RPGCrazied
Member
Nah. I'm the same way. I don't care either, but if the game has tearing I do care. That is the one thing I do not like in games.
Batman: Arkham Knight Aiming for identical Res/Framerate Across Xbox One and PS4
- Thread starter Poetic.Injustice
- Start date
Nah. I'm the same way. I don't care either, but if the game has tearing I do care. That is the one thing I do not like in games.
Will you die if there is parity? Can you survive it, if it were to happen? I think the answers to those questions are No and Yes respectively. At least, that is how I would answer for what is now likely PC parity as well. It is not a situation anyone wants, for sure.
So when you say you can't survive it, I feel I am justified with the response "#melodrama"
Nope perfectly fine to have that opinion just as its fine for people to care about parity.
AHAHAHAHAHA omg, I'm actually in shock. Arkham Knight has a marketing deal with Sony, and you are telling me THE ONLY LOGICAL situation here is that MS is forcing Arkham knight to enforce parity (even though you have NOT seen the game and you have NOT understood under what context this is). I've seen it all. It's funny how a game which actually HAS a long lasting marketing deal (COD) has not had enforced parity but AK does.
"It is sickening to me that people are defending this sort of behavior" should be something said to you, it's disgusting how you are defending the behaviour of "hey, IT MUST BE MS" being spammed in every thread.
Please also re-read all my comments, and tell me where I defended this sort of business/behaviour anyways.
How can there be PC parity if you can push past 1080p and 60fps if you have the rig for it?
It's the same game but better in all aspects, I wouldn't call that parity. PC version is not in jeopardy.
bananafactory
Banned
Welp, looks like I'll probably be skipping this one as I am with Unity.
Sad, but at the same time these parity games really make my buying decisions much easier.
Sad, but at the same time these parity games really make my buying decisions much easier.
IndoAssassin
Banned
So a 6:1 lead in Europe, a 1.5:1 lead in UK and US doesn't warrant extra resources?
So... last gen, because the architecture of the two consoles were so dissimilar, you couldn't get away with not optimizing your game for both systems because it took a lot of work just to get the game running on the other system.
And now that they architecture is a lot more similar, you don't really have to waste as much time porting the game over, and therefore you're less likely to spend time optimizing "to get the most out of" the hardware.
So... even though the PS4 is stronger than the XBox One, the fact that it's more similar to the One than the PS3-Cell was to the 360 is actually a bad thing in some ways.
...I think.
And now that they architecture is a lot more similar, you don't really have to waste as much time porting the game over, and therefore you're less likely to spend time optimizing "to get the most out of" the hardware.
So... even though the PS4 is stronger than the XBox One, the fact that it's more similar to the One than the PS3-Cell was to the 360 is actually a bad thing in some ways.
...I think.
GAF, I thought gameplay was king? What happened? Are things so good that we have to nitpick like this?
Its almost as if human beings have enough mental capacity to care about more than one thing at once. I mean when I care about graphic fidelity and game performance it doesnt suddenly exclude me from caring about gameplay, but maybe thats just me.
The exact quote is that "we are aiming for parity across all platforms". There previous games have been excellent on PC, but for the sake of staying on topic, and answering the previous poster, I am following this through for the situation in which that quote is literal. In terms of the bolded, they could theoretically lock it
If they truly allocated resources based on what is the best selling version then the PS4 would be lead every single time for these big games from the top 5 publishers (by revenue).
What people are asking them to is to push each system as best as they can.
If it was about deciding upon things based on ROI, then the PS4 would lead and the Xbone would be a contender if Microsoft helps out with funding.
Its funny how for years console gamers ridiculed the PC gamer's attitude of demanding optimization and performance as "elitist" and "stuck up."
After reading about a dozen parity threads, I have to say that some things that the PS4 crowd is saying are word for word the same arguments PC gamers have been making about bad PC ports"
"My system is more powerful, why should it be made to run on par with an inferior system?"
"Why can't the devs utilize the headroom my system has?"
"If I wanted to play games at Xreso and Xfps, I would bought Xsystem!"
"I'm not buying this game on principle"
I'm not saying you guys are wrong, I just find it immensely humorous.
After reading about a dozen parity threads, I have to say that some things that the PS4 crowd is saying are word for word the same arguments PC gamers have been making about bad PC ports"
"My system is more powerful, why should it be made to run on par with an inferior system?"
"Why can't the devs utilize the headroom my system has?"
"If I wanted to play games at Xreso and Xfps, I would bought Xsystem!"
"I'm not buying this game on principle"
I'm not saying you guys are wrong, I just find it immensely humorous.
Ha ha, I didn't mean it like thats the only possible explanation, just a possibility. I'm just confused what the benefit is for the publishers, since looking at the "outrage" here, pairity obviously isnt doing them any favours.
If the gap continues to widen, won't devs be forced to stop doing this?
Graphics are a big deal, if in 3/4 years time some devs are just working on parity, and others are pushing the PS4 to its limits, those games pushing the PS4 will look considerably better than the ones only shooing for the Xbone specs
Will Ubisoft for example be ok with Assassins Creed: Revenge of the Assassins looking worse than all the other big November 2017 releases?
ProfessorMoran
Member
Not sure if Sony has a marketing deal for this game why they would stand for this parity bullshit. It would be sad if a majority of games are forced to be 900p just because of parity.
I dont think many people took issue with those sentiments. It was more the comments that bordered on "lol you console peasants, just build a PC already and throw your peasant box in the garbage." Not in those exact words of course.
I'm pretty sure they will be partnering with NVIDIA to throw all the bells and whistles in just like in the last installments. All the Arkham games have had a pretty good selection of graphical options. I don't see that changing now with the PC version. It would be ludicrous to think that they would go from what they've done in the past to locking the game to certain settings.
Melchiah
Member
Well put. The forced parity serves only Microsoft's (and fanboys') interests. I'll probably cancel the pre-order if this turns out to be the case, eventhough it means I'll lose the extra Harley Quinn missions, and buy the game when its price is significantly decreased. The more they hamper the game, the less I'll pay.
I'm still hoping the resolution parity won't mean parity in all visual departments though, be it AA, AO, or any other visual enchancement.
I will say it again. It's not only resolution and framerate, nvidia has an agreement with rocksteady for better graphics
MMaRsu
Gold Member
You dont care about those consoles not being utilized to their potential?
The Cowboy
Member
The thread title should read "resolution/frame rate parity across all platforms" because that is what is being said in the video in which the quote is taken - graphics never got mentioned..
But you care so much about this slight deviation in your perceived "what PS4 is capable of" graphics fidelity, that you're willing to completely ignore/not support a game which is receiving rave previews from the press...because of it's gamplay
and graphics...
I consider resolution and frame rate as part of graphics, but yes - that would be a more accurate thread title.
Umm... cant tell if serious. People STILL take issue with these sentiments. You bring up graphic fidelity or port quality and before you can take a sip of coffee someone is yelling back "I THOUGHT GAMES WERE ABOUT GAMEPLAY???" As if having bad graphics and shitty optimization somehow improves gameplay
It's almost as if we didn't go through at least two generations of people saying "all versions will look the same and all awesome".
That quote from the Ubisoft's dude really fucked with some people's perception of PR babble.
However please, flip all the tables and burn everything to the ground in horror, for the nth, meaningless, PR response.
They're never going to say "yeah, this will look definitely better on X platform, because it's better". Never.
That quote from the Ubisoft's dude really fucked with some people's perception of PR babble.
However please, flip all the tables and burn everything to the ground in horror, for the nth, meaningless, PR response.
They're never going to say "yeah, this will look definitely better on X platform, because it's better". Never.
*shrug* I cancelled my AC Unity pre-order and moved that cash to Advanced Warfare instead. It is entirely possible.
As a PC gamer (in addition to console gaming) I don't.....so that certainly causes confusion.
Well with this logic haven't they alienated nearly everyone with a PS4? Whats wrong with saying that that the platform that is technically superior will have a technically superior version of the game?
Pathfinder
Member
I think you neglected to take into account that the so-called outrage and public lashing only really existed on NeoGAF from what I can see.
NeoGAF does not represent the gaming community at large, just a percentage of it.
Unity will still sell very well, as well Arkham Knight.
What i'm about to say has 0% sarcasm. I sincerely applaud you for that. If more people spoke with their wallets, this wouldn't be an issue.
But looking at game sales, I feel like this isn't common practice
But it is exactly what they said.
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=138195067&postcount=577
I know they probably want to say something to not piss off Xbox consumers, but surely they realise it is having the opposite effect for a segment of the PS4 consumers? Why not just say something entirely vague and non-committal like 'we are focusing on bringing the best we can to all of our target platforms to the best of our ability'
Or 'we are giving equal attention to all platforms'
Or 'we are giving equal attention to all platforms'
machemachete
Banned
I'd still buy it and lot of my friends (lots of them) are going to buy them too.
Most of people won't let 180p spoil the fun of a (very likely) fantastic game, and thats great.
I know that getting 100% of a machine is the best result but the XO and PS4 payed the same price and they deserve the same product.
I usually expect the first parties to use the 100% but third one...i don't think so.
BLUElightCory
Member
Sledgehammer was "aiming for parity" on Advanced Warfare as well but it didn't happen.
http://www.cinemablend.com/games/Ca...g-Spec-Parity-Between-PS4-Xbox-One-65089.html
Fair enough. I also consider animations as part of graphics and I'm pretty alone with that given how games with bad animations keep getting praised for their graphics.
I didn't pick it up day one precisely for that reason.
Literally this
T Lottes was right.
But who really cares? Multiplat AAA retail games are so dull and infrequent, it really doesn't matter. AssCreed, CoD, blah blah are all going to sell even if PS4/PC versions are gimped.
What I don't get is why MS cares so much about the X1.
Exactly my line of thinking. Thank you.