General Gaming In terms of graphics, performance, etc., have there been any games that set the X1X apart from the Pro yet?

[nublood]

Because I have yet to see it. Everything I have played across both consoles looks pretty much identical.

 

Maybe there's that one game I've yet to play that really showcases the X1X's "power".

[XxEvil AshxX]

@DigitalFoundry

[Brian]

I don’t think there has been any significant difference yet. X game are better (closer to 4K resolution, minor graphical upgrades, and steadier frame rate), but I think it is hard for average people to notice.

 

I do think RDR 2 has the potential to be the first game to be recommended as the version to play simply from a frame rate standpoint. It is the version I preordered. 

[AlwaysDyingX]

54 minutes ago, XxEvil AshxX said:

@DigitalFoundry

 

[HGLatinBoy]

yes plenty of games run natively at 4k on the XBX that only run at 2k on PSPro

[crispy4000]

The more significant leap will pretty much always be between them and the standard consoles.  With that said, everything's still being designed around current gen limitations - almost no one is bumping the fidelity to a point of targeting 1080p with the newer machines.  That tends to be the territory of poorly optimized games, like ARK.

 

1 hour ago, HGLatinBoy said:

yes plenty of games run natively at 4k on the XBX that only run at 2k on PSPro

 

A lot more X1X games target 4k but can't stick it most of the time.  And many of those half resolution Pro games are checkerboarded 4k.  (as are some on the X1X)  So the difference isn't quite to that level most often.

 

1 hour ago, ManUtdRedDevils said:

I do think RDR 2 has the potential to be the first game to be recommended as the version to play simply from a frame rate standpoint. It is the version I preordered. 

Definitely wouldn't be the first.  But if most other open world games are anything to go by, framerate won't be the biggest difference maker.  Resolution will.

[AbsolutSurgen]

Yes.  There are differences between PS4 Pro and XB1X games -- the biggest typically being resolution.  Whether you consider them "significant" is something different.

[Dodger]

The Witcher 3 seems to be the biggest. You get a much closer to 60 fps experience in 1080p performance mode, or a much more stable locked 30 4ps in 4k.

[crispy4000]

8 hours ago, Dodger said:

The Witcher 3 seems to be the biggest. You get a much closer to 60 fps experience in 1080p performance mode, or a much more stable locked 30 4ps in 4k.

According to DF, there's parts of the game where the X1X's performance mode dips to the high 30's/low 40's.  So it's kind of a give and take if you choose to play that way. The X1X's 30fps 4k mode is supposed to be slightly more stable than the PS4's checkerboarded 4k, which also has some LoD scalebacks.

I've heard the most significant difference is actually Wolfenstein 2.  ID didn't use checkerboarding on the Pro apparently.

[Duderino]

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.

[Dre801]

Shadow of War.  The 4GB extra RAM allowed the X to showcase better textures.  The Pro version  got a big rez bump but was stuck with base textures.

[XxEvil AshxX]

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

[AndrewDean84]

Seems like just about every game either looks or looks and performs better on the xbox one x, going by just about every digital foundry video I have seen.

[Dre801]

In some cases the true 4k res is a bit much for the X. Sure it looks a bit cleaner than the Pro's usual 1440p, but at a cost.

[Mercury33]

Long story short, no not really. 

[Duderino]

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.

[Duchess May]

As said earlier, mostly Shadow of War, where the extra RAM gives the X a clear takeaway the PS4 can't even handle in textures.

[XxEvil AshxX]

11 hours ago, Duderino said:

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.

 

I think Forza Horizon 4 is being developed with the X as the lead SKU so hopefully we'll see what it can really do.

[HGLatinBoy]

Barring developer incompetence it should always be

 

PC>XB1X>PS4P>PS4>XB1>Switch

[crispy4000]

7 hours ago, HGLatinBoy said:

Barring developer incompetence it should always be

 

PC>XB1X>PS4P>PS4>XB1>Switch

For another 2 years or so...

 

That's always been the ironic part.  For as much noise as the new consoles made, they'll still be short lived stop-gaps.

[Spawn_of_Apathy]

10 hours ago, crispy4000 said:

For another 2 years or so...

 

That's always been the ironic part.  For as much noise as the new consoles made, they'll still be short lived stop-gaps.

How will another 2 years change the hierarchy with aging technology in consoles? 

[Duderino]

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.

[HGLatinBoy]

26 minutes ago, Duderino said:

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

What does that have to do with this discussion?

[Spawn_of_Apathy]

12 minutes ago, HGLatinBoy said:

What does that have to do with this discussion?

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 

[TomCat]

LOL when the gen first started people were complaining  about a difference of 900p to 1080p   was a drastic enough that the Xb1  was a terrible console. The Meta argument for the first half of this generation was that the ps4 was more powerful.  MS fixed the power ratio by coming in more powerful then the pro.  Then all of a sudden the Meta Argument switched to MS has no games.   A person asks  if there is a BIG difference between pspro  and xb1 games and you guys are saying NOT really  When the Pixel count between the two systems is DRAMATIC.  Most pspro games are 1440p games checkerboared and upscaled to 4k.    Xbox games are coming in at Native 4k.

 

HELL YA THERE IS A NOTICABLE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TWO PLATFORMS.

[Duderino]

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.

[The def star]

I suppose if you really want a game to showcase on the Xbox One X I would recommend Gears of War 4. It has stunning HDR and 4k on it is great. Then you can swap it to 1080p 60 if you want to show people the difference. Personally playing gears at 60 fps I can't go back to 30fps.

[HGLatinBoy]

5 hours ago, Duderino said:

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.
   

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.

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 2 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. 

 

To me a developer has done its job if the game is great, runs at 4k highest possible settings on PC at at least 30 FPS, 4k on Xbox One X 30 FPS great settings, 1440p 30fps on PS4pro with great settings. In addition I'd take 1080p 60fps HIGHEST possible settings on Xbox One X, 1080p 60 FPS near highest possible settings on PS4 Pro, 1080p 30 FPS great settings on PS4 Poor, and 1080p 30 FPS good settings on Xbone.

 

That's really anyone can expect with the current hardware limits. 

[Duderino]

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.

[Keyser_Soze]

8 hours ago, TomCat said:

Then all of a sudden the Meta Argument switched to MS has no games.  

 

Which is why MS bought 500 studios and announced a ton of games coming in 2020.

 

But doesn't fix the fact it has no games now. It's preposterous that it took Nier a year to come out on the Xbox.

[HGLatinBoy]

10 minutes ago, Duderino said:

 

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.

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.

[HGLatinBoy]

2 minutes ago, Keyser_Soze said:

 

Which is why MS bought 500 studios and announced a ton of games coming in 2020.

 

But doesn't fix the fact it has no games now.

Meh, lets be real MS has been buying game developers for over 20 years you'd think they'd have more than enough talent to bury Nintendo AND Sony. Oh wait they fired everyone and dismantled their best studios. 

[crispy4000]

11 hours ago, Spawn_of_Apathy said:

How will another 2 years change the hierarchy with aging technology in consoles? 

 

Ryzen.  In a nutshell.

[crispy4000]

1 hour 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 about showing how talented certain developers are at working within hardware limitations?  Pushing a console to its limits?  Taking it farther than expected?

 

That's always interested me more than raw spec comparisons.  I enjoy seeing what consoles games look like when they punch above their weight class.

[Duderino]

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.