Started Sacred 2. The game looks beautiful! So colorful. It has dynamic weather, day/night cycle, customization options up the wazoo and I GET TO LOOK LIKE A SLUT NO MATTER WHAT I WEAR!

I've been told this game is MASSIVE, so I'll stick to main quest.

Artpop came out today, so I bought it. I have listened to it twice now, and I still don't quite know what to make of it, lol. It's very different' from Gaga's earlier stuff.

Ravenprose said:

Artpop came out today, so I bought it. I have listened to it twice now, and I still don't quite know what to make of it, lol. It's very different' from Gaga's earlier stuff.

I like Applause...

Can anyone think of any genuine (mainstream) exploitation games other than Call of Duty? I'm playing 4 again, and nothing really comes even close.

Stuff like Overkill isn't really exploitation. It's a conscious imitation of exploitation. Related: the drone scene in Spec Ops is pure horsehit.

Face-Off: Call of Duty: Ghosts

With Infinity Ward back at the helm, Xbox 360 owners are in familiar territory with an approximate 1024x600 framebuffer favoured by the developer's previous Call of Duty titles, while the PS3 version features a considerably murkier presentation more closely matching that of Black Ops 2, with native resolution coming in at just 860x600, resulting a soft-focused image. The use of 2xMSAA is present on both formats, and the technique tames some of the harsh edges that appear on-screen to a degree, at least on chunkier details. Sub-pixel crawling still is a common occurrence in both versions on distant objects, though, with artefacts appearing more prominently on the PS3 where the MSAA algorithm tends to break more often.

On the other hand, there are no surprises with the Treyarch-developed Wii U version of Call of Duty: Ghosts, which opts for the same 880x720 resolution as Black Ops 2 and is also joined by the inclusion of 2x multi-sampling anti-aliasing. Of the three console editions, this version comes the closest to matching a native 720p presentation, with the more cleanly defined edges providing a boost in sharpness over the 360 and PS3 versions. The 360 release does yield a smoother presentation due to the mild increase in softness from the heavier vertical upscale, but overall, it's Treyarch's take on sub-HD rendering that provides the most visually pleasing look among the current-gen consoles.

Besides the variance in overall image quality, the main difference between the current-gen consoles lies with how the artwork is presented on each platform. While the core assets are fundamentally identical across all consoles, both the PS3 and Wii U versions of Call of Duty: Ghosts feature a few problems where lower-resolution textures are prominently displayed across characters and the environments. In many instances the impact of this is relatively minor and hard to notice beyond the occasional blurry poster or door texture, but at worst we see large walls and entire characters appearing on screen with what looks like lower-quality level-of-detail settings applied, sometimes on a permanent basis throughout a particular scene and even a whole level. This is particularly prevalent on the Wii U game, where the drop in artwork quality is much bigger and occurs far more frequently.

During the regular hectic shootouts and larger set-piece battle scenes, we see the Wii U game offering up between 30-45fps, with consistency fluctuating between those metrics. While the much lower level of performance doesn't kill the experience by any means, having the brief moments of 60fps gameplay regularly disrupted by variable and extended frame-rate drops completely changes the core feel of the experience, making it feel less like a Call of Duty game.

That said, there are also times when all three versions are reduced to a frame-rate hovering around the 30fps mark for an extended period of time.

------------

Another lacking U port. Seriously what excuse is there after NFS U for less detailed textures? And they managed to do it without an install and it took them 10 minutes.

edit:

Team Treyarch have already stated on their forums that a frame rate fix for Wii U is in the next update along with several bug fixes and a surprise or 2.

edgecrusher said:

Fuck me running....

That has to be hard to do.

I will probably be down 200GB right away on the PS4.

Dragon Age 3 looks AMAZING!!!!!

IGN - http://www.ign.com/articles/2013/11/...-ghosts-review

Character customization, maps, dynamic events, weapons, gametypes, and constant 60fps multiplayer framerates are ubiquitous across current- and next-gen platforms. The biggest variations between platforms falls upon visuals and player counts. On the current-gen versions Ghosts looks nearly identical, though I did encounter occasional framerate issues during the single-player campaign on PS3 and PS4, whereas my time with the Xbox One version was stable throughout.


...

When comparing the PS4 and Xbox One versions side-by-side, there’s little to no variation in textures and effects, but there is a discernible difference in resolution. While both are displayed at 1080p, the Xbox One version upscales the game from 720p resolution. In contrast, the PS4 version runs natively at 1080p, which makes character models, weapons, and environments look noticeably sharper and more detailed. The difference is especially apparent on larger-sized TVs, where pixel density weighs more heavily in picture quality.


It’s certainly going to be a sticking point for those who demand the highest fidelity experience, but the difference is harder to identify in absence of a side-by-side comparison.


Oddly, the Xbox One version makes no use of the haptic feedback motors built into the controller’s triggers, and the DualShock 4’s trackpad is used solely as a button to toggle the in-game scoreboard during multiplayer.

VideoGamer- http://www.videogamer.com/xboxone/ca...lefield_4.html

Much has already been made of the shortcomings of the Xbox One version of Ghosts, and so it will probably come as no surprise to hear that the Xbone version is lacking in the visual department. It's not just resolution that has suffered, however, although that in itself is fairly disappointing.


In the single-player game, at least, texture quality can range from average to very poor, and geometry itself can look clipped and badly aliased, giving the game a jaggy, muddy look that does nothing to tell you that your £429 investment was a good one. In some cases, elements of the world look barely textured at all, as is the case when the battle cruiser is seen at the end of the 'Fort Santa Monica Beachhead' mission. It was so bad that I navigated to the dashboard to ensure that the machine had been set up correctly. It had...

Multiplayer also looks demonstrably worse than in the PS4 version, with similar problems afflicting the look of the game. Mechanically it is identical, and at least the game ran stable enough to keep me blaming myself and not the frame rate for any kills I may have suffered. (Although I had no problems with the PS4 build, some users are reporting frame rate issues on Sony's machine.)


Still, whether through rushed/overstretched development or hardware problems (or a combination of both), Ghosts has ended up looking (far, in some cases) worse on Microsoft's machine than on its direct rival.

Polygon- http://www.polygon.com/2013/11/5/505...-ghosts-review

While the Xbox One version of Call of Duty: Ghosts has been confirmed by Activision to run at a lower resolution than its PS4 counterpart (720p upscaled to 1080p native, respectively), that numerical difference is less meaningful than you might imagine.


The two versions look nearly identical. Viewing the Xbox One release next to the PS4 , I had difficulty telling them apart. It's possible that the PS4 version looked somewhat sharper, but that may have just been my imagination after confirming the hard resolution difference. The next-gen releases of Call of Duty: Ghosts are so close together that gun to my head, I'd have no confidence in being able to discern which version was which — at least, while the two are standing still.

The Xbox One release's framerate was far more noticeable. As mentioned in the initial review, Call of Duty: Ghosts suffers from consistent framerate drops on the PS4, especially during multiplayer when action got especially hectic. The Xbox One version suffered no such drops, maintaining a steady 60 frames per second throughout.


For a multiplayer shooter, framerate consistency is paramount. Given its relative visual parity with the PS4 release, Call of Duty: Ghosts is a more playable, slightly superior (albeit disappointing) game on Xbox One.