It's ridiculous to blame DF. They just post the facts. It's idiotic fans that start shit.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
[Digital Foundry] LEGO City Undercover : PS4 vs Switch vs Xbox One
- Thread starter LordKano
- Start date
It's ridiculous to blame DF. They just post the facts. It's idiotic fans that start shit.
Yep. There are quite a few of us who just find this stuff interesting. I always loved comparisons between games on multiple platforms, since the SNES/Genesis days it was cool to see how they'd take advantage of different hardware. No need to shit on DF for providing some insight
BigEmil
Junior Member
Yes the LEGO Harry Potter collection for PS4 runs at 60fps
Fucking hell, they fixed Lego Harry Potter for a PS4 re-release but left the PC version as is?
. I hate how it randomly drops to 30 FPS at timesLukasTaves
Member
Defensive? The guys are straight up telling that the developer should put no focus on the xbone version or that no one is going to buy it anyway.
Liabe Brave
Member
That's very intriguing. Do you have links to any screenshots of that, or a video that shows it well?
No, they're still crazy. What Xbox One has over docked Switch:
+ Much higher framerate
+ Better textures
+ Better shadows
+ Better reflections
+ Better depth of field
+ AO
- Lower resolution
What docked Switch has over WiiU:
+ Much higher resolution
+ Slightly better framerate
+ Some improved textures
+ Better lighting
+ Slightly better shadows
+ DOF
- Worse reflections
You may also add better textures and models on the Switch over Wii U comparison.
Liabe Brave
Member
You're right, I missed the textures; added now. But the models appear to be the same on all platforms (not just WiiU and Switch).
Its crazy to say the Switch version looks more like the Xbox One/PS4 version than the Wii U version? I don't think anyone watching the DF comparison can honestly say this. You also neglected to add that the Switch also gets higher res textures than Wii U version. The new lighting, textures alone bring it way closer to the other versions, not to mention the much higher draw distance.
Liabe Brave
Member
Yes, it does "look more" like the other updated versions, because of the change in style. I'm arguing the apparent belief that this equates to closeness in technical achievement. The Switch is closer to Xbox One than in the previous example we know (Snake Pass), but this is likely due to LEGO City Undercover's status as a last-gen remaster. The distance still remains considerable, and higher than the distance from WiiU.
Basically, all I'm arguing is that Switch's hardware is not magic, and specialized efficiencies of rendering (or narrow contingencies of production) can't paper over the real gulf in processing power. It remains the best, most powerful handheld gaming platform ever made.
He also conveniently omits the fact that this much higher frame rate on PS4/XB1 is indoors only and the video itself admits that the game is predominantly 30fps still on those consoles.
Edit: so the jump from 720p to 1080p is a change in style now? Along with physically based rendering? To name a few?
Edit: so the jump from 720p to 1080p is a change in style now? Along with physically based rendering? To name a few?
It's not a simple style change when there are newer shader effects, a new lighting system, higher res textures, bigger draw distances and higher resolutions for this remaster which mostly all make it over to the Switch. A style change would be just that, a change in style, but there are actual major technical improvements made over the Wii U version. So no, this version isn't closer to the Xbox One version simply because of a change in style lol. The vast majority of the improvements for this remaster make it over to the Switch.
Hell the game is running at a higher resolution than the Xbox One, and has better draw distance in some cases. Pointing this out isn't calling the Switch hardware "magical", and no one here suggested it was as powerful as the Xbox One, but this particular game is absolutely technically closer to the Xbox One version than the Wii U version.
I think this alone is huge. When you had multiplatform games during the Wii, PS3, Xbox 360 era, it was painfully obvious on first glance which one was on Wii, it was not even close.
WiiU/PS4/X1 multi-plats almost never happened so it is hard to even compare. Many of the engines were never even ported to the WiiU.
But this and Snake Pass? I originally watched the comparison videos on my smartphone and I had to look at the labels on the bottom to verify which platform was which. Later on my computer the difference was more apparent but still they were not horrendously different.
It's the law of diminishing returns.
Joke post? You watched on tiny as smart phone and cant decide which was what. Also snake pass and this game arent any way near representive of comparing those consoles. Lets wait and see a non indie multiplatform arrives to consoles which was built for next gen platforms unlike a remaster.
Cernys-Sandwich
Banned
IMO WB did a good job porting this game, using each platforms strength and build on that.
PS4 has likely been their target for this port, having the best overall performance and visuals.
Switch got 1080p, the better textures, lightning, and surprisingly the best draw distance but they sacrifised few visuals bells and whistles and the 60fps on certain sections.Still holds up remarkably well in comparison to PS4.
The Xbone version sacrificed resolution likely to get the 60fps portions to run more fluid since we can see quite a few drops on there compared to the PS4 version. If they had gone with full 1080p, the drops would be alot more significant or they would need to drop to 30 like the Switch version.
So IMO they used all the platforms strengthes and compensated their weaknesses in just the right way to get the best result for all 3 platforms.
I really don't understand the complains from Xbox fans. I think all 3 ports are decent and worth a purchase, although this should have benn 40 bucks max.
Might get this for Xbone or PC at some point.
PS4 has likely been their target for this port, having the best overall performance and visuals.
Switch got 1080p, the better textures, lightning, and surprisingly the best draw distance but they sacrifised few visuals bells and whistles and the 60fps on certain sections.Still holds up remarkably well in comparison to PS4.
The Xbone version sacrificed resolution likely to get the 60fps portions to run more fluid since we can see quite a few drops on there compared to the PS4 version. If they had gone with full 1080p, the drops would be alot more significant or they would need to drop to 30 like the Switch version.
So IMO they used all the platforms strengthes and compensated their weaknesses in just the right way to get the best result for all 3 platforms.
I really don't understand the complains from Xbox fans. I think all 3 ports are decent and worth a purchase, although this should have benn 40 bucks max.
Might get this for Xbone or PC at some point.
foxuzamaki
Doesn't read OPs, especially not his own
Snake pass according to DF is very technically demanding and they were really impressed how close the switch was to the other versions
So do i chief
Think imma get it on PC for cheap until it's sale'd to the nines in a year or two
ArchedThunder
Banned
AND it was a quick port for Switch.
Pjsprojects
Member
Paid £7 for it on PC and its bug central. Also wanted it on console for the kids and only didn't buy for X1 because our local super market was out of stock.
PS4 seemed a good forced choice.
PS4 seemed a good forced choice.
I dont think thats true.
ArchedThunder
Banned
That's nice, you're wrong though.
Whatever you think, the fact Switch gets this kind of headline on Eurogamer after a Digital Foundry comparison is excellent news for it:
I'm going to bore everyone again.
There is still that shadow (for me at least) on the whole switch concept being the portability is the key aspect, yet.. we have generally very little information about how games run like that.
I see a pattern of "the game runs nicely on switch" that's a good port" or even people guessing how a game could be ported.. with docked specs. The obvious tendency there is to act like the entry point for a game on Switch is the dock mode, when it should always be the portable one.
Cause now that this promise of parity for both modes is kinda broken, there is this ambiguity all the time. Every game we see ported on Switch, with footage of a certain quality or framerate, we'll think, yeah but what about the portable mode ? Maybe the framerate is horrible, maybe the resolution is 40% smaller than the screen like Snake Pass. And there is no transparency about that, we'll have to wait for the game to be out, and see by ourselves.
If there isn't that solid requirement that the portable mode is the entry point and the base version, and the docked mode is built on that, we're going to have a crap ton of horrible experiences on Switch for people who use it as a portable.
There is still that shadow (for me at least) on the whole switch concept being the portability is the key aspect, yet.. we have generally very little information about how games run like that.
I see a pattern of "the game runs nicely on switch" that's a good port" or even people guessing how a game could be ported.. with docked specs. The obvious tendency there is to act like the entry point for a game on Switch is the dock mode, when it should always be the portable one.
Cause now that this promise of parity for both modes is kinda broken, there is this ambiguity all the time. Every game we see ported on Switch, with footage of a certain quality or framerate, we'll think, yeah but what about the portable mode ? Maybe the framerate is horrible, maybe the resolution is 40% smaller than the screen like Snake Pass. And there is no transparency about that, we'll have to wait for the game to be out, and see by ourselves.
If there isn't that solid requirement that the portable mode is the entry point and the base version, and the docked mode is built on that, we're going to have a crap ton of horrible experiences on Switch for people who use it as a portable.
It is, though 720p is less than half the resolution of 1080p, so it would make no sense for undocked to run significantly worse given those two resolution differences. Unless they aren't using boost mode when unlocked. But even then AFAIR the difference in performance between docked and standard unlocked matches the difference between 720p and 1080p almost exactly.
EDIT: Actually I think the performance difference between standard unlocked and docked is larger then the difference between 720p and 1080p. So that could explain it if they aren't using boost mode when unlocked.
Same, docked co-op on the Switch is terrible, looked like the framerate was in the teens when outside in splitscreen. All the Lego games on the Wii U had terrible framerates both in co-op and single player, so it wasn't unexpected. Single player seems pretty solid.
Not disagreeing but it's worth mentioning that some games definitively run better hand held. Iirc Zelda has fewer drops on handheld.
Yes Nintendo better do it right. But third party may take a really bad road.
The spirit is pretty obvious, just look at the thread about unreal 4 on Switch, where guys are debating what could be ported or not.
What you see is "i'm pretty sure this or that game could run like that on Switch cause it's 400 gflops" etc.. They are using the docked Switch as base specs. But if you do that, it's going to be horrible all the time in portable mode. Cause that makes the docked mode the minimum requirement, and the portable mode below that.
Gonna have to wait until someone figures out how to capture handheld footage.
Always-honest
Banned
Damn, did devs lose all interest in XboxOne? WTF?
ShadowFox08
Member
The most obvious downgrade is going to be resolution. Legocity undercover pretty much has everything identical in the handheld version with docked mode, minus resolution, and some minor framerate stability. Hardly if any different in other graphical performances like shadows, textures, etc.
And honestly you can rave all you can about handheld mode, but at the end of the day it will always be compared to ps4 and xbone, and I'd rather have them push as much as they can in docked mode than be brought down by its weakest link--which is power.
ShadowFox08
Member
literally no difference between xbone and ps4 versions outside of resolution really, which has been consistent with all third party multiplat ports both consoles share.
I don't get why people are so butt hurt that the switch is 1080p and the xbone is 900p. Its like they only see resolution as the deciding factor for graphics.. when it really isn't.
frames per second, special effects and other graphical fidelity all fit in the triangle and must be balanced one way or another.
I like how these Switch ports are holding up. The downgraged aren't that jarring/drastic, yet, they seem to go a long way in helping the games run acceptably on the much weaker hardware. Of course, having a modern architecture is ultimately the foundation that makes this all possible.
On XB1's lower resolution than NSW:
I wouldn't read too much into that. Once you take Switch out of the equation, it's not hard to see the reason why. This is more about maintaining visual effects parity - and the indoor target of 60 fps - with the PS4, than it is about a resolution showdown with Switch(which dials back some fx, and has no 60 fps areas). XB1 still suffer drops below 60 fps indoors, but appears rock solid 30 fps outdoors. I'm guessing it was much less work to use one reduced resolution throughout the entire game than that cherry-pick every 60 fps area and assign a lower resolution there.. Some outdoor scenes do seem to get a bit taxing still, as evident in a rare frame drop on the PS4 version. So, who knows how such scenes would play out on XB1 @ full HD.
All in all, that was a pretty interesting analysis. Heck, now that the Switch is in the mix, they may all become more interesting from here on out
On XB1's lower resolution than NSW:
I wouldn't read too much into that. Once you take Switch out of the equation, it's not hard to see the reason why. This is more about maintaining visual effects parity - and the indoor target of 60 fps - with the PS4, than it is about a resolution showdown with Switch(which dials back some fx, and has no 60 fps areas). XB1 still suffer drops below 60 fps indoors, but appears rock solid 30 fps outdoors. I'm guessing it was much less work to use one reduced resolution throughout the entire game than that cherry-pick every 60 fps area and assign a lower resolution there.. Some outdoor scenes do seem to get a bit taxing still, as evident in a rare frame drop on the PS4 version. So, who knows how such scenes would play out on XB1 @ full HD.
All in all, that was a pretty interesting analysis. Heck, now that the Switch is in the mix, they may all become more interesting from here on out
Not at all.
I would guess for the majority of people (you know, non-GAF), it's not such a massive difference.
I'll think of it this way. If a random group of people were watching TV and saw a trailer for the game that used PS4 footage during a commercial break and then at the next commercial break, they saw the same ad but with Switch footage, would they notice they were on different systems? I mean without someone explicitly pointing it out or telling them ahead of time to look for differences?
My guess is that very few people would know, or more importantly care. Especially in the target groups for LEGO games.
I am not saying there are no differences. There are, which is what this thread is about in the first place. But compared to multi-plat differences in the Wii/PS3/360 era they are a lot less obvious.
And I totally agree we can't make sweeping points based on 2 smaller game projects. But those are the only 2 data points DF has covered so far.
Seems from analysis the XB1 was kept close to PS4 asset/effects wise which is likely why it's 900p.
I remain surprised more games don't optimise the other way and go for 1080p on XB1 and loses a few effects.
Ironically the Switch version shows this is perfectly viable and achievable and I reckon the end result on 1080p TV would look better than upscale.
I remain surprised more games don't optimise the other way and go for 1080p on XB1 and loses a few effects.
Ironically the Switch version shows this is perfectly viable and achievable and I reckon the end result on 1080p TV would look better than upscale.
Sword Of Doom
Member
Reminds me of Lego Jurassic park on the Wii U. Tried playing co-op with my nephew and it was headache inducing
This game does not look all that demanding. I was expecting 60fps on the PS4. Is this an engine issue or is there something the game is doing that is difficult to render?
Its odd to me. It seems obvious that in many cases games will be similar unless the Dev has a specific reason to over-support one version, the game is truly graphically intensive enough to show more of a difference or the budget big enough to allow extra effort per platform.
Only really big titles (those actually well polished vs shoved out unfinished like Unity that is) or exclusives really show consoles at "peak" IMHO.
I think this is partly why MS is trying to design Scorpio to emote automatically scale a games visuals up: they know at this point in gen few secs are going to spend money/time just to enhance a title greatly for a small install base. They're trying to make it as "free" and easy as possible (Sony too of course with their own SDK upgrades and checkerboard solution).
my guess would be that through the limited EsRam the Xbone doesn't scale linearly with resolution.
Developers choose their Xbox resolution coming from how they can fit their all their buffers in there.
I mean according to GAF some people couldnt tell differences between PS3 and PS4 version of FIFA or MGSV.
I was like wtf
Xcell Miguel
Gold Member
It's subtle but it makes some edges appear rough.
I took some screens with the Switch built-in screenshot function, so it's in jpg but you can still see it on some edges : http://imgur.com/a/DJyge
Note the rough edge on the stairs ramp in the second one, or the bottom of the tree in the first one.
Principate
Saint Titanfall
It's obvious why it's more work and to the average consumer the difference between the two isn't that large and it's expected.
Looks like some sort of anti-aliasing artifact.
Yeah that probably does play a factor. Forgot the EsRam aspect. When Scorpio hits later in year it's going up be interesting to see how games tend to settle performance/content wise across all the options.
Has there ever been a time when console games require supporting 5 different models (albeit Pro is very similar to OG PS4)?
Add PC and I'm curious how different/focused multi platform games really end up being or conversely how similar. Going to be a lot of salt if many games don't look hugely different in the eyes of the warriors.
TLZ
Banned
I'm not the most knowledgeable person in this and even I understand this.
If more or every XBO games were 1080p, there would have been other sacrifices made elsewhere. I'm assuming the difference between 1080p and the other things, the devs felt 1080p was worth sacrificing.
Its like ppl didnt even read the OP. Yea the Switch is 1080p but at what cost...
shouamabane
Member
I get it from a tech standpoint, but loading times and Nintendo easter eggs are the factors that would make me more likely to buy a version of the game over another one.
Yup, I see exactly what you mean. Looks awful. I wonder what's going on there?
frankie_baby
Member
The battery use figures that have been posted by some people suggest they are using boost mode