• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Digital Foundry: GTA 5's next-gen grass compared

GHG

Gold Member
As someone who owns both consoles, sometimes I wish the Xbox was equal to the PS4 in hardware just so I can play third party games on it.

Looking at my Xbox library it's titanfall, forza and sunset

My xbox one is basically a forza box for me at the moment. No point getting inferior multiplats for the console "just because" or for trivial OS features.
 

ElTorro

I wanted to dominate the living room. Then I took an ESRAM in the knee.
grassgate3gj9u.gif
 
You're asking this four pages in? It's good that this topic isn't shitting up the OT.

We were talking about DF analysis here.

Firsts pages of this thread were a recap of that one.

Why do you imply that the only GTA5 difference is grass? What about DF pointing out the ps4 hold 30fps better and the Xbox one is missing lighting effects? (Lens flare)

Are you claiming that the differences on DRD were the same or lower than GTAV's?
 

njean777

Member
As someone who owns both consoles, sometimes I wish the Xbox was equal to the PS4 in hardware just so I can play third party games on it.

Looking at my Xbox library it's titanfall, forza and sunset

Or you could just stop caring and buy a game for whatever you want. That's what I do. I got GTA 5 on Xbox and could care less about grass. Though these gifs are hilarious.
 

Journey

Banned
I don't think its a big deal. If taking some grass off, that isn't noticeable, helps keep the xbox version at 1080p and a steady framerate then rockstar did the right thing. The alternative would be taking foliage out of the ps4 for parity and that would have been terrible. Or would people prefer 1080i or 900p 30fps with all the grass?

I don't know the key to success, but the key to failure is trying to please everyone.
Bill Cosby

Having full 1080p resolution at a solid framerate is definitely an excellent trade-off over some grass that no one is likely to notice unless DF is a minigame within the GTA world.
 

groshkar

Member
Please. Just stop. Putting -gate after every "controversy" is more useless than the conversations themselves. Stop trying to make this a suffix. It's not.

I beg to differ on this point.

http://public.oed.com/aspects-of-english/english-in-use/the-gate-suffix/

Now the term is applied, sometimes humorously or bathetically, to all kinds of scandals, controversies, and upsets, with recent US and UK examples including nipplegate, climategate, and Sachsgate. Although most of these formations are short-lived, –gate itself endures, having become a fully-fledged suffix, breaking all ties with the Watergate building.
 

StuBurns

Banned
I don't really understand the desire to play multiplatforms across both systems just because you get less use out of one than the other. What's wrong with just playing exclusives on one? You already own it, so it's not like it's trying to justify the cost of the box.
 

gioGAF

Member
Funny reading those Digital Foundry articles now that the shoe is on the other foot. I remember last gen when Red Dead Redemption had more grass on 360 and they made a big fuss about it. Now that GTA has more grass on PS4, it is negligible in their mind, shouldn't matter when you make your purchase decision, lol.

It has been the same way with almost every release. Anything that has a PS4 advantage is deemed negligible, and they go with the get it for the system with your friends on it.

I also don't understand why they include a comparison with the PC release on it. Of course the PC release will be the best one from a technical standpoint. Get the PC report out of there, make it its own article. If a gamer has a PC and both consoles and they are the type of person who cares about performance/graphics, then OF COURSE they will get the PC version. As it is, all we get is the usual line of garbage from Digital Foundry.
 

dark10x

Digital Foundry pixel pusher
fine, I'll bite.

because the summary in the RDR was literally

the game, by their own words was a great purchase on the PS3 (given the greatness of the game)

yes it's been said a number of times in here "but PS3 had lower frame rate, and lower resolution". Ok, that's true. But at the same time, we see the XBONE version of GTAV having less detail. Smaller difference than RDR? Absolutely. But then again, why is it "this version is objectively better, buy it" but then GTAV "this version is objectively better. make your own choice."

the standard of the RDR article would seem to be "even though both versions are good in their own right, buy the better", yet the standard for GTAV is "even though both versions are good in their own right, buy the one you want", even though the conclusion of the lesser version of both is "your enjoyment of the game won't be impacted"

the level of "how much better/worse" is a moving target, absolutely. But in the case of one being objectively better than the other, shouldn't they be recommending the objectively better one each time?
I actually disagree with the idea that the PS3 version is "fine" if you haven't seen the 360 version. That's why I feel this is a different situation. I *DID* buy the PS3 version initially and I was supremely disappointed by the frame-rate dips. It didn't matter that I hadn't played the 360 version first - the fact that the dips were so common detracted quite a bit from the experience. When it turned out that the 360 version operates with very little slowdown AND better image quality it's hard not to just say "buy that version". I know I would.

In the case of GTA I would definitely recommend the PS4 version but the XO version is still more than good enough to warrant playing UNLIKE RDR on 360.

Also, you forget that this isn't the actual Face-off here unlike the RDR article where the actual verdict will be given.

Anything that has a PS4 advantage is deemed negligible, and they go with the get it for the system with your friends on it.
I think you're quite mistaken on this point.
 

Hermii

Member
fine, I'll bite.

because the summary in the RDR was literally



the game, by their own words was a great purchase on the PS3 (given the greatness of the game)

but



yes it's been said a number of times in here "but PS3 had lower frame rate, and lower resolution". Ok, that's true. But at the same time, we see the XBONE version of GTAV having less detail. Smaller difference than RDR? Absolutely. But then again, why is it "this version is objectively better, buy it" but then GTAV "this version is objectively better. make your own choice."

the standard of the RDR article would seem to be "even though both versions are good in their own right, buy the better", yet the standard for GTAV is "even though both versions are good in their own right, buy the one you want", even though the conclusion of the lesser version of both is "your enjoyment of the game won't be impacted"

the level of "how much better/worse" is a moving target, absolutely. But in the case of one being objectively better than the other, shouldn't they be recommending the objectively better one each time?

I guess they made the judgement that framerate/ resolution would impact most peoples enjoyment of the game, while grass quality will not.
 

ypo

Member
I, seemingly like a few of you, take issue with this:

"The PS4 advantage here is much more subtle - a few bonus plants and small grassy areas. Overall, this is the kind of effect where the PS4's larger GPU and higher fill-rate come to the fore, and while it shouldn't impact any purchasing decision (Xbox One is hardly barren and featureless in the affected locations),"

When was a Digital Foundry analysis an editorial? I thought they were supposed to be talking about performance, differences in effects/graphics etc and pointing people towards the best version of the game?

Just a few strands of grass here and there. Good job DF, as always.

Csa01f2.gif
 

GenericUser

Member
More like Ban worthy. This isn't the gametrailers forum.

They should sticky it then ban him. Like when they used to cut off peoples heads and stick them on pikes so you could see them as you went into town. You'd know not to fuck with the law when you saw that shit!

is this really necessary? we are human beings after all ...

this thread is about grass
 

greenegt

Member
As someone who owns both consoles, sometimes I wish the Xbox was equal to the PS4 in hardware just so I can play third party games on it.

Looking at my Xbox library it's titanfall, forza and sunset

My x1 is basically an exclusive machine while my PS4 buckles under the giga weight of 3rd party games.

Im fine with that though. Best of both worlds.

You guys should try a multiplat or two on XB1. The good games are still good.
 

Sirim

Member
I honestly don't see the problem here. DF's mission statement is to point out the technical differences between versions of a game, while analyzing the overall game itself.

I for one am happy to know as much information as I can about how any version has a leg up over another. Obviously it's not a "preorder cancelled" huge outrage. But if I were on the fence over which version to get, even the smallest thing could push me over.

It's also just interesting to know stuff like this, because knowledge is cool.
 
Top Bottom