Regret buying an xbox one.

[Lil Frier]

Ehhhh. It's definitely becoming a thing that even a historically single player series is expected to have online features.

For some, yeah. But then you have Assassin's Creed, which added online co-op (the only compelling thing the franchise tried in years, and the reason I planned to buy it until it released as a buggy disaster), then ripped it apart to give us two players to choose from (because so many companies gotta make sure a female protagonist exists). The Witcher 3 didn't do it. Dying Light did it, but didn't force it on anyone.

Really, the forcing of online is much greater for patching than anything. So many games launch without being finished that you have to have online to play it out of the box. I mean, "going gold" now seems to mean the game is ready for its first major patch.

 

[Tweak155]

I prefer MS ecosystem which is why I bought XB1 and not PS4 (although I may still get one... some day).

I couldn't care less about the hardware differences, they're very minor when you compare either to a powerful PC.

 

[Beer4Me]

This topic should be locked. Hopefully, the OP returned his XB1.

 

[OverVolt]

I prefer MS ecosystem which is why I bought XB1 and not PS4 (although I may still get one... some day).

I couldn't care less about the hardware differences, they're very minor when you compare either to a powerful PC.

Its like comparing a windows phone to a samsung or apple phone. One is smooth and does what you tell it to do, the other not so much.

Could the sound not get stuck in a loop like I'm on windows 98 that would be great.

Could they add front USB ports like its 1999 that would be great.

I actually don't care about the hardware differences, what bothers me is games that really should be running at 900p running at 1080 instead because Microsoft is so upset about it.

It seems they are prone to increase the resolution to 1080 and cut down on AA and AS to where there are way more jaggies than I've ever experienced playing on a console. The thing is a mess you just wouldn't know without using both extensively.

 

[RampantAndroid]

Last I knew the resolution of the game was up to the game...so unless it's something like MCC, it isn't MS' fault really.

There is a side USB port you know, right? And two more in back? I honestly don't use the front USB port any more - not since I got some eneloop AA rechargeable batteries to use. The back port is dedicated to my TV tuner and maybe someday an external hard drive.

 

[Tweak155]

Its like comparing a windows phone to a samsung or apple phone. One is smooth and does what you tell it to do, the other not so much.

Could the sound not get stuck in a loop like I'm on windows 98 that would be great.

Could they add front USB ports like its 1999 that would be great.

I actually don't care about the hardware differences, what bothers me is games that really should be running at 900p running at 1080 instead because Microsoft is so upset about it.

It seems they are prone to increase the resolution to 1080 and cut down on AA and AS to where there are way more jaggies than I've ever experienced playing on a console. The thing is a mess you just wouldn't know without using both extensively.

I haven't had many issues so not sure what you're referring to. Not everyone is looking for the same thing I guess.

My biggest gripe is I noticed if I stream Fallout 4 to my PC, it will remember which controller was connected to it when bringing it back from rested state. So if I was connected with PC controller and I try to go back to my Xbox to play, I have to restart the game to get it to recognize the Xbox connected controller.

Overall though not that bad. It was pretty glitchy when I first got the system, but recently there hasn't been much to complain about.

 

[futurefields]

Last I knew the resolution of the game was up to the game...so unless it's something like MCC, it isn't MS' fault really.

The implication is that MS feels pressure to have it's games running at 1080p to keep up with PS4 so they have to cut back on image quality settings in order to hit the resolution goal. Think about how much better Halo 5 could have looked if it would have rendered at 900p/30fps instead of 1080p/60fps which is just way more than the XB1 should be attempting on something that is supposed to be "epic" in scope/visual quality like the Halo series is known for. I look at gameplay video of Halo 5 and i can see right away all the concessions they did to hit 1080/60. It looks like a game running on a mix of Low/Med settings versus a game that could have looked a lot closer to running on High settings had they backed off the 1080/60 thing. Since when does Halo need to be 60fps anyways? It was never, ever 60fps on Xbox or Xbox 360.

 

[cmdrdredd]

60fps made a huge difference to the way the game handles. It was miles better in 60fps than it would have been at 30fps. Another example of this is the last of us on ps4 which had the option to switch between 30fps and 60fps and I'll tell you that at 30fps the game was unplayable in comparison.

 

[futurefields]

I didn't play TLOU so I don't know how their game feels.

In most situations I prefer a locked 30 over a variable framerate.

Halo was never 60fps before Microsoft only did it now because of teh kidz on teh internetz.

 

[Lil Frier]

That's so stupid a statement. The old hardware couldn't pull off 60 FPS, but now it can, so it's Internet pandering? Could it MAYBE involve trying to utilize the technology to improve the experience? Maybe they didn't just want to crank up background detail for the "kidz on teh internetz" who only care about the artistic quality of the environment, versus the fluidity of gameplay.

 

[cmdrdredd]

60fps is always better than 30fps in any game.

 

[zerocool84]

60fps is always better than 30fps in any game.

It definitely is and why they should always sacrifice resolution for 60fps.

 

[cmdrdredd]

It definitely is and why they should always sacrifice resolution for 60fps.

I don't mind if they ran just below 1080p if they had to. I don't really notice it in console games. On my PC when I try bumping the resolution I begin to notice the difference though. On an Xbox or PlayStation I don't have the option and don't even think about it.

 

[OverVolt]

The implication is that MS feels pressure to have it's games running at 1080p to keep up with PS4 so they have to cut back on image quality settings in order to hit the resolution goal. Think about how much better Halo 5 could have looked if it would have rendered at 900p/30fps instead of 1080p/60fps which is just way more than the XB1 should be attempting on something that is supposed to be "epic" in scope/visual quality like the Halo series is known for. I look at gameplay video of Halo 5 and i can see right away all the concessions they did to hit 1080/60. It looks like a game running on a mix of Low/Med settings versus a game that could have looked a lot closer to running on High settings had they backed off the 1080/60 thing. Since when does Halo need to be 60fps anyways? It was never, ever 60fps on Xbox or Xbox 360.

Thankfully someone else understands.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/d...o-3-xbox-one-1080p-patch-performance-analysis

"We did find it challenging early on to get it to 1080p. That's why we made the decision to drop to 900. That's what we demoed and were showing around E3 time. And Microsoft was just like, 'This is unacceptable. You need to figure out a way to get a better resolution.' So we worked with them directly, they gave us a code update to let us get to full 1080p."

"We did have 1080p, but we were finding it challenging to keep our frame-rate. Because Diablo's so much of an action game, we wanted to have a responsive feel - especially with four players. When you get four witch doctors in a room full of demons, that's probably the worst case scenario for us because we have effects going off everywhere.

So far, so good. However, in terms of pure pixel throughput we are still looking at a challenging 44 per cent rise in resolution on Xbox One between the initial build and the results of the new patch. The code update John Hight refers to - presumably the XDK revision that returns the Kinect reservation to games - gives an additional 10 per cent of GPU power back to developers. While welcome, it seems unlikely that this update alone can deliver the ability to drive so many more pixels. And in fact, it's clear the rise from 900p to 1080p has come at a cost; our performance analysis of the revised Xbox One code shows drops down from 60fps in busy areas.

This stuff has been going on for awhile. I suspect in the case of Forza 6 in 900p they could run more AA and AS. With cars specifically, you get a ton of jaggies with a mostly straight car profile leaning into a turn or whatever. It wasn't noticeable at first but after playing awhile and noticing it... its everywhere. The markings on the track, the horizon, the car profile, the border between the windows and the paint, all very jagged and in dire need of more AA/AS.

Check out that spoiler on the audi. See what I mean?

Check out the track wall to the right.

Its like, some areas have better texturing and filtering, up close. But far away, its heavily sacrificed. Hoping you go "oh wow look at my car" and don't notice how bad it looks in comparison to the car 30 feet ahead of you, or the track for that matter.

But guess where your eyes are looking when you're focused on racing? Yep.

https://xboxoz360.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/forza-4-screenshots-oxcgn-2.jpg

That is a screenshot of Forza 4. I personally would prefer less textures and resolution and more filtering, in a racing game at least. THERE ARE LESS JAGGIES ON XBOX 360. That is absurdly unacceptable considering the hardware differences.

Yes its darker, and the resolution is lower, but my god are those jaggies bad in Forza 6.

 

[OverVolt]

..

 

[futurefields]

60fps is always better than 30fps in any game.

Wrong. Halo 5 could have had way better graphics at 30fps therefore in that case 30fps is better. Halo doesn't need 60fps.

 

[futurefields]

It definitely is and why they should always sacrifice resolution for 60fps.

Right. GTA V should have been 720p/60 instead of 1080/30. So that it could look REALLY bad. :thumbsup:

 

[futurefields]

This stuff has been going on for awhile. I suspect in the case of Forza 6 in 900p they could run more AA and AS. With cars specifically, you get a ton of jaggies with a mostly straight car profile leaning into a turn or whatever. It wasn't noticeable at first but after playing awhile and noticing it... its everywhere. The markings on the track, the horizon, the car profile, the border between the windows and the paint, all very jagged and in dire need of more AA/AS.

...

That is a screenshot of Forza 4. I personally would prefer less textures and resolution and more filtering, in a racing game at least. THERE ARE LESS JAGGIES ON XBOX 360. That is absurdly unacceptable considering the hardware differences.

Yes its darker, and the resolution is lower, but my god are those jaggies bad in Forza 6.

Well, here's the thing. What leaves you with more jaggies on a 1080p TV, 900p with more AA or 1080p with less AA.

I think the end result would be pretty close looking. 900p isn't enough native pixels to fill a 1080p display so despite there being more AA applied you are still going to get edges stretched and a whole lot more temporal aliasing as a side effect. At 1080p the edges won't be stretched and temporal aliasing should be lessened but you can't run as heavy of an AA algorithm. Each case presents a trade off.

The problem essentially is we still have an Xbox that is underpowered for the native resolution of our TV's.

This "situation" became apparent to me during the 360 generation. I'll never forget the day I got my first HDTV and Call of Duty looked *worse* on it than on my Standard Def TV due to the low 1024x600 rendering resolution being less than the native res of the panel. So despite the game having 4x MSAA, it was a total blur/jaggy fest on the HDTV while it actually looked cleaner on my old SDTV due to the free downsampling AA you get running from a higher res source to a lower res display.

And now a generation later the new console still can't properly fill the display on a 1080p TV. It's either 1080p with bare/nonexistant AA or 720p/900p with some AA.

Hopefully the next Xbox will be able to really handle 1080p but by then will 4k TV's be commonplace? So the PS5/Xbox2 will try to bump up resolution again and we will suffer the same lack of AA, bad LOD bag of tricks to keep things running.

Consoles are facing a losing battle trying to keep up with display tech which is why I am not upgrading beyond 1080p on my displays for the foreseeable future.

How crappy will the games look on a 4k TV when somebody is watching an 4k Ultra HD Blu Ray and then switch over to the Xbox game running at 720p/900p.

 

[futurefields]

Forza 4 has really bad LOD on the car models you don't notice it as much due to the low resolution. Only about a hundred feet out they switch to a lower poly model with no reflections etc...


Does Forza 6 have an anisotropic filtering at all? Man that looks bad in that screenshot.

 

[cmdrdredd]

Wrong. Halo 5 could have had way better graphics at 30fps therefore in that case 30fps is better. Halo doesn't need 60fps.

The game would absolutely suck to play at 30fps. The motion would be totally ruined. There is a reason people try to hit 60fps on a PC and why people say racing and fighting games are better at 60fps. I have not seen people say a game is worse to play if they drop detail settings on a PC so they can hit 60fps.

 

[cmdrdredd]

.

How crappy will the games look on a 4k TV when somebody is watching an 4k Ultra HD Blu Ray and then switch over to the Xbox game running at 720p/900p.

I have been doing that for two months now(watching 4K HDR content) and you know what? You are wildly exaggerating the situation. The games look fine. Maybe you need to try playing them instead of pixel analyzing.

 

[futurefields]

The game would absolutely suck to play at 30fps. The motion would be totally ruined.

So then the motion in all previous Halo games is ruined?

Because all previous Halo games running 30fps (with dips even) and last time I checked people liked Halo 2 a lot more than they liked Halo 5.

 

[cmdrdredd]

So then the motion in all previous Halo games is ruined?

Because all previous Halo games running 30fps (with dips even) and last time I checked people liked Halo 2 a lot more than they liked Halo 5.

Yes they suck to play at 30fps once you have experienced the difference. Liking a game a lot more doesn't mean that it would receive no benefit from 60fps.

 

[futurefields]

That's simply not true because there are plenty of games I lock to 30fps because I think they look better at that framerate than at 60fps which gives all the animation an uncanny valley look. GTA V and The Witcher 3 both come to mind as games that benefit with a 30fps update. Halo 5 would have been a lot more impressive visually if they gave the GPU twice the time to render the scene. Then you wouldn't see the bad bag of resolution and LOD tricks they had to do to get the framerate which also still has dips. I will always prefer a locked 30 over a 60fps with dips.

 

[exdeath]

4k is another animal entirely. You can have a console @ 1080p look identical on the same size 4k. Integer up-scaling ftw.