A few people here, myself included, are wondering why digital foundry was so "hard pressed" to recommend the PS4 when there are objective differences.
Nothing more. Nothing less.
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Digital Foundry Face-Off: Lords of the Fallen
- Thread starter Dombrowski
- Start date
A few people here, myself included, are wondering why digital foundry was so "hard pressed" to recommend the PS4 when there are objective differences.
Nothing more. Nothing less.
Those few people should probably learn to read because the article makes that crystal clear.
It's in the article: because they don't think either version is good enough.
One version is still better. Why were you hard pressed to recommend the PS4 version over the other?
I already told you why; both versions are bad making it difficult to recommend either. That's it.
thelastword
Banned
I have no problem with DF discussing the underlying technology, as a matter of fact, the bit where they compared Fledge to UE4 was on point, as I noticed many similarities myself. Despite that, DF also have a knack of missing on many underlying details and technologies in recent times which I've commented on in prior face-offs, so it's all not gravy there. Their muck-up in rivals and it's HBAO implementation is still embarrassing. So don't assume, I just want a win for PS4.
In the end this is a faceoff, persons want to choose which version is best. Technically the PS4 version is better in all aspects minus tearing. DF even highlighted the difference as being significant in Shadows and Sheen. The lighting pops much better on the PS4 version. My problem is how DF prefaces some of their comparisons in their articles.
Take for e.g.
The visual quality looks extremely similar, yet they go on to detail how un-similar it really is between the two versions. So many contradictions, it's not funny.Eurogamer said:
That rings true moreso for exclusives where they discuss the underlying tech and you marvel at how the devs were able to accomplish this effect or such a smooth framerate on that particular console or the other. Multiplat faceoffs are primarily to show differences between each version, where the user can identify which version is superior. There's some talk about the underlying technology, but it's a means to an end.
You're wrong, the PC version of the game still applies to me as I can purchase it on steam. It's beside the point if I have a 386 or a new gen intel cpu'd machine. On the flipside, I can't play this on PS3/360 because it was not made for these consoles at all. This all runs back to the fact that PC hardware is not fixed, so it's not an automatic decider.Nooblet said:
A concluding statement like that makes them sound equivalent, when they are not.
To use someone else's analogy, even if you are reviewing turd, isn't it your job to candidly point out to someone interested in turd which one is better?
Likewise, if a reader were only interested in the console version of this game, why would you be hard pressed to recommend the PS4 version to him?
Its been explained *several* times.
Take off the console warrior armor and take a minute to read what's being said.
Learn to read! Everything is in the article
If You still dont get it, You should consider getting back to the elementary school.
No? Your job is to tell people not to buy a turd (which the article does), and if they are sure they really want a turd, get the shinier one (which the article also does).
You are being ridiculous.
Portugeezer
Member
I like CA but I agree it's overused in this game.
It would be obvious to everyone else that I have read the poorly written article.
Lets be serious here, this isn't consumer advice. This is plain technical curiosity. The amount of people that actually need to read Digital Foundry articles to decide which version to buy are slim to none. For one, it means a person would own both consoles, and its been well established that PS4 titles are better 99% of the time, so its hardly anything somebody needs to do research to consider. These articles a matter of curiosity and very little else.
Besides, they do say they'd recommend the PS4 if pressed, so there you have the answer if you so desperately need one(and you clearly do for only one conceivable reason and its not consumer advice-related).
EDIT: Although I suppose even people who only own one platform might want to see if it performs badly or not, so I take back that its not really consumer advice. This is irrelevant to what's being discussed here, though.
Problem is you, not the article.
None of us seem to have any problem understand it at all. Its not confusing. I know you're not so dumb that you cant figure it out, you are simply pouting.
thelastword
Banned
How many persons are playing titanfall on PC right now? Also, last gen in the PS3/360 days COD was given the nod on the 360 everytime, are the standards changing?
Read this Janitor, it's the black ops 2 faceoff and it's embarassing.
Read the PC bit and look how they try to downplay that, comparing it to crytek shooters and saying it's not as technically savvy. In that paragraph, what's up-played the most? "The 360 version is an easy recommendation".Eurogamer said:
DF's scope seem to change with each person's interpretation. Durante says they are quite the consumer advocate and therefore can't recommend the PS4 version wholeheartedly. You describe them as a technical curiousity. In which case, they are curiously stating that "the visual quality of the two console versions appears extremely similar", despite phrases such as "Shadow resolution is reduced significantly", "noticeable chunkiness in many scenes" and "leaves certain scenes looking decidedly inferior".
You clearly have a problem reading more than small snippets of what somebody says.
Well, I'd say its more that you're selectively quoting to stubbornly continue this ridiculous argument of yours.
Oh, but I disagree. I've done my bit. Why don't you do yours?
I don't think my wall can take any more hits from my forehead, sorry. I've said pretty much all that can be said. You have your mind made up and no amount of solid reasoning or spelling things out is going to penetrate it. I'm done here.
thekiddfran
Member
Can these issues be fixed with a patch?
martino
Member
You can't reason with love...it"s irrational and shameless
Agenda seems pretty clear here
thelastword
Banned
This is definitely not's df's job, this is the job for reviews. Is the game good or not, is the framerate so abysmal that I can't play, no, that's not the case.
If it is that a bad performing game which LOTF is not is a turd then how comes the last paragraph in the Dead Rising 3 article reads like this;
A game at the time of the faceoff reached almost single digits, was 720p with what they call dumb Ai in the very article and the most crushed black IQ ever seen in a game.Eurogamer said:
Ohh, all this is an intriguing attempt eh! Anyone not seeing through this is either blind or biased themselves.
Once again, its not up to you to tell Digital Foundry what they can and cant talk about.
They were pretty harsh on the game, even in the paragraph you pulled up. Not sure what you're unhappy with there.
And no, we're not blind or biased. Just not so heavily invested in console wars that we conjure up conspiracies and drama everywhere when people don't say things we want to hear.
onanie, I'm done with you. Your post history spells out your raison d'être all too clearly.
Reviews are for evaluating a game as a whole. DF evaluates its technical merits. And they found those lacking in the console versions.
While this is completely OT, did you ever consider that at the time that was written, there was no other, superior version for DF to recommend?
Well, there is one this time. Why isn't one version "intriguing" at least?
We can still question DF's inconsistencies, right?
The Janitor
Member
I'm confused, what did this have to do with my post?
You cant, because You would have read full article first and You've shown countless times in this thread, that You just cant do that.
thelastword
Banned
Yes it can, prior to release the game dev said they would be working on a patch to fix the tearing and other bugs. I imagine it's still work in progress, with this new DF article perhaps it can serve to highlight other areas they need to address. Reducing the blur caused by CA could go a long way, they can remove it altogether or offer a toggle option. They could perhaps reduce on the shadow quality a bit on the PS4 to get them to 30fps locked, amongst other things.
Which includes the technical aspect of a game, it's more important to hear from a reviewer who would play the whole game "as to, whether it's turd or not". I'm sure they would mention something in there if it was nigh unplayable. For the technical differences I'd go to DF, in that light, there's a lot that these guys have done right, (the developer that is), maybe they made some bad decisions as to the effects used and not prioritizing a sharper IQ and a locked framerate, but they did try to push the envelope somewhat.
My point about dead rising is that there are way worse games out there from a technical and performance standpoint, whether it's multi or exclusive. You can't write a love story for one in your conclusion and call the other which performs and looks much better a mess.
There is no inconsistency as Digital Foundry is not a single person.
Lords of the Fallen:
Dead Rising 3:
Edit: Furthermore, DR3 was labelled an "intriguing first effort" because it improved noticeably in the few months between its E3 showing and going gold despite the rushed development schedule that comes with needing to launch alongside a new platform. The implication there is that the minor victory ought to make one wonder what CV could achieve with a less hectic development timetable.
Prove it.
travisbickle
Member
I thought this game suffered from XB1 black crush? from previous pictures I'd seen.
But here it appears as though in some of the still shot comparisons, the PS4 is ever so slightly crushed.
But here it appears as though in some of the still shot comparisons, the PS4 is ever so slightly crushed.
For a technical site, it worries me that you expect them to have inconsistencies.
That's not what he implies at all.
We know you love Sony, but that does not mean you have to try to find "bias" anytime the PS4 isn't praised.
I know you love the xbone, but he implies exactly that when he says the articles were written by two different people.
thelastword
Banned
Oh, Df recommended the PC version did it not. You said everybody should get multi's on PC. First off I gave you a reason why that doesn't make sense in titanfall. Also, why should someone with a pc that can't even play this game at 1080p or equivalent to the ps4 buy it for PC?
I see that df articles are now seen as review articles now. Strange because, it's not about objectivity anymore, it's all about subjectivity. Apparently technical aspects and it's superiority or lack thereof changes based on who writes the articles.....Interesting... This is crazy.
You're in too deep I'm afraid. Others have already tried to make you understand how ludicrous your accusations are, I won't go any further.
The Janitor
Member
I never said "everyone should get multiplats on PC"
Obviously if you have a PC that's weaker than the PS4 it's usually better to go with the PS4 version.
This is the craziest thing I've read on here in awhile.
I think you should take a step back and take a deep breath, mate.
Or maybe you're far too enamored by the folks at DF?
Because they are not as emotionally invested as you. If they have to recommend between the two, based on everything they would recommend PS4. Simple.
Deal with it.
Denton
Member
Just as a sidenote, onanie means "masturbation" in my language (czech).
Seems oddly fitting
Wonder if it's a coincidence.
I don't think your edit applies to my question. The fact that you expect a technical site to be inconsistent (which you explain by virtue of the fact that the articles are written by two different people), is worrying.
I'm sure you're quite the man, since all you've done is ad hominem attacks.
Saying that an inconsistency can't exist because of the presence of multiple parties is not the same as saying that inconsistency is inherent in scenarios where there are multiple parties. I edited my post to explain the contextualisation of the conclusion that DR3 is "an intriguing first effort" to make it clear that I was not implying an inconsistency existed.