Ya. All those layoffs at game studios are the result of greed.... That's it. Has nothing to do with bigger games being more expensive to develop and needing longer streams of revenue to make their money back...
I think as more people play titanfall, more people will see what a blast it is and then their friends will pick it up and so on. I could see it on top for a while. It's still my favorite title and I picked it up the day it came out.
But don't they know that TF isn't 1080p?? How could it be worth buying? What's that, infamous? Resolution doesn't make a good game? Oh the comments on this site have led me astray regarding what makes a game fun to play.
Ryse is still one of the most visually impressive console games I have seen. even up against inFamous. it also has really good facial animations (for the most part) definitely the best I've seen in a console game.
its pretty easy to spot the difference imo. for me personally, i don't mind 30 fps especially if it has motion blur, but i would probably prefer 60 fps for multiplayer shooters just for the simple fact that the action is usually fast and you wouldn't want motion blur on that anyway. well... and car simulators like Forza. The physics can only update as fast as the framerate so the faster the frames the better the sim.
Its probably worth stating that i would prefer...
i agree with everything you just said. now I will add that i work in a studio that does numerous game trailers both cg and in engine (unity, crytek, unreal)... we've done some trailers you guys definitely know about and we have discussed everything you just mentioned at length.
about the best thing higher resolution output gets you is better or less noticeable aliasing. what gets you the best results for reality are HDR lighting, sub surface scattering, ambient occlusio...
theres a difference in cpu and gpu... and also.. the xbox's frame/resolution probe have to do with neither... it has to do with the way the memory is architected. actually... not that this is even relevant to the point of this article but the cpu of the ps4 is actually considered a bottleneck. sucker punch went into some detail about that when talking about the development of inFamous.
@JMyers: Thats a fair enough point. I mean honestly I don't really care which one sells more at the end of the day, i just think people get way too nuts about this stuff in general... often times to a creepy extent ( just had one guy send me 3 PM's in a row because I said something about how i felt infamous had a short run at the top). this was my attempt at poking some fun at the craziness.
I agree. The psycho ps4 fanboys spin everything to the ps4s favor. Vgchartz has transformed from a convenient source of proof the ps4 was champ to becoming a biased xbox fanboy running the site out of a bedroom (no joke). Yet the methodology used is posted and the information sources available.
Of course the ps4 can do the work of 16 xbox ones, cure cancer, solve world hunger as well the people talk about it so clearly anything selling more is just lies. /s
...
yeah but will it actually be fun?
i tend to agree with you. in my work we do a lot of game trailers (especially around e3) and when we do them in game engine (crytek, unity, unreal) we usually have the settings cranked so high and have brought in customized, uprez'd geometry that they render frame by frame to output. if you were to try to play them realtime at that level you'd probably get 0.5 - 1 frame per second. obviously thats not playable so they scale it down for the actual game.
well the hardware is maxing out because the software that runs the console and the game builds themselves haven't been fully optimized. they're still pretty low in their versioning (rightfully so, they've only been out for 6 months) as time goes on, devs, find cleaner, more efficient ways to push lots of code, tools, tricks etc without loading down the hardware as much.
there are also lots of 3rd party companies that build tools to help devs squeeze even more (po...
it will look amazing, but will it actually be fun? that seems to be the issue I'm having with a lot of "next gen" titles
i am really curious to see the xbox specs one specs for this. i'll assume it will be tighter on the ps4 so i'll probably go with that version but i have more friends on xbox.
for sure. i think its a little more important on fps games, and games like this I'm ok at 30 fps especially if they run motion blur because it makes it feel just a little bit less video game-ish.
i agree, but at the same time, if it can do it without sacrifice, why not? it would be nice if they could also do motion blur at 60 fps but i've never seen that on a console.
what i think he meant was that it didn't even have manual gears until now... and probably that because its more arcade style its not interesting... i would agree. the fact that only now they are thinking "oh transmission" does not bode well for those of use hoping this would be even remotely sim oriented.
with what? they dropped the ball on gran turismo, which is a disappointment but not a total loss since i slightly prefer forza anyway. project cars won't be out for quite a while and thats assuming it will be good on consoles. other than that im not really sure. the initial impressions i read of DC back in the day suggested it was going to be pretty realistic. as the details come out though it just gets more typical. theres enough need for speeds out there imo.
good job for what? implementing basic functionality that even the crappiest racers have? i was super excited for this game until i started learning more and more about it. now every time i read something i just get more and more disappointed. clearly their focus is on making this game an arcade racer with some eye candy... i'll reserve final judgement until i play it but i feel i have to move my optimism over to project cars for the ps4 and continue playing forza on x1 until then... and...
dope. i freaking love this game