Xbox One - General Discussion (NO DISCUSSION REGARDING PS4 - MOD WARNING Post 6903)

FlyingIrishMan

wampyrus77 wrote: »

\any way wiiu still has better graphics then xbox the one

Xbox One graphics currently output in 900p


Wii U Graphics has 1080p 60fps

[/h]http://www.christianpost.com/news/wii-u-graphics-comparison-ps4-and-xbox-one-have-less-1080p-60fps-hd-titles-than-nintendo-106896/

Ah now, the WiiU has been out for a year now. Can't compare it to two consoles that are still a month away from being launched.

And very few of the Wii games are graphically.. good, so of course it'll be easier to reach 1080p 60FPS, they're mainly cartoon style games.

Not to mention they've left out a lot of PS4 games that are confirmed 1080p/60FPS.

Grayditch

wampyrus77 wrote: »

\any way wiiu still has better graphics then xbox the one

Xbox One graphics currently output in 900p


Wii U Graphics has 1080p 60fps

[/h]http://www.christianpost.com/news/wii-u-graphics-comparison-ps4-and-xbox-one-have-less-1080p-60fps-hd-titles-than-nintendo-106896/

I... I just...

2Mad2BeMad

wampyrus77 wrote: »

\any way wiiu still has better graphics then xbox the one

Xbox One graphics currently output in 900p


Wii U Graphics has 1080p 60fps

[/h]http://www.christianpost.com/news/wii-u-graphics-comparison-ps4-and-xbox-one-have-less-1080p-60fps-hd-titles-than-nintendo-106896/

oh god:rolleyes: was not worth pressing the reply post button :pac:

PickledLime

Xenji wrote: »

If you look at the Digital Foundry videos it does, but they messed up the settings so it does not actually look like that, the Jackfrag videos are a better comparison, the X1 version looks very jagged and has some framerate issues, but neither of them really look that good in honesty.

Christ on a bike, what do you actually expect?

Can you remember what 3D graphics looked like on launch PS1, N64, Dreamcast, PS2, Xbox, 360 and PS3 titles? We've come a long, long way in less than 20 years.

Xenji

PickledLime wrote: »

Christ on a bike, what do you actually expect?

Can you remember what 3D graphics looked like on launch PS1, N64, Dreamcast, PS2, Xbox, 360 and PS3 titles? We've come a long, long way in less than 20 years.

Something that does not look like it came mid gen on the ps3/360, Killzone looks far better at the moments graphics wise, so we know launch games can look well.

Grayditch

Killzone looks incredible on the PS4, and I can't see the Xbox One not being able to have graphics like/near enough to that if they get themselves a developer like Guerrilla to develop a game for the system. I thought Epic make the Gears games look better than most games on the 360. I'm not sure third part games are always a great benchmark on the consoles graphics capabilities. I could be wrong.

Pushtrak

Grayditch wrote: »

Killzone looks incredible on the PS4, and I can't see the Xbox One not being able to have graphics like/near enough to that if they get themselves a developer like Guerrilla to develop a game for the system. I thought Epic make the Gears games look better than most games on the 360. I'm not sure third part games are always a great benchmark on the consoles graphics capabilities. I could be wrong.

Third party can't focus solely on getting the most out of one system as they are working on different systems. Similar to this is those games that are coming out on current gen systems and next gen systems. Take Killzone or Forza. They're being done for the next gen systems alone so they are going to look better than other stuff.

Kojima was saying about MGS 5 that it isn't going to look as good as other games that'll be entirely developed for next gen. Looking at that trailer that was posted from E3, well I can say I'm happy with what I saw on that trailer despite that disclaimer from Kojima.

Just had a quick look for that article there... http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2013-09-20-metal-gear-solid-5-ground-zeroes-60-fps-on-ps4-and-xbox-one

PickledLime

Xenji wrote: »

Something that does not look like it came mid gen on the ps3/360, Killzone looks far better at the moments graphics wise, so we know launch games can look well.

You honestly think that BF4 on PS4/X1 looks and runs ike a PS3/360 game, circa 2009/10?

Battlefield 4 - being developed for two very different, antiquated consoles, another set of two brand new consoles and also the highly scalable PC platform.

Killzone SF - developed solely for the PS4 as its flagship title by one of Sony's top studios. Of course it looks better.

FAILSAFE 00

wampyrus77 wrote: »

\any way wiiu still has better graphics then xbox the one

Xbox One graphics currently output in 900p


Wii U Graphics has 1080p 60fps

[/h]http://www.christianpost.com/news/wii-u-graphics-comparison-ps4-and-xbox-one-have-less-1080p-60fps-hd-titles-than-nintendo-106896/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0MRmxfLuNto

2Mad2BeMad

Grayditch wrote: »

Killzone looks incredible on the PS4, and I can't see the Xbox One not being able to have graphics like/near enough to that if they get themselves a developer like Guerrilla to develop a game for the system. I thought Epic make the Gears games look better than most games on the 360. I'm not sure third part games are always a great benchmark on the consoles graphics capabilities. I could be wrong.

I think ryse has great graphics, probably not a gameplay but I think the graphics look outstanding (I agree though killzone graphics do also look amazing as well probably abit better then ryse's) but then again I'd prefer gameplay over graphics anyday and to me both games don't look great in them departments :pac: but they shall be very nice to look at and keeps us happy to know that possible future exclusives from both camps can be of their high quality

Also the division looks brilliant
Apparently the engine they were using in the demo build is the one been used in the consoles games:) so hopefully it pushs both consoles to the max

Grayditch

I'd say Ryse will look incredible, but I honestly feel like it will be a short, rubbish game.

2Mad2BeMad

Grayditch wrote: »

I'd say Ryse will look incredible, but I honestly feel like it will be a short, rubbish game.

reason why I'l be waiting for a price drop love roman history so I'l have to give it a shot
but no way I am paying 65+euro for it if its a short 5hr campaign

Techniques07

2Mad2BeMad wrote: »

reason why I'l be waiting for a price drop love roman history so I'l have to give it a shot
but no way I am paying 65+euro for it if its a short 5hr campaign

I'm sure you'll get it cheaper online. Wouldn't pay more than 45 for a current gen game and won't pay much more than that for next gen tbh. Damn PC gaming has me spoilt.

2Mad2BeMad

Techniques07 wrote: »

I'm sure you'll get it cheaper online. Wouldn't pay more than 45 for a current gen game and won't pay much more than that for next gen tbh. Damn PC gaming has me spoilt.

ive only begun to know that feeling

CatInABox

Ooof. Titanfall confirmed to be Xbox One exclusive.

See here

FAILSAFE 00

CatInABox wrote: »

Ooof. Titanfall confirmed to be Xbox One exclusive.

See here

FlyingIrishMan

FAILSAFE 00 wrote: »

snip.

I don't get why people would be happy about that. It's a cheap tactic.
Would you not prefer MS to put money into their own studios rather than just paying to keep the game off other platforms?

Tipsy McSwagger

CatInABox wrote: »

Ooof. Titanfall confirmed to be Xbox One exclusive.

See here

Grayditch

Deffo not sure why that's a cause for celebration

Kerplunk124

Bioware said the same thing about Mass Effect to be fair though

Xenji

I think I will hold back on any disappointment I may have till the game is out and its hype is justified.

CatInABox

Grayditch wrote: »

Deffo not sure why that's a cause for celebration

Yeah, I posted it because it's big news, not a cause for celebration for me. Personally speaking, I hate exclusives, because it means I don't get to play them if I don't have the console. Was gutted to miss out on The Last of Us during this generation.

Pushtrak

I would much rather see the money invested in new games designed to be exclusive than "I see that game you have. Only release it for us." I'm not even going to buy Titanfall. I don't have an interest in getting online only games. Right now, I'm just trying to think if I should get AC4/Watch Dogs on current gen or next gen. In terms of exclusives, I want to see more on D4 for the One. It's episodic though and I'd be more inclined to want to get it when it's all done, not wait around for the next part.

Grayditch

CatInABox wrote: »

Yeah, I posted it because it's big news, not a cause for celebration for me.

I was referring to all the dancing!

I'd personally love to see Killzone games on Xbox, so everyone I know with an Xbox can stop pretending Killzone games are ****e!

stevenmu

I'm not sure about this, but I always thought MS were heavily involved in the development of the game, they're not just paying for exclusivity.

NTMK

stevenmu wrote: »

I'm not sure about this, but I always thought MS were heavily involved in the development of the game, they're not just paying for exclusivity.

for titanfall its solely a money deal MS did nothing dev wise unlike Mass Effect 1

Captain Chaos

Kerplunk124 wrote: »

Bioware said the same thing about Mass Effect to be fair though

That's because MS were the publishers for Mass Effect 1. EA were the publishers for ME 2 and 3, that's why they were ported to the PS3. Don't know what agreement they used to ME1 on the PS3 though but it did take 5 years to get there.

There is Dead Rising 1, 360 exclusive. DR2 was on both systems and DR3 will be an X1 exclusive because of the "cloud" somehow. No valid technical reason why it can't be on PS4 too has been explained by the developers.

FlyingIrishMan

It's only exclusive for the first game, that's some good news I guess.

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=706403

Grayditch

It's the game that is looking like it's going to make me get an Xbox one, although if there's not much difference between the 360 and One versions, graphically or otherwise, I might just get it on that.

TerrorFirmer

There will be differences. Have to laugh at people saying that BF4 looks like a 360/ps3 game with no discernible difference. Seriously? 40-60fps on 64 man servers, with much improved visuals? What the **** did people expect? To be able to reach into the screen and touch it? I don't even have any plans to buy either an XB1 or PS4 (yet...prob get an XB1 for Halo), and I'm still impressed by the BF4 performance, and I thought BF3 on 360 was really poor compared to PC - this console offering finally can give console owners a taste of what a real battlefield game should be, and that's a great thing.

Even if you let the graphics aside for a moment (and there is a clear improvement in that regard), the fact that the player count has nearly tripled seems to elude a lot of people. I would expect the same from Titanfall - bigger servers, more players, better visuals, higher framerate. Not expecting them to reinvent the wheel as some people strangely seemed to expect from XB1 and PS4.