Jesus Christ the game looks blurry as all hell on Xbox One. Microsoft fucked up big time with their hardware choices.

I don't understand why it looks so bad on console when the city is so empty and visually minimalistic. I know its 60fps but so was Mgs V.

Because of Frostbite. Simple as that. Frostbite on Xbox One = 720p.

I thought you were joking. Turns out you are not. That is just shockingly bad

I don't recall having written Xbox One = 720p. I wrote Frostbite + Xbox One = 720p. That's not exactly similar. But to be more accurate, I will now say : Frostbite + 60 FPS target + XBox One = 720p, most of the time. There are plenty of games that run at 900 or 1080p on Xbox One, there's no denial.
Don't misunderstand me as a console War minion. I couldn't care less about it.

Frostbite is one of the worst engines, it prioritizes the wrong elements, now this wouldn't be an issue if the consoles were more capable but they're not.

It baffles me to thing a game like doom exists in the same arena as frostbite FPS's. [SIGH......] I know the Neo and Xbonified can't come soon enough. Pricing will determine how commercial a product it is but I would say there is enough leverage to cast a wide net because I think everyone is fed up of these consoles that can't keep up with these 10 year old monitors and TV's.

to be fair though, frostbite is a far more dynamic and impressive looking engine doing things on a MUCH larger scale typically with destruction. Doom is a very static, very small scope game, and even that has to fall back on a dynamic resolution on BOTH systems (albeit much less on PS4) doom running really well while merely looking ok on consoles doesn't really take away from frostbite on consoles running well and looking better.

they're different engines for different jobs. but one of them is clearly more impressive from a technical standpoint.

Did I miss some amazing-looking footage of this on PS4 that brings this console troll war to the surface in this case? I suspect they look exactly the same.

It stinks of an engine that heard all the hype of next gen and built around that, it's not the only victim I look at the Assassin's Creed engine or even the Final Fantasy XV engine and I really feel disappointed.

I remember last gen playing Naughty dog games, and Crytek games and all these visual masterpieces thinking that next gen (this gen) may in fact be the time when we can prioritise story and prioritise gameplay and prioritise sound and prioritise art because technically we looked to have been reaching the tail end of diminishing returns, but now that future seems so far away.

I look forward to a time when a fraction of a consoles power is needed to translate a creators idea into a AAA masterpiece. But with VR and 4K raping its way into the industry I don't know if that will ever happen in my lifetime. I look at Books, Music, Movies/Video and other mediums and I see how for their craft the only limitation is the creator/director, games are not there.

I don't think it makes sense to claim that a lack of computational power is stifling creativity & limiting the creation of AAA masterpieces.

Current games may not don't look quite as good as some hoped, but it's not something I see as particularly problematic.

I see that side too especially when I consider how my favourite games aren't current gen titles but I can say with absolute certainty that if my favourite games had uncharted 4 levels of technical achievement they would be even greater experiences.

Games are absolutely at the same point as well as the other art forms you mentioned. It's just that most developers aren't. There's a big difference. As for prioritizing story, gameplay, sound, art or any other element it's all on the developers, their target audience and what they want to convey to that specific audience.

If you want certain elements from games, of the ones you mentioned as a priority go play:

Story - The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt, Life is Strange, The Walking Dead, Gone Home, Oxenfree, Firewatch, etc;
Gameplay - most Nintendo games, Dark Souls, Bloodborne, Far Cry 3-4, Just Cause 3, Rocket League, Ori and the Blind Forest, etc;
Sound - Rock Band, Guitar Hero, Persona 4: Dancing All Night, PaRappa the Rapper, Hohokum, Sound Shapes, etc;
Art - Shadow of the Colossus, ICO, Journey, Okami, Katamari Damacy, Flower, uDraw, etc.

There's literally thousands of games in every type of genre you can think of in gaming. In the end, if games are more focused on "graphical fidelity" it's because most people tend to choose the more graphically beautiful games, as most studies in this area have shown. Developers know this and they develop with this in mind. So in a way, it's more of the consumers' fault than the developers. Both are to blame, but one side drives the other more than it's driven by it.

As for using a fraction of a platform's power to make a "AAA masterpiece", it depends on what you consider "AAA".

If you're talking about having a big budget, then Dark Souls 3 fits both categories. It's a "AAA masterpiece" and only uses a fraction of a platform's power. For the latter part, I will use PS4 as an example and when one looks at what Naughty Dog, Ready at Dawn, CD Projekt, Insomniac, etc have achieved with the same hardware and then you compare it to Dark Souls 3, technically speaking the game only uses a fraction of the PS4's power - be it because of lack of optimization, time, resources, interest, etc.

And the same also holds true on both accounts if you're talking about high profile games like Journey, or about the overall experience of games like Transistor, which give you the same level of quality that you would expect from a U$ 60 game.

In the end it's all very subjective, just like books, music and movies that you mentioned. But I really hate how people keep trying to compare games to other art forms, it's foolish and meaningless. I don't see people comparing books, music and/or movies between each other - I'm talking overall, excluding books' movie adaptations. Each of these art forms uses a different approach to reach similar results, but not necessarily the same results.

Also, for a still relatively new industry, gaming has evolved - and devolved in some ways - far more rapidly than the other art forms mentioned. Though it also benefitted immensely on a more evolved society, both technologically and structurally.

In the end, just enjoy games - and any other content - for what they are, if you play a dumb fun game like Doom don't expect it to have the same impact on you as games like Life is Strange or The Last of Us, and vice-versa.

I agree with most of what you said but I singled out AAA masterpieces because for me a game like Journey has reached it's ideal visually and conceptually it feels uncompromised in every way possible whilst it's the AAA games with the big budgets that seem to be falling short of their vision.

I only bring up other mediums to emphasize that they have reached that point were the tools available serve as an extension to a creators ideas and not an influencer.
Right now if I gave the most talented team that could ever exist the task of creating a game instead of only asking what would we like to make they would also have to ask what can we make.

I like the idea of consoles no longer being tangible limitations and we are close (especially when Uncharted, The Witcher or even Ratchet can look as good as they do and run well). Now I know it wont make Games better but it will produce better games, just look at this blurry mess it's already a superior game just by getting the PC version.