-
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.
Face-Off: Darksiders 2 Deathinitive Edition - Digital Foundry
- Thread starter Kralamoonard
- Start date
Nyteshade517
Member
my guess is the new version will replace the original version and that the Franchise Pack won't be made available anymore (complete guess though since their wording is a bit vague)
OsirisBlack
Banned
This exactly. I own both XB1 got it free from work and PS4 (bought it) as well as PC and XB360 version of the Original DS2. This game is not a like for like port with better graphics. There are things that simply did not exist in the original darksiders 2 game even on PC. All of the materials have much more realistic textures without compromising the artistic look of the game. And there is much more foliage and other effects in lots of areas.
I had already stated the XB1 version looks a bit more vibrant even with the same gamma settings. I also noticed the textures in the opening area. (snow being missing) There seems to be a like for like addition to foliage and shadows with more tearing in the open area on XB1. The new game is really fun even if you owned the original on last gen. If you missed it the first time around I would definitely suggest picking it up its only 26 dollars new.
Yeah, I don't know where that graph from the previous page was from, but I've yet to achieve a solid 60fps with Darksiders 2. Last time I tried was with a 780 and an i7-4770k, which should clearly be overkill for this game.
...Still, 2xAF and 30fps for a remaster is just plain not enough for me.
Dragon1893
Member
Wait, this is for 30fps? LOL!
The Baron Count
Member
I can't believe they called it that...
Still, at least they did SOMETHING to the actual assets this time instead of just porting the PC version at 30FPS and calling it a day like most. Though the fact that it still runs at 30 even given the improvements is odd.
Still, at least they did SOMETHING to the actual assets this time instead of just porting the PC version at 30FPS and calling it a day like most. Though the fact that it still runs at 30 even given the improvements is odd.
Kralamoonard
Member
Honestly, I think it firstly shows that it's the constraint of time/money and the existing engine that makes it difficult to hit the 60fps. I mean the main reason why I don't think it's the hardware's fault is because take Uncharted 4 as an example, the game runs at the same frame rate and obviously looks much better, mainly because it's been built from the ground up for that platform (and other reasons such as budget/number of staff/optimized for just one hardware etc).
Of course with a port, you have to work within the limitations of the old hardware and engine. Couple that with only so much time/money, and you have a less ambitious 30fps target. Having said that, if they had targeted 60fps to begin with and improved IQ, I think that could have gone a long way, though I do applaud the effort into reworking the lighting system, as that is no easy feat.
In an ideal world, it would have been both, but as I said, it would have been much harder to do due to the factors I mentioned.
I mean at least it's not like the Prototype port or Dishonored "Definitive Edition". They did put in some effort
Of course with a port, you have to work within the limitations of the old hardware and engine. Couple that with only so much time/money, and you have a less ambitious 30fps target. Having said that, if they had targeted 60fps to begin with and improved IQ, I think that could have gone a long way, though I do applaud the effort into reworking the lighting system, as that is no easy feat.
In an ideal world, it would have been both, but as I said, it would have been much harder to do due to the factors I mentioned.
I mean at least it's not like the Prototype port or Dishonored "Definitive Edition". They did put in some effort
keltickennedy
Member
I thought this was going to be 60fps? Guess some reviewers still don't know what the fuck they are talking about...
https://youtu.be/WpV4o7FRlBs?t=57
https://youtu.be/WpV4o7FRlBs?t=57
I remember the game not running particularly well and looking rather plain.
Maybe the dethinitive edition will run a bit better.
Banjo-Kazooie
Member
Enjoying the XB1 version, mainly because I love this game...but there is some serious bad lip syncing issues, and some weird fuzzyness on some of the character models while speaking to them.
Also had this really weird bug where if I left the game and opened another app, upon returning to the game, the dialogue tree I was in scrolled super fast with no sound and then wouldn't let me do anything, so I had to reload the title.
Edit: this is what I mean when I say fuzzyness, it is like static
Also had this really weird bug where if I left the game and opened another app, upon returning to the game, the dialogue tree I was in scrolled super fast with no sound and then wouldn't let me do anything, so I had to reload the title.
Edit: this is what I mean when I say fuzzyness, it is like static
keltickennedy
Member
You also have to take into the account the talent a studio has on staff. Comparing Naughty Dog to Nordic just doesn't have to do with old hardware and engines. People make games... Engines and hardware don't.
Kralamoonard
Member
Oh of course, I agree and understand which is why I did say "mainly", there are other reasons like the ones you mentioned! I will edit that into my comment thought for clarification sake!
EatinOlives
Member
Definitely (or should I say deathinitely huehue).
Doesn't even look like they targeted 30 FPS either (which typically means you have to render at ABOVE 30fps then lock it to 30 to maintain a smooth lock. That the original game on PC ran at 60 even on modest rigs speaks to how much this got screwed.
That was not my experience. Both ganes had problems with frametimes because too many frames displayed. Using RTSS to limit framerate makes perfect locked framerate in both games.
So there is no definitive edition of this at all. PS4/Xbox have higher res textures and better AA but a worse fps than PC. As so many people posted it's crazy that this doesn't run at 60 fps. I'd have jumped in and played the game again, I'll just stick with PC though.
Early builds were running close to 60fps apparently. No idea what changed.
Early builds were running close to 60fps apparently. No idea what changed.
Oh well I never thought about using RTSS the last time I played the game. It always seemed to hover in the 50's on my 280X, no matter what.
GhostTrick
Banned
It's coming to PC too. Also, the original PC release had better AA thanks to driver levels or downsampling. Especially downsampling.
I have it in my wishlist for.when it hits 15 bucks.too
I didn't know about that. Apparently I'll get it at 80% off too so yeah, glad I held off. Bet I can get 4k at over 60 fps.
FunkyDealer
Banned
I can get past the 30FPS with some goodwill, but screen-tearing and only 2x AF? Yuck!
Banjo-Kazooie
Member
I mean, the game is still pretty damn good. If you never got around to it last gen then it's a good experience all the same
Kralamoonard
Member
I just wished that the first Darkside game was packaged with it and I'd then gladly pay £20-30 for it :/ I'll probably get this game much further down the line though, since I've seen it often touted as an "underrated gem".
PC version is coming to Steam tomorrow. Would have been interesting to have seen that included in this face-off.
To be fair they've been practically giving Darksiders 1 on PC away a bunch of times. I'm pretty sure they gave it to you as a pre-order incentive for at least 1 or 2 other THQ games, and it was in that THQ humble bundle.
Kralamoonard
Member
Yup...I mean for a fairly clean IQ, that 2x AF just ruins it.
Barrow Roll
Member
Any word on if Digital Foundry will be covering the PC release of Deathnitive Edition? I just want to know if it's worth my 6 bucks to upgrade.Well, it's "Deathinitive" not "definitive" so you're all good.
SmokedMeat
Gamer™
Doesn't exactly fill me with confidence on the performance of a potential Darksiders 3. Really surprised 60fps wasn't a priority. Seems some developers are listening, and others aren't paying attention/don't care.
thelastword
Banned
I had already mentioned better shadows in a previous thread, now it seems textures are a bit more defined on PS4 as well, still does not excuse 30fps though. The fact that it falls below 30 at all is ridiculous, no matter how slight.
At least the assets have been improved, so PC owners can get to play at 60fps with better assets overall. The positive from this is that there may be a Darksiders 3, but we shall see.
Insane Metal
Gold Member
30FPS with drops looking like that? 2x AF?? Holy shit. Also, the shimmering in the XBox One's alphas look terrible.
Corpsepyre
Banned
Hoping it's not locked to 30 on the PC as well!
thelastword
Banned
Maybe the brighter lighting is making the jaggies/shimmering on XB1 more pronounced, but the PS4 version definitely looks cleaner. It would be good to hear the devs on the difference in lighting though....DF suggests that the darker tone is more inline with the original game. There are some bugs they need to fix and the AF is much too low in this game.
Green trees exclusive to PC! Suck it console peasants! hue hue hue
In other news, looks like they clearly did not have enough development time to make everything right. Anomalies here and there with all versions.
It is serviceable so maaaaaybe I'll buy this some day.
I have a question: When a port is given enough time and money so that the results are like Uncharted Trilogy box, Rare set of games or Tomb Raider HD, is it worth more in profits? or is the less time+money = good profits anyway?
In other news, looks like they clearly did not have enough development time to make everything right. Anomalies here and there with all versions.
It is serviceable so maaaaaybe I'll buy this some day.
I have a question: When a port is given enough time and money so that the results are like Uncharted Trilogy box, Rare set of games or Tomb Raider HD, is it worth more in profits? or is the less time+money = good profits anyway?
thelastword
Banned
I'm pretty sure if this was a collection featuring Darksiders1 + Darksiders2 with the improved visuals in this remaster at 60fps and at least 8-16xAF, most people would not even bat an eyelid to part with their $59.99.
What we have here, is something Similar to Gears of War Ultimate, where the upgrades does not justify the cut back in performance. At this point, I'm pretty sure most persons are waiting on a sale or a heavy discount before they make a purchase, that cannot be good for the company from a "profit" perspective, so in light of that, they lose much more. This remaster is not going to do any numbers close to the best remasters of this gen, all the best remasters this gen were 60fps btw....which they should be.
...a totally different type of game, with controlled, closed environments, and was ported by a team with who-knows-how-much funding that is considered one of the best in the world.
I love 60fps as much as the next guy, but calling developers that opt not to go for it everything short of retarded is a bit much, and reading Digital Foundry articles is now apparently the gaming equivalent of "I stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night."
Those were from the DF footage
This is PC version
I can't see the difference in texture resolution. It seems a problem with missing texture layers in ps4 version. In this shot, snow texture layers. And again, indirect lighting is off for this console version.
In PC you can see both differences
Something is missing in ps4 lighting
This is PC version
I had already mentioned better shadows in a previous thread, now it seems textures are a bit more defined on PS4 as well, still does not excuse 30fps though. The fact that it falls below 30 at all is ridiculous, no matter how slight.
At least the assets have been improved, so PC owners can get to play at 60fps with better assets overall. The positive from this is that there may be a Darksiders 3, but we shall see.
I can't see the difference in texture resolution. It seems a problem with missing texture layers in ps4 version. In this shot, snow texture layers. And again, indirect lighting is off for this console version.
In PC you can see both differences
thelastword
Banned
Interesting, well, they will have to work on some bugs and graphical anomalies, I'm also not sure why a game like this has such low AF (consoles).
It's also interesting that this game actually runs better than the original on PC, yet the console versions are stuck at 1080p 30fps. Despite running better, there's also some indication that it's still highly unoptimized....."Easy_D" said in the other thread that just shifting the camera a couple of cm makes his framerate go from 100-50fps....
Kralamoonard
Member
I think you misunderstood me bud. Of course I know all those factors since I did mention them but I was using that as a point to rebut the fact it's a hardware fault. In this case I'm not saying the devs are retarded nor did I mention/imply that but IMO it was just a misdirection of priorities - that's all. Like DF, and many others, I would have preferred 60fps and original PC ultra with some extra bells and whistles. I do commend them however with what they did particularly for a mid tier publisher who have only so much time and money.
thelastword
Banned
You need to slow down that gif.....Xbox uses low res shadows and PS4 uses medium res shadows.
OsirisBlack
Banned
There are patches incoming for XB1 and PS4 not sure what they will address.
Dictator93
Member
Xbox uses low res shadows and PS4 uses medium res shadows.
Nice gif show casing some differences.
I wonder about the indirect lighting and what is happening there.
Xbox uses low res shadows and PS4 uses medium res shadows.
This gif superbly demonstrates the importance of 16xAF.
It's an eyesore on consoles, until a patch fixing this is out.