Support NeoGAF

[dark10x]

Onanie, as far as I can tell you are annoyed by the fact that the article doesn't give the PS4 version a more hearty recommendation, right? Look, I wrote the article and spent days playing these games and my opinion, as is presented in the piece, is that neither console version is very good particularly when it comes to performance. I would not recommend either one under normal circumstances. *IF* I was forced to make a choice, however, it would be the PS4 version. THAT is why the text is phrased that way. There's no inconsistencies here. I wish I could give the PS4 version a ringing endorsement but it doesn't deserve it.

It's akin to something like Far Cry 3 - the game runs very poorly on 360 and PS3 to the point where it almost doesn't matter which one is superior. They're not really playable at all. You could still point to one or the other as the "better" version but that doesn't mean that should come with a ringing endorsement.

If you have any other questions, ask away.

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;

I actually feel that Dead Rising 3 runs smoother than LOTF. DR3 can certainly slow down pretty badly but it occurs in isolated instances and doesn't involve screen tearing. LOTF may not fall as low but it's almost never smooth. There is nearly always minor inconsistencies followed by tearing in more severe areas. The whole game feels jittery and sluggish. DR3 is definitely more consistent on average.

 

[charsace]

Truly the most disappointing generation for console hardware.

 

[thelastword]

Persons are taking jabs and calling persons fanboys now.....can't believe.

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.

I will let you know that launch products are not the only products that have tight deadlines. How do you know that Deck13 didn't have a tighter deadline than the DR3 devs? Giving a developer a bye because it's a launch product is a slap to the face of the developer who produces a 1080p 60fps game at launch.

 

[Parsnip]

Are all digital foundry threads like this?
I love all these bitter tears, so delicious.




You know, I really dislike the the "dirt on a lens" effect almost as much as I dislike chromatic aberration. But at least dirty lenses don't make my eyes water.

 

[pixlexic]

Truly the most disappointing generation for console hardware.

I don't get this. hardware can always be better or worse. Its really down to how the devs use it and what their priorities are.

Like how do you know we wouldn't have got a slightly prettier game with the same issues on better hardware?

 

[onanie]

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.

Not sure what point you're trying to make here. Inconsistencies are inherent where multiple parties are involved, but an editorship will ensure consistency, particularly where technical matters are concerned - which is what DF is trying to sell itself as.

 

[Zarx]

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.

DF present technical reviews of games, always have. Certainly the writer of the article can have a effect on how that information is interpreted and presented. People value different elements differently, and it's totally a subjective topic. Some people value a framerate/resolution higher than others, some are bothered by effects like CA where others aren't, some people can't stand tearing where others might not be bothered by it etc. DF also present the raw data (screenshots, performance analysis, gameplay video etc) along with the flavor text tho, so you can come to your own subjective conclusion.

 

[charsace]

I don't get this. hardware can always be better or worse. Its really down to how the devs use it and what their priorities are.

Like how do you know we wouldn't have got a slightly prettier game with the same issues on better hardware?

The consoles are weak and are already struggling to keep up with PC's that can run next gen games with a mixture of medium and high settings at 60fps. And we are just hitting the first year mark. This isn't just a case of a few bad ports. A lot of the multiplat games just look straight up better on PC.

And I can't think of a console generation where there were a bunch of laptop gpu's that matched are surpassed consoles in performance besides this one. Last gen it took nearly 3 years for laptop gpu's to surpass consoles. You had a whole bunch of them this time around and not even a year later you have laptops that complete stomp the current gen consoles.

The console hardware this generation is weak. All the companies made sure to sell at a profit right off the bat and when you combine that with manufacturing problems you have consoles that weren't near the high end of PC at launch. And it is easy to see this because none of the hardware is unique this time around.

 

[pixlexic]

The consoles are weak and are already struggling to keep up with PC's that can run next gen games with a mixture of medium and high settings at 60fps. And we are just hitting the first year mark. This isn't just a case of a few bad ports. A lot of the multiplat games just look straight up better on PC.

And I can't think of a console generation where there were a bunch of laptop gpu's that matched are surpassed consoles in performance besides this one. Last gen it took nearly 3 years for laptop gpu's to surpass consoles. You had a whole bunch of them this time around and not even a year later you have laptops that complete stomp the current gen consoles.

The console hardware this generation is weak. All the companies made sure to sell at a profit right off the bat and when you combine that with manufacturing problems you have consoles that weren't near the high end of PC at launch. And it is easy to see this because none of the hardware is unique this time around.

But even with better hardware all devs are not going to go... " yup that was exactly enough power to create my vision". Some would still push them beyond what they can do and you would get the same result as this game in the end.

 

[onanie]

Onanie, as far as I can tell you are annoyed by the fact that the article doesn't give the PS4 version a more hearty recommendation, right? Look, I wrote the article and spent days playing these games and my opinion, as is presented in the piece, is that neither console version is very good particularly when it comes to performance. I would not recommend either one under normal circumstances. *IF* I was forced to make a choice, however, it would be the PS4 version. THAT is why the text is phrased that way. There's no inconsistencies here. I wish I could give the PS4 version a ringing endorsement but it doesn't deserve it.

John, when you use language like "visual quality of the two console versions appears extremely similar" despite the real differences, it is difficult to find the reason for your reluctance to recommend the PS4 version to be unambiguous for either

1. i don't think you'll notice the difference between the two, like your earlier language suggests, or

2. both version are crap anyway, so you shouldn't buy either.

 

[Kazuma Kiryu]

The consoles are weak and are already struggling to keep up with PC's that can run next gen games with a mixture of medium and high settings at 60fps. And we are just hitting the first year mark. This isn't just a case of a few bad ports. A lot of the multiplat games just look straight up better on PC.

And I can't think of a console generation where there were a bunch of laptop gpu's that matched are surpassed consoles in performance besides this one. Last gen it took nearly 3 years for laptop gpu's to surpass consoles. You had a whole bunch of them this time around and not even a year later you have laptops that complete stomp the current gen consoles.

The console hardware this generation is weak. All the companies made sure to sell at a profit right off the bat and when you combine that with manufacturing problems you have consoles that weren't near the high end of PC at launch. And it is easy to see this because none of the hardware is unique this time around.

God, this past year has been so annoying with these power arguments. When did games NOT look better on PC?

 

[JaseC]

I will let you know that launch products are not the only products that have tight deadlines. How do you know that Deck13 didn't have a tighter deadline than the DR3 devs? Giving a developer a bye because it's a launch product is a slap to the face of the developer who produces a 1080p 60fps game at launch.

We don't know and Digital Foundry doesn't know, which is why it isn't factored into the equation.

Not sure what point you're trying to make here. Inconsistencies are inherent where multiple parties are involved, but an editorship will ensure consistency, particularly where technical matters are concerned - which is what DF is trying to sell itself as.

Inconsistencies aren't necessarily inherent, just more likely to arise. But moving past that, my point is quite simple: the conclusion of the Lords of the Fallen face-off is not logically inconsistent with that of the Dead Rising 3 face-off because the situations are different.

 

[Kezen]

God, this past year has been so annoying with these power arguments. When did games NOT look better on PC?

What has changed is the level of hardware you need to match or exceed consoles. Compare that with 2005-2006....

Totally different situation now.

 

[dark10x]

John, when you use language like "visual quality of the two console versions appears extremely similar" despite the real differences, it is difficult to find the reason for your reluctance to recommend the PS4 version to be unambiguous for either

1. i don't think you'll notice the difference between the two, like your earlier language suggests, or

2. both version are crap anyway, so you shouldn't buy either.

They do appear very similar during gameplay but, if you look closer, you will spot differences. Those differences don't always manifest in a significant fashion unless you're looking closely.

Those differences amount to almost nothing next to the performance issues, however.

 

[thelastword]

Onanie, as far as I can tell you are annoyed by the fact that the article doesn't give the PS4 version a more hearty recommendation, right? Look, I wrote the article and spent days playing these games and my opinion, as is presented in the piece, is that neither console version is very good particularly when it comes to performance. I would not recommend either one under normal circumstances. *IF* I was forced to make a choice, however, it would be the PS4 version. THAT is why the text is phrased that way. There's no inconsistencies here. I wish I could give the PS4 version a ringing endorsement but it doesn't deserve it.

So your opinion in a tech article, should be taken over the opinion of the frame reader, the resolution reader and the effects reader? People don't go to tech articles for your opinions, they come for the facts. The sooner DF understands that, then these articles will become more worthwhile.

I actually feel that Dead Rising 3 runs smoother than LOTF. DR3 can certainly slow down pretty badly but it occurs in isolated instances and doesn't involve screen tearing. LOTF may not fall as low but it's almost never smooth. There is nearly always minor inconsistencies followed by tearing in more severe areas. The whole game feels jittery and sluggish. DR3 is definitely more consistent on average.

You feel? So this is what technical articles have become? Can you provide proof that DR3 runs at a higher average fps than LOTF? So many byes given to a 720p game with cannon fodder Ai, disgusting textures, which runs into the teens so many times, as far as 14fps on numerous occasions, but it feels smoother to you?

As far as LOTF, the lowest I saw on the PS4 was 17fps when a huge boss appeared and caused a huge explosion, of course running in 1080p with a lighting engine and textures DR3 could never muster. Man, DF is really all about the opinions these days huh!

 

[Horse Armour]

I wonder how much Digitalfoundry has affected sales. This just isn't fair to Sony. Maybe they'd be at 15 million shipped right now instead of 12.5 million.

 

[rambis]

The consoles are weak and are already struggling to keep up with PC's that can run next gen games with a mixture of medium and high settings at 60fps. And we are just hitting the first year mark. This isn't just a case of a few bad ports. A lot of the multiplat games just look straight up better on PC.

And I can't think of a console generation where there were a bunch of laptop gpu's that matched are surpassed consoles in performance besides this one. Last gen it took nearly 3 years for laptop gpu's to surpass consoles. You had a whole bunch of them this time around and not even a year later you have laptops that complete stomp the current gen consoles.

The console hardware this generation is weak. All the companies made sure to sell at a profit right off the bat and when you combine that with manufacturing problems you have consoles that weren't near the high end of PC at launch. And it is easy to see this because none of the hardware is unique this time around.

I don't agree with this much at all.

PCs have always had the advantage over consoles. You're not really making fair comparisons. The only thing that has happened is that AMD/Nvidia have all but blown away TDP limits and ship crazily powerful and power hungry GPUs. You have never and will never get mass produced consoles in the same vein.

That being said, this seems like a terribly shoddy port. Far from the best looking title on either platform, really no excuse for the way its running.

 

[clutch.as.it.gets.]

Why the hell are the devs trying to make their games as blurry as it gets?!

At first they inroduced post process aa, and almost all solutions (they are all cheap) are having a big impact on the sharpness of the picture. And now they even try to simulate chromatic aberration on top of that.

It's ridiculous.

Alien Isolation has it too, and is the reason the game looks so soft despite being a 1080p game. I have no idea why these guys dont see that this stuff is doing more harm than good. Its crazy. All it does is to make the IQ significantly blurrier.

 

[charsace]

I don't agree with this much at all.

PCs have always had the advantage over consoles. You're not really making fair comparisons. The only thing that has happened is that AMD/Nvidia have all but blown away TDP limits and ship crazily powerful and power hungry GPUs. You have never and will never get mass produced consoles in the same vein.

That being said, this seems like a terribly shoddy port. Far from the best looking title on either platform, really no excuse for the way its running.

No, it hasn't always been this way. This is the first generation where at launch the hardware isn't unique and/or doesn't keep up with the high end of PC.

 

[dark10x]

So your opinion in a tech article, should be taken over the opinion of the frame reader, the resolution reader and the effects reader? People don't go to tech articles for your opinions, they come for the facts. The sooner DF understands that, then these articles will become more worthwhile.

The verdict is the point where opinion is stated while the rest of the article contains the findings. It's really that simple. The info is there for you to look at and judge and an opinion is presented at the end.

You feel? So this is what technical articles have become? Can you provide proof that DR3 runs at a higher average fps than LOTF? So many byes given to a 720p game with cannon fodder Ai, disgusting textures, which runs into the teens so many times, as far as 14fps on numerous occasions, but it feels smoother to you?

This is all just my opinion, by the way, totally separate from anything related to that DR3 coverage.

Frame-rate inconsistencies are extremely clear to me. Dead Rising 3, in general, holds a stable 30 fps. There are specific scenarios where it can and will dip but it's typically relegated to specific situations. When it does drop frames it does not tear either. It's not great performance but it's preferable to LOTF.

Lords of the Fallen very rarely manages to HOLD a consistent 30 fps for any meaningful length of time. It's not just that there are moments when it dips, rather, that it dips at almost all times during any combat scenario and even in situations without any enemies on screen at all. On top of that there is screen tearing which only serves to exacerbate the situation.

Even if LOTF averages higher than DR3 its frame delivery is far less consistent. DR3 is all about concentrated areas where the performance dips while LOTF dips and tears throughout gameplay in nearly all circumstances. It feels worse as a result.

 

[Seanspeed]

So your opinion in a tech article, should be taken over the opinion of the frame reader, the resolution reader and the effects reader? People don't go to tech articles for your opinions, they come for the facts. The sooner DF understands that, then these articles will become more worthwhile.


You feel? So this is what technical articles have become? Can you provide proof that DR3 runs at a higher average fps than LOTF? So many byes given to a 720p game with cannon fodder Ai, disgusting textures, which runs into the teens so many times, as far as 14fps on numerous occasions, but it feels smoother to you?

As far as LOTF, the lowest I saw on the PS4 was 17fps when a huge boss appeared and caused a huge explosion, of course running in 1080p with a lighting engine and textures DR3 could never muster. Man, DF is really all about the opinions these days huh!

I care about hearing opinions. Numbers aren't always everything. Trick is to understand its just an opinion, and isn't 100% guaranteed to match yours, so consider it and move on. Or ignore it, if you really aren't concerned with it.

And I dont think you realize how much of an ass you are coming across, trying to tell a writer for the site that he is unwelcome in providing personal opinion. Start speaking for yourself instead of acting like its what everybody wants or that the site is somehow better off following what you want it to be.

 

[Tidus_Great]

all that matters is ps4 versions continue to be better. xbox one will never have a better version hopefully.

 

[onanie]

Inconsistencies aren't necessarily inherent, just more likely to arise. But moving past that, my point is quite simple: the conclusion of the Lords of the Fallen face-off is not logically inconsistent with that of the Dead Rising 3 face-off because the situations are different.

It is technically inconsistent, given the similarities in poor performances. Why should a technical site call one finished game "intriguing", while the other "rather difficult to give a solid recommendation" just because one is a launch game?

 

[dark10x]

It is technically inconsistent, given the similarities in poor performances. Why should a technical site call one finished game "intriguing", while the other "rather difficult to give a solid recommendation" just because one is a launch game?

I'm not even sure what kind of an answer you're digging for.

Dead Rising 3 is a more ambitious game with a more stable frame-rate and no tearing that was, until recently, only available on one platform. Lords of the Fallen is available on three platforms but runs less consistently on both of them than DR3 did on Xbox One and suffers from loads of tearing. More importantly, a superior PC version is available right out of the gate. Lords is also a much more narrow game with a focus on fairly small maps and tight combat.

 

[thelastword]

We don't know and Digital Foundry doesn't know, which is why it isn't factored into the equation.

So if it's not in a digital foundry article it doesn't exist? I guess the same way that AO did not exist in the PS4 version of Rivals?

The point is, we could have surmised just as much as DF regarding launch titles, it is generally agreed on that most launch titles are rushed and don't make use of the hardware. What they said about DR3 was speculation just as we could speculate, or else they would have said that DR3 was only in development for 2 months or whatever.

Despite that, if you have a piece of software on shelves and selling it at $60.00, I could careless if you only developed it for one day, it should be judged and put to the sword like any other titles. Do not sugarcoat for one title for limited development time and come as the reaper of souls for another title.

 

[onanie]

I'm not even sure what kind of an answer you're digging for.

Dead Rising 3 is a more ambitious game with a more stable frame-rate and no tearing that was, until recently, only available on one platform. Lords of the Fallen is available on three platforms but runs less consistently on both of them than DR3 did on Xbox One and suffers from loads of tearing. More importantly, a superior PC version is available right out of the gate. Lords is also a much more narrow game with a focus on fairly small maps and tight combat.

Ambition does not suddenly make an unplayable game more playable.

"The statement from the team is that a locked 30fps is targeted here, but in the build we saw there's a huge gap to be bridged in this regard; drops to 20fps are consistent and sustained when outdoors, with 16fps being our record low during some of the biggest explosions"

 

[dark10x]

Ambition does not suddenly make an unplayable game more playable.

"The statement from the team is that a locked 30fps is targeted here, but in the build we saw there's a huge gap to be bridged in this regard; drops to 20fps are consistent and sustained when outdoors, with 16fps being our record low during some of the biggest explosions"

I tested the game on XO quite a bit while covering the PC version and in its current state it holds 30 fps outdoors pretty well (at least during the first few hours). It's much more stable than Lords of the Fallen.

You have to remember that DR3 evolved rapidly and was in really bad shape right up until launch. The version shown just a couple months before launch ran horribly and with constant screen tearing. I'm not sure how it ran on day 1 as I didn't cover it then or play it right out of the gate but the performance isn't that bad most of the time.

Have you played either of these games yet? I think you'd immediately agree with me if you had. Lords of the Fallen runs at sub-30 fps right out of the gate with lots of tearing even when facing one single enemy or running around an empty room. Go play it and get back to me. Unless you have an unusually high tolerance for bad performance I don't think you'll find it pleasing.

 

[onanie]

I'm not sure how it ran on day 1 as I didn't cover it then or play it right out of the gate but the performance isn't that bad most of the time.

But it was at the time of the review, and it was "intriguing". I am merely questioning if there is editorial consistency within DF.

 

[JaseC]

It is technically inconsistent, given the similarities in poor performances. Why should a technical site call one finished game "intriguing", while the other "rather difficult to give a solid recommendation" just because one is a launch game?

You're conveniently ignoring the fact that the game improved noticeably in the space of a few months. That's why it was labelled an "intriguing first effort" -- because of what the developers managed to accomplish within a tight schedule and what this suggests about their technical programming prowess. With Lords of the Fallen, however, there's no basis for comparison because there is no analysis of an earlier build... plus it's multiplatform, whereas DR3 was, at the time, exclusive to the X1.

 

[Kezen]

xbox one will never have a better version hopefully.

Why "hopefully" ?

The only thing that has happened is that AMD/Nvidia have all but blown away TDP limits and ship crazily powerful and power hungry GPUs

Nvidia kept TPD in check. 250w is the maximum, the new 970/980 are 148/165 watts GPUs.

 

[onanie]

You're conveniently ignoring the fact that the game improved noticeably in the space of a few months. That's why it was labelled an "intriguing first effort" -- because of what the developers managed to accomplish within a tight schedule and what this suggests about their technical programming prowess. With Lords of the Fallen, however, there's no basis for comparison because there is no analysis of an earlier build... plus it's multiplatform, whereas DR3 was, at the time, exclusive to the X1.

I'm not ignoring it. It is more intriguing to me that a technical site would give concessions to a game for the fact that it has had less time for development - poor game.

 

[JaseC]

I'm not ignoring it. It is more intriguing to me that a technical site would give concessions to a game for the fact that it has had less time for development - poor game.

You're ignoring it in this very post. You're getting hung up on on the game being awarded a modicum of leeway because of its launch title status when in truth that's only because it improved noticeably within a relatively short amount of time.

 

[GHG]

Why "hopefully" ?


Nvidia kept TPD in check. 250w is the maximum, the new 970/980 are 148/165 watts GPUs.

I guess because it will mean the developers are clearly underutilising the PS4.

 

[thelastword]

Frame-rate inconsistencies are extremely clear to me. Dead Rising 3, in general, holds a stable 30 fps. There are specific scenarios where it can and will dip but it's typically relegated to specific situations. When it does drop frames it does not tear either. It's not great performance but it's preferable to LOTF.

Aren't there always zombies on screen? What else do you do in a dead rising game apart from mowing them down or blowing them to smithereens? You speak of specific situations but even in the Df video this game is predominantly below 30. Funny this is the same Df that will complain that Tlou falls below 60fps 1% of the time in the halo article and will sugarcoat a 720p 20 fps average DR3 on a second gen HD console. It is these inconsistences that needs to be addressed.

Lords of the Fallen very rarely manages to HOLD a consistent 30 fps for any meaningful length of time. It's not just that there are moments when it dips, rather, that it dips at almost all times during any combat scenario and even in situations without any enemies on screen at all. On top of that there is screen tearing which only serves to exacerbate the situation.

It's a sub 30fps game just like DR3, however according to your own video, it never falls as low as 14fps like DR3. I can assure you, that if this game was 720p with average textures and lighting like DR3 it would be closer to 60fps. It's 1080p, runs an average of 25fps, has better lighting, better textures, better effects and somehow all that accounts to nothing besides DR3. I don't even know where we go from here.

I look at the evidence and judge for myself, there's no way a 20fps DR3 is smoother than a 20fps lotf, considering that lotf is a slower paced game than DR3.

 

[VFX_Veteran]

I think this gen consoles are only going to shine with first party exclusives, when they can focus on a single platfrom and squeeze everything out of it.
But with multiplats, it's much to better go with PC version.

I don't even think that. We got Ryse (which was an exclusive) and the PC version destroys it at 60FPS with better visuals and at higher resolution.

Then you got KZ:SF and Infamous:SS -- both games have great graphics but still don't quite stand up to the PC games in both performance and resolution.

 

[onanie]

You're ignoring it in this very post. You're getting hung up on on the game being awarded a modicum of leeway because of its launch title status when in truth that's only because it improved noticeably within a relatively short amount of time.

I think you substituted "a respectable step forward" with "improved noticeably". Nevertheless, it is not intriguing that anyone could improve a game within months, let alone to a state that was described in the same article.

DF's "intrigue" was more attributed to "the unique circumstances of meeting a hardware launch".

 

[Percy]

It's not a very good game to begin with, but the console versions sound like complete ass.

Not sure why they'd feel 'hard pressed' to say which console version is "better" in the concluding paragraph after an entire article of making it clear which one was better. DF never used to be so coy about this.

 

[Stallion Free]

Damn, the PC gap is widening.

 

[VibratingDonkey]

Chromatic aberration is the worst visual effect that has ever existed in video games. Displaces and distorts the image in a way similar to that old green-magenta 3D. It looks like shit and can make you feel like shit. It may have its use cases, but in 90% of the cases where it's used, it shouldn't be.

Thankfully, the effect can be disabled on PC, but at the moment this requires users to disable post-processing effects across the board, eliminating other, more desirable effects in the process, including anti-aliasing. It's a shame the developers didn't provide an option to specifically disable chromatic aberration and leave the rest. Bearing in mind how much the game has changed via two patches since launch, hopefully they will consider adding this feature.

....why?
If I ever buy this game it'll be after this potential patch.

 

[Aaron]

Damn, the PC gap is widening.

Considering the PC version can't run without crashing for most people with Nvidia cards at least the console versions mostly work.

 

[JaseC]

I think you substituted "a respectable step forward" with "improved noticeably".

Well, yeah, because a "respectable step forward" can't be claimed without the difference being noticeable, can it? I'd recommend you cease arguing for the sake of arguing as you're beginning to make little sense.

Nevertheless, it is not intriguing that anyone could improve a game within months, let alone to a state that was described in the same article.

DF's "intrigue" was more attributed to "the unique circumstances of meeting a hardware launch".

The intrigue quote is preceded with "All of this". All of this. You can't ascribe weight to one arbitrarily just because it supports your argument. Plus you've divorced "the unique circumstances of meeting a hardware launch" from its context of referring to the game's sloppy technological make-up.

 

[onanie]

That line is in specifically in reference to how sloppy the game is technologically:

My point stands, why would anyone, let alone DF, find it intriguing that a game improves after a few months?

 

[omonimo]

I don't even think that. We got Ryse (which was an exclusive) and the PC version destroys it at 60FPS with better visuals and at higher resolution.

Then you got KZ:SF and Infamous:SS -- both games have great graphics but still don't quite stand up to the PC games in both performance and resolution.

He didn't said first parties will overtake the tech in the pc platform, he said the graphic will shine more in the console exclusives. KZ and SS proved it quite enough. Of course a 399 machine can't beat an optimal pc, the power differences it's enormous.

Damn, the PC gap is widening.

Game seems bad optimized stop to troll, please.

 

[JaseC]

My point stands, why would anyone, let alone DF, find it intriguing that a game improves after a few months?

We've been through this already.

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.

 

[onanie]

We've been through this already.

I agree, we've been through this already. It should not be intriguing that a game simply improved given a few months. Either way, it would be laughable that DF was "intrigued" by this, or the fact that it was a launch game, and not call it "difficult to recommend" because of serious performance issues, like it always does right?

 

[Wallach]

Hmmmm. Are you sure? I've probably read every Digital Foundry article ever written, own all consoles and suss out bullshit for a living. I'd say they did and still have a Microsoft bias. They're doing their best to hide it these days, but it's still there.

I'd love to know the circumstances which led to Digital Foundry's formation. The REAL circumstances. Wouldn't surprise me one bit if it was a Leadbetter/Microsoft co-production to combat the PS3.

If you suss out bullshit for a living someone deserves their money back.

 

[AmFreak]

He didn't said first parties will overtake the tech in the pc platform, he said the graphic will shine more in the console exclusives. KZ and SS proved it quite enough. Of course a 399 machine can't beat an optimal pc, the power differences it's enormous.

Sad thing is it can't even beat the 399€ pc.

 

[JaseC]

I agree, we've been through this already. It should not be intriguing that a game simply improved given a few months. Either way, it would be laughable that DF was "intrigued" by this, or the fact that it was a launch game, and not call it "difficult to recommend" because of serious performance issues, like it always does right?

Dead Rising 3 was an exclusive at the time it was analysed. DF wasn't hard-pressed to recommend it largely because there was no other version to recommend.

 

[onanie]

Dead Rising 3 was an exclusive at the time it was analysed. DF wasn't hard-pressed to recommend it because there was no other version to recommend.

They could simply have said that the game was not recommendable. Just like John here has been free to say about both console versions.

 

[JaseC]

They could simply have said that the game is not recommended.

And that wouldn't have made any sense as there was no other way to play the game.

Just like John here has been free to say about both console versions.

And the reason he said that is because there's a PC version that even on modest hardware performs better than the both console versions.