I don't think most people regard the games press is a unified blob. I think there are good writers out there, such as yourself, who do actual journalism. Unfortunately, for every Jason Schreier, there are a dozen other people whose ethics I do question and who I don't trust at all. I think that when most people (reasonable people anyway) are criticizing the gaming press, it's not meant to be an indictment of every games writer out there. The bad apples tend to spoil the bunch though, and that's why some people have a low opinion of your profession as a whole. You must realize to some extent why so many people feel that way.
Agreed, but I wouldn't call it a few bad apples. Game journalism feels a lot like "politics" where most people assume that pretty much everyone is rotten to the core, and the few who are still "legit" wouldn't call the bullshit from the others.
Maybe that's why an inflammatory article like this one has been so well received. And thinking about it, the few game journalist I respect have done something like that in the past. (Naturally, in a more balanced way)
plagiarize, you are an alright dude. I've enjoyed the discussion with you in this thread.
I'm not sure if I'd agree that a higher resolution means it's "better at playing the games". Bear with me...
One of the prevailing notions that I've picked up on over the past few months is that it will be kind of depressing if this next generation of consoles doesn't bring anything new to games other than higher resolutions and faster framerates. I think that's the sentiment we're starting to see here. People want this generation to be about better games, not just prettier ones. And I think the press has grabbed hold of that idea more than most.
I kind of feel the same way. It used to be I got excited every year when the new Call of Duty came out. I would wait in line at midnight to pick up the game. But that excitement has been shrinking year after year, and now I just can't bring myself to care about those kind of games anymore. I'm not looking for more explosions and more realistic-looking guns. I'm just a little fatigued by the whole one-upsmanship that's going on in development.
I don't fault people who still like the chase of better, faster, bigger, more. But that's just not for me anymore. My favorite game of last year was FEZ, whose visuals are little more than pixel art. It doesn't really matter to me if that is running at 720p or 1080p or 4K or whatever it is as long as it's fun. I can't speak for other critics and journalists, but I think many would agree with me on that point.
Sorry for being blunt but you sound so naive.
It's not about better explosion and prettier graphics, it's about having a next gen system, who opens a whole new world of possibilities with modern tech, not being wasted with a shitty resolution and bad IQ who kills the immersion and art for a lot of people.
It's like when you switch between a composite and rgb cable. If you have the choice to use the rgb cable you should use it because it's cost barely nothing and it will enhance your experience with all your games from the basic ones to the more advanced. It's just plain better for playing games.
It's even more frustrating with next gen console because the point of those new systems is to bring new effect and better art who don' need to be undermined by the low resolution.
It feels like you're wasting your money because you are buying powerfull tech but you can't really enjoy it on your screen because of last gen resolution.
That's the thing the media need to explain and write about.
Even guy like you who writes about games for sites don't know the difference, it really means someone didn't do his job.
EDIT: I would add that what I want from the media is not t osay we don't need to care about the issue but investigate it and telle us more because for me it's a huge deal breaker if I will be forced to play the next halo game in 720p.
That same idiot would be able to tell you that the PS3 is technically powerful than the Xbox 360. That doesn't make it the better console.
Personally, I am hard-pressed to tell the difference in the BF4 footage between the two consoles even when scrutinizing it closely. I don't think I'd be able to tell at all while sitting at a regular viewing distance from my TV.
We were well aware that the PS3 was hard to program for, before a single game shipped. Numerous developers spoke on the matter. And the PS3 was and is the more powerful console, even if it was much harder to leverage that power.
I could have told you before it came out that first party games on the system would likely show an advantage, but multiplatform titles might never reach parity.
In fact I posted as much on neogaf before the PS3 even shipped. We don't have to pretend that we didn't know what was what then, and what is what now. That the specs of the PS3 were misleading to our hypothetical idiot then, doesn't undermine that our hypothetical idiot would be completely on the money to indicate the PS4 is the more powerful console of the two.
This time the two consoles have very similar architecture, so you don't need to comprehend the difference between SPUs and PPUs. Again, just because an idiot might not have got that one right, it has no baring here.
Not going to question that. I don't mean to turn this into a list war, but you still glossed over the point that for many people the PS4 offers the best of everything for them. Price, power, and games. If it doesn't tick those boxes for you, especially in relation to games who am I to tell you differently?
PS. I said the PS4 would have the better selection of games (read variety and quantity), which I think at this point is a definitive statement and not an opinion. I just also happen to think they also will be great games as well.
I think the thing that gets people frustrated is that the behavior is completely inconsistent compared to last gen. We're all struggling to find out why. It started with the DRM BS and has continued. Simply the wait and see approach is appropriate but that's not what's happening. The press consistently said Sony was going to have DRM also without any evidence. I think we're all fairly logical extremely interested people, but shit that kind of obtuseness is just plain maddening. That's why you're seeing this blow up. People feel it's part of your job to report on this and you're not.
To put it another way, the PS3 rightfully got shit on for multiplatform support. The differences in resolution and frame rate are monumentally bigger now than they ever were.
I know you're a good dude, I was at a panel you were part of at PAX East and felt myself nodding when you had the chance to speak. Plus you like jRPGs. Can't hate a dude that's into them.
I think people just don't trust the gaming press as a whole. I find myself going to kotaku only for your articles so don't think your interactions here are falling on deaf ears.
actually there was evidence to the opposite. yoshida did interviews the day of the ps4 reveal stating that the ps4 never had to be connected online, not once. that statement right there countered all the "Sony is going to do the same thing" comments.
Then you had the whole "Well lets let the games do the talking." comments. now the games are talking and there is a noticeable gap between ps4 and x1 games, yet most gaming news outlets are downplaying the gap. 1080p60fps is a large increase over 7206fps, sure its upscaled but its still a large enough difference for my non techie wife to notice.
The gaming media is being disingenuous, with their downplaying of the gap. a true journalist would have stated that there was a gap and left it at that.
Also, if the gaming media is being bullied or held over the coals by the publishers, they should come out and state what is going on in the industry. calling them out on that crap would put a big stink on the pubs themselves and would cause the media outlets to gain the power in the industry. pubs right now seem to think they hold all the cards. the media needs to show them that they don't. bash a game if it runs like crap or has horrible glitches and game breaking bugs, and call the pub out if they don't send you a review copy of their next AAA game. this would make any outlet that does this sort of thing the go to source for gaming news and the pubs would have to begin working with that outlet on equal footing. As it sits now the outlets seem to bow down to the pubs right now and the industry is at the mercy of the pubs.
just look at the devs themselves they are starting to take on the publishers by running kickstarters and going indie in droves. they are pushing back and the pubs are starting to take notice and are now having to change how they are working with devs to keep the brightest talent.
I'm very aware of the difference between the two consoles and their respective resolutions. But resolution itself doesn't really matter to me, and I don't think it will matter to a lot of people.
But if you do care, that's okay! We all have different wants and needs. For example, no matter how crazy I may think it is that DLNA is a console-selling feature for some people, that's their prerogative to make that decision.
I think it is a poorly wriiten article trying to ask a simple question. Why isn't more of the gaming media playing up the differences rather than downplaying the differences? There are plenty of examples of performance and visuals being important differentiatiors for the 360 and PS3, but now an even greater resolution and performance difference is not to be treated as a differentiatior. But yea the article doesn't do a good job asking that question.
That same idiot would be able to tell you that the PS3 is technically powerful than the Xbox 360. That doesn't make it the better console.
Personally, I am hard-pressed to tell the difference in the BF4 footage between the two consoles even when scrutinizing it closely. I don't think I'd be able to tell at all while sitting at a regular viewing distance from my TV.
You do realize that last gen was an apples to oranges comparison in terms of hardware architecture? This gen is more apples to apples. Both consoles are using 8 core jaguars, both are using gcn 1.0+ GPUs. The major differences lie within the memory subsystems and the number of CUs, ROPs, Texture Units, and compute threads available on the GPUs, all of which vastly favors the PS4. If you want to have the technically superior versions of third party multiplatform titles on a console, then you should look no further than the PS4, much like was the case for X360 last gen.
People are not just considering their investment in one game here. Rather, people want to know the deal regarding which platform runs multiplats better.
I think the article is trying (and failing) to make sense of why so many major sites seem to be A: downplaying the difference and B: belittling those of us that care about such things as higher resolutions and smoother frame rates.
It's a disturbing trend to me, and it's coming from sources I completely am bowled over by. Arstechnica? Tom's Hardware? Extremetech (I don't know their readership, but I have read plenty of their stuff in the past)?
Maybe it's a crazy coincidence that all these editorialists just happen not to understand resolution and how it relates to 1080p televisions, but crazy coincidences deserve investigation and usually breed conspiracy theories.
It deserves better investigation than this, but I can't believe it took so long for someone to try to figure out why the reporting has been the way it has, and I can't believe it didn't come from someone in the specialist gaming media.
If you haven't watched Gamespots video on this where it insults all the people in their comments section that care about resolution, maybe you should. I thought about starting a thread on it, but didn't want to give them hits.
And yes, we've had a bazillion threads on the resolution debate, but I hope you see that this thread is about the press coverage of it, and you let it continue.
Were you sleeping when the internet was buzzing with the shoddy job DF did with that? And how other comparisons show more of a disparity? I don't know what it is your goal is, but right now, you're behind the average gaffer when it comes to informing yourself.
Were you sleeping when the internet was buzzing with the shoddy job DF did with that? And how other comparisons shows more a disparity? I don't know what it is your goal is, but right now, you're behind the average gaffer when it comes to informing yourselve.
If you have better comparison footage I'd love to see it. I don't get on GAF very regularly so if there have been lots of threads about this then I've missed them.
If you have better comparison footage I'd love to see it. I don't get on GAF very regularly so if there have been lots of threads about this then I've missed them.
I'm very aware of the difference between the two consoles and their respective resolutions. But resolution itself doesn't really matter to me, and I don't think it will matter to a lot of people.
But if you do care, that's okay! We all have different wants and needs. For example, no matter how crazy I may think it is that DLNA is a console-selling feature for some people, that's their prerogative to make that decision.
I don't think most gaffers are mad at those journalists for their personal opinions on resolutions or consoles per se, it's just that they dismiss people who have a different opinion and when confronted with a sizable power difference (atleast on paper) they don't seem particularly bothered with finding out why (which is their job as journalists and not our job as enthusiasts). More specifically, the question isn't whether or not the Xbox One is a good console, or actually really whether or not it's a good value proposition, or whose side Arthur Gies is on, but how and why the Xbox ended up being so much less powerful than the PS4.
The equivalent of "average consumers don't care, because they have LIVES, loser" is something you read in the Xbox OT, not a professional gaming news site.
Stephen's recent COD story, which is cited in the Cinema Blend article as an example of journalism gone bad, does just what journalism should do: it confirms information, cites multiple developer sources, and presents the story as honestly and as fairly as possible. That's our job. It's what we're going to keep doing, even when NeoGAFfers and career trolls decide they don't like some of the conclusions.
And Kotako did this a day or two after NeoGaf broke the story. As to the bolded, perhaps I missed it... but I didn't see a single developer name in that entire article! Not one!
Sorry, but saying 'we heard rumors on the internet, and then checked with our un-named, anonymous sources to confirm that this is true!' doesn't cut it. That's bullshit investigation. It's certainly not 'journalism'. GAF had named sources, your article didn't. So next time you break a story, provide the link back to the appropriate GAF thread. Other sites did.
I think the main problem is referring to "gaming journalism" is like like referring to an ethereal cloud, a vast faceless entity. Is like pointing everyone and pointing no one at the same time.
This must end
We need names
We need faces to point
We need lists
Everyone must know who is paid by MS/Sony/Nintendo to write biased crap, and who does his job good and professional.
I'm very aware of the difference between the two consoles and their respective resolutions. But resolution itself doesn't really matter to me, and I don't think it will matter to a lot of people.
But if you do care, that's okay! We all have different wants and needs. For example, no matter how crazy I may think it is that DLNA is a console-selling feature for some people, that's their prerogative to make that decision.
If you're a journalist, I'm not sure why this matters. Regardless of whether resolution means anything to you - we're talking an approximate 50% increase in pixels for one console. Personally I have yet to read any article that has stated that the PS4 is rendering vastly more content/pixels - and plenty of articles that seem to follow your line of thinking. "Oh yeah, one is better - but it doesn't really make much difference". That's not reporting.
I want to say a little more about the Kotaku piece, and this part:
For the last few weeks, with little hesitation, game development sources have been telling Kotaku that the PlayStation 4 is more powerful and easier to develop for than the Xbox One. You may have heard this before. But our best sources don't expect that to have a huge impact on the graphics of games on both consoles.
I mentioned this in my previous post, but I want to make sure to give the full quote and make sure that it isn't buried in a longer reply.
What kind of reporter just relates that and leaves it there? It's sort of like reporting 'Sources inside the government are admitting that they are cutting education funding but don't expect it to have any impact on the quality of teaching our children are receiving' and just leaving it at that, as if it's gospel truth.
I'm not sure if Kotaku specifically were predicting we wouldn't see many differences at launch (as many sites and people around these parts were), but that was a common refrain. I mean, that assertion never made sense to me either, but the fact those predictions (or the information from those sources) were clearly wrong should encourage further digging this time.
I just don't know how I can take a story like that seriously after it opening like that. Tell me why the games aren't going to be impacted by the Xbox One being weaker and harder to develop for. It isn't going to happen by magic.
If you have better comparison footage I'd love to see it. I don't get on GAF very regularly so if there have been lots of threads about this then I've missed them.
Yeah, I'm looking around on the jackfrags YouTube channel but I'm not really sure what I should be looking for. I don't see anything listed as comparison footage or anything like that.
And Kotako did this a day or two after NeoGaf broke the story. As to the bolded, perhaps I missed it... but I didn't see a single developer name in that entire article! Not one!
Sorry, but saying 'we heard rumors on the internet, and then checked with our un-named, anonymous sources to confirm that this is true!' doesn't cut it. That's bullshit investigation. It's certainly not 'journalism'. GAF had named sources, your article didn't. So next time you break a story, provide the link back to the appropriate GAF thread. Other sites did.
Exactly. There are things to get to the bottom of. Is this being caused by the 32 megs of ESRAM and deferred rendering? If so are there other graphical approaches that can yield higher resolutions and similar end results? CBOAT and co are saying the resolutions of Xbox One games aren't going to get better, even though the games are going to get better looking.
Do developers expect to lower the resolutions of the PS4 versions if necessary to retain parity with whatever they can do at 720p and 900p if Xbox One developers truly cannot go above that with the sorts if modern rendering tech that Frostbite, Cryengine 3, Anvil Next, Crystal Engine, etc etc use.
Get some people who understand hardware and graphics to talk about the specs.
I'd love for the rumors not to be true. I'd love for someone with much better access to developers than me to do some reporting on this.
If they can keep from insulting those of us that care about this stuff when they do it, that'd be a nice bonus,
I want to say a little more about the Kotaku piece, and this part:
I mentioned this in my previous post, but I want to make sure to give the full quote and make sure that it isn't buried in a longer reply.
What kind of reporter just relates that and leaves it there? It's sort of like reporting 'Sources inside the government are admitting that they are cutting education funding but don't expect it to have any impact on the quality of teaching our children are receiving' and just leaving it at that, as if it's gospel truth.
I'm not sure if Kotaku specifically were predicting we wouldn't see many differences at launch (as many sites and people around these parts were), but that was a common refrain. I mean, that assertion never made sense to me either, but the fact those predictions (or the information from those sources) were clearly wrong should encourage further digging this time.
I just don't know how I can take a story like that seriously after it opening like that. Tell me why the games aren't going to be impacted by the Xbox One being weaker and harder to develop for. It isn't going to happen by magic.
That quote is ridiculous - and I'd love to see jschreier's defense for it.
How can a resolution difference that big, be quantified as anything but 'huge' - and that's without touching on the framerates and missing/lower effects (clouds etc).
That statement is the very issue these sort of threads are based on. It's not reporting, it's baseless speculation and downplaying of a non-trivial gulf in power.
I'm very aware of the difference between the two consoles and their respective resolutions. But resolution itself doesn't really matter to me, and I don't think it will matter to a lot of people.
But if you do care, that's okay! We all have different wants and needs. For example, no matter how crazy I may think it is that DLNA is a console-selling feature for some people, that's their prerogative to make that decision.
Plagiarize was talking about what makes gaming better, you responded by saying you don't care about graphics and nice explosions so I tell you it's not about that but it's about telling people 1080p gaming will always be better than 720p even when we're talking about game like fez.
It's all about balance too, I don't mind the 360 or the wii having low resolution because it matches their specs and their capabilities. The xbox one is a 500$ new piece of tech with a modern gpu and cpu who open a new world of immersion. If I'm buying the console, I want to see clearly what the system is really capable of and not seeing it with a shitty IQ.
The ps4 or pc is a solution for multi platform titles but what about the exclusives ?
We need the media to be on our side and investigate more on the subject, not to state which console is better and fuel the console war, but just so we, as consumers with no input in the industries, could know what we are buying.
I find the media is doing a very bad job and if there wouldn't be gaf I would have made huge mistakes with my purchases.
It's a shame when you need to go on gaming forum and to skim a lot of threads with bullshit and silly discussions just so you can find some very important informations.
well, who I am kidding we all know that's all part of the fun
Plagiarize was talking about what makes gaming better, you responded by saying you don't care about graphics and nice explosions so I tell you it's not about that but it's about telling people 1080p gaming will always be better than 720p even when we're talking about game like fez.
It's all about balance too, I don't mind the 360 or the wii having low resolution because it matches their specs and their capabilities. The xbox one is a 500$ new piece of tech with a modern gpu and cpu who open a new world of immersion. If I'm buying the console, I want to see clearly what the system is really capable of and not seeing it with a shitty IQ.
The ps4 or pc is a solution for multi platform titles but what about the exclusives ?
We need the media to be on our side and investigate more on the subject, not to state which console is better and fuel the console war, but just so we, as consumers with no input in the industries, could know what we are buying.
I find the media is doing a very bad job and if there wouldn't be gaf and I would have made huge mistakes with my purchases.
It's a shame when you need to go on gaming forum and to skim a lot of threads with bullshit and silly discussions just so you can find some very important informations.
well, who I am kidding we all know that's all part of the fun
I bought and enjoyed more Wii games than I did PS3 games, but you bet your ass that I would have bought a Wii that was $100 or $200 more expensive that could have run those same games at higher resolutions and frame rates.
There's a reason I didn't play Skyward Sword on my Wii, and that reason is because it was one of the few game that was perfectly playable on Dolphin at launch. My experience with that game in HD was much better than the brief time I spent playing it on the real hardware.
Without that option... I'd have still played and enjoyed it... but not as much.
If you're a journalist, I'm not sure why this matters. Regardless of whether resolution means anything to you - we're talking an approximate 50% increase in pixels for one console. Personally I have yet to read any article that has stated that the PS4 is rendering vastly more content/pixels - and plenty of articles that seem to follow your line of thinking. "Oh yeah, one is better - but it doesn't really make much difference". That's not reporting.
It's not hard to find news articles stating the difference in resolution for CoD without going into opinion about if it does or doesn't matter. Here are a few:
Just because there are separate opinion pieces by writers on those same sites about the difference and if it matters doesn't undermine the reporting of the basic facts.
If you're a journalist, I'm not sure why this matters. Regardless of whether resolution means anything to you - we're talking an approximate 50% increase in pixels for one console. Personally I have yet to read any article that has stated that the PS4 is rendering vastly more content/pixels - and plenty of articles that seem to follow your line of thinking. "Oh yeah, one is better - but it doesn't really make much difference". That's not reporting.
Exactly right, that's imparting a personal bias and many people are left wondering just why in the hell these reviewers feel the need to do that. It's passive aggressive defense of weaker and more expensive hardware and it's a complete disservice to anyone reading who isn't already more informed than the author.
That quote is ridiculous - and I'd love to see jschreier's defense for it.
How can a resolution difference that big, be quantified as anything but 'huge' - and that's without touching on the framerates and missing/lower effects (clouds etc).
That statement is the very issue these sort of threads are based on. It's not reporting, it's baseless speculation and downplaying of a non-trivial gulf in power.
The author quotes Extreme Tech (another no name site--why are so many sites that no one is reading to begin with being mentioned? Do we really think that advertising is paying off all these random blogs? This is like "my friend said something dumb on facebook" level elevation of some individual dumb argument somewhere strawmanning) as claiming that Xbox One and PS4 versions are "barely distinguishable".
What you wrote sounded good and reasonable up until this part; then I stopped reading because there was no point in continuing. Just like Ars and Toms, I have been visiting that site way longer than I have been visiting GAF (I still think I have 2 issues of Extreme Tech lying around somewhere...). But I guess since you don't don't visit it, it MUST mean it is a no name site that no one visits....
I think this is part of the problem here...too many people, including some journalists, living in their own bubble.
Plagiarize was talking about what makes gaming better, you responded by saying you don't care about graphics and nice explosions so I tell you it's not about that but it's about telling people 1080p gaming will always be better than 720p even when we're talking about game like fez.
Absolutely, and I agree. But I still stand by my statement that resolution is never going to be my personal deciding factor. But I'll take higher resolution and more frames where I can get them, certainly.
We need the media to be on our side and investigate more on the subject, not to state which console is better and fuel the console war, but just so we, as consumers with no input in the industries, could know what we are buying.
I think that's precisely the reason why the press isn't piling on Microsoft and skewering them for the differences just yet. Much of the press hasn't even played a next-gen console yet, and those that have played them have done it in very specific environments with very specific settings. Without having the full picture of practical, real-world use, jumping to conclusions is basically fanboy tactics.
It's not hard to find news articles stating the difference in resolution for CoD without going into opinion about if it does or doesn't matter. Here are a few:
Just because there are separate opinion pieces by writers on those same sites about the difference and if it matters doesn't undermine the reporting of the basic facts.
Why are all the opinion pieces on major sites pushing the same opinion? Why no dissenting voices? Why no articles explaining to people who don't understand what all the fuss is about, what all the fuss is about?
And that IGN piece claims that the rumors have been 'put to rest'. Maybe that's just a poor grasp of English, but that sure sounds like downplaying to me. The rumors were confirmed, not put to rest.
Again, it could just be crazy coincidence. I believe in such things... but it does beg analysis, which is what the cinemablend piece and this thread are at least attempting to do. Someone should be looking at this and asking just what the heck is going on. Why are major sites telling people who care about something that they shouldn't?
I bought and enjoyed more Wii games than I did PS3 games, but you bet your ass that I would have bought a Wii that was $100 or $200 more expensive that could have run those same games at higher resolutions and frame rates.
There's a reason I didn't play Skyward Sword on my Wii, and that reason is because it was one of the few game that was perfectly playable on Dolphin at launch. My experience with that game in HD was much better than the brief time I spent playing it on the real hardware.
Without that option... I'd have still played and enjoyed it... but not as much.
Pretty much why I play mostly on PC. I can get the better version and it's cheaper. It's one of those no brainers. It's the very definition of 'value'. I honestly can't understand people downplaying this aspect, it seriously befuddles me.
It's not hard to find news articles stating the difference in resolution for CoD without going into opinion about if it does or doesn't matter. Here are a few:
Just because there are separate opinion pieces by writers on those same sites about the difference and if it matters doesn't undermine the reporting of the basic facts.
Whatever resolution you play on you’re still going to be playing in glorious 60FPS."
"Most people really won’t notice. They’ll be having fun.
The real story is will the game be fun?"
Downplaying on the very first, and third comment from Polygon itself.
As for the next two articles - I'll give you that. But at the same time, they're brief... very brief. That's not necessarily bad thing - but they're not exactly 'reporting' so much as they're aggregating some news and a quick quote. Hardly journalism at it's finest. For example, why isn't broken down for the less-technical readers. E.g. "1080p = approx. blah number of pixels, VS 720p etc" Or "upscaling is another word for stretching the image blah"
Why are all the opinion pieces on major sites pushing the same opinion? Why no dissenting voices? Why no articles explaining to people who don't understand what all the fuss is about, what all the fuss is about?
I mean, what is there to say? "Man, this sucks, Microsoft sucks, Xbox One sucks, buy a PS4?" There are already enough people on that bandwagon. I don't know how useful it is to come out and say it sucks. (Yes, it does suck. I would love both consoles to be 1080p60.)
And that IGN piece claims that the rumors have been 'put to rest'. Maybe that's just a poor grasp of English, but that sure sounds like downplaying to me. The rumors were confirmed, not put to rest.
Again, it could just be crazy coincidence. I believe in such things... but it does beg analysis, which is what the cinemablend piece and this thread are at least attempting to do. Someone should be looking at this and asking just what the heck is going on. Why are major sites telling people who care about something that they shouldn't?
I don't fault you for seeing the connection and asking for answers. But as for myself, I just go with Occam's Razor maybe they're writing it because it's what they actually believe.
Absolutely, and I agree. But I still stand by my statement that resolution is never going to be my personal deciding factor. But I'll take higher resolution and more frames where I can get them, certainly.
I think that's precisely the reason why the press isn't piling on Microsoft and skewering them for the differences just yet. Much of the press hasn't even played a next-gen console yet, and those that have played them have done it in very specific environments with very specific settings. Without having the full picture of practical, real-world use, jumping to conclusions is basically fanboy tactics.
So we have press that just sit quietly by until the official PR department confirm or deny the rumors playing out loudly elsewhere?
Obviously people who reported on the rumors are exempt from that criticism. Whenever you have loud rumors coming from multiple sources, you should report on it. You should check your sources. You should attempt to let people know how strong the rumors are, because not all rumors are equal.
Much of GAF haven't played a next gen console yet, but we've seen and heard plenty to at the very least bring some very interesting questions to light, and as the rumors get confirmed it would be great to have some press pushing for further answers rather than going 'oh well I guess we can't do anything until we see what games look like six months from launch.'
I bought and enjoyed more Wii games than I did PS3 games, but you bet your ass that I would have bought a Wii that was $100 or $200 more expensive that could have run those same games at higher resolutions and frame rates.
There's a reason I didn't play Skyward Sword on my Wii, and that reason is because it was one of the few game that was perfectly playable on Dolphin at launch. My experience with that game in HD was much better than the brief time I spent playing it on the real hardware.
Without that option... I'd have still played and enjoyed it... but not as much.
I'm clearly with you, I'm all about enhancing the experience and that's why I bought three psp two DS and Two 3ds and you know what ? I made those purchase with the help of trusted and informed opinion on gaf because I can't trust the media on this subject.
I was thinking sites like Digital Foundry were helping our cause but with the recent events I can't even trust them anymore...
The only gaming site who is god tier is Gamersyde. That's what I call good reporting.
I dunno, I personally have a hard time making the logical leap of a Polygon moderator having an opinion meaning that the site has an agenda or is on the take. Maybe he's just trying to curb the inevitable resolution console wars in the comments?
As for the next two articles - I'll give you that. But at the same time, they're brief... very brief. That's not necessarily bad thing - but they're not exactly 'reporting' so much as they're aggregating some news and a quick quote. Hardly journalism at it's finest. For example, why isn't broken down for the less-technical readers. E.g. "1080p = approx. blah number of pixels, VS 720p etc" Or "upscaling is another word for stretching the image blah"
I would guess the data they have on their readership suggests that they are tech-savvy enough to know those terms, and that spelling them out is a waste of time at best, or patronizing at worst.
Absolutely, and I agree. But I still stand by my statement that resolution is never going to be my personal deciding factor. But I'll take higher resolution and more frames where I can get them, certainly.
I think that's precisely the reason why the press isn't piling on Microsoft and skewering them for the differences just yet. Much of the press hasn't even played a next-gen console yet, and those that have played them have done it in very specific environments with very specific settings. Without having the full picture of practical, real-world use, jumping to conclusions is basically fanboy tactics.
How much more confirmation do you need? At this point I expect that someone will have to draw a step-by-step diagram on how much better, and demanding 1080p is over the alternative resolutions - before the reporters will take it upon themselves to write about it. Once the hardware was confirmed - the differences were all but a lock. I'm not sure how a bunch of community posters on a forum seem to have more technical know-how and confidence in the specs than the journalists getting paid to report on it.
To break it down - the PS4 is vastly more powerful. Seriously. Someone here can draw you diagram on how this translates on to your screen and where the differences between the consoles exist.
To put it in perspective. I don't think there would necessarily be anything wrong with writing an article that said - "1080p > 720p for this many reasons - but is it necessarily the best investment for that 50% extra power... maybe some additional effects, or better textures blah blah" That could be an interesting opinion piece that could comment on the factual, huge differences - and still discuss the fact that many people may not notice the resolution differences. Maybe I should get paid for this shit.
Man I was listening to Weekend Confirmed today and they are still treating resolution-gate as a rumor. They came out and said CoD was confirmed at 720p or Xbox One and BF4 was confirmed at 720p. Yet they are still treating this shit like it's rumors. They opine that oh I wish people had these systems or we had these systems to tell you what the real deal is. What? Honestly, I'm not going to berate anyone that choses to buy an Xbox One. It doesn't matter to me. Fuck, the gameplay will be the same in either version.
I'm just fucking god damn awe-struck that these people who are supposed to watch our backs are completely full of shit of and are actively ignoring this issue. Look, I have a job. I have credit cards. I'm old enough now to be able to afford to buy my own consoles.
Who I'm worried about is that 14-year-old kid that has been saving up his lunch money for the past two years, or who is mowing lawns, or took on a part-time job washing dishes. Those are the people for whom $400 or $500 is a big fucking deal.
Don't blow this shit off as just "rumor" when it's been confirmed that some of these games are running at lower resolutions.
I mean, what is there to say? "Man, this sucks, Microsoft sucks, Xbox One sucks, buy a PS4?" There are already enough people on that bandwagon. I don't know how useful it is to come out and say it sucks. (Yes, it does suck. I would love both consoles to be 1080p60.)
A common thing that people ask in GAF threads on the rumors is for examples of what 720p COD might look like vs a 1080p COD, because a lot of people are reading this stuff that don't already have the technical understanding of these things. There is an awful lot you could do to show these people how things will look, so they can figure for themselves if the difference is important to them.
Furthermore, in specifically the case of BF4, we had hundreds of posts from people who had no idea what artificial sharpening is, and what the benefits and draw backs of it are. There's a lot you can do beyond just telling people that it sucks.
And again, many people are asking 'Why does a game like COD struggle to run at a higher resolution than 720p when Ryse and Forza look so much better and run at higher resolutions?' If you can't get the developers to talk, you could at least go into some detail on the rumors. You could point to other games that use similar lighting effects that are seemingly stuck at the same resolution (including exclusives like Killer Instinct).
There's a ton you can do to inform people, without trying to manipulate them. Give them what they need to know to decide for themselves. Instead it's all 'trust us, you won't notice unless you're a huge NERD'. That's shit.
I dunno, I personally have a hard time making the logical leap of a Polygon moderator having an opinion meaning that the site has an agenda or is on the take. Maybe he's just trying to curb the inevitable resolution console wars in the comments?
There is no logical leap here. A community manager is representative of the site. The fact that it was first (and third) comments on a fairly significant reveal is evidence enough that they had at least semi-planned a response - and I'm not sure 'curbing the resolution console wars' is necessary in an article that is literally about, the differences between console resolutions.
I would guess the data they have on their readership suggests that they are tech-savvy enough to know those terms, and that spelling them out is a waste of time at best, or patronizing at worst.
How much more confirmation do you need? At this point I expect that someone will have to draw a step-by-step diagram on how much better, and demanding 1080p is over the alternative resolutions - before the reporters will take it upon themselves to write about it. Once the hardware was confirmed - the differences were all but a lock. I'm not sure how a bunch of community posters on a forum seem to have more technical know-how and confidence in the specs than the journalists getting paid to report on it.
I'm very aware of the technical differences between the consoles. I understand the difference between 720p and 1080p. I get the number of pixels that are "missing" sound staggering on paper. If we want to put a label on it, I'll do that: the PlayStation 4 is more powerful than the Xbox One.
I'm just not convinced how that is going to translate to real-world usage for me or for most people. I'm not convinced you could put two identical TVs side-by-side, one running CoD on XO and one running it on PS4 that people could reliably tell the difference at a typical viewing distance. When both consoles come out, I would love to see this test done, and I would do it myself if I had the resources.
(Just repeating for the record here that I'll be buying a PS4 and not an Xbox One. Figured it is worth noting.)
I'm clearly with you, I'm all about enhancing the experience and that's why I bought three psp two DS and Two 3ds and you know what ? I made those purchase with the help of trusted and informed opinion on gaf because I can't trust the media on this subject.
I was thinking sites like Digital Foundry were helping our cause but with the recent events I can't even trust them anymore...
The only gaming site who is god tier is Gamersyde. That's what I call good reporting.
Blim Blim and co are ace, I would love for studio's to give them more footage, these big name sites and their booty teir media players have a lame monopoly.
I'm very aware of the technical differences between the consoles. I understand the difference between 720p and 1080p. I get the number of pixels that are "missing" sound staggering on paper. If we want to put a label on it, I'll do that: the PlayStation 4 is more powerful than the Xbox One.
I'm just not convinced how that is going to translate to real-world usage for me or for most people. I'm not convinced you could put two identical TVs side-by-side, one running CoD on XO and one running it on PS4 that people could reliably tell the difference at a typical viewing distance. When both consoles come out, I would love to see this test done, and I would do it myself if I had the resources.
(Just repeating for the record here that I'll be buying a PS4 and not an Xbox One. Figured it is worth noting.)
And we come back to the root of the problem. You don't need to be convinced. You need to report this shit. That means, telling people just how big a gap it is. There is no convincing left to do - we have confirmation on the resolutions and the power gap. I don't know why you feel the need to tell people "oh there's a difference, but I'm not sure you'll notice at X viewing distance on your average LCD television". That's an opinion piece.
And we come back to the root of the problem. You don't need to be convinced. You need to report this shit. That means, telling people just how big a gap it is. There is no convincing left to do - we have confirmation on the resolutions and the power gap. I don't know why you feel the need to tell people "oh there's a difference, but I'm not sure you'll notice at X viewing distance on your average LCD television". That's an opinion piece.
So, write up a 2,000 word article to explain what artificial sharpeners and every other small bit of graphical information are, but you're also not allowed to say in that same article that's it likely that you won't see the difference unless you have a decent sized TV?
What you emphasize when you write is opinion just as much what you write about.
And we come back to the root of the problem. You don't need to be convinced. You need to report this shit. That means, telling people just how big a gap it is. There is no convincing left to do - we have confirmation on the resolutions and the power gap. I don't know why you feel the need to tell people "oh there's a difference, but I'm not sure you'll notice at X viewing distance on your average LCD television". That's an opinion piece.
Why does the gaming media have to negate the fact that there is a gap by stating that allegedly most won't notice. it would be like cnn stating that the government shutdown happend but most wouldn't notice anything being different, so its not a big deal.
I'm very aware of the technical differences between the consoles. I understand the difference between 720p and 1080p. I get the number of pixels that are "missing" sound staggering on paper. If we want to put a label on it, I'll do that: the PlayStation 4 is more powerful than the Xbox One.
I'm just not convinced how that is going to translate to real-world usage for me or for most people. I'm not convinced you could put two identical TVs side-by-side, one running CoD on XO and one running it on PS4 that people could reliably tell the difference at a typical viewing distance. When both consoles come out, I would love to see this test done, and I would do it myself if I had the resources.
(Just repeating for the record here that I'll be buying a PS4 and not an Xbox One. Figured it is worth noting.)
See, the problem with that is this: We already know that 720p to 1080p is a significant jump in resolution, and blatantly obvious whether it's on a monitor or a 40"+ display. A 720p game like Ratchet & Clank: A Crack in Time or Halo 4 will not look anywhere as good as 1080p content on the same display. Even the best of scalers cannot make upscaled 720p content look as good as native 1080p content.
720p vs 1080p is the difference between a 720p video stream and a 1080p Blu-Ray movie. In every test I've seen on AVS Forum, they've never found one where they rated the image quality of a 720p better than the same content at 1080p. And they're exceedingly anal about this.
I'm very aware of the technical differences between the consoles. I understand the difference between 720p and 1080p. I get the number of pixels that are "missing" sound staggering on paper. If we want to put a label on it, I'll do that: the PlayStation 4 is more powerful than the Xbox One.
I'm just not convinced how that is going to translate to real-world usage for me or for most people. I'm not convinced you could put two identical TVs side-by-side, one running CoD on XO and one running it on PS4 that people could reliably tell the difference at a typical viewing distance. When both consoles come out, I would love to see this test done, and I would do it myself if I had the resources.
(Just repeating for the record here that I'll be buying a PS4 and not an Xbox One. Figured it is worth noting.)
Most people will be able to tell the difference. Many will see it but not care about it, and that's fine. I don't even need to see side by side to differentiate between 720p and 1080p, and I'm sure I could very easily teach you to as well, presuming your prescription isn't wrong anyway
4K isn't a thing because people with decent eyesight can't tell the difference between 720p and 1080p. 1080p penetration has come a huge way in the last six or seven years, and when it comes to fixed pixel displays you want native input.
and a lot of the comparisons people do is with *native* displays. the arstechnica viewing distance chart? it's based on native displays of video content. you'd find it harder to differentiate between a native 720p set running Ghosts on Xbox One next to an equally good 1080p set running it on PS4.
take whatever screen you are using now, and lower the resolution. see how horrible it looks? a lot of why it looks horrible isn't because you're looking at a lower number of pixels, it's because each pixel rendered is being stretched out to fill a non integer number of pixels. if you can select exactly half of your screen's resolution, compare that to a slightly higher resolution and you'll see the exactly half one looks sharper.
an even better test, if you still have a DS lite and a 3DS, is compare how DS games look on the DS lite to on the 3DS. they look much better on the DS lite, because the 3DS scales by a non integer value to fill the screen. it's the same resolution content, on two screens that are the same size, and it looks garbage on the higher resolution display.
Probably Doritos have secret mind-control tech implanted in them that only affects game journalists, and Microsoft has taken over Doritos from the inside in order to secretly control the entire games media. Once Doritos destroys the PS4, Microsoft will take over the world and enslave the human race in order to use our energy to make more DRMs.
