Support NeoGAF

[Vire]

And yet Battlefield 4 is 900p on PS4. I agree that we won't see anything below HD resolutions, but to imply that 1080p is the standard for PS4 moving forward is, indeed, disingenuous.

Games that are 1080p on PS4:
Killzone SF (Multiplayer 60fps)
Knack
Call of Duty Ghosts (60fps)
Resogun (60 fps)
Flower (60 fps)
NBA 2K14 (60 fps)

TBD:
AC4
Need For Speed Rivals
Madden

Under 1080P:
Battlefield 4

And you are honestly telling me 1080p isn't the standard? One game is under 1080p.

It is the standard, and will be for the rest of the generation.

 

[Ketch]

Funny that the people concerned about which console is "better" are the same people concerned about anything related to call of duty.

 

[Felix Lighter]

Maybe he means how thrilled they were when breaking the story that Microsoft 180'd on it?

Why wouldn't they be thrilled? Why wouldn't every gamer be thrilled?

 

[StuBurns]

They didn't break the 180 story, Patrick likes to act like he did, but some bullshit HiFi website beat him by like half hour.

 

[Curufinwe]

Games that are 1080p on PS4:
Killzone SF (Multiplayer 60fps)
Knack
Call of Duty Ghosts (60fps)
Resogun (60 fps)
Flower (60 fps)
NBA 2K14 (60 fps)

TBD:
AC4
Need For Speed Rivals
Madden

Under 1080P:
Battlefield 4

And you are honestly telling me 1080p isn't the standard? One game is under 1080p.

It is the standard, and will be for the rest of the generation.

Joystiq say AC4 is also 1080p on PS4.

 

[Backfoggen]

Hey guys so Volgarr later is gonna be pretty cool right

 

[Xater]

Hey guys so Volgarr later is gonna be pretty cool right

Can't wait!

 

[Megasoum]

They didn't break the 180 story, Patrick likes to act like he did, but some bullshit HiFi website beat him by like half hour.

This

 

[Dragon]

They'll have a stream for both consoles and I'm sure will comment on differences.

GB does things differently, it's not hard to get. If there's a news story that's already on a billion sites/forums they don't see the need to have that on their page as well. Instead Llamas.

Yeah they didn't comment on Xbone DRM or the PS4 FAQ at all....what?

The DRM stuff was a huge win for them on traffic.

 

[SteveWinwood]

Funny that the people concerned about which console is "better" are the same people concerned about anything related to call of duty.

wut

 

[Shosai]

Games that are 1080p on PS4:
Killzone SF (Multiplayer 60fps)
Knack
Call of Duty Ghosts (60fps)
Resogun (60 fps)
Flower (60 fps)
NBA 2K14 (60 fps)

TBD:
AC4
Need For Speed Rivals
Madden

Under 1080P:
Battlefield 4

And you are honestly telling me 1080p isn't the standard? One game is under 1080p.

It is the standard, and will be for the rest of the generation.

Which ones are 60 FPS?

EDIT: NVM- I CAN'T READ

Yes, it does contradict what you said and I'm well aware of the PS3's hardware disadvantages. Because of them it cost me $280 to play Bayonetta.

I'm sorry, I guess you'll just have to explain how the existence of a superior processor contradicts the notion that the PS3 has an inferior GPU and RAM setup. To me, those facts aren't mutually exclusive, or maybe you read something more into my post.

They didn't break the 180 story, Patrick likes to act like he did, but some bullshit HiFi website beat him by like half hour.

Actually, Patrick did credit HiFi for breaking the story.

 

[Dany]

Why is his neck long.

 

[SlowRevolution]

Maybe he means how thrilled they were when breaking the story that Microsoft 180'd on it?

It was a huge story, of course they're going to be happy about covering it. Before that most of them were either really dismissive of the issue or made disingenuous comments like "it's just like Steam." Pushing aside the 720p/1080p difference with statements like "I don't even own a 1080p TV so I don't care" just doesn't surprise me that much anymore.

I'm not trying to judge them, I just don't really expect much talk about things like PS4/Xbox resolution differences. As long as they're entertaining I don't care that much.

 

[megalowho]

And you are honestly telling me 1080p isn't the standard? One game is under 1080p.

It is the standard, and will be for the rest of the generation.

My point is, let's stick to honest comparisons on a game by game basis instead of making sweeping statements based on a crop of launch titles. And also, the fact that I barely care about any of this stuff as a PC and soon to be PS4 owner makes me question why anyone is really up in arms about it at all. PS4 is the more powerful machine but it too will be outdated before long, so what's the point?

It just all stinks of "my system is better than yours, nyah nyah" to me. Not to say that there isn't room for real disappointment, but PC gaming is always there for max settings, high resolution, 60fps fun.

 

[Serra]

This is basically the same situation Patrick was in before but about PCs. He didn't have a gaming pc so he didn't care about any PC releases or the differences between console and pc versions. He even defended the utterly low framerate of Far Cry 3 on consoles.

Glad we are over that now that he does have a PC but he just does not care about things that don't effect him directly.

 

[Dragon]

This is basically the same situation Patrick was in before but about PCs. He didn't have a gaming pc so he didn't care about any PC releases or the differences between console and pc versions. He even defended the utterly low framerate of Far Cry 3 on consoles.

Glad we are over that now that he does have a PC but he just does not care about things that don't effect him directly.

Sounds like he's bad at his job.

 

[Serra]

Sounds like he's bad at his job.

I would still say he is one of the better journalists in the games industry. He breaks plenty of interesting industry stories and does tons of great interviews.

 

[Curufinwe]

I'm sorry, I guess you'll just have to explain how the existence of a superior processor contradicts the notion that the PS3 has an inferior GPU and RAM setup. To me, those facts aren't mutually exclusive, or maybe you read something more into my post.

It contradicts the notion that Xbone games will eventually have negligible differences from PS4 titles titles, because the situation is not the same as it was last generation. "Streamlined development practices" can only do so much without having an area of superior hardware to work with.

Well, this was also true for the PS3. Yet the gap between multiplatform games eventually became negligible, due to streamlined development practices. Devs eventually figured out how to compensate for the PS3's inferior GPU and split RAM setup

 

[Zaph]

For the most part I like GB's stance on rumours about resolution/image quality for next gen. They're avoiding much of the reactionary shit and will most likely perk up when games are put in front of them that have noticeable differences.

Obviously this falls apart when someone drops a nonchalant remark like "it doesn't matter to me". You're a consumer site, come release, yes, it will matter. If games start coming out that manage to keep around 60fps on one console and the other often drops to ~30, you can guarantee Jeff will pick up on it and be very vocal.

Sounds like he's bad at his job.

Give him a break, he has balloons to write about.

Spoiler

just kidding, patrick's awesome

 

[LiK]

Sounds like he's bad at his job.

Nah, he's fantastic.

 

[Dragon]

I would still say he is one of the better journalists in the games industry. He breaks plenty of interesting industry stories and does tons of great interviews.

I don't disagree. But if his personal preference is that much of a problem that he ignores things like FC3 framerate it's pretty hard to take him seriously. And to be clear, I loved the fact that he played games no other GBer would touch like 999.

Nah, he's fantastic.

You're a Red Sox fan so I'll give you a pass on this one. Just one though. Like a David Ortiz IBB.

 

[kvk1]

Funny that the people concerned about which console is "better" are the same people concerned about anything related to call of duty.

Groaaan.

 

[Shosai]

It contradicts the notion that Xbone games will eventually have negligible differences from PS4 titles titles, because the situation is not the same as it was last generation. "Streamlined development practices" can only do so much without having an area of superior hardware to work with.

Ah, so you are reading things I've never outright claimed. But, lets get into that. You are aware that there are already Xbox One games that look identical to their PS4 counterparts, right?

Funny that the people concerned about which console is "better" are the same people concerned about anything related to call of duty.

I don't get it.

 

[Hot Coldman]

Brad why are you skipping the cutscenes in Overkill

god damn it Brad

 

[Dany]

Brad why are you skipping the cutscenes in Overkill

god damn it Brad

Brad's gonna brad.

 

[Curufinwe]

Ah, so you are reading things I've never outright claimed. But, lets get into that. You are aware that there are already Xbox One games that look identical to their PS4 counterparts, right?

You can pretend you weren't trying to draw a false equivalency between PS3 mutliplatform performance and the future of Xbone multiplatform performance. It's ok.

So which Xbox games look identical to their PS4 counterparts? Not COD Ghosts or BF4, and not AC4 which has already been reviewed by many outlets on PS4 while none of them have seen the Xbone version. The sports games are 1080p on both platforms right, but can we say they look identical without reviewers and people with capture equipment actually going in depth with them?

 

[Hot Coldman]

Brad's gonna brad.

It's like skipping cutscenes in The Last of Us

actually, worse

 

[Brashnir]

Brad why are you skipping the cutscenes in Overkill

god damn it Brad

some people like to play videogames.

 

[LCfiner]

Patrick’s blog comment seems like weird, deflecting bullshit. Trying to add a lot of drama to what should just be a basic PSA news piece on the site.

Hey, a developer announced some relevant performance info on their game for the two new consoles. If you’re gonna spend 600 bucks this fall on one of these machines, you might want to know this

They’ve put up posts for less important stuff

Patrick himself having an old TV shouldn’t mean jack shit. The fact that he brought it up on the blog is a weird, irrelevant non-reason to not report on the actual story…

it’s not like he had to link to the Gaf thread with all the reaction gifs and shit.

 

[Dragon]

some people like to play videogames.

Yeah I remember when I realized there was a run button in Rayman.

 

[FStop7]

And yet Battlefield 4 is 900p on PS4. I agree that we won't see anything below HD resolutions, but to imply that 1080p is the standard for PS4 moving forward is, indeed, disingenuous.

This is why I mentioned the long term viability of both consoles vs PC is looking really bad, unless the life cycle is much shorter this time around.

And that was a bad article by Patrick.

 

[Brashnir]

Games that are 1080p on PS4:
Killzone SF (Multiplayer 60fps)
Knack
Call of Duty Ghosts (60fps)
Resogun (60 fps)
Flower (60 fps)
NBA 2K14 (60 fps)

TBD:
AC4
Need For Speed Rivals
Madden

Under 1080P:
Battlefield 4

And you are honestly telling me 1080p isn't the standard? One game is under 1080p.

It is the standard, and will be for the rest of the generation.

One more for the "Under 1080P" pile:

The Order.

 

[Curufinwe]

Patrick’s blog comment seems like weird, deflecting bullshit. Trying to add a lot of drama to what should just be a basic PSA news piece on the site.

That's all I was expecting.

As I implied last night, I had no problem with them not talking about this stuff on the Bombcast since the official confirmation of the resolutions of BF4 and CoD10 didn't come till after they recorded.

 

[Megasoum]

Patrick’s blog comment seems like weird, deflecting bullshit. Trying to add a lot of drama to what should just be a basic PSA news piece on the site.

Hey, a developer announced some relevant performance info on their game for the two new consoles. If you’re gonna spend 600 bucks this fall on one of these machines, you might want to know this

They’ve put up posts for less important stuff

Patrick himself having an old TV shouldn’t mean jack shit. The fact that he brought it up on the blog is a weird, irrelevant non-reason to not report on the actual story…

it’s not like he had to link to the Gaf thread with all the reaction gifs and shit.

Like somebody said earlier, if it doesn't affect him then it's a non-issue.

 

[StuBurns]

This is why I mentioned the long term viability of both consoles vs PC is looking really bad, unless the life cycle is much shorter this time around.

And that was a bad article by Patrick.

That has, and will, always be true. How many PC gamers were playing FEAR at 1680x1050p when 360 launched? A lot of them.

Also, consoles are limited by the display. Did you know Okami HD runs at an internal framebuffer resolution of 4k? But the PS3 can't output that, and even if it could, your TV couldn't show it.

You can just buy a better PC monitor when you have enough performance, these consoles are designed to work with the resolution of TVs, which is 1080p.

 

[Ketch]

Ok I'm going to apologize upfront. I retyped this like 3 times, and I'm still not sure what I'm trying to say makes sense.

Here goes:

Why does anyone care what resolution COD runs in? Nobody does.

What people care about is which console to choose, because if you make the wrong choice you lose....I don't know, 400 plus dollars I guess.

Or they care about why GB has not put up a story on it. Because either GB should be helping them with their purchasing decision, or they must be kowtowing to manufacturers because $$.

But in reality, it doesn't matter.

It doesn't matter because If you're spending $400+ on either one of these consoles at launch, you're already wasting your money. So you might as well buy whichever one you want, and if you want the one that is the most powerful, then buy a PC. If you can't afford a PC, but still want the most powerful one, then you shouldn't buy either one of these consoles, because they're not that powerful. Save your money, because what you really want is a PC.

If you're going to be buying one (and only one) of the new consoles, then you should make your decision based on which on has better games, and there's no way to tell right now which one is going to have better games. And which ever one ends up having better games is not going to be decided by which one can run COD in 1080p or not.

 

[Alo81]

One more for the "Under 1080P" pile:

The Order.

Isn't it 1920x810? I think that counts. It's just using a different aspect ratio.

 

[Alo81]

If you're going to be buying one (and only one) of the new consoles, then you should make your decision based on which on has better games,

Why do you get to determine what factors go into a persons purchasing decision?

Some people place more importance on performance than others so to say "You should only care about the games" isn't at all useful.

Especially since there are a ton of multiplatform games, there's absolutely nothing wrong with wanting to make a decision based on where the bulk of the games will run better.

 

[Vire]

Ok I'm going to apologize upfront. I retyped this like 3 times, and I'm still not sure what I'm trying to say makes sense.

Here goes:

Why does anyone care what resolution COD runs in? Nobody does.

What people care about is which console to choose, because if you make the wrong choice you lose....I don't know, 400 plus dollars I guess.

Or they care about why GB has not put up a story on it. Because either GB should be helping them with their purchasing decision, or they must be kowtowing to manufacturers because $$.

But in reality, it doesn't matter.

It doesn't matter because If you're spending $400+ on either one of these consoles at launch, you're already wasting your money. So you might as well buy whichever one you want, and if you want the one that is the most powerful, then buy a PC. If you can't afford a PC, but still want the most powerful one, then you shouldn't buy either one of these consoles, because they're not that powerful. Save your money, because what you really want is a PC.

If you're going to be buying one (and only one) of the new consoles, then you should make your decision based on which on has better games, and there's no way to tell right now which one is going to have better games. And which ever one ends up having better games is not going to be decided by which one can run COD in 1080p or not.

Can a PC run the exclusive to console games that are coming from Naughty Dog, 343, Sony Santa Monica, Turn 10, Bungie, Square Enix, Nintendo, and thousands of other studios?

No? Okay, that's what I thought. Enjoy your PC. I'll be over here enjoying The Last of Us, Halo, Journey, Red Dead Redemption, and Super Mario Galaxy.

Furthermore, it's not that people care about what resolution Call of Duty/BF is - it's that the resolution differences indicate a trend of graphical differences that will continue in all future multi-platform games.

 

[Felix Lighter]

Ok I'm going to apologize upfront. I retyped this like 3 times, and I'm still not sure what I'm trying to say makes sense.

Here goes:

Why does anyone care what resolution COD runs in? Nobody does.

What people care about is which console to choose, because if you make the wrong choice you lose....I don't know, 400 plus dollars I guess.

Or they care about why GB has not put up a story on it. Because either GB should be helping them with their purchasing decision, or they must be kowtowing to manufacturers because $$.

But in reality, it doesn't matter.

It doesn't matter because If you're spending $400+ on either one of these consoles at launch, you're already wasting your money. So you might as well buy whichever one you want, and if you want the one that is the most powerful, then buy a PC. If you can't afford a PC, but still want the most powerful one, then you shouldn't buy either one of these consoles, because they're not that powerful. Save your money, because what you really want is a PC.

If you're going to be buying one (and only one) of the new consoles, then you should make your decision based on which on has better games, and there's no way to tell right now which one is going to have better games. And which ever one ends up having better games is not going to be decided by which one can run COD in 1080p or not.

Multi-platform performance is definitely something worth considering when choosing a platform, so I do think it's a story worth reporting. COD at 1080p and BF4 at 900p vs 720p are worthwhile indicators of the practical outcome of the spec difference. I don't agree with Patrick's explanation of why he thinks it's not worth an article.

 

[StuBurns]

If an individual on GAF, or even if anyone at GiantBomb can think of a good reason why someone should care about a colossal difference in image quality or not is irrelevant (and there are logical reasons why someone would), GB are meant to provide consumer advice. They're not doing so, and they're not giving a nearly decent reason why.

 

[brainzelda]

Multi-platform performance is definitely something worth considering when choosing a platform, so I do think it's a story worth reporting. COD at 1080p and BF4 at 900p vs 720p are worthwhile indicators of the practical outcome of the spec difference. I don't agree with Patrick's explanation of why he thinks it's not worth an article.

Maybe Patrick likes to write articles on things he believes can be changed with ordinary human effort, like racism or sexism in games. In this case, while I agree the resolution differences is important to note, it's not something easily changed, and maybe Patrick feels that arguing about it would be ultimately pointless.

 

[IamMattFox]

Since you guys are talking resolution: Back in the early days of the 360/PS3 when people were asking if they should get 1080p televisions or 720p televisions to save money, a lot of responses said resolution didn't matter unless the TV was in the 50 inch+ size category.

Was that just people making themselves feel better about their smaller TV screens, or is that actually the case?

 

[StuBurns]

Was that just people making themselves feel better about their smaller TV screens, or is that actually the case?

The size is only a determining factor in correlation to your distance from the screen.

 

[obonicus]

It's not worth an article because it's not very interesting, it's already fucking everywhere and all it really fuels is these terrible discussions. And it's not like they can win, either way; different groups of bad posters will get angry no matter what they do.

 

[IamMattFox]

The size is only a determining factor in correlation to your distance from the screen.

Yeah, I guess I remember hearing that as well.

 

[StuBurns]

It's not worth an article because it's not very interesting, it's already fucking everywhere and all it really fuels is these terrible discussions. And it's not like they can win, either way; different groups of bad posters will get angry no matter what they do.

So they should never post any news that will upset people?

Do you understand the concept of press coverage?

 

[Brashnir]

Isn't it 1920x810? I think that counts. It's just using a different aspect ratio.

It's 800, rather than 810, and no, it doesn't count. It's either rendering the full resolution or it's rendering less for performance reasons. Games have been letterboxing for years for performance. This game doesn't get a pass just because it's on a new platform.

 

[SuperSonic1305]

Ok I'm going to apologize upfront. I retyped this like 3 times, and I'm still not sure what I'm trying to say makes sense.

Here goes:

Why does anyone care what resolution COD runs in? Nobody does.

What people care about is which console to choose, because if you make the wrong choice you lose....I don't know, 400 plus dollars I guess.

Or they care about why GB has not put up a story on it. Because either GB should be helping them with their purchasing decision, or they must be kowtowing to manufacturers because $$.

But in reality, it doesn't matter.

It doesn't matter because If you're spending $400+ on either one of these consoles at launch, you're already wasting your money. So you might as well buy whichever one you want, and if you want the one that is the most powerful, then buy a PC. If you can't afford a PC, but still want the most powerful one, then you shouldn't buy either one of these consoles, because they're not that powerful. Save your money, because what you really want is a PC.

If you're going to be buying one (and only one) of the new consoles, then you should make your decision based on which on has better games, and there's no way to tell right now which one is going to have better games. And which ever one ends up having better games is not going to be decided by which one can run COD in 1080p or not.

Playing BF4 on PC at Ultra settings the last two days I can say that the videos of the PS4 version still look fantastic. PS4 is plenty powerful.

 

[Alo81]

It's 800, rather than 810, and no, it doesn't count. It's either rendering the full resolution or it's rendering less for performance reasons. Games have been letterboxing for years for performance. This game doesn't get a pass just because it's on a new platform.

What if a person has a 21:9 display?

I think it totally counts. I elect to play in 21:9 at times depending on the game.

It's a different aspect of the same base resolution.

1920x1200 - 4:3
1920x1080 - 16:9
1920x800 - 21:9