• 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.

Digital Foundry: Thief for Xbox One edges out the PS4 version

Piggus

Member
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?

PC elitists just like to wave their dick around every time they get the chance. In the end the joke is on them since they miss out on so many good games that will never come to PC.

I love PC gaming and play most third party games on PC but I'm not going to be a fucking idiot and delude myself into thinking I'm getting the best experience possible by ONLY having a good PC. I'll be dammed if I miss out on stuff like Uncharted and The Last of Us. A lot of PC gamers need to grow the fuck up. That also goes for the console-only people who have no technical knowledge and think you need to spend 2 Gs for PC gaming to be worth it.
 

Chobel

Member
One would think you would be used to it by now, judging by the typical levels of sodium found in almost all of your own posts.

1363863597925139587.GIF
 
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.

And then the xbox wins.
 

TheD

The Detective
I genuinely can't comprehend how DF came to their conclusion with a straight face.

Well, the article is by Thomas Morgan.
He has made a fair few major mistakes in DF articles before (the kind that makes you doubt if he has much tech knowledge at all).
 

Chabbles

Member
Taken ingame on PS4, The textures are a blur outside a 3, 4 meter radius.
That shot was taken down the street from where you access "the bank heist mission" on the west side of the map. If someone with an X1 has time, post a pic of the same shot ?.. it would be interesting to see a comparison thats not from youtube footage for a change.

BhrfGgpIQAAujxZ.jpg:orig

image.png
 
So in 2 out of 3 areas, the PS4 is superior to the Xbone, yet the Xbone version is overall better than the PS4 one?

I mean, I'm not even a fanboy, but that just makes me mad.
 
Writer from crave redeemed? Or not really because he's wrong about the framerate and the Xbone version is better for a different reason.



He basically bashed the PS4 version because of the framerate, with quotes like "it drops to single digits" and is a "slide show." He completely missed it on those claims, especially when stating the Xbox One has a much better framerate.
 
Eh I really don't know why there's such a big thread on this, by all accounts the game isn't much of a looker on a technical level and both ports are apparently pretty shit.

ywVrOTb.gif


This gif makes more sense than this thread.
 

JPHJ

Neo Member
Has any conclusion been reached from this thread? Haven't had time to go all the way through.

Is the df conclusion wrong?

Is there a reason for the bluring, pop in or whatever is up with this game?

Theres no way a game on weaker hardware should look better as all the previous ps4 'victories' have shown. Whats the deal?
 

Melchiah

Member
So the multiple analysts that write these articles follow this hive-mind mentality? Ooook.....

Also by saying the DI comparison supports your theory, are you really trying to tell me you can understand how the 360 came out on top? In actuality that article proves that they don't determine the winner entirely based on a few technical advantages, which is what you claimed they did a u-turn on.

I have and love the ps4, but I still can't understand being so invested in a platform that something like this would require you to look at the past and make up conspiracy theories.

Well, they've pretty consistent with their articles in that regard, eventhough their metrics have changed during the generational transition, and like this thread shows I'm not the only who has noticed it.

I'm saying the DI article supports what I said, when the PS3's higher resolution was a "small lead", compared to 360's "significantly" higher resolution in the Red Dead Redemption article. And now 1080p isn't significantly higher than 900p, let alone 720p.
the game is running at a full 1920x1080 on PS4, while the Microsoft next-gen release runs at 1600x900 - a state of affairs confirmed by our own pixel count. However, due to the use of high quality FXAA post-processing on both platforms, the dropped pixel tally isn't a major point of differentiation.
Then there were the pre-launch talks about balance, and counting memory bandwidth numbers together. What else is there to take from all of that, but to wonder why a tech site changes their viewpoint depending on which platform has the upper hand?

It's not about platform preference, it's about objective comparisons, no matter who's on the top. I'd rather read tech articles, that are based on facts instead of opinions.
 

Steffen

Banned
Has any conclusion been reached from this thread? Haven't had time to go all the way through.

Is the df conclusion wrong?

I guess it depends on who you ask.

Basically, Digital Foundry / Eurogamer commenters are claiming payola. And this thread is claiming incompetence.

I've also seen a few folks say apparently this will be the end of Digital Foundry, and that their credibility has been destroyed.

Who really knows.
 

GribbleGrunger

Dreams in Digital
Has any conclusion been reached from this thread? Haven't had time to go all the way through.

Is the df conclusion wrong?

Is there a reason for the bluring, pop in or whatever is up with this game?

Theres no way a game on weaker hardware should look better as all the previous ps4 'victories' have shown. Whats the deal?

The deal is DF are lying. It's as simple as that at this point. I'm not digging back through the thread so here's just two points of note:

Pop in on X1 too but appears worse:

thief28slmz.gif


They say the X1 has POM but it clearly doesn't:

the_gapqlpov.png


Now add in better resolution and better framerates. Which version is the clear winner here?
 

PBY

Banned
The deal is DF are lying. It's as simple as that at this point. I'm not digging back through the thread so here's just two points of note:

Pop in on X1 too but appears worse:

thief28slmz.gif


They say the X1 has POM but it clearly doesn't:

the_gapqlpov.png


Now add in better resolution and better framerates.
Why would DF lie? This kinda stuff is crazy.
 

Jedi2016

Member
What DF needs is competition. Another site that will also do in-depth tech analysis of games. And the results will either be the same... or they won't.
 

xkramz

Member
The deal is DF are lying. It's as simple as that at this point. I'm not digging back through the thread so here's just two points of note:

Pop in on X1 too but appears worse:

thief28slmz.gif


They say the X1 has POM but it clearly doesn't:

the_gapqlpov.png


Now add in better resolution and better framerates. Which version is the clear winner here?
I thought Xbo had crusher black than ps4. From those screen shots the Xbo should look like the left picture because of the black levels.
 

Sean*O

Member
The deal is DF are lying. It's as simple as that at this point. I'm not digging back through the thread so here's just two points of note:

Pop in on X1 too but appears worse:

thief28slmz.gif


They say the X1 has POM but it clearly doesn't:

the_gapqlpov.png


Now add in better resolution and better framerates. Which version is the clear winner here?

Those ground textures are totally different, one of them looks like a relief map with shadows and the other looks like a flat texture.
 

StuBurns

Banned
While that is true, for a site that wants to be seen as making objective analysis, a site wide policy for making those sorts of judgements would help. Or even just stop picking winners (especially when both consoles are shithouse) and let the data stand on their own.
I think of course you can lay down guide lines, for example many PS3 games were triple buffered when their 360 counterparts weren't, this is a pretty simple edge in visuals for a ding in responsiveness, I think that's something you can form an institutional voice over, but when it's something like this, you can't just put the priority over performance if the difference is so small that the visual impact is greater.

I do think they should not bother giving an opinion unless it is essentially undeniable, like the recent Strider.
 

KageMaru

Member
Well, they've pretty consistent with their articles in that regard, eventhough their metrics have changed during the generational transition, and like this thread shows I'm not the only who has noticed it.

I'm saying the DI article supports what I said, when the PS3's higher resolution was a "small lead", compared to 360's "significantly" higher resolution in the Red Dead Redemption article. And now 1080p isn't significantly higher than 900p, let alone 720p.

Then there were the pre-launch talks about balance, and counting memory bandwidth numbers together. What else is there to take from all of that, but to wonder why a tech site changes their viewpoint depending on which platform has the upper hand?

It's not about platform preference, it's about objective comparisons, no matter who's on the top. I'd rather read tech articles, that are based on facts instead of opinions.

Different people, different opinions, and different views on how much a disparity impacts the end results. That's my take on it. *shrugs*
 

thelastword

Banned
Yup, let the forums duke it out for a "winner". DF should just be worried about providing the facts, Jack.
At this point, I don't even trust DF to give a complete and technical analysis, either through incompetence on their part or that they glance over technical details and choose to focus on subjective talk in tech analyses.

Anyone saying it's a different person doing the analysis is missing the point entirely. A tech analysis has nothing to do with what you think, it's all about what it is. For comparisons like these, there should be certain standards and ground rules and they should not change based on what the tech analyst prefers as bias can and will no doubt creep in.

To me a tech analysis that tries to make insignificant 633,600 more pixels and a 4-5 frame advantage in their reasoning is a joke, more so, doing so whilst talking up a single graphical feature on the worse performing platform, goodness gracious.
 

GribbleGrunger

Dreams in Digital
Yeah I just can't buy that payola stuff or malfeasance from DF. Feel free to believe in the conspiracy stuff tho.

There is an outside chance that they genuinely don't think resolution matters, genuinely don't think framerate matters, genuinely thought the X1 version had POM too, genuinely overlooked the pop in on the X1 version and genuinely didn't think to preinstall it on the PS4 version fully before playing (many people who have it fully installed don't have the texture pop in problem) All of those things are possibly accidental of course.

I just see it as a lie but many others wouldn't.
 

NBtoaster

Member
Yup, was there from the start.

Well the DF comparison shows otherwise, and it's unlikely the game would still be installing by then. So sometimes it happens sometimes it doesn't.

The deal is DF are lying. It's as simple as that at this point. I'm not digging back through the thread so here's just two points of note:

Pop in on X1 too but appears worse:

thief28slmz.gif


They say the X1 has POM but it clearly doesn't:

the_gapqlpov.png


Now add in better resolution and better framerates. Which version is the clear winner here?

They said nothing about POM. Both versions do have it though X1 misses it sometimes.

To me a tech analysis that tries to make insignificant 633,600 more pixels and a 4-5 frame advantage in their reasoning is a joke, more so, doing so whilst talking up a single graphical feature on the worse performing platform, goodness gracious.

Well no, the worse thing would be providing numbers without context for people to bicker over. Because those extra pixels and frames aren't very relevant in this situation.
 

chadskin

Member
I've updated the OP with GribbleGrungers post.

Disclaimer: I don't share his opinion Digital Foundry is lying, I believe and hope these issues just went by unnoticed by Morgan.
 

fedexpeon

Banned
The deal is DF are lying. It's as simple as that at this point. I'm not digging back through the thread so here's just two points of note:

Pop in on X1 too but appears worse:

thief28slmz.gif



Now add in better resolution and better framerates. Which version is the clear winner here?

WTF...That is just straight up lying.
Did you get this from their source videos?

Oh well, inferior game is inferior anyway.
 

Jibbed

Member
Haven't bothered to read the rest of the thread but if the XB1 version has somehow turned out 'better' than the PS4 version... that says a lot more about the developer rather than the hardware.
 

Jetlagger

Banned
So first Strider and now Thief... looks like the Xbox platform will finally regain the edge in multiplats if DF is to be the authority on the matter.
 

Melchiah

Member
Different people, different opinions, and different views on how much a disparity impacts the end results. That's my take on it. *shrugs*

That's why I wish the console comparisons were more like the PC hardware comparisons, where the facts usually prevail over opinions, where sophistry is left at the door, and higher values are always better.


At this point, I don't even trust DF to give a complete and technical analysis, either through incompetence on their part or that they glance over technical details and choose to focus on subjective talk in tech analyses.

Anyone saying it's a different person doing the analysis is missing the point entirely. A tech analysis has nothing to do with what you think, it's all about what it is. For comparisons like these, there should be certain standards and ground rules and they should not change based on what the tech analyst prefers as bias can and will no doubt creep in.

To me a tech analysis that tries to make insignificant 633,600 more pixels and a 4-5 frame advantage in their reasoning is a joke, more so, doing so whilst talking up a single graphical feature on the worse performing platform, goodness gracious.

I couldn't agree more.
 

RoboPlato

I'd be in the dick
We should go through the DF articles and see who wrote what. I'm not claiming any sort of bias but judging from the mistakes this guy made on this analysis and the NFS one, he certainly seems more careless and less thorough than others.
 
Top Bottom