Uh...they did?
It's the very first image in the face off article.
This DF bias thing is so funny because people from both sides will take every opportunity to "confirm bias" by reading too much into the line. Never once thinking "Maybe it wasn't their intention" or "Maybe they actually overlooked it" cause you know it takes a lot of time to check two to three different versions of the same game and find differences.
Funny how you missed this and claimed they never talked about it and used it to make accusation about their bias right?
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.
DF also posted a story about the vegitation in GTAV first.
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2014-gta-5-next-gen-grass-compared
"Oh", you say "but it was pointed out somewhere first"
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.....
dark10x said:
Well, guess what? It takes time to post articles. It's not a message board where you can quickly type something up and post it.
Yet, DF's GTA5 article was probably the first to be posted. An initial look, where some time was already spent with the title.
dark10x said:
Also, the Battlefront example? Guess what? That appears literally the second you start that map. The VERY FIRST SHOT when you load that map demonstrates missing foliage on PS4. You do not have to search for it like in GTAV. It is RIGHT THERE.
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.
dark10x said:
Hey, at least we have an accurate frame-rate counter...unlike NX Gamer.
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.
dark10x said:
I don't know what you're on about on framecount
Here it is. The ONLY place where this discrepancy is mentioned. I made big red circles for you.
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.
DF said:
Now, while terrain rendering is of very high quality on consoles, it's clear that cutbacks were made in other areas. For example, the dense forest of Endor uses foliage placement that differs from all of the presets. More surprisingly, this is one area in which we discovered a difference between PS4 and Xbox One - there is more foliage rendered on Xbox while playing the Endor Survival map. Fortunately, there is still plenty of foliage to be found. We didn't actually notice the lack of foliage until comparing the two versions side by side, but it's fascinating to see how far DICE has gone to hit the 60fps target
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.
To be fair, that is an isolated area in one of the training missions that noticeably drops frames. It's not representative of the PS4s performance as a whole.
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.