kirankara Comments

Page 1 of 70

  • CD Projekt Red: "We leave greed to others"

  • kirankara 20/11/2017

    With way they are claimed to treat staff, "the we leave greed to others" claim is little ironic Reply 0
  • Has Respawn fixed Titanfall 2 on Xbox One X?

  • kirankara 18/11/2017


    Nice to see you back
    Reply +2
  • kirankara 16/11/2017


    So happy to hear you got an X . Seems a wonderful console, no matter what the naysayers say.... They say nay I'm guessing lol
    Reply +3
  • LA Noire remaster changes those infamous interrogation button prompts

  • kirankara 09/11/2017

    Part of reason i abandoned playing the game. Some of the questioning, the response options i was given, and then what followed in terms of what my character said and how the other person being interrogated responded, seemed unrelated and disproportionate. Reply +17
  • Diablo 3: Xbox One X vs PS4 Pro dynamic res showdown

  • kirankara 08/11/2017

    @BigDigg you wouldn't really benefit at that distance. You would need to get closer to 1.9m to 2.7 m at furthest to see benefits.

    Sure you might notice difference a bit, but you wouldn't get full benefit as you cant see all textures etc from that distance anyway on a 60" screen.

    I have no idea how colours on your plasma would stack up to a 10 bit HDR TV though
    Reply +1
  • Ark: Survival Evolved Xbox One X enhancements detailed

  • kirankara 07/11/2017


    Tbh I'm guessing it will be pretty variable, but let's see.
    Reply 0
  • kirankara 07/11/2017


    Game runs like shit on even most high end hardware and looking at it, it's hard to see why tbh.

    Based on performance on even enthusiast level pc hardware, this is sadly a respectable result
    Reply +5
  • Watch Dogs is free on PC from tomorrow

  • kirankara 07/11/2017


    Yeah Unity was beautiful but painful to play
    Reply 0
  • kirankara 07/11/2017


    They kinda improved performance, as they pretty much fixed ram usage, but like every open world game they ever produce pretty much, cpu usage was all over place. It was more stable though .... albeit like 9 months later after launch
    Reply +2
  • kirankara 07/11/2017


    I actually really enjoyed syndicate. Was more fun to play than unity
    Reply +1
  • Something's not right with Titanfall 2 on Xbox One X

  • kirankara 07/11/2017

    Is obviously an anomaly and no doubt will get fixed, but is a bit embarrassing for MS. Makes me question if xbox one x patching as easy as MS claimed Reply +3
  • Xbox One X comes hand in hand with massive downloads

  • kirankara 03/11/2017


    4k is cheap enough, Real HDR isn't
    Reply +8
  • kirankara 03/11/2017


    "I see the xbox fan boys are out in force so tell me then is 4k a massive leap over 1080p at a normal viewing distance"

    What's a normal viewing distance?

    Benefits of resolution has always been dependent on viewing distance/resolution level and size of screen.

    If you have 42" 4k screen and view at 15 ft away, you really aren't going to benefit very much, but then maybe you shouldn't be purchasing 4K tv and console if that's your aims.

    What's the point in high resolution textures if you going to sit so far away from them that you can't spot details?
    Reply 0
  • What does the Metal Gear Solid 5 PS4 Pro patch actually do?

  • kirankara 01/11/2017


    "He's not the messiah, he's a very naughty boy"
    Reply +3
  • kirankara 01/11/2017


    "a lot better Knack 2 "

    couldn't be lot worse, could it?
    Reply +2
  • kirankara 01/11/2017


    However. developers have been quoted saying MS tools help make for very quick conversions
    Reply +10
  • Battlefield 1's Nivelle Nights map coming to all players

  • kirankara 01/11/2017


    I honestly think they sent it out to die as it would potentially eat into their cash cow of BF.

    They'd rather put everything into supporting that game and milking customers through dlc
    Reply +1
  • Digital Foundry unboxes the final retail Xbox One X

  • kirankara 28/10/2017


    Architecture refers to the core components such as cpu, ram, gpuand way they interact with each other and relate to performance of the console.

    " Techopedia - Where IT and Business Meet

    Q & A
    Home Dictionary Tags Hardware Electronics
    Computer Architecture
    Definition - What does Computer Architecture mean?

    Computer architecture is a specification detailing how a set of software and hardware technology standards interact to form a computer system or platform. In short, computer architecture refers to how a computer system is designed and what technologies it is compatible with.

    As with other contexts and meanings of the word architecture, computer architecture is likened to the art of determining the needs of the user/system/technology, and creating a logical design and standards based on those requirements.
    [WEBINAR] Fostering Effective Alignment of Business and IT

    Techopedia explains Computer Architecture

    A very good example of computer architecture is von Neumann architecture, which is still used by most types of computers today. This was proposed by the mathematician John von Neumann in 1945. It describes the design of an electronic computer with its CPU, which includes the arithmetic logic unit, control unit, registers, memory for data and instructions, an input/output interface and external storage functions.

    There are three categories of computer architecture:

    System Design: This includes all hardware components in the system, including data processors aside from the CPU, such as the graphics processing unit and direct memory access. It also includes memory controllers, data paths and miscellaneous things like multiprocessing and virtualization.
    Instruction Set Architecture (ISA): This is the embedded programming language of the central processing unit. It defines the CPU's functions and capabilities based on what programming it can perform or process. This includes the word size, processor register types, memory addressing modes, data formats and the instruction set that programmers use.
    Microarchitecture: Otherwise known as computer organization, this type of architecture defines the data paths, data processing and storage elements, as well as how they should be implemented in the ISA."
    Reply +1
  • kirankara 28/10/2017


    I said it was irrelevant to the discussion of which was superior hardware from an architectural point of view.

    The reliability of 360 is seperate discussion. The gpu weakness of ps3 didn't increase its reliability. The 360 rrod was down to too much heat in the case and insufficient heat paste.

    The 360 still sold about same number of consoles as ps3 so brand loyalty clearly wasn't that damaged.

    Discussion was about the design of consoles in terms of performance not reliability.

    You decided to go off an irrelevant point.
    Reply +1
  • kirankara 28/10/2017


    Both had hardware failures, but yes original 360 was very prone to over heating issues. Issues were addressed later on though.

    Point is irrelevant to architectural design of hardware though
    Reply +1
  • kirankara 27/10/2017


    I remember being blown away by gears too. I started with an Xbox, then traded for a ps3, but got fed up of crap ports and bought a 360 too.

    I was blown away by uncharted 2 and God of War 3.

    Fun times.

    Wasn't that impressed by last of us as game or visually and killzone 3 was also visually impressive at time
    Reply 0
  • kirankara 27/10/2017


    Then you've never read the right technical articles.

    John Carmack and developer insights are far more revealing than tech radar articles.

    If you want a genuinely insightful article try this one.

    Ps3 has its strengths for sure and even John Carmack stated on paper it possibly is more powerful, but in reality the flaws hold it back as you can't extract it's potential fully.

    Gabe newell didn't retract his comment about ps3. He apologised about quality of port on ps3 of The orange box.

    The variety and quality of ps3 exclusive games, metacritic scores etc are irrelevant to the hardware.

    Fact remains that a huge number of games were worse off on ps3 as Sony made bad choices with hardware design that made development far more difficult than on 360.

    The 360 Was designed better to produce better results easier for developers.

    Any theoretical advantages Sony had were so difficult for developers to access and utilise that it was only ever really seen in exclusives.

    Huge publishers like rockstar? EA, Activision, Sega, Ubisoft, capcom, konami, all released games that ran or looked worse on ps3. Smaller budget games were often even worse off.

    That's a damming indictment of the hardware
    Reply +2
  • kirankara 27/10/2017


    Quoting IGN articles is never a good sign dude. Stop now before you embarrass yourself.

    DVD limitations were an issue with space on disk ie quality of video files, it would have maybe affected game world size, but in reality the main thing affecting game size is budget.

    If anything the ps3 had bigger issues with blu ray as it had slower streaming from the drive and developers had to duplicate files in disk to make it easier to read the data. Ps3 blu ray drives were often bloated with duplicate files.

    Jason Booth, a game developer who has worked on both Guitar Hero games and Rock Band, has posted some interesting comments on his blog regarding "PS3 misconceptions and spin."

    "He also suggests that Blu-ray is not really an advantage: "[It's] great for watching movies, but not so great for games. Getting data off the Blu-ray drive takes about twice as long as it does to get the same data off the 360's DVD drive. That translates into longer load times, or god forbid if you're streaming from disk, tighter constraints on the amount of data you can stream."

    He acknowledges that with the greater storage space of Blu-ray "there is the potential to use that to do something cool," but he argues that "most developers who use the entire Blu-ray drive are doing it to work around other problems with the PS3 such as its slow loading."

    He adds, "For instance, in Resistance: Fall of Man, every art asset is stored on disk once for every level that uses it. So rather than storing one copy of a texture, you're storing it 12 times. If you took that entire game and removed all the duplicate data, it would likely fit on a DVD without any problem.""

    Saying that Sony's exclusives looked better is a matter of opinion for most part. They were often very limited, linear games, which were designed purely with limitations of the console in mind, and had enormous budgets too. Games such as Killzone, Uncharted and Infamous all looked graet, but as they developed and visuals improved they also were clearly seen using "cheats" to achieve certain effects. Water effects in Uncharted 3 were not done using traditional alpha effects, instead using particle based effects, Kilzone 3 did something similar with smoke effects surrounding explosions, and shadows etc were lower resolution.

    You can argue all you like, but the ps3 was unbalanced when compared to 360, and it's faults were glaringly obvious.

    Vram limitations meant some games were lower resolution on console.

    Developers also generally spoke about this.

    "First and foremost, Booth doesn't think PS3 really has a graphical advantage. Why? "Fill rate is one of the primary ways to measure graphics performance - in essence, it's a number describing how many pixel operations you can perform. The fill rate on the PS3 is significantly slower than on the 360, meaning that games either have to run at lower resolution or use simpler shader effects to achieve the same performance," he says. "Additionally, the shader processing on the PS3 is significantly slower than on the 360, which means that a normal map takes more fill rate to draw on the PS3 than it does on the 360. And I'm not talking about small differences here, we're talking roughly half the pixel pushing power."

    John Carmack said when making Rage,

    "The PS3 lags a little bit behind in terms of getting the performance out of it," Carmack admits. "The rasteriser is just a little bit slower - no two ways about that. The RSX is slower than what we have in the 360."

    Carmack also says that the architecture of the CPU is a bit of a hassle to design for too and, while the PS3 processor is "about the same" as that in the Xbox 360, the Xbox 360 is just simpler to work with.

    "The 360 makes it easier to split things off, and that's what a lot of the work has been, splitting it all into jobs on the PS3," .

    John also discusses the isues of ps3 development here.

    Gabe Newell famously said " think [PS3 is] a waste of everybody's time. Investing in the Cell, investing in the SPE gives you no long-term benefits. There's nothing there that you're going to apply to anything else. You're not going to gain anything except a hatred of the architecture they've created. I don't think they're going to make money off their box. I don't think it's a good solution."

    Even if you refuse to accept that ps3 is less powerful, it was still undeniably a badly conceived piece of hardware, which had inherent faults in the design which limited the ability of developers to fully utilise it's power.

    On this basis alone, it was a worse piece of hardware than the 360.
    Reply +4
  • kirankara 27/10/2017


    Ps3 was more bandwidth limited
    "Usually true, but it also kind of depends: The 360 excelled in memory bandwidth in scenarios where the EDRAM could be effectively used (MSAA mainly).
    In all other cases, PS3 had more memory bandwidth."

    It used to end up with lower res alpha effects and shadows etc as result on many an occasion due to the bandwidth issues on ps3.

    Also the vram allocation caused issues with the resolution, resulting in lower resolution having to be lowered in so many games.

    Reply +3
  • kirankara 26/10/2017


    The two cell idea was original vision of Ken Katuragi, but was never close to being a reality due to phenomenal cost of cell to produce. ((Apparently this would have been disaster anyway. Think of sega Saturn, which did something similar with two Hitachi chips and was awful for 3d gaming as well as stupidly complex to program for).

    It was rumoured ps3 was due too launch earlier than it did with single cell and no gpu, but ice team proved it was impossible and cell sucked at
    at two of your most basic rendering tasks, which are triangle rasterization and texture mapping/filtering.

    Hence the last minute deal with Nvidia to get an off the shelf GPU, it also led to a split memory pool because the Nvidia GPU was not compatible with XDR and Cell wasn't compatible with JEDEC standard RAM until the Power Cell X8i in late 2007.
    Reply +4
  • kirankara 26/10/2017


    Can you imagine how shiit it would have been in that scenario.

    Developers were utterly bewildered by the design at first and simply couldn't be bothered to figure it out due to poor initial sales.

    Initial ports were horrendous and it was only truly in last few years they really matched 360 more regularly, but even then there was some horror shows and unreal engine games were usually off the pace still
    Reply +3
  • kirankara 26/10/2017


    Seems you have a limited technical understanding of the hardware.

    Ps3 was more bandwidth limited, had weaker GPu, had a split video ram set up resulting in video ram limitations, whereas 360 had unified ram and could be split as developers liked, whilst it's GPu could use MSAA free of performance hit if the image size fit within the edram limitation on gpu.

    Ps3 had superior CPU with it's SPU's which could offload some graphical effects to them to try reduce load on GPU.

    360 was superior in almost every multiplatform game, and was essentially much easier to program for.

    ps3 excelled in certain circumstances and could produce spectacular looking linear games, but due to ram limitations struggled with more open world games.

    I owned both and loved my ps3 as much as anyone, but sorry, for purely a gaming perspective, the 360 was better hardware.
    Reply +8
  • kirankara 26/10/2017


    TBF, I thought Gears always had a pretty mheh story and characterisation, and for me, the series was best enjoyed as co-op.

    Gears 4 isn't a great game imo, but still very playable in shorter doses. It just hasn't really advanced in any way other than visually.
    Reply -1
  • kirankara 26/10/2017


    "I know the PC lot"

    There is no PC lot, like yourself we are all individuals, and we are not all fanboy cocks who get off on putting down consoles.

    That's like assuming everyone who owns a ps4 is a Sony fanboy or Vice verse with Xbox.
    Reply +1
  • kirankara 26/10/2017



    It's always dependent on screen size, resolution and viewing distances.

    But even then, difference between 1800p checkerboard upscaled and 4k checkerboard isn't going to be monumentally different.
    Reply 0
  • kirankara 26/10/2017


    I think not. They’ll release the PS5 when it will hurt XB the most. Which will very likely be 2019. The only reason they’d delay to 2020 is if the XB1/X looks like it’s tanking hard
    There is also possibility they will want to wait for sufficiently powerful hardware to be released and commercially viable for a home console.

    The X is all about the bells and whistles you get with the GPU overhead and the abundant texture memory. Better AA, AF, AO, LOD, draw distance, shadow quality and last, but by no means least, texture detail.
    Agreed. Resolution will be a boost, and that extra clarity is nice, but isn't necessarily game changing from TV viewing distances, but factor in everything else too and it's a very attractive package
    Reply +9
  • kirankara 26/10/2017


    I still think the Pro does an admirable job overall, as it provides a "4k experience" at a pretty reasonable price, and obviously they have their own strong exclusive line up.

    My personal opinion is that resolution isn't biggest thing that hampers the Pro, but rather the inability to use higher resolution textures due to the lack of ram.

    Sure resolution leads to softer image, but from a couch in normal viewing distances, it won't lead to massively better image quality, but if you are sat up close to 4k screen it will be a big boost at times when games on pro run at 1440p for example, if an X game runs at higher resolutions.

    Checkerboarded at 1800p on Pro or 4k in Origins on Xb1 Xfor example wouldn't seem hugely different from normal viewing distances.

    But lower resolution textures stick out like sore thumb on 4k screens.

    The xb1 X is a better piece of hardware in every way imo, but even as a high end PC owner, I can't say Id be that concerned when playing from couch about difference between the resolutions, although high is naturally better. I used to play games at 1440p or 1800p on my 4k monitor sat back 5-6ft playing with a controller, as my 980ti wasn't up to job at times at 4k. If I was right next to monitor it didn't look good, but further back it was just a tad softer.
    Reply 0
  • kirankara 26/10/2017


    last generation the 360 was by far the better hardware and also had a very strong line up, and arguably had better exclusives as whole over ps3.
    Reply +11
  • How does Assassin's Creed Origins on Pro improve over base PS4?

  • kirankara 28/10/2017


    Obviously at 1080p it's going to seem very similar.

    At 4k is where the pro and xb1x will start to show bigger differences, although I'm guessing the xb1x version will have more bells and whistles at 1080p too.

    40% gpu difference is pretty much the advantage of ps4 over xb1, but as you go up resolutions that increase isn't as pronounced. So yes difference isn't going to be enormous, but it's still reasonably significant enough to justify xb1x as best version on console
    Reply +3
  • Super Mario Odyssey review

  • kirankara 26/10/2017


    "While SMB2 on the NES (which was essentially another unreleased game - Doki Doki Panic - but reskinned) was a bit of a hatchet job, I always found the rebalanced GBA version (Super Mario Advance) a much superior game."

    Yeah, Im familiar with story, hence why I don't consider it a real Mario game. Couldn't stand the game myself, but never played the GBA version.

    The Real Mario games are nearly all of paralleled vision and design imo. Only games that truly bring a smile to my face when playing them...whilst occasionally making me want to punch stuff too I should add lol
    Reply +1
  • kirankara 26/10/2017


    the genuine failures are very few and far between.

    Even New super mario bros on wiiu was enjoyable if not great

    The only one i have never liked was Super Mario 2 (not real mario to me).

    Every other big Mario release was pretty awesome(Mario sunshine certainly had it's faults, but wasn't a bad game)
    Reply +4
  • kirankara 26/10/2017

    was this ever in doubt? Reply 0
  • Kinect officially dead

  • kirankara 25/10/2017

    Kinda liked it with xb1. Wish it could be used with my PC in some way for turning on/ off machine, opening and closing apss etc

    It was also great for Skype
    Reply +3
  • Gears of War 4 campaign runs at 60fps on Xbox One X

  • kirankara 25/10/2017


    You misunderstand me. I'm simply explaining how a game like Gears of War 4 can target 60fps, as it has extra gpu power required, and CPU requirements aren't acting as bottleneck either.

    Reality is that most games are designed with 30fps in mind as they are using standard ps4 and xb1 as base level, therefore like you said, their cpu resources are limited and use them to make a game to run 30fps with what they have available.

    Origins will require those resources to generate characters to populate environment, physics, drawing open world etc. Gears is far more simplistic and linear.
    Reply 0
  • kirankara 25/10/2017


    Let's see shall we?

    Considering syndicate required an i5 to achieve stable 60fps and this game was cpu bound on console, unable to achieve 30fps, there's zero chance of origins being stable 60fps on xb1x with it's CPU.
    Reply -5
  • kirankara 24/10/2017


    Didn't think was garbage, but hasn't really evolved as title and felt limited and tedious after bit, but was fun in short doses
    Reply -3
  • kirankara 24/10/2017


    It's quite simple, 1080p 60fps is possible in games when you have a ps4 pro or xb1x, if the game is gpu bottlenecked in base console and there's sufficient gpu performance available in refresh consoles.

    60fps will not be possible if said game is also cpu bottlenecked in the in the refresh consoles.

    Gears of War 4 isn't a cpu heavy game, so additional gpu resources can be used to hit 60fps at 1080p, as there's no CPU bottleneck.

    Now take AC origins, which is not only demanding on gpu, but also on CPU. Running that game at 1080p will not result in 60fps being achievable with any gpu on refresh console, as the CPU simply can't provide the information required to draw those 60fps.

    This is the limitations of jaguar CPU
    Reply -2
  • kirankara 24/10/2017


    Makes sense. Is way I've always seen it. If people own 4k tv or just fancy improved 1080p suppprt, this gives them that option, but if they happy with what they have they can stick with that. Everyone is a winner
    Reply +3
  • kirankara 24/10/2017


    "I was a little suprised when you term 'even my ti1080' - EVEN, like a 650 quid GPU now falls into the 'even this little thing' bracket.

    But yeah, mainly just asking."

    fair dos mate.

    I'm not diminishing the X or Pro or any of that malarkey, it's not my agenda. These consoles are great for what they provide and each to their own as to what they want, whether that's PC or consoles. They all fulfil a need of different demands.

    I was just answering his question about can a Titan XP do 4k gaming and it comprehensively can, but not always at Ultra settings.
    Reply +3
  • kirankara 24/10/2017


    what's your point? He asked whether it was possible with a Titan Xp, which is about 30% more powerful than my 1080ti, so I answered his question.

    They are also overpriced due to current GPU situation. I got an aftermarket asus gaming x for £650 few months back.
    Reply -2
  • kirankara 24/10/2017


    Depends on games and settings.

    If you insist on maxing every setting then forget it.

    If you can accept some compromises (especially with AA, which some benchmarks inexplicably use at 4k still) then it's entirely possible.

    Even my 1080ti does grand job with most games at 4k
    Reply +2
  • The Bungie interview: how Destiny 2 on PC is more than just a port

  • kirankara 24/10/2017


    Use rivatuner??
    Reply 0
  • "I've seen people literally spend $15,000 on Mass Effect multiplayer cards"

  • kirankara 23/10/2017


    Im not apologising for your information, just pointing out that if you take away one source of their revenue, they find another one and here's one way they found.

    They may have made record profits, but they will always want more.

    It's possible they would have ended up at this point regardless though as they saw success of mobile phone game industry
    Reply +3
  • kirankara 23/10/2017

    I'm not going to be popular for saying so, but I have stated numerous times that the second hand market on consoles is damaging to gaming market, as publishers just try to find other ways to claw back revenue. Here's the evidence to support what I've said.

    Yes i understand that you want right to sell your property etc, but publishers don't care and just will find another way to screw us all
    Reply -1
  • Tech Analysis: Gran Turismo Sport vs Forza Motorsport 7

  • kirankara 22/10/2017


    I'm purely discussing the visuals here. People who look at screenshots wouldn't think xb1x was more powerful based on this comparison.

    Im not for or against either platform and the lack of content in GT is irrelevant and speaks for itself
    Reply 0