MurkyZebra2417
Member
Because it drops 1-2 frames. For seconds. In some places.Kindly explain how is that a hyperbole?
If you can't see the hyperbole you should get some Doritos and flush them with Mountain Dew.
Because it drops 1-2 frames. For seconds. In some places.Kindly explain how is that a hyperbole?
You prefer a constant inferior IQ over minor and pretty rare dips?I'll take better fps performance for sure.
But your problem with the tone of the article does not seem to be based on reality. There's nothing in the conclusion (or article otherwise) suggesting that the XB1 version running at 1080p would only have minor drops in framerate, you're making that up.
Performance-wise, both consoles do a good job of delivering a stable, consistent frame-rate but it is the Xbox One version that delivers the smoothest experience overall. Frame-rate drops are extremely rare, only appearing in the most extreme circumstances - for all intents and purposes we're looking at a locked 30fps. Unfortunately, the higher resolution on PS4 comes with a catch in the form of noticeable performance dips during strenuous sequences.
How does it run on PS3, is it "slideshow" like ME3?
You are too preoccupied with defending the PS4 to even understand what they were saying.So your conclusion is if the xb1 was 1080p it would be a solid 30fps?? Lol no....
So your conclusion is if the xb1 was 1080p it would be a solid 30fps?? Lol no....
Because it drops 1-2 frames. For seconds. In some places.
If you can't see the hyperbole you should get some Doritos and flush them with Mountain Dew.
It can be a better choice, yeah, depending on the frequency and severity of the drops of course. For instance, in a 60 fps game the drop to 50 fps (a 20% drop in framerate) for a couple of seconds isn't that noticeable because 50 fps is still a relatively high base framerate. In a 30 fps game a framerate drop of a similar percentage (from 30 fps to 25) is much more jarring and annoying because 25 fps means a very choppy experience in both visual consistency and control response.
Kindly explain how is that a hyperbole?
Also, FYI, a constant anything (to an extent) becomes less noticeable overtime especially w/o side by side comparison as opposed to fluctuations. While neither version drops below the "cinematic" framerate of 24fps (thus far), percentage of time the fluctuations occur vary and according to DF, XB1 is favourable in this regard.
You are too preoccupied with defending the PS4 to even understand what they were saying.
I think their point is that getting the game to run at 1080p on PS4 with comparable graphics did mean that performance was pushed a bit harder. Which is a painfully obvious statement to make and nothing you should be getting your panties in a twist over. Relax.There's a direct claim that the resolution bump leads to framerate issues- it makes this claim without accounting for the difference in effects or other optimizations. In the conclusion, it places the options on even-footing: if you want performance, get the XB1, but if you want IQ get the PS4 version, when it's arguable that it's even a comparable tradeoff.
I hope real functional dynamic resolution becomes a thing this gen. Not the weird id tech 5 "drops to worst possible resolution for way too long despite nothing really going on" type.
I think their point is that getting the game to run at 1080p on PS4 with comparable graphics did mean that performance was pushed a bit harder. Which is a painfully obvious statement to make and nothing you should be getting your panties in a twist over. Relax.
I seriously doubt Eurogamer recently then have been favoring a lot towards XB1 and trying to make it better even it has very minor advantage like a big diff and downplaying PS4 advantages almost in negative way. In this face off they mean like PS4 has severe dips and its not stable at all by recommending XB1 who want performance (almost every article) even though the dips are not noticeable mostly and it happens in very stress events (which i doubt in XB1 also but they may trying to hide as they favor XB1 by choosing some particular sections).
Because it drops 1-2 frames. For seconds. In some places.
If you can't see the hyperbole you should get some Doritos and flush them with Mountain Dew.
I haven't slated the PS4 anywhere, what are you talking about? :/And you spend far too much time slating it to notice, I never defended it I pointed out he implied the xb1 was at 1080p it wouldn't suffer frame drops...
How does it run on PS3, is it "slideshow" like ME3?
I don't recall ME3 being a slideshow on the PS3.
How I feel it goes down with sony:
Dev: we optimized the game to run at 1080p like you requested. However,if you would hear me out as to why I would recommend 900p...
Sony: no we need 1080p on all our games.
Dev: I understand but the game would perform bette.....
SONY: *throws money at them* go away you puppet.
Appreciate it! I've been trying hard to give PC releases the respect they deserve and I'm glad someone noticed.
Istead of going straight for the bias angle, why don't you guys entertain the more straightforward explanation first? That there are actually some issues worth noting with the PS4 versions of some games and that DF is simply reporting on them?
Here we're talking about very sporadic drops which on top of that in most cases are to 28-29 fps.
It's just nitpicking, I've been playing the game and it's totally smooth to me, I'd be pissed off if resolution was lowered by dev to fix such a minor thing that most people won't notice anyway.
Istead of going straight for the bias angle, why don't you guys entertain the more straightforward explanation first? That there are actually some issues worth noting with the PS4 versions of some games and that DF is simply reporting on them?
How I feel it goes down with sony:
Dev: we optimized the game to run at 1080p like you requested. However,if you would hear me out as to why I would recommend 900p...
Sony: no we need 1080p on all our games.
Dev: I understand but the game would perform bette.....
SONY: *throws money at them* go away you puppet.
Issues reported by them are not severe but they claim like PS4 performance is worst by recommending XB1 version. Overall PS4 should be the one to be recommended as the FPS dips are minor (developers can improve them as well with some patches because its an optimization issue) and its in very stressful events only but eurogamer attitude towards this by saying performance go for XB1 is very bias angle.
I for one appreciate them mentioning all and any differences between the versions. Whenever you're doing an analysis such as this it's good to be very thorough, no matter how slight the differences are.
It is entirely factual that if you desire the best performance, the XB1 version is the one to have. There is nothing wrong with that statement. Now, if you care more about resolution/IQ, then go for the PS4 version. Which is exactly what they state themselves. They did not say that the PS4 version runs badly or anything. Just that it doesn't run quite as well as the XB1 version.Issues reported by them are not severe but they claim like PS4 performance is worst by recommending XB1 version. Overall PS4 should be the one to be recommended as the FPS dips are minor (developers can improve them as well with some patches because its an optimization issue) and its in very stressful events only but eurogamer attitude towards this by saying performance go for XB1 is very bias angle.
I read on a previous post that the PS4's mimimum framerate was 25 fps. If the minimum is 28-89 and it only happens infrequently then yeah, I completely agree.
So a 1FPS difference is worth claiming that the XB1 trades substantially higher IQ for stronger performance? How many of these nominal differences in framerate are DF going to make hay over before their bizarre power parity narrative starts looking silly?
Sony doesn't really have money to throw away, lol
i'll take 1080p if the game drops 5 frame on the most intense area.
Issues reported by them are not severe but they claim like PS4 performance is worst by recommending XB1 version. Overall PS4 should be the one to be recommended as the FPS dips are minor (developers can improve them as well with some patches because its an optimization issue) and its in very stressful events only but eurogamer attitude towards this by saying performance go for XB1 is very bias angle.
The quote is taking a few shortcuts yeah, but I'm fairly sure the PS4 version with its better effects would run at a stable 30 fps if it was running in 900p. Are your complaints about the article really based on something that would be fixed by changing "the higher resolution on PS4" to "the better visuals on PS4"?There's a direct claim that the resolution bump leads to framerate issues- it makes this claim without accounting for the difference in effects or other optimizations. In the conclusion, it places the options on even-footing: if you want performance, get the XB1, but if you want IQ get the PS4 version, when it's arguable that it's even a comparable tradeoff.
I am allergic to cheese so no goddamn doritos 'kay?
Also, I haven't seen the videos myself. My statement was drawn from reading the conclusion of DF article. So one has to wonder just how effective the closing statements of DF are especially how their conclusions are reflected.
It seems like you just dislike the fact that they say the XB1 version has advantages.
Your better than this. Come on man really?How I feel it goes down with sony:
Dev: we optimized the game to run at 1080p like you requested. However,if you would hear me out as to why I would recommend 900p...
Sony: no we need 1080p on all our games.
Dev: I understand but the game would perform bette.....
SONY: *throws money at them* go away you puppet.
Their analyses are awesome and invaluable, but I do think they would be improved by refraining from making consumer-oriented judgments with their findings.
How I feel it goes down with sony:
Dev: we optimized the game to run at 1080p like you requested. However,if you would hear me out as to why I would recommend 900p...
Sony: no we need 1080p on all our games.
Dev: I understand but the game would perform bette.....
SONY: *throws money at them* go away you puppet.
It is entirely factual that if you desire the best performance, the XB1 version is the one to have. There is nothing wrong with that statement. Now, if you care more about resolution/IQ, then go for the PS4 version. Which is exactly what they state themselves. They did not say that the PS4 version runs badly or anything. Just that it doesn't run quite as well as the XB1 version.
Factual, maybe, but it is dishonest to paint a narrative that PS4's persistent resolution advantage is equivalent to hand-picked instances of XB1's framerate advantage. If you are a consumer that wants both image quality and performance, there should be no question that PS4 is the overall pick.
DA:I seems kind of demanding for an FB game.And yet BF on Ps4 Frostbite was 900p60 but mainly around 50 FPS according to DF.
And PVZ was 1080p60 on Frostbite....pretty solid as well
So It cant be CPU, maybe they should of worked out the hit in those 2-3 FPS and dialled something back ever so slightly.
Comparing to other games could the hit 1080p30 and be locked - I believe yes if they really wanted to.
Visuals PS4
Performance Xbox One
its becoming something of a trend.
Are you saying you take issue with their conclusion paragraphs?