Duderino

There are plenty of X games with performance modes that drop the 4K target to hit higher frame rates.  The X’s GPU may not be as limiting as the CPU, but depending on the game, resolution can still obviously be a bottleneck after the rest of the work the GPU has to do.

Consider that the GPU is responsible for more than just pushing pixels.  Lighting, post processing, character deformation, foliage dynamics, cloth simulation, materials, transparency, tri counts, etc. it all has a role in. 

13 hours ago, HGLatinBoy said:

Yes but what's the point? I think God of War looks fucking godly but you'll never convince me that it couldn't look better on on Xbox One X or PC. Why? Because its obvious that its being limited by the PS4 Pros weaknesses. It's not really a good example of showing the DIFFERENCES between the all 5 platforms. Its great in showing how PS4 Pro triumphs over the PS4 Poor and that's about it.

How much better a showcase tittle could hypothetically look on different hardware doesn't matter much if at the end of the day the game is still pushing the boundaries of what is visually possible for the time. That is the point and what IMO, TLOU2 looks to be doing.  Not in terms of pushing pixel counts but in the form of ND's tech driving the visuals on display.

If your only interest is in comparing the underlying power differential between the X and the Pro, then yes, exclusives will not provide a clear comparison.  But if we’re taking about the X reaching it’s expected potential relative to the Pro, then yeah, you have to consider Sony’s exclusive output. 

Just now, HGLatinBoy said:

Why are you even bringing this up? I'm obviously referring to multi-platform releases. Console exclusive games developed specifically to run on 1 console with the highest allowed optimizations (budget and time are the biggest limiting factors) are not at all what this is about. Only children try to discuss such things when comparing the graphical DIFFERENCES between games. Your argument is reminiscent of the times when people were trying to discuss which game look better between Metroid Prime 2, Halo and Metal Gear 3 over 10 fucking years ago. 

 

Also keep in mind that while multi-platform games may share the same assets, and engine they can STILL be quite impressive when you consider the fact that they have to split their work force budget across 4 or more platforms. Yeah they don't always turn out to as polished but I'd be way more impressed with a company that can deliver a graphically impressive game across at least 3 platforms with very few bugs and have the highest optimizations allowed by the limits of the 3 platforms. I mean lets be real some of those games rival that of dedicated platform developers and they don't have that luxury. 

Well I disagree, 1st party games absolutely have a place in a discussion about the visual showcases that differentiate the systems.  I see no harm in bringing up Gears, Forza, TLOU2, etc.  I certainly don't find it childish .

You don't have to agree with me on that, but perhaps next time you could just clarify your position.

6 hours ago, HGLatinBoy said:

What does that have to do with this discussion?

That in terms of game visuals setting platforms apart, it's not always a product of power.  People no doubt have certain expectations based on the hardware pecking order, but as you mentioned there are exceptions.  I'm just suggesting there's at least two, one beyond what you proposed.

• Dev A may be incompetent with the more powerful machine, producing worse results.
• Dev B, exclusive to a weaker machine, is heavily invested in R&D that raises the visual bar.
   

5 hours ago, Spawn_of_Apathy said:

I think his point is ... Last of Us 2 on Xbox One X < Last of Us 2 on PS4 Pro > Last of Us 2 on PC 

Regardless of how TLOU2 could hypothetically be improved on other platforms, it's still going to be a visual showcase for the gen.  Don't think the existence of more powerful hardware changes that.

19 hours ago, HGLatinBoy said:

Barring developer incompetence it should always be

 

PC>XB1X>PS4P>PS4>XB1>Switch

What about developer compitence?  Such as what Naughty Dog showed at E3.

On 7/28/2018 at 4:19 AM, mikechorney said:

No.  Nintendo has never launched a lower cost console with the vision it would play all the same games as the most expensive console.  I don't believe it will be "more work" for the developer in the same way as it would be for developing for Wii (which made it essentially impossible for AAA) --  I believe very similar game software will be running in the cloud, and it  will be streaming essentially the same game to your console.  This is about (trying) to give you the same console experience, but moving the revenue out of the hardware, and into the monthly subscription fee.

Think you took my statement about Nintendo out of context.  I never said they expect to receive full 3rd party support.  In fact recognizing that won't happen is how they can justify taking risks that all but guarentee minimal AAA game ports.

Now I don't think Microsoft shares that exact same outlook, they're not expecting to lose support over this, but they still will knowingly be making a box that requires additional dedication to get games running well (like with Nintendo systems).  Yes, it won't have the same power limitations as the Wii, but it still will inevitably require engine and code retooling of a different kind. Even if Microsoft has a stellar API for interfacing with the cloud and profiling bottlenecks, the core pitch here requires sectioning off time sensitive code and the other elephant in the room, memory.

Call me a skeptic, but I'm not convinced two separate systems running in parallel (stream box + cloud server) will be all that easy to develop for, even if Microsoft has some strong glue holding it together. Unless of course the developer gives up on the optimizations and opts to stream the entire game, latency be damned.  At least there's that fallback so long as Microsoft's certification allows for it.

14 hours ago, mikechorney said:

Nintendo went after a low pricepoint on Wii, and arguably on their handhelds.  That is not the case with Switch or Wii-U.

 

Microsoft's strategy, IMHO, in the next generation will be to transition gamers into subscription revenue to a higher degree.  And the objective of this rumoured box is to create a low price of entry, to drive subscriptions.  I am not aware of Nintendo prioritizing subscription revenue in anything they've done.

Up until now, Nintendo has been the only (successful) console manufacture willing to launch a lower cost system that knowingly requires more effort for 3rd parties to port games to.  If these rumors are true, then Microsoft will be making a similar move, albeit one that poses a different challenge to developers.

I understand how all this ties into Microsoft's subscription agenda, but their payment model is just one of many implications here.  I'm much more interested in finding out what this tech means for the games and 3rd party support.  Is it going to be like the X/Pro where half the games ship without great support for what people are buying this device for?  Does that even matter if it's cheap enough?

21 hours ago, mikechorney said:

It's a different strategy, with the same objective.

 

The strategy is VERY different to what Nintendo is doing.

Don’t get me wrong, the streaming aspect of it is quite different from anything Nintendo would do, but I do think the big picture strategy has enough in common to warrant the comparison.

If these rumors are true, MS is making a console that will take extra effort for developers to port to but will likely sell lots of units at the lower price point.  Same objective, different approach, comparable trade-off.

25 minutes ago, mikechorney said:

Absolutely.  It's what they have always wanted with Xbox.  They thought they could do it with Kinect.  Then they thought they could do it with making Xbox one into a "media box".  Now they believe they can do it with Game Pass / streaming.

This is a bit different from my perspective. The OG Xbox, Kinnect, Xbox one, the X, they all launched at more of a premium price tag. 

 Now with this streaming box they'll have a cheaper entry point with the caveat of the device being a bit more involved for devs to port games to.  On some level that strategy is closer to what Nintendo has been doing over the last decade.

They have to be banking on the lower price to drive massive sales that will push 3rd party devs to prioritize optimizing games for their service.

1 hour ago, XxEvil AshxX said:

A lot of developers aim for parity between consoles so i doubt any one game would be a night and day difference.

And the developers who don’t need parity (first party) still have to ship for the less powerful Xbox SKUs.  Not that any MS published tittles this year have had the resources to really push the possibilites beyond a res bump.

If you only consider performance, resolution, image quality, texture quality and filtering, then yes, there are examples of the X making a notable difference.

But if we’re talking showcases in terms of the hardware enabling or evolving visual tech, the answer would have to be no.  That inovation is comming more from software than hardware now.  It’s not like the Xbox/PS2/GC era where certain visual features were more closely tied to each box.

I imagine it would have to process more than just collision detection.  Enough game logic would need to run to also perform hit detection on moving characters, time sensitive state registrations, any dynamic simulation that impacts gameplay, and collision streaming (typically tied to the asset streaming in today’s game engines).  And even then bandwidth would be a limiting factor on the frame delivery.

I could see it working only if developers are willing to dedicate the resources to take a deep dive into their time sensitive engine code and section off what they can.  And even then, I’m sure there would still be limitations.

If this rumor is true, I would expect the next Xbox(s) to be the more difficult platform to develop for.  A bit of a role reversal coming off the X and the Pro.   Much bigger gamble too between their servers, internet speeds, and the onus on developers.

I guess they could make that streaming box powerful enough to run all the game logic and just have their farm draw the frame.  That would be a lot more realistic than banking on developers to optimize for their streaming tech.

Melee can be tough as nails at the highest level of play, but that clearly hasn't deterred tournament attendence over the past decade.  It's up there with games like CounterStrike, Street Fighter II, and Starcraft in terms of legs.

I'll agree with Sakurai that some of Melee's inputs are unecessarily technical and hard on the hands, but it is a bit unfortunate that this is still his big takeaway.