Support NeoGAF

Vashetti · Jul 25, 2015

Previously, Journey has been confirmed as featuring a 1080p presentation, but overall image quality is a little strange. The selected method of anti-aliasing is actually less effective than the technique used on the original PS3 game; pixel density has increased, but pixels tend to shimmer more during gameplay. There's also a number of soft edges throughout, giving the impression of a lower resolution - pixel-counting throws up a wide variance in potential resolution measurements, sometimes sub-native, occasionally above native resolution. Occasionally it seems as if we can see super-sampling on the horizontal axis and upscaling on the vertical. It may well be down to the effects of the post-processing pipeline, but overall it doesn't quite look like the 1080p presentation we would expect. Fortunately, the strong design work manages to side-step these issues for the most part. In-surface aliasing isn't an issue and temporal instability is kept to a minimum. Anisotropic filtering is also engaged to a reasonable degree though it only becomes observable on select surfaces such as flowing scarves.

Much to our surprise, certain visual effects have been removed or diminished in this new version of Journey, sapping away just a touch of the visual perfection that came to define the original game. Motion blur, which is beautifully utilised on PS3, has been completely eliminated, which has a small impact on the presentation: speeding along the sun-drenched slopes feels a tad less dramatic without this effect in place. It's likely that Trick Pixels felt that at 60fps, motion blur was no longer a necessity. We disagree and feel that even at higher frame-rates, motion blur can add greatly to the presentation.

This extends to lighting and effects as well. Sand simulation is a critical element in the presentation of the game. Created from a juxtaposition consisting of three height-map layers and textures designed to simulate millions of little 'mirrors', the original design successfully forms the illusion of a vast body of reactive sand stretched out before the player. This glittering sand effect is now reduced significantly. In the original version, you'll notice sparkling grains of sand present throughout many scenes, while the effect is often absent on PS4, resulting in a flatter overall presentation. The sand in general appears to lack the coarseness that is so evident on PS3.

Thankfully, there are some genuine improvements in here. Performance-wise, Journey for PS4 now operates at a fluid 60 frames per second, greatly enhancing the sensation of player movement throughout the game. As a rather short experience, we were able to play through the entire game on PS4 enabling us to pass judgement on performance as a whole. By and large, we're looking at a completely stable 60fps, but it isn't quite as flawless as we had anticipated. Three specific areas in the game exhibit very minor slowdown: performance never dips lower than 55fps and while it's unlikely that most players will even notice the issue, it's worth noting its existence nonetheless.

More:

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2015-journey-on-ps4-face-off

Appollowexx · Jul 25, 2015

Well that's dissapointing. Worse looking IQ, missing effects - what the hell did they spend all their time doing with this game?

Think i'll skip this Journey.

Vashetti · Jul 25, 2015

Appollowexx said:
Well that's dissapointing. Worse looking IQ, missing effects - what the hell did they spend all their time doing with this game?

Think i'll skip this Journey.

I played it through start to finish and didn't notice any missing effects, and I played on PS3 too, it looks and runs stunning.

Hope they patch it though.

Mechazawa · Jul 25, 2015

The motion blur is something you can argue for or against, but the rest of that stuff is a bummer.

Miles Quaritch · Jul 25, 2015

Vashetti said:
I played it through start to finish and didn't notice any missing effects, and I played on PS3 too, it looks and runs stunning.

Hope they patch it though.

Eh, the missing effects are very noticeable in the video.

Maybe you hadn't played it on PS3 for so long you forgot how good it looked?

chromatic9 · Jul 25, 2015

Might check out original PS3 version then. Was thinking this would be worth waiting for and something to get when I eventually purchase a PS4.

RedAssedApe · Jul 25, 2015

Miles Quaritch said:
Eh, the missing effects are very noticeable in the video.

Maybe you hadn't played it on PS3 for so long you forgot how good it looked?

could be the case. did people in the OT complain about this? regardless...don't think this should dissuade newcomers to play it. seems like something most people wouldn't even have picked up on without reading this. then again...i guess that could be said about a lot of these faceoffs in general.

for those who already played ps3 one...umm its cross-buy (can't remember if there was a retail release)?

Stilton Disco · Jul 25, 2015

Hadn't noticed the lack of effects. That's a bummer. Hopefully they'll get patched in.

Honestly, I'd say the 60fps and higher (though apparently oddly compromised) resolution makes up for it though. The game is still stunning, a true masterpiece of unique and creative gameplay, cooperation and narrative.

ramyeon · Jul 25, 2015

These are honestly things that the average player will never even notice. Journey looks stunning on PS4 and performs just as well as it looks. New players won't even notice the lack of some minor effects and I bet a lot of returning players won't notice it either. I get that DF articles are like this by nature but using a tear down like this to decide whether or not you purchase is a bit questionable to me, especially considering that the game is cross buy.

Doctor_Thomas · Jul 25, 2015

I think it's maybe going to be a case of being closely tied to the PS3 hardware set up that porting the game, as is, wasn't feasible. Journey may be a downloadable title, but it was also a stunning achievement, so maybe the port it was deemed a lot of work for a title a load of people got free, anyway. Just a hypothesis.

Acquiescence · Jul 25, 2015

I would gladly exchange 60fps to get all those missing effects back. Bummer.

thelastword · Jul 25, 2015

60fps without motion blur or 30fps with motion blur. I think I'll take the former every time. MB is not a substitute for framerate....I'm thinking they had trouble implementing it and keeping a stable 60fps, perhaps the framerate would be 50-60fps with blur or even sub 50 in cases.

I also don't think the situation with the resolution is conclusive, seems to be a guessing game from DF here....

Krusenstern · Jul 25, 2015

Much to our surprise, certain visual effects have been removed or diminished in this new version of Journey, sapping away just a touch of the visual perfection that came to define the original game. Motion blur, which is beautifully utilised on PS3, has been completely eliminated, which has a small impact on the presentation: speeding along the sun-drenched slopes feels a tad less dramatic without this effect in place.

This glittering sand effect is now reduced significantly. In the original version, you'll notice sparkling grains of sand present throughout many scenes, while the effect is often absent on PS4, resulting in a flatter overall presentation. The sand in general appears to lack the coarseness that is so evident on PS3.

There it is, proof from DF themselves. When the exact same things were pointed out in the OT people were quick to respond with something like "Naah, it's still there. Looks fine."

I hope they care enough to re-implement the missing effects. Because I did notice all of these things in my original playthrough on PS3 and find it a bit stupid that these things are now missing in the PS4 port.

Ce-Lin · Jul 25, 2015

effects coded to run on the Cell CPU are not easy to port over

UnluckyKate · Jul 25, 2015

missing motion blur is weird. never noticed. Does it interfere with 60 fps ? (IQ wise)

travisbickle · Jul 25, 2015

The coarseness and glittering of the sand are pure aesthetic changes, I don't think DF can say they're "missing" when it was a judgment by the artists involved.

RedAssedApe · Jul 25, 2015

travisbickle said:
The coarseness and glittering of the sand are pure aesthetic changes, I don't think DF can say they're "missing" when it was a judgment by the artists involved.

but it was a port by someone else? or did they state that the original creators intentional made the changes?

Wickerbasket · Jul 25, 2015

I thought the PS4 version looked better, and looking at DF's pictures and video, I still think that.

They're both gorgeous games though.

VGA222 · Jul 25, 2015

Does anyone know what resolution the PS3 version is? It looks like 720p to me but the AA is very aggressive which makes a conclusive pixel count a bit difficult.

Vashetti · Jul 25, 2015

VGA222 said:
Does anyone know what resolution the PS3 version is? It looks like 720p to me but the AA is very aggressive which makes a conclusive pixel count a bit difficult.

Pretty sure it's 720p/30fps. Unlike DF not to list the PS3 res in the article.

dark10x · Jul 25, 2015

thelastword said:
60fps without motion blur or 30fps with motion blur. I think I'll take the former every time. MB is not a substitute for framerate....I'm thinking they had trouble implementing it and keeping a stable 60fps, perhaps the framerate would be 50-60fps with blur or even sub 50 in cases.

I also don't think the situation with the resolution is conclusive, seems to be a guessing game from DF here....

We counted pixels on ten different shots and nearly every one of them came up with a different result. Several people took a crack at it and it came back inconclusive. It's the most confounding thing I've seen in a while. One of the shots came out around 2172x972! I really noticed this while playing leading me to suspect dynamic res but it's unlike any other dynamic res that I've seen.

I was pretty bummed by lack of motion blur. You know I'm a huge proponent of it and its removal really bugs me. That said, I'd also take 60fps with no blur over 30 with.

The coarseness and glittering of the sand are pure aesthetic changes, I don't think DF can say they're "missing" when it was a judgment by the artists involved.

The original artists had nothing to do with this port

Pretty sure it's 720p/30fps. Unlike DF not to list the PS3 res in the article.

Oh yes, didn't even think to include it since I thought it well known. It is 720p/30

Seanspeed · Jul 25, 2015

travisbickle said:
The coarseness and glittering of the sand are pure aesthetic changes, I don't think DF can say they're "missing" when it was a judgment by the artists involved.

You know this, how?

Three · Jul 25, 2015

chromatic9 said:
Might check out original PS3 version then. Was thinking this would be worth waiting for and something to get when I eventually purchase a PS4.

Well it's crossbuy so whynotboth.gif

Krusenstern · Jul 25, 2015

travisbickle said:
The coarseness and glittering of the sand are pure aesthetic changes, I don't think DF can say they're "missing" when it was a judgment by the artists involved.

An artistic decision? I don't believe this. Would be a laughably bad decision to simply remove these effects in my opinion.

travisbickle · Jul 25, 2015

henhowc said:
but it was a port by someone else? or did they state that the original creators intentional made the changes?

I just mean an artistic decision by the artists involved, and it makes more sense if they're different artists.

Unless I'm uninformed and "sand coarseness" is an SPU-only effect and couldn't be translated to the PS4.

wanderjahr · Jul 25, 2015

Appollowexx said:
Well that's dissapointing. Worse looking IQ, missing effects - what the hell did they spend all their time doing with this game?

Think i'll skip this Journey.

This game is probably wasted on those with opinions like this.

Mcdohl · Jul 25, 2015

Krusenstern said:
There it is, proof from DF themselves. When the exact same things were pointed out in the OT people were quick to respond with something like "Naah, it's still there. Looks fine."

If this was an EA game though...

Anyways it's cross-buy so it's a no brainer for me! I'm sure the 1080p60fps is nice anyway.

MaxwellParrish · Jul 25, 2015

Miles Quaritch said:
Eh, the missing effects are very noticeable in the video.

Maybe you hadn't played it on PS3 for so long you forgot how good it looked?

? the only notably missing effects to me is the motion blur and it's really hard to affirm that its presence would be desderable considering the augmented frame rate and the fact that the game is not usually fast and the camera is almost always pretty far back. The glittering of the sand looks somewhat toned down but it can be argue that it's simply calculated to magnify the sense of scale : frankly, while on the PS3 the effects looked great it also made you think sometimes more of the gravel that to sand

Three · Jul 25, 2015

Can somebody explain what they mean by sand coarseness. Do they mean the glitter? There is glitter on the PS4 version, it's not absent. It just has a higher resolution and so the glitter pixels are smaller and less noticeable.

The 30fps with motion blur vs 60fps without is what usually happens. At higher framerates you don't need blur as much and it becomes harder to implement too. I'd personally take 60fps over 30 with blur though.

RoadHazard · Jul 25, 2015

Haven't played the PS4 version yet, but that's pretty disappointing. At least 60fps is nice.

dark10x · Jul 25, 2015

Three said:
Can somebody explain what they mean by sand coarseness. Do they mean the glitter? There is glitter on the PS4 version, it's not absent. It just has a higher resolution and so the glitter pixels are smaller and less noticeable.

The 30fps with motion blur vs 60fps without is what usually happens. At higher framerates you don't need blur as much and it becomes harder to implement too. I'd personally take 60fps over 30 with blur though.

Look at the comparison pics. You'll see it.

blastprocessor · Jul 25, 2015

I also commented on the other Journey thread that AA could have been better.

Summer Haze · Jul 25, 2015

I haven't played the PS3 version, but I'd take the 60fps PS4 version any day if I had to choose. Game felt super smooth to play.

Though here's hoping they patch in the missing effects.

liquidtmd · Jul 25, 2015

Appollowexx said:
Well that's dissapointing. Worse looking IQ, missing effects - what the hell did they spend all their time doing with this game?

Think i'll skip this Journey.

With this attitude, you were never going to buy it anyway

travisbickle · Jul 25, 2015

dark10x said:
Look at the comparison pics. You'll see it.

I was looking at the 3rd pic when I made the comment.

Reading the paragraph directly underneath (you wrote it?) I also notice we have totally different views of the process. I would totally expect changes to be made by the new artists involved.

Three · Jul 25, 2015

dark10x said:
Look at the comparison pics. You'll see it.

Well I'm seeing it as finer grain sand being resolved. It might be worth setting the PS4 to 720p then taking some comparison pics. Don't know what the ps4 does though, does it downsample in games when you do that?

FLAguy954 · Jul 25, 2015

henhowc said:
could be the case. did people in the OT complain about this? regardless...don't think this should dissuade newcomers to play it. seems like something most people wouldn't even have picked up on without reading this. then again...i guess that could be said about a lot of these faceoffs in general.

for those who already played ps3 one...umm its cross-buy (can't remember if there was a retail release)?

ramyeon said:
These are honestly things that the average player will never even notice. Journey looks stunning on PS4 and performs just as well as it looks. New players won't even notice the lack of some minor effects and I bet a lot of returning players won't notice it either. I get that DF articles are like this by nature but using a tear down like this to decide whether or not you purchase is a bit questionable to me, especially considering that the game is cross buy.

I think both of you are missing the point of Digital Foundry's Face-Offs: to make things like this known to the 'average' player so they can make an informed purchase.

Three · Jul 25, 2015

henhowc said:
could be the case. did people in the OT complain about this? regardless...don't think this should dissuade newcomers to play it. seems like something most people wouldn't even have picked up on without reading this. then again...i guess that could be said about a lot of these faceoffs in general.

for those who already played ps3 one...umm its cross-buy (can't remember if there was a retail release)?

I think the glitter difference is very noticeable. It's whether you consider one more correct than the other that's debatable.

ElTorro · Jul 25, 2015

That's disappointing. I got the game for free anyway, but it sucks that new players have to pay for a compromised version.

GribbleGrunger · Jul 25, 2015

Why does the printed word suddenly change the tone of a games reception?

blastprocessor · Jul 25, 2015

Three said:
Well I'm seeing it as finer grain sand being resolved. It might be worth setting the PS4 to 720p then taking some comparison pics. Don't know what the ps4 does though, does it downsample in games when you do that?

I think it downsamples as games look great at 720p.

ramyeon · Jul 25, 2015

FLAguy954 said:
I think both of you are missing the point of Digital Foundry's Face-Offs: to make things like this known to the 'average' player so they can make an informed purchase.

I'm not missing the point, no.

ElTorro said:
That's disappointing. I got the game for free anyway, but it sucks that new players have to pay for a compromised version.

I played for the first time on the PS4 and in no way do I feel like the version I played was compromised even after reading this analysis.

ElTorro · Jul 25, 2015

ramyeon said:
I played for the first time on the PS4 and in no way do I feel like the version I played was compromised even after reading this analysis.

I understand that these things won't really matter during playing the game, especially if you don't have a direct comparison with the original game. But it is still disappointing that the game's port isn't what the original creator would have deemed complete. In that sense, it is certainly compromised.

PensivePen · Jul 25, 2015

I actually prefer the look of the game without motion blur. Disappointing to see some effects have been lost though, but it seems to be very subtle differences based on the footage shown.

system11 · Jul 25, 2015

"We disagree and feel that even at higher frame-rates, motion blur can add greatly to the presentation."

It really doesn't. It just makes it look ugly.

klier · Jul 25, 2015

FLAguy954 said:
I think both of you are missing the point of Digital Foundry's Face-Offs: to make things like this known to the 'average' player so they can make an informed purchase.

Haha, average players will never ever read such a thing.

And if they did, they wouldn't have a clue about what 60 fps even means.

FLAguy954 · Jul 25, 2015

klier said:
Haha, average players will never ever read such a thing.

And if they did, they wouldn't have a clue about what 60 fps even means.

Yes, average player do read these face-offs. Do you really think only NeoGAF users read Digital Foundry articles?

RoadHazard · Jul 25, 2015

Three said:
Well I'm seeing it as finer grain sand being resolved. It might be worth setting the PS4 to 720p then taking some comparison pics. Don't know what the ps4 does though, does it downsample in games when you do that?

Yeah, it won't actually render at 720p.

Draft · Jul 25, 2015

Disappointing but I'm ready to experience journey for the first time even if it's hobbled by the quads lackluster hardware.

OuterLimits · Jul 25, 2015

I posted in the OT thread that the mountain looked odd at times to me.

When you start the third stage, the mountain looks painted on in the background or something. Maybe it looked like that in the PS3 version though. I need to check.

Also, the game has crashed on me several times.

Support NeoGAF

Digital Foundry: Journey Face-off (PS3/PS4)

Banned

Member

Banned

Member

Member

Member

Banned

Member

Member

Member

Member

Banned

Banned

Member

Member

Member

Banned

Member

Banned

Banned

Digital Foundry pixel pusher

Banned

Member

Banned

Member

Banned

Member

Member

Member

Gold Member

Digital Foundry pixel pusher

The Amiga Brotherhood

Banned

Banned

Member

Member

Junior Member

Member

I wanted to dominate the living room. Then I took an ESRAM in the knee.

Dreams in Digital

The Amiga Brotherhood

Member

I wanted to dominate the living room. Then I took an ESRAM in the knee.

Member

Member

Member

Junior Member

Gold Member

Member

Member

Similar threads