbox 360 and now with the next-gen consoles but now they are useless.
The author is trying to articulate that compressed youtube footage isn't the best method of trying to view comparisons. I actually agree. In order for these comparisons to have any real weight, they need to start pumping out high bitrate videos for people to download just like the ones at gamersyde.com, or similar to the video Guerrilla games released for KZ Shadow Fall.
That's probably where a lot of these silly comments about "There's no difference between 720p and 1080p" comes from.
Digital Foundry would be wise to start using direct feed methods of comparison. As visual fidelity improves, it will be harder to discern any real difference with those small patches of muddy pixelation.
Unless there's a huge difference between any versions, I would only take a graphics comparison seriously if it were direct feed footage captured from both versions blown up on my '46.
"but they were still used as a deciding factor when buying games.'
Realistically not all the time. But you are correct this gen was the pinnacle or "deciding factor" when it came to which version to own.
But in the whole grand scheme of things it wasn't as black and white as many were thinking. PlayStation fans still bought COD for their system despite problems on that version.
And I think the word preference should be used strongly as well.
It's similar to when last gen started (360, PS3) people were arguing that "HD" didn't look any better than what was already there. And people like me were questioning rather they even had HD monitors to view things on to begin with. Being HD was still making its way in, a lot of people didn't, so they didn't see the difference.
Same thing here. Youtube standards are so low that even HD there is like upscale crap, except its actually downgraded, compressed, and lowered FPS to help it stream better. The problem is I don't think major sites are getting their screenshots from that, they are getting them from direct feeds.
''but now they are useless''
no there useful now.
The author is trying to articulate that compressed youtube footage isn't the best method of trying to view comparisons. I actually agree. In order for these comparisons to have any real weight, they need to start pumping out high bitrate videos for people to download just like the ones at gamersyde.com, or similar to the video Guerrilla games released for KZ Shadow Fall.
That's probably where a lot of these silly comments about "There's no difference between 720p and 1080p" comes from.
Unless there's a huge difference between any versions, I would only take a graphics comparison seriously if it were direct feed footage captured from both versions blown up on my '46.
Because chances are XB1 is going to wind up losing most of them.
They really didn't matter all that much with the PS3 and 360, but they were still used as a deciding factor when buying games.
"but they were still used as a deciding factor when buying games.'
Realistically not all the time. But you are correct this gen was the pinnacle or "deciding factor" when it came to which version to own.
But in the whole grand scheme of things it wasn't as black and white as many were thinking. PlayStation fans still bought COD for their system despite problems on that version.
And I think the word preference should be used strongly as well.
But again you are right though.