Support NeoGAF

[onanie]

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

Ethically speaking, you shouldn't recommend a game that has serious performance issues even if there are no alternative ways to play it.

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.

Oh you mean John? Didn't stop DF in the past from declaring "there's a clear winner in Microsoft's platform", even in the presence of a superior PC version. Where is the consistency?

 

[Wallach]

Ethically speaking, you shouldn't recommend a game that has serious performance issues even if there are no alternative ways to play it.

A PC version was not known at the time of the review.

It's about ethics in games journalism.

He's talking about LotF's PC version obviously. Stop shitting up the thread.

 

[justsomeguy]

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!

if df articles upset you so much, why don't you stop reading them? Go and have fun gaming or something. DF articles aren't written to your personal spec, it might remove some stress from your life if you accept that.

 

[JaseC]

Ethically speaking, you shouldn't recommend a game that has serious performance issues even if there are no alternative ways to play it.

It wasn't recommended. The concluding paragraph opens with "It's also unfortunate that the game runs at far from the promised locked 30fps - rather a chugging 20fps during the zombie action while out in the big city."

Oh you mean John?

I am referring to the opinion expressed in the article by its author John Linneman that neither console version comes solidly recommended, yes.

Didn't stop DF in the past from declaring "there's a clear winner in Microsoft's platform", even in the presence of a superior PC version. Where is the consistency?

Where's the controversy? If "there's a clear winner in Microsoft's platform", then obviously both console versions aren't deeply flawed as is apparently the case with Lords of the Fallen.

 

[onanie]

It wasn't recommended. The concluding paragraph opens with "It's also unfortunate that the game runs at far from the promised locked 30fps - rather a chugging 20fps during the zombie action while out in the big city."

It wasn't actively discouraged either. It was an "intriguing attempt". He didn't find it "difficult to recommend". He wasn't hard pressed about it either.

Where's the controversy? If "there's a clear winner in Microsoft's platform", then obviously both console versions aren't deeply flawed as is apparently the case with Lords of the Fallen.

None. Your most recent argument was "the reason he said that is because there's a PC version that even on modest hardware performs better than the both console versions". Clearly that didn't stop past authors from still making a clear distinction between the console versions. Are you back tracking from that now?

 

[JaseC]

It wasn't actively discouraged either. It was an "intriguing attempt". He didn't find it "difficult to recommend". He wasn't hard pressed about it either.

You're grasping at straws. The games flaws are clearly mentioned and explained. There's little sense in warning people away from a game when you can't lead them elsewhere. That's why recommendations are limited to multiplatform titles; with exclusives, since there are no other alternative options, it's better to let the readers decide for themselves. Not everybody finds 25fps and tearing to be game-breaking.

None. Your most recent argument was "the reason he said that is because there's a PC version that even on modest hardware performs better than the both console versions". Clearly that didn't stop past authors from still making a clear distinction between the console versions. Are you back tracking from that now?

Context matters. The PC version came recommended due it not being demanding and because both console versions run particularly poorly.

 

[onanie]

You're grasping at straws. The games flaws are clearly mentioned and explained. There's little sense in warning people away from a game when you can't lead them elsewhere. That's why recommendations are limited to multiplatform titles; with exclusives, since there are no other alternative options, it's better to let the readers decide for themselves. Not everybody finds 25fps and tearing to be game-breaking.

Why wouldn't you warn people away from broken games? I don't even understand why people need to be lead elsewhere. Are they sheep? Did people die and become zombies if they didn't play Dead Rising 3?

 

[KKRT00]

Why wouldn't you warn people away from broken games? I don't even understand why people need to be lead elsewhere. Are they sheep? Did people die and become zombies if they didn't play Dead Rising 3?

So should Digital Foundry warn people away from The Last of Us on PS3 too? It has severe framerates problems.

 

[onanie]

So should Digital Foundry warn people away from The Last of Us on PS3 too? It has severe framerate problems.

Well, here comes the conundrum, dear KKRT00. They didn't warn people off Dead Rising 3, so why should they to TLOU?

And if they're not in the business of warning people off games, why is John here warning people off the console versions of LOTF, rather than let console gamers decide, as Jasec suggested.

 

[KKRT00]

Well, here comes the conundrum, dear KKRT00. They didn't warn people off Dead Rising 3, so why should they to TLOU?

And if they're not in the business of warning people off games, why is John here warning people off the console versions of LOTF, rather than let console gamers decide, as Jasec suggested.

I didnt ask if they did, i asked You if they should?
Because it seems, that You have the biggest problem their current way of expressing tech opinion.

 

[onanie]

I didnt ask if they did, i'm asking You if they should?
Because it seems, that You have the biggest problem their current way of expressing tech opinion.

I do, because they appear inconsistent. If they warned people off DR3, then they should definitely warn people of TLOU.

 

[JaseC]

Why wouldn't you warn people away from broken games?

The answer to this is in the very post you quoted.

I don't even understand why people need to be lead elsewhere. Are they sheep? Did people die and become zombies if they didn't play Dead Rising 3?

If you don't understand why Digital Foundry should recommend one version of the game over another, then, well, I don't know why you care so much about this particular face-off.

And if they're not in the business of warning people off games, why is John here warning people off the console versions of LOTF, rather than let console gamers decide, as Jasec suggested.

Warning someone off a game is not the same thing as sizing up the different versions and implicitly ranking them. The article discourages the console versions in favour of the PC version but concedes that the PS4 version is the better of the two.

 

[dark10x]

Well, here comes the conundrum, dear KKRT00. They didn't warn people off Dead Rising 3, so why should they to TLOU?

And if they're not in the business of warning people off games, why is John here warning people off the console versions of LOTF, rather than let console gamers decide, as Jasec suggested.

The data is there for you to decide. My opinion presented at the end simply suggests that neither version is particularly good but the PS4 version is the better of the two. The resolution gap is usually a big deal for me but, in this case, the heavy chromatic aberration actually makes the game look like 720p and 900p respectively. Image quality is poor in both cases.

Since you're so hung up on the word "intriguing" in regards to Dead Rising 3, perhaps you should consider why it was labeled as such. You see, that article was written before XO launched when the resolution gap wasn't yet completely clear. It was during a period of discovery when people were seeing just how the performance gap was manifesting in games. What makes DR3 so intriguing is the fact that it saw such a dramatic change in very little time. When it was shown just two months before releasing it was seemingly running at a higher resolution but at a much MUCH lower frame-rate with terrible screen tearing. It was unplayable at that point. However, by release, the dropped the resolution to 720p and allowed triple buffering to eliminate screen tearing. Despite those worst case scenarios the game actually runs reasonably well for an open world game. It's a fairly steady 30 fps until the action really heats up. During the launch window when people were learning facts about the new systems this was an intriguing game for many of us. Heck, in many ways it's not the game itself so much as the situation around it.

Lords of the Fallen really isn't intriguing in comparison. I mean, it was shown a number of times in the past running pretty much like it does now with obvious screen tearing and lots of performance dips. So it didn't really change dramatically throughout its demonstration period until release. The frame-rate is actually less consistent on average in comparison to DR3 when you get right down to it. Really, the thing that ultimately ruins it for me is the screen tearing. I can't accept screen tearing especially when you're frame-rate is under 30 fps much of the time. It's dreadful. If Dead Rising 3 suffered from this then, yes, I'd probably feel the same way about that too. Mixing sub-30 fps with torn frames pretty much ruins playability for me.

That's really all I have to say about it. I don't know what else to tell you.

 

[onanie]

If you don't understand why Digital Foundry should recommend one version of the game over another, then, well, I don't know why you care so much about this particular face-off.

Why can't you understand that DF can discourage a purchase, without needing to recommend an alternative?

The problem is when a technical site inconsistently chastises one for its shitty performance, but is then "intrigued" by another despite its shitty performance.

Warning someone off a game is not the same thing as sizing up the different versions and implicitly ranking them. The article discourages the console versions in favour of the PC version but concedes that the PS4 version is the better of the two.

What would stop a writer from warning someone off a game, that does not stop him from warning someone off the console version of a game? The guilty feeling of not being able to lead them elsewhere?

The basis for John's reluctance to recommend the PS4 version is his assessment that the console versions are crap. Yet his standards clearly didn't apply to dead rising 3 when it launched. Maybe if Thomas Morgan, who handled DR3, were to analyse LOTF, he wouldn't be so hesitant in recommending one of the console versions?

 

[onanie]

The data is there for you to decide

Why is the data so different to what you're trying to write here?

drops to 20fps are consistent and sustained when outdoors, with 16fps being our record low during some of the biggest explosions... Boss fights and side-missions here tend to be much less of a strain for the hardware, but once again, exiting a building to be met with an undead parade still gives us that unwanted drop to 20fps

 

[JordanN]

Truly the most disappointing generation for console hardware.

Speak for yourself. I wanted a 1080p, DirectX11 level hardware and that's what I got at $399.

I'm glad Sony didn't put out a $800 machine that would bleed them dry again. They can use the profits made from PS4 to make PS5 a stronger console. Better than having $0 capital to work with.

 

[impact]

PC it is, whenever I find it cheap enough. What a poor showing from this developer for the PS4 version especially. Tearing in 2014, really?

 

[dark10x]

Why is the data so different to what you're trying to write here?

Does that mention screen tearing in Dead Rising 3? No? I didn't think so.

 

[onanie]

Does that mention screen tearing in Dead Rising 3? No? I didn't think so.

Hmm, no, but it does mention the consistent and sustained drops to 20fps, with a minimum of 16fps. Does that reflect what you just wrote?

 

[dark10x]

Hmm, no, but it does mention the consistent and sustained drops to 20fps, with a minimum of 16fps. Does that reflect what you just wrote?

That's not what I've experienced within the first four or five hours of the game, to be honest (and who knows, maybe it's been patched since then), but even if it were it would still be preferable to Lords of the Fallen due to lack of screen tearing. If Lords of the Fallen is patched and improved I would be thrilled and hopefully be able to recommend it.

Just say it straight up - do you think I am biased towards Xbox?

 

[onanie]

That's not what I've experienced within the first four or five hours of the game, to be honest (and who knows, maybe it's been patched since then), but even if it were it would still be preferable to Lords of the Fallen due to lack of screen tearing. If Lords of the Fallen is patched and improved I would be thrilled and hopefully be able to recommend it.

Just say it straight up - do you think I am biased towards Xbox?

Well, it's DF's data, and you're arguing against it.

I don't know you well. From our brief interactions, I sense you are a nice person.

 

[dark10x]

Well, it's DF's data, and you're arguing against it.

I don't know you well. From our brief interactions, I sense you are a nice person.

Like I said, I haven't played through the whole game as it's not really my thing. From what I have played, though, it delivered a fairly steady 30 fps with dips. It may get a lot worse. That's entirely possible. I also played it a bit later so they may have patched it to improve performance. Hard to say.

 

[onanie]

Like I said, I haven't played through the whole game as it's not really my thing. From what I have played, though, it delivered a fairly steady 30 fps with dips. It may get a lot worse. That's entirely possible. I also played it a bit later so they may have patched it to improve performance. Hard to say.

Thank you for a nice conversation. I still believe DF as a whole has a tendency to cater towards microsoft's needs. The unfiltered, unanalysed "facts" from microsoft personnel certainly did not help the impression.

 

[Seanspeed]

Thank you for a nice conversation. I still believe DF as a whole has a tendency to cater towards microsoft's needs.

Thank you for finally admitting your agenda with this 'conversation'.

Unfortunately, your arguments for believing this have been piss poor, not that you seem to care. People with agendas usually don't.

 

[onanie]

Thank you for finally admitting your agenda with this 'conversation'.

Unfortunately, your arguments have been piss poor, not that you seem to care.

Well, I don't really care what you think either But, usually saying someone's argument is piss poor is not substitute for actually dismissing it convincingly.

 

[plasmawave]

So should Digital Foundry warn people away from The Last of Us on PS3 too? It has severe framerates problems.

TLOU had framerate problems in specific parts. For the most part it was totally fine.

 

[Seanspeed]

Well, I don't really care what you think either But, usually saying someone's argument is piss poor is not substitute for actually dismissing it convincingly.

Everything you've said has been dismissed convincingly earlier on.

 

[onanie]

Everything you've said has been dismissed convincingly earlier on. No point in continuing to go in circles with a console warrior with an agenda.

If you say so. Thank you for having allowed me to voice my opinions without being judgemental.

 

[KKRT00]

TLOU had framerate problems in specific parts. For the most part it was totally fine.

DF's analysis suggests something different. It drops frames in almost all scenes they recorded.

 

[JaseC]

Why can't you understand that DF can discourage a purchase, without needing to recommend an alternative?

The problem is when a technical site inconsistently chastises one for its shitty performance, but is then "intrigued" by another despite its shitty performance.

It's not an inconsistency for the reasons that have been mentioned already.

What would stop a writer from warning someone off a game, that does not stop him from warning someone off the console version of a game? The guilty feeling of not being able to lead them elsewhere?

In the case of multiplatform titles, Digital Foundry exists to inform users how the different versions of a game compare.

The basis for John's reluctance to recommend the PS4 version is his assessment that the console versions are crap. Yet his standards clearly didn't apply to dead rising 3 when it launched. Maybe if Thomas Morgan, who handled DR3, were to analyse LOTF, he wouldn't be so hesitant in recommending one of the console versions?

Dead Rising 3 wasn't a multiplatform game when it launched and its flaws were clearly laid out. The single positive thing the article says of the game is that the it improved noticeably between builds. Lords of the Fallen isn't afforded the same begrudged olive branch because there was no prior analysis. That's it. There's no conspiracy here.

Everything in this post has been said before, so in the interest of not wasting any more of our time I'd advise we agree to disagree and move on. Circular arguments by their very definition go nowhere.