Recently there was news concerning the Xbox One and the upcoming Call of Duty: Ghosts game that for many, was disheartening to say the least. From threats of cancelling system pre-orders to extreme bouts of nerd-rage, and enough virtual facepalms to make one's head completely cave in, the internet exploded to the extent that you'd think Activision officially announced that smallpox infected blankets would be shipping with the Xbox One versions. Unfortunately, nothing that drastic has happened to warrant such extreme behavior, and instead it's just news that the Xbox One version of the upcoming Call of Duty Ghosts will be 720p, compared to 1080p native on the PS4.
In light of this "tragic" news, I'd like to address the recent notion that 1080p is a "must" for next-gen gaming....it isn't...1080p is not some "holy grail," mandatory accomplishment that games must meet in order to be considered "next-gen." It is little more than an arbitrary technicality cooked up by the community, largely due to moving goalpost mentalities and wishful thinking. Graphics or resolution alone is not some guideline to base whether or not a game achieves "next-gen" status, and if you think otherwise, then quite frankly, you're wrong. I don't doubt that games will release in 1080p, as some games already are, but to apply this short-sighted way of thinking to every single game? If that's the case, then frankly, you are in for some disappointment.
The notion that in 2013, 1080p, or more importantly, 1080p/60fps, should be a standard in gaming, is again, largely wishful thinking. This level of gaming can be standard, if you have the power, and frankly the new systems do not, as is evident by games being announced at less than 1080p and/or 60fps on both systems. If we were discussing high-end PC's, then these arguments would carry much more weight, but we are speaking of modestly priced, retail entertainment devices. The fact is this - the new systems, regardless how "next-gen" many expect them to be, are still using dated tech before they even release, that can't even achieve 1080p on certain older titles, with or without max settings enabled. Even in instances where games do achieve this goal, sacrifices are likely going to have be made elsewhere to do so.
If you choose a lesser medium in terms of graphics/processing power, then you should except lesser results, it's really that simple. You can point the finger and cry "PC elitism," but really it's just being rational. You can't buy a Hybrid based on preference, and then demand it performs like a Ferrari, and then cry foul when it doesn't. Anyone suggesting that any game that gets released on a $400-500 device, cannot be considered "next-gen" if it is anything less than 1080p, or even more demanding, 1080/60fps, is naive and out of touch with reality, especially considering all the other (arguably) more important factors that can contribute to a game being "next-gen," which is a little more than a buzzword itself, with no definitive meaning.
If none of the games released on the new consoles achieved 1080p, they could still easily qualify as next-gen, due to other aspects, such as better performance, new, innovative ideas or added features. Battlefield 4 is a good example of this. Is it running at 1080p? No, not on either system, but both versions are running at 60fps, and have 64 player servers, as well as advanced features such as Battlescreen That is an example of "next-gen" in gaming, despite lacking 1080p resolution. In relation to COD Ghosts, both versions will have the same campaign, the same multiplayer, the same features and both will be running at 60fps. Players will equally be having fun on both versions, despite the apparent doomsday revelation that the Xbox One version will only be running at 720p...
It seems that the console community has become increasingly close-minded and superficial in their views, to the point that they seem to have forgotten why they play games in the first place - for fun. Why is it that when discussing graphics in a PC vs console format, graphics don't matter as much and it's all about the games, but once it becomes a matter of console vs console, graphics take center stage as proponents from each side engage in a blood lust fueled fervor? 720p, 1080p, who really cares? Games are going to be equally enjoyed by players on both consoles, so why turn it into a chest pounding ego-fest? Why does it always have to result in a "console war"? There are many people who will be purchasing both consoles for their love of games, so it seems trivial to pick sides and fight tooth and nail for your preferred platform. If it's the prettiest games running at smooth framerates that is needed to justify your purchase, then again, you are on the wrong platform, since we have been achieving this for years on PC. If it's other aspects that lead you to choose console gaming, such as functionality, exclusives, controllers, etc. than focus on those aspects and leave it at that.
Tamagotchi Plaza debuts in a very low position while Death Stranding 2 soars in the UK games sales charts.
Replies(2)Replies(3)
"“launch sales were ~66% lower than Death Stranding 1"
Maybe he'll put this franchise to rest now and do something new (which I know he is thankfully)
Not to hate if you enjoy these games but they weren’t for everyone and it puzzles me that he did a sequel rather than doing Physint next or even an actual P.T like game.
I just feel he's trying to make Death Stranding a thing, like as big as Metal Gear Solid and it's just not going to happen.
“Maybe he'll put this franchise to rest now and do something new”
He is making new things, so I don’t see what the problem is. Game reviewed better than the first. It has its fans and served its purpose.
At its core, it’s just not a very commercial game. Takes work, which might turn off casuals.
Probably not, the sales won't be much lower than the first game. And its a critical success
Fox
It's selling well digitally you can't compare it to sales of ps4 game because even back than digital wasn't the be all end all like it is today now. With GTA6 delayed DS2 is the game to beat for GOTY
If they released at the same time Im pretty sure Mario would still take number one.
At least get the statement right, physical sales were down 66%, not total.
https://xcancel.com/Chris_D...
Obviously, digital is bigger part of the landscape than it was on PS4.
Digitally on the PlayStation store it is and has been the best selling retail game since prior to release, and still is today.
Also, the digital edition came with early access.
My friends and I bought it digital. Truth be told, I haven’t bought a disc in years. Is what it is.
Replies(2)
TSA writes: General Burke wants Harding back for one last mission, but Harding doesn't want to go. I Am Your Beast is the rapid FPS that follows.
From NETK2GAMES out of Barcelona comes one of the most enjoyable arcade racing you’ll play: Rally Arcade Classics is no fluff, all fun.
"Why is it that when discussing graphics in a PC vs console format, graphics don't matter as much and it's all about the games, but once it becomes a matter of console vs console, graphics take center stage as proponents from each side engage in a blood lust fueled fervor?"
Well said, but in terms of the console vs console part with graphics, you can add exclusive games and company history to that list. You will have fanboys on either camp saying that the PS4 and Xbox One "don't have any games", which translated means "their games are inferior to MY console's games". Then there is also the favored jabbing of company history. The big blunders if you will. People love to harp on the shutdown of PSN without knowing the facts of what happened. People also love to reference Microsoft's deal with the NSA with sharing customer information. While both instances are serious, it shouldn't alter a person's perception of the company as a whole.
I think that the reason why so many people are talking about better fps and resolution per a game is just to boost the console they are getting this month. It could be a case of classic fanboyism or obsession with graphics. If anyone shares my view when it comes to video games, we would appreciate video games for being a good quality game as opposed to having the best graphics ever.
Why else are gamers (including myself) still playing hit games from ten to twenty yeas ago? Not because they have intense graphics, but because they are good games. Sure, technology is advancing, but that doesn't mean we can't look back and appreciate what was there. I play games to experience interesting, fun, and great games, not for how realistic something looks.
The problem isn't expecting 1080p and 60 fps. It's not the whole deal at all. The problem, is that a system that costs $100 less than the competitor is out-performing it. That, is the real problem.
This i don't agree, 1080p looks nicer that is a fact.
My issue is with 30fps versus 60fps. This to me its a non issue since forever there are only a few games that hit 60fps and it didn't add that much to the game. Did i enjoy less The last of Us, Mgs2/3/4, God/gear of War or Halo because they were 30fps >? Nope.
I guess it matters to anyone but the ppl that are getting an xbox one only, most ppl getting both will want to know which console has the best performance and that will be the ps4 so they will get it for that. The gameplay will be directly influenced by console performance as well, by drops in frame rates, it would be nice to just hide it all under the rug so the xbox one fans didnt have to hear it, but thats the way it is.
Putting the shoe on the other foot , if it was the ps4 getting the multiplats in 720p and the xbox one getting them in 1080p i would be pissed with Sony and would probably switch to the xbox one, but luckily i dont have to.
Some nice valid writing you did here I agree with. 1080p doesn't make a game next gen at all. I'd rather have 720p and 60 fps with more physics and detail in exchange