127 réponses à ce sujet

[Rannik]

"20% weaker" doesn't mean anything when you don't describe how it's weaker.

 

It is when you're talking about the exact same GPU design, just 20% less of it (16 vs 18 compute units iirc).

 

XBone is 20% slower than PS4 as far as raw GPU throughput goes, and the difference is even bigger in practice due to the superior overall design (using DDR3 memory for real time rendering is an absolute joke). I still don't understand how MS could go for such a terrible solution just to save more money, especially if what they wanted was a gaming console and not a glorified streaming stick, they could just go all out and make it a 199€ beefier Apple TV.

[o Ventus]

It is when you're talking about the exact same GPU design, just 20% less of it (16 vs 18 compute units iirc).

 

XBone is 20% slower than PS4 as far as raw GPU throughput goes, and the difference is even bigger in practice due to the superior overall design (using DDR3 memory for real time rendering is an absolute joke). I still don't understand how MS could go for such a terrible solution just to save more money, especially if what they wanted was a gaming console and not a glorified streaming stick, they could just go all out and make it a 199€ beefier Apple TV.

 

Clearly the difference is NOT bigger in practice, because like I said both consoles render at the same resolutions, at the same framerate, where literally the only difference is in minutiae like grass and foliage.

 

I'm guessing you don't own an Xbox One nor have played anything on it, because you sound like a buttmad Sony fanboy at this point.

[Kunari801]

Except for that Mako.

 

I've always seen people complain about the Mako, but playing Mass Effect so many times on the 360, I never had any issue and figured people were just doing their overreacting schtick that you see on game forums.

 

But having just rescued Liara in my first Mako mission on PC, I now see where those people were coming from.

 

Huh, the Mako on PC is easier to control than on the 360.  IMHO at least. 

[Andrew Lucas]

Yes, console only...

Lol thread.

[Andrew Lucas]

It is when you're talking about the exact same GPU design, just 20% less of it (16 vs 18 compute units iirc).
 
XBone is 20% slower than PS4 as far as raw GPU throughput goes, and the difference is even bigger in practice due to the superior overall design (using DDR3 memory for real time rendering is an absolute joke). I still don't understand how MS could go for such a terrible solution just to save more money, especially if what they wanted was a gaming console and not a glorified streaming stick, they could just go all out and make it a 199€ beefier Apple TV.

We have an actual engineer who understands more than MICROSOFT'S own professional enginners!!

[Sylvius the Mad]

It is when you're talking about the exact same GPU design, just 20% less of it (16 vs 18 compute units iirc).

And that's a difference of 20% how, exactly?

 

Is there some added complexity in the calculation of which I'm unaware?

[shodiswe]

Make it on PC then port it to whatever console which might be able to handle it...

[Cyonan]

It is when you're talking about the exact same GPU design, just 20% less of it (16 vs 18 compute units iirc).

 

XBone is 20% slower than PS4 as far as raw GPU throughput goes, and the difference is even bigger in practice due to the superior overall design (using DDR3 memory for real time rendering is an absolute joke). I still don't understand how MS could go for such a terrible solution just to save more money, especially if what they wanted was a gaming console and not a glorified streaming stick, they could just go all out and make it a 199€ beefier Apple TV.

 

Actually, it's 12 CUs to 18 CUs.

 

If we use TFLOPS as the unit of measurement for throughput, then the Xbox One is at 1.32 while the Playstation 4 is at 1.84. About 40% higher than that of the Xbox One(for anybody who doesn't know, that's basically just a general measurement for how many operations per second a computer can do).

 

and that's just the GPU's performance. As you mention, Microsoft used the inferior DDR3 RAM to the PS4's GDDR5.

 

Right now it's not really a major issue but I suspect if we see this console generation drag on like the last one did, the PS4 will start showing its strength towards the end while the Xbox One just wont be able to keep up anymore.

[FKA_Servo]

I play everything at max settings with fluid video. The Witcher at 10fps? No, sir.

 

I used to have a 580.

 

If you're talking about TW1, then I guess this is plausible.

[sjsharp2011]

Then you won't be buying any PC game since they are all designed around using a controller over a keyboard/mouse first, hardware wise consoles are basically low-end PCs and with how people were whining about the PC controls for Dragon Age: Inquisition expect to have a lot of commands bound to one button and not broken apart.

well as  long as like ME2/3 there's a button you can hold to bring up the Command HUD anjd hen select the power you want to use then I'd be OK with that anyway I think as long as the basic conrtols and options are like they were bfeore

[dfjdejulio]

They should buy a wheel or a controller. Much more precise controls; you don't just tell the character/car where to go, but also how fast to go there. And not just by toggling sprint by pressing a button, but by how hard they press the button/stick.

 

Presumed corollary: any game with a driving component should support controller and/or wheel.

 

(It's my understanding that no PC version of any Mass Effect game currently does, and that's one thing keeping me on consoles.)

[angol fear]

Make it on PC then port it to whatever console which might be able to handle it...

 

Ridiculous! If it's a PC game, then it will have a PC gameplay! Mass Effect was a console game, not a PC game and I'm glad it wasn't. Seriously, action-RPG should be made on console, not on PC and it can't be made on PC. The witcher is a PC game and its gameplay is far from being good (you have to compare its gameplay to Bloodborne to understand what I mean). So no thanks if it turns to be a PC gameplay.

[FKA_Servo]

Ridiculous! If it's a PC game, then it will have a PC gameplay! Mass Effect was a console game, not a PC game and I'm glad it wasn't. Seriously, action-RPG should be made on console, not on PC and it can't be made on PC. The witcher is a PC game and its gameplay is far from being good (you have to compare its gameplay to Bloodborne to understand what I mean). So no thanks if it turns to be a PC gameplay.

 

 

All games are made on PC. Point conceded on The Witcher 1, at any rate (god, that ordeal is still fresh in my mind), but let's not let that speak for PC action games.

 

Especially considering that your console is just a gimpy gaming PC.

[Jester]

Which is a completely meaningless statement without any context, because that's not how technology works. "20% weaker" doesn't mean anything when you don't describe how it's weaker. About the only thing a PS4 can do graphically better than an Xbox One is render foliage and grass. You literally have to stare at the ground and look at the weeds to see any difference. Models, textures, anti-aliasing, all 99.999999% the same, the other 00.000001% to account for the different chipsets and cards in the consoles. Both consoles are clearly, demonstrably capable of running games at 1080p and at 60 frames per second.

Name one AAA title, released this year, on both consoles, that runs in 1080p and 60 fps. ONE. On both consoles.

 

And yes, Xbone is weaker. 

Witcher 3 - Xbox 900p, PS4 1080p

Evolve - Xbox 900p, PS4 1080p

Dying Light - Xbox ~1536x1080 (source: http://www.eurogamer...rmance-analysis ) PS4 1080p

Battlefield: Hardline - Xbox 720p, PS4 900p

 

All of those games, except Battlefield: Hardline run at 30 fps on both consoles.

 

Ridiculous! If it's a PC game, then it will have a PC gameplay! Mass Effect was a console game, not a PC game and I'm glad it wasn't. Seriously, action-RPG should be made on console, not on PC and it can't be made on PC. The witcher is a PC game and its gameplay is far from being good (you have to compare its gameplay to Bloodborne to understand what I mean). So no thanks if it turns to be a PC gameplay.

"Riddiculous" is expecting, that a game which is story and character focused, will have combat system on par with a game, which entire premise is it's combat system (Bloodborne).

You cannot compare those two. And Witcher 3 was clearly designed with a gamepad in mind. It has nothing to do with consoles. 

There is no such thing as a "PC gameplay".

[PhroXenGold]

Ridiculous! If it's a PC game, then it will have a PC gameplay! Mass Effect was a console game, not a PC game and I'm glad it wasn't. Seriously, action-RPG should be made on console, not on PC and it can't be made on PC. The witcher is a PC game and its gameplay is far from being good (you have to compare its gameplay to Bloodborne to understand what I mean). So no thanks if it turns to be a PC gameplay.

 

There's no reason why consoles should be more "action" oriented. The only real difference between the two is that PCs have a more robust control system (M+K). It's better to take full advantage of that control system by designing the game with it in mind, then later pare it down for systems with worse control systems, than to design if for a bad system and thus waste the capabilities of the good system.

 

That the Witcher's gameplay isn't great (though it was better than either of its sequels) has nothing to do with it being a PC game. It's do do with it being badly designed.

[Rannik]

Clearly the difference is NOT bigger in practice, because like I said both consoles render at the same resolutions, at the same framerate, where literally the only difference is in minutiae like grass and foliage.

 
Most of games have huge differences in framerates, resolution (>mfw "792p"), detail and many other things.
 
Reality does not care about your opinion, and there's plenty of empirical evidence out there.
 

I'm guessing you don't own an Xbox One nor have played anything on it, because you sound like a buttmad Sony fanboy at this point.

Sony having an extremely more simple and objectively superior design does not say anything about me, that's some weird reasoning you got there.

I have played both fairly extensively and decided not to own them because both are extremely disappointing compared to 360/PS3 (it's 2009 hardware in 2015 after all) and bring absolutely nothing to the table. I'll probably just wait until the end of their life and buy every exclusive worth mentioning (very few so far) at a fraction of the price, but right now I can't think of a single reason to spend 1€ on current gen living room consoles.

Especially now that playing PC games on the couch is literally two clicks away.

[Overdosing]

hopefully they don't outsource that stuff like with Batman: Arkham Knight. Which they probably won't.

[Rannik]

hopefully they don't outsource that stuff like with Batman: Arkham Knight. Which they probably won't.

 

They outsourced Mass Effect and it is the best PC version in the trilogy, by far.

[Sanunes]

They outsourced Mass Effect and it is the best PC version in the trilogy, by far.

 

The difference is that they didn't have a deadline for the PC version with Mass Effect because it wasn't being released at the same time as the console version.  I find that is when outsourcing ports falls down.

[KaiserShep]

Ridiculous! If it's a PC game, then it will have a PC gameplay! Mass Effect was a console game, not a PC game and I'm glad it wasn't. Seriously, action-RPG should be made on console, not on PC and it can't be made on PC. The witcher is a PC game and its gameplay is far from being good (you have to compare its gameplay to Bloodborne to understand what I mean). So no thanks if it turns to be a PC gameplay.

There are action games for PC that go back a good few years. I don't get this sentiment.

[Sylvius the Mad]

The difference is that they didn't have a deadline for the PC version with Mass Effect because it wasn't being released at the same time as the console version. I find that is when outsourcing ports falls down.

It wasn't even announced until after the release of ME on console.

I was actually given a 360 as a gift right around then, and I very nearly bought ME on console because I had no reason the believe a PC version was coming.

[Cyonan]

Odds are they'll do the PC port themselves like they have for all their games after Mass Effect 1.

 

However outsourcing it is fine, provided you go with a competent developer to do it.

[Sanunes]

Odds are they'll do the PC port themselves like they have for all their games after Mass Effect 1.

 

However outsourcing it is fine, provided you go with a competent developer to do it.

 

From my experience with BioWare they normally will do the initial release of a game, but any ports of the game after that initial release are done by a third party. For Demerge did the PC release of Mass Effect 1 while Edge of Reality did the PS3 version.  If you look at the port of Jade Empire which was farmed out to LTI Gray Matter it was far from the quality of either port of Mass Effect 1. I think the only exception to this was the Mass Effect 2 port to the PS3 because they used the modified Mass Effect 2 that they were using for Mass Effect 3 for the PS3 port of Mass Effect 2.

[o Ventus]

Name one AAA title, released this year, on both consoles, that runs in 1080p and 60 fps. ONE. On both consoles.

 

I haven't played the huge majority of games released this year, but off the top of my head, Mortal Kombat X.

[Rannik]

Mortal Kombat X.

 

You're missing FIFA, some racing game and maybe even Minecraft.

 

Impressive stuff indeed.