Support NeoGAF

KKRT00 · Feb 19, 2015

thelastword said:
I don't think it's defensive, if you've been following DF over the years you'd realize it's a new element injected in their pieces that's wholly unnecessary.

New?!
This is face-off of Castlevania:LoS from 10/2010!

From Digital Foundry's perspective, the original 8/10 score for Lords of Shadow is a fair assessment for both PlayStation 3 and Xbox 360 versions of the game, but having spent a humongous amount of time playing the game for this feature, it's also fair to add that it can be frustrating and annoying. It's obvious the game is somewhat unpolished in areas and could have done with more playtesting. The developers seem to give you advice for dealing with the obvious things, but then leave you high and dry when you can really use the help. Something akin to the hint system in Uncharted 2 would have made a hell of a lot of difference.

It also seems that the developers are intent on performing many cruel and unusual punishments on the player, often taking you around in circles rather than subtly guiding you where to go next, or putting you back at the beginning of a puzzle and making you repeat a range of time-consuming activities to get back to where you were. The select opponents who soak up massive amounts of damage also serve to artificially prolong play and leave you annoyed rather than enjoying what is a pretty solid combat system.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-castlevania-lords-of-shadow-face-off?page=2

They always gave their feedback about gameplay.

---

thelastword said:
Yes, it's sub TRUE-HD, sub native rez. 1080p has been the standard now for a minute.

The order has great vistas and set pieces too. Resolution is higher and it's native in fidelity. Textures, effects, motion blur and IQ are all superior and more expensive in the order 1886.

What set pieces? Point me chapter please, because i didnt see any.
Native resolution doesnt matter, because they blur IQ anyway. Compare screenshots from both games and tell that You see difference in clarity.
Motion Blur is lower quality, same goes for DoF. DoF is actually 1/4 res in The Order, where it is 1/2 in Ryse.
I wont make tech breakdown list for both games, because i'm waiting for DF article about The Order features.

I think that You are forgetting that one game is running on weaker machine.

Maintenance · Feb 19, 2015

Majanew said:
Has the PS4 version been having issues for those here at GAF that have the game?

Haha. The network is crap though, but why is that there, I wonder.

Seanspeed · Feb 19, 2015

FunkyPajamas said:
Do you guys think RAD will try to eliminate the black bars for the sequel, or just add more effects, etc?

Assumes there will be a sequel.

But if there is, it might depend a lot on the reception. Unless there's a backlash towards it, they'd presumably stick with the black bars in order to continue to push visuals.

KKRT00 said:
They always gave their feedback about gameplay.

Not always, but its hardly unheard of, either.

boeso · Feb 19, 2015

JimPanzer said:
I'm interested if the gameplay is so (supposedly) barebones because of the graphics? as in, could they have this graphics quality with much deeper mechanics, larger areas etc?

They possibly could with the engine they have, but I think its was so taught already it would have taken a lot of time to get larger areas up and running with the same graphical quality and without a large delay. Seems they went with GFX first and the levels were built from what they wanted to get gfx wise.

I really hope they get a chance for a sequel, the setting is just so fucking cool. Nothing else out there. This elusive 'next-gen gameplay' might finally have arrived by then so maybe they can include that too!

mrklaw · Feb 19, 2015

I'd be interested to understand how much the increased FoV balances against the lower rendering resolution.

eg if you have a PC game and adjust the FoV between 70-90, what impact does that have on framerate? And then compare with different resolutions.

Maintenance · Feb 19, 2015

mrklaw said:
I'd be interested to understand how much the increased FoV balances against the lower rendering resolution.

eg if you have a PC game and adjust the FoV between 70-90, what impact does that have on framerate? And then compare with different resolutions.

It does have an impact, you are seeing more things at once. IMO my FPS was lower with a higher FOV, the last one that I tried was Borderlands, IIRC.

Ol No Bones · Feb 19, 2015

There is no doubt the game is gorgeous. It looks better than what I have seen of even uncharted 4 so far. The art is amazing too.

Seanspeed · Feb 19, 2015

RyosukeTH said:
It does have an impact, you are seeing more things at once. IMO my FPS was lower with a higher FOV, the last one that I tried was Borderlands, IIRC.

We know it has an impact, I think he's asking just how much of one does it have.

Its a good question. But it might also be different from game-to-game depending on the sort of scenery.

CambriaRising · Feb 19, 2015

Put me in the camp that dislikes the gameplay talk in these articles. I don't come for that. I'll read a review if that's what I want. Guess they couldn't help themselves.

KKRT00 · Feb 19, 2015

mrklaw said:
I'd be interested to understand how much the increased FoV balances against the lower rendering resolution.

eg if you have a PC game and adjust the FoV between 70-90, what impact does that have on framerate? And then compare with different resolutions.

Almost none.Sorry for lack of pics [freaking minus], but You have values.
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=82532153&postcount=147

---

Cuyejo said:
Uhm, yes it matters, in terms of sub pixel information and aliasing in general. There's much more aliasing and shimmering in Ryse XBO that in The Order.

Thats not due no scaling, but MSAA and tons of DoF in background.

Majanew · Feb 19, 2015

Seanspeed said:
They didn't. They didn't make any clear recommendation for either console version due to their problems with connecting to matches on PS4 and said PC is the way to go.

And yes, I love a good DF debate. It would be nice to have one once in a while. Instead, these threads get filled with complaints about "I don't like what they're saying!" and that's what ends up being discussed.

I wish they'd just remain objective and give us an analysis on the tech without the "gameplay is last-gen and the game's length is..." nonsense. Really, what does the game being 6.5 hours for them have to do with the graphics and underlying tech?

AlphaDump · Feb 19, 2015

Seanspeed said:
They didn't. They didn't make any clear recommendation for either console version due to their problems with connecting to matches on PS4 and said PC is the way to go.

italics to keep it focused on console recommendations. was that claim ever substantiated inside or outside of the article?

can anyone help me out? perhaps this isnt the thread for it.

Krauser Kat · Feb 19, 2015

so much salt in this thread about the length comments.

Those comments are valid when they performance relies heavily on how the game is presented and how much they actually have to present.

Cavalier · Feb 19, 2015

longdi said:
It is a performance analysis yet they needed to harp on the 'cinematic' gameplay?

They've been doing this for awhile. They did the same with Sunset OD as well.

Majanew · Feb 19, 2015

Krauser Kat said:
so much salt in this thread about the length comments.

Those comments are valid when they performance relies heavily on how the game is presented and how much they actually have to present.

How long it takes to beat the game doesn't mean anything in a discussion about the graphics and tech used. The game could have taken 50 hours to beat and they'd still be seeing the same thing. If it went on for another hour the game would have went open world with no AA?

ChronotriggerJM · Feb 19, 2015

I think people are just a bit too defensive over this game. RAD is an extremely capable team, they put most (all?) of the tech together themselves, made great assets, and made a competent game (the little that's there I suppose). People are mostly disappointed by it's length, and lack of pushing the medium forward from a gameplay perspective (though I think pushing the boundaries between cutscene and gameplay is an accomplishment in of itself).

I don't feel that RAD need defending. I've heard that the team was relatively small, and they put out a solid product.

When Ryse got lukewarm reception, I don't think anyone wept for Crytech.

Krauser Kat said:
so much salt in this thread about the length comments.

Those comments are valid when they performance relies heavily on how the game is presented and how much they actually have to present.

I don't think the length of the game has anything to do with the performance. It's about how demanding any given scenario is. I don't care that they mentioned it, but it hardly pertains to a tech analysis lol.

Cuyejo · Feb 19, 2015

KKRT00 said:
New?!
This is face-off of Castlevania:LoS from 10/2010!

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-castlevania-lords-of-shadow-face-off?page=2

They always gave their feedback about gameplay.

---

What set pieces? Point me chapter please, because i didnt see any.
Native resolution doesnt matter, because they blur IQ anyway. Compare screenshots from both games and tell that You see difference in clarity.
Motion Blur is lower quality, same goes for DoF. DoF is actually 1/4 res in The Order, where it is 1/2 in Ryse.
I wont make tech breakdown list for both games, because i'm waiting for DF article about The Order features.

I think that You are forgetting that one game is running on weaker machine.

Where are you getting this from?

Seanspeed · Feb 19, 2015

Majanew said:
I wish they'd just remain objective and give us an analysis on the tech without the "gameplay is last-gen and the game's length is..." nonsense. Really, what does the game being 6.5 hours for them have to do with the graphics and underlying tech?

Well for one, there's always still a subjective component to a graphics analysis and even to a framerate analysis. But anyways, I get what you're saying. I find it pretty easy to skip over anything I'm not interested in hearing myself, though. If they want to say other stuff, that's fine. I may not listen to it, but I'm not going to complain its there, either. Its their article after all.

AlphaDump said:
italics to keep it focused on console recommendations. was that claim ever substantiated inside or outside of the article?

can anyone help me out? perhaps this isnt the thread for it.

No, the claim wasn't substantiated at all and was probably bad luck or an issue on their end.

KKRT00 · Feb 19, 2015

Cuyejo said:
Where are you getting this from?

There was a scene with werewolf with very big DoF focus and it had 1/4 res artifacts. Octagonal bokeh blocks that were to big and blurred to be 1/2 or native.
Pretty similar to ones in KZ:SF.
http://i2.minus.com/i3P3t8G84MM4x.jpg

GeordieMark · Feb 19, 2015

The article is pretty light on actual technical analysis, which is a shame because for all of its short comings, The Order does have some rather gorgeous looks, and the sound design is pretty impressive too so I'd have been interested to hear more about that too.

I do feel like the talk about the game's length also seemed a bit out of place for a DF article.

ChronotriggerJM · Feb 19, 2015

GeordieMark said:
The article is pretty light on actual technical analysis, which is a shame because for all of its short comings, The Order does have some rather gorgeous looks, and the sound design is pretty impressive too so I'd have been interested to hear more about that too.

I do feel like the talk about the game's length also seemed a bit out of place for a DF article.

Yeah I'm getting annoyed by the lack of audio focus in gaming as a whole

Some companies make great strides in audio, and it always gets overlooked.

KKRT00 · Feb 19, 2015

GeordieMark said:
The article is pretty light on actual technical analysis,

Because, its just a peformance analysis. Full article is coming on saturday.

AlphaDump · Feb 19, 2015

Seanspeed said:
No, the claim wasn't substantiated at all and was probably bad luck or an issue on their end.

thanks for the quick response.

Dictator93 · Feb 19, 2015

Cuyejo said:
Where are you getting this from?

Wait for direct screenshots from the most recent build obviously. But it was that way in screenshots they released a while ago.

PensOwl · Feb 19, 2015

Savantcore said:
What exactly is 'next-gen gameplay'?

I don't know, but it probably has to do with that physically based destruction they promised.

Seanspeed · Feb 19, 2015

Majanew said:
How long it takes to beat the game doesn't mean anything in a discussion about the graphics and tech used. The game could have taken 50 hours to beat and they'd still be seeing the same thing. If it went on for another hour the game would have went open world with no AA?

It arguably is a factor. If a developer can spend their time and resources working on graphics and performance optimization over a smaller and shorter experience, they will quite possibly get more out of it than if they had twice as much to deal with.

Majanew · Feb 19, 2015

GeordieMark said:
The article is pretty light on actual technical analysis, which is a shame because for all of its short comings, The Order does have some rather gorgeous looks, and the sound design is pretty impressive too so I'd have been interested to hear more about that too.

I do feel like the talk about the game's length also seemed a bit out of place for a DF article.

ChronotriggerJM said:

Yeah I'm getting annoyed by the lack of audio focus in gaming as a whole Some companies make great strides in audio, and it always gets overlooked.

Click to expand...

I agree. Sound design is a big thing for me with my sound system and it rarely gets mentioned anywhere. I'm currently playing Alien Isolation and the sound design is great so far.

mrklaw · Feb 19, 2015

KKRT00 said:
Almost none.Sorry for lack of pics [freaking minus], but You have values.
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=82532153&postcount=147

---.

Interesting. Are those FoVs roughly equivalent to the usual console TPS and The Order?

ChronotriggerJM · Feb 19, 2015

KKRT00 said:
Because, its just a peformance analysis. Full article is coming on saturday.

I'll be honest, I haven't read many of their tech reviews, but do they cover audio much? I'd really like devs to get recognition for advances in audio engineering.

KKRT00 · Feb 19, 2015

ChronotriggerJM said:
I'll be honest, I haven't read many of their tech reviews, but do they cover audio much? I'd really like devs to get recognition for advances in audio engineering.

Not really, unless they have some inside from developers.

mrklaw said:
Interesting. Are those FoVs roughly equivalent to the usual console TPS and The Order?

Yes, what a pity that screens dont work.

Uncle Rupee · Feb 19, 2015

I was watching the Giant Bomb quick look and it was hitching on me and every time the video stopped the frame was a thing of beauty. The environmental details are off the fucking chain.

Journey · Feb 19, 2015

nelsonroyale said:
Pretty ringing endorsement of the visuals. The may be the first game to really go the full hog visually this gen.

Well it is rendering higher than Ryse for instance, with better performance and more expensive AA. I think they have benefited from it, but they could have taken a hit in AA and got it at 1080p. I think this is the least of the games problems to be honest.

But you also have to remember that Ryse was a launch title that didn't have the luxury of being able to work on a more mature SDK and was heavily time constrained. And if that wasn't enough, has voice and gesture feature zapping away 10% power away from an already limited platform. If I was a betting man, I would bet that Crytek can easily outdo themselves and almost anything out there if they did a sequel without draconian time constraints that is the nature of a launch game, and with a more mature SDK which at this point goes beyond the kinectless version.

Majanew · Feb 19, 2015

Seanspeed said:
It arguably is a factor. If a developer can spend their time and resources working on graphics and performance optimization over a smaller and shorter experience, they will quite possibly get more out of it than if they had twice as much to deal with.

So there should be an asterisk for dev team size and years in development when bringing up how long it takes to beat a game just to understand how impressive the tech you're seeing really is? Just sounds like more things to include so some games can have negatives thrown at them.

-griffy- · Feb 19, 2015

KKRT00 said:
New?!

Native resolution doesnt matter, because they blur IQ anyway. Compare screenshots from both games and tell that You see difference in clarity.

Looking at actual, direct feed, lossless screenshots of the game in the console screenshots thread, it seems pretty clear to me that The Order resolves more detail than Ryse or other 900p games like BF4, despite its heavy post processing effects.

The fineness of the grain pattern alone seems smaller than a 900p image would be able to produce, and the small detail, like wires or thin lines, would simply break apart more in a 900p image.

You seem to try very hard to minimize The Order's visuals for some reason, like it's offensive to you that the game could have graphics comparable to, or even better than, Ryse or something. Pointing to specific, individual effects that game X may do at a higher fidelity than game Y seems to miss the forest for the trees (and it ends up becoming more or less irrelevant when trying to make a general observation of what game looks "better"), and only serves to attempt to almost artificially minimize things to serve your own point of view.

FunkyPajamas · Feb 19, 2015

Seanspeed said:
Assumes there will be a sequel.

But if there is, it might depend a lot on the reception. Unless there's a backlash towards it, they'd presumably stick with the black bars in order to continue to push visuals.

Right, I'm assuming there will be one. The only way I see it not happening is if the game does really really bad commercially. These guys have the foundation right (gunplay is solid, engine is done, characters/universe/IP is not total trash, etc) so it's really just a matter of a couple of years doing pre-production (which may have already started) + level design + co-op/multiplayer (whatever it takes for the game to do better critically).

Again, I know I'm assuming that. And I could be wrong, this could be like Folklore or Heavenly Sword for all we know (no sequels).

Seanspeed · Feb 19, 2015

Majanew said:
So there should be an asterisk for dev team size and years in development when bringing up how long it takes to beat a game just to understand how impressive the tech you're seeing really is? Just sounds like more things to include so some games can have negatives thrown at them.

No, there shouldn't be an asterisk. Its just not a completely irrelevant factor like you said it was.

Cuyejo · Feb 19, 2015

KKRT00 said:
There was a scene with werewolf with very big DoF focus and it had 1/4 res artifacts. Octagonal bokeh blocks that were to big and blurred to be 1/2 or native.
Pretty similar to ones in KZ:SF.
http://i2.minus.com/i3P3t8G84MM4x.jpg

Dictator93 said:
Wait for direct screenshots from the most recent build obviously. But it was that way in screenshots they released a while ago.

Well, from watching Gamersyde videos I really couldn't tell I've seen those artifacts.

madmackem · Feb 19, 2015

Seanspeed said:
Assumes there will be a sequel.

But if there is, it might depend a lot on the reception. Unless there's a backlash towards it, they'd presumably stick with the black bars in order to continue to push visuals.

Not always, but its hardly unheard of, either.

I hope they keep them, it's something they wanted to do from the off and I'd hate a few who shout louder be heard over people who like it and rather a dev keep with their own vision of the game rather than development by message board noise.

demigod · Feb 19, 2015

Triggerhappytel said:
Unquantifiable bullshit written by idiots who cannot describe their thoughts using tangible examples.

It's certainly a trend I've noticed that tries to belittle Sony releases or the PS4 in general. The Order, Infamous Second Son, Evolve, possibly others. It could be a coincidence, but for example I've just looked up their analysis on Ryse (very similar to The Order is a lot of ways) and they don't mention subjective gameplay aspects at all.

Oh how the tides have changed. Too bad len's of truth is dead since ms wasnt paying their bills. They were much better than df, unbiased.

Df is a joke, will be waiting for their quantum break "gameplay" analysis.

nelsonroyale · Feb 19, 2015

Journey said:
But you also have to remember that Ryse was a launch title that didn't have the luxury of being able to work on a more mature SDK and was heavily time constrained. And if that wasn't enough, has voice and gesture feature zapping away 10% power away from an already limited platform. If I was a betting man, I would bet that Crytek can easily outdo themselves and almost anything out there if they did a sequel without draconian time constraints that is the nature of a launch game, and with a more mature SDK which at this point goes beyond the kinectless version.

Its Crytek, they were already working on powerful PC hardware, and have a scalable engine. So I don't think what you say is the whole story. As for the latter, I don't fully agree. There are other devs out there that can compete. I am sure Crytek can do better than Ryse, as good as that looks. As of now though, I think the Order looks clearly better.

The differences in the Xbone since then would have improved the framerate a bit. It isn't a big enough difference to make it 1080p though.

SMOK3Y · Feb 19, 2015

-griffy- said:
Looking at actual, direct feed, lossless screenshots of the game in the console screenshots thread, it seems pretty clear to me that The Order resolves more detail than Ryse or other 900p games like BF4, despite its heavy post processing effects.

The fineness of the grain pattern alone seems smaller than a 900p image would be able to produce, and the small detail, like wires or thin lines, would simply break apart more in a 900p image.

You seem to try very hard to minimize The Order's visuals for some reason, like it's offensive to you that the game could have graphics comparable to, or even better than, Ryse or something. Pointing to specific, individual effects that game X may do at a higher fidelity than game Y seems to miss the forest for the trees (and it ends up becoming more or less irrelevant when trying to make a general observation of what game looks "better"), and only serves to attempt to almost artificially minimize things to serve your own point of view.

Good post

Elandyll · Feb 19, 2015

Gameplay comments in a technical analysis ... smh

Good on RAD for developping a killer engine. I also imagine that their team was too small (relatively speaking) to develop the amount of content and multiplayer that would have really lifted the game (besides the odd choice of apparently opting for a ton of Mocap custscenes, as those generally cost a ton unless they somehow managed to do it in-house like NT).

Now for comparison's sake, as Ryse was often mentionend to describe TO 1886, DF/EG made a vs Tech analysis that was then solely focused on Tech analysis (the furthest they get from pure tech analysis is talking about animations and use of pre-recorded in engine scenes for cutscenes).

Shocking, I know.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-vs-ryse-son-of-rome

dark10x · Feb 19, 2015

Elandyll said:
Gameplay comments in a technical analysis ... smh

Good on RAD for developping a killer engine. I also imagine that their team was too small (relatively speaking) to develop the amount of content and multiplayer that would have really lifted the game (besides the odd choice of apparently opting for a ton of Mocap custscenes, as those generally cost a ton unless they somehow managed to do it in-house like NT).

Now for comparison's sake, as Ryse was often mentionend to describe TO 1886, DF/EG made a vs Tech analysis that was then solely focused on Tech analysis (the furthest they get from pure tech analysis is talking about animations and use of pre-recorded in engine scenes for cutscenes).

Shocking, I know.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-vs-ryse-son-of-rome

Yes, completely shocking.

nycgamer4ever · Feb 19, 2015

entrement said:
They could do whatever they want. It's the Editors platform.

Then don't call it a PERFORMANCE analysis.

ChronotriggerJM · Feb 19, 2015

Elandyll said:
Gameplay comments in a technical analysis ... smh

Good on RAD for developping a killer engine. I also imagine that their team was too small (relatively speaking) to develop the amount of content and multiplayer that would have really lifted the game (besides the odd choice of apparently opting for a ton of Mocap custscenes, as those generally cost a ton unless they somehow managed to do it in-house like NT).

Now for comparison's sake, as Ryse was often mentionend to describe TO 1886, DF/EG made a vs Tech analysis that was then solely focused on Tech analysis (the furthest they get from pure tech analysis is talking about animations and use of pre-recorded in engine scenes for cutscenes).

Shocking, I know.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-vs-ryse-son-of-rome

Supposedly a more in dept tech analysis will be coming out later this week. That'll be the interesting one for me

That Ryse article links back to their performance analysis, and it's got opinions on the game as well.

Curufinwe · Feb 19, 2015

Elandyll said:
Gameplay comments in a technical analysis ... smh

Good on RAD for developping a killer engine. I also imagine that their team was too small (relatively speaking) to develop the amount of content and multiplayer that would have really lifted the game (besides the odd choice of apparently opting for a ton of Mocap custscenes, as those generally cost a ton unless they somehow managed to do it in-house like NT).

Now for comparison's sake, as Ryse was often mentionend to describe TO 1886, DF/EG made a vs Tech analysis that was then solely focused on Tech analysis (the furthest they get from pure tech analysis is talking about animations and use of pre-recorded in engine scenes for cutscenes).

Shocking, I know.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-vs-ryse-son-of-rome

The Order's "Peforamnce Analysis" was done by Leadbetter.

The Ryse article you linked to was done by Linneman.

coastel · Feb 19, 2015

Maybe Leadbetter had to put something out there but it wasn't a lot to say because he has not had a chance to do much of a analysis. So he filled in the article with his opinion about the game and (arguably what a lot of people want to know) about the length of the game.

le.phat · Feb 19, 2015

Curufinwe said:
The Order's "Peforamnce Analysis" was done by Leadbetter.

The Ryse article you linked to was done by Linneman.

Meaning?

shandy706 · Feb 19, 2015

What setting are Digital Foundry playing through on in the framerate test?

I'm going to go back and see if they say...

The AI looks like it's as dumb as a rock.

Edit** Can't see anything saying one way or the other. The enemies just act like a pop-up shooting gallery in that video.

"Here...I'll just stand out in the open for like 2 minutes while you spray fire all around me."

ArkkAngel007 · Feb 19, 2015

Expected analysis. Hopefully the next game (despite scores, it's probably already in the works) does more with itself on the mechanics/gameplay side now that they have a good technical base.

Support NeoGAF

Digital Foundry Performance Analysis: The Order: 1886

Member

Member

Banned

Member

MrArseFace

Member

Banned

Banned

Member

Member

Banned

Gold Member

Member

Banned

Banned

Member

Member

Banned

Member

Member

Member

Member

Gold Member

Member

Banned

Banned

Banned

MrArseFace

Member

Member

Banned

Banned

Banned

Banned

Member

Banned

Member

Member

Member

Member

Generous Member

Banned

Digital Foundry pixel pusher

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Similar threads