Support NeoGAF

[Ploid 3.0]

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

Reviews are easier to search for the material he was looking for. Usually, especially in podcasts, it's sprinkled all over the place or previews (like Battlefield 4 next gen). If I was going to search out comments that back up the fact that graphical and performance difference mattered to journalists, not just the gameplay, I'd look for reviews.

Thinking of an example, sometimes one game is shown for previews. Journalists start getting concerned for the other version, thinking it might not be as good if they don't show it. Usually the preview machine is 360, sometimes it's PS3.

 

[ArkkAngel007]

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

Funny, I'm not sure if I've seen anyone declaring that they're getting the Xbox One in the thread.

 

[JesseEwiak]

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.

You're aware a large portion of the games press wasn't even working in the industry during the last console launch, right? I mean, hell, is there are anybody at IGN (for one example) who was even reviewing games when the 360 and PS3 launched? Kind of a sins of the father situation here.

If you have specific people who have changed their tunes as compared to eight years ago, fine, but I don't think it's fair to rake somebodies coals over reviews from somebody who works in game development or is completely out of the industry these days.

 

[Dreams-Visions]

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'.

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.

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

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.

Should be its own thread. If it felt directed at you, you're probably part of the problem. Take some time and think on these things.

And welcome, Junior. Enjoy your stay here.

 

[PsychoSoldier]

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.

Most of the people quoting him are also "the usual suspects" of a different sort.

And the central theme of that post, that game writers didn't care about the graphical differences but forum posters did, has already been shown to be at least somewhat false.

Of course, once that happened, the goalposts got moved around, yet again.

 

[Valnen]

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

What? No.

 

[Forceatowulf]

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

That's not surprising or noteworthy. The only surprise here is that some of these guys were also in favor of DRM.

Imagine that.

 

[Mushroomer25]

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.

But how many of these "concrete facts" are coming from people who refuse to reveal themselves to the media - and therefore are not reliable as sources? I may believe CBOAT's every word, but I'm not shocked that journalists have a bit of a higher standard for where they get info. In a year, when every multiplat still has this resolution difference, then we can discuss something. But right now? There's a distinct lack of verifiable proof as to what's going wrong.

 

[Mask]

Why is it that the resolution differences between the PS4 and the XBO, "aren't significant" and "don't matter", and it's "all about the games", yet these differences
are far bigger than the differences on the 360 and PS3 multiplats were.

This coming gen, we're seeing differences of over 300p between platforms, while the current gen generally had differences of about a 100p in most cases.

When the PS3 was first released, journalists had no problem kicking Sony while they were down, yet now the shoe is on the other foot, they instead spring to Microsofts defense.

Even the price point is being downplayed. Sony are releasing a console that is capable of playing games at 1080p, at a cheaper price than it's competitors, with some
unique tech implemented into it, yet none of this matters, because somehow, an upscaled 720p image is supposedly perfectly fine. We've had 8 years of 720p, and now we
shouldn't yearn for something better because it's "barely noticeable and only people with giant tvs will see the difference."?

Hell no. Sony made their mistakes, they paid for it, and they became better for it. Microsoft made the same mistakes with XBO, and they're paying for it too, but they at least
reverted some of those mistakes. They should be praised for fixing those flaws, but should be reminded of them, so that they never try them again, and become a better company.

 

[neither]

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.

woooow.
where did the integrity of these game journos go?
they're hypocrites.

 

[CassidyIzABeast]

People said the same shit about the DRM ruckus, which became mainstream news pretty damn quick.

Drm =/= resolution

 

[Fedelias]

The hell happened to you Sessler? Used to be my favorite games journalist...

 

[Paches]

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

Wow, this is damning.

 

[DjRoomba]

 

[Tripon]

... 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.

Sessler's arguing that 1080p/60 is a baseline for these new consoles. He states that "You don't get a fucking star for doing your job." He's pretty fucking adamant that 1080p/60 isn't the only thing that comes this generation. He clearly wants MORE than that. And one of the consoles is clearly going to have a hard time achieving it for more games over the other.

How is that not an expectation from Sessler?

Adam Sessler should be pissed off that a console can't do one of the basic things he required from a console. Instead, he's now saying that its a standard that is more PR and marketing. How can that not be a contradiction on Sessler's part?

 

[VanWinkle]

There are many things I like about Adam Sessler - his game reviews, his interviews, and many thoughts on the game industry - but I really can't stand his "agnostic" take on platforms, mostly when it comes to situations where PS4 appears in a more positive light than XB1. He keeps talking about resolution like people are treating it as being more important than the games. Just because you want the best looking games for the price doesn't mean you don't care about the games overall or the gameplay. Basically...why not both?.gif

But anyway, if I just don't pay attention to his XB1 vs PS4 forced agnosticism, I really like the guy and love most of his videos.

 

[Ploid 3.0]

I have a PC so I believe I'm good on next gen for a few months. When I do get one it'll be PS4, I doubt I will want PS+, I have enough games and I don't play online much. Good things it's features aren't all behind PS+. I'm enjoying the heck out of these discussions though. Fascinating stuff.

 

[Leflus]

ITT I learned that the gaming press is a singular entity and that everyone that cared about the graphical differences between the 360 and PS3 is ignoring the graphical differences between the XBO and PS4.

 

[Zornack]

Drm =/= resolution

I doubt anyone thinks the general console buying public will give a shit about a resolution difference. What they will care about is that the PS4 version looks better than the XB1 version of the same game. The specifics don't matter.

 

[Aaron]

IT'S NOT JUST RESOLUTION. The reduced pixel count is a symptom of a larger issue, which is due to design choices the XB1 doesn't have the graphical muscle of a computer built 4-5 years ago. Microsoft is asking consumers to pay out $500 for the equivalent of a computer graphics card you'd be lucky to resell for $50. While the PS4 is still outpaced by the latest computer hardware, you'd have to outlay well more than $400 to get the same experience.

While things will improve and developers will get more out of the hardware going forward, since these new consoles are straight forward that's going to dry up quickly. In two years we'll see pretty much the limit of what these consoles can do, and XB1 isn't going to have much to show for it.

 

[Moneal]

But how many of these "concrete facts" are coming from people who refuse to reveal themselves to the media - and therefore are not reliable as sources? I may believe CBOAT's every word, but I'm not shocked that journalists have a bit of a higher standard for where they get info. In a year, when every multiplat still has this resolution difference, then we can discuss something. But right now? There's a distinct lack of verifiable proof as to what's going wrong.

the concrete facts he was talking about were bf4 900p ps4 720p xbox one and CoD 1080p on ps4 and 720p on xbox one.

 

[Funchameleon]

I care so much about journalistic integrity (as long as they go to bat for my side *clutches PS4 preorder receipt in clenched fist*), even holding people to the standards of completely different people based on statements they made years ago. Here's a list of all the things anyone has ever said.

 

[Mushroomer25]

People said the same shit about the DRM ruckus, which became mainstream news pretty damn quick.

You really can't compare the resolution issue to DRM.

The DRM issue had undeniable, immediate effects on how the average consumer was set to experience their next-gen console. That's why used games were the big issue at E3 - it was the element of those policies that most people were irritated with. Every person who plays games on the regular had a reason to be up in arms - and it wasn't long before the mainstream media started to pay attention to the uproar.

But launch games being sub-1080p? Unless they've been caught up in this shitstorm, the average player will almost certainly not notice. It'll make for some embarassing comparison videos on Youtube, but not much else. Now, if this is really a long-standing issue - then more people are going to take note as the word spreads. But don't be suprised that right now, it's only the crazy people like ourselves that are paying attention.

 

[PBY]

ITT I learned that the gaming press is a singular entity and that everyone that cared about the graphical differences between the 360 and PS3 is ignoring the graphical differences between the XBO and PS4.

Pretty much.

 

[NoirVisage]

Huh?

 

[daman824]

woooow.
where did the integrity of these game journos go?
they're hypocrites.

Those comparisons are all bogus for multiple reasons.

Bayonetta (a fast paced dmc style game) ran at half the framerate on the ps3 version compared to the the 360 version. In a game that almost demands as close to 60 fps as possible, a framerate in the 20s is unacceptable. It would be comparable to the xb1 version of ghosts running at 20-30 fps.

C&vg ultimately stated "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."

And that game in the g4tv review? The ps3 version often failed to load certain textures, hid flaws with a fog effect, and had significant frame drops that affected gameplay.

 

[JesseEwiak]

the concrete facts he was talking about were bf4 900p ps4 720p xbox one and CoD 1080p on ps4 and 720p on xbox one.

Nobody has lied about these facts. They just haven't agreed with the consequences of said facts.

 

[Tripon]

Huh?

Sessler had to do like, 50 interviews over 3 days during E3. It pretty much killed him. IIRC, most of the interviews were unusable due and so Rev3 didn't bother to put it on their youtube channel.

 

[NoirVisage]

You really can't compare the resolution issue to DRM.

The DRM issue had undeniable, immediate effects on how the average consumer was set to experience their next-gen console. That's why used games were the big issue at E3 - it was the element of those policies that most people were irritated with. Every person who plays games on the regular had a reason to be up in arms - and it wasn't long before the mainstream media started to pay attention to the uproar.

But launch games being sub-1080p? Unless they've been caught up in this shitstorm, the average player will almost certainly not notice. It'll make for some embarassing comparison videos on Youtube, but not much else. Now, if this is really a long-standing issue - then more people are going to take note as the word spreads. But don't be suprised that right now, it's only the crazy people like ourselves that are paying attention.

Launching COD at sub HD is a bigger issue than simple resolution.

 

[ArkkAngel007]

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

Thanks. In context though, I don't think that was something that he was demanding. Maybe an expectation, but the whole context applies to what he said in the latest video on game design first over visual fidelity.

Could he be downplaying that expectation? Probably, though I don't personally believe it's to support Microsoft.

 

[Glass Shark]

But how many of these "concrete facts" are coming from people who refuse to reveal themselves to the media - and therefore are not reliable as sources? I may believe CBOAT's every word, but I'm not shocked that journalists have a bit of a higher standard for where they get info. In a year, when every multiplat still has this resolution difference, then we can discuss something. But right now? There's a distinct lack of verifiable proof as to what's going wrong.

We don't have to trust CBOAT or any unnamed sources. We have confirmation from IW that Ghosts is running at 720p on XO and 1080p on PS4. They were targeting 60fps for every platform. Logic would dictate that if they could reliably reach 60fps at 1080p on XO, they would have. But they couldn't, because in practice the XO is not as powerful as the PS4.

Whether that holds true for this entire generation is the real question. But I personally don't trust that it will get very much better.

 

[demolitio]

I, for one, find this whole graphical debate absolutely pointless...

Wait...The XB1 port of this game runs a few frames faster than the PS4 version?

I, and everyone else out there, find the game less enjoyable on PS4 and extremely disappointing that Sony's hardware isn't able to keep up with this taxing game.

 

[fallagin]

ITT I learned that specific members of the gaming press that cared about the graphical differences between the 360 and PS3 are ignoring the graphical differences between the XBO and PS4.

Yes.

 

[Funchameleon]

Bayonetta (a fast paced dmc style game) ran at half the framerate of the 360 version. In a game that almost demands as close to 60 fps as possible, a framerate in the 20s is unacceptable. It would be comparable to the xb1 version of ghosts running at 20-30 fps.

This, plus Bayonetta didn't really drop frames so the framerate problems resulted in seriously disconcerting arcade-style slowdown. It was also a bit worse at release than it is now.

 

[NoirVisage]

Sessler had to do like, 50 interviews over 3 days during E3. It pretty much killed him. IIRC, most of the interviews were unusable due and so Rev3 didn't bother to put it on their youtube channel.

I remember that thread, keep that out of this thread guys and gals.

 

[reKon]

This guy gets it.

"DRM is crazy confusing stuff that only super NERDS who don't BATHE would care about!"

CNN: "You can't play games offline bro."

The World: "OMG NOOOOOOOOO"

--------

"Resolution differences are only noticed by NERDS who use their own SMEGMA as PERSONAL LUBRICATION!"

CNN: " Your Xbox games are gonna look worse bro."

The World: "OMG NOOOOOOOOO"

Perfect.

 

[klee123]

The constant downplaying of resolution differences is hilarious. Of course the actual games themselves matter. However, it's 2013 and if I still have to put up with sub 1080P graphics at a constant basis then I'm sorry, maybe 720P for another 5-6 years is fine for you guys, but for me I might as well just stick to my PS3 then.

 

[Revenant]

ITT I learned that the gaming press is a singular entity and that everyone that cared about the graphical differences between the 360 and PS3 is ignoring the graphical differences between the XBO and PS4.

Sweeping generalizations, hyperbole, and the soon to come "I need to tear down console a because I bought Console b and need to validate my purchase" line of thinking.

smells like a new generation alright.

 

[mr teaspoon]

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

OK, so from where I'm standing that means either

a) he's on Microsoft's secret payroll

or

b) more likely, he...wait for it...changed his mind. Maybe that makes him a completely brain dead shit eating god damn hypocrite! to you. Personally, I have nothing against people changing their minds.

All of this criticism just seems to boil down to 'Adam Sessler said he cared and now he doesn't!' OK. And? Does that affect sales? Does that change the fact that 720p will probably look perfectly fine to the average consumer? No.

edit:

The constant downplaying of resolution differences is hilarious. Of course the actual games themselves matter. However, it's 2013 and if I still have to put up with sub 1080P graphics at a constant basis then I'm sorry, maybe 720P for another 5-6 years is fine for you guys, but for me I might as well just stick to my PS3 then.

Yeah, no. You're not going to not upgrade to a new console because the resolution is the same as your old one.

 

[sol_bad]

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

Has anyone quoted this on Sesslers Youtube channel or Twitter?

 

[Leflus]

Yes.

I'm referring to the ones who are calling out the games press as a whole.

Sorry that I didn't make that clear enough.

 

[neither]

ITT I learned that the gaming press is a singular entity and that everyone that cared about the graphical differences between the 360 and PS3 is ignoring the graphical differences between the XBO and PS4.

We both learned that today.
It was eye opening.

 

[NoirVisage]

I, for one, find this whole graphical debate absolutely pointless...

Wait...The XB1 port of this game runs a few frames faster than the PS4 version?

I, and everyone else out there, find the game less enjoyable on PS4 and extremely disappointing that Sony's hardware isn't able to keep up with this taxing game.

Except that will never be the case for reasons the press doesn't want to start a dialogue on until they've stalled long enough.

 

[Nimajneb]

It's strange that we're getting all these "graphics and resolution don't make the game" opinions from the mainstream gaming media now. Where were they when the Wii launched?

 

[Forceatowulf]

This guy gets it.

"DRM is crazy confusing stuff that only super NERDS who don't BATHE would care about!"

CNN: "You can't play games offline bro."

The World: "OMG NOOOOOOOOO"

--------

"Resolution differences are only noticed by NERDS who use their own SMEGMA as PERSONAL LUBRICATION!"

CNN: " Your Xbox games are gonna look worse bro."

The World: "OMG NOOOOOOOOO"

This.

If only nerds gave a fuck about DRM why did the audience applaud when they announced on Jimmy Fallon that it could still play used games? You think it was an audience of Neogaffers that night? And then like clockwork DRM was no more, what, a few days later? The masses are uneducated as fuck, but they can understand basic shit like one console not being able to do one thing and another being able to do that one thing the other wasn't able to. Like zornack said, maybe not the specifics, but the generally idea behind the specifics? Yes.

 

[Glass Shark]

It's strange that we're getting all these "graphics and resolution don't make the game" opinions from the mainstream gaming media now. Where were they when the Wii launched?

Well, Eurogamer announced that Super Mario Galaxy was their Game of the Generation. So there's that.

 

[daman824]

Launching COD at sub HD is a bigger issue than simple resolution.

Didn't CBOAT heavily imply that the cod:ghosts resolution issues were due to difficulties working with the ESRAM and that dev tools help developers deal with it better in the future? I mean Cod may never run at full 1080p on the xb1. But if bf4 can run at the same resolution (720p) and be significantly more technically imressive, I wouldn't doubt that we will see cod running in at least 900p next year.

 

[Moneal]

Thanks. In context though, I don't think that was something that he was demanding. Maybe an expectation, but the whole context applies to what he said in the latest video on game design first over visual fidelity.

Could he be downplaying that expectation? Probably, though I don't personally believe it's to support Microsoft.

but i think thats the point. why is that expectation being downplayed when one console is meeting it and the other is not?

 

[NoirVisage]

OK, so from where I'm standing that means either

a) he's on Microsoft's secret payroll

or

b) more likely, he...wait for it...changed his mind. Maybe that makes him a completely brain dead shit eating god damn hypocrite! to you. Personally, I have nothing against people changing their minds.

All of this criticism just seems to boil down to 'Adam Sessler said he cared and now he doesn't!' OK. And? Does that affect sales? Does that change the fact that 720p will probably look perfectly fine to the average consumer? No.

Or c), he has a bias that shows when a certain company is on the defensive?

 

[CassidyIzABeast]

I doubt anyone thinks the general console buying public will give a shit about a resolution difference. What they will care about is that the PS4 version looks better than the XB1 version of the same game. The specifics don't matter.

Nobody is saying its completely a non-factor. Will people pick up a PS4 because of better multiplats? Sure. Is COD/BF4 running at different resolutions as important as the last 2 weeks would have you believe it is? No. He compared not making a fuss over drm to not making a fuss about resolution having the same potential to blow up as huge as that did. Its a ridiculous comparison.