I'm used to PC having better graphics, but I've had enough bitching from PC owners about console versions of games. You're not going to get it on consoles so why do you care?
One would think you would be used to it by now, judging by the typical levels of sodium found in almost all of your own posts.My blood pressure is getting too high with all the salt in this thread....
One would think you would be used to it by now, judging by the typical levels of sodium found in almost all of your own posts.
Their conclusions are sensible. The resolution difference is not obvious. It's a dark game which reduces visible aliasing and the AF difference means textures are blurrier on PS4 anyway. They say the texture streaming is a minor issue that doesn't manifest for very long in gameplay.
Both versions have framerate problems with jerky stuttering. The X1 drops slightly harder, but its not a relevant difference because of how unpleasant the stuttering is on both.
Both games are technical disappointments, as they said.
I genuinely can't comprehend how DF came to their conclusion with a straight face.
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem.My blood pressure is getting too high with all the salt in this thread....
Writer from crave redeemed? Or not really because he's wrong about the framerate and the Xbone version is better for a different reason.
Not the same scene. Its not a permanent gameplay issue.
Just seen the hanging and the textures were present and accounted for on the PS4.
So the multiple analysts that write these articles follow this hive-mind mentality? Ooook.....
Also by saying the DI comparison supports your theory, are you really trying to tell me you can understand how the 360 came out on top? In actuality that article proves that they don't determine the winner entirely based on a few technical advantages, which is what you claimed they did a u-turn on.
I have and love the ps4, but I still can't understand being so invested in a platform that something like this would require you to look at the past and make up conspiracy theories.
Then there were the pre-launch talks about balance, and counting memory bandwidth numbers together. What else is there to take from all of that, but to wonder why a tech site changes their viewpoint depending on which platform has the upper hand?the game is running at a full 1920x1080 on PS4, while the Microsoft next-gen release runs at 1600x900 - a state of affairs confirmed by our own pixel count. However, due to the use of high quality FXAA post-processing on both platforms, the dropped pixel tally isn't a major point of differentiation.
Has any conclusion been reached from this thread? Haven't had time to go all the way through.
Is the df conclusion wrong?
Has any conclusion been reached from this thread? Haven't had time to go all the way through.
Is the df conclusion wrong?
Is there a reason for the bluring, pop in or whatever is up with this game?
Theres no way a game on weaker hardware should look better as all the previous ps4 'victories' have shown. Whats the deal?
Why would DF lie? This kinda stuff is crazy.The deal is DF are lying. It's as simple as that at this point. I'm not digging back through the thread so here's just two points of note:
Pop in on X1 too but appears worse:
They say the X1 has POM but it clearly doesn't:
Now add in better resolution and better framerates.
At the very start of the scene? It only lasts a second or so.
Why would DF lie? This kinda stuff is crazy.
Yeah I just can't buy that payola stuff or malfeasance from DF. Feel free to believe in the conspiracy stuff tho.It might seem crazy but no one makes a mistake this big.
I thought Xbo had crusher black than ps4. From those screen shots the Xbo should look like the left picture because of the black levels.The deal is DF are lying. It's as simple as that at this point. I'm not digging back through the thread so here's just two points of note:
Pop in on X1 too but appears worse:
They say the X1 has POM but it clearly doesn't:
Now add in better resolution and better framerates. Which version is the clear winner here?
Yeah I just can't buy that payola stuff or malfeasance from DF. Feel free to believe in the conspiracy stuff tho.
What DF needs is competition. Another site that will also do in-depth tech analysis of games. And the results will either be the same... or they won't.
Yeah I just can't buy that payola stuff or malfeasance from DF. Feel free to believe in the conspiracy stuff tho.
The deal is DF are lying. It's as simple as that at this point. I'm not digging back through the thread so here's just two points of note:
Pop in on X1 too but appears worse:
They say the X1 has POM but it clearly doesn't:
Now add in better resolution and better framerates. Which version is the clear winner here?
I think of course you can lay down guide lines, for example many PS3 games were triple buffered when their 360 counterparts weren't, this is a pretty simple edge in visuals for a ding in responsiveness, I think that's something you can form an institutional voice over, but when it's something like this, you can't just put the priority over performance if the difference is so small that the visual impact is greater.While that is true, for a site that wants to be seen as making objective analysis, a site wide policy for making those sorts of judgements would help. Or even just stop picking winners (especially when both consoles are shithouse) and let the data stand on their own.
Well, they've pretty consistent with their articles in that regard, eventhough their metrics have changed during the generational transition, and like this thread shows I'm not the only who has noticed it.
I'm saying the DI article supports what I said, when the PS3's higher resolution was a "small lead", compared to 360's "significantly" higher resolution in the Red Dead Redemption article. And now 1080p isn't significantly higher than 900p, let alone 720p.
Then there were the pre-launch talks about balance, and counting memory bandwidth numbers together. What else is there to take from all of that, but to wonder why a tech site changes their viewpoint depending on which platform has the upper hand?
It's not about platform preference, it's about objective comparisons, no matter who's on the top. I'd rather read tech articles, that are based on facts instead of opinions.
At this point, I don't even trust DF to give a complete and technical analysis, either through incompetence on their part or that they glance over technical details and choose to focus on subjective talk in tech analyses.Yup, let the forums duke it out for a "winner". DF should just be worried about providing the facts, Jack.
Yeah I just can't buy that payola stuff or malfeasance from DF. Feel free to believe in the conspiracy stuff tho.
Yup, was there from the start.
The deal is DF are lying. It's as simple as that at this point. I'm not digging back through the thread so here's just two points of note:
Pop in on X1 too but appears worse:
They say the X1 has POM but it clearly doesn't:
Now add in better resolution and better framerates. Which version is the clear winner here?
To me a tech analysis that tries to make insignificant 633,600 more pixels and a 4-5 frame advantage in their reasoning is a joke, more so, doing so whilst talking up a single graphical feature on the worse performing platform, goodness gracious.
The deal is DF are lying. It's as simple as that at this point. I'm not digging back through the thread so here's just two points of note:
Pop in on X1 too but appears worse:
Now add in better resolution and better framerates. Which version is the clear winner here?
I've updated the OP with GribbleGrungers post.
Disclaimer: I don't share his opinion Digital Foundry is lying, I believe and hope these issues just went by unnoticed by Morgan.
GOD forbid a game on XBOX One look better than it's PS4 counterpart!
It doesn't.GOD forbid a game on XBOX One look better than it's PS4 counterpart!
Hanlon's razor.
GOD forbid a game on XBOX One look better than it's PS4 counterpart!
Different people, different opinions, and different views on how much a disparity impacts the end results. That's my take on it. *shrugs*
At this point, I don't even trust DF to give a complete and technical analysis, either through incompetence on their part or that they glance over technical details and choose to focus on subjective talk in tech analyses.
Anyone saying it's a different person doing the analysis is missing the point entirely. A tech analysis has nothing to do with what you think, it's all about what it is. For comparisons like these, there should be certain standards and ground rules and they should not change based on what the tech analyst prefers as bias can and will no doubt creep in.
To me a tech analysis that tries to make insignificant 633,600 more pixels and a 4-5 frame advantage in their reasoning is a joke, more so, doing so whilst talking up a single graphical feature on the worse performing platform, goodness gracious.
The deal is DF are lying. It's as simple as that at this point.