iceatcs
Junior Member
Aye, it squeak and shake when resting on it.
-
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.
Trials Fusion runs at 1080/60 on PS4, 900/60 on Xbox One
- Thread starter Jomjom
- Start date
SolidSnakex
Member
That doesn't sound much different from Trials Evolution. It had one thread that went past Page 1 before its release while the OT ended up with 2,800+ posts. Which is rather large for a downloadable title.
Agreed. I don't for the life of me understand how anybody would think the PS4 triggers are better than the Xbox One triggers. DS4's triggers are definitely better than DS3 but are still far below both Xbox controllers imo. Opinions and such...
Backfoggen
Banned
Nope XB1 triggers are the best. What's bad about them?
geordiemp
Member
Don't you think a side on view side scrolling game not achieving full HD on a next gen console is surprising and not news worthy.
Hence people enter the thread.
They may of been buying it anyway, even with a preview thread many of us had 360's and know roughly what to expect, although with better visuals and probably bigger / more tracks.
geordiemp
Member
Glad you like the triggers and gives you something to promote as superior LOL...
Seriously as a wii / ps3 / 360 and Ps4 owner I get used to controllers pretty quick, its more a familiarity thing.
that said only triggers that were poor were Ps3 L2 R2
Kinda funny people care more about the resolution than the game itself.
That's an impostor OT!
geordiemp
Member
Kinda funny people care more about the resolution than the game itself.
The trials webm thing reads more like a thread about super GIFs...it still does.
I don't have webm and don't know much about it. Title says webm required....
Crab Milk Mickey
Member
Apologies if this has been asked numerous times before, but is there a breakdown of the differences with the Xbox 360 version or at least some videos of it? I might be getting that one if it doesn't include uPlay, since I won't be getting an X-Bone or a PS4 any time soon either.
It's perfectly understandable. Cats that haven't played Trials on PC probably don't understand how demanding it is, hence the lowered resolution seems like a big deal.
Kinda funny people care more about the resolution than the game itself.
I understand that this sudden laser focus on resolution is perturbing to some, however I'd advise those people to avoid any thread that has a resolution clearly stated as the focus of a thread. It ain't hard to ignore this stuff.
Kinda funny people care more about the resolution than the game itself.
That thread is literally the same thread that appears every time an Xbox game is revealed as being 900p though. The actual game has little bearing on the size of the thread
At least we get sizeable differences to discuss this time! Last gen we'd have the same huge threads, but much less meat to chew on.
RoadHazard
Gold Member
Uplay is probably in all versions even though it's generally useless and just gets in the way, that's just an Ubisoft thing to do.
The first "real" Trials game (Trials 2 SE) was a PC game, it wasn't just a little Flash game before it came to 360. To us old/original Trials fans it isn't an Xbox series, we just got abandoned for a bit there (this one I'll be getting on PS4 though).
plagiarize
Banned
The main thing that's been saddening me about this thread is seeing people dump on Red Lynx, as if they're some average indie developers. Trials HD and Trials Fusion pushed a lot of really advanced technology, and I see no one is reading the Eurogamer links that myself and JaseC posted, so I'm going to try and help people out by quoting from them this time.
On Trials HD:
On Trials Evolution:
So there you have it. Don't think that just because the game is only doing motorbikes through a 2 dimensional path that it can't be strenuous on the system. In the last game in the series Red Lynx were rendering draw distances of 2 kilometers, with a fully real time deferred lighting and shadowing engine, with virtual texturing (that looked far better than what we saw in Rage) and they were already using GPU compute.
The level editor is the key thing here. Not only do you have those large backdrops to put all your pieces into, the fact that you are able to stick geometry in wherever means that the game has to do much more in real time than Forza 5.
Deferred rendering + 60 fps = less than 1080p on Xbox One, at least so far. I asked this before, does anyone know of any other games that use deferred lighting, run at 60 fps and run at 900p or higher?
I don't know of any though I might be forgetting one. That's a technical *achievement* from a developer that coded some of the best technology on Xbox 360.
Again, for anyone going 'It can't even run Trials at 1080p???' please find me a game running at 60 fps with deferred lighting running at a higher (or even the same) resolution.
On Trials HD:
On Trials Evolution:
So there you have it. Don't think that just because the game is only doing motorbikes through a 2 dimensional path that it can't be strenuous on the system. In the last game in the series Red Lynx were rendering draw distances of 2 kilometers, with a fully real time deferred lighting and shadowing engine, with virtual texturing (that looked far better than what we saw in Rage) and they were already using GPU compute.
The level editor is the key thing here. Not only do you have those large backdrops to put all your pieces into, the fact that you are able to stick geometry in wherever means that the game has to do much more in real time than Forza 5.
Deferred rendering + 60 fps = less than 1080p on Xbox One, at least so far. I asked this before, does anyone know of any other games that use deferred lighting, run at 60 fps and run at 900p or higher?
I don't know of any though I might be forgetting one. That's a technical *achievement* from a developer that coded some of the best technology on Xbox 360.
Again, for anyone going 'It can't even run Trials at 1080p???' please find me a game running at 60 fps with deferred lighting running at a higher (or even the same) resolution.
petethepanda
Member
Not sure how it works on MS's side but I really don't get how Sony decides what can have a platinum and what can't. If Guacamelee has one I don't see why Trails couldn't.
RoadHazard
Gold Member
It's pretty weird, for sure. I mean, Resogun has a platinum, and that's definitely a smaller game than this. This is even getting a physical release. What makes it not count as a "full" game?
BruiserBear
Banned
Thanks for posting that. I remember reading those articles. Their engine is really impressive when you see everything it's rendering and at 60fps.
I'm not the least bit surprised it's running at 900p on XB1. In fact, I predicted just that in the OT a couple days ago.
I'm really curious to see how the performance is on each console though. Does one have more screen testing than the other, etc?
Neuromancer
Member
No doubt some people came in here just to crow, but I'm super excited about this game and have the deluxe digital edition preordered on PSN. =D
plagiarize
Banned
It's just sad to me that something which is really an achievement (60 fps and real time deferred lighting at 900p) which to my knowledge hasn't yet been achieved on Xbox One in *any* game, is being dumped on like a failing.
A first party title like Killer Instinct that runs at 60 fps and uses similar lighting techniques can only manage 720p. Red Lynx manage it at a much higher resolution and we aren't cheering them for it. You know... I loved Evolution. It was raw gameplay wrapped up in a really technically impressive package. All that amazing coding wasn't negated because it was sub HD.
It's just so ignorant. I mean, the facts are the facts and it's important for people to know what resolution a game is running at, but we really need to stop shitting on developers for their PS4 versions being technically superior, when we're seeing first party games stuck inside the same limitations when it comes to advanced rendering techniques at certain frame rates. If exclusives can't manage 900p at 60 fps with those rendering techniques, we should be recognizing just how technically competent Red Lynx are for pulling that off.
But... no...
JetSetRadio
Banned
It has been ages since I played a trials game, glad to see it's coming in full glory to ps4, didn't even know that. It looks kinda futuristic though? That's not really my setting.
Kinda funny people care more about the resolution than the game itself.
I thought that was humorous as well. I really enjoyed the first trials game and plan on picking this one up as well. I wish there wasn't a difference in resolution between the two versions, but it's not surprising given the hardware. I'm more surprised at how massive threads like these keep getting.
SapientWolf
Trucker Sexologist
The game isn't out yet. And a controversial or shocking news thread is going to get more posts due to the heated nature of the discussion. If this thread announced that both current gen consoles ran Trials at 1080p it wouldn't make it past 2 pages either, because it wouldn't be as surprising. That wouldn't mean that IQ is something that people on GAF don't care about.
Kinda funny people care more about the resolution than the game itself.
RoadHazard
Gold Member
Actually, that would have been more surprising given what we've come to expect of the XBO (not counting the people who somehow believe that Trials is graphically simple enough to run on an N64). I absolutely expected a lower resolution on the XBO, especially after Redlynx were so quick to confirm that the PS4 version is 1080p but wouldn't say anything about the XBO version.
Did Microsoft knowingly build a console that wasn't good enough for native 1080p gaming?
Surely the numbers wouldn't have added up when they designed it so why did they continue down that road?
Who made these decisions, Mattrick, Greenberg?
How did they get it so wrong unless it was deliberate.
Surely the numbers wouldn't have added up when they designed it so why did they continue down that road?
Who made these decisions, Mattrick, Greenberg?
How did they get it so wrong unless it was deliberate.
RoadHazard
Gold Member
It can handle native 1080p, but not really with a modern deferred rendering engine.
Neuromancer
Member
They admitted to building a machine that focused more on being a media box than a high end games machine, well before the system launched. They made their bed and now they have to lay in it.
exactly... a dev posts on b3d quite often and always adds to the interesting info to technical discussions describing what they do...they push a hell of a lot more than the game belies at first glance
Their thinking was that it all outputs at 1080p anyway. Also they needed to make a profit on the box.
vpance
Member
Whitten I think, and two other no names who I forget, according to the guy that worked on the audio part of the hardware.
Contrary to popular opinion, the decision to include ESRAM came before the 8GB, or even DDR3. They loved them some tiny ram banks from the jump, as much as Kinect.
Steverulez
Member
Presumably Mattrick/Marc Whitten? With some Ballmer sprinkled on top. I don't think Greenberg does that sort of thing.
CBOAT did once say about Mattrick "his vision his fault" about XB1 I think and he was head of the division...
plagiarize
Banned
I think they underestimated how much your average person was aware of 1080p. I mean, if you look at games genre to genre, the Xbox One games are almost all running at better frame rates and resolutions than the 360 games, not to mention everything else they add on top.
But 1080p native on a 1080p display really makes for a notable difference that we never saw last gen with sub 720p compared to 720p, because almost nobody had a true 720p display. If you've ever seen how much of in impact turning on 'just scan' or '1:1' scaling modes on a 1080p set that by default overscans, you'd know that even a very slight upscale falls well short of native 1080p displaying on a native 1080p set.
Plus, we've had many more years of TVs and blu-rays being marketed at us with '1080p is best' messaging. People might not understand why 1080p is better, but your average person likely knows that it is, even if they're just going off the marketing.
Sony designed a console that could hit 1080p comfortably. Microsoft didn't see it as important. Again, the Xbox One is notably more powerful than the 360, and the resolutions and framerates alone indeed prove that out. I just don't think they were ready for people to care so much about 1080p. It has caught them somewhat flat footed.
They really believed that most people wouldn't notice or care because they hadn't cared much on 360. The PS4 hitting that render target as readily and comfortably as it has, has really exaggerated things, because the cheaper console can so evidently best the more expensive one in an obvious and measurable way.
File it under the same thing as Nintendo underestimating HDTV adoption when they didn't include HD support in the original Wii. It wasn't a crazy bet, but unfortunately things turned out badly for them.
It's that native difference, plus many more years of 1080p TV adoption, plus many more years of 1080p marketing.
They did not expect this stuff to be talked about outside of gaming forums and tech focused websites, as it has been. Hell I've seen news on this stuff on sites that only cover gaming as an after thought.
RoadHazard
Gold Member
And who can tell the difference between native 1080p and some lower resolution upscaled with a sharpening filter applied, anyway, right? I think they really did think that Joe Average wouldn't be able to tell the difference. And maybe he can't, I don't know. But enough people definitely can for this to have become a problem for them. (I know the sharpening filter has since been removed.)
A Microsoft engineer said We purposefully did not target the highest end graphics in an interview.
http://www.mcvuk.com/news/read/xbox-one-does-not-target-high-end-graphics/0115918
AgentP
Thinks mods influence posters politics. Promoted to QAnon Editor.
plagiarize
Banned
I'm sure that it will be possible to arrange conditions by which you can get the game to drop. Almost no game *never* drops... but I'm sure they'll be much closer locked to 60 than most on at least Xbox One and PS4.
miDnIghtEr20C
Banned
Kinda funny people care more about the resolution than the game itself.
Will people see a huge difference between the way the two of these look, but also see no difference when they see TF on 360 vs the X1.
I'm still bummed there's no multiplayer. That's incredible. No buy for me. First time not buying a Trials.
It just seems odd after so much time has passed and 1080p is common as muck.
Like you said, PS4 being cheaper, more powerful has magnified the issue, Microsoft can't escape it. It's like a perfect storm and there is no hidden juice for the future. Will it get worse as time goes on, we haven't really got to the built from ground up stuff which will surely increase the strain.
What is Forza 6, 7 going to like. No rain for another generation, baked lighting to keep 1080p, 60fps. Halo 5, 60fps at what resolution and other compromises?
They really bet the farm on TV with a $500 device. What were they thinking. At least Sony can morph into whatever they want like 360 did.
Like you said, PS4 being cheaper, more powerful has magnified the issue, Microsoft can't escape it. It's like a perfect storm and there is no hidden juice for the future. Will it get worse as time goes on, we haven't really got to the built from ground up stuff which will surely increase the strain.
What is Forza 6, 7 going to like. No rain for another generation, baked lighting to keep 1080p, 60fps. Halo 5, 60fps at what resolution and other compromises?
They really bet the farm on TV with a $500 device. What were they thinking. At least Sony can morph into whatever they want like 360 did.
plagiarize
Banned
Will people see a huge difference between the way the two of these look, but also see no difference when they see TF on 360 vs the X1.
we'll have to see how many cuts the 360 version has. it's going to be around 600p resolution wise, we know that for sure.
on a 1080p display, presuming all but resolution is equal, the difference between 1080p and 900p might be more obvious than the difference between 900p and 600p, even if pixel wise, the gap between 600p and 900p is larger.
or were you just making a flippant remark based on people praising Bluepoint for getting the 360 version of Titanfall as close to the Xbox One version as they managed?
AgentP
Thinks mods influence posters politics. Promoted to QAnon Editor.
The game has a fixed camera and a fixed number of players on screen. I think of any game made, they have almost complete control of what is on screen at any given time.
Petalpusher
Banned
There s no such thing as a "console build for 1080p", neither 60fps or anything else. If the consoles had titans, most of the game would run at 30 as well, the games would be built for it, some would be subhd too.
Obviously some parts of the hardware can help moving towards some specific "goals" (ROPs for ex) but nothing is set in stone with resolution.
Obviously some parts of the hardware can help moving towards some specific "goals" (ROPs for ex) but nothing is set in stone with resolution.
RoadHazard
Gold Member
Not on user-created tracks. All kinds of crazy shit can be going on on those. And I do expect frame drops when things get extra hectic.
Mostly true, but when it comes to resolution the XBO has a very real limiting factor in its memory setup, one that doesn't exist on the PS4.
This part of the trailer looks like 360 footage.
Sweet Android port confirmed!
The game actually looks really fun thoughplagiarize
Banned
when you're talking about a console with an ESRAM setup, that isn't the case. If the Xbox One had double the ESRAM we'd be seeing games using real time deferred lighting hit 1080p at 60 fps.
the Xbox One's framebuffer isn't big enough for modern rendering techniques AND 1080p AND 60 fps. That's a hardware limitation that wouldn't be there if the Xbox One had been built to hit 1080p comfortably. The PS4 was built without such a limitation, partly because they wanted their games to be 1080p.
CF all of Sony's games, vs all of Microsofts. Microsoft didn't think 1080p was important, and designed a console accordingly. Sony evidently did.
exactly. on Red Lynx's tracks I expect locked 60 fps in almost all circumstances, but once you hand control over to players it's going to be easy to strain the engine well beyond anything Red Lynx do in their tracks, and I believe the level designers will have full camera control too.
George Claw M.D.
Member
Honestly, I think word of mouth has had an amplifying effect after the hardcore early adopters purchased these consoles and started spreading gospel about the power differences. I doubt most people have even seen the differences for themselves. But when you have a majority of your more hardcore gaming friends and family saying PS4 is clearly better than Xbone, you just accept it as fact and even start spreading that message yourself. It just becomes a universally accepted truth that Microsoft can no longer fight with people like Penello. Thus, they just need to continue competing on lower prices like they've been aggressively doing, and simply bringing the games.
The Albatross
Member
Trials is hugely anticipated. Trials HD and evo were two of the biggest xbla games last gen. It's my 2nd most anticipated game in h1 2014 behind titan
Kinda funny people care more about the resolution than the game itself.
Kinda hard to care much about a game that you can't play yet...
ChainsawFilms
Member
I always considered the Trials games on the 360 some of the best looking games from last gen. A real solidity to the environment, a great example of how graphics and physics can combine.
Maybe it's about time people stop blaming the devs when a game isn't 1080p. The devs work hard to get the most they can from the platform. If one game doesn't meet the resolution, then question the devs. When you keep seeing, time after time, sub 1080 res games, maybe it's time to stop blaming the devs?
Similar threads
- Locked