Playstation 4

[Supergoal]

All games need 60fps once you experience it its hard to drop back down. I saw a vid posted awhile ago showing uncharted 3 at 60fps. It looked fantastic.

[Resonance]

I think that there will be a greater difference between third party games this generation as the architectures are just so similar, but there is more power easily accessible on the PS4. Getting better graphics would simply be a case of choosing higher quality effects, textures and models. There would be no need to do any advanced optimisation to take advantage of the very different architectures of a particular console.

[CMcK]

But will developers being willing to put in the extra effort to make different assets for the console versions. It's not like there are any effects you could do on the PS4 but not on The One.
The PS4 having a higher filtrate will certainly help with anti aliasing and stuff like extra particles for example.
I don't imagine cross platform titles will look much different at all.

Maybe eventually if a possible PC version of a game has higher quality textures there may be scope to use some of that in the PS4 version.

[Darwock]

Similar to this gen but the other way round I imagine. Not much difference - but that didn't stop mountains being made out of molehills with every little detail that was not the same between versions.

[Resonance]

They don't need to make much effort or recreate new assets. Unlike 2D games they are creating ultra high quality 3D assets and then reducing the quality of them to fit real time engines. They would just need to reduce the quality further for the Xbox version. Lower res textures, less particle effects, lower quality shaders, etc. It would be more like turning the quality on a PC game down vs porting to a new platform.

Remaking last gen games on XBox or Ps4 is also going to be less difficult because the original assets are often of such high quality that there is no need to recreate them again. The work is creating the in engine versions and updating the engine.

[randombs]

I think that if 48fps films like The Hobbit catch on and become more common, it may persuade/force devs to look into higher frame rates for their games. It wouldn't do for all these big-budget games to look jerkier than films, after all.

What happened to that groovy 30/60fps frame-blending tech the Star Wars Rogue Something guy was working on? I quite liked where that was going...

[JU!]

What has Lorne Lanning even been up to for the past 10 odd years?



Very much doubt it. I think the camera exists mostly for feature parity with the Xbone. I'm sure you'll be absolutely fine with just a Dualshock 4.

Cheers. Was bugging me thinking if I need to spend more on Accessories. As I'd rather start a PS+ Account and get free Drive Club game.

[sj33]

Force Unleashed 2, I think? I think they used a rather unique technique where rather than rendering 60 unique frames per second, they utilised some kind of frame doubling post-processing technique to 'fake' it, similar to the post-processing video filters that do a similar thing. I've not seen it myself though.

[Resonance]

Wasn't there a load of backlash against the 48 fps Hobbit?

[sj33]

I didn't see The Hobbit in 48fps, but there's no inherent reason why 48fps films should look worse when you consider that 24fps only looks smoother because of motion blurring. You can see this quite clearly yourself if you pause a DVD, it's almost impossible to get a totally 'clean' frame'. I am aware of the backlash though, of course.

Then again, I would argue that gaming is a different matter. People take either take or leave the difference between 24fps and 48fps in a film, but it's different with a game because you actually feel the difference. It's not merely a difference on how it looks, but also how it plays - the game is twice as responsive because the input lag is lower, eliminating the 'muddy' feel that games can suffer from in lower framerate games.

[Neon Ignition]

Yup, 48fps looks to be the fad that never was in cinema which doesn't bother me as Hobbit often loomed worse for its use. I can settle for 30fps as long as its consistent which seems a rare thing but with Battlefield making the push for it and Nintendo striving to have more games at 60fps in 1080p there's signs that it might not be every game but there should be more that make the mark than this gen managed

[Widegoat]

You can see this quite clearly yourself if you pause a DVD, it's almost impossible to get a totally 'clean' frame'. I am aware of the backlash though, of course.

I'm sure that you know this, but in case there are others that don't - the "cleanness" or "lack of blur" on any frame of 24p film (including when the film is correctly telecined to PAL DVD) is derived by the shutter speed used on the camera that filmed the content, not the playback frame rate. An example here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...7sUhtAVY#t=73s

For most film or video viewers some motion blur is desirable - hence the voiceover in that video talking about the "sharp" picture on the right being compromised, whereas in games the debate rages on. Obviously, individual frames rendered by games at 60 per second with no motion blur will look as crisp as those rendered without motion blur at 30 frames per second. As future displays are able to cope with higher and higher refresh rates, I'd call first for consistency in a game's frame rate before a higher frequency of frames.

[Neon Ignition]

http://www.computerandvideogames.com/416010/sony-holding-back-new-ps4-titles-for-gamescom/

Sony set to reveal at least one new game for PS4 from themselves at Gamescom

[Harry]

I hope there's a new Wipeout on the way, I loved HD+Fury.

[djtickle]

Gotta be a new Ridge Racer