Support NeoGAF

[Pathfinder]

Uh, no. Using the extra resources of a more powerful system, no matter how much, should never result in it being identical graphically to the weaker system.

I highly doubt that extra headroom went to not having the game show torn frames.

Who do you expect to pay for this extra development time to ensure all of PS4's extra resources are used?

Sometimes its just not in the budget. Game developers don't play the console war, and you can't expect them to. Their goal is to make the game run at 1080p/30fps on both consoles. And they've succeeded so far.

 

[Respawn]

It's mind boggling how some here think ps4 is soms supermachine which should give double the performance of Xbone. It's a goddamn laptop GPU. I own one to but am keeping my expectations realistic. It's scary to see most of GAF hold on to the myth the PS4 should somehow considerably beter.

Play on PC if you are expecting a performance an IQ leap. Or else just settle in with the console version and be happy with it instead of nitpicking a small fuckin texture somewhere in the game which seems different between de console version.

Shhhh go to sleep now, it's okay. You're speaking on a subject you have no knowledge of.

 

[GHG]

So the PS4 can't do the "snow affected by wind" feature? Is it really that demanding?

That is more of a CPU intensive feature.

I was playing again (even though I said I wouldn't until the game releases... But I guess that shows how much I like the game) on the PC last night and it's quite apparent that GI is a lot more pronounced on the PC version than it is on the PS4.

I don't know why I see some people parroting that GI has been removed? It hasn't at all.

 

[PrinceKee]

I swear some of you guys fanboys are showing. You aren't happy with digital foundry comparisons unless the X1 version runs like shit and the PS4 version is way superior...

 

[DirgeExtinction]

I swear some of you guys fanboys are showing. You aren't happy with digital foundry comparisons unless the X1 version runs like shit and the PS4 version is way superior...

Nah, no one has said anything about the XB1 version needing to "run like shit". It's just that parity is becoming more prevalent this gen than it ever has, even though there's quite a gap in power between the two. Last gen had a smaller gap, it feels like, but it was rare to find game that had graphical parity between XB360 and PS3, if any.

 

[boredandlazy]

I swear some of you guys fanboys are showing. You aren't happy with digital foundry comparisons unless the X1 version runs like shit and the PS4 version is way superior...

I think your reading comprehension needs a bit of a touch up.
There's a rather large difference between asking for the PS4 version to be better, and asking for the XBOne version to be worse.

 

[Steverulez]

From playing it tonight (XB1) the tearing is quite obvious particularly indoors, didn't notice any frame-rate issues stuff though.

And the PS4 has no tearing so... thats where your extra flip flops and what not went

 

[etta]

From playing it tonight (XB1) the tearing is quite obvious particularly indoors, didn't notice any frame-rate issues stuff though.

And the PS4 has no tearing so... thats where your extra flip flops and what not went

Steve, you're not supposed to wear flip flops in the snow!

 

[Steverulez]

Steve, you're not supposed to wear flip flops in the snow!

Im going to make it fashionable just you watch...

 

[PrinceKee]

I think your reading comprehension needs a bit of a touch up.
There's a rather large difference between asking for the PS4 version to be better, and asking for the XBOne version to be worse.

No my reading comprehension is perfectly fine thanks though. Reading the comments of these digital foundry comparison threads when there is a clear advantage for the the PS4 versus reading it when the differences aren't as big all these "parity" comments are more prevalent. Everyone here wants to be an armchair game developer when the X1 version is close. The PS4 version has a solid 30fps with no tearing and does look a little sharper, but oh it's not enough. I'm downloading the PS4 version as we I type this and I've played the X1 version for at least 10 hours and have done everything in the beta and while the frame rate is pretty solid there is a lot of pop in at a few places and I've noticed the tearing more than DF...

 

[captainraincoat]

Parity is an evil word..people dont realize that when two artists paint a picture of the same tree if one of the artists has a bigger penis it makes no difference to how tree will look on both canvases its just how people interpret the pictures

If people know that one artist is packing a third leg some may think it will produce a better picture and try and find small or insignificant imperfection with the other artists picture where as the people who dont know the package sizes couldnt give a shit and appreciate two really good paintings of trees.

Moral of the story...we got 2 really good versions but john holmes (pc) will always paint the perfect tree.

 

[etta]

Im going to make it fashionable just you watch...

Damn millennials, putting fashion ahead of their health!
By the way, I am totally using flip flops instead of gflops from now on. PS4 has a glorious 500 flip flops advantage!

 

[Pathfinder]

I think your reading comprehension needs a bit of a touch up.
There's a rather large difference between asking for the PS4 version to be better, and asking for the XBOne version to be worse.

Uhh... what?

That is exactly the same thing, but said in different ways.

 

[c0de]

lol people saying PS4 should be running it at 60 FPS.

There is even one guy on Gaf thinking RotTR will run at 60fps on ps4 ;-)

 

[johnnydrama]

There is even one guy on Gaf thinking RotTR will run at 60fps on ps4 ;-)

There's more than one.

 

[GHG]

There's more than one.

It's all of us.

Hivemind remember.

 

[icespide]

DF threads where the game looks pretty much the same on both console should be boring but actually they bring the parity weirdos out of the woodwork. I'm looking forward to the Rise of the Tomb Raider PS4 DF thread.

I think your reading comprehension needs a bit of a touch up.
There's a rather large difference between asking for the PS4 version to be better, and asking for the XBOne version to be worse.

Uhh... what?

That is exactly the same thing, but said in different ways.

lol

 

[Ninja Sharingan]

Nah, no one has said anything about the XB1 version needing to "run like shit". It's just that parity is becoming more prevalent this gen than it ever has, even though there's quite a gap in power between the two. Last gen had a smaller gap, it feels like, but it was rare to find game that had graphical parity between XB360 and PS3, if any.

Never has the architecture been so close. Far too many differences last gen. Different cpu, graphics card, split ram in ps3. These are just laptops with no screen. One with faster ram and a better gpu

 

[boredandlazy]

Uhh... what?

That is exactly the same thing, but said in different ways.

How is it the same thing? You're (deliberately?) interpreting my statement on a relative scale, when I'm obviously talking about a linear one.
Let's say they were to improve the PS4 version with even better AA, AF, draw distance etc. Which due to the known power difference is within the realms of possibility. How does that make the XBOne version worse?
I'm not advocating for or against parity here, I'm just questioning how the argument was being interpreted.

 

[THRILLH0]

Who do you expect to pay for this extra development time to ensure all of PS4's extra resources are used?

Sometimes its just not in the budget. Game developers don't play the console war, and you can't expect them to. Their goal is to make the game run at 1080p/30fps on both consoles. And they've succeeded so far.

Surprise, surprise this post has been completely ignored.

Expecting devs to spend extra time and resources "adding effects" to an already great looking and running game just to appease the console warriors is the height of entitlement.

 

[boredandlazy]

Surprise, surprise this post has been completely ignored.

Expecting devs to spend extra time and resources "adding effects" to an already great looking and running game just to appease the console warriors is the height of entitlement.

Are there any extra bells and whistles in the PC version?

 

[GribbleGrunger]

How is it the same thing? You're (deliberately?) interpreting my statement on a relative scale, when I'm obviously talking about a linear one.
Let's say they were to improve the PS4 version with even better AA, AF, draw distance etc. Which due to the known power difference is within the realms of possibility. How does that make the XBOne version worse?
I'm not advocating for or against parity here, I'm just questioning how the argument was being interpreted.

Some people interpret good/better as worse/better. It doesn't matter how many times you try to explain, they just won't see it.

 

[OléGunner]

I don't see the issue here, surprised this thread is rather large!

Both consoles run the game at a solid 1080p30fps and PS4 edges it with zero screen tearing or frame drops (which has been my experience in beta).

If anything I'm only concerned by the pop in I've experienced, though I don't know if this is an engine issue or internet connectivity thing. Also some texture loading can be really slow.

Don't see what extra graphical improvements PS4 could get other than simple optimisation fixes.
The game looks fine by and large though I'm not really impressed with the graphics personally.

Quite an enjoyable game too so far.

 

[Head.spawn]

Maybe they should make the PS4 version 1080p/30-45fps unlocked-framerate to accommodate all of these people who aren't happy with the dead-locked buttery smooth framerate.

 

[Pathfinder]

How is it the same thing? You're (deliberately?) interpreting my statement on a relative scale, when I'm obviously talking about a linear one.
Let's say they were to improve the PS4 version with even better AA, AF, draw distance etc. Which due to the known power difference is within the realms of possibility. How does that make the XBOne version worse?
I'm not advocating for or against parity here, I'm just questioning how the argument was being interpreted.

Fair enough.

 

[BigLee74]

I just love the feelings of entitlement that people can't help suppress when games are even remotely close in terms of performance. It started off well, with back pats all round, but it didn't take long for those floodgates of tears to open.

 

[Melchiah]

Who do you expect to pay for this extra development time to ensure all of PS4's extra resources are used?

Sometimes its just not in the budget. Game developers don't play the console war, and you can't expect them to. Their goal is to make the game run at 1080p/30fps on both consoles. And they've succeeded so far.

Which means they put more work on getting the XBO version up there. Why shouldn't we expect the same resources to be put on the PS4 version, and for them to take full advantage of the system like they're doing with the XBO? Why sould they cater to the console warriors, who can't handle the other version looking better?

 

[icespide]

Which means they put more work on getting the XBO version up there. Why shouldn't we expect the same resources to be put on the PS4 version, and for them to take full advantage of the system like they're doing with the XBO? Why sould they cater to the console warriors, who can't handle the other version looking better?

you are making a ton of assumptions here.

 

[Rembrandt]

How is it the same thing? You're (deliberately?) interpreting my statement on a relative scale, when I'm obviously talking about a linear one.
Let's say they were to improve the PS4 version with even better AA, AF, draw distance etc. Which due to the known power difference is within the realms of possibility. How does that make the XBOne version worse?
I'm not advocating for or against parity here, I'm just questioning how the argument was being interpreted.

i'm so confused by this. if one version is better than the other, how is the lesser one not worse?

Some people interpret good/better as worse/better. It doesn't matter how many times you try to explain, they just won't see it.

they can mean the same thing. Saying something is worse doesn't mean it isn't good, but if something is better then something has to be worse.

Nah, no one has said anything about the XB1 version needing to "run like shit". It's just that parity is becoming more prevalent this gen than it ever has, even though there's quite a gap in power between the two. Last gen had a smaller gap, it feels like, but it was rare to find game that had graphical parity between XB360 and PS3, if any.

The cell processor is probably the reason for that. didn't the gap get better or disappear later in the gen?

 

[GribbleGrunger]

i'm so confused by this. if one version is better than the other, how is the lesser one not worse?

Nobody is asking for the XB1 version to be made worse. A game can be great on the PS4 but still be better on the PC. You're looking at it from a negative perspective instead of looking at it from a relative perspective. I don't think it's unreasonable for people to expect a developer to utilise the full power of the PS4 in the same way it's not unreasonable for people to expect a developer to utilise the full power of the XB1. I've got no idea whether that is in fact what is going on with this game but that doesn't make it an illegitimate stance to take.

 

[David Ricardo]

i'm so confused by this. if one version is better than the other, how is the lesser one not worse?

If they made a better PS4 version, XBO would be worse than that (this is what you are talking about).

Making a better version for the PS4 doesn't affect how good the XBO version is (this is what the other gaffer is talking about).

 

[Jabba]

i'm so confused by this. if one version is better than the other, how is the lesser one not worse?



they can mean the same thing. Saying something is worse doesn't mean it isn't good, but if something is better then something has to be worse.



The cell processor is probably the reason for that. didn't the gap get better or disappear later in the gen?

One can be worse or better than the other. It's possible, both can be acceptable.
Sooo.....I guess there's disagreement on what's aceptable?

Also, what Gribble Grunger said in post #580

 

[Psychoward]

I'm impressed at how stable it is for how good it looks and it's in 1080p.

 

[Tagyhag]

Guys, just because the PS4 could run it at a fluctuating 45 FPS, doesn't mean that they can just add effects until it hits 30.

You NEED higher than 30fps to hit locked 30fps. It's not that you just hit 30fps and then it stays like that.

Or they could have improved the shadow quality, or the pop-in, or ran at a higher resolution and down sampled, or any number of other things that could have taken advantage of the extra resources they have. Instead we have a system with all this bandwidth and graphical headroom sitting idle because reasons.

Yeah, the PS4 is going to run this downsampled 1440p at a locked 30. Jeez Louise people overestimate its power.

 

[DeadManWalking]

Aiming and shooting is a little off for me. Its not like destny when you can head shot everyone with no problems. It's weird.
I hate to use word ''feel'' but it doesn't feel good.

 

[Rembrandt]

Nobody is asking for the XB1 version to be made worse. A game can be great on the PS4 but still be better on the PC. You're looking at it from a negative perspective instead of looking at it from a relative perspective. I don't think it's unreasonable for people to expect a developer to utilise the full power of the PS4 in the same way it's not unreasonable for people to expect a developer to utilise the full power of the XB1. I've got no idea whether that is in fact what is going on with this game but that doesn't make it an illegitimate stance to take.

You don't seem to understand what a relative perspective is. If we're relating the games on different systems and each three have different things that objectively change the quality of them, then there has to be a version that's the best and a version that's the worst. Just how bad it is compared to the others is subjective, but the fact that's it worse is not. Nobody will argue that current gen versions of GTA V are bad games because they're worse than the PC versions.

I guess it depends, really. I think people are gonna end up disappointed if they're hoping every multiplatform game runs/looks better on PS4. There are definitely gonna be situations where they run (almost) identical on both.

If they made a better PS4 version, XBO would be worse than that (this is what you are talking about).

Making a better version for the PS4 doesn't affect how good the XBO version is (this is what the other gaffer is talking about).

yeah, I understood that and I agreed with it. it's basically an argument/misunderstanding on subjective enjoyment and absolute quality as a product.

 

[Dictator93]

I agree the game still looks good. The biggest drop off to me is the way the environment is illuminated/shaded. Everything looks flatter and mire gamey now. The visual fidelity is just noticeably lower.

I did take note that the GI is different / not existing like it was in previous showings. So that could be considered a "lighting downgrade" which would make things generally look more video gamey I imagine, especially in overcast shadowed areas. GI is integral to making things look real IMO.

Its hard to fullfil youre request of specifying exactly what was downgraded in this scenario. I felt like this about the witcher 3 too. Despite you saying it's not lighting, my eyes were/are seeing something far superior in the early footage of both games where everything from the sky to the atmosphere to the materials just looks more convincing/natural and has depth

Well I did not necessarily not say lighting wasn't downgraded, in fact, one could argue certain things especially did in the lighting department (voumetric resolution, seeming lack of the GI from the engine trailer, etc.) But there have been improvements, like the amount of volumetrics per-scene has dramatically increased and the materials on characters have gotten much better. Take a look at that screenshot on the last page from the promo material, with all the DOF obscuring the area in front of the player character. Look at the clothing and backpack: in particular how much shadowing and lighting information is painted into the diffuse texture. Then compare that to the various clothing types in the screens I posted (where almost nothing is in the diffuse and it is all lighting, primary colour, and shader driven). See below.
Old:

New:

I would agree though that worse ambient lighting could make certain areas of the game look less realistic material-wise.

 

[kraspkibble]

i played it on xbox one and i am happy with the quality/performance. frame rate was solid for me. i don't recall any drops/stuttering or anything. there was a bit of texture pop in but nothing crazy. if i do end up getting this game then it'll be on XB1. i dont think my pc is up to 1080p 60fps.

 

[the_batman]

this game is a nice experiment, ubisoft, decent looking engine. now make us a new Splinter Cell.

 

[Melchiah]

you are making a ton of assumptions here.

Considering, that the XBO has struggled to achieve 1080p, and its memory structure, it's a pretty fair assumption they put more effort on its version. Considering, that the vast majority of PS4 games are 1080p, it's a fair assumption they didn't have to put that much effort into it. During the past two years, there have been several comments from developers about PS4 development being quicker and easier.

And we've already seen it here, that some people are happy about knowing the PS4 version is held at the same level, so they don't have to feel bad about their choice of platform.

 

[Raide]

Happy to hear the Xbox One version is solid. Prefer the controller, so that will be my choice. I just hope Ubi support the game with more content and things progress.

 

[dark10x]

Considering, that the XBO has struggled to achieve 1080p, and its memory structure, it's a pretty fair assumption they put more effort on its version. Considering, that the vast majority of PS4 games are 1080p, it's a fair assumption they didn't have to put that much effort into it. During the past two years, there have been several comments from developers about PS4 development being quicker and easier.

And we've already seen it here, that some people are happy about knowing the PS4 version is held at the same level, so they don't have to feel bad about their choice of platform.

Heh, anyone remember last generation? Xbox 360 versions of games were almost always better than the same game on PS3 thanks to the complicated Cell processor and weak RSX. In order to achieve parity, additional time and resources needed to be spent on the PS3 version of the game. It was SIGNIFICANTLY more challenging to exploit the PS3 hardware efficiently and get it up to snuff. When developers DID actually achieve great results on PS3 these releases were celebrated. Dead Space, Burnout Paradise, and the like were all basically identical on PS3 and Xbox 360.

So why are we seeing people become so angry this generation when developers have to pour more time and money into an Xbox One version of a game in order to get decent results? The console is trailing behind PS4 in sales, is less powerful, and requires more engineering effort - a situation nearly identical to PS3 and Xbox 360.

Now, one could argue that PS3 had more potential over 360 due to its CPU but taking advantage of that would require more resources than it takes to exploit the architectural Xbox One issues.

It's certainly interesting to see the reactions here and compare them to the same topics from ten years ago.

 

[Rembrandt]

this game is a nice experiment, ubisoft, decent looking engine. now make us a new Splinter Cell.

Or just give us a remastered chaos theory. I'm surprised they're making a new ghost recon before. I didn't think future soldier did well compared to blacklist.

 

[Elandyll]

Uhh... what?

That is exactly the same thing, but said in different ways.

No.

This being said I don't think there's a parity issue here, just a target render where one platform is "conservative" (PS4) and the other is teetering on the edge but narowly makes it (XB1).

Can't blame people for being paranoid with Ubi though, after the whole "debate and stuff" around AC Unity.

 

[David Ricardo]

Heh, anyone remember last generation? Xbox 360 versions of games were almost always better than the same game on PS3 thanks to the complicated Cell processor and weak RSX. In order to achieve parity, additional time and resources needed to be spent on the PS3 version of the game. It was SIGNIFICANTLY more challenging to exploit the PS3 hardware efficiently and get it up to snuff. When developers DID actually achieve great results on PS3 these releases were celebrated. Dead Space, Burnout Paradise, and the like were all basically identical on PS3 and Xbox 360.

So why are we seeing people become so angry this generation when developers have to pour more time and money into an Xbox One version of a game in order to get decent results? The console is trailing behind PS4 in sales, is less powerful, and requires more engineering effort - a situation nearly identical to PS3 and Xbox 360.

Now, one could argue that PS3 had more potential over 360 due to its CPU but taking advantage of that would require more resources than it takes to exploit the architectural Xbox One issues.

It's certainly interesting to see the reactions here and compare them to the same topics from ten years ago.

Last generation, when there were games with identical versions it could be due to taking advantage of the cell processor to overcome the limitations of the weaker PS3 GPU.
This generation, when a graphically demanding game is identical in both PS4 and XBO, we know for sure that the PS4 version could look better.

 

[Melchiah]

Heh, anyone remember last generation? Xbox 360 versions of games were almost always better than the same game on PS3 thanks to the complicated Cell processor and weak RSX. In order to achieve parity, additional time and resources needed to be spent on the PS3 version of the game. It was SIGNIFICANTLY more challenging to exploit the PS3 hardware efficiently and get it up to snuff. When developers DID actually achieve great results on PS3 these releases were celebrated. Dead Space, Burnout Paradise, and the like were all basically identical on PS3 and Xbox 360.

So why are we seeing people become so angry this generation when developers have to pour more time and money into an Xbox One version of a game in order to get decent results? The console is trailing behind PS4 in sales, is less powerful, and requires more engineering effort - a situation nearly identical to PS3 and Xbox 360.

Now, one could argue that PS3 had more potential over 360 due to its CPU but taking advantage of that would require more resources than it takes to exploit the architectural Xbox One issues.

It's certainly interesting to see the reactions here and compare them to the same topics from ten years ago.

That's actually a fitting point, as the 360 versions of multiplatform titles often managed to look and/or run better regardless of the effort put on the PS3 version. Particularly during the first half of the generation. Even some of the later ports on PS3 paled in comparison to the earlier 360 versions, Bioshock being one example. The difference now is, the XBO isn't just the harder system to develop on, it's also unquestionably the weaker one. No matter the effort, it can't overcome its competitor visually, unless its held back by putting less effort on it.

It's also interesting to compare how it's back then and now, when even a slight difference between the versions was deemed noteworthy, whereas this gen the difference between 900p and 1080p was made to seem meaningless by some sources.

 

[unapersson]

I kind of prefer it this way, targeting the weaker console and making sure it runs well, rather than aiming at a high end PC and paring things back. The latter can lead to all kinds of performance issues.

 

[c0de]

That's actually a fitting point, as the 360 versions of multiplatform titles often managed to look and/or run better regardless of the effort put on the PS3 version. Particularly during the first half of the generation. Even some of the later ports on PS3 paled in comparison to the earlier 360 versions, Bioshock being one example. The difference now is, the XBO isn't just the harder system to develop on, it's also unquestionably the weaker one. No matter the effort, it can't overcome its competitor visually, unless its held back by putting less effort on it.

It's also interesting to compare how it's back then and now, when even a slight difference between the versions was deemed noteworthy, whereas this gen the difference between 900p and 1080p was made to seem meaningless by some sources.

The thing is that you can look at it from at least two perspectives. Dark explicitely didn't talk about power but resources spent.
People will always defend the console they chose, no matter what. And it is not only defending, it is especially having a single point of view on a specific topic.
Yes, there were sources that said the resolution difference is not perceivable. And? Are you telling us that nobody disagreed? We had literally hundreds of pages about the differences here on GAF. You can't argue with facts with people who have a strong belief. This applies to this gen and to last gen.
The only thing that changed is that now the other system has the technically better multiplatform games.

 

[Melchiah]

The thing is that you can look at it from at least two perspectives. Dark explicitely didn't talk about power but resources spent.
People will always defend the console they chose, no matter what. And it is not only defending, it is especially having a single point of view on a specific topic.
Yes, there were sources that said the resolution difference is not perceivable. And? Are you telling us that nobody disagreed? We had literally hundreds of pages about the differences here on GAF. You can't argue with facts with people who have a strong belief. This applies to this gen and to last gen.
The only thing that changed is that now the other system has the technically better multiplatform games.

The thing is, the multiplatform titles shined on the 360 with less resources spent, just like they generally do on the PS4. That's why the exceptions get attention, and raise eyebrows.

No, I'm saying some of those sources changed their tone about the differences, when tables were turned around this gen.

 

[Percy]

It's also interesting to compare how it's back then and now, when even a slight difference between the versions was deemed noteworthy, whereas this gen the difference between 900p and 1080p was made to seem meaningless by some sources.

Correct. With 'some sources' even, unbelievably, including parts of the gaming media these days.

It's ridiculous to read some of the revisionist history some people push about last gen sometimes.