-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Digital Foundry Face-Off: Dragon Age: Inquisition
- Thread starter chadskin
- Start date
AgentP
Thinks mods influence posters politics. Promoted to QAnon Editor.
I'm pretty sure that "stuttering" is due to duplicate frames which comes about from frame drops and being vsync'd, this game uses soft vsync.
Wow.
These consoles are a good value proposition though, especially for the performance they output.
They'll be even cheaper in 3 years.
Games will likely look better too in 3 years.
EventHorizon
Member
Though some disagree, I think the PS4 frame rate for image quality tradeoff was the right decision. First off, Dragon Age Inquisition isn't a fast paced action game so frame rate dips won't impact gameplay. Second, the dips appear to be infrequent, and the majority of those are only down to 28 fps. It is only in the rift fights that you see the frame rate dip to its lowest point of 24/25 FPS.
On the other hand, image quality is alway present so it's benefits will always be felt. If the FPS dips were more severe, more numerous, or affected gameplay then the criticism would have more weight. As it stands, on the PS4 the vast majority of the time you will be experiencing both the improved image quality over the XB1 and a good frame rate.
On the other hand, image quality is alway present so it's benefits will always be felt. If the FPS dips were more severe, more numerous, or affected gameplay then the criticism would have more weight. As it stands, on the PS4 the vast majority of the time you will be experiencing both the improved image quality over the XB1 and a good frame rate.
Correct, 1080p and good IQ is always the right choice, especially if the frame rate drops are as infrequent and insignificant as they are in this game.
justsomeguy
Member
I agree. Should be on the same list as "GAF is biased towards (insert console of the month here)"", etc.
edit: thanks Aeana
How noticeable 900p is vs 1080p is different from person to person and situation to situation as I've explained several times in this thread already.
And again, people can decide for themselves on the issue. There are plenty of comparisons shown that will let people make up their own mind. There is no issue.
As you are so intent on "letting people decide for themselves", how about people can also decide for themselves if they think there is an issue or not?
Specially in a case like this which to be honest I don't really understand what's wrong with that article, they just pointed out what are the technical difference in each version... like what is wrong with that? That is what a DF article does...
Anyway this threads make for some laughs and amusement... If so you can buy a list of who to take for serious.
btw: I'm buying the PS4 version once Im done with FC4
Because one situation involves a tech analysis with the facts laid bare to see for all while your claims are supported by nothing but unsubstantiated speculation.
Bit of a difference.
from a technical analysis standpoint, it is objectively superior.
I think the frustration with this analysis, or its focus, is how it lacks consistency to last generations analysis format. the discrepancies were much smaller but emphasized much, much more, usually in favor of 360.
dark is not biased, the accusations are just residual of DF articles lacking prior-gen consistency.
edit: sorry just saw above comment from Mod.
Let's not do a technical analysis, just write a technical summary:
PS4- 1080P, minor and not too often frame dips, 30 for majority of time
XB1- 900P, constant 30
That's it, just let people decide and make up their mind! no need to add anything over that, tell them about IQ differences, nothing, 900p? just a random number, no biggie.
Game looks great on PC, nice to see console versions looking good too. It would be nicer to see PC destroy everything at ultra settings but what can you do.
https://dl2.volafile.io/get/CimaPg0PVEXZ/Dragon Age Inquisition 11.22.2014 - 01.13.18.08.webm
This helps with cutscenes: -GameTime.MaxSimFps 30 -GameTime.ForceSimRate 30
Could be smoother:
2560, 780ti
I turned of msaa after that video but before the frametime, led to like 15-20% less gpu usage and not much difference.
https://dl2.volafile.io/get/CimaPg0PVEXZ/Dragon Age Inquisition 11.22.2014 - 01.13.18.08.webm
This helps with cutscenes: -GameTime.MaxSimFps 30 -GameTime.ForceSimRate 30
Could be smoother:
2560, 780ti
I turned of msaa after that video but before the frametime, led to like 15-20% less gpu usage and not much difference.
EventHorizon
Member
Knowing what you know now about the performance of Dragon Age Inquisition, if the PS4 had an option to reduce the resolution to 900p with a locked 30FPS, would you use it? Do you think the general public would use it?
I wouldn't use it and I doubt many others would either.
I wouldn't use it and I doubt many others would either.
You have the standard of 1080p and 30fps.
Both have drops in fps. One is constant 1080p.
Seem the less than .1% drop in framerate per playtime is factor more that a native resolution. I really do not like this trend.
Why would i want to play 100% of the time with a non-native resolution for minor fps drop that happen less than .1% per playtime? Seem just insane....
Terrible faceoff... Really wish they would just put the facts out there and stop trying to push a narrative.
Both have drops in fps. One is constant 1080p.
Seem the less than .1% drop in framerate per playtime is factor more that a native resolution. I really do not like this trend.
Why would i want to play 100% of the time with a non-native resolution for minor fps drop that happen less than .1% per playtime? Seem just insane....
Terrible faceoff... Really wish they would just put the facts out there and stop trying to push a narrative.
AgentP
Thinks mods influence posters politics. Promoted to QAnon Editor.
Trade better IQ 100% of the time for a 1-2fps a small percentage of the time? I would not.
Denton
Member
I can 100% confirm this. I have my PC connected to 55" plasma and 24" LCD and plasma handles both lower resolutions and shitty AAs vastly, vastly better than the LCD monitor. Which is awesome because I can save performance by using FXAA/SMAA and get better framerates.
Why cant people make up their minds without resorting to such simplicity?
I dont think you give people enough credit. They can make up their minds fine with the info in the article. Again, no issue.
I think it's interesting that twice now Thelastword had made mention of the PS4 version dropping frames when using a potion in the middle of no where or bringing up a menu and twice now dark10x had responded to Thelastword but purposely removed the paragraphs about potions or menus.
It would seem that the PS4s frame rate issues are not entirely the fault of the hardware.
The PC version even being the lead platform was not well optimized so don't think the console ports would be any different.
It would seem that the PS4s frame rate issues are not entirely the fault of the hardware.
The PC version even being the lead platform was not well optimized so don't think the console ports would be any different.
jellies_two
Member
regarding 1080p if you have a TV, you are not sitting six inches from a monitor, just to get a grounding in reality, switch your ps4 output in game to 720p or 480p temporarily.
I tried that for 5 minutes with gta v and honestly if someone was playing at 720p and I walked in, It would not be immediately apparent. In fact since it is now down sampled, I would at first notice less aliasing artifacts in motion.
I have no idea how someone in a home setup would be so sensitive to 900p and i wager many who think they would, would fail testing on how easily they can spot it.
I think also a 4k game picture is not going to be a stunning advance unless it also comes with better AA and less LOD transitions, in fact downsampling 4k to 1080p output would be my preference, on a TV at least, if res is the only step forward.
I tried that for 5 minutes with gta v and honestly if someone was playing at 720p and I walked in, It would not be immediately apparent. In fact since it is now down sampled, I would at first notice less aliasing artifacts in motion.
I have no idea how someone in a home setup would be so sensitive to 900p and i wager many who think they would, would fail testing on how easily they can spot it.
I think also a 4k game picture is not going to be a stunning advance unless it also comes with better AA and less LOD transitions, in fact downsampling 4k to 1080p output would be my preference, on a TV at least, if res is the only step forward.
I think this is the crux of the issue at hand, or at least for those dissatisfied with DF in this thread (and a number of other analysis threads).
The tone and vocabulary they use to describe the differences this gen are pretty tame, especially when compared to how overtly critical they were with regards to X360/PS3 discrepancies.
SEGAvangelist
Member
I'm right there with you. I'm loving the game, but it's not really that pretty.
I think you're crazy!
Others have said similar to yourself, but I personally think it looks really great, at least the way I'm playing it.
After viewing the GTA 5 photo thread, yea DA:I does underwhelm.
The art in this game is quite nice though.
Well, cause you do need to make it clear for some of the less informed people, for someone who reads this analysis and don't have a good enough knowledge, it seems like both versions are pretty much the same, with a minor advantage to each version, this is not true at all, but this is the impression it makes.
IQ advantage is pretty big, framerate one is pretty close, that's it.
I think it's beautiful. I haven't taken very many screenshots, but I did take this one because I was so stricken at the time.
Dargor
Member
Hey, may I ask what program you used to take that screenshot? It looks so clean/crisp.
Yea, the wording of the last paragraph of the analysis reeks of the reviewers personal preference for 30fps lock>1080p minor drops.
Why does he even suggest one should opt for the XB1 version, isn't that assuming the readers have both an XB1 and PS4?
That part was completely necessary.
shikamaroooo
Member
Ten hours in on PS4 and like op states just experienced minor dips. Hats of to bioware, haven't experienced any bugs or glitches either.
Its not the tech analysis itself that is put to the task, but the interpretation. Also ... What are my claims exactly here, according to you?
I just used the in-game screenshot function, but it's scaled down from 1080p to keep the file size down a little bit.
Vire
Member
That looks nice enough, is this the PC version? It seems like there's just a large level of inconsistency between the environments themselves because I downloaded the Gamersyde footage of the console versions and I was rather underwhelmed. I find the whole thing a bit strange since I think Mass Effect 3 looked pretty visually impressive for the time, but this just doesn't look all that different to me than the 360 games Bioware put out. I guess that's somewhat to be expected being cross gen and all, but still...
I thought the same thing viewing prerelease material but, maxed out on my PC, it's stunning.
YouTube videos really don't do this game justice. There's a crazy amount of little details that make the world feel super vivid. The game is stunning, but it weirdly doesn't come across that well in trailers.
Maybe it's because the character models are still bad (and awful, awful hair) but everything else is amazing.
Yes, it is the PC version with most things on high or ultra.
Depends on how exactly the implementation juggles frames, but yes, you certainly can trade the two off ("soft vsync" often experiences some stuttering if it's failing to meet its target in a sustained way, if the implementation decides to stop the tearing as it drops toward the middle of the frame). Replace "stuttering" with "tearing" in my post and you have a similar point, though.
Triple-buffering is exactly the situation my description refers to. Relative to double-buffered vsync it allows more continuous adjustments in framerate in a time-averaged-over-several-frames sense, but it manages it by allowing individual frame times to flop about all over the place. A triple-buffered game running at 29fps and sending video to a 60Hz screen is going to be stuttery.
I wasn't that impressed at first. But I found myself thinking the game looks quite gorgeous. Depends on the location. The lighting is sometimes fantastic, and the world can be very pretty. Just depends.
I think this is a game that kind of looks better if you step back and look at it from a distance. But if you look at it up close, you will start to see the flaws (such as the hair, or certain textures). The game does look noticeably worse on X1 (from what I played on the trial version). Looks muddy and blurry around the edges, with jaggies.
So I dunno. I'm mixed on it. I think for the type of game it is (the whole third person, Origin style game), I think it's really great. It's a very optimized and well performing game for this genre (and given it's size and scope of the world) I am impressed. I also consider that it's a cross gen port.
Precisely.
Omegabalmung9
Member
Pretty much my own conclusion. The jitter can be annoying, but they are so quick and not constant that it makes it not an issue. And I have played this on both my X1 and PS4, and again, I could tell the X1 had jagged edges and blurry/muddy edges. It was noticeable on my TV (well, just my opinion). That said, game is amazing and if you did play it on X1 (or if you think it's the better version for you), then you get locked 30 FPS basically. That's awesome. You can't lose either way.
I think the game has really nice lighting and particle effects. I have never been a fan of bioware though. Still trying to warm up to this game...
Vire
Member
The game seems to fair a lot better when you hide the horrendous low poly character models.
backbreaker65
Banned
Digital Foundry should just post disclaimers about their testing:
NOTICE, WE ARE GUESSING AND OUR OPINION IS JUST OUR OPINION. WE DON'T HAVE ACCESS TO CODE SO TAKE THIS WITH A GRAIN OF SALT. ANY CONCLUSIONS DRAWN WERE DIRECTLY FROM OUR ANUS.
NOTICE, WE ARE GUESSING AND OUR OPINION IS JUST OUR OPINION. WE DON'T HAVE ACCESS TO CODE SO TAKE THIS WITH A GRAIN OF SALT. ANY CONCLUSIONS DRAWN WERE DIRECTLY FROM OUR ANUS.
I suppose. I mean, the hair looks dreadful. And yeah, the characters don't look so hot at times. But I still think (again) this is a game that looks pretty gorgeous when you step back and look at it from a distance (like the world itself, and the lighting). Walking around the world is really pretty.
Tidus_Great
Banned
pretty much DF has been a pro xbox site ever since i saw their assassinscreed 1 comparison vid.
ps4 version is obviously better but they play up some minor drops to make it seem like there is some tradeoff when in reality the ps4 version is better. 1080p better everything at 99% of the time. occassional drop in FPS is in no way as important as the better resolution and effects.