The Old PlayStation Thread | *NEW THREAD IS UP*

I want to get a hdr tv, but idk too many games that even support it. Forza horizon 3, battlefiel 1, gears 4, and shadow warrior 2 would be the only titles i'd be interested in trying it on. I'm seeing some good hdr 4k tvs for &
$800, but i'm seeing standard 4k LG tvs for $400~. Seems hard to justify hdr, until it becomes standard for all games.
it never did lol EA nor Bioware never showed much interest in remastering the games either 
ea has stated they'd make mass effect remasters, if it made sense. Then the made a reverse statement a little later.
 
Yea I've seen all I've needed to see on Dishonored 2. I might get it on sale in a couple yrs. WD2 I'm still waiting on my more trusted reviews
 
Last edited:
ea has stated they'd make mass effect remasters, if it made sense. Then the made a reverse statement a little later.
like i said they have not showed much interest in making a remaster and with the games being BC on X1 i doubt we will see it either way. although i would appreciate an ME1 remake because the first game is somewhat of a struggle to get through because of the dated gameplay mechanics. 
What lol, Dishonored got horrible reviews. Game needs a patch. AI is terrible. And WD2, well... after the first one no thanks Jeff.
i havent seen much bad things about dishonored 2. I've heard that the pc version has some issues but haven heard much about the console versions 
 
Wow I'm definitely in the same boat and mindset as you regarding getting more by selling our current Ps4, getting the pro and having a higher resale to get the Scorpio.

And in regards to 4k TVs. I had a 5 year old 46" Panasonic plasma which I loved, but I wanted to take the leap to 4k. I know 4k, HDR, and even the HDR10 vs Dolby vision are in their infancy right now, so it doesn't make sense to drop $$$ on a high end 4k tv. There's a good chance this year's Samsung TV's are rendered a money pit if Dolby Vision wins the HDR war.

So what I ended up doing was getting the 2015 Samsung 55JS7000. It has Wide Color Gamut but sadly its HDR 8 bit. I think its a nice little stop gap (especially since I got a great deal on it) to let me experience 4k, "kindof HDR", while waiting for OLED's to become mainstream.

I predict I'll upgrade my TV in 2-3years. p.s. The 55" LG OLED is currently being sold for $1500, so I can definitely see a 55"OLED being sold for around $1000k next year.

Yup you got the picture.Im no fanboy or brand loyal i got the ps4 because it was a clear choice when it was announced. But i also think Sony dropped the ball with the pro and gave M$ a chance to catch up with the scorpio.

So in other words. I am trying to get back as much as i can with my launch ps4, cop a pro, next year roll that pro money into a scorpio, if the pro is still the system competing with the scorpio than i will just buy a old used slim or another launch ps4 so i can still play the exclusives and im sure it will be very cheap to purchase a used one from GS.

But from what i can tell the PS Pro and XB1S are essentially up scalers hopefully the pro will change my mind after its been in the streets a little longer.
 
Last edited:
roll.gif
 
I know Ultra HD Premium is a standard used my manufacturers and the panel has to be 10 bit for it to be that standard.
I haven't heard of HDR premium though.

It is confusing because some TV's can accept HDR signals but don't have a wide colour gamut to show for it. I would also check if your TV spec says wide colour gamut.
What model is it?
Sony calls it "Dynamic 4K". Not all games are 4K but some of the remastered titles like TLOU and Skyrim are. 2K17 and FIFA 17 are also as well alongside a handful of indies.
The pro is doing a lot more than a TV's or Xbone S upscaler which upscale from 1080p or lower to 4K.

The pro depending on how it's used renders at a resolution higher than 1080p then uses checkerboard rendering or other techniques to get it to 4K.

Most games i've seen are rendering at 3200 x 1800p and then checkerboarding that to 4K which is 3840 x 2160p.

So while 1800p is not native 4K, the games look good still on a 4K TV because of the high resolution the pro is pushing and then techniques used to get it to 4K before being outputted on the screen.

If you do the math 3200 x 1800p is 4 times the resolution of 900p which a lot of games on current consoles run at. Mainly more on the Xbone but even stuff like the dice games run on 900p on PS4. So you can use that as a sort of metric even though not every game will use the same technique.

UN55KU7000FXZA That's the model of my tv
 
ok i see your point of view and understand stretching from a lower reso is not a good method. To ask a question about that process where is the pro getting the information to render at 1440p or 1800p to 4k?

to make my question clearer.

BF4 was 900P on the ps4 so if i pop that game in my pro will i be now rendering from 900p up to 4k or does these patches dropping for pro support giving you the 1440p or 1800p resolution and then the pro is rendering from there?

or whatever resolution ends up on any future games is where the pro will do its render,

so if a game drops in january called INDY with a resolution of 900p or 1080p the pro will render from those reso's?


Yes

For Battlefield 1, Digital Foundry says the highest they've seen it is 1656p, so it will be going from that to 4K.

Easier example is with FIFA which is native 4K once it detects you're running the game on pro so no need to upscale.

Future games will have pro support baked into the disc so they can detect which console the game is running on and use it's resources accordingly.
 
Metacritic is full of paid shills.
They take a bunch of reviews from various gaming sites and average it out. Same as Gamerankings, how is that crooked?

People get paid to post positive reviews on all gaming review sites.. shocker i know. Also you don't even need to own the game to leave a review. I can create a username right now and rate it 100 without playing a minute of it. Of course, there's no way around it and you can't stop it from happening, but IMO steam is a decent source when trying to get an idea of a specific game. In order to review on steam you need to first own the game, and since their latest update they restricted reviews from people who buy their games from third party vendors (humble bundle), and those who received keys from devs, i.e paid shills to filter out the BS. It's also why indie dev are *****ing about it now cause most indies are ****. Basically, you need to purchase the game off steam in order to leave a review.
 
Metacritic is full of paid shills.
They take a bunch of reviews from various gaming sites and average it out. Same as Gamerankings, how is that crooked?

People get paid to post positive reviews on all gaming review sites.. shocker i know. Also you don't even need to own the game to leave a review. I can create a username right now and rate it 100 without playing a minute of it. Of course, there's no way around it and you can't stop it from happening, but IMO steam is a decent source when trying to get an idea of a specific game. In order to review on steam you need to first own the game, and since their latest update they restricted reviews from people who buy their games from third party vendors (humble bundle), and those who received keys from devs, i.e paid shills to filter out the BS. It's also why indie dev are *****ing about it now cause most indies are ****. Basically, you need to purchase the game off steam in order to leave a review.

Dudes on NT get paid to write comments like this. I bet this dude is a negative shill. You even own the game fam? Show me your achievements list? Stay woke PS brethren.
 
People get paid to post positive reviews on all gaming review sites.. shocker i know. Also you don't even need to own the game to leave a review. I can create a username right now and rate it 100 without playing a minute of it. Of course, there's no way around it and you can't stop it from happening, but IMO steam is a decent source when trying to get an idea of a specific game. In order to review on steam you need to first own the game, and since their latest update they restricted reviews from people who buy their games from third party vendors (humble bundle), and those who received keys from devs, i.e paid shills to filter out the BS. It's also why indie dev are *****ing about it now cause most indies are ****. Basically, you need to purchase the game off steam in order to leave a review.
i still wouldn't trust a steam review tho. cant people who buy the game say whatever they want? i doubt many are giving constructive criticisms or insightful remarks about the game but then again i never really like reading customer reviews when it comes to games 
 
The whole point is anyone can say whatever they want everywhere. JPEG came in here and told people not to buy Dishonored 2 because it had negative reviews. Reviews by accredited critics have been very positive to which he claimed is only because everyone reviewing it got paid boatloads by Bethesda to do so.

He'd rather you go to Steam reviews (A PC review platform in the PS4 thread :lol ) because they're more trust worthy (according to him).

Here's the skinny. There have been scandals in the past with review shills. It's been shown time and time again that this has been a small minority of reviewers who once outed, are discredited and no longer work in the field. I've been hearing the "Man, these reviewers are paid for XXX game for a great review" since the ******* Gamepro days when I was 7 years old. It's old and tired.

If you've EVER played a Bethesda game in your life in the patching era you KNOW that out of the box even with a day one patch it's buggy and sometimes unplayable. You have to wait until the big patch drops 3 weeks to a month in before it's stable. Is that acceptable for a AAA developer? I don't think so, but it keeps happening and everyone keeps buying. (look forward to that 20 gig day one patch for FFXV everyone!)

If you take a look at the steam reviews you'll see that most complaints are about framerate and bugs and not about actual gameplay. Given how customizable PC's are this can be anything from the game being total bug filled mess to someone with a Pentium 4 and onboard video trying to play your game. Generally, it's a mixture of both. I would venture to guess that over 80% of the reviews on Steam right now are from people who haven't completed the game. Again, these are still reviews from the PC platform and not a uniform experience like the Xbox or Playstation.

Going back to Dishonored specifically, before the launch most of the community was up in arms saying it was going to get garbage reviews because of "reviewer backlash" that Bethesda didn't send out early copies. Now we got dudes saying they got paid to review it well. OK...

Wait 3 weeks for the patch and play it for yourself. Don't want to to risk it? Then pick it up when it goes on sale for $20. Then come in and give everyone your opinion about what you liked and disliked when you beat it or why you got bored and quit. That seems like a good way to talk about the quality of a game to me rather than passing off false facts.
 
Last edited:
Majority of steam reviews for new games seem a little entitled.
Games gotta have 21:9 support, overlay support, 60 fps, and crazy mouse support.

Generally things that don't even relate to actual gameplay or that devs don't really need to care about, since they're catering to consoles primarily.
I understand why they'd be pissed, since pcs can be costly. But they could just cop a console to negate some of the negatives of pc gaming, which to some eould be blasphemous.
 
Last edited:
Agreed. Once the patches get released the game is playable. I referenced steam cause the bulk of my games are on there. AAA titles from my experience have been kill on release.
 
Back
Top Bottom