Microsoft fires the first shot in the "NEXT" generation.... - Page 137

Thanks for the explanation. My 65VT50 has 60hz, 48hz, and 96hz. I despise the soap opera effect and never use the motion smoother.

I cant stand it either and turned it off for a friend because it was so distracting. He told me he changed it back because it was smoother I told him to turn it off when watching a BR and he said ehh

*********SO***********

Back to Next Box discussion!

the soap box effect on older TVs was noticeably unreal and distracting.

but on the latest TVs, I actually like the look. It actually kind of made it look semi three-dimensional

I could see that.... if you have an LCD

MS is releasing an Xbox Lite for 2013 while the real next-gen Xbox will be out in 2014.Both will be announced at an event prior to E3.The real Next Xbox will feature a custom ATI Radeon 8870 which is a future Volcanic 9850 with 3.8 teraflops of computing power.It will also feature an Xbox 360 SOC on-board for full backwards compatibility with xbox 360 games.Case in point, this machine is going to be an absolute beast and will feature a Blu-Ray drive as well..Looking good MS... :D

Both PS3 and Xbox 360 are pretty much identical in overall power with the 360 having a better gpu while PS3 having a nicer cpu which makes it a wash.MS didn't encourage their exclusive dev's to create game engines from the ground up take advantage of the HW.Which is something Sony did with the PS3 and their in-house developers.Also, MS has been building a stable of new 1st and 2nd party dev studios in prepartion for next-gen which is the smart thing to do.Judging from the recent SemiAccurate article that I recently posted, MS is going to have a much more powerful console than the PS4 as it will have 3.8 teraflops of computing power.In comparison, PS4 will only have 1.7 teraflops which will put them in a big disadvantage when it comes to exclusive games on either platform.Either way, I will be there on day 1 to purchase both next-gen consoles.

Eurogamer does not have their hands on the next Xbox. They are just commenting on a rumor which makes them about as equal as any other site commenting on rumors.

It's ok if the PS4 is better. Really.

No one actually knows which one is better until both MS and Sony release the official specs for their respective next-gen consoles.

Even when the specs are out it still doesn't mean one is "better" than the other. For me, the one that is better will be the one that has the best games.

What if they both do?

Again, parity is going to be much closer this gen no matter which is more powerful. Just the fact that MS will be going with a large capacity disc drive and HDD standard means you're going to see a huge jump from the 360 in terms of texture detail. Which in terms means the same for Sony multiplat titles, since most of the time even though it could have done better, they never bothered because of the costs to get it running just as well. Good news for all of us!

The best games are rated highest on metacritic.

Good post seeing as Blu-Ray hasn't proven itself to be benefical to gaming during this console generation but next-gen, BR will be important as games increase in size.Also, texture detail is very dependant on the power of your gpu and not the disc based medium.Having a much larger capacity optical disc format will allow for a greater variety of more unique textures but really has nothing to do with the actual texture detail.

I can't stand Metacritic. They're not as valid as a aggregative review site like Rotten Tomatoes. While Rotten Tomatoes includes every review out there in its score, Metacritic picks and chooses for every review. So while site X's review for game A is included in game A's score. Site X's review for game B may not be included in game B's score. So that means that Metacritic can manipulate a game's overall score based on what sites it decides to include in the game's score.

There are plenty of viable reviews (positive and negative) out there that are never included on any given game on Metacritic. and for that reason, I don't hold much value in Metacritic. You can't even use Metacritic to compare crossplatform games. Because simply throwing on a couple more higher scores for a platform can skew that score higher than the other version. Or throwing on a couple lower scores as well.

I think it's better to focus on the reviewers who tend to match your opinion on games and stick to those rather than use Metacritic. So if you see eye-to-eye with Jeff Gerstmann, stick to his reviews. Or if your view of games match Angry Joe's, go with him.

I don't even trust reviewers. I will read up on the game to learn what it is about, I will watch a few random youtube reviewers I know aren't getting paid off. (I try to find good and bad reviews) then I check out the game's board on gamefaqs to see how the community likes the game and how they get along.

I have to say, the Gamefaqs PS3 Dragon's Dogma board is probably the single best board I have seen online. I asked a few simple questions and people were showering me with tips and offers of free equipment. The community sold me on that game more than any review.

Can I get what you are smoking?

I think Blu-Ray has been very beneficial this gen, although of course 360 owners haven't seen it. I think BR proved itself as a superior format for modern games very early on.

We had games maxing out the space on a 360 DVD in 2006. We had developers talking about cutting stuff due to space right after that. PS3 games were coming out at 15-20 gigs almost right from the start - yea, some of it was multi-language support and the like, but that's fine too (cuts down on costs). The only issue was the speed compared to the 360 DVD, but that will obviously be resolved next round.

Yeah, but there's no denying how cost prohibitive it was for so many years. It's superiority was never really a question, just whether it was worth the extra money. It obviously is now, but it was questionable at launch.

BR was wasted this gen. on the PS3, they just striped the data multiple times to get better seek and streaming performance. BR was too slow on the PS3 and the space wasn't used as intended because of the speed.

What your saying is total BS considering the fact that BR this gen hasn't made games better as that is soley dependant on the skill of the developers..Also, the biggest game worlds such as Fallout 3, FO NV, Just Cause 2, etc all ran perfectly fine on DVD.The only reasony why we saw PS3 games using so much of the BR's space was for either uncompressed lossless audio, multi-language support etc.BR doesn't magically make texture detail quality as that has everything to do with the capabilities and power of the gpu..

No need for the immature insult as I wasn't the person who wrote that article..Chillout

Then how 'bout you provide a link to the supposed article?

You didn't link any article in the post that I quoted.

Not entirely true, as anyone who's installed high resolution texture packs can attest to. Big textures take up big data spaces. Fallout ran fine, so does battlefield; but run up right next to a texture and take a good look. Them's some ugly, low resolution textures.

I will grant that very few PS3 games made use of BD outside of audio and region languages; but it's because it's easier to make one port and get it running on both systems good enough. But compare the texture detail in a game like MGS4 to Fallout, and it's night and day. Both being relatively close this gen, the bottleneck wasn't the GPU's, but storage space.

Right off the top of my head...
-Final Fantasy XIII - crappy Bink encodes instead of the pristine 1080p on PS3.
-Forza 3/4 - that goofy install disc stuff
-BF3 - high-res texture pack install (without the install the textures looked like PS2).
-Mass Effect 2 - multi-disc game and yes it got annoying when I had to keep swapping to do missions

Obviously these are minor examples, but it's out there. but there are quite a few games on 360 that took up every byte on the disc, and who knows what they had to do to fit it all in there. I'd rather they spend more time making the games instead of trying to cram everything into an outdated format.
Edited by number1laing - 1/28/13 at 5:29pm

The real bottleneck this gen has been memory considering the fact that both PS3 and xbox 360 only have 512 megs of RAM so developers have had to make concessions in certain area's for they're games to run well let alone having decent or great looking graphics.There is only so much you can do with that amount of memory on these dated current gen platforms.Also, let's not ignore the fact there is good texture compression techniques allowing dev's to cram good looking textures within that limited amount of system memory.

FF13 is a terrible example considering it was never originally intended to be released on xbox 360 in the first place.SquareEnix was focused on the PS3 version and had less than a year and a half to port it over the 360 because they wanted to make some extra profit by releasing it on both platforms.The results were a poorly done port that most 360 users didn't even bother with at all..Installing games on 360 is a much quicker process because of its speedy DVD drive whereas in the PS3, it took much longer to do because of its slow BR drive.Personally, I've never had an issue with swapping game discs and even some PC games have numerous discs to install as well.

There's really no point to arguing this. Blu-Ray is better for games and has been for a while, and the next round of systems will both have the drive.

Even the Wii U has a blue laser drive. (they didn't licence the movie playback so they can't call it blu-ray, just like the dvd drive in the Wii)

I'm thinking MS is going for the same thing. They can get the high capacity without supporting Sony's physical media. Which they want you to forget exists anyway. Even if they do go with BD, there's no guarantee they go with the 100GB+ BDXL drives, so there could still be a storage disparity.