Support NeoGAF

[Deasnutz]

Why compromise?

I can't live with upscaling, ruins the experience for me. I went with the PC version, but would have bought the PS4 version of it was 1080p. Just me.

 

[JumPeRJumPzZ]

I can't live with upscaling, ruins the experience for me. I went with the PC version, but would have bought the PS4 version of it was 1080p. Just me.

That 900p isnt really bad. Blame the console makers for the Hardware.

720p on the other hand is something annoying to see in 2015.

 

[shiyrley]

I take the version with controls that actually make sense for shooters.

Glad to hear you're gonna buy the PC version!

 

[Deasnutz]

That 900p isnt really bad. Blame the console makers for the Hardware.

720p on the other hand is something annoying to see in 2015.

Totally the hardware's fault. That's why I skip non 1080p titles, in protest 🖕🏼. It really shouldn't be hard to put a toggling for something like this in the game though.

 

[lowhighkang_LHK]

Ive seen it on PS4 on a pretty decent sized TV, it seems like it cleans up quite well to me

His TV is probably overscanning by 10 to 20 percent. Overscan really makes the image look blurry and jaggy. In fact, unless you actively fixed this, (since all tvs overscan by default), your tv is probably overscanning too. So, maybe his sharpness is too high.

Anyway, PS4 is the little engine that could. Just popped in Bloodborne in prep for the DLC and that game is gorgeous. Dice has done well, but 720p on xbox needs to stop.

 

[Disaster Nebraska]

This is the first console game (this gen) where the graphics played a big role in my purchase decision. Looks very, very good on PS4. Glad to hear all versions ended up pretty solid, with the edge going to PC (as it should be).

 

[etta]

That 900p isnt really bad. Blame the console makers for the Hardware.

720p on the other hand is something annoying to see in 2015.

... or the developers for not budging on the graphics settings.

 

[Head.spawn]

I'm mostly mobile so I really don't check the screens. I still believe it makes sense to point these things out in the video when comparisons are being made. For the record, I did ask the OP in the Fallout 4 thread if a comparison was made showing more detail on the XB1 version, he told me no, so I took his word for it, apparently he missed the screens you posted.....

Regardless, my main point was that DF has an eye of an eagle when it comes to pointing out the most isolated cases of detail in a XB1 vs PS4 comparison, pretty much every time the extra detail favors the XB1. NFS in a parkway (according to them), Fallout 4 in one rooftop scene, Endor in one scene near a tree stump. I'm not saying these should not be pointed out, not at all. I'm simply saying that there have been instances of much larger disparity (that's clearly not a bug or lack of optimization), like the extra foliage on GTA5 where we saw the switch and dance.

Apparently, they can always see the XB1 version of a game's advantage on first glance, but always seem to miss where PS4 has an asset advantage on first glance......even when it's not a bug, but just plain better or more glaring on account of a better GPU. They've even deemed superior AO as inferior in rivals claiming the XB1 version was superior. DF has been trending with these slants, as to when they turn on their eagle vison on. As I said, I have no problem with showing these differences, but don't only do so when there's clearly a bug on the PS4, show console difference at all times.

Also, they should stop trying to minimize resolution and framerate differences with the use of "pp effects diminish the 1080p - 900p divide" and declaring a supposedly 60fps shooter that dips to sub 30fps quite often on the worse performing platform as somewhere you can play with your friends. The slant on all of these things add up and it's not looking good.


No, I didn't say, everyone and their grandmothers noticed the better foliage, perhaps the eagle eyed vision was not turned on for this one. It is the first thing any comparison expert would notice.....


Yet, DF's GTA5 article was probably the first to be posted. An initial look, where some time was already spent with the title.


Even in the cities, any suburb the foliage difference was apparent. You did'nt have to search for it. I bet you if the XB1 version had better foliage it would become rather apparent and that initial assessment would have a different heading "XB1 shows a huge gulf in world detail".....click to read more.

Perhaps eagle-o-vision was just not engaged, but it happens I guess.


A piece of software does the frame counting not anyone on anyside as far as I know. If it is that DF uses a person as a frame counter, it would explain why they can never get their minimum framerate right, why they never picked up an unlocked framerate in Unity, why one area in FC4 "in a non like for like explosion comparison" is used as proof that XB1 performs better in that game, when the game falls into the teens on XB1 just traversing heavy foliage areas and performs much worse overall. When DF staff can't even admit or notice that there are many teen drops in games they deem smooth.

That feel of smoothness when when I play (perceptible smoothness) seems to override hard stats more often than not,............ it would seem.

Thanks for sharing, so no other area where this discrepancy is shown, it's only a bug, and you've shown it like you should. The call is for you to show and highlight even moreso the differences where tangible GPU differences exist in games as well, not only bugs that favor the xb1 console. Let's highlight them all at first glance.

This is very strange writing too....Are you insinuating that the foliage was pared back on the PS4 to keep it running at 60fps, whilst the XB1 could handle the better foliage?

This is not great optimization work, if anything this is a lack of optimization on PS4 like I suspected, but here you are going on about how this is such great work....

Also you mentioned that the adapative tesselation is not jarring, it is, because it's tied to lod switching, take a step back then forward near any surface and it's twitching detail like crazy. Also, this game does not have better performance than any next gen cod minus the latest hoax of a cod game. Since this is MP only we will compare it to Ghosts and AW mp on PS4/XB1, they're both more stable. Battlefront falls into the 40's, that never happened in those titles.


Yes, but for the purpose of comparisons, you can't say the 750ti can't keep up with the PS4 when it clearly is and even outperforming it on some maps. The 750ti fell into the mid 50's, so does the PS4 in that same map, then the PS4 struggles in the later map whilst the 750ti holds closer to 60fps. How do you look at this video and say the 750 ti can't keep up when the thing is holding 60fps just like the PS4 when he says it. Also bare in mind that they were at 85% scale and then they went up to 90% with some presets better on the 750ti as well, so higher resolution and better presets.

It should also be noted that the 750ti does not scale presets, it's permanently set, there are no lows and below lows. To say it can't keep up is not truthful in the slightest form.

Are you sure about any of the points you're making up again or maybe it's just the case of some random OP giving you bad info again so you can trip down the steps face first with it?

Can't be sure. Ya know, mobile and lying OPs and all.

 

[twobear]

thelastword is easily the most entertaining user on the site.

tedious is the word i would use

 

[Piggus]

The IQ and pixel crawl in the Xbox version is utterly atrocious in motion, especially on Endar. Not how that map was meant to be experienced.

 

[Pathfinder]

Totally the hardware's fault. That's why I skip non 1080p titles, in protest 🖕🏼. It really shouldn't be hard to put a toggling for something like this in the game though.

You should get into game development. I think it's your calling.

 

[Kibbles]

I play on a 100" Projector with my PS4 and my 5.1 setup I always load up Endor Walker Assault... so beautiful... help. Crazy 40 player battlefield combat and sound, gorgeous graphics, and a smooth 60fps. I love DICE games.

 

[Abilidebob]

tedious is the word i would use

I agree with Coroner.
It's like watching a drama.
You laugh, you get sad, you get angry, you get surprised.

 

[DeepEnigma]

You should get into game development. I think it's your calling.

Lol

 

[Majanew]

I can't live with upscaling, ruins the experience for me. I went with the PC version, but would have bought the PS4 version of it was 1080p. Just me.

Battlefront may not be 1080p, but it's the best looking console game this gen, to me. PBR, photogrammetry and the frame-rate holding a pretty solid 60fps makes it look phenomenal.

 

[DeepEnigma]

Battlefront may not be 1080p, but it's the best looking console game this gen, to me. PBR, photogrammetry and the frame-rate holding a pretty solid 60fps makes it look phenomenal.

Agreed.

 

[Bgamer90]

I'll just say this, the Xbox One version running at 720 is probably the best looking game I've ever seen in my 30 years of existence. You can't go wrong.

Definitely isn't the best to me (no where near) but I do find it more visually impressive than various other console games that are higher resolutions.

 

[David Ricardo]

dark10x Do you know wether Battlefront is using async shaders on consoles?

 

[c0de]

dark10x Do you know wether Battlefront is using async shaders on consoles?

I guess he doesn't and it's almost impossible to judge when playing a game, even with eagle eyes. We don't even find a way to identify CPU load in any way, async compute is even harder.

 

[dark10x]

I guess he doesn't and it's almost impossible to judge when playing a game, even with eagle eyes. We don't even find a way to identify CPU load in any way, async compute is even harder.

Well, one of the DICE white papers out there discusses the use of async compute in Mirror's Edge Catalyst leading me to believe that similar techniques are being used in Battlefront. It would not surprise me.

 

[c0de]

Well, one of the DICE white papers out there discusses the use of async compute in Mirror's Edge Catalyst leading me to believe that similar techniques are being used in Battlefront. It would not surprise me.

If there are papers available, sure, that might be a hint, but my point was that it is mostly impossible to tell by just looking at a game. And the knowledge whether they do it also tells us close to nothing as we don't know how much, for which cases and how much it improves performance in this game.

 

[thelastword]

Well that's a problem from your side now isn't it?
How do you expect people to associate any sort of credibility to you when you don't even go through the entire article to see whether the claims you are making are true or not? I think it's enough that the proof of the difference is shown directly underneath the very place where it was claimed. It's not DF's fault that you missed it, if every single thing was to be covered in the video then the article itself would be futile.

Did you not see the poster I quoted with my first post in the thread, there was already an argument going on this, I did not start it, so it's all too familiar territory for DF. Even in this article, they never indicate how they arrive at "console presets" which is way more important, all they say is that these are the console presets and sometimes some settings toggle below low, sometimes settings go down a notch and up in some maps. NO visual indicators like you saw in the candyland video and others as per usual.

Having said that, I always ask for visual evidence and they did provide it in this case, so I apologize on that one.

I mean look at what you just did, you were so bent on trying to prove your argument that you would blindly take some other person's word on this forum without really knowing if what that person said was correct or not. That person is more credible to you against an article posted with proof. Why? simply because it fit your argument !

You are trying to find things that don't exist.

What do you mean blindly? DF has a knack of saying stuff they don't prove. Even in this article they say stuff they don't prove, nobody is out for DF, but their reputation precedes them. I personally would not give them the benefit of a doubt, they just make too many mistakes and leave too many details out.

Are you sure about any of the points you're making up again or maybe it's just the case of some random OP giving you bad info again so you can trip down the steps face first with it?

Can't be sure. Ya know, mobile and lying OPs and all.

I never called the OP a liar, I complimented him on a fine DF thread, and if you know what I was talking about, you would realize that I made reference to the Fallout 4 faceoff OP, where I asked the OP. Taking a fellow user's word or the one who made the OP is now a crime......I don't blame him, don't try to infer that's where I'm coming from.

Getting the one random area where there's a disparity in console visuals and dedicating a whole paragraph to it in the name of optimization is just weird reasoning.

I'm home now so I can go through things more thoroughly. I took some screens off the video where they compare the 750ti.....I'll check the candyland video again to see where the console presets are really at.

 

[JumPeRJumPzZ]

... or the developers for not budging on the graphics settings.

I rather have a game that still looks amazing. Dont need something like H5 again.

 

[David Ricardo]

I guess he doesn't and it's almost impossible to judge when playing a game, even with eagle eyes. We don't even find a way to identify CPU load in any way, async compute is even harder.

I asked if he knew if they were using async shaders, not if he had noticed them by looking at the game. Maybe somebody from digital foundry could have talked to somebody from DICE about the technology behind the graphics.

There is an AMD presentation about async shaders, and Battlefield 4 was the only mentioned third party game that used them in PS4, and at launch nonetheless. Also Mark Cerny hinted in 2013 that fine grain computing would bring performance to PS4, so I'm curious about the technology.

Battlefront looks better and has a much more stable frame rate than BF4, so I thought maybe it makes better use of the async shaders. What I don't understand is why DICE has never commented this. This should be something good about your game, that it makes good use of the hardware. I don't understand why so much secrecy...

 

[StevieP]

I asked if he knew if they were using async shaders, not if he had noticed them by looking at the game. Maybe somebody from digital foundry could have talked to somebody from DICE about the technology behind the graphics.

There is an AMD presentation about async shaders, and Battlefield 4 was the only mentioned third party game that used them in PS4, and at launch nonetheless. Also Mark Cerny hinted in 2013 that fine grain computing would bring performance to PS4, so I'm curious about the technology.

Battlefront looks better and has a much more stable frame rate than BF4, so I thought maybe it makes better use of the async shaders. What I don't understand is why DICE has never commented this. This should be something good about your game, that it makes good use of the hardware. I don't understand why so much secrecy...

Battlefield 4 has a lot more going on than battlefront does. Maps are simpler, player count is lower, and there isn't as much... Anything to deal with in the game. Not even on walker assault does this game approach the amount of stuff going on that a typical 64p bf conquest large match has.

My brother's gaming laptop is a few years old, for example. It has an i7 and a 7970m (which isn't that far off from the ps4 gpu). In bf4, some settings have to be dropped, such as MSAA, and not everything is cranked to maintain 60. In battlefront he is maintaining 60 with most settings on ultra and the computer isn't coughing at all.

 

[dark10x]

Battlefield 4 has a lot more going on than battlefront does. Maps are simpler, player count is lower, and there isn't as much... Anything to deal with in the game. Not even on walker assault does this game approach the amount of stuff going on that a typical 64p bf conquest large match has.

My brother's gaming laptop is a few years old, for example. It has an i7 and a 7970m (which isn't that far off from the ps4 gpu). In bf4, some settings have to be dropped, such as MSAA, and not everything is cranked to maintain 60. In battlefront he is maintaining 60 with most settings on ultra and the computer isn't coughing at all.

Well MSAA isn't even available in Battlefront. It is less demanding than BF4 overall but I do feel it looks better on the whole.

 

[StevieP]

Well MSAA isn't even available in Battlefront. It is less demanding than BF4 overall but I do feel it looks better on the whole.

Sure, smaller scale everything/less of everything in the game and they have more hardware rendering budget to spend on making things look good

 

[Head.spawn]

I never called the OP a liar, I complimented him on a fine DF thread, and if you know what I was talking about, you would realize that I made reference to the Fallout 4 faceoff OP, where I asked the OP. Taking a fellow user's word or the one who made the OP is now a crime......I don't blame him, don't try to infer that's where I'm coming from.

You are the one on the tired crusade, I think people expect the bare minimum of someone trying to gather up an argument, would be them at least READING THE ARTICLE THEMSELVES.

I'm not sure how you can even take your own posts seriously after that. I'd be too embarrassed to post.

"Regardless".... of facts.

 

[SEGAvangelist]

You always have a choice. Be a leader then, and others will flock to you. This goes for all facets in life, not just silly console choices. Why be held down from other things you want to experience because of other people? You are an individual too, with your own thoughts and desires.

Be a leader. Choose Sony. ™

 

[twobear]

I personally would not give them the benefit of a doubt, they just make too many mistakes and leave too many details out.

and then you advocate nxgamer as an alternative.......your agenda is kind of transparent

 

[etta]

I rather have a game that still looks amazing. Dont need something like H5 again.

That's not the point.
The point is that there's 3 variables in the equation: graphics, resolution and framerate. It isn't just a trade between resolution and framerate.

 

[DeepEnigma]

Be a leader. Choose Sony. ™

Or PC.

 

[thelastword]

You are the one on the tired crusade, I think people expect the bare minimum of someone trying to gather up an argument, would be them at least READING THE ARTICLE THEMSELVES.

I'm not sure how you can even take your own posts seriously after that. I'd be too embarrassed to post.

"Regardless".... of facts.

Yeah, facts are definitely what we're here for... Speaking of facts, I posted 3 screens of the endor map, could you tell me if you see any difference in foliage?

In GTA5, I could show you literally every grass patch being denser on one console over the other, and we could push that up to another level when you put in a high end PC to the equation with higher lod settings, but here I'm seeing pretty similar levels of foliage to the PC......

Perhaps I need to delve deeper into the forest with my eagle eye and perhaps look around more tree stumps, but it's looking like for like for the most part. The only thing I see are extra light fixtures on the PC version, but that's about it.

and then you advocate nxgamer as an alternative.......your agenda is kind of transparent

Is something wrong with Nxgamer? Why bring him up? The point is DF has a habit of saying things they don't prove, I already apologized for that extra stump foliage pic, but yet, even in this article it's not like they don't say stuff that they don't prove......With all the guessing game going on about settings, it's just strange that a whole paragraph had to be used on extra foliage under one stump in the jungle and accrue it to optimization work over several maps....Yet, it was never shown the areas where shadows and effects waiver from low to medium to even high by their suggestion.

I noticed their praise for texture work and I find this is the least impressive thing in this game, I really don't see a massive difference in texture work from high to medium to low as per the candyland video. Maybe the textures based on photos are fooling people, but it's all to samey and lacking variety in any one map. Very simplistic textures imo.

As for my take on the 750ti's performance.

Resolution = 1080p
Motion Blur = 0%
Texture Quality = Ultra
Texture filtering = Medium
Lighting Quality = High
Shadow Quality = High
Effects Quality = High
Post Process Quality = High
Mesh Quality = High
Terrain Quality = Ultra
Terrain Ground Cover = Ultra
Anti-Aliasing = Fxaa High
AO=Off

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qHnAZ90CUH4

I'd say that's very good performance at 1080p resolution with everything on high or Ultra save filtering at medium. He said that he is losing 8fps recording via shadowplay, (take that latter part as you will unless he proves it), but that program in particular does take a hit on hardware resources. There are other less intensive programs out there that records btw.

So yes, a 750ti which is weaker than the PS4 GPU can do this game at 1080p with these settings at very good performance level, yet the PS4 is falling below low presets at times, operates at 900p and it's still falling below 60fps in many areas. Look at how superior the IQ is on the 750ti as well, less shimmering and jaggies. So you mean to tell me that the PS4 GPU could not get similar settings or even superior settings, say include AO on low to the settings here. This is just not good enough, and anyone who says DICE optimized this for consoles are off their rockers, missing foliage on the PS4 with the superior GPU speaks of great optimization......SMH.

 

[StevieP]

So yes, a 750ti which is weaker than the PS4 GPU can do this game at 1080p with these settings at very good performance level, yet the PS4 is falling below low presets at times, operates at 900p and it's still falling below 60fps in many areas. Look at how superior the IQ is on the 750ti as well, less shimmering and jaggies. So you mean to tell me that the PS4 GPU could not get similar settings or even superior settings, say include AO on low to the settings here. This is just not good enough, and anyone who says DICE optimized this for consoles are off their rockers, missing foliage on the PS4 with the superior GPU speaks of great optimization......SMH.

Ever consider there is more going into a computer (whether it's the kind you build yourself to get better results or the one Sony sells you) than just 1 part?

 

[c0de]

Ever consider there is more going into a computer (whether it's the kind you build yourself to get better results or the one Sony sells you) than just 1 part?

Yes, especially CPU, but that would lead to the point that the CPUs in consoles are “old“ in their architecture and slow because they were built because of low power and not for performance which he argued before in another thread.