Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
The1Dickens

Xbox Series X

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, Zando Bob said:

.... Yes. No. That's DSR (same as in-game, you can use it on the whole monitor itself), and I specifically said I didn't want to do that because I can't switch back easily while in-game. I forget the name in AMD's control panel, but it does the same thing, and I don't do it for the same reason, I can't switch back easily while in-game. 

Okay... sure I guess, but that would work with every game, and if your FPS is still high I don't know what the problem would be. I did it when playing Firewatch at 1440 on my 1080. Looked nice, but dropped my FPS too much.

 

4 hours ago, leadeater said:

Not all games have a selection possibility where you can pick different display/window resolution to the render resolution, that ability is quite new in fact. A lot of games pick texture resolution based on display resolution. I have games with only one graphic setting drop down, low/medium/high. That's it, and on top of that the resolution does effect the settings. Not all games give you all options or control of them, these may not be your bigger titles but if we just go purely by number of games that exist big titles are actually not the majority of the market.

I... never said that was common ... and I've NEVER seen a game pick graphics options based on resolution, from 1998 to today. Even games with a simple low/medium/high shouldn't be tied to resolution, and I've never seen a game only have low/medium/high without a resolution option, unless it just matched whatever your Windows registers it as.

 

31 minutes ago, Brooksie359 said:

I doubt that would be the case for red dead redemption 2 the game that I said was a bad example. 

One of the most graphically intensive games in recent years looks virtually identical on PC and Xbox.

Bad example.

 

...okay.

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, JZStudios said:

Okay... sure I guess, but that would work with every game, and if your FPS is still high I don't know what the problem would be. I did it when playing Firewatch at 1440 on my 1080. Looked nice, but dropped my FPS too much.

 

I... never said that was common ... and I've NEVER seen a game pick graphics options based on resolution, from 1998 to today. Even games with a simple low/medium/high shouldn't be tied to resolution, and I've never seen a game only have low/medium/high without a resolution option, unless it just matched whatever your Windows registers it as.

 

One of the most graphically intensive games in recent years looks virtually identical on PC and Xbox.

Bad example.

 

...okay.

They don't look identical lol. And don't show me a 4k video on YouTube saying otherwise because that is not the same as what you would see running it on a pc. I have the game and it does not look like the console version at 4k. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, JZStudios said:

and I've NEVER seen a game pick graphics options based on resolution

There's a lot of them, usually ports or low budget games or ones where graphic settings legit don't matter like RTS/TBS games where the asset quality is crap regardless (got heaps of these).

 

46 minutes ago, JZStudios said:

Even games with a simple low/medium/high shouldn't be tied to resolution

That doesn't mean this doesn't exist, should and is are not the same thing. One could spend the effort to give you those options or they could choose not to because the game isn't COD 234 Re-Remaster 2040. And now lately we have started getting extra things that get in the way like Maximum vram setting so things scale down which ever way the game feels like to meet that setting so you have no good idea what your texture resolution or LoD is at any given point in time because it changes.

 

I wasn't saying your original statement was wrong in grander sense, it's just that there are games that do have limited options and scale settings based on resolution. Plus the point about display resolution and render resolution being tied for so long to most people that is effectively the same thing, which it isn't. 

 

46 minutes ago, JZStudios said:

unless it just matched whatever your Windows registers it as

That's exactly how it's done, and boarderless Window only matched to display resolution. Pain in the ass.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, leadeater said:

There's a lot of them, usually ports or low budget games or ones where graphic settings legit don't matter like RTS/TBS games where the asset quality is crap regardless (got heaps of these).

So shitty games are the standard we're going for here?

2 hours ago, leadeater said:

That doesn't mean this doesn't exist, should and is are not the same thing. One could spend the effort to give you those options or they could choose not to because the game isn't COD 234 Re-Remaster 2040. And now lately we have started getting extra things that get in the way like Maximum vram setting so things scale down which ever way the game feels like to meet that setting so you have no good idea what your texture resolution or LoD is at any given point in time because it changes.

Again, shitty games from assumingly indie devs (Again I have games dating back to 1994 that don't have this issue) is not what we're discussing. I only have a handful of strategy games, but even Fantasy General (1996) and Civ 3 (2004) don't have that issue. At absolute worst, something running in DosBox like Tyrian 200 and Fantasy General just have a set resolution that gets scaled to your monitor. Either way, I've never seen either of these things you're describing.

Hell, Splinter Cell (2002) actually works perfectly fine natively at triple screen 5760x1080. And that's an OG Xbox port.

3 hours ago, leadeater said:

That's exactly how it's done, and borderless Window only matched to display resolution. Pain in the ass.

...sure. Why is it a pain in the ass to just run the game at native resolution?

 

3 hours ago, Brooksie359 said:

They don't look identical lol. And don't show me a 4k video on YouTube saying otherwise because that is not the same as what you would see running it on a pc. I have the game and it does not look like the console version at 4k. 

They literally zoom in on details, and outside of anisotropic filtering it's virtually identical.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, JZStudios said:

shitty games from assumingly indie devs

Tell that to Square Enix console ports 😏

 

2 hours ago, JZStudios said:

...sure. Why is it a pain in the ass to just run the game at native resolution?

Because even if a Crossfire profile does not exist you cannot force on Crossfire in Boarderless Window only Exclusive Fullscreen. Yea I do care.

 

2 hours ago, JZStudios said:

So shitty games are the standard we're going for here?

No you said such a thing does not exist, yes it does. No need to blow it out to all, like damn it in my first comment I explicitly said exception to the rule. Did I need to bold that? Honestly I don't think you need you need to reply, it's not adding anything more to this. You seem to think I'm saying more than I actually am. It's my problem that my game library is full of games that have terrible graphics options, that's how I know it's a thing.

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, JZStudios said:

So shitty games are the standard we're going for here?

Again, shitty games from assumingly indie devs (Again I have games dating back to 1994 that don't have this issue) is not what we're discussing. I only have a handful of strategy games, but even Fantasy General (1996) and Civ 3 (2004) don't have that issue. At absolute worst, something running in DosBox like Tyrian 200 and Fantasy General just have a set resolution that gets scaled to your monitor. Either way, I've never seen either of these things you're describing.

Hell, Splinter Cell (2002) actually works perfectly fine natively at triple screen 5760x1080. And that's an OG Xbox port.

...sure. Why is it a pain in the ass to just run the game at native resolution?

 

They literally zoom in on details, and outside of anisotropic filtering it's virtually identical.

I have the game and a 4k monitor it is not the same at all. Showing footage on YouTube is going to look different than it does in person because detail is lost in the process of recording and uploading to youtube so a bad way to compare. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/12/2019 at 7:19 PM, Caroline said:

paid online and you can't "verify" games without being online

 

consoles are a joke

If you're on PC, NO ONE is buying disks for that. You HAVE to be online to get a game for PC. To verify, you have to be online for PC. YES, you don't need to pay for online services but you can pay for certain gaming services if you want. PC you do get a choice for that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

To me, it looks like we are going for a standing desk top type of console. It's turning into more of a PC. This machine is like a home theater PC. Unless I was going cheap, I would use an xbox for home theater experience. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Sharp_3yE said:

If you're on PC, NO ONE is buying disks for that. You HAVE to be online to get a game for PC. To verify, you have to be online for PC. YES, you don't need to pay for online services but you can pay for certain gaming services if you want. PC you do get a choice for that.

no one is buying discs because companies stopped offering games in said format because they think the whole world has 1Gbps internet but thing is world=south korea+japan+western europe+US for them.

 

Lets say I have a tendency to... uhh... avoid game validations

 

cPn7PUY.gif


I tend to reply with memes because I lack social skills and don't know how to express myself correctly.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Caroline said:

no one is buying discs because companies stopped offering games in said format because they think the whole world has 1Gbps internet but thing is world=south korea+japan+western europe+US for them.

Not even that, the entire midwest US has relatively slow and limited internet.

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, JZStudios said:

Not even that, the entire midwest US has relatively slow and limited internet.

the ENTIRE midwest USA, really

that is news to me

what kind of speeds are they maxxing out at?

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, amdorintel said:

the ENTIRE midwest USA, really

that is news to me

what kind of speeds are they maxxing out at?

It's not the entire Midwest, it's just that the Midwest has a lot of stretches of rural land and rural areas never get good choices. 

 

Any (or at least most) urban or suburban area in the Midwest will have the usual duopoly of Comcast/Verizon and then some other shittier local ISP. On Comcast I get 100/12 for $70 a month, and they have plenty of plans in my area up to 2 gigabit, I believe.

 

If you live out past the suburbs, though, you're probably stuck with either satellite or dialup. Maybe DSL if you're lucky. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Waffles13 said:

It's not the entire Midwest, it's just that the Midwest has a lot of stretches of rural land and rural areas never get good choices. 

 

Any (or at least most) urban or suburban area in the Midwest will have the usual duopoly of Comcast/Verizon and then some other shittier local ISP. On Comcast I get 100/12 for $70 a month, and they have plenty of plans in my area up to 2 gigabit, I believe.

 

If you live out past the suburbs, though, you're probably stuck with either satellite or dialup. Maybe DSL if you're lucky. 

can confirm, Midwesterner with satellite here


Spoiler

My system is the Dell Inspiron 15 5559 Microsoft Signature Edition

                         The Austrailian king of LTT said that I'm awesome and a funny guy. the greatest psu list known to man DDR3 ram guide

                                                                                                               i got 477 posts in my first 30 days on LinusTechTips.com

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Waffles13 said:

If you live out past the suburbs, though, you're probably stuck with either satellite or dialup. Maybe DSL if you're lucky. 

Yep.  Reason for a while I went back to a console.  No DSL nor cable.   Either you pay high prices for Sat with horrible data caps and pings or pay for a so called Unlimited plan with hotspot with a cellular company. 

 

On the topic of the upcoming Xbox, the shape don't really bother me, since I tend to just take any console, place it in a spot, and maybe only give it a glance when I power it on.  So, how one looks is not really a high priority in my opinion.  Of course, I be waiting out for when the console is officially out and reviews drop.  Curious when info for official specs will be released.


Just a nutty gal that abuse hardware with F@H and BOINC.

F@H & BOINC Installation on Linux Guide

My CPU Army: 4690K Delid, E5-2670V3, 1900X, 1950X, 5960X J Batch

My GPU Army:960 FTW at 1551MHz, 1080Ti FTW3, 1080Ti SC, 1070 Hybrid, 2x Titan XP

My Console Brigade: Gamecube, Wii, Wii U, Switch, PS2 Fatty, PS4 Pro, Xbox One S, Xbox One X

My Tablet Squad: iPad 9.7" (2018 model), Samsung Tab S, Nexus 7 (1st gen)

 

Hardware lost to Kevdog's Law of Folding

OG Titan, 5960X, ThermalTake BlackWidow 850 Watt PSU

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Waffles13 said:

It's not the entire Midwest, it's just that the Midwest has a lot of stretches of rural land and rural areas never get good choices. 

 

Any (or at least most) urban or suburban area in the Midwest will have the usual duopoly of Comcast/Verizon and then some other shittier local ISP. On Comcast I get 100/12 for $70 a month, and they have plenty of plans in my area up to 2 gigabit, I believe.

 

If you live out past the suburbs, though, you're probably stuck with either satellite or dialup. Maybe DSL if you're lucky. 

It really depends on the specific city. I live in rural parts of MN and where I’m out our “best” option is CenturyLink DSL. It maxes out at 30mbs and is not terribly reliable. However, some cities around me have better internet and one even has Spectrum with 100mbs connections. So the Midwest is really a city-by-city basis.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/12/2019 at 9:19 PM, Caroline said:

paid online and you can't "verify" games without being online

 

consoles are a joke

What are you talking about? Console games don’t require you to go online to do anything except get updates. You can pop in a disc, wait for the install, and play while being offline.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×