Support NeoGAF

[ANDS]

The point of the thread is aligned with the article.

. . .but not the posts. Again, try reading the reply.

I don't know, I personally am. Looking at that AMD/Nvidia rollcall thread it looks like a lot of people here have 900 series Nvidia and 200 series AMD cards so probably quite a few people are.

Of course there are people who are achieving 60FPS with top of the line cards. That's not in dispute. What I disputed was that a majority (or even close to a majority) of the individuals playing this on the PC have that performance. I have an i3 and a 760 and saw the kind of performance I was getting. I decided to go with the PS4, and anyone in my situation who had the option I would have recommended do the same.

 

[Ke0]

What setting is making the console versions look like there's no shadow? Shadows? AO? Foliage distance?

I would assume shadow distance.

 

[heringer]

I would assume shadow distance.

But there's no such setting on PC.

 

[Head.spawn]

Both went in not wanting to lose hundreds of dollars per consoles sold when there's so much uncertainty in the industry. That said, Sony's strategy was much more gaming-centric and they were willing to take more risks hardware-wise than MS. They got very lucky with the GDDR5 situation. Both could have definitely invested more in the GPU, but MS was truly short-sighted going with a GPU that was considered a low-end budget card as far back as 2012.

The most ridiculous assumption they made was assuming people wouldn't care if the system didn't run most big games at 1080p, the native res of most displays. Had they actually wanted to build a 1080p capable machine, they would not have ignored AMD's own GPU spec recommendation for 1080p. They were too focused on having a 8 gbs of RAM for all their non-game media features and were unwilling to risk the cost of GDDR5, so they had to use a crappy memory solution that's slower AND ate up a good chunk of space on their APU, resulting in a weak GPU.

What in the actual fuck were they thinking.

How much RAM for gaming would the PS4 have if that gamble didn't pay off? It was either a gusty move or dumb luck that it happened to work out for them.

 

[Ghost Slayer]

But there's no such setting on PC.

The game only cast shadow in near objects i think (console ver)

 

[RoboPlato]

There are 2 post processing AA solutions running. One looks like FXAA and the other is an in-house temporal AA solution.

Custom temporal AA was my only guess as well. I like their implementation a lot, very sharp and complete coverage. Hope more games use something similar.

 

[AgentOtaku]

I swear, if this upcoming patch doesn't fix the stutter in the XB1 version, I'm trading that shit in

It really is fucking horrid, no matter how hard I try to look past it

 

[Chobel]

I swear, if this upcoming patch doesn't fix the stutter in the XB1 version, I'm trading that shit in

It really is fucking horrid, no matter how hard I try to look past it

I thought you have PS4 version?

 

[AgentOtaku]

I thought you have PS4 version?

Had the PS4 version but swapped it out for the XB1 as I just honestly wanted more stuff to play on the system (majority of my games are PS4).
...yeah, wishing I hadn't but tried to remain optimistic, despite all the indicators I shouldn't have.

 

[Beerman462]

There are 2 post processing AA solutions running. One looks like FXAA and the other is an in-house temporal AA solution.

It works really well. Aliasing in GTA5 drove me crazy. I don't notice it in Witcher 3.

 

[Inuhanyou]

How much RAM for gaming would the PS4 have if that gamble didn't pay off? It was either a gusty move or dumb luck that it happened to work out for them.

4GB were the rumors.

Eh, other than the CPU issue, i'm pretty satisfied with the PS4's end result. Yeah its not gonna be on the level of many PC's, but i didn't buy my PS4 to compete with PCs, just have a steady stream of games that perform adequately in an easy to maintain box.

Of course with games like Witcher, you can't really say that so much.

 

[Beerman462]

Both went in not wanting to lose hundreds of dollars per consoles sold when there's so much uncertainty in the industry. That said, Sony's strategy was much more gaming-centric and they were willing to take more risks hardware-wise than MS. They got very lucky with the GDDR5 situation. Both could have definitely invested more in the GPU, but MS was truly short-sighted going with a GPU that was considered a low-end budget card as far back as 2012.

The most ridiculous assumption they made was assuming people wouldn't care if the system didn't run most big games at 1080p, the native res of most displays. Had they actually wanted to build a 1080p capable machine, they would not have ignored AMD's own GPU spec recommendation for 1080p. They were too focused on having a 8 gbs of RAM for all their non-game media features and were unwilling to risk the cost of GDDR5, so they had to use a crappy memory solution that's slower AND ate up a good chunk of space on their APU, resulting in a weak GPU.

What in the actual fuck were they thinking.

Hindsight 20/20 and all that, but the GDDR5 solution seems like a no brainer. I mean the Xbox 360 used GDDR3 so it would only seem natural that the Xbox 1 would use GDDR5.

 

[Inuhanyou]

Hindsight 20/20 and all that, but the GDDR5 solution seems like a no brainer. I mean the Xbox 360 used GDDR3 so it would only seem natural that the Xbox 1 would use GDDR5.

Not even the same process. Bandwidth speeds were completely different in 2005. Also PS3 also uses GDDR3 along with XDR.

For what they wanted to do, quantity was much more necessary than quality.

 

[silva1991]

What setting is making the console versions look like there's no shadow? Shadows? AO? Foliage distance?

I want to know as well in case they are disabled in my game.

 

[ninjablade]

game looks great on ps4. people posting shitty pics and saying this is how the game looks on ps4 are sad, you can make almost any game look bad in pics, especially open world games.

 

[Beerman462]

Not even the same process. Bandwidth speeds were completely different in 2005. Also PS3 also uses GDDR3 along with XDR.

For what they wanted to do, quantity was much more necessary than quality.

For sure, but the Microsoft that built the Xbox 360 would have seen the trend and gone with GDDR5, maybe with a fast cache ala 360/XB1. Without Kinect they could have still launched close to the PS4.

 

[Javin98]

game looks great on ps4. people posting shitty pics and saying this is how the game looks on ps4 are sad.

I really wonder if those people will still say it looks underwhelming if this thread wasn't made. Personally, I don't care if the PS4 version is mostly on medium settings. It still looks amazing regardless.

 

[Ke0]

But there's no such setting on PC.

It's probably coupled under any distance related setting.

 

[Journey]

Hindsight 20/20 and all that, but the GDDR5 solution seems like a no brainer. I mean the Xbox 360 used GDDR3 so it would only seem natural that the Xbox 1 would use GDDR5.

Indeed, can anyone imagine a PS4 with just 4GB? I think even with the extra bandwidth, it would be lacking if it only had half the ram. The way he's painting makes it seem like MS are complete morons, but the fact is 8GB of GDDR5 was not possible at the time, MS was really focused on making sure the system had at least 8GB as Crytek had requested, and unfortunately the solution of using DDR3 with eSRAM cut into the die realestate, so when comparing it to the PS4, sure it's not as powerful, but the machine is very well capable of producing 1080p games, just not at the fidelity of the PS4, but there are plenty of 1080p X1 games, so it's not that the architecture is not capable of 1080p, the issue is that in order to keep assets and fidelity matched with the PS4, developers have to drop the resolution, so to say MS didn't care for 1080p is a fallacy. Hindsight is 20/20, MS won the architecture with 360 despite Sony having a full year to make improvements, one would think that's an even bigger fail, but that's how these things work, I'm sure they were both going for the best possible machine, and Sony got it this time.

 

[Mohasus]

Wow, PC and PS4 are almost the same and then xbox one has the vaseline filter all over it, so blurry.

 

[Piggus]

How much RAM for gaming would the PS4 have if that gamble didn't pay off? It was either a gusty move or dumb luck that it happened to work out for them.

Probably around 3 gbs, and it would be a really bad situation that would ultimately gimp many multiplatform games. Much more so than the relatively weak CPUs imo.

But there's no such setting on PC.

It can be adjusted in the INI file.

 

[alexandros]

game looks great on ps4. people posting shitty pics and saying this is how the game looks on ps4 are sad, you can make almost any game look bad in pics, especially open world games.

Aren't you doing the same though, just on the opposite side of the spectrum? Both good pics and bad pics are in-game, right? How is posting bad pics to show that the game looks bad any different from posting good pics to show that the game looks good?

 

[Journey]

Wow, PC and PS4 are almost the same and then xbox one has the vaseline filter all over it, so blurry.

Wow seriously? The PC version looks like it's in a league of its own, a completely different painting with proper shadows, SSAO and other effects. PS4 and X1 shots are the same painting but with vaseline smeared on the X1 side.




Your comment reminds me of this gif

 

[wumster3000]

Wow, PC and PS4 are almost the same and then xbox one has the vaseline filter all over it, so blurry.

Are you serious? No, you are not...right?

 

[Outtrigger888]

Surprised people think this looks bad on ps4, honestly I think it's the most impressive game on the console.

 

[crazysapertonight]

But there's no such setting on PC.

As Digital Foundry wrote. Console versions have different distance for different objects.
For grass it's like hight settings on PC, for trees it is medium and for shadows it is low

 

[Ysiadmihi]

Wow, that comment reminds me of this gif

Are you serious? No, you are not...right?

I think (and hope) they meant purely in terms of clarity, which is still quite wrong but not nearly as ridiculous.

 

[Beerman462]

Indeed, can anyone imagine a PS4 with just 4GB? I think even with the extra bandwidth, it would be lacking if it only had half the ram. The way he's painting makes it seem like MS are complete morons, but the fact is 8GB of GDDR5 was not possible at the time, MS was really focused on making sure the system had at least 8GB as Crytek had requested, and unfortunately the solution of using DDR3 with eSRAM cut into the die realestate, so when comparing it to the PS4, sure it's not as powerful, but the machine is very well capable of producing 1080p games, just not at the fidelity of the PS4, but there are plenty of 1080p X1 games, so it's not that the architecture is not capable of 1080p, the issue is that in order to keep assets and fidelity matched with the PS4, developers have to drop the resolution, so to say MS didn't care for 1080p is a fallacy. Hindsight is 20/20, MS won the architecture with 360 despite Sony having a full year to make improvements, one would think that's an even bigger fail, but that's how these things work, I'm sure they were both going for the best possible machine, and Sony got it this time.

All true, but at least the PS3 was able to catch/match the 360. You cant say the same for the Xbox 1. It will live in the PS4s shadow this entire gen. Both will pale compared to even modest PCs in a year or two.

Depending on the length of this generation the consoles might lose even more ground to the PC with enthusiests.

 

[malfcn]

Wow, PC and PS4 are almost the same and then xbox one has the vaseline filter all over it, so blurry.

Sure the Xbox One version looks blurry in that picture, but the PC/PS4 is almost the same?

 

[ninjablade]

Aren't you doing the same though, just on the opposite side of the spectrum? Both good pics and bad pics are in-game, right? How is posting bad pics to show that the game looks bad any different from posting good pics to show that the game looks good?

difference is, he's trying to downplay the game as being not techically impressive by posting shitty pics of the game if your gonna do that then you should look for the best looking pics of the game. its also impossible to downplay how techically impressive this game is, cause it's doing so much in a huge open world.

 

[gamerforever]

Got this on ps4 and without even knowing of a downgrade this looks and plays like a 1080p ps3 title and feels like a last gen remaster. Not impressed at all!

This generation has been a real joke and i hope we start seeing games with better visuals. The xbox one is probably holding the ps4 back tbh and i will look to focus more on ps4 only titles if this is the kind of crap we get. Are we sure this wasn't originally a last gen title?

 

[Beerman462]

Sure the Xbox One version looks blurry in that picture, but the PC/PS4 is almost the same?

Yeah PS4 which is 40% more powerful than the XB1 is almost the same as PC which is over 3x more powerful than PS4 on the high end(980).

Spoiler

Not directed at you, but the people you're refering to.

 

[Journey]

All true, but at least the PS3 was able to catch/match the 360. You cant say the same for the Xbox 1. It will live in the PS4s shadow this entire gen. Both will pale compared to even modest PCs in a year or two.

Depending on the length of this generation the consoles might lose even more ground to the PC with enthusiests.

A machine that came out a full year later? I wouldn't be bragging about that, historically when a console launches a full year later it's usually killing it, not playing catch-up.

 

[alexandros]

difference is, he's trying to downplay the game as being not techically impressive by posting shitty pics of the game if your gonna do that then you should look for the best looking pics of the game. its also impossible to downplay how techically impressive this game is, cause it's doing so much in a huge open world.

Obviously some people disagree, look at the post below yours for example. It seems to me that the truth is somewhere in the middle, the game can look both really good and really bad at times. As a whole, personally I agree that it looks good but I fully understand people saying otherwise, especially if they have an eye for LOD issues and poor quality assets.

 

[AZ Greg]

A machine that came out a full year later? I wouldn't be bragging about that, historically when a console launches a full year later it's usually killing it, not playing catch-up.

And costed 1-200 dollars more.

 

[finalflame]

Yeah PS4 which is 40% more powerful than the XB1 is almost the same as PC which is over 3x more powerful than PS4 on the high end(980).

Spoiler

Not directed at you, but the people you're refering to.

Yes, a phenomenon of this:

However, it is awfully myopic to compare PC and PS4 GTA V just based on this image. Framerate aside (which is a huge thing to be leaving aside), the PC version with a PC 3x as powerful as a PS4 looks vastly superior in every regard. Showing a tiny, compressed screenshot comparison hardly tells the entire story.

 

[Javin98]

Obviously some people disagree, look at the post below yours for example. It seems to me that the truth is somewhere in the middle, the game can look both really good and really bad at times. As a whole, personally I agree that it looks good but I fully understand people saying otherwise, especially if they have an eye for LOD issues and poor quality assets.

To be fair, all games can look really good and really bad at times, especially open world games. But wouldn't you agree that it is hyperbolic to call it a cross gen game? I mean, seriously, even on PS4, it looks much better than last gen games.

 

[Skyzard]

There are some hotspots that ultra shadows just kills gpu usage for me, even high shadows at 1440p, I set them to medium, seems to look good mostly.

 

[tuxfool]

I personally think it looks great

I wouldn't worry. He has been posting that screenshot everywhere as if it is the final say in the way the game looks.

 

[Beerman462]

A machine that came out a full year later? I wouldn't be bragging about that, historically when a console launches a full year later it's usually killing it, not playing catch-up.

Like PS2 and OG Xbox?

 

[Journey]

And costed 1-200 dollars more.

Shit, wasn't even factoring price. MS screwed the pooch this gen though, they had a full year advantage without an underpowered machine, what more can you ask for to have a good recipe for success on your follow up? Sony would have to cut the PS3 life shorter, how ironic, yet they didn't have to because MS, despite everyone assuming, didn't launch in 2012 when they should have, and I bet they could have if Kinect wasn't part of the picture, that's probably why they had to wait for a 2013 launch because of all the localization issues with voice control and other Kinect related BS.

 

[tuxfool]

Aren't you doing the same though, just on the opposite side of the spectrum? Both good pics and bad pics are in-game, right? How is posting bad pics to show that the game looks bad any different from posting good pics to show that the game looks good?

The difference is that one person is posting good pics because the other keeps on posting the same bad pic ad nauseam. You can find flaws in just about any game and screenshot them appropriately. If you want to make the case that a game is ugly, you should at least attempt to post a sampling of images.

 

[Journey]

Like PS2 and OG Xbox?

OG Xbox was a beast! definitely killed the PS2, not just in raw power with a ratio of 6.2GF vs 21.6GF, but architecturally with a GPU featuring programmable shaders as we still use today. A sound chip that could produce 5.1 discreet channels in real-time without touching the CPU, featured 4 controller ports, a ubiquitous HDD, shit, if there were ever an example of a more advanced machine a mere year later, the prime example is the OG Xbox.

Where it mattered, games, the PS2 was the best console that generation, but it really had no competition after the Dreamcast failed, where else would all 3rd party devs flock to? It's like knocking all players out in Monopoly and getting all the property, anyone coming into the game after that is toast.

 

[alexandros]

To be fair, all games can look really good and really bad at times, especially open world games. But wouldn't you agree that it is hyperbolic to call it a cross gen game? I mean, seriously, even on PS4, it looks much better than last gen games.

Yes, absolutely. I haven't seen the game running on console in person but I have seen most of the screenshots posted and the game looks quite good in most of them.

 

[BeforeU]

Been playing on Xbox One. Looks great. No problem so far.

 

[Javin98]

Yes, absolutely. I haven't seen the game running on console in person but I have seen most of the screenshots posted and the game looks quite good in most of them.

That was ninjablade's point. It's ridiculous for people to say that this game looks like a cross gen game and use bad screenshots to justify their claim. Furthermore, those screenshots were pretty compressed.

 

[JAYSIMPLE]

Shit, wasn't even factoring price. MS screwed the pooch this gen though, they had a full year advantage without an underpowered machine, what more can you ask for to have a good recipe for success on your follow up? Sony would have to cut the PS3 life shorter, how ironic, yet they didn't have to because MS, despite everyone assuming, didn't launch in 2012 when they should have, and I bet they could have if Kinect wasn't part of the picture, that's probably why they had to wait for a 2013 launch because of all the localization issues with voice control and other Kinect related BS.

I don't think they screwed it as bad as Sony did last gen imo. Niw they are the best on the block on terms of consoles. All it takes is good press. A good message and every one forgets. It helps if your competition totally screws it as well lol. ( xbox one) the truth is that they are both weak. Just one less so. They deliver a gpod image up close but anything at distance Gies to crap Thx to poor af and cut features. FrFramerate is also bad.

Still those ps4 shots look quiet nice but any one downplaying the differences between witcher and gta on pc hasn't seen them running with their own eyes. I own gta on both and my friend has witcher on ps4 we compared on my tv. Both games the difference is huuuge. Pc is so crisp as far as they eye can see. Ps4 just turns into a blurry mess and I've never felt the difference between 60 and 30 more than flipping back and forth between versions. It genuinely makes those sideshow comments seem real, and I think that's normally hyperbole, luckily your brain adjusts after about 5 minutes

 

[Inuhanyou]

Got this on ps4 and without even knowing of a downgrade this looks and plays like a 1080p ps3 title and feels like a last gen remaster. Not impressed at all!

This generation has been a real joke and i hope we start seeing games with better visuals. The xbox one is probably holding the ps4 back tbh and i will look to focus more on ps4 only titles if this is the kind of crap we get. Are we sure this wasn't originally a last gen title?

This is ridiculous hyperbole. I think you set your expectations for graphics in a way that you could not be satisfied.

 

[ProvenDeadly]

Been playing on Xbox One. Looks great. No problem so far.

Are you sure? You may need another opinion to validate your own perspective.

 

[Branson]

Yes, a phenomenon of this:

y.

This GIF is god damn hilarious.