• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Battlefield 4 PS4 vs XBO comparisons are out - 50% more pixels, higher framerate

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
BrightCandle has a great point. The pixel shimmer from a heavily aliased image is very distracting, just look at GTA5. I'd love to see the two consoles side by side in motion in person.

I decided to get the PS4 when preorders first started mainly because of the 50% more shader units on the PS4's GPU. It looks like what I suspected is coming to fruition. Remember, I can boost the contrast and saturation on my TV if I wanted the XO filter, my Tv can't, however, give me a 50% rendering boost.
 
purbeast0 said:
i'm curious which of these 12 launch titles got your interest for a PS3.

http://kotaku.com/the-ps3-had-12-games-at-launch-heres-what-they-looked-513396910
Click to expand...

Resistence fall of man was the initial one. But it was actually the F1 game that was an exclusive to the PS3 that got me to purchase it. I am a big F1 racing sim fan (and milsim) and as soon as I knew that F1 was only going to be on PS3 only that sold me on getting the console. I figured down the road I would end up getting some other games and I did get a few but I never made it worthwhile in the end. Other than F1 which I really sunk a lot of hours into I didn't play that much on the PS3 and it hasn't been turned on in a year. I sold of sold it long ago. Across the two consoles I actually have around 5x as many games on the xbox 360 as I do on the PS3, by and large if it was on both it looked better/played smoother/had better multiplayer on xbox 360.

But my feeling as a gamer (not a PC or an xbox or a ps gamer) is that these new consoles aren't very impressive graphically, they have artefacts that shouldn't be there. The last few years I have gotten used to having better graphic fidelity on a high end PC and now the output of the same game on a console looks poor because of the compromises they have to make. The big deal for me isn't loosing graphical effects or quality of lighting, I have always accepted the change in form factor and sitting on my couch with a quiet machine compared to my monster desktop a decent compromise, no its the stupid preventable artefacts like antialiasing crawl and obvious polygons. All the lipstick of lighting you like wont turn that pig into a beautiful women(or man), its still a pig with lipstick.

I have the same feeling about vsync and tearing. Its why I am so enthused about gsync, because vsync causes artefacts that despite this beautiful game just constantly mess it up on every frame. You either see tears or you suffer a lot of latency and problems when you miss the output and it just makes no sense to me to continue on a path of vsync when we don't need it anymore. If there is one thing these videos show is that games developers IMO have their priorities wrong, on the one hand its all lovely lit and the effects are great and match the PC and yet on the other the pixels are flashing on and off with AA crawl and clipping issues and resolution issues. All of this makes things like power lines, grass and obvious edges look dreadful in a static picture and even worse in motion. They should have focussed on the fundamentals rather than trying to compete with the PC by having all the effects there, I would have rather had 1080p native resolution with reasonable settings for AA and less fancy effects than the current choice with higher quality lighting. If this is the way they will be making all xb1/ps4 games I wont be getting either console, because the artefacts are down right distractingly bad.
 
exdeath said:
Got a PS4 on preorder the second they opened but no launch games that really interest me with Watch Dogs being delayed.
Click to expand...

Same here, there is a buy 2 get one free target ad November 11-15 if you didn't know.

I still think pc will look the best. I can't wait until the non reference 290x comes out so I can sell my current card.

But in terms of consoles, most of us play on big tv's, sitting a few feet away. Oh and last time I checked I never played a game in slow motion. So I honestly don't think you will be able to nitpick at which looks better side by side unless you have two identical tv's and both consoles, and a buddy playing with you on either console.

To me the xb1 images look brighter, detail wise, I think they look the same.
 
exdeath said:
Lol I look at the PS3 and 360 launch titles and recall I didn't get either.

Call of Duty, Tiger Woods, Madden, NBA, NHL, Tony Hawk, FIFA, Need for Speed...

Hahahaha OMFG same lame shit as PS4 and XBO launch.
Click to expand...

I got an Xbox 360 because my Xbox broke and it played most of the hgames I had. I bought a ps3 much later as a blu-ray player. I don't even think I bought any games when I picked them up.
 
BrightCandle said:
Resistence fall of man was the initial one. But it was actually the F1 game that was an exclusive to the PS3 that got me to purchase it. I am a big F1 racing sim fan (and milsim) and as soon as I knew that F1 was only going to be on PS3 only that sold me on getting the console. I figured down the road I would end up getting some other games and I did get a few but I never made it worthwhile in the end. Other than F1 which I really sunk a lot of hours into I didn't play that much on the PS3 and it hasn't been turned on in a year. I sold of sold it long ago. Across the two consoles I actually have around 5x as many games on the xbox 360 as I do on the PS3, by and large if it was on both it looked better/played smoother/had better multiplayer on xbox 360.

But my feeling as a gamer (not a PC or an xbox or a ps gamer) is that these new consoles aren't very impressive graphically, they have artefacts that shouldn't be there. The last few years I have gotten used to having better graphic fidelity on a high end PC and now the output of the same game on a console looks poor because of the compromises they have to make. The big deal for me isn't loosing graphical effects or quality of lighting, I have always accepted the change in form factor and sitting on my couch with a quiet machine compared to my monster desktop a decent compromise, no its the stupid preventable artefacts like antialiasing crawl and obvious polygons. All the lipstick of lighting you like wont turn that pig into a beautiful women(or man), its still a pig with lipstick.

I have the same feeling about vsync and tearing. Its why I am so enthused about gsync, because vsync causes artefacts that despite this beautiful game just constantly mess it up on every frame. You either see tears or you suffer a lot of latency and problems when you miss the output and it just makes no sense to me to continue on a path of vsync when we don't need it anymore. If there is one thing these videos show is that games developers IMO have their priorities wrong, on the one hand its all lovely lit and the effects are great and match the PC and yet on the other the pixels are flashing on and off with AA crawl and clipping issues and resolution issues. All of this makes things like power lines, grass and obvious edges look dreadful in a static picture and even worse in motion. They should have focussed on the fundamentals rather than trying to compete with the PC by having all the effects there, I would have rather had 1080p native resolution with reasonable settings for AA and less fancy effects than the current choice with higher quality lighting. If this is the way they will be making all xb1/ps4 games I wont be getting either console, because the artefacts are down right distractingly bad.
Click to expand...

Yet none of that changes the fact that there are going to be games that you will never be able to get on PC. If you only look at games that will be on PC, it is an unfair comparison most of the time.
 
cmdrdredd said:
Yet none of that changes the fact that there are going to be games that you will never be able to get on PC. If you only look at games that will be on PC, it is an unfair comparison most of the time.
Click to expand...

This. I can't see playing Zelda or Kingdom Hearts or Super Mario 3D World sitting at a desk with a mouse and keyboard.
 
Sounds like PC + Wii U is the best option for enthusiasts. Maybe PS4. XBone is squarely aimed at the casual frat boy/family entertainment crowd.
 
BrightCandle said:
But my feeling as a gamer (not a PC or an xbox or a ps gamer) is that these new consoles aren't very impressive graphically, they have artefacts that shouldn't be there. The last few years I have gotten used to having better graphic fidelity on a high end PC and now the output of the same game on a console looks poor because of the compromises they have to make. The big deal for me isn't loosing graphical effects or quality of lighting, I have always accepted the change in form factor and sitting on my couch with a quiet machine compared to my monster desktop a decent compromise, no its the stupid preventable artefacts like antialiasing crawl and obvious polygons. All the lipstick of lighting you like wont turn that pig into a beautiful women(or man), its still a pig with lipstick.
Click to expand...

so you think those ps3 launch games that i linked were graphically leaps and bounds over the best looking ps2/xbox games at the time?

ps3/xbox360 game - http://img145.imageshack.us/img145/9449/thp82020score20challeng.jpg
ps2 game - http://s.pro-gmedia.com/videogamer/media/images/ps2/god_of_war_2/screens/god_of_war_2_6.jpg

people quickly forget just how "non graphically of an upgrade" the ps3 and xbox360 were at launch compared to ps2 and xbox. now look at the games.
 
My opinion is that unless you have cash to blow, neither console is worth getting at release. The gaming experience won't be much different from what can be achieved with the PS3 and/or 360 at this stage. I'm not saying that they aren't worthwhile upgrades, but at release the game selection is weak, the software side of both consoles will likely require constant updates in the short term, and there is always a risk of unintended hardware failure. I think at release the 360 and then the PS3 were different because it really was a huge jump from the Xbox and PS2 in terms of capabilities. In November, the jump will be less obvious if not for the updated OS and controllers.
 
Anteaus said:
My opinion is that unless you have cash to blow, neither console is worth getting at release. The gaming experience won't be much different from what can be achieved with the PS3 and/or 360 at this stage. I'm not saying that they aren't worthwhile upgrades, but at release the game selection is weak, the software side of both consoles will likely require constant updates in the short term, and there is always a risk of unintended hardware failure. I think at release the 360 and then the PS3 were different because it really was a huge jump from the Xbox and PS2 in terms of capabilities. In November, the jump will be less obvious if not for the updated OS and controllers.
Click to expand...

read my post right before yours. i think your memory isn't the greatest.

i'd also like to know where on ps3 or 360 i can play killer instinct, dead rising 3, and crimson dragon. and if i wanted em (but i don't because i'm not a fan) forza 5, ryse, knack, or killzone?
 
purbeast0 said:
read my post right before yours. i think your memory isn't the greatest.

i'd also like to know where on ps3 or 360 i can play killer instinct, dead rising 3, and crimson dragon. and if i wanted em (but i don't because i'm not a fan) forza 5, ryse, knack, or killzone?
Click to expand...

I agree that the graphics won't be anything impressive to start, I do expect the console experience to be a nice improvement. I.E better load times, smoother UI, instant on, etc.

Sure it will be jerky at first, but it should still be better than the slow UI's we have now.
 
purbeast0 said:
read my post right before yours. i think your memory isn't the greatest.

i'd also like to know where on ps3 or 360 i can play killer instinct, dead rising 3, and crimson dragon. and if i wanted em (but i don't because i'm not a fan) forza 5, ryse, knack, or killzone?
Click to expand...

I understand. Basically what I meant was that going from 480i/P with the Xbox/PS2 to 720P+ of the 360/PS3 meant tangeable results even if the games weren't optimized for them. There was vertical movement in resolution capabilities. Going to next gen in November will mean a horizontal move of 1080P to 1080P...i.e. the results will be even less dramatic than what you described in your post.

Increasing resolution used to be a cheap way of making everything look better, but now they have to focus on AA/AF and texture technology which will take time to optimize, just like PC game developers need to deal with.
 
Remember the last cross gen launch game? And then compare it to BF3 at the end of the gen. I think we're off to a pretty good start, regardless of what system you play it on.
xbox360_battlefield2_08.jpg
 
I remember when the 360 first came out. Games looked like shit. I remember the uproar over Madden because it was a straight port of the original version. It looked like ass. Then Forza came out with aliasing so bad you'd cut yourself.

But devs got really good at eeking out performance. Look at Black Ops 2 and compare it to the early days or even Modern Warfare. It's night and day. The question is will we see the same gains over time in the next generation. There seem to be major concerns over the sluggish CPUs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top