Syed117

Because video standards and hardware power have changed.

We can play games in higher resolutions because the hardware allows us to. Scaling also plays a huge part.

I think the question was more about the differences in resolutions that we are seeing right now between the consoles. The jump from 480 to 720 is larger than the jump from 720 to 900 or even 720 to 1080.

Not really. For single player stuff, I've gone with the PS4 so far because it's been the lead platform. I'll take the better visuals where possible, but it's all a bunch of nonsense at some point. For some extra information, I play on two screens, 60 for single player stuff, 24 for multiplayer. The resolution differences make more of a difference on the larger screen obviously.

Got Destiny on PS4 because that's where I knew the most people who were getting it. Won't be buying another shooter on PS4. I can't stand the DS4 for multiplayer games, so even if something like the new COD is 1080 on PS4 and 900 on XB1, i'm getting the Xbox version.

As far as framerate goes, I don't mind 30 as long as it is stable.

So no, I don't really care. Other factors are more important.

Those two realities can absolutely coexist. The problem is people thinking that the xbox one is a weak console while hailing the PS4 as the second coming of video game hardware. They are both weak consoles. The weakest in the history of consoles. The PS4 being marginally or even 50% more powerful isn't something to defend. Both these machines are crippled compared to the machines that came before them.

My view about my friend is based on what I know to be his likes and dislikes. The guy loves multiplayer games and has always played shooters. You're telling me that this guy should play killzone and act like Titanfall doesn't exist? That is clearly a logical response to have.

You're absolutely right, I do have money to burn. I consider myself to be very fortunate because I get to see both sides. I'm not blinded by corporate loyalty or whatever other nonsense the idiots cling to. I don't feel the need to defend the one box I can afford.

Do I wish the Xbox One was more powerful? Sure, who doesn't. Would I trade a good 720p or 900p game for a mediocre 1080p one? No.

That's the point I'm trying to make.

Base your decision on the games, not the platform.

I bought both at launch. In terms of exclusives, it's not even a competition at this point. I have ZERO doubt that the PS4 will have incredible games, but it's just not there yet. Killzone and Infamous are both average at best. They look incredible but they are shockingly average. PS Plus is obviously worth it overall, but there have been very few exceptional games for the PS4 that have been free.

Of all the games to come out so far, Infamous is by far the most disappointing. Maybe Forza, but I haven't regretted paying $60 for a game in a long time. Terrible writing and dialogue, mediocre story, and gameplay that couldn't be more last gen. I'm enjoying it for what it is, but compared to other open world games, it's average at best. Just keep moving from area to area, do the same 6-7 things, district showdown, and repeat over and over. I don't think I've ever played an open world game that is this repetitive.

I met a friend this weekend and I thought I would share our conversation. He's a die hard Sony fan. Like the basement dwellers on neogaf that don't actually care about games, just which machine has sold more units.

I asked him what he had been playing since launch. He said Killzone. This is a guy who has never played any of the previous games in the series. He's the kind of die hard fan that convinces himself that mediocre franchises are amazing simply because they are on a Sony platform. He loves shooters and denies titanfall's existence because it's on the XB1. His response? "Titanfall 2 will be on PS4". When I said he could be playing a fantastic new shooter that a lot of our other friends are all enjoying, he has no response. The very idea of buying an XB1 is insanity.

Recently he said he loved Infamous for PS4. When asked how he liked it compared to the first two? He said he never played them.

Just don't be one of those guys. Play the games, not the platforms.

Played for an hour after they fixed live. US East data center. Perfect connections and no issues at all.

How little they added into the game from the beta?

Not exactly sure what that means. The beta had two maps, three game modes and a handful of weapons. The final game has 15 maps, 5 or 6 game types and a bunch of different weapons, abilities and many more burn cards.

I never really understood questioning value propositions when it comes to multiplayer games. Yes, it doesn't really have a single player campaign in the traditional sense and maybe fewer options when compared to other multiplayer games, but time is the most important factor for me personally.

What's the average single player game these days? 10 hours? People have no problem putting down $60 for single player games, but multiplayer only and it becomes a problem. How many times does the average person play a single player game all the way through? Twice, maybe three times. Even that's a stretch.

If you enjoy multiplayer games and see yourself getting many hours out of a game, I think it's absolutely worth $60. If you're someone who buys call of duty, plays the single player and then puts it on the shelf, then no.

I played the beta for around 10 hours and I had a fantastic time. I know personally I'll get many more hours out of this game than almost any single player game. That's me though. I enjoy multiplayer games and the value comes from the sheer number of hours I get out of them. For me titanfall will be the best value of any game I'll buy this year.

@captain_clayman: there you go. Digital foundry should be credible enough for you.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2014-in-theory-1080p30-or-720p60

"In the single-player mode, the game runs at full 1080p with an unlocked frame-rate (though a 30fps cap has been introduced as an option in a recent patch), but it's a different story altogether with multiplayer. Here Guerrilla Games has opted for a 960x1080 framebuffer, in pursuit of a 60fps refresh. Across a range of clips, we see the game handing in a 50fps average on multiplayer. It makes a palpable difference, but it's probably not the sort of boost you might expect from halving fill-rate."

The point isn't that it's running at a random resolution. The point is that it is not running at 1920x1080. That's the magical number. It's not hitting that. It's being scaled and we all know when a game is scaled, it automatically becomes terrible.

@bigjeffrey: yeah, I think that games multiplayer is average at best, but it still looks good.

If you asked people a few days ago what they thought of the graphics in shadowfalls multiplayer, they would have gone on forever about how amazing native 1080p is. It just makes everything so much better.

Those same people scoff at anything but full HD images. They use their superhuman eyes to find little imperfections after zooming in a hundred times. Now it turns out that this fantastic looking PS4 launch game is crippled in the same way as all those xbox one games.

They were losing this minds because titanfall was running at such a low resolution. Scaled garbage!

Turns out that people don't really care about games. They just care about what resolutions the games run at. True, there hasn't been a killer app on either machine yet, but it's sad to see the things people think they care about.

The all powerful PS4 with the ability to run every game at 1080p60 was the greatest thing ever. So if it turned out that maybe it wasn't running a game at that resolution or that framerate, would that game suddenly become worse?

I can't count how times I saw people praising Killzone shadowfall for running 1080p and looking so good. All the rabid Sony fans on these forums and others. Losing their minds about how 1080p is what makes a game. How amazing that Killzone multiplayer looks.

Turns out that the multiplayer for shadowfall runs at 960x1080.

People were apparently lied to and they believed it with all their heart. That's all it takes.

So what now? Does that game suddenly look like trash?

Just for reference.

960x1080 = 1,036,800 pixels - Killzone

1408x792 = 1,115,136 pixels - Titanfall

Titanfall pushes more pixels that the Killzone multiplayer. Yeah, call the a source engine game and whatever other bullshit you want, but it proves a simple point.

People don't really care about these things. They just think they do. It lets them sleep better at night if someone tells them that their black box is better than the other guys. No one is debating that the xbox one is the weaker machine. That's fine and everyone accepts it. Killzone was said to run at 1080 native for both single and multiplayer. That turned out to be a lie.

People just need to be told what they want to hear. The average person isn't sitting around counting pixels or lines of resolution. Games can look great at 720 scaled, just like they can at 900 or 960.