3liteDragon
Member
Pretty sure the final output for both modes are still 4K though, I think.Edit, apparently it is 1440p for both modes:
Last edited:
Pretty sure the final output for both modes are still 4K though, I think.Edit, apparently it is 1440p for both modes:
People buy PS because it's the best platform with most variety. Something MS can always learn from.The reason people buy PlayStation isn't to play Destruction All stars. It's s to play their stable of single player, 3rd person titles. In fact it's been stated here numerous times that people on PlayStation prefer to play single player games. Xbox games tend to be multi-player PlayStation single. We'll see how well MS does when their big single player games start hitting.
I LIKE that. I hope MS makes even more and better co-op games. I can't play Last of Us with my friends and that's why I don't have interest in it.
Lol... Talent?Some how Ubisoft managed to get raytracing on Watchdogs legion on the 'Sbox'. Maybe different developers have more talent I suppose.
Well even the latest Nvidia 3080 and 3070 graphics cards struggle to maintain 60 FPS @ 1440p with high settings and high RT.Whats really embarrassing is the 1220p/30fps for the RT mode on both consoles.
Edit, apparently it is 1440p for both modes:
Control Ultimate Edition next-gen enhancements detailed News
Literally a typo, thats on me. Its 1440p in both modes. Performance Mode ·Targets 60fps performance with 1440p render resolution and 4K output Graphics Mode ·Targets 30fps performance with ray tracing (transparency and reflections) at 1440p render resolution and 4K outputwww.resetera.com
Especially the physics and interactive environments in Control. Love the way so much of the world can be destroyed, moved, etc.Lol... Talent?
Looks at Watchdogs Legion:
Looks at Control:
One looks like an early last gen visual mess (it's worse looking that WD2), the other even on last gen hardware is absolutely stunning... are you really surprised WD:Legion has more performance headroom for RT on XSS? It's not doing anywhere near as much as Control.
Lol... Talent?
Looks at Watchdogs Legion:
Looks at Control:
One looks like an early last gen visual mess (it's worse looking that WD2), the other even on last gen hardware is absolutely stunning... are you really surprised WD:Legion has more performance headroom for RT on XSS? It's not doing anywhere near as much as Control.
If you say so. It doesn't change the fact that the $299 XSS was able to pull off raytracing something that wasn't done on any similar hardware. The system is very capable for the price you pay. A developer refusing to take the time to implement a feature is very different from platform being unable to do the feature.Lol... Talent?
Looks at Watchdogs Legion:
Looks at Control:
One looks like an early last gen visual mess (it's worse looking that WD2), the other even on last gen hardware is absolutely stunning... are you really surprised WD:Legion has more performance headroom for RT on XSS? It's not doing anywhere near as much as Control.
Damn 505 Games putting sbox on blast
I LIKE that. I hope MS makes even more and better co-op games. I can't play Last of Us with my friends and that's why I don't have interest in it.
In this day and age it's a common fallacy.One of the two games is an open world, that's not negligible.
If you say so. It doesn't change the fact that the $299 XSS was able to pull off raytracing something that wasn't done on any similar hardware. The system is very capable for the price you pay. A developer refusing to take the time to implement a feature is very different from platform being unable to do the feature.
Lol... Talent?
Looks at Watchdogs Legion:
Looks at Control:
One looks like an early last gen visual mess (it's worse looking that WD2), the other even on last gen hardware is absolutely stunning... are you really surprised WD:Legion has more performance headroom for RT on XSS? It's not doing anywhere near as much as Control.
In this day and age it's a common fallacy.
That a game is open world is immaterial when 99% of games are built on the same streaming engine technology. The level of texture fidelity and geometric complexity in a given scene is a function of how much hardware resources are available to render the visible streamed portion of the world at any given moment, not a function of the overall size of the world on the disk.
It's no wonder some of the best looking games this gen are in fact open world: RDR2, Horizon ZD, Death Stranding etc etc etc. "Open world" isn't the technical challenge it once was, as practically all games now run on the same underlying technology.
Clearly not the case here though as the system is scaling just fine with the resolution alone (PS5 and XSX at only 1440p at 60fps with no RT vs. the XSS at 900p at 60fps with no RT).I assume the crux of the matter is, that compute doesn’t scale with resolution. The number crunching is just not there on S GPU compared to X. If the game is heavily compute based, there is just nothing left in the tank on S.
I always considered such a thing may come into play, where the GPU is deployed for other tasks - e.g. calculating physics, collisions, etc, not just pixels. And the S will either need to do less in a game - or more often hold back compute progress on the big boy.
+ Spider-Man PS4's PuddlesSo this is just The Division + The Last of Us
Yes Sony invests big on single player and that’s actually pretty good because just like Nintendo, they making the games that third parties won’t make instead of MS that is constantly chasing the trends set by third parties.
While that's true, it's also true that open world games usually have larger views than non open world games. The detail you can render is a lot different because for the same polygon and texturing budget you are rendering a much bigger view.That a game is open world is immaterial when 99% of games are built on the same streaming engine technology. The level of texture fidelity and geometric complexity in a given scene is a function of how much hardware resources are available to render the visible streamed portion of the world at any given moment, not a function of the overall size of the world on the disk.
Sony mostly makes single-player open world games... and there's nothing wrong with that, but they are, gameplay wise, not a lot different from other SP open world games.
They just tend to have more story content; which TBH I could do without. Would love to see Sony's resources put towards open world games that are more gameplay focused; Days Gone is a good start. Give me a full blown military open world like Ghost Recon from Sony and I'd be thrilled.
You really think that these games are more best looking than GoW, TLOU2, Uncharted 4, etc... ?
While that's true, it's also true that open world games usually have larger views than non open world games. The detail you can render is a lot different because for the same polygon and texturing budget you are rendering a much bigger view.
Saying that being open world is immaterial is not really true, IMO, there are a lot of considerations to be taken into account.
Realtime Ray Tracing on PS2
I don’t agree and a look at their published games last gen and heading into this gen, the evidence does not support the theory. Is Demon Souls an open world game? Is Destruction All stars an open world game? Ratchet? Returnal? Sackboy? Astro? Was TLOU2? God Of War? Uncharted ? The list goes on and on.
And then if we look at their open world games, should we really come to the conclusion that Spider-Man, Days Gone, Horizon, and Death Steanding play the same? That doesn’t make much sense.
i love sony's story focused games, but I also loved their PS3 shooters. I found them to be a lot more enjoyable than COD, BF and other third party shooters. MAG, Socom, Resistance 3, Killzone 2 and Killzone 3, warhawk were all fantastic games that couldve used sequels or reimaginings. These studios had great FPS and MP talent that just went to waste.Sony mostly makes single-player open world games... and there's nothing wrong with that, but they are, gameplay wise, not a lot different from other SP open world games.
They just tend to have more story content; which TBH I could do without. Would love to see Sony's resources put towards open world games that are more gameplay focused; Days Gone is a good start. Give me a full blown military open world like Ghost Recon from Sony and I'd be thrilled.
Then PS Now is the new PS Plus?
What I dont get about sony is that ps now has alot of good content but they barely seem to promote it. Like it doesnt get updated as often as game pass but it has alot of stuff worth playing. If they tried they could probably have 5-6 million subscribers easily, thatd be 50-60 million extra a month then multiply that by 12. And thats actual, real 10 dollars a month not 1 dollar subs and poptart box coupons.Then PS Now is the new PS Plus?
There's not much in it between them all. They're all top tier in terms of visuals. And that's my point. It isn't like previous gens where there was a massive gulf in visual fidelity between linear vs open world.You really think that these games are more best looking than GoW, TLOU2, Uncharted 4, etc... ?
Clearly not the case here though as the system is scaling just fine with the resolution alone (PS5 and XSX at only 1440p at 60fps with no RT vs. the XSS at 900p at 60fps with no RT).
The biggest limiter on RT is memory bandwidth, RT is going to get left off in most cases on XSS just because of this alone.
While that's true, it's also true that open world games usually have larger views than non open world games. The detail you can render is a lot different because for the same polygon and texturing budget you are rendering a much bigger view.
Saying that being open world is immaterial is not really true, IMO, there are a lot of considerations to be taken into account.
While TheThreadsThatBindUs is right in that the underlying technical foundations are becoming largely ubiquitous across engines and genres, the biggest differentiator is the vast amount of unique assets that need to be created to populate the larger open worlds. It's the extra attention to detail more linear games can afford to implement thanks to their often smaller and more deliberately laid out game spaces. It's what helps elevate them visually a notch above open world games, even though they may not be any more technically impressive.
i love sony's story focused games, but I also loved their PS3 shooters. I found them to be a lot more enjoyable than COD, BF and other third party shooters. MAG, Socom, Resistance 3, Killzone 2 and Killzone 3, warhawk were all fantastic games that couldve used sequels or reimaginings. These studios had great FPS and MP talent that just went to waste.
I hate played Destiny for almost 2000 hours because there were no good alternatives. I am a 100% certain a Sony studio wouldve made a better PvE shooter, or at least one that wasnt as cheap and grindy as Destiny.
Man that art looks so much more inspired than Destiny. 2014 was a rough year for Sony. They did Stig dirty. Amy too.I wish Sony would have let SSM continue working on that open-world sci-fi TPS (Destiny-like) game they were working on. The concept art was rad.
They canned it precisely because of it's similarity with Destiny they had signed the marketing deal with Bungie/Acti for. It sucks, because as much as I enjoy playing D2, I feel like this game had the potential to be miles better. And SSM's have the pedigree to pull something like this off.
You're right, but the uniqueness of assets in linear vs open world games is more of a game dev budget issue in more cases than it isn't these days.
Yes, RAM capacity and I/O can be limiting with respect to this, but given that in both cases (linear vs open world) you're working within the same hardware limitations, more aggressive LOD systems for open world games often prove to help close any gap between the two.
Mine is not 5g in the US which is why I wanted to delay buying a phone...It's the same as your Xperia 1ii but with hdmi in and 5g millimetre-wave beam-forming antenna's, it's made for a extremely niche market
The biggest reasons to play PlayStation is for their single player, 3rd person titles. 3rd party titles are everywhere and I doubt someone going to pick up a cheap console will ask which system has sold more so I can play with the largest community. On top of that for games like Fortnite I don't think PlayStation players play alone so with it being cross platform the largest seller won't matter. Finally Forza has surpassed Gran Turismo in popularity and quality so if racing games were my thing I would NOT count on Sony to deliver that for me.All the big multiplayer/co op games are on PlayStation. Indeed the big multiplayer games have bigger communities on PlayStation than on Xbox.
And then there’s a game like fall guys that comes out and becomes a huge sensation and no Xbox version.
Online racing? Gran Turismo.
Yes Sony invests big on single player and that’s actually pretty good because just like Nintendo, they making the games that third parties won’t make instead of MS that is constantly chasing the trends set by third parties.
I disagree. For the target audience XSS is a better deal than the PS5 DE especially since f2p games will truly be free on the XSS. You would be better making the argument that the PS5 DE is a better deal than the XSX over the XSS. If saving money is the goal of a casual gamer they will not want to pay an additional $100 for the privilege of playing on a Sony platform. The technical advantages will not outweigh the extra cost especially seeing how to this very day you cannot expand PS5 game storage AT ALL and we are 3 months in to this generation. With f2p games being free now and Gamepass, the service hated by Sony fans, but popular with normal people, XSS is a very attractive offer for the casual gamer. You might want to look in the mirror with your last statement.Compared to the PS5DE, the XSS is trash value in terms of the performance vs price. "Very capable for the price" simply isn't a phrase I would expect in the same sentence as the XSS. It's serviceable at best.
Also, lol @ "A developer refusing to take the time to implement a feature is very different from platform being unable to do the feature."... you're really pushing this "lazy devs" narrative when the devs have outright come out and said "it's a hardware limitation not a limitation of the game".
Yeah, let's ignore all the facts and live in our own delusional lala land because the facts don't align with our own platform biases... pretty typical behavior, tbh.
Finally Forza has surpassed Gran Turismo in popularity
I disagree. For the target audience XSS is a better deal than the PS5 DE especially since f2p games will truly be free on the XSS. You would be better making the argument that the PS5 DE is a better deal than the XSX over the XSS. If saving money is the goal of a casual gamer they will not want to pay an additional $100 for the privilege of playing on a Sony platform. The technical advantages will not outweigh the extra cost especially seeing how to this very day you cannot expand PS5 game storage AT ALL and we are 3 months in to this generation. With f2p games being free now and Gamepass, the service hated by Sony fans, but popular with normal people, XSS is a very attractive offer for the casual gamer. You might want to look in the mirror with your last statement.
Yep that's exactly what I'm getting at. Since the linear game is by nature more focused it leads to more intricately dressed play spaces. While an open world game with the same theoretical budget and manpower is spread much more thin and can't apply the same density and uniqueness to a larger world.
I have tested 7rm4 and for me it doesnt have wow factor. Alpha 9 does, 7s (all series) and A1.Wanna buy my A7r4???
Wrong. Gamepass costs 0.