KainXVIII
Member
I try either way and it still sucks, period
-
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.
DF Performance Analysis: Dark Souls 2 The Scholar of the First Sin (PS4 vs. XB1)
- Thread starter chadskin
- Start date
I try either way and it still sucks, period
I remember the PS3 getting all kinds of shit for having inferior versions of games like FEAR, The Darkness, etc. You're eother remembering wrong, or young.
So its like the iPhone. People just hold their phone wrong.
If a conventional controller needs explaining how to use it, that is bad design.
(I like the x1 controller but hate the bumpers)
If you consider the frame rate on XO to be too variable when the video and chart tells us the average is 55.4 FPS I suggest you change the areas where you test to make it more strenuous on the systems to get a more representative comparison.
I hate the xbone controller, only thing I love about it are the bumpers. Should of kept the 360 build, with analogs, and just changed the bumpers.
OneOneSeven
Banned
It was nothing like it is now. I remember very clearly. You're out of your mind if you think it's comparable.
This console garbage has been going on forever, but with performance analysis being such a big deal now, it's worse than ever.
diffusionx
Gold Member
The gap between those games (and others, like Double Agent) was enormous. The PS3 versions were basically unplayable.
Put in today's terms, it would be like the PS4 version running at a solid 1080p and solid 60fps with the XO version running at 720p and unstable 30fps, with missing graphical features.
Later on, you got a situation where maybe the PS3 game didn't have AA (or smeary QAA) or a slightly lower res but still performed similarly.
The XO/PS4 comparison basically skipped that first awful set with unplayable versions. But you wouldn't know that by reading, say, the DF comment section.
AgentOtaku
Member
Yup
At this point, biggest gaps we've seen off the top of my head were FoxEngine (720p vs 1080p) and Tomb Raider
E (30fps 1080p/900p vs variable 60fps/1080p)
Journey
Banned
I take it you didn't watch the video. https://youtu.be/QMPJ_rSUR0I?t=287
The framerate runs mostly in the 50s with lots of 60 throughout. The instance where it dropped to 38fps was "after" the boss fight, not during and it happened with the achievement popped up which could be what caused the dip since the battle was already over.
shadowsdarknes
Member
I did the watch the video.
Thanks.
The one instance of 38 fps is not my primary concern.
Caayn
Member
Thinking back, Tomb raider DE on the PS4 has a similar framerate, slightly worse even, as the Xbox One has with this game.Yup
At this point, biggest gaps we've seen off the top of my head were FoxEngine (720p vs 1080p) and Tomb Raider
Unknown One
Member
It is the same as ever.
Green Yoshi
Member
This. Sometimes the differences between Xbox 360 and PS3 were quite visable (GTA IV, Ghostbusters, Call of Duty) and people still played it on PS3 and it it was only a side note for gaming websites. I can't recall that many "Call of Duty: No 720p on PS3!" news.
If you care so much about graphics, then buy a PC. People that notice a difference between 900p and 1080p, will notice a difference between 1080p+FXAA and 1440p+ MSAA, too. Probably you will even have a lot smoother experience if you use Steam (fast downloads, studios can publish patches themselves, easy change of languages).
Freedom = $1.05
Banned
i'd argue it was much worse before when devs were struggling initially to wrap their heads around the clusterfuck that was making ps3 games early on. This gen is much closer than it's been since maybe xb/ps2/gcn, possibly the closest one yet.
AgentOtaku
Member
Shit, I'd say even closer than that now...
Backfoggen
Banned
I keep slipping off the sticks too. DS4 bumpers on a XB1 controller with maybe also DS4 face buttons would be perfect.
Coulomb_Barrier
Member
Nice try with the achievement unlocked causing the low framerate on the Xbone. Lol.
seventynine
Member
This isn't a thread for you to hang your persecution complex out in.
Man the framerate is all over the place in the X1 version. Pretty terrible.
Lol now DF admitting lower than 1080p is a drawback. What a slip oops.
The PS 5 version seems to hold up pretty well, but I'm wondering what's causing the performance hitches in the rendering process. Both the Xbox 3 and the PS 5 versions seem to be hitting below their "weight class." I'm definitely with you in the "please give the option to lock it at 30" camp.
Dictator93
Member
It's definitely the same some people's consoles are getting the short end of the stick this time. The view is a lot different on that side of the fence.
Indeed. This wasn't that uncommon last gen: http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?p=21520057#post21520057
Only thing that has changed is that the gaming side don't get this kind of amusing drawing anymore.
There never was a problem ''
Cynn
Member
I'm guessing you're just really young or new to gaming as 60 FPS has always been a thing in console games and one promoted heavily ever since the PSX, Saturn and N64 era. Games like F-Zero X and Tobal were promoted almost exclusively due to the 60 FPS they achieved and other games like Ridge Racer and Toshinden had special modes that allowed 60 FPS and they marketed them as killer features. You also saw it popping up in remasters like the Saturn Outrun Collection.
Games were also judged against their Arcade counterparts that most often ran at 60 FPS. Framerate was often a measuring stick of ports.
I don't disagree, but it doesn't change the fact that the XB1(and 360) bumpers are brilliantly designed. They allow you to hit both the trigger and the bumper with the same finger without ever having to take your finger off the trigger. The 360 was better since it easily allowed people to use it the "wrong" way.
You're simply mistaken here.
DF does have different authors.
And thank jeebus for different writers. Rich is the best while that Jonh dude is the worst of the bunch.
Forza Motorsport.
Forza 2 - 60 fps locked.
Forza 3 - 60 fps locked.
Forza 4 - 60 fps locked.
I always love Dark10x's articles. He does a great job.
Wait, is T. Morgan Dark10x!?!
StrongBlackVine
Banned
Maybe all the talk about the PS4's CPU causing framerate problems in open world games(or in general) compared to the Xbox One will die now. Who am I kidding it won't.
Leadbetter is by far the worst.
AgentOtaku
Member
It's those darn particle transparencies again!
(Borderlands)
Ironic as that is what would cripple the ps3 last gen, I believe...
Is it easier to Plat than Bloodborne?
Derpcrawler
Member
More time consuming, need to go up to NG++ for some spells. Bloodborne can be platinum'd in 1 playthrough.
Bloodborne's already finished, dude. Unless you're talking about fixing loading times, etc. through patches.
Weaker GPU, slower RAM, & only 32 MB's of eSRAM is what happened.
LOL if you seriously believe that.
More difficult and more boring.
John Linneman
Windom Earle
Member
There really is no evidence for it. Framerate wise it has been a rough week for the Xbox One.
First GTA PS4 patch, then Borderlands, now DS2.
Indeed. This is my GAF account (Tom here).
thelastword
Banned
Really? GT7 will be 1080p 60fps, MGS is openworld 1080p 60fps.....
You would think that they would hide that huh! don't forget, it was Morgan who raged when Diablo Ultimate Edition(Xbone) could not hold a solid 60fps and demanded 900p for a better overall framerate, that was in his primary analysis. He toned that down quite a bit for the final faceoff and said "most of the xbone drops tends to be imperceptible".cgcg said:
In any case, to those who have said that the talk of framerate and rez is only an in-thing this gen, perhaps this is their first gen or they simply were not around, and that's giving them the benefit of a doubt frankly. By all means though, lets see what the media had to tell us about the XBONE's games leading up to launch. For this, I'd like to keep it in-house, same editor/same outlet; so here's what our famous tech expert Thomas Morgan from Digital Foundry had to say on the xbone's games.
FORZA 5: A full 1080p resolution is in evidence here, and there's no compromise made to alpha transparency effects such as smoke when painting tyre marks across the floor - a known compromise on Xbox 360 editions of the franchise. While post-AA can be rather ugly on current-gen console, our experience with PC suggests that a lot of the ugly side-effects of the tech are radically diminished with a higher resolution.
RYSE SON OF ROME: According to nearby staff, Ryse is a native 1080p game. Yes, there's no doubt about it - this is definitely running on "real deal" Xbox One hardware.
CRIMSON DRAGON: Visually, it goes without saying that we're getting the promised 1080p, Performance-wise, 30fps is the confirmed target and we experience no slow-down during the five minute slice of gameplay we enjoyed, we can't help but wish that Crimson Dragon ran at the full 1080p60.
This is probably my favourite;
KILLER INSTINCT: The Xbox One hardware is visibly active, almost certainly pushing out 1080p at 60 frames per second.
Such great use of adverbs whenever the xbone does something with aplomb, you better not doubt him or DF......
DEAD RISING 3:There's no confirmation on resolution, but from what we saw, it's not far from 1080p in terms of clarity.
PROJECT SPARK:1080p resolution is confirmed, and the game was running on an Xbox One dev kit.
BATTLEFIELD 4:1080p at 60FPS is being targeted on Xbox One, and also 64 players in multiplayer - both of which set it apart from previous console versions.
Here's the link.
So yes, the media did report on it and DF was quite happy to report 1080p 60fps as well as 1080p or 60fps. It was certainly their expectation of what this gen would be (even for the xbone as per the article). It was what many devs promised and these guys at DF were quite certain that what they saw was the real deal and they were excited for it too, as Morgan himself penned up some very convincing arguments as to why the clarity that 1080 gives or the fluidity of 60fps was a marked step from last gen. As it turns out, DF had a rude awakening when they had to do the analyses of xbone's launch games, and boy did the tune change then.
Is the vanilla version worth getting? Visually speaking. It looks really good modded from videos. Does this version looks better?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Mv5fUWOxrU
Also, is there a texture pack for vanilla? I know the first one does and it looks quite good.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Mv5fUWOxrU
Also, is there a texture pack for vanilla? I know the first one does and it looks quite good.
thelastword
Banned
It's those darn particle transparencies again!
(Borderlands)
Yeah, the same happened in DMC xbone whenever there was heavy alpha on-screen. On the flip-side GTA5 has more grass on PS4 and better performance but the grass in RE-RE2 is a special kind which performs better on the xbone's gpu
Yeah, the same happened in DMC xbone whenever there was heavy alpha on-screen. On the flip-side GTA5 has more grass on PS4 and better performance but the grass in RE-RE2 is a special kind which performs better on the xbone's gpu
Probably directx12 enabled grass.
Clear
CliffyB's Cock Holster
Its really not that clear-cut. If you go back to the 2d days then yes there was a very big preference for running in a frame, but once 3D came to the fore 30 became pretty common because polygonal rendering is massively more variable performance-wise than scrolling tile displays and sprites.
Obviously the degree of variance depends on the type of game, simple arena based fighting games where basically you have a couple of characters in a set-scene is quite predictable, but in a FPS/TPS where draw load differs drastically based on location/angle of view... not nearly so much.
Its also worth pointing out that at this stage we are still on single-threaded applications where timing/optimization is very straightforward. When PS2 comes around we have a situation where you start getting contention and stalling issues with the VU's, which worsens drastically when we get to PS360 with their multi-core cpu's and programmable gpus.
I'd also add that if you want to talk long-term, it really depends on what you were playing on in the 8/16-bit days. The home computers of that time had many successful titles that ran at 30 (or below) and nobody really cared.
This mania for 60fps or bust is a relatively recent phenomenon, and is in my opinion a very unhealthy one. Games are being compared on metrics, with value of experience being justified after the fact by those numbers.
CambriaRising
Member
My head hurts