I rarely play games anymore with the exception of the occasional game on the Wii U my daughter got for Christmas. But with the direction gaming is going I will play even less, if any at all. I know I am in the extreme minority with my issues, but the requirement of having to be online for gaming is going to keep me from playing due to speed limitations.

I have no options other than shitty AT&T and my available speeds top out at 6mbps. It's not like I live in the middle of bum-fuck-Egypt(15-20 miles to the closest city), but I don't live close enough to have cable options either. They just don't care to offer anything better where I live and don't even offer that much speed but to a few in my area. My parents live 5 miles away and they top out at 3mbps and one of my brothers lives 10 miles away and has no dsl options. And to make matters worse, I am capped at 150gigs per month. Beyond that its $10 for every 50gigs beyond the initial 150. And this is all for the low, low price of nearly $60 month.

Genesis does what Nintendon't!

Yeah, it's nothing new. Graphics wars have raged on ever since the Nintendo/Genesis era.

Remember the PS2 being hyped with the "Emotion Engine" that could render that beautiful CGI rubber duck scene? Wow. Then remember the PS3 "Cell Engine" that could render the same rubber duck scene in real-time? Even more wow.


What is the size of your TV and how far do you sit from it? People who can't tell a difference in resolutions typically either have a relatively small TV or sit far from it or some combination of both.

Look at a PC monitor for example. PC monitors are generally much smaller than TVs, but you only sit maybe a foot away from a PC monitor, and you can most definitely tell a difference in resolution at that distance. PC gaming has lately been going towards 1440p as the new norm, and yes you can tell the difference.

Here's an even earlier example (from 1981!):

<iframe width="640" height="480" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/Y0KTjpaG3cg" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

You can tell a difference once you get bigger and bigger screens. I play a 360 PS3 game on my 43 inch and it looks fine. If I play on my 100 Inch it looks bad. An xb1 ps4 game on a smaller screen you can't tell the resolutions apart. On a larger screen I can notice the jump in resolution.

I've continued to maintain that while there's a slight but noticable difference, particularly in jaggies and sharpness, the difference in resolutions that we've seen this generation isn't mind blowing or hugely significant in the grand scheme of things. Resolution is just one part of overall graphic fidelity. Of course, I don't think i've heard of anyone on this forum owning the same game on multiple platforms doing their own impressions and pretty sure most of us have just been going off screenshots and videos.

But that said, at first it was nice to see what the difference in tech specs meant in the real world, but it quickly turned in to fanboy and epeen battles, worse then anything in the past thanks to the wonder that is the internet. And i'm someone with a 1440P PC monitor that I game on.

The distance you sit away from the screen matters more than the size of the screen. Increased resolutions are definitely noticeable on smaller screens if you sit closer.

Like I said back in post #52, PC monitors are typically much smaller than TV screens, but yet increasing resolutions on PC monitors is most definitely noticeable because you sit so close to a monitor.

Another example would be tablets. The iPad, for example, is very small at only 9.7" but yet the bump in resolution from 1024x768 on the early iPad models to the later models with Retina at 2048x1536 is most definitely noticeable. The reason it's noticeable is because you generally have a tablet extremely close to your face.

Distance matters more than size. (That's what she said.)

Why don't systems have blast processing anymore?

It got renamed ESRAM.

The main issue I've encountered on Xbox One was a horrible loading issue I had with Far Cry 4 that was connected to the game trying to contact the servers even though I had selected 'Offline Game' option. I'm mainly annoyed that they didn't state that the game (on disc) could potentially not function if the connection is not made in what is touted as an 'offline' game option. At least games like Titanfall come out and say, "Yeah, you need to be connected to play this."

Mode 7 > Blast processing

LIAR! http://kotaku.com/f-zero-on-the-gene...ive-1690526006

Oh wait no, that proves you right.

There's been no widespread outbreaks of Red Rings of death for the Xbone, so I consider that a plus for this generation.

I'm not sure if that article is joking or not. They say the video of F-Zero running on a Genesis is impressive and close to the SNES game. It's not at all. It looks like ass in comparison to the SNES game.

The Xbone is only a year and a half old. How early in the 360's lifespan did the RROD thing start? I didn't think it was very early, or maybe I just don't remember right.

They started right after the console launched. It just took Microsoft awhile before they finally acknowledged it as a problem and extended the warranty. I know I went through three X-Box 360's because of that problem.

I think I was the first person on this forum to have it happen/bring it up. IIRC, that was around March after launch. So a whopping 4 months.

I think the dirtiest tactic this Gen is what Square is doing by putting the FF XV demo behind a $60 paywall. It was understandable in the PS1 when it was harder to release a Demo but there's no excuse to do it in this GEN.