@devilzrule27 said:

That's an unfortunate reality with software development. As the hardware gets more powerful, developers will always be pushing the metal, which means weird tricks and work around. It's just a factor of remaining competitive. It would be lovely if the market allowed developers to maintain the current graphical quality and use the new horsepower to improve the gameplay and AI, as well as for publishers to push more money towards well written narratives with compelling connections to the gameplay.

Also doubling the frame rate requires a ton of power and honestly most games do not need 60 FPS. Maybe Racing games and sports games but locked 30 FPS is really enough for the most part. I tried to play Dark Souls on the PC with 60 FPS and man had I trouble. It was a total different and way faster game.

One more reason to not buy the Xbox One If there not all going to be at least 720P why bother?

I know it would crop up eventually but since it's basically PC architecture and most PC games run a solid 60 at high res on good machines, I was hoping for some parody for a while.

Atari 2600 was it's generation despite the more powerful Intellivision and colecovision

NES destroyed the Sega Master System despite it being the weaker console

Neo Geo was with ease the most powerful console but the SNES and the Mega drive were streets ahead due to the much lower price tag

N64 was much more powerful than the Playstation but the decision to stick with cartridges priced the majority developers and consumers away from the console

The Xbox and the Gamecube were more powerful than the PS2 but the inclusion of a DVD Drive at the right time, and the better developer support lead to a Sony winning at levels unseen since the NES era

The PS3 and the 360 were roughly equivalent in power, but both of them couldn't compete with the Wii, which was the right device at the right time.

Graphics have never defined a console generation; it always comes down to general software support, and most likely this one will be no different to all of the others.

If they are on the same level sure if they are vastly more powerful i does matter. the Wii was an exception because it has something new for people who never played a video game before.

Yeah, that's true. I guess part of it is that PC is an open and changing platform hardware wise, whereas the consoles are have set specs. Which has its own advantages, because it means that games can be programmed to the metal and hyper optimized, resulting in games that exceed PC for a good time after release. But then it also means that everyone runs into that problem of not having anywhere higher to push to, so instead they have to get weird and creative (programming wise) with what they've got, which is kind of cool in its own way.

People are gonna be pretty disappointed if they expect that. BF3 is 2 years old this year and I'll eat my hat if any console game looks as good this year.

Still excited for the PS4 though.

What? That doesn't happen and it certainly won't with the new consoles as PCs are so astronomically far ahead at the moment. Hell, the 2007 Crysis release still looks better than every console game out, and most PC games too actually.

Considering this game came out 6 years ago, if we had new consoles sooner I'm pretty confident we'd be looking at far more impressive games than we are today. I hope next generation games and indeed PC are able to evolve without the shackles of catering for the 360 and PS3 which have been holding everything back.

I think this looks better than BF3 on the PC

But lets wait and see how BF4 will look on a Pc without a 900$ GPU like they showed in the trailer^^

Dude like he just said, the stronger console almost NEVER wins out. Like in all other markets lowest common denominator is the key factor in development, and software/features with the widest appeal are what make up the difference.

You know you made this topic sensationalizing the exact opposite of what you're saying here right? Right? like do you even pay attention to your own topics? I mean I can envision a scenario in which you're not because you're just randomly quoted every bad rumour you hear on Gaf it seems. I guess what I'm saying is you're not the troll we deserve, or the one we need. I expect better frankly.

Wrong. Personally I do not care about FPS because 30 FPS locked is better than 60 FPS not locked. I however care about resolution since resolution can upgrade the graphics of a game by a lot. And the actual Jump from 70P to native 1080P is a really big one.

@sooty: I guess I'm talking idealistically here. I know that doesn't happen, else console games would be a lot more stable than they are. I also don't know what's gonna happen this gen, though it's possible you're right about PC. It just seemed to work out that way last (this? What are we calling PS3/360?) gen, at least at the beginning when PS3 and 360 were still shiny and new. I might just be misremembering though, I forget that I was hella young back then.

The PC will definitely profit from this next generation because now DX11 features are in there from the go. Also better textures and better lighting from the get go as well.

Well... shyat. They shoulda called it the Xbox 360.1 since we will not be seeing much improvement in the resolution on the side of things. M$ apparently still finds 2005 720P resolutions acceptable.

If they antialise the shit out of it I'm alright with this. Raing games can look pretty good at 720p too and 60 fps will be way better.
I hope most games keep 1080p60 though.

A couple of things here.

1) I don't care. "Graphics" can consist of geometry, texture resolution, frame rate, shadows, physics, resolution, and loads of other things. If a game developer wants to lower resolution to maintain a better frame rate, or better physics, or whatever the trade off, then that should be their call to make. Call of Duty 4 and onward were massive hits, in part due to the way the games feel, and it wouldn't have been possible to get that unusually smooth 60 frames per second gameplay if MS was forcing everyone to use 720p.

2) If you don't like the thread, don't post, flag the post, or PM a moderator. I think the personal attacks in this thread are far worse than some bitching about Microsoft, and I completely disagree with the original post.

@blu3v3nom07:

@darson: My tv is a almost bottom tier price, 32 inch Westinghouse 720p set. It was almost the cheapest I could find without getting like a house brand. I.e. Dynex

And I sort of agree with your statement. I wonder how my tv will be affected once everything starts getting to like 4K resolution, and things like that.

Depending on how far away you sit from your television, the human eye has a hard time telling the difference between 720p and 1080p so don't worry about 4k unless you've got a very very large projector. Source: http://www.digitaltrends.com/home-theater/720p-vs-1080p-can-you-tell-the-difference-between-hdtv-resolutions/

Generally speaking, if you sit more than 10 feet away from your TV, and your display isn’t bigger than 50 inches diagonally, you won’t be able to tell the difference between 720 and 1080.

i think the best idea all round is to just wait till E3 and let the games do the talking.

Dude, holy shit, you're such a fanboy.

And change your damn avatar already!

I'm pretty sure they've all made new accounts by now.

There's no standard on the 360. There's no standard on the PS3. There's no standard on the PC. Not really a problem. Developers want their games to look as good as possible and run as smoothly as possible and hamstringing them by enforcing a resolution is ridiculous and counter-intuitive.

Why are you trying to support your argument by quoting what some random person is saying in an internet forum?