VS 100% install from Gaf User on PS4:
I'd explain it but I can't imagine what part you don't understand.
Any developer using UE3 in the Year of our Lord 2013 should be shut down, their IPs sold to the highest bidders and the remains of their development tools scattered to the four winds.
I notice it as well...Is it just me, or is it Xbox One's version of Thief that is stuttery? The PS4 version seems to run smoother.
It's nothing to do with this thread. He thinks buying consoles is immoral. I consider that to be irrational, not everyone would, of course, I wasn't really making fun of him or anything, I was just surprised he'd back this article in any way, because I think it seriously down plays the advantage of the PC version in context of the XBO version.Irrational, in the context of this thread i.e. game performance.
What has he argued that is irrational?
It's nothing to do with this thread. He thinks buying consoles is immoral. I consider that to be irrational, not everyone would, of course, I wasn't really making fun of him or anything, I was just surprised he'd back this article in any way, because I think it seriously down plays the advantage of the PC version in context of the XBO version.
Edit: have DF clarified anything about he parallax mapping differences, and whether enabling parallax mapping on PC messes up the AF?
Their conclusions are sensible. The resolution difference is not obvious. It's a dark game which reduces visible aliasing and the AF difference means textures are blurrier on PS4 anyway. They say the texture streaming is a minor issue that doesn't manifest for very long in gameplay.
Both versions have framerate problems with jerky stuttering. The X1 drops slightly harder, but its not a relevant difference because of how unpleasant the stuttering is on both.
Both games are technical disappointments, as they said.
Personally, I don't even understand why a tech site suddenly takes a U-turn, and resorts to using subjective and questionable definitions of what is noticeable and what is not. Their job is to talk about the hardware; the pure and plain facts about how software runs on it, and acknowledge if one of the consoles is at times running the same games at twice the resolution or framerate. Their job is not to downplay the differences. Whether everyone sees (or wants to see) the differences or not is utterly insignificant, especially as that point of view was never brought forth in the PS3 vs. 360 comparisons. At least when the 360 was on the top.
Bullshit article. Careful DF, or you guys will be out of a job soon.
Your audience does not want to see you pander to one platform or the other
Yup. Did you read my previous post?
I can't either. It's going to be NUTS.Can't wait for the Titanfall DF thread.
The 360 versus XBO comparison is one that I cannot wait for. I'm really curious on that front.Can't wait for the Titanfall DF thread.
I wonder if they'll wait for the 360 version.Can't wait for the Titanfall DF thread.
Can't wait for the Titanfall DF thread.
There has been no u-turn. They have awarded the "win" to ports with technical shortcomings before, such as Dead Island where the 360 version was a lower resolution and worse filtering.
You seem way too bitter over this.
It seems like every time the Playstation platform is the better version, there is some sort of controversy with DF.
Back in the day when 360 was winning everything, the articles were fairly uninteresting from a narrative point of view. The author would say the 360 is better for and x and y, yada yada yada, please buy the 360 version. Sure they would stretch the truth or exaggerate the difference but the verdict was the same, like with Bayonetta he would boast the 360s hardware or with Red Dead he would emphasis certain words like:
This entails a full 720p resolution on Xbox 360 along with 2x multi-sampling anti-aliasing. PlayStation 3 on the other hand renders at a significantly lower resolution: 1152x640, with a very selective implementation of the blur-inducing quincunx anti-aliasing.
Although thats nothing compared to the difference now.
When Playstation comes out on top, theres the developer to blame for not tapping the 360 hardware (FF13), capture issues (BF4), leap of logic (Thi4f), etc. Considering we are still in the beginning of the hardware cycle, it will be interesting to see how much longer this can continue.
On the console side of things, Sony's system offers up a small lead in image quality, with a sharper presentation and better texture filtering giving the game a mildly clearer look to it. But at the same time it's a real shame that Techland couldn't deliver a suitable level of performance to go along with the slightly better presentation on offer. There's no getting away from the fact that the various issues with heavy frame-rate drops and near continuous screen-tearing more than outweigh the benefits in other areas. In that respect, the Microsoft platform is home to the most consistent gameplay experience, and one that comes with very little cost when it comes down to the overall look of the game. As such, it should be the number one choice for those without a semi-decent PC.
Of course, there is another consideration to make, and that is with regards to online support. Dead Island has clearly been designed with co-operative play in mind with the drop-in/drop-out system allowing various players to interact with each other at any point during the game's campaign. But is this enough to make the PS3 version a worthwhile investment? The overall experience certainly feels better when there are a group of people playing together and while that doesn't mitigate any of the PS3 code shortcomings, it means that you shouldn't completely ignore it if it's your only option.
Can't wait for the Titanfall DF thread.
Can't wait for the Titanfall DF thread.
Can't wait for the Titanfall DF thread.
I wonder if they'll wait for the 360 version.
Bullshit article. Careful DF, or you guys will be out of a job soon. Your audience does not want to see you pander to one platform or the other, and this one is heavily skewed to the Xbone.
Bullshit article. Careful DF, or you guys will be out of a job soon. Your audience does not want to see you pander to one platform or the other, and this one is heavily skewed to the Xbone.
First they say - 900p vs 1080p PS4 advantage does not matter. Then they say less stable and lower frame rate on Xbone is no big deal. Then they say a lessideal AA (apparently, to them) = Xbone version superior, but I thought blurry didn't matter because 900p vs 1080p doesn't matter, right?
Then there are GIFs of texture streaming issues on the Xbone, not the PS4, and screen caps and input from people playing the game saying these texture problems DF saw are nowhere to be found. WTF?
Yes!
Lol, finally! This is the stuff I've been waiting for.
Lion Heart worded it pretty well already.
Seems to me the rules of the comparisons have been changed in the wake of this generation.
EDIT: As for the Dead Island article...
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-dead-island-face-off?page=3
Hmmm so we have:
Dead rising:
PS3 looks better
360 better frame rate
360 wins
Thief
PS4 and XB1 look different, both have advantages and disadvantages and it comes down to personal preference
PS4 has better frame rate.
XB1 wins.
There is just a lack of consistency with Digital Foundries subjective interpretations of the objective facts.
More importantly, it's not the same writer.These are not equivalent situations.
Hmmm so we have:
Dead rising:
PS3 looks better
360 better frame rate
360 wins
Thief
PS4 and XB1 look different, both have advantages and disadvantages and it comes down to personal preference
PS4 has better frame rate.
XB1 wins.
There is just a lack of consistency with Digital Foundries subjective interpretations of the objective facts.
This manifests more aggressively on Microsoft's platform, where drops down to 20fps are possible, as compared to 25fps on PS4 - but in amongst the frame-pacing issues this is trivial
I can't wait for ANY Titanfall thread around launch. The amount of salt is going to be absolutely hilariousCan't wait for the Titanfall DF thread.
The X1 version definitely has parallax occlusion mapping as well, they just seem to have picked surfaces to apply it to completely at random.
Grabbed a quick video to demonstrate - the bricks on the left are using it, but the otherwise-identical bricks on the right don't. Why? God alone knows. As with a bunch of other stuff in the game, probably the product of a troubled development period, platform switching (remember, it's been in dev since at least 2009, so they definitely weren't targetting PS4/XB1 initially), and most likely a nasty crunch to get it out the door. They probably just started turning it off in various areas until they hit performance targets as they were crunching for release with the game running like shit.
Looking at the screens and videos, it seems that the PS4 version is similar, but maybe with a few more surfaces spared the axe.
It's certainly no great technical feat on either platform, though, and the sooner UE3 gets put out of it's misery the better.
I can't wait for ANY Titanfall thread around launch. The amount of salt is going to be absolutely hilarious
Yup, let the forums duke it out for a "winner". DF should just be worried about providing the facts, Jack.I think DF should just stop trying to pick a winner for these analysis. Keep it purely technical and no personal opinions.
Just tell us the raw technical differences and let people sort it out on their own. All the problems DF have come when some fuckwith starts inserting their opinion it the article.
I think DF should just stop trying to pick a winner for these analysis. Keep it purely technical and no personal opinions.
Just tell us the raw technical differences and let people sort it out on their own. All the problems DF have come when some fuckwith starts inserting their opinion it the article.
Lion Heart worded it pretty well already.
Seems to me the rules of the comparisons have been changed in the wake of this generation.
EDIT: As for the Dead Island article...
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-dead-island-face-off?page=3
Depends what exactly you're calling "frame pacing" issues. If it's your standard triple-buffered stuttery mess, it doesn't trivialize anything; a 25% higher framerate is still going to feel smoother, even if they both suck.Frame pacing issues trivialize any advantage in fps.
To an extent, yes. Higher resolutions *sort of* result in better texture filtering, since the higher pixel density means you can sample from lower MIP levels without fearing shimmering, and the higher resolution will still be quite advantageous with regards to aliasing in geometry and some pixel shader effects.Trilinear filtering blurs the image and negates the sharper image that a higher resolution gives.
but I thought blurry didn't matter because 900p vs 1080p doesn't matter, right?
I think DF should just stop trying to pick a winner for these analysis. Keep it purely technical and no personal opinions.
Just tell us the raw technical differences and let people sort it out on their own. All the problems DF have come when some fuckwith starts inserting their opinion it the article.
The only thing his post helped to prove is that perception is more important than reality. It "seems" to you guys that there is a controversy at DF when the playstation version wins. However I don't remember much controversy when games like GTA5, saints row 3, DNF, or other games were deemed better on the PS3. Sorry but I don't subscribe to conspiracy theories, especially when they require cherry picking to support.
Also not sure why you quoted the DI FO when it supports what I said above.
Personally, I don't even understand why a tech site suddenly takes a U-turn, and resorts to using subjective and questionable definitions of what is noticeable and what is not. Their job is to talk about the hardware; the pure and plain facts about how software runs on it, and acknowledge if one of the consoles is at times running the same games at twice the resolution or framerate. Their job is not to downplay the differences. Whether everyone sees (or wants to see) the differences or not is utterly insignificant, especially as that point of view was never brought forth in the PS3 vs. 360 comparisons. At least when the 360 was on the top.
Hmmm so we have:
Dead rising:
PS3 looks better
360 better frame rate
360 wins
Thief
PS4 and XB1 look different, both have advantages and disadvantages and it comes down to personal preference
PS4 has better frame rate.
XB1 wins.
There is just a lack of consistency with Digital Foundries subjective interpretations of the objective facts.
I'm used to PC having better graphics, but I've had enough bitching from PC owners about console versions of games. You're not going to get it on consoles so why do you care?As far as I'm aware Digital Foundry's comparison was between XB1, PS4 and PC. I'm sorry that you don't like the outcome but you'd better get used to it, you'll be seeing it a lot over the next few years.
Which I believe was someones point, Melchiah's maybe, earlier in the thread. I think he stated, whenever there's subjectivity, it goes to the Microsft camp and that DF has never given the nod to a PS3 game that had better filtering and worse resolution/framerate.
The Dead Island article fits what I posted pretty well.
When there was a minor difference in the PS3/360 resolution, it was "significant" if the 360 version ran at a higher resolution, and a "small lead" when it was the other way around, like the DI article also shows.
I notice it as well...
More importantly, it's not the same writer.