Support NeoGAF

[HeelPower]

This quality in the graphics is just not competitive and it doesn't perform above the peers either. For a foliage heavy game, I'm surprised how poorly it compares to GTA V, Inquisition, and even Black Flag foliage LOD.

Comparing this Black Flag...I can't even.
Well, to counter your screenshot, here are screenshots from the console screenshot thread.
Xbox one

PS4

 

[CerebralTiger]

It is also doing things on a much grander scale than its peers, with aspects like no loading screens for buildings/towns that its peers are also not doing.

No loading screens for buildings/towns doesn't seem as impressive when you consider that it isn't really a seamless open world on the whole.

 

[DOWN]

It is also doing things on a much grander scale than its peers, with aspects like no loading screens for buildings/towns that its peers are also not doing.

As for 'nobody cares', well, you should probably speak for yourself, especially as a very outspoken critic in this area. I've seen plenty of people quite happy with how their game looks on console.

I can't say that next to GTA V (which has a map that scales at similar or larger than W3 with tons of unique buildings and structures, loading free) or even Black Flag (on foliage LOD particularly), W3 is on a much grander scale and it certainly doesn't stand out as the title with current gen only graphics.

Maybe I wasn't clear, but I'm saying nobody cares what name was going to be assigned to whatever settings consoles got, whether low, medium, etc. It's more specifically about how good whatever they choose to call the setting looks and plays, and it isn't getting such a hot response here on those technical measures (many praising it here resort to comments on how fun or artful it is and not the tech).

 

[mhayze]

I cringe every time I see a new DF face-off article thread and this thread is no exception. While I understand what DF is doing with these articles I always feel like people take the information and use it the wrong way. It always devolves into people flinging crap at each other over their console of choice or PC mustard race talk.

It looks outstanding to me on PC at 1080p and mostly Ultra settings, and from what I've seen the console versions are not that far off. For the hardware in each box I think CDPR did a fantastic job.

Its like people who have the game on PS4 or X1 will say how beautiful it is for the first week, then once the DF face off drops everyone is saying how ugly a game is on console. Same routine every time. And most of it is differences people wouldn't even notice without being told.

These articles are fine to help those who own both consoles decide on which version to purchase, but otherwise just play the game...sheesh.

A fair point. The game looks good on consoles IMHO, but on all platforms there are still some rough spots/edges. All in all, though, this is a massive world, and I can't fault the developers on their choice of resource allocation - that would clearly be a case of Monday morning quarterbacking. Much more important to me is that game has proven stable to me on release, no small feat these days, apparently.

Taking the long view on graphics on PC, from experience, things will only get better between patches and modders. Look at some of the screenshots of Skyrim in the PC screenshot threads - simply amazing. To rewind the clock, that game took a beating on optimization (fairly) and graphics quality on release (more questionable).

As for DF, I like their analysis. Some people react badly to the comparisons. Who cares. For people with even temperaments, who can keep their unconscious

Spoiler

(or conscious)

biases in check, it's fascinating reading, particularly for developers.

 

[Zakalwe]

It's dishonest consider ps4 hold up well compared the ultra setting on pc with the difference in the specs? Wat

What does "holds up quite well" even mean?

It does the best it can with the tech it has, but here is a huge difference in quality as an end result of the difference in tech.

"Holds up quite well" doesn't tell us anything other than "ps4 does the best it can".

 

[GoonerTRON]

Nobody cares if PS4 is medium, low, etc. It's how poorly it performs and how unimpressive the graphics are among current gen only games.

This quality in the graphics is just not competitive and it doesn't perform above the peers either. For a foliage heavy game, I'm surprised how poorly it compares to GTA V, Inquisition, and even Black Flag foliage LOD. Here we go again (in that fugly armor we've all tried):

You went out of your way to find a bloody potato field.

 

[omonimo]

What does "holds up quite well" even mean?

It does the best it can with the tech it has, but here is a huge difference in quality as an end result of the difference in tech.

"Holds up quite well" doesn't tell us anything other than "ps4 does the best it can".

What do you mean for quality? To have the same impact or just set everything to ultra? PC it's the triple of the quadruple capable in the cpu and people are shocked it can handle more things? The coherency. In specific scenario pc can easily put in the shame the ps4 yeah, but why we can't say ps4 hold up quite well compared the pc ultra setting, considered the massive specs difference? It's dishonest? Really? Jeez. I see a video comparison between pc ultra and ps4 not so much time ago, and I was genuinelly surprise how much close was the impact of the graphic between the two. This doesn't mean pc version destroy technically the ps4 version.

 

[tuna_love]

What do you mean for quality? To have the same impact or just set everything to ultra? PC it's the triple of the quadruple capable in the cpu and people are shocked it can handle more thing? The coherency. In specific scenario pc can easily put in the shame the ps4 yeah, but why we can't say ps4 hold up quite well compared the pc ultra setting? It's dishonest? Really? Jeez.

There is no coherence

 

[Percy]

Xbox One version being worst by far but being the only version advertised is pretty funny.

 

[Zakalwe]

What do you mean for quality? To have the same impact or just set everything to ultra? PC it's the triple of the quadruple capable in the cpu and people are shocked it can handle more thing? The coherency. In specific scenario pc can easily put in the shame the ps4 yeah, but why we can't say ps4 hold up quite well compared the pc ultra setting, considered the massive specs difference? It's dishonest? Really? Jeez. I see a comparison between pc ultra and ps4 no so much time ago, and I was genuinelly surprise how much close was the impact in the graphic between the two. This doesn't mean pc can destroy technically the ps4 version.

It's dishonest because you're using it to effectively play down the difference in overall quality.

As I said "holds up quite well" is a worthless statement. We all know the ps4 does the best it can.

 

[omonimo]

It's dishonest because you're using it to effectively play down the difference in overall quality.

As I said "holds up quite well" is a worthless statement. We all know the ps4 does the best it can.

It doesn't play down the tech behind the pc version. He just said to not to see great difference. It's quite different. We are talking of something really subjective here.

 

[nib95]

What does "holds up quite well" even mean?

It does the best it can with the tech it has, but here is a huge difference in quality as an end result of the difference in tech.

"Holds up quite well" doesn't tell us anything other than "ps4 does the best it can".

I don't think there is a huge difference tbh, or at least I think the difference should be far more vast. The differences between console and PC ultra settings versions of recent games like Assassin's Creed Unity, Battlefield Hardline, Project Cars etc seems larger.

 

[JumPeRJumPzZ]

Xbox One version being worst by far but being the only version advertised is pretty funny.

What exactly is worse on the XboxOne besides the resolution? Ive read a lot of hyperbole in this thread. Its amazing.

 

[Zakalwe]

It doesn't play down the tech behind the pc version. He just said to not to see great difference. It's quite different.

I'm having a lot of trouble understanding you.

I don't think there is a huge difference tbh, or at least I think the difference should be far more vast. The differences between console and PC ultra settings versions of recent games like Assassin's Creed Unity, Battlefield Hardline, Project Cars etc seems larger.

Again, our eyes must work differently then. The difference to me is significant.

 

[Javin98]

Not sure about that. A weaker 750Ti with an i3 can move the game on same quality + better textures + more population + ¿better physics? at a slightly better framerate.

Yeah, CDP certainly could have done better, but some people here act as if they did a poor job. The game still looks amazing. Isn't that what matters?

 

[omonimo]

I'm having a lot of trouble understanding you.

I think you have a lot of trouble to understand different opinions in general.

 

[Seanspeed]

I can't say that next to GTA V (which has a map that scales at similar or larger than W3 with tons of unique buildings and structures, loading free) or even Black Flag (on foliage LOD particularly), W3 is on a much grander scale and it certainly doesn't stand out as the title with current gen only graphics.

Maybe I wasn't clear, but I'm saying nobody cares what name was going to be assigned to whatever settings consoles got, whether low, medium, etc. It's more specifically about how good whatever they choose to call the setting looks and plays, and it isn't getting such a hot response here on those technical measures (many praising it here resort to comments on how fun or artful it is and not the tech).

Next-gen GTAV is impressive in its scale and variety of assets and everything, absolutely. Rockstar are also Rockstar though and it definitely doesn't look as good(or at least not better) than this game. You could totally see where compromises had to get made and it is not all because of it 'technically' being cross-gen.

Black Flag is impressive stuff. Certainly comparable, although TW3 still has more going on and more impressive character models and whatnot. I've always thought Black Flag was a bit underrated graphically, myself.

I'm not saying TW3 is going to be winning any graphics awards, but you constantly talking about how awful it looks seems a bit exaggerated, perhaps on purpose. Even if doesn't better them, it definitely holds up to comparable multiplatform games, at the very least.

 

[chromatic9]

The 750Ti is also backed up by an i7 processor and 16GB RAM.

But ignore all that. OH WOW 750Ti OMG BBQ OF WTF

This game isn't demanding on CPU

You can go lower and lower with AMD laptop CPUs but we're hitting a bottom on price where you'd be silly to build a PC with a Jaguar CPU to prove a point. FX-4300 is £50-60 and the Jaguar laptop grade CPU is around £30.

The PC version of PS4/XBO CPU is the Jaguar Athlon 5150 on 4 cores at 1.6ghz, would be interesting to test that or a Jag Athlon 5350 at 2.0ghz. They only have 4 cores when console has 6/7 for gaming use. There's many more between the 5150 and the FX-4300.

Just to let some know that FX-4300 performance is very similar to what the Phenom 955 in 2009 had and its much faster than the Jaguar. Jaguar CPU is only a ~25W CPU and just gets the job done for a low price solution in a APU.

EDIT: I should also add in testing the GPU, the best CPU is used to show what the GPU is capable of, some will want 90hz gaming or more. You don't need 16gb of ram, that doesn't do anything. I run this on 6gb of system ram, you can use 4gb of system ram. 16gb is just thrown in for good measure. We test the GPU not tight trouser pockets.

 

[RoboPlato]

HBAO+ with foliage shadows are the only thing I'm personally missing a lot on console. The other compromises they've made don't stand out to me nearly as much as that. Overall I'm quite happy with the PS4 port. Being such a large game and coming from a PC focused dev who hasn't released an open world game or done a simultaneous multiplatform release before, I was expecting both consoles to clock in at lower resolutions and framerate than they turned out to have and was also expecting more agressive LoD settings.

Storms are the only thing I've noticed that really bog down the framerate but the odd thing is if you reload a save during a storm, the framerate often is fine on the next run. Hopefully an upcoming patch can make it run like that all the time.

 

[Kezen]

Consoles were never going to have hairworks, these are AMD machines.

Incorrect.

Hairworks runs on AMD hardware. It uses DCU and not CUDA like GPU Physx.
Look at the Hairworks perf difference on AMD/Nvidia hardware :
http://www.hardocp.com/article/2015/01/12/far_cry_4_graphics_features_performance_review/5#.VWBxMk882Uk

So, Hairworks didn't make it in either consoles skus because of performance. HBAO+ is also available even if you don't own an Nvidia GPU.

 

[Qassim]

Didn't really expect there to be as big of a difference between what the PC version is capable of and what the consoles are set as, I expected more individual components of the scene to be close to matching the PC. But I think they've still achieved something good across the board all things considered.

My opinion on the presentation of the game is that whilst individual elements of the scene aren't especially amazing, I think what the scene comes together as, in motion, is beautiful. Easily up there with the very best looking games.

 

[Zakalwe]

I think you a lot of trouble to understand different opinions in general.

That's really not the problem here...

-

I should also add that I have the game running on ultra/high at 1080 on a 970, and I've seen my friends' ps4 version.

It's much more apparent seeing both right in front of you, even disregarding the difference in performance. If you have the chance to make a comparison in person you should.

I find it very hard to believe that people can't see the huge difference between PC and ps4, but then there are people who claim not to be able to notice the difference between 30 and 60fps and that to me seems incredible.

Maybe I'm just more sensitive to these things having spent a good deal of time gaming on both PC and console alongside each other.

 

[Ape]

What exactly is worse on the XboxOne besides the resolution? Ive read a lot of hyperbole in this thread. Its amazing.

From what I can tell from reading the article the two console twins have the exact same assets. The only difference being a few pixels. If you want to see a massive jump in quality put the PC into the mix.

 

[Beefy]

Are these threads always like this?

Some PC gamers all to happy to take the piss out of consoles.
Some console gamers sticking up for their choosen console.
(Yes there are some people just discussing the differences in a good way).

I think people accept that PC will always be better, but the PS4 and XBO versions aren't that bad. I'm a PS4 owner as PC's have never interested me gaming wise. The Witcher 3 looks good enough for me, but it does need updates to correct framerate etc. But what games don't these days? Especially open world games.

 

[PodcastFips]

If anything, the two screenshots between the PS4 and PC here signify to me that the differences are pretty minimal aside from the slightly crisper textures on the PC side.

Opening up the images in separate tabs and switching between them, I really don't see the so-called gulf in quality. Not at all.

I feel the same, but the difference could be bigger as soon as you really see the game running.

Anyway, besides the judder here and there I am happy with my PS4 version. It really looks beautiful most of the time.

 

[MaLDo]

Comparing this Black Flag...I can't even.
Well, to counter your screenshot, here are screenshots from the console screenshot thread.
Xbox one

PS4

Poor comparison

PC

 

[Purest 78]

I would Hope with the cost of a pc that can run this game at ultra. You'd see a difference compared to a $400 machine it's not big as I thought it would be.

 

[1.21Gigawatts]

Its normal that you'll find screenshots that look very good and ones that look very bad in a game with a huge open world, diverse terrain and fully dynamic day/night and weather.
There are places where things like the reduced NPC counts and the low shadow draw distance aren't noticable, but overall I notice it a lot.

Xbox One version being worst by far but being the only version advertised is pretty funny.

"By far" is an exaggeration. The difference between Ps4 and XboxOne isn't big.
I also think that the framerate issues on XB1 might be easier to fix than the ones on Ps4.
Ps4 straight up drops below 30, while Xbox stays above 30 which causes frame pacing issues which can probably be fixed with a 30FPS lock.
On Ps4 the devs needed to optimise to get the framerate up to 30. Maybe they'll reduce AF on Ps4 to XB1 level in order to achieve that.

come on man

I think that counts: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZyefdMlnriE
Framerate runs unlocked here, but they give you the option to lock it to 30FPS.

Look at all the stuff going on here(Second Son):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ZQrIksmPxc
...and it really only drops below 30 during the orbital drop.
And First Light runs even better than that.

Infamous might not have a terribly interactive or huge open world. But its a mighty good looking one with lots of destruction, physics and particle effects. Also one of the best image qualities we've seen on consoles. Also keep in mind that you can traverse extremely fast in Infamous and there is no problem with pop in of any kind.


Of course all open worlds are different, but I think we shouldn't just accept framerate issues because a game is open world. Infamous is good example for a good framerate in open world games on console.
I hope Witcher 3 get notable framerate improvements with patches, just like AssassinsCreed and GTA V.

 

[Kezen]

Regarding HBAO+ Nvidia have put up a sublime guide which highlights very well how better it can look compared to SSAO used on consoles :
http://www.geforce.com/whats-new/guides/the-witcher-3-wild-hunt-graphics-performance-and-tweaking-guide

SSAO :

HBAO+ :

http://international.download.nvidia.com/geforce-com/international/comparisons/the-witcher-3-wild-hunt/the-witcher-3-wild-hunt-ambient-occlusion-interactive-comparison-4-nvidia-hbao-plus-vs-ssao.html

 

[Zakalwe]

I feel the same, but the difference could be bigger as soon as you really see the game running.

Anyway, besides the judder here and there I am happy with my PS4 version. It really looks beautiful most of the time.

I would Hope with the cost of a pc that can run this game at ultra. You'd see a difference compared to a $400 machine it's not big as I thought it would be.

Also you need to see them side by side. The difference really is quite large.

And again, this is before you consider the massive difference in performance at higher settings.

 

[Dictator93]

I think these PC gamers are really grasping at straws to try and validate their expensive hardware purchases. Aside from shadows, LOD, crowd density, textures, and framerate there really isn't a difference here.

Aside from everything, there is no difference.

 

[Javin98]

I find petty arguments about the disparity between console/PC to be pointless, I mean items obvious better tech = better results, but there's no way the ps4 "holds up quite well" to ultra settings.

It looks nice on ps4 when we consider the quality of the tech involved, but it pales significantly to the PC version. This is before you consider the PC can run at significantly higher frame rates and resolutions.

Well, to me, it holds up quite well to the PC version on Ultra. I expected it to look worse.

 

[DOWN]

Aside from everything, there is no difference.

He listed off all the scales lmao

 

[Conduit]

What exactly is worse on the XboxOne besides the resolution? Ive read a lot of hyperbole in this thread. Its amazing.

Maybe texture filtering and AA?

 

[Zakalwe]

Aside from everything, there is no difference.

And here we have it.

 

[bede-x]

Sharpening looks awful but the texture difference remains :

An even bigger difference is the amount of people on screen. Maybe a coincidence?

 

[1.21Gigawatts]

Aside from everything, there is no difference.

Everything and resolution.

 

[omonimo]

Its normal that you'll find screenshots that look very good and ones that look very bad in a game with a huge open world, diverse terrain and fully dynamic day/night and weather.
There are places where things like the reduced NPC counts and the low shadow draw distance aren't noticable, but overall I notice it a lot.



"By far" is an exaggeration. The difference between Ps4 and XboxOne isn't big.
I also think that the framerate issues on XB1 might be easier to fix than the ones on Ps4.
Ps4 straight up drops below 30, while Xbox stays above 30 which causes frame pacing issues which can probably be fixed with a 30FPS lock.
On Ps4 the devs needed to optimise to get the framerate up to 30. Maybe they'll reduce AF on Ps4 to XB1 level in order to achieve that.




I think that counts: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZyefdMlnriE
Framerate runs unlocked here, but they give you the option to lock it to 30FPS.

Look at all the stuff going on here(Second Son):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ZQrIksmPxc
...and it really only drops below 30 during the orbital drop.
And First Light runs even better than that.

Infamous might not have a terribly interactive or huge open world. But its a mighty good looking one with lots of destruction, physics and particle effects. Also one of the best image qualities we've seen on consoles. Also keep in mind that you can traverse extremely fast in Infamous and there is no problem with pop in of any kind.


Of course all open worlds are different, but I think we shouldn't just accept framerate issues because a game is open world. Infamous is good example for a good framerate in open world games on console.
I hope Witcher 3 get notable framerate improvements with patches, just like AssassinsCreed and GTA V.

The thing it's, capped the 30 fps on xbone could imply the same level of fps seen in the ps4 if not a little bit worse. Eh.

 

[Noobcraft]

The thing it's, capped the 30 fps on xbone could imply the same level of fps seen in the ps4 if not a little bit worse. Eh.

Everyone got on you in the other thread for saying the same thing because it doesn't make sense.

 

[Javin98]

Does anyone else think CDP may improve the foliage visibility in the console versions somewhere down the line through patches? Probably not, since the performance still needs to be fixed, but the thought of Techland improving the LOD, and AF of Dying Light in the PS4 version without impacting performance just seems interesting to me.

 

[omonimo]

Everyone got on you in the other thread for saying the same thing because it doesn't make sense.

Everyone? The same persons who don't know how work capped/uncapped fps but because I can't give to them a deeper tech explanation, they said it's not true. So tell me why they left the fps uncapped on xbone, what's the tech reason. Because to me seems quite plausible.

 

[Purest 78]

Also you need to see them side by side. The difference really is quite large.

And again, this is before you consider the massive difference in performance at higher settings.

My opinion is based off the prices of the compared machines. There's nothing there that would make me rush out to buy a PC. As far as 60fps vs 30fps I simply don't care to be honest.

 

[Noobcraft]

So tell me why they left the fps uncapped on xbone. For what exactly reason. I'm curious.

I don't work at CDPR so I don't know. Given the state of the game at launch it may be a bug.

 

[Ape]

Its normal that you'll find screenshots that look very good and ones that look very bad in a game with a huge open world, diverse terrain and fully dynamic day/night and weather.
There are places where things like the reduced NPC counts and the low shadow draw distance aren't noticable, but overall I notice it a lot.



"By far" is an exaggeration. The difference between Ps4 and XboxOne isn't big.
I also think that the framerate issues on XB1 might be easier to fix than the ones on Ps4.
Ps4 straight up drops below 30, while Xbox stays above 30 which causes frame pacing issues which can probably be fixed with a 30FPS lock.
On Ps4 the devs needed to optimise to get the framerate up to 30. Maybe they'll reduce AF on Ps4 to XB1 level in order to achieve that.




I think that counts: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZyefdMlnriE
Framerate runs unlocked here, but they give you the option to lock it to 30FPS.

Look at all the stuff going on here(Second Son):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ZQrIksmPxc
...and it really only drops below 30 during the orbital drop.
And First Light runs even better than that.

Infamous might not have a terribly interactive or huge open world. But its a mighty good looking one with lots of destruction, physics and particle effects. Also one of the best image qualities we've seen on consoles. Also keep in mind that you can traverse extremely fast in Infamous and there is no problem with pop in of any kind.


Of course all open worlds are different, but I think we shouldn't just accept framerate issues because a game is open world. Infamous is good example for a good framerate in open world games on console.
I hope Witcher 3 get notable framerate improvements with patches, just like AssassinsCreed and GTA V.

Oh, yeah watching that it really fluctuates wildly. Locking it would be my go to option, 10 fps drops like that would make me go crazy. To your other point, it barely even goes under 30 fps. It's honestly for a split second and only a frame or two. That's pretty impressive. For some reason I thought it would be a large drop. a frame or two isn't anything.

 

[Seanspeed]

An even bigger difference is the amount of people on screen. Maybe a coincidence?

PC has a 'background NPC' setting, so probably not.

 

[TheNAC]

Wait...people think this looks bad on console? I hate this gamer trend.

 

[bombshell]

What exactly is worse on the XboxOne besides the resolution? Ive read a lot of hyperbole in this thread. Its amazing.

AA and AF.

Wait...people think this looks bad on console? I hate this gamer trend.

Other than that stubborn poster who actively selects the most sparse areas in the game to show how poor he thinks it looks? The game looks amazing on PS4.

 

[omonimo]

I don't work at CDPR so I don't know. Given the state of the game at launch it may be a bug.

Lol. Yes a bug. They didn't noticed it during the patch work.

 

[Kezen]

An even bigger difference is the amount of people on screen. Maybe a coincidence?

I'd hazard the guess, but I made no pretence to be a maven, that it may have a little something to do with the Jaguar cores.

Maybe, possibly, who knows.

 

[Durante]

This game isn't demanding on CPU

It really is surprisingly efficient:


And that's with DX11, which apparently kills baby CPUs if you listen to some.

Oh man, I just read those digitalfoundry comments. Hilarious, ALL of them have to do with the price of the PC ($2,600, $2,000!!, $4,000!!!!) vs the console. So funny.

It's a self-parody at this point.

I think these PC gamers are really grasping at straws to try and validate their expensive hardware purchases. Aside from shadows, LOD, crowd density, textures, and framerate there really isn't a difference here.

Hehe. Well played.