Name me a bunch of 60fps games that look as good as Nier Automata on the base PS4 and run at 1080p.
I'll wait.
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
DF: Nier Automata demo PS4 vs PS4 Pro
- Thread starter Caayn
- Start date
Name me a bunch of 60fps games that look as good as Nier Automata on the base PS4 and run at 1080p.
I'll wait.
Kenzodielocke
Banned
There are still a few factors.
Maybe it should look that bland, constraint budget and the first Nier is quite ugly, too.
Their environments are pretty shitty, but characters and their animations are usually good to amazing.
I also think Bayo2 and W101 just look great all around.
But i also like the look of Niwr for the most part.
They just needed to hide the empty world better.
matrix-cat
Member
Well, that's a silly thing not to care about, because it is the reason the game isn't native 1080p.
1080p, 60FPS, open-world: unless you're Hideo Kojima, you only get to pick two on the base PS4.
Scalebound looks pretty good so far. I'm hoping the combat can be almost as exciting as NieR Automata.
1st this is nowhere "amazing-looking", animation work is good, effects are good but environmental detail is pretty bad. It's all very platinum, definitely not a game that you would play for its graphics.
Then to me this not open world, at least not open world in the sense of say MGSV, ubisoft-game or horizon, this is a multi-route game but it has clear barriers as to where you can go so for me it doesn't fall under that category.
I dont see any reason why this couldn't hit 1080p on regular PS4, even if its like other platinum games and it strongly drops fps (although it goes mostly unnoticed thanks to an acceptable framepacing).
I'm not saying this is all Sony pushing for the new hardware, I dont believe that at all, but I do believe that having to work on two versions has probably take off optimization time from the PS4 version.
This is ridiculous, the only reason we dont have more of these is because no dev targets 60fps, not because the machine can't do it. And if anything we dont have 60fps games because the CPU on these console are shit which doesn't have anything to do with resolution. You people try to look smart with your questions and shows you have no clue what you are talking about.
Erm Nier isn't really a looker even by 60FPS standards.
Also Doom, MGSV, Warframe, Advanced Warfare, Infinite Warfare, and even Wolfenstein: TNO (though this and IW use dynamic res but don't drop as often and the lowest is still higher than 900P).
All these games look considerably better than Nier. Judging by the demo Nier suffers from low Res textures, relatively low polygon density, and quite primitive lighting. Then again it's a low budget game so I can understand but let's not pretend that this is the best the base PS4 could achieve.
ArkhamFantasy
Member
Nier is not ugly, it just doesnt have a huge focus on graphics the way BF1 or Phantom Pain.
Look at the graphics bump from the original Nier, its insane.
I mean, I made and released a 60fps 1080p ps4 game, but yes I have no idea what I'm talking about.
Your conspiracy theory that the Pro is what's holding back the base PS4 version is ridiculous.
There are a handful of great looking 1080p/60fps games on PS4, games like Doom are a massive anomaly that should be lauded for their accomplishment (And almost surely came at the cost of a much larger team and budget) rather than people shitting on Nier Automata for not hitting that bar.
IgotElbows
Member
Was hoping they would make this video. Glad they did.
Differences aren't too bad.
I wonder how much later the PC port will happen. I'm considering getting it on PC instead of PS4 (slim).
But would have to upgrade my GPU, but I've been wanting to do that anyways.
Differences aren't too bad.
I wonder how much later the PC port will happen. I'm considering getting it on PC instead of PS4 (slim).
But would have to upgrade my GPU, but I've been wanting to do that anyways.
CouchMaster
Member
60fps is hard.
Jawbreaker
Member
Nah, the frame rate in that game is all over the place. It rarely hits 60, especially during combat.
The 30fps for cutscenes are fine in my opinion. 60fps is required for precise and responsive inputs and it makes animations easy on the eyes.
When it comes to cutscenes I prefer to see something that my eyes are already used to, which is the standard 30fps that movies go for.
Cutscenes at 60fps look weird as shit.
When it comes to cutscenes I prefer to see something that my eyes are already used to, which is the standard 30fps that movies go for.
Cutscenes at 60fps look weird as shit.
Clear
CliffyB's Cock Holster
Check out some of the out-of-bounds exploration videos, its surprising how much of the background is real geometry. There are very few bill-boards/facades and the level of finishing on surfaces that you'd think would never need to be seen are remarkably consistent.
It strikes me that this game is going to be as legit an open-world title as anything.
The perceptual 60fps is fine in both PS4 and Pro versions.
If you want 60fps within an open world for a Platinum title on both PS4 and Pro, this is what it takes to get it.
That is even without mentioning that this game has 3 months till launch and has probably been improved from this demo already.
I've been playing the demo frequently on base PS4 HW, and its nothing out of the ordinary from previous '60fps', Platinum games. Actually it seems to be slightly better performing than any of those previous titles, especially Bayonetta 2 Wii U.
Stop the hyperbole folks.
Pretty much this.
Theonik
Member
It costs 2x the money to pre-render cutscenes in 60FPS, also they take a lot more space on disk which might have been a concern.
Another alternative is that more-often than not they are outsourced and that accounts for discrepancies.
Transistor
Banned
What's your source on the bolded, because I don't believe that is true
It's not the cutscenes being 30FPS that confuses me because 60FPS cutscenes will take more disk space and if the game is 900P then having 1080P cutscene would cause disparity. Now it could have been possible to include 1080P cutscenes for Pro and 900P for base but keep in mind that the game copy used between the two consoles are the same so they'd have had tohave them both on disk which would take more space.
What actually confuses me is why they didn't just do cutscenes in real time and avoid this mess altogether.
Also is this really open world? Or just multiple paths with small hubs...Kind of (but not exactly) like Dark Souls?
What actually confuses me is why they didn't just do cutscenes in real time and avoid this mess altogether.
No it doesnt...MGSV exists. Now you'll probably mention the budget difference and that's ok but don't claim stuff like this is what it takes or assume this is the best it could be.
Also is this really open world? Or just multiple paths with small hubs...Kind of (but not exactly) like Dark Souls?
Clear
CliffyB's Cock Holster
Kinda thought it was a typo, meant memory came out as money.
Transistor
Banned
NeoRaider
Member
That's not true. Fps in videos doesn't increase filesize. Only bitrate does.
Have you not played any Platinum game ever created? These things you comment on are all present in all of them. Bad AF and 30fps cut scenes alike.
NeoRaider
Member
That's not an excuse. I think that developers should try to improve and do better.
I mean just look at Rise of the Tomb Raider (multi-platform game) for example and how an amazing job Nixxes and CD did for both base and Pro. Sure it's not full open-world game, but it has huge hubs and it's still 60fps on Pro most of the time and it looks stunning. Or like someone else mentioned MGS V for example...
Theonik
Member
You are rendering 2x the frames, so it takes 2x the rendering time, typically your rendering expenditures depend on the number of frames, animating costs also increase with framerate but by a smaller factor.
Encoding higher framerate video, requires higher bitrates for the same level of quality. Unless the extra frames compress very efficiently (why have them at all if they did?) you will either take a big hit in terms of quality or the required bitrate.
StrongBlackVine
Banned
Rising_Hei
Member
The fact that you should this statement without elaborating says it all, i guess.
The game looks awesome and it's 60fps, i didn't even notice that it's not 1080p on base PS4 because it has nice, clean IQ. Cheap trolling needs to stop.
Also, it's smooth all the time, guess some people might be salty because this is not coming for Xbox?
This is the best it could be with the same development priorities in a completely different engine with a completely different budget.
Why bring up MGS5 when it doesn't even represent said situation? what platinum has to sacrifice to reach 60fps stable with their engine is not the same as what Kojipro or Fox engine had to sacrifice
NeoRaider
Member
Bitrate can stay the same at both 30fps and 60fps, and video (cutscene) will look the same, i mean it will have exactly the same quality but only difference will be fps.
Also i doubt that file size is problem here. I mean we have 50+ GB games today.
Crystal dynamics (And Nixxes which is just a porting studio btw) had completely different development, budgetary and technical priorities, and have different strengths and weaknesses compared to Platinum.
What your saying is as ridiculous as saying.
"Why does this game have bad graphics compared to this game? What? They are completely different studios?? That's just an excuse!"
Theonik
Member
This is definitely not true, the extra data to store the extra frames needs to go somewhere.
If you double the framerate but keep bitrate the same you would get a considerable drop in quality. Try this by doing a CRF encode on a 60FPS video then using the same CRF on a 30FPS version of the same video (drop every second frame) the filesize will go down considerably.
On the second point, they still need to fit the game on a 50GB disk so unless we know how much space they are using we can't say for sure if that's a factor.
Because the claim was made as if this is the best the machine could do and if we want open world 60FPS then this is what we get...that was an absolute statement and did not consider budget or team.
NeoRaider
Member
What you said is even more ridiculous imo. Just because it's Platinum, it doesn't mean that every game they release should look ugly (imo.). And that we should give them a free pass. I mean saying things like: "It's ok, it's Platinum"... is just stupid. Sorry.
Other developers did much better things at 60fps or should i say 50-60fps?
this is not how video encoding works
cm osi
Member
ps4 is 2013 tho
as much as they say "ps4pro upgrades are so easy you can develop them while you're doing the laundry", in this case it's clearly an aftertought. if we're gonna see big improvement it's on games releasing months away from the pro launch
TheGuardian
Member
Maybe the video doesn't help, but playing the demo on a Pro, it's really easy to see the diference when it jumps to the 900p cutscenes and back, everything is a lot crisper in normal gameplay.
NeoRaider
Member
thatJohann
Member
Frame pacing looks like shit in the end in the boss battle. Surprised they didn't comment on it. Their graph was all over the place.
We already knew the game was 900p on PS4 because Platinum themselves said it was going to be a while back in order to reach 60fps. so i don't get the controversy now? It feels like a bunch of concern trolling especially because the vast majority of people would not complain at all until this video came out and saw numbers.
I also don't get the mindset of 'its 20XX, developers/hardware/engines have limitations? That shouldn't be a thing!' It will always be a thing.
It should be even more understandable because PS4 is 3 years old at this point. As time goes on hardware shows its age. it took much earlier for 360 and PS3 to need to cut down from native res for most titles, and even now PS4 still keeps up with 1080p in most games, which is still a miracle in of itself.
NeoRaider
Member
PS4 is new Xbox One. XD