I've never been a big fan. Liked mario back on the NES, tried 64, sunshine and galaxy...it's safe to say it's not for me...but platformers generally aren't. Aside from jak and daxter (ONLY the first one) i haven't really "loved" any, not 3D ones at any rate. Same goes for zelda tbh. Metroid is the only nintendo staple franchise i've consistently enjoyed (ignoring 'other M' of course)

Thank you sir. I strive to please you.

LOL

Sorry I had to post my reaction. I couldn't help it.

So those of you that are eagle-eyed, obviously could tell the comparison video on IGN, was upresed 720p to 1080p on Xbox One, vs. the PS4 at 1080?



Uploaded with ImageShack.us

If so good for you. Xbox One at 720 upressed, looks sharper to this bozo.

yo which looks different between these 2 zoomed in screenshots of a low res video on the IGN video player!?

Since you keep insisting that it is difficult to differentiate between 720p and 1080p, I recently watched the TV series House M.D. - great series, higly recommend it to anyone - and in one of the episodes, I got 2 different versions, one 540p and one in 720p, in the 540p version, Wilson's face texture was almost resembling something like rubber, while in the 720p version I could clearly see even his face's pores.

Please remember I'm talking about talking about the difference between 540p and 720p, that's a 180p of resolution difference, the difference in resolution between 720p and 1080p is 360p.

Since you find it hard to understand the concept, hopefully you will be able to understand facts/proof, I googled 720p vs 1080p with images in exactly 1920x1080 dimension so that the comparison is real and so you can clearly see the difference, below are a few links:

https://www.google.com.br/search?q=720p+1080p&biw=...

The above link is the search results of Google in case you want to see for yourself.

http://cache.gawkerassets.com/assets/images/gizmod...

In this image, which isn't all that great quality wise, please pay attention to the chicken on the right's left red thing (don't know the name of it in English), even in this bad quality image you can see the ruggness of the texture, while in the 720p part of the image, you can't, it's all blurred. Now look at the feathers, see how much more detailed/clearer they seem.

http://imageshack.us/a/img545/5205/203160201305250...

Here's the image of the new Tomb Raider game, please for the love of everything that is holly tell me you can see the difference, because if not, an eye expert should be your first conceirn, so I'm not even gonna mention all the differences.

http://aparanjape.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/hd_v...

Here's a 1080p (HD), 1080i (HD), 720p (HD), 480p (ED) and 480i (SD) comparison image with 2 very different pictures, please pay attention to the difference between the 1080p and 720p parts, see how the rocks seem blurry, almost like they melted? look at the plants' details, can you notice how much clearer the 108p part is, with you even spotting the gaps in the leaves? Can you notice how on the 720p you can't notice those gaps, how they look merged together?


I could go on like this, but since Google returned thousands of results and I have a life, you can see more results for yourself.

http://i1.ytimg.com/vi/HY2dlfMLobU/maxresdefault.j...


Also, in all the news and threads I've read so far, I still haven't read people mention one very important thing that will happen in the middle of the PS4 and XBO's life cycles, upscaling to 4K.

Yes, people have talked about 4K a lot and also about the fact that both PS4 and XBO will be able to upscale to 4K, but what no one has mentioned is the fact that upscaling 1080p to 2160p (4K) is VERY different than upscaling 720p to 2160p (4K).

Today it doesn't matter at all, but imagine playing today's games 5 years from now, also, the difference in resolution impacts the visual quality more than you can think of, have you ever wondered why most developers whenever they need to increase fps they always start with resolution? The same goes for PC gaming.

The Digital Foundry's articles on games are some of the best sources for you to see and learn about why and how resolutions affect fps and what that means for that particular game.

I really hate when people say they know what we can or can't do, like saying most people can't notice the difference between resolutions or between 30fps and 60fps, have they interviewed all 7 billion of people in this world?! Of course not, then how can they say something like that?

I watch almost everything in Mirillis' Splash Pro EX, which turns any fps second videos into 60fps videos in realtime by using both your GPU and CPU, it also removes the blur associated with the "film effect" - below is are some links that explain better:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motion_blur
http://www.kenstone.net/fcp_homepage/feature_video...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frame_rate
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Display_resolution
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graphic_display_resol...

I know it is a lot to read, but if you truly want to have your own opinion about something, you better be ready to reasearch and learn about that subject, plus today we have Google, Bing, Yahoo!, Wikipedia, dedicated forums, technology specialized sites and etc, so your knowledge's only limit is you yourself.

I believe - not saying it is true, but that I believe - that most people can indeed notice the not so subtle differencies in resolutions and frames per seconds that so many people claim most people can't, I believe that because today, more than ever before, we are spending more and more time in front of screens. Be it your cellphone, smartphone, digital calculator, digital notebook, tablet, mobile gaming device, telivisor, monitor, modern printers and etc than ever before, slowly but surely, our eyes are almost always being trained in using and with it, consequently, seeing the subtle differences in screen quality, resolution, refresh rate, color, contrast and etc.

But the most important question isn't if they can see it or not, but whether it matters to them enough to affect their decision, and I think most people who follow sports, racing, games, movies, anime, cartoons and etc do care enough to make their decision, after all, the more you pay for something, the more you want to get out of it, and new technology isn't cheap.

Sorry for the very big post, but hopefully you can at least accept the fact that a whole lot of people, specially the ones who buy new technology, can very clearly see the difference between resolutions and other technical aspects of image quality.

PS. I don't have "eagle eyes", but they work just fine. :)

Yeah, my research says most people can't just blindly look at something they've never seen before, and determine if it is 720p or 1080p.

In fact I just recently hooked up an HD TV for a friend their previous one had gone out., they have a cable service provided in the US, called Charter. They had an HD package and was never told by the tech that the HD channels were in the 700's, and they had been watching SD
for the past year, in the 100's on their channel guide, thinking they were watching HD on their new HD TV. I switched the guide up to the 700's when I hooked it up, and they had no idea those truly HD channels were even there. Again they had been
watching SD on an HD TV, and thought it was HD. Most are uneducated, and some just can't tell, or even really get it.

I get it, I work in After Effects every day, Premiere Pro, 3DS Max, Photoshop, etc. I've been doing this about 20 years. I still get fooled between footage on a monitor if I'm unfamiliar with it, whether it is 720p or 1080p.

Set them side by side as you have in your examples... yeah, anyone can tell... good job, pat yourself on the back. But with game engines, texture resolutions, etc. 720p or 1080p on a HD screen/monitor from 8 feet away... without a side by side comparison.
Most people couldn't tell the difference.

lol, "research"...

they can tell, people can convince themselves it doesn't matter. but they can tell.

Oh wow you've done research on the subject? Damn can I get a link to your findings and maybe some peer reviews from your colleagues?

A simple wikipedia search tells you that this is what "research" involves the following steps. Here is what you did:

Identification of research problem (My Xbox 1 can only do 720p in call of duty)
Literature review (read xbox fan forums)
Specifying the purpose of research (to justify spending $100 more for an inferior machine)
Determine specific research questions or hypotheses (My hypothesis is that nobody will notice the difference, and I'm basing this on absolutely nothing at all)
Data collection (SKIP)
Analyzing and interpreting the data (SKIP)
Reporting and evaluating research (Clearly nobody can tell the difference based on my data collection and analyzation of the data)
Communicating the research findings and, possibly, recommendations (Log on to gamersyde and lie about doing research)

That is not research. Now if you have some data to back this claim up then by all means make me look like a fool. Oh, and thanks for the laugh. I needed it this morning.

Well Sony is really starting to annoy me again: that restrictions on media is a joke. So I cannot play MP3 on my PS4? No Audio-CD support? No videos (mp4, avi), no DLNA?

Well, this I could live with, but: no third-party external HD's?

I hope this all isn't true.

it'll be true on day 1.

doc you aren't getting a ps4 come on now, quit joshin'

What??!? I have a PS3 as well. Problem for you?

Just a hint: I can owe it and still be critical, that's the beauty when you don't have to stick to a single console and downplay all others [as in the route you're taking ...]

thx, really nice

I didn't know this site was a peer reviewed tech site. I'm just telling you that my co-workers, clients, friends, etc, can't generally tell if something on a monitor is 1080p or 720p, they might guess, and guess right, but
they aren't always sure, and neither am I, a lot of time. Is there a difference between 720p and 1080p, you damn right there is. I'm just saying perception of most people, it isn't easily distinguishable, unless you stack them side by side (like in your examples), then its obvious.

I'm happy you were so amused by my post.

Ryse isn't the graphical powerhouse for X1! Ryse was target for Xbox 360 and it's in development for some years (3-4) now. It uses some version of CryEngine and it's certainly not really optimized for X1. They didn't even managed it to integrate Kinect, because it's sooo hard core (button smashing)

Kagari of neogaf (insider) just said MP3 and Server will come, whether it was anyway, or whether it's due to fan backlash i dunno.

Also said suspend / resume is working, but not 100%, hence the delay.

Hopefully the firmware update won't take too long...mainly in regards to headsets that use USB for chat. Cos my trittons will work day 1 for surround sound, but not for chat...which sucks.

I don't want to say that X1 could reach PS4s peak performance, but the existing engines simply doesn't scale as well for X1 than for PS4, because X1 has some more custom chips and architectural pitfalls. Sure, we don't will see 1080p for medium to long term, but you can't blame a launch game. There are some potential reasons why they couldn't manage a higher resolution: no time (time to market) for learning the complete architecture, no time to implement optimizations for all parts of the engine, bad development Tools, bad Drivers...

People said the same from X360 launch games. It was said that X360 wasn't capable for better visuals. Indeed, GRAW and PGR3 were some very awesome looking games, but there visuals were easily beaten by newer games that have followed.

Ryse is a bad example, because it's not a show case game. Cry Tek did screw up development and couldn't simply ship in timeframe of X1. That's because they wanted to make it a X1 launch game. But simply look at textures or some low colorful fire effects to notice that it was target for X360.

Now i remember why milhouse is on my ignore list...lol.