Support NeoGAF

[PBY]

It's more than four reviews and quit being daft. As I've said before, overwhelmingly, 360 multi platform titles performed and looked better. Skyrim, Fallout, etc. You name it. And the PS3 was raked over the coals for that. Now we have people in the gaming press, the same very people that wrote those reviews last generation, stating that "it's all about the games, stupid" and sweeping hardware advantages under the rug.

And I'm saying stop:
-making generalizations based on a few opinions
-comparing reviews to random editorial videos. At least wait for reviews to drop before crying foul.

 

[PsychoSoldier]

4 random reviews are enough?

Smdh. The same thing will happen when the consoles come out.

How many is enough then?

That they were able to find that many examples that quickly likely means there are a ton more out there.

 

[daman824]

it doesn't. it's the gaming press who are saying, "they don't matter". they do. a game is the sum of its parts. both versions are the exact same experience so that's out of the gate in terms of comparison. now, there are graphical differences (bf4 having lower resolution and lacking global illumination system, plus running at a lower average framerate). that's where comparisons come in because that's where comparisons can be made. and why are comparisons being made? because these are both valued at $60 no matter what console.

it's the constant and massive downplaying of these differences that is such a copout. remember when all these "journalists" pointed out every damn difference the ps3 version of a multiplat had in their reviews? "the ps3 version looks washed out. the ps3 version had some hiccups. the ps3 version had less vibrant colours. you are better off playing the xbox 360 version if you want the best version out there outside the pc.


this takes the icing on the cake:
http://www.g4tv.com/videos/43049/mx-vs-atv-reflex-playstation-3-review/
"Get the lowdown on the PlayStation 3 version of MX vs. ATV Reflex in this review. Adam Sessler and Morgan Webb discuss the drawbacks of the PS3 version of MX vs. ATV Reflex and reveal the game's lower score."

360 version = 3/5 stars
ps3 version = 2/5 stars for being graphically inferior

or this:
http://www.giantbomb.com/reviews/bayonetta-review/1900-249/?review_id=249
Much of the potential of Bayonetta--potential that's realized on the Xbox 360--is lost to technical issues on the PS3.
(yes, that's the subtext of the review).

or what about this?
http://www.computerandvideogames.com/247305/red-dead-redemptions-sub-hd-ps3-display-analysis/
"Its resolution is 640 by 1152, compared to the Xbox 360's 720 by 1280 pixels. At first glance you might say that this is only a difference of "80 pixels," but in reality, when the missing area is calculated, the PS3 suffers an 184,320 pixel deficit - or 20 per cent lower than the Xbox 360 version. This rendering resolution is then upscaled by the PS3 to be displayed on your screen."

or how about this, arstechnica?
http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2010/05/read-dead-redemption-360-vs-ps3-our-thoughts/
"This is non-scientific, but after playing an hour of both games, and switching back and forth between the two systems on our display, it's clear that the 360 version has quite the graphical advantage. It's sharper, with much less aliasing. The faces of the characters were clearer in the opening section. Gameplay sections likewise looked better, with smoother graphics across the board. The PlayStation 3 version looked impressive, but there was a noticeable jump in quality while playing on the 360.

Keep in mind that the game doesn't look bad on the PS3—not by any stretch—but based on our time with the game and direct comparisons, the 360 version looks better. If you purchase the PS3 version of the game you're not going to be let down, but if you have the choice, pick up a copy for the 360.

Here's another reason to buy the game for the Xbox 360: if you dislike playing with strangers, there are 16 Ars Technica members in the game's thread playing online with the 360 version, compared to three on the PS3. If you're going to be playing, sign up!"


hypocrites.

A few things to point out:

Bayonetta ran at less than half the framerate on ps3 compared to 360 for large sections of the game. For the type of game it is, you are going to have a worse time playing the same game at 23-27 fps compared to 48-51 fps. If the xb1 version of Cod: ghosts chugged along at 21-30 fps, you can bet that every single gaming site would be making a huge deal out of it.

And on your c&vg article. They concluded with this: " In motion and in isolation Red Dead Redemption is still a brilliant game on the PlayStation 3. It's one of the best games of the year and unless you're sitting side by side with both versions, you'll be unlikely to be disappointed."

Lastly, reviews for xb1 versions of games haven't even come out yet. Wait until the 12th before you start creating these kinds of comparisons

 

[tranciful]

First of all, you're being just a tad selective with history. Multiple 360 multiplats have been criticized in the same way - worse off than the PS3 version, and docked points as a result.

You're acting like footnotes on a review are the only thing they're saying about the game. These differences usually amount to very little on their overall reccomendation of a game - it's just not the sort of issue so massive, that it's worth talking at length about. Especially when it's possibly only the case with launch games.

I'd like you to find an example of a 360 game docked points for graphical issues. Just curious. I can't even think of what game that might be -- was so rare for 360 version to be inferior graphically and I can't remember a time where it wasn't minor.

Really though, his point is that they used to talk about it. It used to be worth mentioning. It used to warrant recommending one version over the other. But now it's not a big deal. That's what his post is pointing out.

We could wait for reviews to see if the pattern continues, but there already is a pattern and it's not jumping the gun to discuss an existing pattern.

 

[PBY]

I'd like you to find an example of a 360 game docked points for graphical issues. Just curious. I can't even think of what game that might be -- was so rare for 360 version to be inferior graphically and I can't remember a time where it wasn't minor.

Really though, his point is that they used to talk about it. It used to be worth mentioning. It used to warrant recommending one version over the other. But now it's not a big deal. That's what his post is pointing out.

The reviews haven't come out, so you can't make that comparison.

 

[TetraGenesis]

it's the constant and massive downplaying of these differences that is such a copout. remember when all these "journalists" pointed out every damn difference the ps3 version of a multiplat had in their reviews? "the ps3 version looks washed out. the ps3 version had some hiccups. the ps3 version had less vibrant colours. you are better off playing the xbox 360 version if you want the best version out there outside the pc.

this takes the icing on the cake:
http://www.g4tv.com/videos/43049/mx-vs-atv-reflex-playstation-3-review/
"Get the lowdown on the PlayStation 3 version of MX vs. ATV Reflex in this review. Adam Sessler and Morgan Webb discuss the drawbacks of the PS3 version of MX vs. ATV Reflex and reveal the game's lower score."

360 version = 3/5 stars
ps3 version = 2/5 stars for being graphically inferior

or this:
http://www.giantbomb.com/reviews/bayonetta-review/1900-249/?review_id=249
Much of the potential of Bayonetta--potential that's realized on the Xbox 360--is lost to technical issues on the PS3.
(yes, that's the subtext of the review).

or what about this?
http://www.computerandvideogames.com/247305/red-dead-redemptions-sub-hd-ps3-display-analysis/
"Its resolution is 640 by 1152, compared to the Xbox 360's 720 by 1280 pixels. At first glance you might say that this is only a difference of "80 pixels," but in reality, when the missing area is calculated, the PS3 suffers an 184,320 pixel deficit - or 20 per cent lower than the Xbox 360 version. This rendering resolution is then upscaled by the PS3 to be displayed on your screen."

or how about this, arstechnica?
http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2010/05/read-dead-redemption-360-vs-ps3-our-thoughts/
"This is non-scientific, but after playing an hour of both games, and switching back and forth between the two systems on our display, it's clear that the 360 version has quite the graphical advantage. It's sharper, with much less aliasing. The faces of the characters were clearer in the opening section. Gameplay sections likewise looked better, with smoother graphics across the board. The PlayStation 3 version looked impressive, but there was a noticeable jump in quality while playing on the 360.

Keep in mind that the game doesn't look bad on the PS3—not by any stretch—but based on our time with the game and direct comparisons, the 360 version looks better. If you purchase the PS3 version of the game you're not going to be let down, but if you have the choice, pick up a copy for the 360.

Here's another reason to buy the game for the Xbox 360: if you dislike playing with strangers, there are 16 Ars Technica members in the game's thread playing online with the 360 version, compared to three on the PS3. If you're going to be playing, sign up!"

hypocrites.

Woof.

 

[cackhyena]

A few things to point out:

Bayonetta ran at nearly less than half the framerate on ps3 compared to 360. For the type of game it is, you are going to have a worse time playing the same game at 23-27 fps compared to 48-51 fps.

And on your c&vg article. They concluded with this: " In motion and in isolation Red Dead Redemption is still a brilliant game on the PlayStation 3. It's one of the best games of the year and unless you're sitting side by side with both versions, you'll be unlikely to be disappointed."

Lastly, reviews for xb1 versions of games haven't even come out yet. Wait until the 12th before you start creating these kinds of comparisons

Hey lookit this! Some solid reasoning.

 

[ThisWreckage]

The reviews haven't come out, so you can't make that comparison.

Actually comparison videos HAVE been released and those very videos show that the PS4 games are running better and at a higher frame rate. And the gaming media is downplaying all of this. So how about you stop and look at the facts? Quit pretending like the gaming press has no metric to go by so far. It's ridiculous.

 

[Mushroomer25]

You think that neogaf should have a different opinion on this matter? Then convince us that it doesn't matter. Just saying it doesn't matter makes no difference.

I think it's fine that NeoGAF cares about which console is more powerful, but they need to realize that it's not going to be the deciding factor for most of the people buying these consoles. The media isn't covering it for reasons that aren't "moneyhatting".
- It's more popular to be non-partisan
- The time for the issue hasn't come up yet (we'll see it in reviews)
- It's unknown if this is a long-standing issue, or just expected launch-day weirdness.
etc.

 

[Muppet of a Man]

it doesn't. it's the gaming press who are saying, "they don't matter". they do. a game is the sum of its parts. both versions are the exact same experience so that's out of the gate in terms of comparison. now, there are graphical differences (bf4 having lower resolution and lacking global illumination system, plus running at a lower average framerate). that's where comparisons come in because that's where comparisons can be made. and why are comparisons being made? because these are both valued at $60 no matter what console.

it's the constant and massive downplaying of these differences that is such a copout. remember when all these "journalists" pointed out every damn difference the ps3 version of a multiplat had in their reviews? "the ps3 version looks washed out. the ps3 version had some hiccups. the ps3 version had less vibrant colours. you are better off playing the xbox 360 version if you want the best version out there outside the pc.


this takes the icing on the cake:
http://www.g4tv.com/videos/43049/mx-vs-atv-reflex-playstation-3-review/
"Get the lowdown on the PlayStation 3 version of MX vs. ATV Reflex in this review. Adam Sessler and Morgan Webb discuss the drawbacks of the PS3 version of MX vs. ATV Reflex and reveal the game's lower score."

360 version = 3/5 stars
ps3 version = 2/5 stars for being graphically inferior

or this:
http://www.giantbomb.com/reviews/bayonetta-review/1900-249/?review_id=249
Much of the potential of Bayonetta--potential that's realized on the Xbox 360--is lost to technical issues on the PS3.
(yes, that's the subtext of the review).

or what about this?
http://www.computerandvideogames.com/247305/red-dead-redemptions-sub-hd-ps3-display-analysis/
"Its resolution is 640 by 1152, compared to the Xbox 360's 720 by 1280 pixels. At first glance you might say that this is only a difference of "80 pixels," but in reality, when the missing area is calculated, the PS3 suffers an 184,320 pixel deficit - or 20 per cent lower than the Xbox 360 version. This rendering resolution is then upscaled by the PS3 to be displayed on your screen."

or how about this, arstechnica?
http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2010/05/read-dead-redemption-360-vs-ps3-our-thoughts/
"This is non-scientific, but after playing an hour of both games, and switching back and forth between the two systems on our display, it's clear that the 360 version has quite the graphical advantage. It's sharper, with much less aliasing. The faces of the characters were clearer in the opening section. Gameplay sections likewise looked better, with smoother graphics across the board. The PlayStation 3 version looked impressive, but there was a noticeable jump in quality while playing on the 360.

Keep in mind that the game doesn't look bad on the PS3—not by any stretch—but based on our time with the game and direct comparisons, the 360 version looks better. If you purchase the PS3 version of the game you're not going to be let down, but if you have the choice, pick up a copy for the 360.

Here's another reason to buy the game for the Xbox 360: if you dislike playing with strangers, there are 16 Ars Technica members in the game's thread playing online with the 360 version, compared to three on the PS3. If you're going to be playing, sign up!"


hypocrites.

It's almost like NeoGAF should present the media with a comprehensive compilation of these blatantly hypocritcal statements in an open letter or something....

The thing is that graphics, resolution, and performance are all important to the overall experience. Some people want to inform their buying decisions based on where to find the best versions of multiplatform games on a console. It mattered last gen, and it still matters now. Why is this difficult for the games media at large to understand?

 

[mr teaspoon]

I do not at all understand the shit Sessler is getting here.

A lot of you need to realize that there's a difference between resolutiongate 'not mattering' and resolutiongate not mattering to you. It matters a lot to you, and that's fine. But you're a very small minority of the people who will buy these at launch. Does it matter in the sense that less Xboxes are going to be sold over it? No way.

'But Microsoft has been pushing 1080p/60fps forever!'

Yeah, wow, OK - you got them. They went on about it and aren't delivering it at launch. Their failure to live up to this particular hype doesn't amount to anything to the average person.

720p Call of Duty will look more than good enough for Joe Gamer, and a lot of core gamers too . And before you even say it, 'but I have a friend/cousin/co-worker who is on the fence, and you can be sure I'll be telling him to get a PlayStation!' does not change anything.

 

[PBY]

Actually comparison videos HAVE been released on those very videos show that the PS4 games are running better and at a higher frame rate. And the gaming media is downplaying all of this. So how about you stop and look at the facts?

Soooo the media is doing their job?

I'm just saying wait on the reviews to drop before crushing them and making comparisons to old reviews.

 

[EmptySpace]

I'd rather wait on reviews and see what they actually say.

why wait when they're already putting out videos convincing their audience that the differences don't matter or are so minute or that resolutions aren't even part of the equation. where were those videos/articles when the ps3 and 360 multiplats were released? nowhere. instead, we even got a paragraph or two discussing how the ps3 version is so inferior. so inferior that some sites even put out a different review for the ps3 version.

some people here don't even get the point. it's not about comparing the reviews from last-gen and waiting to see if the reviews for this gen will be the same. that's not the damn point. the point is that the approach to the graphical differences this gen and from last gen are so different.

 

[boredandlazy]

If you were born without the ability to identify sarcasm or context this would be a sharp ass burn

If you were born with the ability to understand context you wouldn't have chucked up a fuss about using the 'gate' suffix in the first place.

 

[digoutyoursoul]

Chillax, I don't even watch that channel and that's the first thing I noticed, obviously I'm trolling, didn't even know they gave Beyond Two Souls 5/5.

Based on this video and 5/5 for B2S, my true verdict is that this is a channel that doesn't know what they're talking about, and it'd be just as useful to read the financial times for video game information as this.

I'm chilled however when I see posts like yours or see patterns emerge with certain posters it's just funny how the opinion changes so easily. Sorry for picking you out

 

[Anuson.Phan]

Really? Because i think he's one of the few competent people out there.

But it's a moot point to argue with the hive mind of GAF because once a hate train starts there is no stopping.

competent?

And my favorite:

If you add the ps camera, ps plus subscription and forget about xbox live, there is price parity between ps4-xbox one.

 

[lifeexpectancy]

I think he's all over the place in this video, and he's neither incorrect nor insightful with any particular comment. Agreed, gameplay is important. Agreed, I want games to look interesting from an art perspective as well. No, IQ is not marketing and I don't want great IQ because that has been marketed to me-- it is important as this is a visual medium and graphics are a key part of the user experience. No, discussing resolution and how games look does not take away from people discussing the games and the gameplay itself (those games are not out yet so please let us know what you would like to discuss and we will do so).

This is really so perplexing to me. A very simple discussion was happening in the enthusiast community and the reaction to it has just been to treat it like an anathema; like technology is not or has not been something critical to our hobby for 30 years.

Just deal with it.

This, so much this. I've never been the type to be like "the graphics suck, therefore the game must suck!", but at the same time great graphics can only make a great game BETTER. They certainly can't make it worse or have zero effect on it at all.

This (seemingly) sudden mindset with mainstream media to act like things such as resolution, framerate, overall graphical output like objects/characters on screen at once, etc just don't matter anymore is mind boggling to me. And shoving any discussion about it under the rug as if it's the 'crazy ravings of obsessed fanboys' is absurd.

Graphics are most definitely an important and critique-worthy aspect of gaming and have been since gaming was born. Reviews in gaming mags stretching back to the very first game reviews have always included graphics as one measure of a game's value (Graphics ?/10, Gameplay ?/10, Controls ?/10, Audio ?/10 etc).

I've reached a point where I pretty much ignore all mainstream media, *most* youtube reviewers, and *most* people's opinions in general. I'll ask people I know whose opinion I trust about games, or I'll gamefly a game I'm uncertain about before dropping the cash on a purchase. I'm sick to death of media of all sorts trying to 'spin' any given subject in order to shoehorn it into some sort of dogma rather than being objective and unbiased.

 

[CassidyIzABeast]

it doesn't. it's the gaming press who are saying, "they don't matter". they do. a game is the sum of its parts. both versions are the exact same experience so that's out of the gate in terms of comparison. now, there are graphical differences (bf4 having lower resolution and lacking global illumination system, plus running at a lower average framerate). that's where comparisons come in because that's where comparisons can be made. and why are comparisons being made? because these are both valued at $60 no matter what console.

it's the constant and massive downplaying of these differences that is such a copout. remember when all these "journalists" pointed out every damn difference the ps3 version of a multiplat had in their reviews? "the ps3 version looks washed out. the ps3 version had some hiccups. the ps3 version had less vibrant colours. you are better off playing the xbox 360 version if you want the best version out there outside the pc.


this takes the icing on the cake:
http://www.g4tv.com/videos/43049/mx-vs-atv-reflex-playstation-3-review/
"Get the lowdown on the PlayStation 3 version of MX vs. ATV Reflex in this review. Adam Sessler and Morgan Webb discuss the drawbacks of the PS3 version of MX vs. ATV Reflex and reveal the game's lower score."

360 version = 3/5 stars
ps3 version = 2/5 stars for being graphically inferior

hypocrites.

Reflex looks and runs much worse on the PS3. Environmental textures often fail to load. There’s little color separation making environments blurry and hard to read. There are also frequent frame drops and slowdown that can mar the intensity of a race. The content and online functionality is the same, but the performance is enough to merit a full point penalty.

http://www.g4tv.com/games/ps3/62148/mx-vs-atv-reflex/review/

c'mon now.

 

[PBY]

why wait when they're already putting out videos convincing their audience that the differences don't matter or are so minute or that resolutions aren't even part of the equation. where were those videos/articles when the ps3 and 360 multiplats were released? nowhere. instead, we even got a paragraph or two discussing how the ps3 version is so inferior. so inferior that some sites even put out a different review for the ps3 version.

some people here don't even get the point. it's not about comparing the reviews from last-gen and waiting to see if the reviews for this gen will be the same. that's not the damn point. the point is that the approach to the graphical differences this gen and from last gen are so different.

I think you're jumping the gun. I bet ,ost reviews will make a note of graphical differences. You're lamenting something that hasn't happened yet. Also, stop equating a few editorial pieces with all of games media.

 

[Mushroomer25]

I'd like you to find an example of a 360 game docked points for graphical issues. Just curious. I can't even think of what game that might be -- was so rare for 360 version to be inferior graphically and I can't remember a time where it wasn't minor.

Really though, his point is that they used to talk about it. It used to be worth mentioning. It used to warrant recommending one version over the other. But now it's not a big deal. That's what his post is pointing out.

We could wait for reviews to see if the pattern continues, but there already is a pattern and it's not jumping the gun to discuss an existing pattern.

You know what would be really convenient to compare to reviews for old games when looking for media bias in coverage of new games? The reviews of the aforementioned new games.

Nitpicky shit like this is rarely - if ever - discovered or discussed previous to launch of games. It's the sort of thing that only becomes apparent in the review cycle, because it's notable - but not the point of changing somebody's mind on a purchase.

 

[Ploid 3.0]

I'd rather wait on reviews and see what they actually say.

For a lot of them, you don't have to. They are telling us, maybe it will indeed change up during review time, but so far they can't tell the difference, or it doesn't make a difference to them. Reviews aren't the only place they voice their opinions. Too Human preview started off a chain of events that caused Denis Dyack to co crazy on Neogaf.

 

[sol_bad]

First of all, you're being just a tad selective with history. Multiple 360 multiplats have been criticized in the same way - worse off than the PS3 version, and docked points as a result.

You're still proving his point.
If they could point our the inferior versions before why can't they do it right now with the new consoles?

 

[BRocknRolla]

Just another game journalist downplaying resolution and performance for no apparent reason. I'll never understand what happened.

The last year has been all, "Look at how wonderful the world of gaming is on these PCs! 1080p and 60fps is so much superior to aging current gen consoles! Those games are practically unplayable on that hardware!" And now, "What's the difference between 720 and 1080, really?" The narrative has shifted, and I can think of no logical reason why. I do know however that it's left me with very little faith in the "journalism" aspect of most games journalists. A whole lot of talking heads who can't seem to get past their loyalties and opinions long enough to do actual reporting.

 

[Tripon]

I do not at all understand the shit Sessler is getting here.

A lot of you need to realize that there's a difference between resolutiongate 'not mattering' and resolutiongate not mattering to you. It matters a lot to you, and that's fine. But you're a very small minority of the people who will buy these at launch. Does it matter in the sense that less Xboxes are going to be sold over it? No way.

'But Microsoft has been pushing 1080p/60fps forever!'

Yeah, wow, OK - you got them. They went on about it and aren't delivering it at launch. Their failure to live up to this particular hype doesn't amount to anything to the average person.

720p Call of Duty will look more than good enough for Joe Gamer, and a lot of core gamers too . And before you even say it, 'but I have a friend/cousin/co-worker who is on the fence, and you can be sure I'll be telling him to get a PlayStation!' does not change anything.

Watch the SGC panel where Sessler makes it clear that he expects 1080p/60 and it clearly matters to him.

 

[NoirVisage]

You're still proving his point.
If they could point our the inferior versions before why can't they do it right now with the new consoles?

FLAWLESS VICTOLY.

 

[PBY]

You're still proving his point.
If they could point our the inferior versions before why can't they do it right now with the new consoles?

Uhhhh sites have pointed out the differences. Also- THE REVIEWS AREN'T OUT. Wait and see before making those comparisons.

 

[Mushroomer25]

You're still proving his point.
If they could point our the inferior versions before why can't they do it right now with the new consoles?

Because they haven't actually reviewed them yet. Wait a few weeks, and you'll inevitably see a footnote in just about every AC4 review on XBox ONE saying it only runs in 720p, but it didn't seriously impact the playing experience.

FLAWLESS VICTOLY.

(except for the really fucking obvious flaw)

 

[defiance187]

I'll make it real simple so all the fanboys on both sides get it. The XBOX is a "Smart" device for your living room that plays some pretty kickass games. Something other living room smart devices fail to do, so its a little under powered, but does a lot of cool shit. If you like the idea of that buy it. The PS4 is a game console that does some other stuff on the side, so it gets to be a bit stronger graphics wise but wont multitask as well. If thats appealing to you get it. I'm a graphics whore, and want the stuff i buy to work even after i upgrade so i'm gonna drop some major cash on a pc. Thats what appeals to me. All this bitching is stupid. You convincing someone that there choice is a bad choice isn't gonna get you a check from sony or ms. Quit your constant whining and speak with your wallet, because at the end of the day if these companies sell enough consoles and get enough subscriptions to their services it doesnt matter if one sells 10 mill more units if a company is getting 60 a year from 40 mil people ontop of royalties from game sales they will be profitable and wont give a shit.

 

[tranciful]

The reviews haven't come out, so you can't make that comparison.

What a meaningless distinction. Sessler and others are already voicing judgments to their readers/watchers. Whether or not they label it a 'review' is not significant -- they're editorials either way. If they change their tune come review time, what does it mean? They caved to the backlash? They didn't actually mean the stuff they are saying now? That's later, we're talking about what they're saying right now.

 

[Mushroomer25]

Watch the SGC panel where Sessler makes it clear that he expects 1080p/60 and it clearly matters to him.

... When mocking the people who are measuring next-gen purely by the impressive numbers that the games will hit. Seriously. It's not a relevant piece of info. Stop relying upon it.

 

[PBY]

What a meaningless distinction. Sessler and others are already voicing judgments to their readers/watchers. Whether or not they label it a 'review' is not significant -- they're editorials either way. If they change their tune come review time, what does it mean? They caved to the backlash? They didn't actually mean the stuff they are saying now? That's later, we're talking about what they're saying right now.

Well, except all the examples posted were reviews. And "sessler and others" == all games media.

 

[weekend_warrior]

Lots of people seem to suffer from a persecution complex and a lack of introspection. Much has been made recently of the gaming media and their failings to report issues a certain way. Much has been made of commenters on other sites and their seeming disdain for neogaf. Notwithstanding the only conclusion many seem to draw is that everyone else is wrong and only the people on neogaf see the 'truth'.

It's not just GAF. Plenty of people on Twitter, Reddit, and some blog sites have been saying the same things. And the sense of frustration only gets amplified when the "bigger" sites ignore, or outright mock the complaints.

I've seen a repeated trend where people have accused the gaming media of a double standard - claiming they made a big deal of the differences between PS3 and 360 versions of games, and are now downplaying the differences between the Xbox One and PS4 versions of games. I think this exists more in their memory then in reality. The gaming media did not make a big deal of the the platform differences - people on internet forums did. Some games received slightly higher review scores - something we may well see in this generation.

I completely disagree. Sites like digital foundry and ars technica exist because they scientifically scrutinize the differences between multiplatform games. Digging down deep to find the tiny differences between platforms and now, all of a sudden, a chasm as large as 720p vs 1080p gets called "indistinguishable"? That's hard to accept.

The other issue I've referred to is the near universal rejection of any outside criticism of neogaf. Like any other site neogaf has it's strengths and weaknesses. However there's a glaring lack of introspection when outside criticisms and suggestions of bias are dismissed without any examination. Personally it's a bit disconcerting to see nearly every thread loaded with dismissive gifs and jabs at the coming consoles.

That's because the depth of outside criticism of GAF barely exceeds past youtube comments of "Amir0x is a f*g". If somebody is intelligent enough to listen to they wouldn't be posting in youtube comments because they got permabanned.

There's also a disturbing trend of some people who barely seem to hide their hope that one console fail.

What's wrong with that? Sometimes a gazelle has to die so the herd can survive. If someone doesn't think MS is bringing anything good to the table then they should want them to fail. More room for another competitor to fill the void.

Having been around for the last several console launches this is little different then most - some actual differences and lots of buzz words. One of the biggest mistakes a person who participates in enthusiast forums can make is assuming that everyone is (or should be) the same issues they are. Some people dismissing the differences as unimportant obviously are doing so based on a personal bias - however this is clearly not true for everyone doing so.

There's plenty of room in the forum for discussion, if you don't like the general direction of a topic don't participate in it. As long as people aren't shitting up threads I don't see a problem.

 

[ArkkAngel007]

Watch the SGC panel where Sessler makes it clear that he expects 1080p/60 and it clearly matters to him.

Do you happen to know when in the panel is brought up? I remember it being pretty long with the beginning about a hotdog incident, so it would be pretty helpful.

 

[HORRORSHØW]

Small surprise that people who're defending/agreeing with Sessler are also getting an Xbone.

 

[Xenon]

Call me crazy but I think there's a vast expanse of ground on the spectrum between "we all declare this generation belongs to Sony" and "Resolution and performance are not a big deal".

The reason ResolutionGate exists still, to this very day, is all of the talking heads in this industry flapping their gums about how it doesn't matter at all.

If anything, the original booster rocket fuel that launched this issue into orbit was all the denials from Microsoft and all the secrecy and rumors and embargo flavored winks and nudges and say no mores. But that fuel is pretty damn well spent, and MS has run out of distraction tools in their ninja loadout.

So whats driving it now? Denial and condescension.

I disagree. I think people are expecting a level of transparency in game developement that has not existed up to this point. It's not being fueled by the press but insiders leaking information. MS is under no obligation to respond to these rumors and has every right to wait and let the final product speak for itself.

This is not an issue of a government hiding its actions from the citizens it governs. This is a business that sells a product that you are free to buy or ignore. Anyone who feels a company should come out and say they have a weaker product is naive. Would you expect Papa John's to admit they use 33% less sausage than Pizza Hut? They would be idiots if they did.

As far as resolution gate... I saw images of BF4 and it's not that big difference to me even though people swore up and down it was night and day.(yes I saw all the feeds) I am sure some of the press felt the same. In the end it's their opinion. So what people here might call down playing MS's consoles weaknesses might be them finding common ground for all their readers, not just those who put such high value on 1080P as a litmus test for next gen.

 

[JesseEwiak]

It's interesting none of the usual suspects have responded to moriquendi's reasoned, logical, well thought out post. I guess it is more fun to go after the posts that have less solid ground.

Then again, when I was on a Democratic-heavy message board in 2004, we didn't respond well to the more sane among us who made logical reasoned posts about why there really wasn't a media conspiracy to reelect Bush either.

 

[PsychoSoldier]

Uhhhh sites have pointed out the differences. Also- THE REVIEWS AREN'T OUT. Wait and see before making those comparisons.

We clearly know where they stand on this issue though.

Why would they spend so much effort and energy on downplaying the differences if they plan on making it important in their reviews?

Furthermore, while these are not the formal reviews, they are clearly editorializing on the state of the respective games and "reviewing" them to some degree.

 

[Forceatowulf]

it doesn't. it's the gaming press who are saying, "they don't matter". they do. a game is the sum of its parts. both versions are the exact same experience so that's out of the gate in terms of comparison. now, there are graphical differences (bf4 having lower resolution and lacking global illumination system, plus running at a lower average framerate). that's where comparisons come in because that's where comparisons can be made. and why are comparisons being made? because these are both valued at $60 no matter what console.

it's the constant and massive downplaying of these differences that is such a copout. remember when all these "journalists" pointed out every damn difference the ps3 version of a multiplat had in their reviews? "the ps3 version looks washed out. the ps3 version had some hiccups. the ps3 version had less vibrant colours. you are better off playing the xbox 360 version if you want the best version out there outside the pc.


this takes the icing on the cake:
http://www.g4tv.com/videos/43049/mx-vs-atv-reflex-playstation-3-review/
"Get the lowdown on the PlayStation 3 version of MX vs. ATV Reflex in this review. Adam Sessler and Morgan Webb discuss the drawbacks of the PS3 version of MX vs. ATV Reflex and reveal the game's lower score."

360 version = 3/5 stars
ps3 version = 2/5 stars for being graphically inferior

or this:
http://www.giantbomb.com/reviews/bayonetta-review/1900-249/?review_id=249
Much of the potential of Bayonetta--potential that's realized on the Xbox 360--is lost to technical issues on the PS3.
(yes, that's the subtext of the review).

or what about this?
http://www.computerandvideogames.com/247305/red-dead-redemptions-sub-hd-ps3-display-analysis/

or how about this, arstechnica?
http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2010/05/read-dead-redemption-360-vs-ps3-our-thoughts/
"This is non-scientific, but after playing an hour of both games, and switching back and forth between the two systems on our display, it's clear that the 360 version has quite the graphical advantage. It's sharper, with much less aliasing. The faces of the characters were clearer in the opening section. Gameplay sections likewise looked better, with smoother graphics across the board. The PlayStation 3 version looked impressive, but there was a noticeable jump in quality while playing on the 360.

Keep in mind that the game doesn't look bad on the PS3—not by any stretch—but based on our time with the game and direct comparisons, the 360 version looks better. If you purchase the PS3 version of the game you're not going to be let down, but if you have the choice, pick up a copy for the 360.

Here's another reason to buy the game for the Xbox 360: if you dislike playing with strangers, there are 16 Ars Technica members in the game's thread playing online with the 360 version, compared to three on the PS3. If you're going to be playing, sign up!"


hypocrites.

Bu bu but that one poster people like to quote said this exists more in my memory than in actual reality.... yeah, my ass. I remember this type of stuff very vividly. And it went both ways too, though clearly more favorably for 360 (as it should have been). Now all of a sudden "It doesn't matter" "No one will care." "It's all about the games guys" "I can barely tell the difference anyway.". How convenient that these journalists gave a fuck enough to talk about it then, but all of a sudden these subtle and glaringly obvious differences don't mean jack shit anymore. The fuck out of here with this disingenuous garbage.

 

[EmptySpace]

I think you're jumping the gun. I bet ,ost reviews will make a note of graphical differences. You're lamenting something that hasn't happened yet. Also, stop equating a few editorial pieces with all of games media.

read the damn post. no one is talking about their upcoming reviews, its their attitude and approach to the graphical differences this gen vs. the last gen. do you need to be shown slides? "wait for the review" no one cares about the review and no one is trying to compare the reviews. you are the one connecting those past quotes and reviews to unreleased ones. the point is not about the content of upcoming reviews. that was what said in the previous post, and is the message of this post.

 

[PBY]

Small surprise that people who're defending/agreeing with Sessler are also getting an Xbone.

That's so damn unfair to point those who have a different opinion as warriors. I'm getting a PS4, but I don't see the vid as some indicator of MS bias etc

 

[disastermouse]

And I'm saying stop:
-making generalizations based on a few opinions
-comparing reviews to random editorial videos. At least wait for reviews to drop before crying foul.

Don't put out a fire it's because you have some smoke. Everyone knows you can't legitimately put out a fire until it's a raging inferno.

 

[Mushroomer25]

What a meaningless distinction. Sessler and others are already voicing judgments to their readers/watchers. Whether or not they label it a 'review' is not significant -- they're editorials either way. If they change their tune come review time, what does it mean? They caved to the backlash? They didn't actually mean the stuff they are saying now? That's later, we're talking about what they're saying right now.

There's a pretty firm change in tone between a review & pre-release news. Frankly, it's almost considered uncouth to be overly critical of pre-release software, since it's still in a state of flux. You can't be positive that your complaints will be relevant. But in a review, you can definitively state that problems exist with the product, since you (in theory) have had the exact same experience that the consumer will be paying for.

 

[Funchameleon]

Watergate wasn't about water y'all.

 

[Steve Youngblood]

It's almost like NeoGAF should present the media with a comprehensive compilation of these blatantly hypocritcal statements in an open letter or something....

The thing is that graphics, resolution, and performance are all important to the overall experience. Some people want to inform their buying decisions based on where to find the best versions of multiplatform games on a console. It mattered last gen, and it still matters now. Why is this difficult for the games media at large to understand?

Honestly, my first impression in terms of trying to understand these views -- whether we chalk them up as contrarian takes or calls for sanity can be left up to you to decide -- is people conflating cries that "tech superiority is important" as "tech is the only thing that matters." And I think assuming that the former necessarily equates to the latter obfuscates the entire discussion. The fact that the hype cycle is in full thrust meaning that console wars tensions are at maximum capacity I think leads some to assume that everyone is a fanboy if one is approaching from a more even-keeled perspective and isn't necessarily enamored with tech themselves*.

But I think we can call for sanity and concede that the games are obviously matters at the end of the day without deriding the spectacle entirely in terms of why people are riled up. If one system is indeed clearly more capable -- particularly one that is less expensive -- it's pretty easy for me to understand why this is causing so much commotion. This is particularly true given what time it is right now. It's launch hype season. It should be understandable when unimportant distinctions get amplified. When the distinction is non-trivial, this is even more true if you ask me.

*Note, I'm giving the benefit of the doubt here for the sake of the argument, and am not really interested in considering the alternative possibility that Sessler is a fanboy/shill himself.

 

[Glass Shark]

It's more popular to be non-partisan

But here's the thing... even though this situation is filled with rumors and speculation, there are a handful of concrete facts that we do know. And those facts are pretty damning to the Xbox One in terms of multiplatform game performance. There's nothing to be "non-partisan" about. This isn't tee-ball where everyone gets a participation trophy for showing up. The evidence is stacking up to show that one platform performs consistently better than the other.

 

[tranciful]

Well, except all the examples posted were reviews. And "sessler and others" == all games media.

Yeah, I get that you're hung up on the technicality that one editorial is labeled 'review' and one editorial isn't. Can you actually articulate why the hell that matters?

As to your second "point," did you mean "!="?

 

[AlexMogil]

I do not at all understand the shit Sessler is getting here.

A lot of you need to realize that there's a difference between resolutiongate 'not mattering' and resolutiongate not mattering to you. It matters a lot to you, and that's fine. But you're a very small minority of the people who will buy these at launch. Does it matter in the sense that less Xboxes are going to be sold over it? No way.

'But Microsoft has been pushing 1080p/60fps forever!'

Yeah, wow, OK - you got them. They went on about it and aren't delivering it at launch. Their failure to live up to this particular hype doesn't amount to anything to the average person.

720p Call of Duty will look more than good enough for Joe Gamer, and a lot of core gamers too . And before you even say it, 'but I have a friend/cousin/co-worker who is on the fence, and you can be sure I'll be telling him to get a PlayStation!' does not change anything.

You're going to get called things

 

[Mushroomer25]

Small surprise that people who're defending/agreeing with Sessler are also getting an Xbone.

Oh fuck off. This has long since ceased to be about console preference. I'm not even buying a next-gen console (unless you consider the WiiU) - this is a discussion of the gaming media, and GAF's outlandish expectations of what qualifies as news.

 

[Tripon]

Do you happen to know when in the panel is brought up? I remember it being pretty long with the beginning about a hotdog incident, so it would be pretty helpful.

Here.
http://youtu.be/55mJl_zKAu0?t=1m30s

 

[NoirVisage]

Because they haven't actually reviewed them yet. Wait a few weeks, and you'll inevitably see a footnote in just about every AC4 review on XBox ONE saying it only runs in 720p, but it didn't seriously impact the playing experience.



(except for the really fucking obvious flaw)

At least you admit his victory.