Developers have found ways to create incredible worlds and systems that have resulted in exceptional games, something which will only get better.
Should I be impressed by my consoles' technical capabilities? Are you impressed? -- lol, What anime is that from?
YES! SUKKEE!! http://media.giphy.com/medi...
It's late 2015, almost 2016. They're mid-range gaming laptops. Nothing fantastic about them, but they get the job done.
Impossible to take a midrange laptop and get the same results while having the exact same settings. Optimization is just not there.
@shloobmm3: he's talking about the actual gpu capability, and he's right. they are mid range gpu's. its true that the development API's of consoles let them get closer down to the metal, but the gains aren't dramatic. Mantle, DX12, Metal (iOS) etc are all basically bringing the same capability to computers as well so pretty soon pc's will have the same efficiency which will be able to push them even harder - making it even easier for PCs to be more powerful.
@Abizzle Right when a dev compliments both machines we're all of a sudden reminded they're mid-range machines. Horizon is built from the ground up exclusively on PS4 I can't imagine that game running on PC. http://gearnuke.com/wp-cont... http://assets.vg247.com/cur... http://gearnuke.com/wp-cont... All in game I'm yet to see a PC Exclusive pump out visuals like this unless its piggy backing console multiplats. But I haven't yet. CC3 will have a hard time running on PC. The link escapes right now if someone could please find that link much appreciated. CC3 not the prettiest game ever but its definitely the most heavily calculated game physically and the most technically challenging game EVER done on a home console. Something PC can't even challenge just yet. Not bad for just mid-range gaming laptops huh? I'm not intentionally trying to knock PC but your comment is pretty ridiculous to say the least.
@Angelic- I'm not saying your whole post is wrong, but some of it is a misunderstanding. You don't see titles like this on PC not because it can't be done, but because making such PC exclusives with such demanding hardware won't get the same type of returns that it would on console. Its not happening due to just improbability of making lost of money due to very high specs. http://n4g.com/news/1729912... Sorta like what CDPR stated. Its not that something like Witcher 3 can't be done on PC, merely that the cost doesn't even make sense. ie to make it MORE demanding would actually cost more money, then would make the specs higher which would in turn lower their install base of purchases due to too high of specs. With all the money in the world, sure PC can get any game, period. Take that out of the equation and its very, unlikely. Your are correct on not seeing PC titles like that besides Star Citizen but even Star Citizen proves this point even further, its existence is do to crowd funding, not traditional funding. No publisher in their right mind would spend that money on Star Citizen. Not a bad call either, I have a few ships in Star Citizen and its full release is a day 1 for me, no knock on it, merely as a business man I 100% get why no publisher would back a PC exclusive like that. Consider they could use a lessor engine, make it less demanding and have it on 3 platforms vs 1. That WOULD make more money, but as a gamer that isn't what I actually want, I want it to be the best it can be, crowd funding was the only thing getting Star Citizen as a PC exclusive pushing serious hardware. As to answer you question as to why you don't see such PC exclusives without some sort of crowd funding anyway. Also CC3 having a hard time running on PC might be do to other reasons as consoles are form factor PCs in some respect, different set up, but they follow a lot of the same rules so to speak. We need to also factor in the team that put it on PC. I wouldn't use Arkham Knight on PC as an example of console being better in some weird way, its just not a good comparison and doesn't really prove much about PC tbh.
@ AngelicIceDiamond A top of the line PC runs the Witcher 3 on ultra at 4k/60fps. Something that I doubt the PS5 and the next Xbox would be able to achieve considering that neither the of the current gen consoles can even run games at 1080p and 60fps unless some hefty compromises are made. What makes you think that Horizon wouldn't run on a PC?
@Ima- Nope, that is 100% wrong bud. "top of the line"? No...its damn near enthusiast PC to run that on ultra at 4K. "Something that I doubt the PS5 and the next Xbox would be able to achieve considering that neither the of the current gen consoles can even run games at 1080p and 60fps" ? That is actually up to the developers making the games, not the hardware, they don't need to run those settings thus you don't actually know if they can't or if they are just not being used. http://www.gamersnexus.net/... Sooooooo as you may see at 4k 60fps on ultra, its extremely demanding. Notice as the resolutions drop, the frame increases and the over all setting is different ie developers are doing the same thing on console, they are lowering resolution to increase performance and have more demanding graphical effects. The GTX 980 is 5TFLOPs, SLI by 2x is about 10 TFLOPs. PS4 at merely 5x more is actually 9.35TFLOPs... ...PS4 is actually 10x more powerful then PS3...the example I used was merely if the next gen was LESS then the jump this gen.. If its the same jump of 10x, your looking at something crazy like 18.7TFLOPs lol, now I don't think that will be in PS5, but who knows. Also stop stating what you think each console could do based on setting of games today that are actually chosen by developers. It not that they can't, its clearly that they don't want to. Wipeout HD released on PS3 at 1080p 60fps... That is like me saying PC can't even handle Arkham Knight yet PS4 and XONE can... Am I sure thats the hardware? Sure its not the developers? lol, consider if that was true, why would they even make new engines that are even demanding in the first place? If they wanted 1080p 60fps SOOOOO badly, they would NOT have made new engines, they would have just kept using the older ones, mind you...notice those that DID want that setting, actually did JUST THAT. Stop deeming what hardware can do based on what a developer chooses to do with it. That isn't about hardware as much as thats about the choice of that one developer to do that.
Whether you consider them low, med or high rigs it really doesn't matter as it'll still continue to release better looking games than what is currently available and that includes anything on PC.
@ Edmix http://www.thesaurus.com/br... Call it top of the line or enthusiast for all I care. Don't see much difference. Also if you're going to quote me, use everything that I wrote: "neither the of the current gen consoles can even run games at 1080p and 60fps UNLESS SOME HEFTY COMPROMISES ARE MADE" What exactly was the point of your useless wall of text? Was it to make you feel better about your insecurities? As for the PS4 being 10x more powerful than the PS3, it doesn't make it run games at 1080p/60 fps. BTW proof that top of the line PCs can run Witcher 3 on ultra at 4k/60fps https://www.youtube.com/wat...
My laptop is literaly more powerful than my PS4 and X1. (My evidence is multiplats ive compared) Every multiplat i have on them both runs at 1080P/60fps and beyond on my laptop. I agree with you.
@Shloobmm3 The only time you're getting anything special form the consoles is an exclusive that's completely optimized for them. Any high-end laptop can do everything the PS4 / XBO can do, and it's also why almost every multiplatform game that is completely unoptimized for PC, runs circles around the console versions on those same high-end laptops. PS4 / XBO versions aim for High, or Mid-High settings. 980m > 1080p @ 60+ fps EVERYTHING on High, 4k gaming capable http://www.notebookcheck.ne... 970m > 1080p @ 60fps almost everything on High http://www.notebookcheck.ne... 965m > 1080p @ with better framerates than PS4 / XBO on High http://www.notebookcheck.ne... 960m = Comparable to PS4, but again a completely unoptimized platform http://www.notebookcheck.ne... 950m < PS4 and XBO http://www.notebookcheck.ne... So that's 3 GPUs that produce greater performance than anything on PS4 / XBO, 1 that rivals them, and 1 that's below. The problem is this is only the GTX 900m series, there's still GPUs from the 800m, 700m, and the 600m. 680m, 770m, 775m, 780m, 870m, 880m, 965m, 970m, 980m are all better GPUs than the PS4 and XBO, and that's only counting NVIDIA offerings, and in 2016 there will be an abundance of new GPUs that vastly outperform the PS4 and XBO because a new fabrication node is coming in either 14nm or 16nm, which means more GPU cores on die, making the x80m, x70m, x60m, and x50m GPUs from NVIDIA all better performers than the PS4 and XBO, and at the high end they can easily be offering 3x the performance of the PS4. If any on here defends consoles, it's me, but unlike most of you, I'm not ignorant of PC performance, because I've built a gaming PC, and I have a gaming laptop.
@Angelic And if Horizon was on PC it would run better on all those GPUs listed above, just like every other game did. Those GPU are simply more powerful than the one in the PS4. And I don't to this day understand why people continue to debate and argue about it. The PS4 is 2 year old hardware.... PC hardware evolves annually and every 2 - 3 years there's a decent leap from what was available. The GTX 680 is absolutely no comparison to the GTX 980 Ti ... or 980 ... or 970 ... it's finally on par with the 960, and it's the same in mobile. GPUs evolve. The PS4 is based on AMD's 7970m / R9 M290x (M = Mobile), but down-clocked with some CUs and other cutbacks, which is why the 7970m, R9 290x, R9 390, and R9 390x all out perform it. The PS4 and XBO are simply mid range gaming laptops. There's no point getting offended by it, it is what it is. And since we all like Digital Foundry so much 980m (these games are running 1080p Ultra settings, and still above PS4/XBO) https://www.youtube.com/wat... Battlefield 4 880m vs PS4 vs XBO 1080p, High, Ultra Textures vs 900p High vs 720 High https://www.youtube.com/wat... 880m Crysis 3 Medium (w. High Texture) vs High (w. Very High Texture) This is probably the best example why console generally use Mid-High, it provides a big boost to fps https://www.youtube.com/wat... I enjoy both consoles, but the truth is they're mid-range laptops.
comparinf a laptop to a console? just no... I tease my brother all the time about his greatest game.. Crysis 3 (Graphically speaking) While I do own a gaming rig myself and so does my son. I still love what my Xbox offers hands down.
Fanboy logic: PS4 is immensely more powerful than X1 because of the specs on their GPUs. But PC is not more powerful than PS4 even though low end GPUs for PC have the same specs as the Ps4, and mid range GPUs are way more powerful producing way higher frame rates and resolution. Smh. For reference, a R9 270x is low end, around $100, better specs than PS4. Mid range, GTX970, $300, 4-5x as powerful as current gen consoles.
@underwaves75 Never once did I say no one can't love, or shouldn't like their console. I've proven and said time and time again, I prefer playing most of my games on console. But the fact is technologically speaking the consoles are comparable to mid-range laptops. The PS4 closer to mid-high, and the XBO getting closer to mid-low. It's not a jab at the consoles, it's just where their GPUs rank in terms of performance. Everyone on here can agree that a stronger GPU can produce better graphics / performance in games, it's why the PS4 versions of multiplat games generally have a slight edge. Well most of the laptops I listed above are running GPU that are 2 - 3+ TFLOPS (using AMD's TFLOP metric the 980m is closer to 4 TFLOPS). The PS4 and XBO simply can't compete with that performance overhead. They were high end laptop range when they launched (well the PS4 was, XBO was mid-high), but it's 2 years later and there are new and more powerful GPU in the laptop range.
Your an idiot if that's what you think
I got confused are we comparing at 300 pounds ps4/xb1 to a top of the range PC? Really. I wanna see a 300 pounds PC/ laptop run horizon, halo 5 , drive club and forza. Sigh and don't quote gfx card prices I'm talking everything. Last time I checked a gfx card on its own can't run f all
@Orbilator Last time I checked, I only have to replace my GPU. When you buy a new console, you don't have to include the price of a new TV, extra controllers, headset, or accessories. So why should a PC enthusiast have to include the price of building a brand new PC for comparison? It doesn't make any sense. Today, you could slap a R9 270x for about $100 in your PC and it will run better than a PS4. Or my current GTX970 for $300 is probably as powerful as the PS5 will be, but I have it right now. I love consoles, but the argument on this topic is a joke.
Yeah it shows in the resolution of Battlefront, you guys totally have a harness on things... smh
"EA calls PS4 & Xbox One power 'fantastic'" If they are so fantastic (power wise), why is it that Star Wars Battlefront (EA game) only runs 900p on the PS4 and 720p on the X1? One of two things... PS4/X1 power isn't that fantastic or EA developers aren't that good.
Still when they showed of Battlefront most people claimed it wasn't in-game as it looked 'too' good for consoles
Running 900p is developer choice, it not actually do to console. They want 900p due to the demanding game, if PS4 where to be 3x more powerful, how do you know they wouldn't just make the game 3x more powerful and still make it 900p? That has nothing to actually do with the system and more so what developers want out of it. You will have no gen where the most demanding titles will be at the max resolution as that is by choice. Lets say we get next gen 10x more powerful, how do you know they won't just make a 10x more demanding engine.......for 1080p vs a less demanding for 4k? lol That is very, very likely to happen. They want to use their power for demanding graphics, not resolutions. Also consider I said 10x over PS4....PS4 right now is actually 10x of what PS3 was in terms of power.. The more you know...
it is to do with teh console. ea did not go into making the game with 720p and 900p as the ultimate goal. their goal was 60 frames per second and once they got it running smooth then they can decide on what resolution they can bump it to. if it has nothing to do with the hardware then why is the xbox one 720p and the ps4 900p? why it is because the ps4 is more powerful. the developer did not set out to make the same game on two different resolutions because that is what they wanted, it is very much to do with the hardware capabilities. did ea lock the pc version at 900p?
"ea did not go into making the game with 720p and 900p as the ultimate goal" No they went into making it to make a demanding title using Frostbite 3, What ever resolutions it worked right in is likely what DICE would have used for the game, period. "if it has nothing to do with the hardware then why is the xbox one 720p and the ps4 900p?" Because that only has to do with the hardware in comparison. I'm stating resolution had little to do with hardware in the respect that if they want that setting, they can just use the last Frostbite engine and call it a day. They want demanding, thus...resolution is on the back burner to quality and demanding assets. XONE being weaker will always get a lower resolution based on PS4 actually being stronger. If PS4 was the same power as XONE, don't be shocked if they were to seek 720p as for all we know, they are making it with XONE in mind, putting it on PS4 and using the extra power to bump it to 900p. As when the game is done on XONE, they will still have more power on PS4. It happening merely do to having more power than, not having more power in general as for all we know again...if both had the same specs, we may not even see a 900p version. That 900p bump might solely be based on having more power AFTER the fact. " the developer did not set out to make the same game on two different resolutions because that is what they wanted, it is very much to do with the hardware capabilities" Nope, it has to do with the power bump PS4 has AFTER the fact of being done with an XONE version (so to speak anyway). Because their base version is 720p, they will always have more power on PS4. Period. They can't just use that extra power to make it have graphically more demanding features as they are not in the business of making specific PS4 titles and I can see how that might not be far to use the extra power to do such a thing to all gamers. ie playing favorites. So I think they are being fair by just using the extra power left over for a better resolution. The reality is, you don't know what they would do if given more power as its clear they are seeking a demanding title, not a title that runs 1080p 60fps. As it begs to question....why even make a new engine in the first place? Use the last one and call it a day. Clearly thats not the case, ask yourself this....why didn't Rockstar just keep using Renderware last gen? You really think they love that setting THAT MUCH? Yet GTAV exist as at lessor settings then GTASA, yet with a more demanding engine. The hardware only factors based on PS4 being more stronger, if both where the same specs, I actually expect them to go 720p on both with max or ultra settings on quality. The are seeking to be the best graphically, not merely the one with the highest settings in frame and res.
@_-EDMIX-_ you could have just saved a lot of time and effort by just admitting you don't know what you're talking about. "XONE being weaker will always get a lower resolution based on PS4 actually being stronger. If PS4 was the same power as XONE, don't be shocked if they were to seek 720p as for all we know, they are making it with XONE in mind, putting it on PS4 and using the extra power to bump it to 900p." saying this after you just said the resolution is developers choice and has nothing to do with the hardware makes your earlier response seem like it is from the bizarro world . the hardware has a lot to do with development decisions. the power of the hardware also allows them to make games that were not otherwise possible. steam machines will play this game in full 1080p which totally debunks why they would 'choose' to go with 900p on the ps4 and 720p on the xbox one.
The be fair, even with the 900p resolution on PS4, it looks really really god from a visual stand point. A very impressive game especially considering it's in multiplayer AND 60FPS on top and of that. It's still a technically impressive title. One of the most impressive looking games this console generation released thus far.
Agreed. The game looks amazing! Frostbite 3 looks great on these consoles, can't wait for Mass Effect next fall, can't wait for Mirrors Edge in the spring!
Yeah, 900p on PS4 does look good. But when it's 900p on X1 it's "disgraceful" and "not next Gen" and it "looks blurry". To be fair, all console fanboys just move the goal posts to wherever their console of choice lands.
Because 60fps + the graphical features BF is pushing doesn't come cheap.
Its frostbite not the consoles. Its the deferred rendering. If they went away from that they would get much more out of the engine. In time they will move away from it and the resukts will get much better.
Frostbite 3 blows.
I prefer Graphics/gameplay over resolution. Yes the game will look better at 4k over 1080p but doesn't mean it is more important then the other aspects. Uncharted or the order or Horizon looks better then most if not all pc games despite it's price. Why ?. Because their art and engine features are much more advanced , they are not relaying on hardware rather they focus on their talent. Making a game like Uncharted 4 at 4k is easy compared to making the game as awesome. Just let ND develop on pc lol. You will see them go beyond U4 if that happen because they are great developers not just because they are doing games in pc.. Frame rate is another thing though which have bigger effect in experience which we need in console more then resolution for now. Let the 4k resolution for next gen for AAA games. It's not even ready for pc. Too expensive.
The game looks fantastic.
Fantastic? lol Hyperbole at its best but what do you expect? They want that money and good PR for Sony and Xbox is potentially more money for them.
"devs just now harnessing their power" but what type of power will they end up getting?
Fantastic would be if you can use all these major things at once: 1080p, 60fps (racing, fps) and at least 4XMSAA. Give me one game that uses them all (@XboxOne)?
Many on here seem to think that 1080p 60fps is a setting that all want in development. It isn't a default and it isn't a standard. Developers choose to use that setting based on their titles. Did we not get Wipeout HD last gen native 1080p 60fps? Why is it that you think we didn't just have all titles do that? Its not that they can't, its that the trade off is too much and they are still competing against other publishers with more demanding titles that look better at lessor resolution frame etc. As to why GTAV last gen was not 1080p 60fps, yet looked more impressive then GTASA. Your asking them to keep making GTASA for a number while their competition makes demanding titles like GTAV if that makes any sense to you. Its why those numbers have NOTHING to do with Sony or MS as a developer chooses how demanding their game will be, not Sony or MS. PS4 is already 10x that of PS3. If PS5 is merely 5x of PS4, it would be at 9.25TFLOPs..you seen a game on PC that requires 9.25TFLOPS JUST to run? Yet would you call such power weak in the next few years? Consider you may not even see any PC game that even requires that JUST to run a game, consider that is also JUST 5x of PS4, not 10x. Even if they use all those settings "at once" the game would still look dated if you consider all the sacrifices they would have to make in order to get that, it would literally look last gen in comparison to other titles.
@_-EDMIX-_ Question.....Why do you keep saying the PS4 is 10 times more powerful than the PS3 when the PS3 had approx 400 Gigaflops of output? Since the PS4 is approx 1.8 Teraflops, that would mean the PS4 is actually approx 4 to 5 times more powerful than the PS3. Maybe you can explain where you're getting your numbers from.
http://gamingbolt.com/ps4xb... and http://www.dualshockers.com... Experts and developers who actually worked on both...
Well your first link is based on what Chris Doran was quoted: "“The big difference with the new consoles is where the power is located. Pretty much across the board the new consoles are a factor of 10 better than the previous generation, but in terms of compute power the GPUs massively out-strip the CPUs in the new hardware,”____________________ _______________________________ ________________He's saying, basically, that the PS4 is 10 times better. But, EDMIX, as far as FLOPS are concerned, the PS4 outputs approx 4 to 5 times more than the PS3. That's all I'm trying to tell you.
Edmix, do you hate having an enjoyable, smooth experience?
FH2 was open world, 1080p, 30fps, and used 4XMSAA. Still doesn't hit all of your listed targets, though.
Lets just replace power with money.
Anywhere the money is is "fantastic" for EA.
you mean like how battlefront is only 720p on the xb1 yeah ea is taking full advantage alright
I think next gen, MS is going to sell the X1 at a loss in order to get more power. I'm enjoying my X1 but I don't think they want to go through this again. Not saying its THAT much weaker than the PS4 mind you.
ES is suddenly talking a lot, eh? They bummed by Syndicate sales or something?
AC Syndicate is a ubisoft title, not EA.
They are powerful systems. Just a little less ultra ridiculously powered than some wanted. There no way PS3 can do these games though. Killzone, Infamous, Bloodbourne, Until Dawn, Horizon Zero Dawn, Crackdown, Halo, Tomb Raider ROTTR, Ryse the list just goes on and on. The gap is only as close as it is because this is the end of year two. In two years it won't even be close anymore then there will also be Virtual Reality which PS3 probably couldn't even run.
I agree with shloobmm3. Both sony and ms especially sony has said right before the consoles come out dont expect a big jump in graphics like the ps2 to the 360. Last gen was a big jump in hardware power compared to this gen so far im not impressed with these next gen systems.they look like suped up brighter graphics which kinda sucks.i was expecting photo realistic graphics this time around.maybe sony and ms was playing it safe with cheaper consoles just in case they flopped because around the same time there was a lot of talk that consoles where on their last legs,of course we all were proved wrong and with that said i hope the next gen systems they're power houses which can run 4k graphics 1440p at a locked 60fps. You can tell these new gen systems are weak they can barely run games at 1080 at 60 fps and the graphics are only a step up from lasr gen,not cool i must admit though that the ps4 is more powerful than the x1 i see a big difference in graphics,load times and the games run a higher frame rate.
Wonder how much Sony and Microsoft paid them to say that, but seriously hopefully next gen consoles come quicker next time around.
N4G is a community of gamers posting and discussing the latest game news. It’s part of NewsBoiler, a network of social news sites covering today’s pop culture.