-
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: Journey Face-off (PS3/PS4)
- Thread starter Vashetti
- Start date
kitchenmotors
Banned
You're missing the point though. People have a right to be disappointed when a remaster is taking things away from the overall presentation rather than just adding to it. Does it take away from the enjoyment of the game? No, but that's not the point of this thread. The point of this thread is to discuss the issues with the remaster for Journey. While it improves upon some aspects, as it should, it also seems to have some shortcomings.
People should be aware of that that are purchasing the game. Good thing there is a choice to play on PS3 or PS4.
GribbleGrunger
Dreams in Digital
Seems with the increase in resolution, they increased the resolution of the sand texture that causes the glittering. This finer sand imo looks better. But it does make it look different. To me the only thing i'd like to see back is the motion blur, but heavily reduced compared to the ps3 version. Then it's the better looking version technically and artistically imo.
Sounds like the developers aimed for 60 fps/ 1080p first and then dropped various FX back in until it impacted performance. 720p 30 fps fxaa motion blur trilinear filter > 1080p 60 fps MSAA no blur anisiotropic filtering.
Still sounds like an improvement to me but then I haven't played either version. Perhaps the fx that digital foundry speak of are still there , just toned down ? They've been off before (although not very often).
It's too bad sony couldn't just set up a small in house studio that does nothing but 1080p/60fps-ify ps3 games for both first and second parties and then possibly assists with third party ports too.
Still sounds like an improvement to me but then I haven't played either version. Perhaps the fx that digital foundry speak of are still there , just toned down ? They've been off before (although not very often).
It's too bad sony couldn't just set up a small in house studio that does nothing but 1080p/60fps-ify ps3 games for both first and second parties and then possibly assists with third party ports too.
I'm confused as to what this article is mumbling on about. I played this the day it came out and it looked and ran better than on PS3. And, as it was just a simple resolution and framerate boost, it was the right price for me: free.
That really is all it looks like.
That really is all it looks like.
Cheeseman Battitude
Member
PS3 version for me then.
GribbleGrunger
Dreams in Digital
Exactly. It's what frustrates me the most about most forums.
bananafactory
Banned
I just fired up the PS3 version to check it out and while the article is accurate, the overall package on PS4 including 60 fps is still the superior experience
I recommend anyone who has the choice to still play it there.
After not having played PS3's Journey for at least 1 year, I can honestly say that I did notice how much less shimmering and shiny and alive the sand felt, which was disappointing as it was one of the standouts for me from the original game.
However, PS4's Journey is so fluid and smooth (1080p60) and because of it such a joy to play that I was utterly enthralled by the game, yet again!
It would be lovely if they could add back the original character of the sand, but I'm not so bothered about the motion blur, and as long as they keep it at that eye meltingly good 60 fps.
However, PS4's Journey is so fluid and smooth (1080p60) and because of it such a joy to play that I was utterly enthralled by the game, yet again!
It would be lovely if they could add back the original character of the sand, but I'm not so bothered about the motion blur, and as long as they keep it at that eye meltingly good 60 fps.
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
Same thing with The Last of Us I noticed on the snow level. That glitter was either gone or not even close to being as intense as the PS3 version.
FranXico
Member
I fully agree with this, but there is no way everybody will ever agree on which version looks better, because a lot of people prefer the coarser sand glittering.
Maybe the sand glitter effect started looking different because the exact same technique was applied while rendering the scene at 1080p instead of 720p, and the team porting the game naturally wanted to avoid changing the game engine. Only to now be accused of not adhering to the original vision.
I suspect the backlash of releasing a game running at 720p on the PS4 would be far greater, though.
Rewatching the video, I do think this could be correct. Maybe the devs handling the port were just stuck between a rock and a hard place here
Vital Tundra
Member
Im sorry but motion blur in a 60fps game is terrible, no matter what.
That's what I was wondering, if the effect wasn't just resolution based, and since there's smaller grains of sand, the effect seems less pronounced as a result.
32x looks pretty nice even at 120fps in Doom 3.
Omega Kirby
Member
Motion blur is often a good thing even at higher framerates. Racing games often demonstrate this.
Zombie James
Banned
What? This isn't true at all.
sauerkraut
Banned
I'm with you on this one. First thing I do under settings is disable motion blur. Not only does it use resources, but looks horrible to me.
panda-zebra
Banned
Well I've seen it first hand and I've also see the video... I wouldn't be judging sparkly pixel effects via a YT video and thinking my conclusions were sound.
Zombie James
Banned
Sorry but you've completely misread what I wrote.
thelastword
Banned
I believe this article is really nitpicky and that it was the pre-dominant tone, hence you have people saying they won't buy, they will wait for a patch or they will play the PS3 version instead (on this very page).
Let's be clear here, the game is now 1080p, the sand particles are not degraded like the article said, the game is rendering at a higher resolution so the particles look finer. If you want to see coarser particles, then play the game at 720p like the PS3 version, (only this time at 60fps).
I must say at 720p (on the PS3 version), some of the fine detail of the sand bed is lost on account of the lower resolution and the MB. That is when you compare it to the PS4 version. I don't think MB would work great here tbh, not so much for the visual enhancement or lack thereof (which ever argument you favor) but because it would lower the frame rate from 60fps.
As it stands, there are some aspects of the game that looks soft (on the PS4), it could be the PP effects or PP-AA, maybe that's the reason they can't get a proper reading on the rez, but there is some blur. I must also say that I disagree with the article on IQ...despite some blur (NON-MB), it is definitely sharper than the PS3 version in every scene and the aliasing coverage is also superior, the PS4 version is much cleaner jaggie-wise, especially if you inspect the last few minutes of the video where you witness a very jaggy scarf on the PS3 side and very jaggy outlines on a grey bridge in the distance.
It's clear that this game is heavy on physics and many simulations, all those scarfs, wind and sand (sims) are all quite intensive. The SPU's did quite a bit of lifting back then. In certain scenes we can see the game reaching 56fps for a small bit when there's heavy (sand storm like wind) in the mix, adding MB on top of that would definitely cause the game to drop even more frames.
As for MB being added in, the only option would be to offer the game at 30fps/1080p with motion blur. As for the resolution reads, I think DF should really get to the bottom of it. It looks 1080p with a blurring PP-AA method to me, but get a pro on it (Quaz51), for some help on this one.
InsaneTiger
Member
Who said it was a remaster?
sauerkraut
Banned
I disagree with you! I apologize I smoked a lot of marijuana and my eyes are wonky.
Allnamestakenlol
Member
I disagree with your disagreement of their disagreement. Now where does that leave us?
Thought it was an interesting take on the matter. Any word on whether it was an artistic choice or just not a complete 1:1 transition yet?
And if PS4 version launched first:
"The PS3 introduces a distracting shimmering on the sand, breaking the cold flatness that defines the emptiness of the desert. The sand looks coarser and younger as a result, less worn down by time than the PS4 version. The introduction of motion blur, necessary to add fluidity to the lower framerate, obscures the fine details and detaches the player, making it appear as if you're watching something caught on camera rather than being there yourself. The toned down bloom reduces the intensity of the sun and removes some of the sense of its scorching presence. All in all, a commendable port but missing a few of the qualities that made the original PS4 version of Journey the perfect masterpiece it was."
And if PS4 version launched first:
"The PS3 introduces a distracting shimmering on the sand, breaking the cold flatness that defines the emptiness of the desert. The sand looks coarser and younger as a result, less worn down by time than the PS4 version. The introduction of motion blur, necessary to add fluidity to the lower framerate, obscures the fine details and detaches the player, making it appear as if you're watching something caught on camera rather than being there yourself. The toned down bloom reduces the intensity of the sun and removes some of the sense of its scorching presence. All in all, a commendable port but missing a few of the qualities that made the original PS4 version of Journey the perfect masterpiece it was."
AgentP
Thinks mods influence posters politics. Promoted to QAnon Editor.
I'm not sure who this face-off is for, I guess the summer is slow?
Bottom line for anyone who has not played it and maybe had a 360 last gen. Knowing what things differ, no matter how minute is interesting, but should not alter anyone's decision to play it on the platform they own.
That being said, I finished the PS3 version and just played some of the PS4 version and noticed nothing different. I just watched the side by side DF video and again saw nothing different. Lots of "concern" in this thread, but that's expected for a platform exclusive which is highly regarded.
Bottom line for anyone who has not played it and maybe had a 360 last gen. Knowing what things differ, no matter how minute is interesting, but should not alter anyone's decision to play it on the platform they own.
That being said, I finished the PS3 version and just played some of the PS4 version and noticed nothing different. I just watched the side by side DF video and again saw nothing different. Lots of "concern" in this thread, but that's expected for a platform exclusive which is highly regarded.
It has been years since I played the PS3 version, so I can't remember the missing effects and what they had added to my experience then.
I just finished playing twice on PS4 and would still recommend this game to anyone who hasn't tried it.
The one thing that I thought looked bizarre is how the snow moves due to wind. It looks as if you're holding a white bed sheet and applying a wave motion.
I just finished playing twice on PS4 and would still recommend this game to anyone who hasn't tried it.
The one thing that I thought looked bizarre is how the snow moves due to wind. It looks as if you're holding a white bed sheet and applying a wave motion.
nogoodnamesleft
Banned
Oh man some of the comments in here
Demaster
Comprised version
Preferring 30fps with motion blur over 60fps
Lower IQ
I don't even
Demaster
Comprised version
Preferring 30fps with motion blur over 60fps
Lower IQ
I don't even
WTF.... I didn't even state any conclusions... I stated how I viewed the differences based on what I've currently seen. I even said I'm going to try it on PS4 regardless (seeing as it's free for me to do so). I don't even get what you're trying to tell me in regards to it being a youtube video... like that's somehow going to change the effects and lack of motion blur...
Youtube is more than sufficient to illustrate the sorts of differences on display here. Hell it's sufficient in most cases to illustrate differences between two current gen multiplat versions. This game isn't going to be some special case where I'm going to load it on my console and suddenly all the effects will suddenly be as apparent.
RichiRamjag
Member
Yeah, the 30fps shit kills me the most.
To be fair, I'd say Journey is 50/50.
Ivan Amiibo
Banned
I'm starting to get it now - people seem to want details mentioned but without critique. The point of the article was centered on the changing of source material. It's about preservation. The PS4 port of Journey is TECHNICALLY sound and plays very well, just as I said. The issue is that it differs in a number of ways from the original game. Let's leave console wars stuff on the side.
Anyone skipping this as a result of these changes should be advised against that as well. I suppose that's what makes these discussions difficult. Some people view games like this as nothing more than a product, others take a more passionate view on the artistry, while others still only care about console wars.
The glitter effect I'm referring to isn't even a particle effect. It's what you see in these shots. If you look closely, you can still see similar particles in the PS4 shot - but they are not different as a result of resolution, rather, there is clearly a change in the way they function. Light doesn't play off of the texture surface in the same way. Do you REALLY think that the change in rendering is due to a resolution increase? It's not a matter of size at all here.
In motion, those sand bits are very active on PS3. You can see them glittering as the camera swoops around. The same visual effect just isn't there on PS4. The texture layer may be present but it does not present itself in the same manner. Something was changed. Again, you CAN see a similar effect on PS4, but it is not presented the same and it IS NOT a matter of resolution.
You can see it here too.
One of the programmers said this about it...
Clearly the implementation of this effect on PS4 is different. Nobody is saying anything bad about the PS4 - this is all the result of changes the port house made to the original implementation. Whether or not it matters is, in fact, a matter of opinion. There are those who don't care if changes are made to a classic film when it's re-released but there are others that certainly do.
They very well could be using a distortion shader on the framebuffer which would explain the weird counts we're getting. The issue is that counting pixels is really only possible along specific edges so we can't just examine any part of the shot (maybe Quaz can?). I think this explains the issue. So could be regular old 1080p with a weird distortion shader in effect. Clever.
Anyone skipping this as a result of these changes should be advised against that as well. I suppose that's what makes these discussions difficult. Some people view games like this as nothing more than a product, others take a more passionate view on the artistry, while others still only care about console wars.
The glittering sand is not a singular effect. A lot of folks seem to be discussing the specular highlights, which do appear to differ as a result of resolution. The specular effects do appear to scale to resolution or at least have been modified. It renders with a finer precision.
The glitter effect I'm referring to isn't even a particle effect. It's what you see in these shots. If you look closely, you can still see similar particles in the PS4 shot - but they are not different as a result of resolution, rather, there is clearly a change in the way they function. Light doesn't play off of the texture surface in the same way. Do you REALLY think that the change in rendering is due to a resolution increase? It's not a matter of size at all here.
In motion, those sand bits are very active on PS3. You can see them glittering as the camera swoops around. The same visual effect just isn't there on PS4. The texture layer may be present but it does not present itself in the same manner. Something was changed. Again, you CAN see a similar effect on PS4, but it is not presented the same and it IS NOT a matter of resolution.
You can see it here too.
One of the programmers said this about it...
Clearly the implementation of this effect on PS4 is different. Nobody is saying anything bad about the PS4 - this is all the result of changes the port house made to the original implementation. Whether or not it matters is, in fact, a matter of opinion. There are those who don't care if changes are made to a classic film when it's re-released but there are others that certainly do.
IF motion blur were possible at a full 60fps (and I'd like to think with some work it could be) I firmly believe it would look better. If adding blur results in frame-rate drops though? I'd understand the need to remove it.
I don't think that would help. I actually think Faf is right on the money looking back at their other games (which I had not done closely).
They very well could be using a distortion shader on the framebuffer which would explain the weird counts we're getting. The issue is that counting pixels is really only possible along specific edges so we can't just examine any part of the shot (maybe Quaz can?). I think this explains the issue. So could be regular old 1080p with a weird distortion shader in effect. Clever.
User 479360
Banned
That's a surprise
I think I'll just wait and hope that the PS3 version becomes a freebie. I only played a demo of it once and did like it, but I'm not rushing to purchase it.
I think I'll just wait and hope that the PS3 version becomes a freebie. I only played a demo of it once and did like it, but I'm not rushing to purchase it.
paperspace
Member
Yeah, I'm gonna wait and see if they manage to patch this.
panda-zebra
Banned
perfect.
Bluekaveli
Member
Good thing I saw this post before commenting.
If you're going to quote comments then the response to THAT comment should be mentioned as well....
One version was made by the original design team. A team that spent a ridiculous amount of time researching and implementing those visual features into the game right up until release. It was very carefully made.
The other version was handled by a completely separate group of people located halfway around the world from the original team. I doubt the original artists were a part of the discussion to make the changes that they did.
Disappointing.
Will wait for a patch, and if that's not coming, then the PS+ version.
It's moments like this I wish devs would forego 60fps on these consoles and just settle for eye-candy.
Console gaming should always be about cramming as much visual effects @ 1080p/30fps, at least until the next generation of hardware can handle 60fps (with all the effects enabled).
Will wait for a patch, and if that's not coming, then the PS+ version.
It's moments like this I wish devs would forego 60fps on these consoles and just settle for eye-candy.
Console gaming should always be about cramming as much visual effects @ 1080p/30fps, at least until the next generation of hardware can handle 60fps (with all the effects enabled).
There's a lot of assumptions being made about whether the original team had any say in this port. I find it difficult to believe that the original team didn't play the final build and sign off on it before release, especially considering how important the game was to them as an artistic vision.
PensivePen
Member
I really don't think the visual changes have anything to do with them aiming for 60fps.
The reduced sand shimmer really is a shame looking at those screenshots more closely, as it's one of the most visually striking aspects about the game especially during the sand-surfing area. I hope they can patch the title to somehow bring it back. I'm not as necessarily concerned about the other visual elements since they look so minor in comparison, but ideally I'd like to see it restored as much as possible. I'm still on the fence about whether or not I like it more with or without motion blur, but I'd like to see the game as the artists ended it (or with options for enabling/disabling effects).
AgentP
Thinks mods influence posters politics. Promoted to QAnon Editor.
I'm not sure I believe posts like this. I can't fathom such small and subjevtive differences would sway a purchase decision.
I wonder if DF is going to make judgement calls on the artistic vision of the Gears ultimate version. Way more changes to the look and feel.
Summer Haze
Banned
I don't know how ya'll can tell me that the one on the right looks better than the one on the left, but whatever floats your boat.
Yeah, I actually much prefer the finer sand in the PS4 version.
I would like some motion blur though.
thekiddfran
Member
Just booted up my PS3 version and wtf. There is huge difference in the sand. The PS3 looks much better.
The 60fps and 1080p are great on the ps4 I am just pretty bummed about the sand
The 60fps and 1080p are great on the ps4 I am just pretty bummed about the sand
At this point I think the developer should just make a 720p30fps motion blur update with an option that perserves the "artistic vision" of the original. I've seen far worse changes in artistic vision when aiming for 60fps in other games, I won't name the game from fear of inciting something.