• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

Digital Foundry Face-Off: Dragon Age: Inquisition

Good to hear that it's mostly great on PC, where I'll be getting it... eventually.

Maybe by the time I get it, they'll patch the cutscene issues and 30fps animations.
 
Always noticed the tearing on PS4 which sucks but it's still manageable. MaybE they will release a stability patch later or something to run the game at a more stable framerate. Surprised really to see the frames drop a bit considering the game doesn't look anywhere near as good as say Far Cry or GTAV which both came out on the same day and Far Cry is locked 30 on PS4.
 
I think it's clear that DF has been on a recent agenda to downplay the differences between the PS4 and the Xbox One. It strangely coincides with the recent developer comments on parity. I'm not going to guess the reason for all of this, but one thing is clear: It's undoubtedly in MS' best interest that the differences between the two consoles be downplayed by developers and the gaming media.

Don't treat DF as a monolith. Yes the GTA5 face-off contains some pretty ridiculous mental gymnastics but that article had its own author and its own thread on here.
 
Wow so this is getting ridiculous. If PS4 runs 1080p but performance worse than the 900p xbox one, just have an option in the graphics menu for 1080 or 900 so PS4 owners can choose. Its not like it needs to be complicated with all kinds of choices & resolutions like a PC game, so it shouldnt have a significant test burdon.

I feel glad I had already bought and starting playing this game on PS4 since it looks gorgeous and runs great - I havent seen any tearing but I do not know if this is because its not there (or eg in combat I am not focusing on tearing just the action, vs exploration)

The problem for publishers is, they keep doing exlusive content for preorders and its becoming difficult to know which one. I am stunned that unity plays better on xbox one despite same res as PS4. I have both consoles and devs need to make sure their customers are not left confused as to which version to preorder
 
I...

Kinda like that each platform has it's own benefits. Obviously it would be better if each version was perfect, but it's nice that a single platform owner will have some beneficial kind of performance over the other, rather than one version just being flat out inferior.

That comes across as kind of weird I'm sure, but it's a slightly more even playing field I think, which is a good thing.
 
Don't treat DF as a monolith.

People actually make purchases based on the DF "Verdict"? thats interesting.. I always look at all the high res screens and performance analysis videos to decide what I want. I figured if you cared enough about performance to visit DF then you would know well enough whats good and what isnt. The proof cant have a bias as long as its properly presented, which I cant say DF doesnt do.. so as far as im concerned bias doesnt even play into it.

I...

Kinda like that each platform has it's own benefits. Obviously it would be better if each version was perfect, but it's nice that a single platform owner will have some beneficial kind of performance over the other, rather than one version just being flat out inferior.

That comes across as kind of weird I'm sure, but it's a slightly more even playing field I think, which is a good thing.

its also a bit weird because they should be equal if not better on PS4. But going with resolution differences to make up for power deficiency on xone ends up giving it performance advantage since they are both still aiming for 30fps, but ps4 has to try harder being at 1080P.
 
Where?

Also, I have both consoles. That's not even a requirement for resolution comparisons though, as you could just point to another game on the same system that runs at 1080p, right? That wasn't really my point, as my recollection of image quality between different games (or systems) isn't as stark as comparing what the game is running like now, in comparison to how it was running half a second ago... which is why a constant framerate, even if slightly lower, is often better than one the fluctuates occasionally even to high numbers.

the visual quality of the two console versions appears extremely similar

However, catching this disparity does take very close attention to side-by-side shots

the 40 per cent resolution boost in favour of the Sony platform manifests as a slightly clearer image, where the difference only really comes to the fore on foliage in the brighter outdoor areas and when eyeballing high resolution textures up-close

the worrying notion of a significantly sub-native 792p rendering resolution looks nowhere near as bad as the raw numbers suggest

the Xbox One's updated 1600x900 framebuffer comes respectably close in motion

No caveats applied to reported framerate differences on the other hand.
 
I don't think that DF has a masterplan to downplay the differences between the two platforms.
They just tend to give a lot of space to even minor differences in Xbox One favor, when they manage to find them, because they are the only "news", the only things worth interest, discussion, and clicks.
Otherwise all of their articles would be something like: "... and once again the more powerful platform gets the best looking version of the game. No shit."
 
How is that related to PC? There are plenty of games in native res and even 60FPS or at least stable 30FPS across all generations. It's about developers getting their priorities straight and consumers having at least a tiny bit of knowledge and principles. Things like AC: Unity happen not because PC exists but console people buy tons of that shit.

Yeah, those pesky console peasants.

This is getting really old.
 
You could not be possibly more wrong and I'm genuinely insulted that you feel that way.

Ignore these comments. You know first hand how toxic such discussions can get here, just be sure that most people don't subscribe to these bullshit conspiracy theories.
 
The framerate on the PS4 is very stable, don't expect Mass Effect style frame rate dips because that doesn't happen. They are some dips here and there, specially during Envy's dream sequence, but it's so minimal.
 
Hope nobody mentioned the game being CPU bound. The XB1 runs at a lower resolution. Not surprising the frame rate is a little bit more stable.
 
I don't think that DF has a masterplan to downplay the differences between the two platforms.
They just tend to give a lot of space to even minor differences in Xbox One favor, when they manage to find them, because they are the only "news", the only things worth interest, discussion, and clicks.
Otherwise all of their articles would be something like: "... and once again the more powerful platform gets the best looking version of the game. No shit."

This guy gets it.
 
Do these articles ever mention the black crush? MS really needs to fix that. Or is that on a case-by-case basis per game?

They mention it. Go read the CoD:AW Face-off with a gamma recommendation. Also, this game doesn't have black crush on the XB1 version. Go look at the videos.
 
You could not be possibly more wrong and I'm genuinely insulted that you feel that way.
The sane folks on here appreciate the work that you and the rest if the team at DF do. It's sad that the cargo cultists from both sides feel the need to attack those who fail to reinforce their narrative. Keep up the great work!
 
We know that black crush, resolution and less detail doesn't matter, so what next? 3 - 5ffps strumps everything, so what happens when the framerates are the same on both versions?
 
I don't think that DF has a masterplan to downplay the differences between the two platforms.
They just tend to give a lot of space to even minor differences in Xbox One favor, when they manage to find them, because they are the only "news", the only things worth interest, discussion, and clicks.
Otherwise all of their articles would be something like: "... and once again the more powerful platform gets the best looking version of the game. No shit."

I think that it is too coincidental that so many of the big releases are almost equal on both consoles regardless of the differences in power on PS4. If this continues to happen a year or two from now, which I do not believe, then some higher-up is making sure that the *parity clause* is being enforced. However, this will not be something that we can ever prove.
 
People actually make purchases based on the DF "Verdict"? thats interesting.. I always look at all the high res screens and performance analysis videos to decide what I want. I figured if you cared enough about performance to visit DF then you would know well enough whats good and what isnt. The proof cant have a bias as long as its properly presented, which I cant say DF doesnt do.. so as far as im concerned bias doesnt even play into it.



its also a bit weird because they should be equal if not better on PS4. But going with resolution differences to make up for power deficiency on xone ends up giving it performance advantage since they are both still aiming for 30fps, but ps4 has to try harder being at 1080P.

I'll bet there are people who bought CoD based on their wording in that particular article.

They basically said that the scaling of the lower res didn't matter and gave the impression that ps4 was a lag fest.
 
Please enlighten me. I read it once in some other DF Faceoff and haven't seen anything contradictory.
You mean about the mystical cpu advantages of the xbone hardware? It has proved in the other thread, about another guy surely most expert of me in this matter, the overheating on the cpu xbone for the equivalent 'boost' in the pc hardware, not give any sort of tangible advantage in the fps performance. It's not contradictory, it's simply unproved and just pure speculation for now.
Hope nobody mentioned the game being CPU bound. The XB1 runs at a lower resolution. Not surprising the frame rate is a little bit more stable.
I'm not sure to have understand what you mean, but in theory, this game should run the equivalent of the xb1 at 1080p, on the ps4, without great problems, from what we have seen until now with the same engine in those platform.
 
No no no no no.

I cannot BELIEVE that people are actually suspecting some sort of bias here. I mean, it absolutely blows my mind though I suppose I shouldn't be surprised anymore.

This is NOT nitpicking. I put a solid 8 hours into the XBone version of the game and it is 99.99999% locked at 30 fps. It just doesn't dip. "I" think that is worth something.

I received the PS4 version later and was actually expecting them to be equal so I was completely surprised and very disappointed when that didn't prove to be the case. It dips far more often than I expected even during normal exploration. It's still much better than any other Bioware console release to date but compared to the completely stable XO version it was a huge disappointment. On the console side I actually prefer building my library on the PS4, it should be noted, so these types of situations are not what I want to see. However, I put aside that bias and present the findings as they are. People are looking for bias where there is none.
It's a sad state of affairs that you even had to make this post.
 
This again illustrates why parity's fcking dumb. If the PS4 version were 900p and the game is locked at 30fps, what's the point of having a more powerful GPU? Devs just need to optimize their PS4 version better.
 

I'm not sure why I was actually expecting you to be referring to the same article, rather than different articles by different writers (none of which are responsible for the article you're currently critiquing)... Just because these people write for the same site, does not mean they all have the same opinion on how noticeable different aspects of graphics and performance are.

Dark10x stated the dips in framerate are "minor", and that the resolution difference means it "looks significantly cleaner when paired with the native 1080p image of the PS4 release". Just because he prefers stable performance (something he has been consistent with for about a decade or so of me seeing his posts here), does not mean he's being biased towards MS, or against Sony. You're projecting what you believe to be important onto his article.
 
The sane folks on here appreciate the work that you and the rest if the team at DF do. It's sad that the cargo cultists from both sides feel the need to attack those who fail to reinforce their narrative. Keep up the great work!

Yeah the conspiracy stuff that pops up around here sometimes is incredibly sad and embarassing to see. DF does great at what they do, and all they report on are the numbers that they get. This is a game that could go either way, if you are sensitive to frame drops, go XB1, if not and you want a better image quality due to 1080p but a bit of dropped frames and screen tearing then go with PS4. Theu both have their own individual advantages, I can't even fathom how someone would pull a conspiracy out of this...
 
I don't think he is. I'd take a better frame rate over resolution any day. Frame rate is game impacting where resolution is not.

Shimmering edges, blurred textures and halos from scaling artifacts are not game impacting?

DF spent the entire of the last generation telling us how awful it looked on the PS3.
 
Shimmering edges, blurred textures and halos from scaling artifacts are not game impacting?

DF spent the entire of the last generation telling us how awful it looked on the PS3.

First DF is not a unique entity. Second, the reviewer has spent a lot of time to explain, in his opinion, there is no a win win at all on a single console, because performance are unstable (him it's surprise too about this discover so) on ps4 compared the xbone, but IQ is tons of times preferable, he said this thing clearly. He just said it's matter of personal preference what version to get. It seems quite honest for me, nothing to be crazy.
 
Sucks for them. I'm using a Kuro Elite plasma but I capture on an LCD (where 900p really looks a heck of a lot worse).

OLED > Plasma >>>> LCD
.

What's the best gaming & movie tv at the mo, without spending rock star kind of money? I see kuro mentioned a lot. Sorting out a home cinema soon.
 
Not really. If the differences weren't there they wouldn't have anything to talk about.

Nobody disputes that there are detectable differences, it's their emphasis and interpretation that's the point here. And of course Eurogamer, like every other ad-driven website, will write articles that maximize traffic (without overdoing it so much that it backfires in the long-term). Writing articles that people are discussing or will discuss does maximize traffic, and people certainly will discuss any advantage that the XBO might have in a third-party game over the PS4. (~40 page thread on GAF.) They won't discuss the usual 900p-vs.1080p result. (~5 page thread on GAF.) That's the reason why they made an entire article just about the grass in GTA V.
 
Yeah the conspiracy stuff that pops up around here sometimes is incredibly sad and embarassing to see. DF does great at what they do, and all they report on are the numbers that they get. This is a game that could go either way, if you are sensitive to frame drops, go XB1, if not and you want a better image quality due to 1080p but a bit of dropped frames and screen tearing then go with PS4. Theu both have their own individual advantages, I can't even fathom how someone would pull a conspiracy out of this...
Re read the article, both suffer from frame rate dips and tearing, it's not exclusive to the ps4.
 
I'm not sure why I was actually expecting you to be referring to the same article, rather than different articles by different writers (none of which are responsible for the article you're currently critiquing)... Just because these people write for the same site, does not mean they all have the same opinion on how noticeable different aspects of graphics and performance are.

What I quoted was a consistent narrative among DF staff, even the one in question here, attaching caveats to the 30%+ resolution differences. No caveat is ever afforded to frame-rate differences, in a lot of cases miniscule.
 
Is it possible to give the PS4's CPU a 10% boost to 1.75ghz via firmware update?

Sony knew what the cpu could do when they picked it, I'd say that they need to encourage the use of the GPU compute more rather than anything else.

At the end of the day that's where significant gains are potentially locked away.
 
Huh, I haven't noticed tearing at all here, playing the PS4 version.

Framerate dips a bit when a lot of action is going on onscreen, but it's not even that noticeable to me. Looks great.
 
So it seems we have our narrative for the rest of the generation nailed down.

PS4 better visuals but drops a few more frames randomly than XBO so it's a wash.

This is all subject to change when cross gen games stop though.
 
I love this game, I've put 60 hours into it already, no joke. However, I made a post a couple days ago in the thread asking people about this. BUT, I played the trial version of X1, and felt the game was really smooth fps wise. I ended up switching to PS4, because the X1 you can def tell it has jagged edges, and muddy/blurry edges (especially on a 55 inch TV). So the PS4's 1080p eliminates that and makes it look a lot sharper.

However, I also started to notice on the PS4 little jitters. They weren't like massive fps dips, but just little quick 1 second moments (panning a camera), or running through a city where it would have a quick jitter. I never remembered getting that on the X1 trial version, which I posted about in the thread.

Guess my hunch was right, and the X1 version is indeed more stable fps wise. On the plus side, the PS4 version is very smooth overall. The fps dips aren't substantial at all, and for the most part it looks and feels stable. But you CAN tell the little jitters here and there. It's not just in heavy intensive areas either. Like if you are running through a really ornate town, you will definitely notice these tiny dips/jitters or whatever you want to call them.

It's just hard to explain, because they are so small/quick that they don't actually slow your game down. I'm used to fps dips being more substantial so it's really noticeable, and feels awful. This feels more like a slight annoyance. I guess in the end, I don't regret going PS4. Just because I do have a 55 inch TV in my room. And I don't think the performance difference is night and day to the point that I would fret over it. But damn, good on X1.
 
Nobody disputes that there are detectable differences, it's their emphasis and interpretation that's the point here. And of course Eurogamer, like every other ad-driven website, will write articles that maximize traffic (without overdoing it so much that it backfires in the long-term). Writing articles that people are discussing or will discuss does maximize traffic, and people certainly will discuss any advantage that the XBO might have in a third-party game over the PS4. (~40 page thread on GAF.) They won't discuss the usual 900p-vs.1080p result. (~5 page thread on GAF.) That's the reason why they made an entire article just about the grass in GTA V.

I see nothing really wrong with a website writing about stuff that clearly interest people. The grass thread shows that people will discuss any advantage between consoles and the Metal Gear thread shows that people will discuss any advantage between consoles and PC. There is nothing wrong with their coverage or with the way they are presenting their findings.
 
What I quoted was a consistent narrative among DF staff, even the one in question here, attaching caveats to the 30%+ resolution differences. No caveat is ever afforded to frame-rate differences, in a lot of cases miniscule.

So how about when he pointed out how it was distracting to have the duplicated frame in Mario Kart 8? Or when he complains about the performance of the Xbox One version of Titanfall, and suggests that the game would benefit from being locked at 30fps, rather than having a higher unstable framerate?

Or should we ignore those because they're not obvious attempts to downplay the PS4?
 
Top Bottom