nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Playstation 4 Or Xbox One? (See mod warning in the first post)

deadybai

*NB*

See mod warning here: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=88945474&postcount=2483

*NB*

Not sure if there is a poll for this. Just wondering which one will you plan on getting?

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Captain Chaos

irishmover wrote: »

They're really riding that IP train at this stage..

Call of Duty is on 9 or 10 or something at this stage, that IP is milked to sh!t. At least Halo has a story line through it and the RTS Halo game was very decent. Halo 4 was the start of the Reclaimer trilogy so there will be a Halo 6.

Halo Reach provided the back story to Cortana and the last of the Spartan 2 soldiers so I don't see any filler in the IP except maybe ODST.

irishmover

Captain Chaos wrote: »

Call of Duty is on 9 or 10 or something at this stage, that IP is milked to sh!t. At least Halo has a story line through it and the RTS Halo game was very decent. Halo 4 was the start of the Reclaimer trilogy so there will be a Halo 6.

Halo Reach provided the back story to Cortana and the last of the Spartan 2 soldiers so I don't see any filler in the IP except maybe ODST.

Call of duty is on all platforms so a bit different. Halo is somewhat Xbox exclusive and some of the franchise wasn't released on PC right? It's their big seller for their Xbox in my opinion whereas Call of Duty you can buy on anything.

I do get what you're saying that IP's are just run into the ground. Sure why not if people still want to buy the game.

I liked Halo but did stop playing it after 3. Halo Combat Evolved is still one of my all time favorite games.

Pushtrak

Mal-Adjusted wrote: »

Halo: Combat Evolved
Halo 2
Halo 3
Halo 3: ODST
Halo: Reach
Halo: Anniversary
Halo 4

With Halo 2 Anniversary and Halo 5, along with that one that, what was it, Spartan Assault? And Halo Wars... There has been a lot done with the franchise.

Haven't played that Spartan Assault or whatever, but I've never thought any of them were bad games. Have had a lot of fun with the lot of 'em.

photofinish

Xbox 360 was the best console of the last generation it had the best exclusives in my opinion and Multi-platform games ran better on it most of the time.

This generation we have had Forza 5 with less cars less tracks and a €60 car pack on day one.
Ryse was hack and slash rubbish.

Multi-plarform games run reduced frame rates or in 720P.

I have switched to PS4 and while it's exclusives are nothing to write home about either the console is already shown the power gap is huge on titles like Tomb Raider.

3rdDegree

beercr8te wrote: »

i had a look at forza 5 while in Smyths Galway last year and I have to say the game looked awful, lots of jaggies and that's a 1080p game! I thought it was a 360 game.
.

Agree, it looks appalling for so called next gen, but it is very enjoyable to play.

norrie rugger

honestly the 360 exclusives never had me justifying a purchase.

cloud493

Halo isn't nearly milked as call of duty (for me) at least halo is still compelling enough to keep me buying./ There's been what, 9 halo games? in 13 years. Compared to... if you include the spin offs and what not, at least 20 call of dutys, with over priced DLC.

CiDeRmAn

photofinish wrote: »

Xbox 360 was the best console of the last generation it had the best exclusives in my opinion and Multi-platform games ran better on it most of the time.

This generation we have had Forza 5 with less cars less tracks and a €60 car pack on day one.
Ryse was hack and slash rubbish.

Multi-plarform games run reduced frame rates or in 720P.

I have switched to PS4 and while it's exclusives are nothing to write home about either the console is already shown the power gap is huge on titles like Tomb Raider.

As much as I've enjoyed my 360, and I really have, the PS3 has really come up trumps over the last few years.
To suggest that the 360 has the best exclusives is simply wrong, in my opinion at least.
Certainly while I can appreciate Halo and Gears of War, the PS3 had Uncharted, Last of Us, God of War, Little Big Planet, Demons Souls, Journey.
And to say that the 360 had all the best multiplatform ports is false too, there may have been a few high profile titles, like Bioshock, that showed some PS3 porting issues, overall there was little or no difference between the two platforms, and the choice came down to taste, if you wanted a Bluray, media playing prowess or which controller you preferred.

Certainly if reliability was a concern then the PS3 would have been your man, seeing as I'm on my 4th 360 and my 2nd PS3.

jackthetrader

I think it was the fact that xbox live was so better than PS for so long helped the 360. Plus the fact that when the PS3 first came out, developers didnt have a clue how to develop for its cell structure.MS released the 360, a system that had major problems but they got away with it cause Sony were so hapless

Grayditch

Bought the girlfriend a PS4 with Knack. It's surprisingly not terrible. It's fairly bland, but I really appreciate that you need good timing for the combat.

beercr8te

Grayditch wrote: »

Bought the girlfriend a PS4 with Knack. It's surprisingly not terrible. It's fairly bland, but I really appreciate that you need good timing for the combat.

I found knack ok, kids loved it especially with co op.

CiDeRmAn

jackthetrader wrote: »

I think it was the fact that xbox live was so better than PS for so long helped the 360. Plus the fact that when the PS3 first came out, developers didnt have a clue how to develop for its cell structure.MS released the 360, a system that had major problems but they got away with it cause Sony were so hapless

What major problems? Aside from reliability.
I had one from launch and it was a cracking machine.
Best controller of that gen as well.
Sony weren't hapless, they had no console to compete until much later.

jenjenten

both of them consoles dont even have media playback....ffs!

COYVB

beercr8te wrote: »

hopefully the 360's Titanfall is good

well... it's not being developed by respawn, so that might not be a good sign to start with

Otacon

COYVB wrote: »

beercr8te wrote: »

hopefully the 360's Titanfall is good.

well... it's not being developed by respawn, so that might not be a good sign to start with

The 360 version is being done by Bluepoint Games, who handled the frankly excellent HD ports of MGS2 and 3, as well as the Ico/SOTC collections. I'm quite confident that the 360 version won't be terrible because of this.

wrt40

CiDeRmAn wrote: »

It seems to be quite common these days for there to be a campaign of hate against relatively random things.
I can think of several films, games and now consoles that have been the unfair victim of this behaviour.
In this instance MS made a fundamental error in the nature of the relationship between console, software and the user/buyer.
They copped on, watching the clever exploitation of the mistake by Sony and the massive backlash by the press and bloggers.
They more than corrected their mistake but the blood was in the water and since then we've had to suffer people who assume the ability to see the future informing us ignorant masses of their wisdom in knowing definitively that the Xbox One is doomed, a terrible piece of hardware with sub standard games and to all ignore it and buy the PS4 instead.

What a load of cobblers.

The hope seems to be by affecting opinion in places like this, using weak and often anecdotal information, to spread a wave of uncertainty about the Xbox One and it's future.
The reasons would seem not to be in the spirit of some altruism but rather to feel superior and, if all goes right, to be able to brag how right they were and why we should worship their opinion in all future matters.

Numptys.

I know it has been a while since your comment, but looking back at it now I would have to say that the naysayers have got it right about the xbox one having inferior hardware. The vast majority of games are ports, and they're simply not porting well to the xbox. Developers are not going to spend time trying to tweak things for the xbox with esram or cloud computers, they're simply going to drop the resolution and frame rate. this is a major concern, for the likes of myself who is still watching the race unfold before I decide which console to get, it has me worried because I really like all the other features that come with the xbox, but at the end of the day its about playing games and with my next TV likely to be a 4K TV in the next 2-3 years, 720p 24fps is going to be absolute pants on a 4K 55+inch TV. It's simply not good enough. They can get as clever as they want by utilising cloud servers and esram on their exclusives, but the vast majority of games are PC ports and there is absolutely nothing they can do about it because it's a hardware problem. Xbox have recognised this, they are dropping the 8% GPU reserve for Kinect, but there are doubts that an extra 8% GPU power will be good enough.

It's not all bad for them though. They can flex their muscles with exclusives and the centre of your living room approach is a big plus for those who want more than just gaming. To be honest I think Sony's success is more to do with Microsofts over ambition rather than Sony having built the better console. Microsoft are the only ones genuinely trying to push the limits and develop something genuinely next-gen. There is nothing next-gen about the PS4. It's just a badly spec'ed PC. They'll always better the xbox when it comes to ported games, but that's all it has going for it.

For someone still trying to decide, it's still a difficult choice. I really want Microsoft to find some sort of solution for the resolution fiasco, so that I can comfortably buy an Xbox one. On the other hand I'm thinking, PS4 is clearly winning the race, but if I'm going to buy a PS4 I'd rather just buy a steambox, it'll have the same PC games but with better graphics. Isn't that the reason PS4 is better? So I'm asking myself why settle for an inferior PS4 when I can get a PC\steambox?! As I see it the PS4 as absolutely nothing else in it's favour other than better resolution on ported games.

Grayditch

Just go with the system that has the games you like in development. The Steambox won't have a PS4 exclusives. If the planned PS4 exclusives don't interest you, I'd go for the Steambox. PC will obviously have it's own exclusives. And more of them. I think I'll get a steambox at some stage myself and still use my PS4. It's a different beast altogether in terms of the experience. My friends don't play on PC, so I'd be gaming with strangers and I like my PS friends list.

kunst nugget

Grayditch wrote: »

Just go with the system that has the games you like in development. The Steambox won't have a PS4 exclusives. If the planned PS4 exclusives don't interest you, I'd go for the Steambox. PC will obviously have it's own exclusives. And more of them. I think I'll get a steambox at some stage myself and still use my PS4. It's a different beast altogether in terms of the experience. My friends don't play on PC, so I'd be gaming with strangers and I like my PS friends list.

Out of curiosity how much would a cheap but effective steam box set you back. I was looking at the one that IGN put together but at $1,400, that's a little rich for my blood.

johnny_ultimate

wrt40 wrote: »

For someone still trying to decide, it's still a difficult choice. I really want Microsoft to find some sort of solution for the resolution fiasco, so that I can comfortably buy an Xbox one. On the other hand I'm thinking, PS4 is clearly winning the race, but if I'm going to buy a PS4 I'd rather just buy a steambox, it'll have the same PC games but with better graphics. Isn't that the reason PS4 is better? So I'm asking myself why settle for an inferior PS4 when I can get a PC\steambox?! As I see it the PS4 as absolutely nothing else in it's favour other than better resolution on ported games.

You've based your entire post about the completely incorrect assumption theory that everyone is choosing a console based solely on graphics and raw hardware. No, it's because the consoles will offer (and already do, albeit obviously at a very low rate at this early stage) games that people want to play. For the social aspect, or the comfort, maybe, but predominantly the games. When it comes down to it, if a great game is a great game, no-ones care whether it's in 4K or 480p resolution - obviously it's nice to see developers aim for 1080p with this new tech, but if resolution is a definitive, no leeway 'deal breaker' than you're on a different page to a hell of a lot of other gamers.

Retr0gamer

kunst nugget wrote: »

Out of curiosity how much would a cheap but effective steam box set you back. I was looking at the one that IGN put together but at $1,400, that's a little rich for my blood.

Just get a PC or build one yourself. Building a PC these days is like putting lego together. It will work out cheaper. the steamboxes are really just PC's with fancy cases as far as I can see aimed at the more money than sense market. I've a hand me down PC from a friend hooked up to my TV with a 360 controller and wireless keyboard and mouse combo. Seems to be handling most games at close to PS4 levels.

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

You've based your entire post about the completely assumption theory that everyone is choosing a console based solely on graphics and raw hardware. No, it's because the consoles will offer (and already do, albeit obviously at a very low rate at this early stage) games that people want to play. For the social aspect, or the comfort, maybe, but predominantly the games. When it comes down to it, if a great game is a great game, no-ones care whether it's in 4K or 480p resolution - obviously it's nice to see developers aim for 1080p with this new tech, but if resolution is a definitive, no leeway 'deal breaker' than you're on a different page to a hell of a lot of other gamers.

You're going to see an arms race to get the best graphics soon. Just like with last gen you'll see developers settle for 30fps 720p to get post processing and lighting levels up with a few rare exceptions with Nintendo and Platinum games. I think the trade off between the power you get back from 720p compared to 1080p outweighs the resolution gain in many developers eyes. Strange to think the WiiU wil be keeping the 60fps 1080p dream alive

kunst nugget

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

You've based your entire post about the completely assumption theory that everyone is choosing a console based solely on graphics and raw hardware. No, it's because the consoles will offer (and already do, albeit obviously at a very low rate at this early stage) games that people want to play. For the social aspect, or the comfort, maybe, but predominantly the games. When it comes down to it, if a great game is a great game, no-ones care whether it's in 4K or 480p resolution - obviously it's nice to see developers aim for 1080p with this new tech, but if resolution is a definitive, no leeway 'deal breaker' than you're on a different page to a hell of a lot of other gamers.

I think a lot of people are obviously going to pick their console based on brand loyalty but I think a lot of the undecideds who didn't buy at launch are going to be looking at what they feel edges the different consoles - for some it's going to be the exclusives and for some it's going to be graphics power. I do think a lot of people would be unhappy at buying a next gen console that couldn't pump it out graphically at full power. There's probably a fair few Xbox 360 owners contemplating Steam boxes rather than an Xbox one based on the reports coming out about the xbox one's underperformance.

wrt40

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

You've based your entire post about the completely incorrect assumption theory that everyone is choosing a console based solely on graphics and raw hardware. No, it's because the consoles will offer (and already do, albeit obviously at a very low rate at this early stage) games that people want to play. For the social aspect, or the comfort, maybe, but predominantly the games. When it comes down to it, if a great game is a great game, no-ones care whether it's in 4K or 480p resolution - obviously it's nice to see developers aim for 1080p with this new tech, but if resolution is a definitive, no leeway 'deal breaker' than you're on a different page to a hell of a lot of other gamers.

Not everyone is basing it purely on graphics and hardware, which is why I have to ask the question, what else does the PS4 have to offer? Believe me I've done extensive research on this, I'm only going to buy one of them so I want to get the best one, and it's hard to find any arguments other than the PS4 has better hardware, higher resolution and is therefore the better console....oh and Xbox One is ****e and may Microsoft burn in hell. A few people say they prefer the PS4 exclusive games, but the vast majority are arguing over hardware.

That is not my argument, I'm looking for something more than just higher resolution on ported games. What I'm saying is if I was to take the PS4 argument and base my decision on the PS4 having better hardware and therefore better graphics, if that is what I'm basing my decision on then why settle for a PS4 when I can go further with a decent spec'ed PC or steambox? What I want to know is what exactly does the PS4 have to offer other than higher resolution?

I have to say I'm disappointed that the PS4 is doing better than the xbox because Sony have brought absolutely nothing new to the generation. Its just a PS3 with better graphics, or a PC with poorer graphics. I'm also disappointed that Microsoft did a U-turn on their always on, disc-less strategy. Some blogs are now suggesting they may be coming out with a Kinect-less console in the future, another U-turn? I want to see all the next-gen features being used, not abandoned. Overall this generation of consoles is shaping up to be a huge disappointment. Going the PC route is now a serious consideration for me.

Retr0gamer

If you are an early adopter you are going to be disappointed. Usually the first year involves jumping to the next overhyped game that you will look back in years to come and question how you got any enjoyment out of them at all, thats if you even remember them. Of course there'll be the odd gem but they are few and far between. I'd wait until at least christmas before making a decision and there's bound to be new projects revealed at E3 in May.

Grayditch

Early adopter, not disappointed. Hugely helped by the F2P and PsPlus games, though. They've helped pad out a barren selection, to keep me happy for the moment.

wrt40

Grayditch wrote: »

Just go with the system that has the games you like in development.

That is good advice, thanks. Have to say, there is nothing really taking my fancy at the moment. Saw an indie old school X-out type shooter game on the playstation that took me back to my youth, It's not enough to base my decision on though and other than that nothing has made me think that's pretty cool. On Xbox, Titanfall does not interest me in the slightest nor Halo (done to death). They're just the same old same running around getting ass kicked by UK kids with super fast fibre optic broadband. Getting killed before you have even met your opponent gets very tedious after a while. If I get fibre optic soon then maybe online gaming might start to interest me again, but that's unlikely anytime soon.

Grayditch

wrt40 wrote: »

Saw an indie old school X-out type shooter game on the playstation that took me back to my youth, It's not enough to base my decision on though and other than that nothing has made me think that's pretty cool.

That's Resogun. It was funny, on day one, everyone that had a PS4 on my list was using their 400 quid console to play that all day, including me. I don't think it was an important game to anyone until they loaded it up. Not nearly a dealbreaker, but a cool surprise for a lot of people.

Rossin

wrt40 wrote: »

That is good advice, thanks. Have to say, there is nothing really taking my fancy at the moment. Saw an indie old school X-out type shooter game on the playstation that took me back to my youth, It's not enough to base my decision on though and other than that nothing has made me think that's pretty cool. On Xbox, Titanfall does not interest me in the slightest nor Halo (done to death). They're just the same old same running around getting ass kicked by UK kids with super fast fibre optic broadband. Getting killed before you have even met your opponent gets very tedious after a while. If I get fibre optic soon then maybe online gaming might start to interest me again, but that's unlikely anytime soon.

I have 0.5mb connection and I never noticed this happening!

johnny_ultimate

wrt40 wrote: »

Not everyone is basing it purely on graphics and hardware, which is why I have to ask the question, what else does the PS4 have to offer?

Along with the key multiplatform / console only titles on the way (take your pick there), exclusive titles like Resogun, The Witness, Everybody's Gone to the Rapture, Uncharted and Lily Bergamo (some of the ones I'm personally interested in). Sony's increasingly vocal commitment to indie games, as well as the pledged support of the likes of Jonathan Blow and The Chinese Room, fills me with confidence that the console won't be short of interesting, inventive titles. That was what sold the console to me, and it's a pledge Microsoft have struggled to replicate. Playstation Plus copies of Resogun, Don't Starve and Outlast have already indicated a significant statement of intent on Sony's behalf that I greatly appreciate. Obviously there'll be crossover between PC and console, and countless PC only exclusives, but that's been the same with every single console generation thus far.

It's early days yet, and I think it'd be crazy for anyone to expect either of the consoles to come into their own for another year or so. Anyone on the fence I'd happily recommend waiting until E3 and maybe even well beyond to see what's in store, and make an educated guess accordingly. But IMO a deciding factor at this early stage was Sony's commitment to offering a range of imaginative, independent software, and even at this early stage they're putting that promise into action.

wrt40

Grayditch wrote: »

Early adopter, not disappointed. Hugely helped by the F2P and PsPlus games, though. They've helped pad out a barren selection, to keep me happy for the moment.

this is what I'm talking about, I need to hear what else it has to offer other than the tedious hardware debate. Can you give some more info on what is available on the PS network? How does it stack up against Xbox Live? (maybe someone with both can answer that).

wrt40

Rossin wrote: »

I have 0.5mb connection and I never noticed this happening!

Everything may look ok on your end, but from their end you are already dead by the time you've met them on your end, if that makes sense :-) I'm sure they've improved the algorithm for pairing like with like, in fact I think Xbox live on Xbox One has done huge improvements with pairing like with like on all aspects, playing skill, broadband, region etc Don't hear a lot of talk about the PS network, maybe because it's not all that good? Anyone care to comment?