Support NeoGAF

[Pagusas]

Sorry but I don't believe that infamous is better looking than Ryse. Ryse's facial animation is amazing.

There is a big difference between assets, animation and image quality. IQ is what is being talked about here, and yes I:SS looks way better than Ryse in the in area. when you start talking about things like lighting and animation, you are no longer talking about image quality. A scene can be spectacularly lit and look great at 720p. But guess what? It'll look a hell of a lot nicer at 1080p being displayed on a 1080p panel.

I'm one of those people who loves developers that put their goals for the games performance and feel first, and then use those limitations to help build out the styles and overal graphical quality.

 

[ProfessorMoran]

It's pre-rendered yes, but so are some of Infamous SS's scenes. And pretty sure that the cutscenes had the same assets as the actual gameplay.

All but 4 of Infamous Second Son's cutscenes are real-time, big difference, you don't have to ever wonder in most of those cutscenes whether the engine can actually render at that quality because it's already doing just that, and at 1080p.

 

[AuthenticM]

I guess it's never occurred to either of you that people can be goofballs on their entertainment podcast, and still have their shit together professionally.

Apparently that is hard to grasp for some.

 

[matrix-cat]

So many PR schmucks seem to take this angle of "Just play the game! 900p's just a number!" Which is true, I guess, but it's a number that's directly linked to how good a game looks. Higher number = prettier game, simple as that. They spend all this time talking up how amazing their graphics are, but when they can't reach 1080p all of a sudden it's "Oh don't be so shallow with your numbers, are you playing the graphics or the game?"

Then when the game comes out and we find it's a choppy mess at 20-something frames a second anyway, there's no culpability because we've already paid our money and Ubisoft's already gearing up for next year's game.

 

[K' Dash]

I'm I reading people saying Second Son looks better than Unity?

The fuck?

 

[Pagusas]

So many PR schmucks seem to take this angle of "Just play the game! 900p's just a number!" Which is true, I guess, but it's a number that's directly linked to how good a game looks. Higher number = prettier game, simple as that. They spend all this time talking up how amazing their graphics are, but when they can't reach 1080p all of a sudden it's "Oh don't be so shallow with your numbers, are you playing the graphics or the game?"

Then when the game comes out and we find it's a choppy mess at 20-something frames a second anyway, there's no culpability because we've already paid our money and Ubisoft's already gearing up for next year's game.

The biggest thing to realize here is this is 100% on ubi for letting a number dictate any quality about there game. Any good marketing/or team could have

steered this conversation in many other directions. I don't know what is happening over there but someone needs to wrangle there employees together and shut them up, they do nothing but continuely allineate their most vocal consumers and then turn angry when that vocal consumer complains about them.

I'm I reading people saying Second Son looks better than Unity?

The fuck?

Image quality wise yes. They aren't saying art/style/lighting wise, just actually quality of the image being drawn.

 

[duessano]

I'm I reading people saying Second Son looks better than Unity?

The fuck?

Beauty is the eye of the beholder. Second son does look really nice.

 

[L4DANathan]

This whole fiasco has chalked Ubi onto my boycott list with EA and MS. I mean, if they just came out and said something like "We were too lazy to do any improvements over the Xbone version and we don't care", I wouldn't have liked it, but at least it wouldn't have been blatantly anti-consumer.

 

[Bam Bam Baklava]

I'm I reading people saying Second Son looks better than Unity?

The fuck?

Second Son had the best image quality I've personally ever seen.

 

[Night Angel]

Come on, it wouldn't look that bad, would it? It's not like it's a switch to sub-HD with some sort of blur filter.

Pretty easy for you to go test this yourself.

I know the difference. It's easy to spot, and it is more or less like applying a weakish blur filter to the image on my screen. Go try it out yourself.

 

[ramparter]

When people want to hide something they will move the conversation to another subject which is exactly what's happening here. They could have just said "yeah, PS4 could allow a better resolution, we just decided to go for the same for both verwion" Still wouldn't satisfy many people but I d be totally OK with it.

 

[Two Words]

Come on, it wouldn't look that bad, would it? It's not like it's a switch to sub-HD with some sort of blur filter.


Of course 1080p matters and looks nice, but I think that it's importance is overblown. I know that this is entering the endless debate of effects vs. resolution vs. performance, but I personally am fine with 900p in a game that lets you free roam a beautiful 1:1 scale Paris. Maybe it's because I grew up playing games at much worse resolutions and still appreciate the miracle of HD, idk. I'm just glad it's not 792p or worse.

It's not going to be a 1:1 scale of Paris.

 

[Night Angel]

It's not going to be a 1:1 scale of Paris.

Well, if it's upscaled...

 

[Radec]

I'm I reading people saying Second Son looks better than Unity?

The fuck?

well It is.

Unity have bigger scope and more NPCs though.

 

[Loudninja]

I'm I reading people saying Second Son looks better than Unity?

The fuck?

Umm yeah whats so shocking about that?

 

[Brad Grenz]

I guess it's never occurred to either of you that people can be goofballs on their entertainment podcast, and still have their shit together professionally.

Did it ever occur to you that there are literally 1000 people working on Unity who could prove so, but only a tiny, tiny percentage of them would be qualified to comment on this technical issue? I've already posted why his explanation makes no sense.

 

[Skilletor]

I'm I reading people saying Second Son looks better than Unity?

The fuck?

Nothing I've seen from AC:Unity looks as good as Infamous.

 

[Ishida]

I'm I reading people saying Second Son looks better than Unity?

The fuck?

Unity has a lot more shit going on on screen, that's for sure. But which one LOOKS better?Infamous.

 

[matrix-cat]

That recent Xbox One footage of Unity wasn't really visually impressive at all. Especially once you get above a certain height and you can see that Paris just fades away into fog and basic geometry beyond a certain distance. I don't want to call it a downgrade, because I haven't been following the game all that closely, but I'd swear Unity looked much better at its initial reveal.

 

[Alex]

Sub-native resolution sucks especially on these big, realistic games. It's not as much of a problem until it actually hits the TV screen though as opposed to any additional post processing gunk they can layer on for tiny, shit quality promotional materials. That's certainly something that history has proven is really important to Ubi Soft.

I was never going to buy this but it's fun to follow since I'm getting a kick lately watching the publishers scatter awkward PR for their bloated, nine figure messes now that console players are actually expecting some standards.

 

[Nizz]

I'm more concerned with how the framerate turns out. I watched some gameplay and it looked like it dipped a couple of times. If it's a locked 30 then you'll get my money.

We just left a generation where there were many sub-30fps games and that got tired. I can deal with a locked 30 though.

 

[Mafia Films]

Anyone want to pull up some early material where they were saying MS/Xbox were having behind the door deals to even out the playing field to have devs for the Xbox one renditions make the game as max/highest graphical capabilities as possible for their system, then say if its 900p, that theyd clone that over to the ps4/other systems as a ceiling so that there would be no discussion about which system is better, regardless if the other system could perform at 1080p fine?

I swear I remember people talking about this in the beginning around launch but I cant find any posts/articles.

It sounds like some of this is leaning on the Xbox one and the supposive email and other information is nothing but spin and distraction. Why is it in 2014, near the end of the year, a year after launch almost, the same BS is still around? Same ol Same ol.

Almost is like a "governor" for graphics, get it to a satisfactory lvl and just put the ballcap on it and cap it at that. Not sure if its intended, or a way for the devs to be lazy, and or the top dogs just wanting these devs to shovel out stuff as soon as possible therefore devs arent as thorough as they could be?

 

[matrix-cat]

I'm more concerned with how the framerate turns out. I watched some gameplay and it looked like it dipped a couple of times. If it's a locked 30 then you'll get my money.

We just left a generation where there were many sub-30fps games and that got tired. I can deal with a locked 30 though.

I think the only time a console Assassin's Creed game has been locked at 30 was ACIV on the PS4, because it was an up-res'd cross-gen game. Now that they're developing solely for current-gen I think it's pretty safe to say we'll be back to the traditional stuttery 26ish with drops. Maybe the PS4 version will be more stable due to the extra horsepower, but I doubt we'll know until the Digital Foundry article.

 

[See You Next Wednesday]

I don't have a problem believing that they've had development problems that made 1080p impossible. I just don't think this game looks particularly good compared to other PS4/XB1 only or even cross-gen titles, which is the bigger problem considering they're touting this to be the first "true next-gen game"

But the game was 9fps 9 months ago!
The PS4 can't handle a epic momentous game like this that has dozens of on screen characters.

 

[Mafia Films]

All these PR blunders from Ubisoft remind me of MS last year with all their crazy PR talk

What I just typed in my post.

maybe MS has their hand in it more than to be known?

Something is going on....I still think a big event is to be had down the road

 

[Nizz]

I think the only time a console Assassin's Creed game has been locked at 30 was ACIV on the PS4, because it was an up-res'd cross-gen game. Now that they're developing solely for current-gen I think it's pretty safe to say we'll be back to the traditional stuttery 26ish with drops. Maybe the PS4 version will be more stable due to the extra horsepower, but I doubt we'll know until the Digital Foundry article.

It's pretty disappointing. Yeah, I remember playing AC4 and it was pretty smooth on PS4.

 

[MrBali]

This is the third time we are dealing with this and they still choose to understand the issue here wrong. 900p is not the big deal, don't tell me about the number of npc's anymore jesus. The question is why is Xbox One have exactly the same graphics as PS4 while clearly being the less powerful console.

Thanks bye.

 

[Prototype Viktor]

Ubisoft: Mordor has next gen gameplay and mechanics, but we got 'dem graphics, son! Woop, woop, 25 GB of lighting!

And interestingly enough, I also now listening to the Giant Bombcast and as I type this I just got to this point. Heh!

25 GB's of pre baked lighting and reused code!

 

[BeforeJam]

Ubisoft: Mordor has next gen gameplay and mechanics, but we got 'dem graphics, son! Woop, woop, 25 GB of lighting!

And interestingly enough, I also now listening to the Giant Bombcast and as I type this I just got to this point. Heh!

Interestingly enough, having played Shadow of Mordor, there isn't anything Assassin's Creed is doing better than it (other than dem 25geebees).

Shadow of Mordor is one of the first open world games to actually do something with its world rather than just being a backdrop for the story. It's actually the complete opposite; the story in it is a backdrop for the world and the nemesis system, which is more than I can say for any Assassin's Creed I've played, with Unity looking to be more of the same.

This Ubisoft guy can't just go on an say his shit's more advanced because it looks better or whatever. The ridic amount of NPCs or the graphics are irrelevant if the game around it is total boring dross, wich is where Ubisoft games fail.

 

[demigod]

So ps4 cant handle 1080 yet both consoles are 900p with 30fps but one of them is only 1-2 fps higher, riiiight. Whoever this guy is, he has no credibility at all and is just regurgitating pr speak.

 

[Head.spawn]

This is the third time we are dealing with this and they still choose to understand the issue here wrong. 900p is not the big deal, don't tell me about the number of npc's anymore jesus. The question is why is Xbox One have exactly the same graphics as PS4 while clearly being the less powerful console.

Thanks bye.

The reason everyone is angry is basically because of this statement... which ignores things like 900p and 30fps not being the beginning or end of a graphical comparison. It's painful. I don't know how there have been this many pages of debate and people are still hung up on solely that one aspect.

 

[Earthanoid]

Assuming this is real, I really don't get why the source is even talking. They're setting themselves up for ridicule unless Unity really blows people away in both IQ and AI. From the vids I've seen, Unity is doing some neat stuff but neither is really impressing me. They're certainly getting a lot of NPCs on screen at once but their AI is nothing to brag about.

I also find it funny that they mention the Microsoft deal but blow it off. They're basically saying "yeah, MS paid us for parity, but the jokes on them, we suck too much to make the PS4 version better anyway!" It makes me imagine that some MS exec somewhere is shaking his head thinking they should've invested the money paying off a competent developer instead.

I don't actually think this is real though, it's so poorly written and thought out.

 

[Semper88]

Wish i could cancel my pre order but my gf wants to have it haha.

I do not care about the looks but bullshit is bullshit and that i do not accept lies.

Can't make it 1080? Thats fine don't care but leave it at that.

 

[drotahorror]

If both versions are 900p/30fps what is the PS4's extra power going towards? That's what I want to know. It's fine if both versions have the same res and fps, but the PS4 version should have some extra bells and whistles. If it doesn't then in the words of this AC developer who gave this response. That's bullshit.

I've also never seen someone say 'bullshit' so many times in one paragraph.

Also, it's some straight up bullshit if MS starts paying everyone for parity. Lately I've been supporting multiplats and buying them on PS4, but if (not saying it has already) this happens more often I'll just get them cheaper on PC.

 

[DOWN]

So the dev wants us to believe the PS4 and X1 are equal hardware?

Sounds like it. And he sure failed to make a separation between the marketing deal and the parity.

Where the hell is PS4's extra power at?

 

[Mafia Films]

Sounds like it. And he sure failed to make a separation between the marketing deal and the parity.

Where the hell is PS4's extra power at?

Dont matter what kind of power the ps4 has if the check cashed says to make the game equal across all platforms....

Is that what is going on here?

 

[valkyre]

i bet it was a bitch to make the game run in 900p on xboxone...

 

[Hubble]

I think people are overreacting. Developing a multiplatform game requires time and sacrifices while balancing both platforms. Based on tech articles, Vinces's statement which people say is true technical wise being CPU bound, and previous builds of AC had this game at 792p on the PS4 and Xbox One and now come sooner to release, they probably decided to lock the game at 900p and prioritize development on polish with little time to squeeze out the PS4. This is really logical. No conspiracy theories needed.

Multiplatform games have tough schedules. They could have simply just not have enough time to squeeze out PS4 performance while working on the game.

It''s not magic for a multiplatform game to run better on the PS4. It takes time and resources.

 

[Brad Grenz]

I think people are overreacting. Developing a multiplatform game requires time and sacrifices while balancing both platforms. Based on tech articles, Vinces's statement which people say is true technical wise being CPU bound, and previous builds of AC had this game at 792p on the PS4 and Xbox One and now come sooner to release, they probably decided to lock the game at 900p and prioritize development on polish with little time to squeeze out the PS4. This is really logical. No conspiracy theories needed.

Multiplatform games have tough schedules. They could have simply just not have enough time to squeeze out PS4 performance while working on the game.

It''s not magic for a multiplatform game to run better on the PS4. It takes time and resources.

Not really. Compared to the Xbox One the extra performance on PS4 is effectively free. You're probably sharing a lot of the shader and data optimizations across both versions so if you've worked hard enough to get it up to 900p on Xbox One you can get it higher on PS4 with little to no effort.

 

[Mafia Films]

I think people are overreacting. Developing a multiplatform game requires time and sacrifices while balancing both platforms. Based on tech articles, Vinces's statement which people say is true technical wise being CPU bound, and previous builds of AC had this game at 792p on the PS4 and Xbox One and now come sooner to release, they probably decided to lock the game at 900p and prioritize development on polish with little time to squeeze out the PS4. This is really logical. No conspiracy theories needed.

Multiplatform games have tough schedules. They could have simply just not have enough time to squeeze out PS4 performance while working on the game.

It''s not magic for a multiplatform game to run better on the PS4. It takes time and resources.

Time?

Sounds like the conspiracy behind Destiny, so its the Money Machines that are funding these games that are screwing the pooch then? Rushing the game out to people with their wallets open in order to soothe investors?

 

[barit]

Anyone want to pull up some early material where they were saying MS/Xbox were having behind the door deals to even out the playing field to have devs for the Xbox one renditions make the game as max/highest graphical capabilities as possible for their system, then say if its 900p, that theyd clone that over to the ps4/other systems as a ceiling so that there would be no discussion about which system is better, regardless if the other system could perform at 1080p fine?

I swear I remember people talking about this in the beginning around launch but I cant find any posts/articles.

It sounds like some of this is leaning on the Xbox one and the supposive email and other information is nothing but spin and distraction. Why is it in 2014, near the end of the year, a year after launch almost, the same BS is still around? Same ol Same ol.

Almost is like a "governor" for graphics, get it to a satisfactory lvl and just put the ballcap on it and cap it at that. Not sure if its intended, or a way for the devs to be lazy, and or the top dogs just wanting these devs to shovel out stuff as soon as possible therefore devs arent as thorough as they could be?

Money. In the end it all comes down to money. Either you have not enough to optimize a specific console version or you fear to lose it because your Co-marketing partner doesn't like that the game performs better on the rival console. As long as you have buckets full of money involved in these deals you will see those comments from PR and "anonymous" devs.

 

[Krilekk]

I think people are overreacting. Developing a multiplatform game requires time and sacrifices while balancing both platforms. Based on tech articles, Vinces's statement which people say is true technical wise being CPU bound, and previous builds of AC had this game at 792p on the PS4 and Xbox One and now come sooner to release, they probably decided to lock the game at 900p and prioritize development on polish with little time to squeeze out the PS4. This is really logical. No conspiracy theories needed.

Multiplatform games have tough schedules. They could have simply just not have enough time to squeeze out PS4 performance while working on the game.

It''s not magic for a multiplatform game to run better on the PS4. It takes time and resources.

Well, Ubisoft has to juggle FC4 and ACU and the last gen AC. FC4 looks like a mess in terms of AI, they might have to spread their ressources very thin. However I still believe this is just a misunderstood source. If PS4 is locked at 30 and X1 runs at 28-29 then yes, it is only a 1 to 2 fps difference. But that doesn't mean it's forced parity. PS4 could run at 40 fps, you just don't see it because they use the overhead to keep that 30 fps at all times. And if X1 is a constant tear ...

 

[Hubble]

Not really. Compared to the Xbox One the extra performance on PS4 is effectively free. You're probably sharing a lot of the shader and data optimizations across both versions so if you've worked hard enough to get it up to 900p on Xbox One you can get it higher on PS4 with little to no effort.

Are you a developer? It's not that easy. And not something you can do in weeks. Both use different dev kits and so on.

Time?

Sounds like the conspiracy behind Destiny, so its the Money Machines that are funding these games that are screwing the pooch then? Rushing the game out to people with their wallets open in order to soothe investors?

Yes, time. I think it's silly to think Ubi would intentionally be holding a system back. If they could get it to 1080p on PS4, they will. There is a TON of factors in play and finishing an ambitious game for the holiday season is one of them.

 

[jonabbey]

You know what, I've only played AC: Black Flag, and only on PS4, but it's quite well done. I'll give Ubi a chance on Unity.

 

[dumbo]

Anyone want to pull up some early material where they were saying MS/Xbox were having behind the door deals to even out the playing field to have devs for the Xbox one renditions make the game as max/highest graphical capabilities as possible for their system, then say if its 900p, that theyd clone that over to the ps4/other systems as a ceiling so that there would be no discussion about which system is better, regardless if the other system could perform at 1080p fine?

That's probably coming from the really weird way in which Black Flag was released.
- xb1/ps4 parity at launch.
- shortly afterwards PS4 res upgraded significantly.

It was considered "very unusual" to put it mildly (and this comes after years of "unexpected, last minute PC delays" - which no other publisher seemed to experience).

Oh, and the "very unusual" watch dogs release...

For unity - it's possible that the game is CPU-locked, but we've known the CPUs for nearly 2 years now - if they're genuinely unable to use the PS4s additional GPU resources due to being CPU-bound then it's "very unusual".

I guess they're just a "very unusual" publisher .

 

[Chobel]

I think people are overreacting. Developing a multiplatform game requires time and sacrifices while balancing both platforms. Based on tech articles, Vinces's statement which people say is true technical wise being CPU bound, and previous builds of AC had this game at 792p on the PS4 and Xbox One and now come sooner to release, they probably decided to lock the game at 900p and prioritize development on polish with little time to squeeze out the PS4. This is really logical. No conspiracy theories needed.

Multiplatform games have tough schedules. They could have simply just not have enough time to squeeze out PS4 performance while working on the game.

It''s not magic for a multiplatform game to run better on the PS4. It takes time and resources.

You make it sound like PS4 = exactly Xbone power + some extra power that's very hard to use. That's not the case at, PS4 GPU is just more powerful and in scalable engine (most engines are scalable) you can use PS4 extra power with ease so assuming dev times are equal, anything can xbone do PS4 will it do better with the same effort.

So Xbone version looking good as PS4 version is actually should take time and resources.

 

[Marlenus]

As others have already said this is pure BS. Resolution has no impact on the CPU so going from 900p to 1080p is a matter of GPU grunt and if Xbox One can do 900p PS4 can do 1080p with the same graphical effects. I do assume that when they say Xbox One i at 900p they mean at a steady 30 FPS rather than a steady 25 FPS.

Secondly I love how they talk about their pre baked lighting like its this amazing thing and they have loads of data on the Blu-Ray for their lighting system. Sorry it is a pre-baked system, seriously with the amount of compute performance you have on tap I expect more games to take the drive club route and do fully dynamic GI.

Finally, if a dev is unable to optimise their game to hit 1080p (or 1:1 pixel mapping in the case of The Order or Evil Within) on PS4 and a minimum of 30FPS locked they should not release the game. If it is sub 1:1 pixel mapping I will not buy your game, if the framerate is an unstable sub 30FPS mess I will not buy your game. The consoles are powerful enough to hit 1080p (900p on Xbox One) and a steady 30 FPS, failing to achieve this standard means your product is sub-standard and I do not buy sub-standard products.

 

[mrklaw]

How is this different from other multiplatform games that have parity? Just because PS4 might be 900p?

The argument that the PS4 should be able to do more should also be valid for FIFA, Destiny etc. just because the xbox version is 1080p then we don't complain quite as much? (I know there were still complaints but nothing like this). Maybe it couldn't get a higher framerate if CPU bound, and there isn't a higher resolution to go to. But they could improve AA, or increase details of other aspects like shadows, AO etc.


The unfortunate and simplest reality is probably not conspiracy or parity clauses, but simply time and ambition. If they've only just got it to 900/30, then maybe they want to just get the damn thing out of the door. Maybe they needed to put more people on the xbox version to get the performance up to that baseline and that resulted in them not being able to push further with the PS4 version just now?

On the bright side, maybe they'll be able to bring out a day one patch for PS4 like they did with black flag?

 

[Paganmoon]

Of course 1080p matters and looks nice, but I think that it's importance is overblown. I know that this is entering the endless debate of effects vs. resolution vs. performance, but I personally am fine with 900p in a game that lets you free roam a beautiful 1:1 scale Paris. Maybe it's because I grew up playing games at much worse resolutions and still appreciate the miracle of HD, idk. I'm just glad it's not 792p or worse.

Difference between 792p and 900p is smaller than 900p to 1080p, so, question is, why does 792p bother you but not 900p?

 

[toddhunter]

The unfortunate and simplest reality is probably not conspiracy or parity clauses, but simply time and ambition. If they've only just got it to 900/30, then maybe they want to just get the damn thing out of the door.

Pretty much and I would respect a comment along those lines from a developer.

"Look, we have to make four of these fucking AC games before the end of next year. We made it 900p just to get this done. Nobody on the team gives a shit any more, just leave us alone."