PlayStation 4 Discussion

[redsox4evur]

Re: PlayStation 4 Discussion

I don't think they are just kid games and even if they are I don't think it is a bad thing to play those kind of games because it helps you to fell young again. That is why watching cartoons keeps you young to. I will be 27 in a few months and I fill old lol. Cartoons help me to not fill so old lol.

Exactly...I am still watching cartoons and playing kid's games, I am graduating college in a 6 weeks. I am heavily invested in going through Pokemon Yellow and Blue again on my 3DS. And on Netflix I am also watching the Pokemon cartoon that aired in the late 90's-early 00's. And I am still on the hunt for a complete DVD set of Rocket Power or just to find it to stream online.

[Blzer]

Re: PlayStation 4 Discussion

I don't know how people can say it is a gimmick and if it is a gimmick than so is 720 and 1080 lol. 4k looks amazing from what I have seen at bestbuy.

It's not a gimmick, but given the screen sizes there are definitely diminishing returns.

What's ironic is how many people told me I would not be able to distinguish 1080p from 720p unless I had a certain screen size, and now they're touting that you will be able to see 4K just fine.

For the record, I'm more than aware than 4K's square pixelage is 4x that of 1080p while 1080p is only 2.25x that of 720p, but that difference is still substantial. Also note that I can see the difference in 4K, but I can in 1080p as well. Strange when some people say things aren't worth it for certain screen sizes, but then have no trouble saying that for 4K.

Let's just put it this way: Let's say 8K comes out for 55" screens. Price aside, where will its value be? Let's even pretend there was content for it. It will be undeniably more impressive than 4K, but who will be in possession of its great value? Only people with 200" screens, I say.

Otherwise, as I said earlier, everything else simply yields diminishing returns. We're all well aware of this example here:

Spoiler

Or let's add some other light to it, such as framerate. People have no problem with 30 FPS versus the far superior 60 FPS (for whatever reason), but if a developer came out and claimed their game was developed with 120 FPS in mind, I would be a bit hesitant for whatever other visual sacrifices they may have made to make it happen. If other people would say to me, "Yeah, but dude that framerate!" its difference isn't as significant than that of 30-to-60 FPS. It would be there, most certainly... but its value is lost in comparison.

I see 4K as being the same thing for our current TV sizes. Personally, if I owned one I wouldn't be saying this probably, but I'm also validating a reason to hold onto my 362 Blu-ray movies of 1080p resolution.

In short, I won't dare go 4K unless I go OLED and a 70"+ screen size. If I'm going to make it worth it, I'll be sure to go all in. This would also start by getting a PS4K, but I also won't get that unless I'm intent on getting an additional PS4 anyway.

[DickDalewood]

Re: PlayStation 4 Discussion

This thread is setting the record for longest posts. The last 10 pages read like a Tolkien novel.

[daniel77733]

Re: PlayStation 4 Discussion

For the record, I don't think that 4K is a gimmick. I just don't see the point in releasing a new PS4 and using 4K to promote it when it's not natively 4K.

[dickey1331]

Re: PlayStation 4 Discussion

Don't we have a 4K thread? We certainly need one lol

[Smallville102001]

Re: PlayStation 4 Discussion

It's not a gimmick, but given the screen sizes there are definitely diminishing returns.

What's ironic is how many people told me I would not be able to distinguish 1080p from 720p unless I had a certain screen size, and now they're touting that you will be able to see 4K just fine.

For the record, I'm more than aware than 4K's square pixelage is 4x that of 1080p while 1080p is only 2.25x that of 720p, but that difference is still substantial. Also note that I can see the difference in 4K, but I can in 1080p as well. Strange when some people say things aren't worth it for certain screen sizes, but then have no trouble saying that for 4K.

Let's just put it this way: Let's say 8K comes out for 55" screens. Price aside, where will its value be? Let's even pretend there was content for it. It will be undeniably more impressive than 4K, but who will be in possession of its great value? Only people with 200" screens, I say.

Otherwise, as I said earlier, everything else simply yields diminishing returns. We're all well aware of this example here:



Or let's add some other light to it, such as framerate. People have no problem with 30 FPS versus the far superior 60 FPS (for whatever reason), but if a developer came out and claimed their game was developed with 120 FPS in mind, I would be a bit hesitant for whatever other visual sacrifices they may have made to make it happen. If other people would say to me, "Yeah, but dude that framerate!" its difference isn't as significant than that of 30-to-60 FPS. It would be there, most certainly... but its value is lost in comparison.

I see 4K as being the same thing for our current TV sizes. Personally, if I owned one I wouldn't be saying this probably, but I'm also validating a reason to hold onto my 362 Blu-ray movies of 1080p resolution.

In short, I won't dare go 4K unless I go OLED and a 70"+ screen size. If I'm going to make it worth it, I'll be sure to go all in. This would also start by getting a PS4K, but I also won't get that unless I'm intent on getting an additional PS4 anyway.

I have seen that example there that you just posted but I don't really understand why people think you need like a 70inch TV to really see a difference. I don't know maybe it is because I have a 720p TV that upscales to 1080p, and is not full 1080p but when I look at a 4k TV it looks night and day better to me than the TV I have, and that is even if it is like a 30inch 4k TV and I am not just a foot from it. So I don't think it is really true that you have to have a big TV and have to be really close to see the difference between 4k and 720p. But I also think 1080 is overrated because Bluray is 1080p and I really don't think it looks all that much better than any thing I get in HD on TV but again maybe that is because I don't have a full 1080p TV and also TV channels still doesn't broadcast in 1080p but only 1080i.

[Smallville102001]

Re: PlayStation 4 Discussion

For the record, I don't think that 4K is a gimmick. I just don't see the point in releasing a new PS4 and using 4K to promote it when it's not natively 4K.

I agree just want and have ps5 play real 4k games in less sony can make ps4 play 4k movies that is.

Don't we have a 4K thread? We certainly need one lol

I don't think we do and yes we do lol. I think the closest thing is just this talking going on in here and the TV thread.

[Blzer]

Re: PlayStation 4 Discussion

I have seen that example there that you just posted but I don't really understand why people think you need like a 70inch TV to really see a difference. I don't know maybe it is because I have a 720p TV that upscales to 1080p, and is not full 1080p but when I look at a 4k TV it looks night and day better to me than the TV I have, and that is even if it is like a 30inch 4k TV and I am not just a foot from it. So I don't think it is really true that you have to have a big TV and have to be really close to see the difference between 4k and 720p. But I also think 1080 is overrated because Bluray is 1080p and I really don't think it looks all that much better than any thing I get in HD on TV but again maybe that is because I don't have a full 1080p TV and also TV channels still doesn't broadcast in 1080p but only 1080i.

I said that's when the difference will be of substance to me. Hopefully you didn't just look at the picture and read the rest of my post, because above all else I'm one of the only people on here who wouldn't ever give graphs or readings on what size TV/distance I would need to distinguish 1080p from 720p.

What I'm saying is that, with the limited amount of 4K content out there right now, I would need to justify it through Blu-rays and games. As far as films, that would require repurchasing all of them (even if there was a trade-in program and all were available for $10 after trade-in, I would still be paying close to $4000 on films alone). So, if I'm going to go all in, I'm going to go all in.

The switch from 480i to 1080p wasn't insignificant whatsoever. Not only were we going from interlaced to progressive scan, but the resolution jump was over 500% larger, the televisions got thinner and the panels changed from cathode ray to liquid crystal, digital light & plasma; material was immediately available in the format (if not 1080p then at least 720p/1080i), the standard jump in TV screen size to 50"+ meant the need for that jump, sets could be mounted, systems moved from composite inputs to HDMI, etc. This was a necessary boost, and a big one at that.

4K does very little beyond the resolution difference, and even then it is not the same jump for the home screen sizes we are looking at. Even if it was, look... I already have an HDTV! One of the first points I made when I started posting after the PS4K announcement was that this jump would make much more sense for somebody who doesn't already own an HDTV, or at least not one for that size. They don't make 4K televisions with plasma panel displays, and OLED is still very expensive and a monopolistic market with LG, and I hate LCD/LED so I'm not going to be making that jump yet either.

Trust me, I am the last person to say there isn't a difference between the sets. But look, content-wise, there is still so very little offered in 4K. I'll make the jump when I make the jump, and that means being prepared to spend tens of thousands of dollars to make it happen. That would make it very worthwhile. Or, if 8K ever comes around, maybe I'll wait till then (and if you didn't read my post, then you missed the points I made about 8K also not being that big of a jump from 4K, especially with our screen sizes).

I spoiler-tagged that picture in my post so it doesn't highlight what I was only trying to say. I ask that you do the same in your quote of my post, please.

[Smallville102001]

Re: PlayStation 4 Discussion

I said that's when the difference will be of substance to me. Hopefully you didn't just look at the picture and read the rest of my post, because above all else I'm one of the only people on here who wouldn't ever give graphs or readings on what size TV/distance I would need to distinguish 1080p from 720p.

What I'm saying is that, with the limited amount of 4K content out there right now, I would need to justify it through Blu-rays and games. As far as films, that would require repurchasing all of them (even if there was a trade-in program and all were available for $10 after trade-in, I would still be paying close to $4000 on films alone). So, if I'm going to go all in, I'm going to go all in.

The switch from 480i to 1080p wasn't insignificant whatsoever. Not only were we going from interlaced to progressive scan, but the resolution jump was over 500% larger, the televisions got thinner and the panels changed from cathode ray to liquid crystal, digital light & plasma; material was immediately available in the format (if not 1080p then at least 720p/1080i), the standard jump in TV screen size to 50"+ meant the need for that jump, sets could be mounted, systems moved from composite inputs to HDMI, etc. This was a necessary boost, and a big one at that.

4K does very little beyond the resolution difference, and even then it is not the same jump for the home screen sizes we are looking at. Even if it was, look... I already have an HDTV! One of the first points I made when I started posting after the PS4K announcement was that this jump would make much more sense for somebody who doesn't already own an HDTV, or at least not one for that size. They don't make 4K televisions with plasma panel displays, and OLED is still very expensive and a monopolistic market with LG, and I hate LCD/LED so I'm not going to be making that jump yet either.

Trust me, I am the last person to say there isn't a difference between the sets. But look, content-wise, there is still so very little offered in 4K. I'll make the jump when I make the jump, and that means being prepared to spend tens of thousands of dollars to make it happen. That would make it very worthwhile. Or, if 8K ever comes around, maybe I'll wait till then (and if you didn't read my post, then you missed the points I made about 8K also not being that big of a jump from 4K, especially with our screen sizes).

I spoiler-tagged that picture in my post so it doesn't highlight what I was only trying to say. I ask that you do the same in your quote of my post, please.

I looked over you full post. While you said you would go all in but I tend to only rebuy a game or movie if the game movie as new features or something. To me it is silly to buy a movie that you already have on DVD on bluray just because it looks a little better. For me even when I do get a 4k TV I don't plain on rebuying movies I already have on dvd or bluray on 4k bluray. Instead I will just but new movies on 4k hat I don't yet have. So I don't really see the need to spend thousands. I think just getting a good 4k TV for like 1000 and maybe a 4k player for 400 or so and you are set. Than you can also start to get 4k blurays and it looks like they are closes in price to stander bluays than burays where to DVD back when bluray was just starting out.


While I disagree that 4k is not a big jump over 1080p and I have had the same TV for going on 9 years. So I will most likely get a 4k TV in a few years any way and they are starting to go down a lot in price and what are people never going to get a 4k TV? At some point in time you are going to need a new TV any way. I know there is not a lot of 4k content but that will come in time as 4k blurays have started coming out and wouldn't even a 1080 TV station look better upscaled to 4k on a 4k TV and same thing with a 1080 game upscaled to 4k? When it comes to 8k I don't know like how long is that from being a thing people can really afforded and I don't know but at some point the human eye must not be able to tell the difference.

[Focus10]

Re: PlayStation 4 Discussion

Different strokes for different folks, but you're missing out on a lot of great games. Ratchet & Clank is a great series and has some great writing to go along with its fun gameplay. Jak & Daxter was the precursor to Uncharted and The Last of Us.

I've yet to play Bloodborne. I'm not saying this gen doesn't have its share of good/great games, but very few have really put the "next gen" stamp on.

I imagine a lot of guys have missed out on great gaming experiences due to feeling like some games are for "children". I will play anything, fun is fun regardless of the age.

I think it's a male/macho thing like "I don't want people to see me playing some damned Mario game and think I'm some kind of loser or something" tbh.

To each his or her own but I think writing off an entire genre of great games is sort of strange.

Sorry Platformer games are boring to me. I loved platformer games back on PS2. Jaxter, Sly and Ratchet n Clank were fun games on PS2 and I enjoy playing them. I got PS3 in 2008 and tried Ratchet n Clank Future of Tools, got bored of it. Tried LBP and hated it while everyone thought it was one of the games of the year. Borrowed Rayman Orgins from a friend and was really excited because I loved Rayman on Dreamcast and then played Orgins and it was fun for 10 minutes then it became really boring. Played it few more times and didn't enjoy it. I knew platformers werent for me after playing Rayman. Got PS4 in early 2014 and tried Knack and once again thought it was terrible. I dont enjoy platformer games at all, its not because Im not child its because I find them boring.

I said it was for children because I was child during PS2 era and had blast playing those games and then PS3 era came and didn't enjoy it anymore.

You guys enjoy it then thats wonderful but its not the genre for me and don't feel like I'm missing out on any platformer games because I find them boring.

[ODogg]

Re: PlayStation 4 Discussion

Sorry Platformer games are boring to me. I loved platformer games back on PS2. Jaxter, Sly and Ratchet n Clank were fun games on PS2 and I enjoy playing them. I got PS3 in 2008 and tried Ratchet n Clank Future of Tools, got bored of it. Tried LBP and hated it while everyone thought it was one of the games of the year. Borrowed Rayman Orgins from a friend and was really excited because I loved Rayman on Dreamcast and then played Orgins and it was fun for 10 minutes then it became really boring. Played it few more times and didn't enjoy it. I knew platformers werent for me after playing Rayman. Got PS4 in early 2014 and tried Knack and once again thought it was terrible. I dont enjoy platformer games at all, its not because Im not child its because I find them boring.

I said it was for children because I was child during PS2 era and had blast playing those games and then PS3 era came and didn't enjoy it anymore.

You guys enjoy it then thats wonderful but its not the genre for me and don't feel like I'm missing out on any platformer games because I find them boring.

Ok, well that's cool if you, or anyone, doesn't like a genre but don't like it for the right reasons I guess was my point. Don't like it because you find it boring is one thing but not liking it because of how you may be perceived as a gamer is just silly to me.

Either way, anyone has the right to dislike anything for any reason, I just would encourage people to try to not pigeonhole themselves as a walking stereotype of what is "cool" and what is "not cool" according to societys standards.

[Smallville102001]

Re: PlayStation 4 Discussion

Sorry Platformer games are boring to me. I loved platformer games back on PS2. Jaxter, Sly and Ratchet n Clank were fun games on PS2 and I enjoy playing them. I got PS3 in 2008 and tried Ratchet n Clank Future of Tools, got bored of it. Tried LBP and hated it while everyone thought it was one of the games of the year. Borrowed Rayman Orgins from a friend and was really excited because I loved Rayman on Dreamcast and then played Orgins and it was fun for 10 minutes then it became really boring. Played it few more times and didn't enjoy it. I knew platformers werent for me after playing Rayman. Got PS4 in early 2014 and tried Knack and once again thought it was terrible. I dont enjoy platformer games at all, its not because Im not child its because I find them boring.

I said it was for children because I was child during PS2 era and had blast playing those games and then PS3 era came and didn't enjoy it anymore.

You guys enjoy it then thats wonderful but its not the genre for me and don't feel like I'm missing out on any platformer games because I find them boring.

While ever one is different and some times as you get older things you used to like you don't like any more or you start to like things you didn't used to like. One thing I never really understood is why a game like ratchet and clank is consider a platformer in the first place. To me it is more like a action/adventure game. When I think platformer I think more of Mario, Sonic, DK ect. There are a lot of platformers I like. Ratchet and clank is my favorite sony franchise and it is a platformer. When it comes to Nintendo I love DK but my favorite Nintendo franchise is Zelda not a platformer. DKC 2 and DKCTF are both in my top like 20 games of all time played. Ratchet and clank are in my like top 30 or so games. Rayman legends is also amazing. So I like platformers a lot. I know that a lot of people like FPS but to me I couldn't care less. To me FPS are really boring and I fell like they are all the same and the whole first person thing confuses me to the point where I get lost and fall of cliffs and stuff. 3erd person to me is way better than 1st person for any game would be better if you could play in 3erd person instead.

[The JareBear]

Re: PlayStation 4 Discussion

Has there been any talk of a Ratchet and Clank HD release on PS4 (of the old games)?

[Smallville102001]

Re: PlayStation 4 Discussion

Has there been any talk of a Ratchet and Clank HD release on PS4 (of the old games)?

Not that I know of but we already got the one on ps3. That sounds kind of silly to me. What do we need to get a HD collection of ratchet and clank ever gen now? I only got the ps3 collection because crank in time was my first ratchet and clank game and I loved it and never had a ps2 to play the other games on.

[The JareBear]

Re: PlayStation 4 Discussion

Not that I know of but we already got the one on ps3. That sounds kind of silly to me. What do we need to get a HD collection of ratchet and clank ever gen now? I only got the ps3 collection because crank in time was my first ratchet and clank game and I loved it and never had a ps2 to play the other games on.

I guess it's not necessary, was just wondering. Would love to play them all again