shinobi602
Member
Well, it's timed, and it won't be that long really.
I just wanted the best looking version, in terms of consoles at least (don't have a gaming PC).
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Digital Foundry Face-Off: Dragon Age: Inquisition
- Thread starter chadskin
- Start date
I just wanted the best looking version, in terms of consoles at least (don't have a gaming PC).
I agree, and I agreed to the point being made that theses articles are more likely colored by these considerations than by any hypothetical bias that certain DF authors might have.
IAmRandom31
Banned
yup, same
yet we are told it happens 40% of all battles and there is tearing on 25% of the frame during those dips.
I have no choice but to call utter BS on that. I'll make videos today even just to see
Yup, once they unlock the dGPU in xbone it's game over for Sorny.
Frankly, I have often wondered why can't they just let the comparisons be just objective data sets as opposed to weaving their own interpretation of "what it all means". Then again, the these threads would perhaps not be as filled with lively discourse if they weren't presenting their conclusion of factual data.
In AC : Unity case - YES, In case of Dragon Age - NO!
I am not aware there are PS4 versions of MK8 and Titanfall.
KOMANI
KOMANI
Performance-wise, both consoles do a good job of delivering a stable, consistent frame-rate but it is the Xbox One version that delivers the smoothest experience overall. Frame-rate drops are extremely rare, only appearing in the most extreme circumstances - for all intents and purposes we're looking at a locked 30fps. Unfortunately, the higher resolution on PS4 comes with a catch in the form of noticeable performance dips during strenuous sequences. During a normal run of play, the game does a good job of maintaining the target frame-rate but frame-rate faltered sometimes during battle sequences and sometimes even traversal across the landscape. Both versions use an adaptive v-sync setup that results in torn frames when the 30fps performance target isn't met, but thankfully, torn frames are contained mostly within the top 25 per cent of the screen, with less of a serious impact on image quality than you might expect.
Can't believe he posted that
They'll strike back by unlocking the secret flash storage that contains copies of The Last Guardian and the Shenmue 1/2 HD Collection
Who cares of it drops a few frames, if you enjoy the game and it's fine with you then It should be no issue, don't see why you are so incredibly defensive if the game is fine to you. Also are you gonna take a video with the equipment to test the framerate so we know what framerate we are seeing, because if not your video will tell us nothing.
Is it really needed? Won't PC always be the pick so can't we just keep comparisons to the consoles?
killdatninja
Banned
DF is given too much weight on these forums. This shit is rarely noticeable in actual game play. More than likely PC gamers here do not play with their FPS counter turned on because I can guarantee that you are dropping frames here and there but guess what? Its not noticeable. 5-10 frames can stand out like a sore thumb but if we're arguing over 1-3 FPS, that's just so damn silly.
Not really. Just because pc versions have the ability to be the best doesnt mean they always are.
That's why they are inclued in these comparisons.
A technical aspect that I have noticed is that the CPU to GPU clock speed is at a ratio of 2:1. Assuming Sony ever wanted to improve performance by upping the clock speed of CPU via firmware, will that necessitate the GPU to receive proportional increase as well?
Polar ice caps will melt long before that happens or better yet Half Life 3 will be published before then.
Polar ice caps will melt long before that happens or better yet Half Life 3 will be published before then.
What difference does that make here? dark10x is consistent in mentioning the impacts of framerates regardless of if the game is multiplatform (such as here) or exclusive (such as Titanfall). Is it seriously that difficult to believe that a stable framerate is something he places a lot of value in. Notice how his tag doesn't read "1080p 1080p 1080p 900p 1080p"? He's fucking consistent. Leave the bias claims alone.
Cornbread78
Member
Kilau
Member
Yeah I would like to have just the numbers and comparison shots and the editorial opinions moved to a separate article.
Just my wish, obviously they run the site how they want to.
Eh, I notice it.
It's not that it's just 1-3 fps, it's that it consistently dips 1 fps. So it causes this jitter effect. I'll admit that, compared to most games with fps issues, it's not that big of a deal. So I can agree with what you are saying. But you can still tell that it has those jitters.
I was able to notice it playing the first 6 hours on X1, then starting new on PS4. That said, you also can tell the difference between the two graphic wise. The X1 def looked more blurry/muddy on the edges. PS4 has a lot more clarity. So I guess you just have to decide which version is best for you. Because the fps dips are so low, and quick, I think it's worth the extra clarity in resolution.
Still, I wish the jitters weren't there at all. Even if they are just a minor annoyance.
IAmRandom31
Banned
not at all defensive actually, i just call BS when I see it.
first of all, 40% of all battles getting drops and tears is not " a few frame drops ", that would be a ton considering how often you are fighting in this game.
second of all, he says it is quite noticeable
third, he says for someone to buy the X1 version instead because of these issues
4th, it is dumb beyond measure for you to say something like that in this kind of game. an immersive WRPG. not an action, twitch based shooter or something where that frame drop could cause you to miss your target or throw off your aiming. Frame drops in this kind of game do absolutely nothing gameplay wise.
Thats my only issue here really. It's the talk like ... zomg the game drops to 28fps during non-twitch RPG battles where you are holding the R2 button down waiting for the cooldown to end for a special attack, zomg go buy the other version.
im done talking about it though. its a non-issue really. doesn't effect gameplay, at all whatsoever and isn't even noticeable for, what looks like everyone who has been playing the PS4 version till now
DidntKnowJack
Member
I was just wondering, is there any advantage to running it on PS4 at 720p? (My TV's max resolution.) Just curious because I haven't really noticed any frame drops so far, aside from cut scenes.
If you have a 50 inch TV, and aren't sitting far across the room, you can definitely tell the X1 version looks muddy/blurry around the edges. So I think that is something to consider. In the context of PS4 having those slight fps drops in places, the X1 always has its edges kind look strange.
If it was 60 fps I would agree but the differences from 20 to 30 are much greater than 50 to 60.
SmokedMeat
Gamer™
If it's only a couple frames dropping on occasion then I'll take the better looking game.
I missed it, thanks. I though xbone version was vsynced.
From what I seen in the video, yes, most of the times ps4 version has variable fps of 2-3 frames. 25 fps happen very rarely, when transparancies fill the screen (weird) but not stay so much in the low average, fps it's 'steady' fluctuant.
alexandros
Banned
Yes, it is needed and no, we can't just keep comparisons to the consoles. Why? For multiple reasons:
- Multiplatform games are almost always available on PC, XB1 and PS4. It makes no sense to arbitrarily exclude one platform from comparisons.
- As we've seen in the case of some PS4/XB1 comparisons, one platform's technical advantage doesn't always manifest in real-world results for various reasons. It hasn't happened yet on PC but it might in the future if someone releases a bad port.
- Apparently some people with powerful gaming rigs are under the impression that these new consoles are "beasts" and that they are better off buying multiplatform games for them. These comparisons are a handy way of showing them that they may be making a mistake.
- The PC version's visual quality is useful information for those thinking of upgrading their existing rig or buying a PC for games. It shows them how much better the graphics are going to be and it can help them plan their purchase accordingly. Testing the game on low end rigs is also useful in judging PC performance with console-like settings and hardware.
- Console gamers might not realize how much better a game can look on PC. Finding out may be useful to them if they were thinking of joining the PC gaming ranks.
- Comparing console and PC performance helps in refuting popular urban myths like "coding to the metal = 2x PC performance" and other stuff like that.
You do not understand how outputting pictures from a vga adapter to a monitor works. You are very misinformed, believe me. Even a 1 frame drop, depending on the engine, can be jarring.
The whole of DF is also pretty consistent in mentioning how 30%+ differences in resolution means little (it used to be a world away though
), while 1-5% differences in fps should always be a deciding factor. Going by the general sentiment in this thread, one wonders if DF's emphases are based on reality.What "first time around" exactly? They haven't done a full Face-Off yet, they published a "Framerate Stress Test" article which obviously wouldn't go into detail about grass (the subject of the article is hidden in the title).
Holy shit, you keep stating that they're telling people to buy the Xbox One version, but it's pointed out time an again that they tell you to go PS4 if the minor dips don't faze you. How do you still have a problem with this? That qualifier specifically addresses people like yourself that are obviously not framerate sensitive.
If you're claiming not to notice them at all, how are you going to start talking about how accurate "40% of battles" is? If you don't see it, then you also don't see its frequency... it being noticeable to him however, means he's also likely to notice how often it happens. Seems simple enough.
Finally, why is it dumb to mention it for this type of game? It's also an aesthetical aspect. Smoother also looks nicer, it doesn't have to be a gameplay requirement. I wouldn't be happy to watch a movie with unstable framerate, or screen tearing either. Plus, the same could then be said about resolution. There's no gameplay advantage to the resolution bump for this game either. It's not as if you're going to need to make a long-range 4 pixel railgun shot, which is affected by 900p either.
BotoxAgent
Member
Yeah, I can't even notice any drops after a long binge on this game. Ps4 version is beautiful.
Byron Bluth
Banned
The 1-4fps difference on PS4 is worth 1080p, better tesseltation effects, and better IQ and texture quality (textures are the same but appear blurrier on Xbox One due to the lower native resolution).
I own both consoles so I really like these comparisons. No one else does it, thanks Eurogamer!
I own both consoles so I really like these comparisons. No one else does it, thanks Eurogamer!
SmokedMeat
Gamer™
So in other words you're afraid someone somewhere could make the tragic error of choosing a console version over the PC version. We definitely don't want that to happen.
In truth what PC gamers need is a seperate PC performance thread comparing different tiers of entry, mid, and high performance rigs, and what can be expected of them. Because the blanket PC has locked 60fps/1080p doesn't apply to all of them.
Truth is the cutscenes dont have a framerate problem either, its something weird going on with the animations.
Teletraan1
Banned
I dont know why they dont drop other things down a notch instead of resolution. It isn't like they are using either of the XB1 or PS4 for bullshot purposes or promotion outside of the 3 blind mice known as games journalism who couldn't tell 1080p from Master P. There are probably near imperceptible differences between other settings high and medium they could tinker with to eke out a few frames here and there. On console it is always AF and Resolution that are the first to be changed where those settings would be the absolute last I would change on my PC.
Well said. I don't get why people take issue with these tests. These tests aren't meant to be malicious, or to fuel any kind of console war/fan boy crap. They are supposed to be object test/analysis (although some of the opinions on the analyways are subject to bias and subjectivity). But the results are there, and people can take away from them what they will.
Personally, I view these as a consumer tool. It can help you decide which version will give you the most for your money. Which version will yield the best performance for a game you love. That's not always clear, as sometimes there are trade offs. And each person has to decide for themselves what is important to them. But as someone that owns all the console platforms, I want to know which system has the best version of the game (for me).
So these are really really helpful. I just feel like, maybe if you aren't into this sort of stuff, and you only OWN one platform, then maybe these tests might not be for you. But even then I don't agree. Because these tests aren't always about which platform has the best. They also just flat out tell you the performance itself. So even if you only own ONE console/platform, you can still look and see if the game holds up and has good performance. Whether that is worth your $60 to you.
True.
wanderjahr
Banned
Would you say they are reaching . . . parity?
alexandros
Banned
Well... yeah, why would we want that to happen if it's as a result of false information? An informed consumer is a consumer likely to make the best purchasing decision, whether that is to buy the PS4, PC or XB1 version. More data is always useful and welcome, less data is only desirable by those who want to obfuscate and mislead.
As for the second part, PC gamers are well catered for in that regard by specialist PC tech sites that do this exact thing. DF comparisons are more useful to the mainstream gamer that doesn't want that much analysis. If you want a comparison in gaming terms, think of PC tech sites as "PC gaming", more for the hardcore and the tech-minded, and think of DF as "console gaming", more mainstream and easy to understand. Both have their uses.
We have PC performance threada already. Digital Foundry threads are interesting to see the differences between all versions, though.
I know its uncomfortable for some of you, but I dont think they shoyld change what they've been doing because of some insecure platform warriors.
alexandros
Banned
My impression is that most of the calls for the PC's exclusion from these tests are coming from people who have already made a purchasing decision and read these articles for the sole purpose of seeing their favorite platform come out on top so they can brag about it. If someone is reading these articles with the purpose of deciding which version to buy then the more information available the better for him.
Dark, didn't mean to insult you. But I don't see how it's an insult to question your conclusion that the significant PS4 resolution advantage is overcome by an infrequent frame rate drop, making the game a wash between the two console versions. You put an opinion out there, your readers should be able to question it.
PeskyToaster
Member
It's only a 1 to 2 fps drop? Lol.
I have noticed any drops and the game has a fairly impressive draw distance from what I've seen during my play. I would definitely take the image quality in this case especially when the drops are so minuscule.
I wonder if they have someone play for the first time without all the software and just see if they can notice drops, tearing, and all that stuff. We get all these anecdotal stuff and it's really easy to see a difference in such wide ranges as 30-60 or 720-1080 but I would like to know if people in their everyday play recognize the closer differences. Could be interesting.
I have noticed any drops and the game has a fairly impressive draw distance from what I've seen during my play. I would definitely take the image quality in this case especially when the drops are so minuscule.
I wonder if they have someone play for the first time without all the software and just see if they can notice drops, tearing, and all that stuff. We get all these anecdotal stuff and it's really easy to see a difference in such wide ranges as 30-60 or 720-1080 but I would like to know if people in their everyday play recognize the closer differences. Could be interesting.
He didn't say it was a wash, he said get the one that aligns with your personal preference. If you care more about IQ, get it on PS4, if you care more about performance, get it on XBO. If you are somewhere in the middle, you have to make the judgement yourself based on the data presented by the article.
No one can reasonably compare the value of IQ against performance, it's a completely subjective preference, so he didn't proclaim one or the other, nor should he have.