Ubisoft claims next gen console will match Ultra high PC settings in farcry 4

[Midwayman]

Doesn't that suck visually?

Go play a game at a non-native resolution on your monitor. You can see for yourself.

 

[cmdrdredd]

Go play a game at a non-native resolution on your monitor. You can see for yourself.

that is irrelevant because a console always scales the image to the display resolution.

 

[Aikouka]

Doesn't that suck visually?

Consoles normally have one huge advantage: you aren't playing that close to the display. So, even if blowing up the image by 44% ( (1920 * 1080) / (1600 * 900) = 1.44) results in some visual artifacts, you probably won't notice it close up. Also, it depends quite a bit on the quality of the scaler. Most of the problems that I noticed with the last generation of games (most of those being at 720p) had to do with really low quality textures, which you didn't notice too well until you sat up close. I recall playing Darksiders on my 360, and I had no qualms with it. However, when I popped it into a PS3 (yes, I had two copies) that was hooked up to my computer monitor, I was flabbergasted at how ugly it was. My first thought was, "this is not how I remember it!"

 

[TeknoBug]

I played my X360 on my 24" PC monitor and am playing PS4 on the same monitor now, the resolution with the PS4 isn't that noticeable, Trials Fusion actually looks great (but what a buggy game). I remember seeing very jagged shadows and lack of AA on the 360 for me to cringe.

 

[werepossum]

Go play a game at a non-native resolution on your monitor. You can see for yourself.

That's what I thought. No matter how good the scaler, pixels have to go where they should not go by the objects' geometry because their actual locations do not map to a monitor pixel.

Consoles normally have one huge advantage: you aren't playing that close to the display. So, even if blowing up the image by 44% ( (1920 * 1080) / (1600 * 900) = 1.44) results in some visual artifacts, you probably won't notice it close up. Also, it depends quite a bit on the quality of the scaler. Most of the problems that I noticed with the last generation of games (most of those being at 720p) had to do with really low quality textures, which you didn't notice too well until you sat up close. I recall playing Darksiders on my 360, and I had no qualms with it. However, when I popped it into a PS3 (yes, I had two copies) that was hooked up to my computer monitor, I was flabbergasted at how ugly it was. My first thought was, "this is not how I remember it!"

That's a good point. People watch 720P sports shows on 1080 displays all the time, so I suppose with a good scaler and some distance one can skate. Still, for $60 I'd want more than skating. Seems to me that a native 1080P signal with slightly lower quality would be better than 900p with slightly higher quality, but admittedly that's an uneducated guess.

 

[StrangerGuy]

The delicious irony here is that console games are developed on the PC, including this one. It's pretty telling when the target platform can't even make its own products.

Well, at least last gen consoles games look acceptable which is justified when stuck with ultraweak 80 shader GPUs / 512MB RAM parts. Now, they can't even use the same excuse this gen.

Oh because PC elitists, deeeerp.