Air Zombie Meat
Member
Microsoft has even moneyhatted dark10x now? These threads have become a complete joke. Why is all this conspiracy theory nonsense allowed? It ruins so many threads and seems to be getting worse over time.
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Digital Foundry Face-Off: Dragon Age: Inquisition
- Thread starter chadskin
- Start date
DF threads are always a treat to read
Now imagine if they get some "respectable" competition from another major outlet (hopefully more than one)....... that would be a feast. There is certainly an audience there.....even if it's so niche and small atm.
Even on PC I'll dial down resolution and effects to get the performance I want. Framerate drops affect playability, but resolution does not.
viveks86
Member
For some people, it could easily matter. It's easy to say "28 fps is 93% the performance of 30fps", but unless you've somehow figured out some kind of gsync-esque technology for console games on a TV, a game that's floating around 28-29fps is going to feel very stuttery compared with a game that's holding a clean 30fps. Even if the magnitude of the the drops is slight, the frequency and duration of the drops is going to produce a noticeable difference to people sensitive to stutter, and the XB1 has an advantage there.
Handy Fake
Member
Reading through the thread, I think the issue some are having is not with the factual analysis within the article, rather the way it's presented to what perhaps you and I would refer to as a casual gamer.
If you'll indulge me in a bad analogy for a moment, it's like headlines in a redtop rag of a newspaper spinning the actual facts contained within the article.*
* Not in anyway comparing DF to The Sun or the Mirror (or *cough* the Daily Mail), but I think the opinion of the columnist tends to shine through more than the actual factual observations.
If you get me.
Lets take it to the extreme in order to make a point: if XB1's version would run at 480P compared to 1080P of the PS4, do you think the wording should stay the same in the article? obviously he would emphasize the huge IQ disparity much more, but in the article he made it sound like 900P is not a big deal just like the framedrops of the PS4 version, which is not true, they are not equal, IQ gap is much bigger than framerate gap, what is so hard to understand here??
I'd read that. PC specs are too variable to have any single spec compared vs consoles. But I like the idea of a few different specs, maybe like the tiers in the gaming PC thread, with the sweet spot popular GPUs. It could help people really understand how different things affect performance and maybe help them buy a gaming PC that is right for them.
If framerate is so important compared to IQ then why not just buy a PC and turn everything off...certainly get a much better framerate than either console
At some point it hurts playability.......... but obviously - lets forget that.
Competition does work don't it?
No one cares about GamingBolt yet (no offense to those guys). I am sure gamers will surely pay attention to IGN, Gamespot or Gametrailers if they go about being serious on comparisons.
http://gamingbolt.com/dragon-age-inquisition-ps4-versus-xbox-one-ps4-has-better-iq-and-performance
Handy Fake
Member
I agree in principle. But I think both devs and journalists are on a hiding to nothing defending themselves on a public messageboard. It's like throwing yourself to the lions.
PS4 has a lot more GPGPU stuff to leverage, it's advantage will only grow with time once developers are really getting to the metal of each console.
I think one problem with the article is the way it presents the conclusion as absolutes
In reality, how many people are this polarised? Can you say you want the most stable experience to the exception of all other factors? Only then can you really recommend the Xbox version. And vice versa for the PS4 version.
In reality, how many people are this polarised? Can you say you want the most stable experience to the exception of all other factors? Only then can you really recommend the Xbox version. And vice versa for the PS4 version.
If framerate is so important compared to IQ then why not just buy a PC and turn everything off...certainly get a much better framerate than either console
Conversely, if image quality is so important then why not just buy a PC and turn everything on?
Luckily the article provides image comparisons and video frame-rate analysis so that people can decide based off of their own preferences.
Its subjective. Obviously 480p vs 1080p is going to be much harder to swallow than 900p vs 1080p and performance advantages would not make up for it as much. But in a living room situation, 900p isnt always so awful. It depends on a few factors, but its really not a meaningful difference for certain people in certain situations. So its really up to individuals to decide what is important to them in their situation.
There is no objective equivalency formula with this stuff. Its subjective. And people can think for themselves.
its good
credit - shinobi
The frame rate on these PS4 gifs is shockingly low, almost zero!
I count 6 frames.
Stuggernaut
Grandma's Chippy
Everyone I know (3 PS4, 1 XB1) that has this game loves it, does not notice any performance issues at all and are all having a ton of fun.
I watched the videos, and during those very occasional drops on PS4, I could not see a noticable difference performance wise, just a number changed. Maybe if i watch closer? I can see the graphics difference, and noticed some pop in of trees and stuff on one version, but that was it.
I hope to get it on PC eventually, gotta backlog clean first though.
Game looks awesome.
I watched the videos, and during those very occasional drops on PS4, I could not see a noticable difference performance wise, just a number changed. Maybe if i watch closer? I can see the graphics difference, and noticed some pop in of trees and stuff on one version, but that was it.
I hope to get it on PC eventually, gotta backlog clean first though.
Game looks awesome.
Yeah, it's dynamic. Weather effects appeared to be identical across all three.
Also, cloud cover impacts lighting so, in some shots, shadows may appear stronger in one version over others and that's simply due to lighting conditions. Tried to match it as close as possible but it's pretty tough to line up just right.
Exactly.
If you're at a desk using a PC monitor with a resolution different than 1600x900 (most people are, obviously) then 900p is going to look pretty ugly due to upscaling artifacts. When in a living room environment, however, the difference becomes much less pronounced. It's certainly noticeable but a 900p game with decent AA is going to look pretty damn clean on a good TV at a normal viewing distance.
I've found this with PC games as well. When playing on my plasma I can get away with FXAA and it looks excellent but in front of my higher resolution 32" monitor I need better AA and even some downsampling to really produce an appealingly clean image. 900p blown up to 32" on a 1440p panel viewed from close proximity is quite ugly.
Thanks Dark.
thelastword
Banned
Even then you try to make a capped game which hits 31fps a bad thing, I doubt you notice any stutter in this rpg when it hits 31fps. Earlier in this thread you mentioned that it rarely happens and in your very limited sample I counted it many times, at least 8. How is that rare in a five minute video mostly portraying battles? How much more does it happen in this 50hr rpg if so prevalent here?
Also, I'm perfectly aware that a capped 30fps should be higher than 30 to stay locked or mostly locked, but if it hits 31 it also means that the threshold is higher. As I've suggested, the way this game drops on the PS4 highly suggests it's un-optimized on that console, (dropping frames in menus et al.), but I really didn't expect df to suggest this or even for you to comment on that bit in my post.
It's just a bit too apparent really, look at df's article on watchdogs, how they downplay the resolution differences and suggest that the game was more optimized on the PS4, it would seem that they're suggesting that consoles are on equal footing but those devs and their optimization priority on the PS4. It's funny, that such things are never suggested in PS4 versions which are not superior framerate wise, when there's evidence to show, and moreso when it is indeed more powerful.
Lovely reading below;
Eurogamer said:
There's just too much in there that's shaming, the last bolded statement even suggests that you would hardly see a difference across 792, 900 and indeed 1080p, bollocks. The fact that so many of these excuses come up when the xbox is in deficit is what's alarming, it happens way too often.
Anyways, dark10x, I suggest that you guys talk to the devs to explain some of the issues you df guys find, I'd still like you to address why the game drops frames whilst drinking a potion in an empty field or when the menu pops. If you're that disappointed with the Ps4 version, I'd wager you would be the first to notice these inconsistencies may not be hardware related, but I digress.
This is the thing, technically it's not so subjective, we are talking about more than 30% pixels, that's pretty big, much more technically than minor and not really often framedrops, he did say LCD upscaled looks horibble but for him on his Kuro display the IQ disparity wasn't too bad, but we do know the vast majority plays on "shitty LCDs", and factually, there will be a large disparity in IQ for them in most reasonable cases, in a much more noticeable way than the framerate gap, they are not equall although article makes it seem like it.
I'm not the only one who've noticed it around here, wording could be better.
What you just don't seem to understand is that it is NOT A GOOD THING. It is not.
It interrupts frame cadence and creates the impression of a stutter. A jump to 31 fps is almost as bad as a dip to 29 fps in that regard. It's not about the numbers it's about delivering an even distribution of frames. On a 60 Hz display that means, for 30 fps, each frame must be displayed for exactly 33ms. Deviate from that and you end up with image judder or micro-stutter.
It doesn't mean the threshold is higher. It means there is a bug in the way the 30 fps lock has been implemented.
The graph reads it at 31 fps but, in reality, it just means that ONE frame appeared for just 16.7ms as opposed to 33ms which is not good.
The theoretical person with both consoles and who waited for this article to buy a particular version of Dragon Age can get exactly what they need from that sentence and from the article.
That same theoretical person also knows their other preferences (friends, controller, achievements vs. trophies) and can combine all those details with "Do I prefer 1080p or a more stable framerate?" to make their purchasing decision.
That theoretical person that we pretend we're arguing for would be fine - the only people getting hung up and freaking out have a pretty clear agenda and baby to defend.
So if that is bugging slightly do you think the framerate dips could be from some bugs as well? Well not the battle ones I think that is just the number of effects but just the random drops while walking and menu browsing.
Yep my friend uses this to make sure the game isn't complete shit performance wise like AC:U. Otherwise he doesn't care how it performs elsewhere.
puebla
Member
beautiful and buttery smooth, specs? I'll be buying a 970 soon.
shadowsdarknes
Member
I do think I'm going to pick up Dragon Age at some point.
I'm glad they hit 1080p on the PS4. I won't go lower than 1080p IQ from now on.
I'm glad they hit 1080p on the PS4. I won't go lower than 1080p IQ from now on.
No, I don't think so. Those are accompanied by tearing anyways.
NFS Rivals shipped with a similar problem but it was near constant. Here the jumps are pretty uncommon but they do create a minor stuttering effect.
He did not say or imply they were equal!!!
He is putting the facts out there and letting people decide what is most important to them. Because it IS a subjective matter, no matter how much you wish it wasnt and that there was some way to objectively proclaim the PS4 version the winner.
And yes, there are others saying similar things as you and there seems to be one defining agenda behind all of it.
TrojanBlade
Member
So the ps4 was dropping a frame or 2 here and there and sometimes even going up to 31 fps. But the DF analysis makes it sound like PS4 performance really bad. Come on.
You can raise that by repeatedly hitting "f5".
GayForMaster
Banned
Is this going to be a trend now? Xbone for performance, ps4 for visuals?
That fight at the beginning of the video looked pretty "bad". The green magic effect is obviously having an impact, and I'd consider sustained 26-29fps "bad". Even if 99% of the game are running at 30fps, the times where it's not still suck, given that 30fps should really be the minimum standard for this generation. It's not a terrible situation, but it's certainly worth mentioning and considering.
thelastword
Banned
It is a good thing based on what it suggests. There is no way you will convince me that a jump to 31fps is the same as a dump to 29fps, the fact that this game is capped suggests differently, there's no two ways about it. This is why I always suggest that developers give me an unlocked option.
In any case, the random drops in menus and drinking potions may very well affect the game in heavy battles on the PS4, the inconsistencies in the drops exhibited is what alarms me to the lack of optimization on the PS4. As I've said, there's no way a game should drop as many frames as it did in that first battle in your video in a barren expanse and also in a menu. Perhaps you should contact the devs to get their response on these matters.
I wish more devs would get involved in correcting some of the issues that pop up in df articles, just like the NFS rivals devs did.
QuantumZebra
Member
His point is they are pretty damn close. BF4 on my PS4 and on my PC there is a noticeable difference, but nowhere near as noticeable as PC gaming vs. 360/PS3 or any generation before.
We have attained PC parity for the most part. dun dun dun...
it probably won't last long but holy hell in 3 years PS4 games will look amazing
DF definitely took PS3 to task more for worse IQ than they do now for X1 vs. PS4
Fun Factor
Formerly FTWer
So how does the game run on the 360 & PS3?
If you call mostly medium setting with a few on high at half the frame rate "parity" I guess so.
I'm guessing in 3 years it'll be more like low settings and 25-30 FPS, just like last gen, vs 60+ FPS and 1440p, 1600p and 4K resolutions on PC.
BouncyFrag
Member
The game looks great on my ps4. Its the stuttery cutscenes which need addressing.
Where did he say in the article IQ disparity is bigger or they are not equal? he made 900P seems like it's not a big deal, he was downplaying the resolution difference.
Technically 900P is a big deal, he is not here to judge subjectively if it looks good enough on his Kuro, he should emphasize 900P is very noticeable compared to native res, if it wasn't all games would run at 900P on consoles instead of targeting 1080P.
I think many of us here recognize that averaged frame rates are not useful for reasons I won't bother to re-iterate.
I think the real question is whether Eurogamer has the ability to employ tools like FCAT on consoles to give us 99% frametime metrics, as well as some idea of just how "bad" the remaining 1% of frames are that exceed 33 ms? Various tech sites have been doing that for PC benchmarking for a while now, and it would be nice to see.
I think the real question is whether Eurogamer has the ability to employ tools like FCAT on consoles to give us 99% frametime metrics, as well as some idea of just how "bad" the remaining 1% of frames are that exceed 33 ms? Various tech sites have been doing that for PC benchmarking for a while now, and it would be nice to see.
Triple Buffering.