Digital Foundry Article Technical Discussion Archive [2012]
- Thread starter AlNom
- Start date
-
- Tags
- digital foundry
- Status
bgassassin
Regular
Well, trying to ask isn't the problem. *ahem*.
Went right over my head.
And what happened to my other post?
You don't think they asked them?
edit9000: or even tried?
edit>9000:
The context of that quote is just to let the reader know that it's something that's been opined before whilst looking at Nintendo's statements a month back. Here's the rest of the sentence:
It's just supporting the analysis/critique of Nintendo's words.
Anyways, there's nothing new that we didn't know already in there - it's just a summary of thoughts on the matter, similar to the GameIndustry.biz article awhile back, just updated with more recent events.
Personal bickering doesn't belong here.
bgassassin
Regular
That was considered personal bickering? Oookay. Him never responding would keep that from being bickering. Or maybe just leave the part where I was showing him taking the quote out of context.
And DF referred to what they heard a year ago. That doesn't suggest they tried.
It got personal when you referred to post history and it was responded to, which you obviously didn't see. Your post is back, but really all this fluff discussion should have been taken to PM instead of having to pollute the thread.
So if you asked me a question and didn't get a response or an OTR response, does that mean you didn't try?
There is nothing out of context here cause the full quote was right there.
You didnt believe him when he said it has barely better GPU based on last E3 and you dont believe any of his articles now. Fine.
Last edited by a moderator:
The Making of The Witcher 2
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-the-making-of-the-witcher-2
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-the-making-of-the-witcher-2
Billy Idol
Legend
GuestLV said:
Great article, great developers and what counts most: great game!
Last edited by a moderator:
It's pretty clear that the technical differences between the two versions are vast. Maybe that article will put to rest the arguments of the 360 version being basically an improved port.
DF seem to be pretty strange leaning towards the console version though. Having just watched that video for the first time, although there are the odd moments where the console version could be argued to look better (and one where it unarguably does - the fire in the castle as viewed from the ship) for the most part is is quite clearly an obvious step below the PC version.
What they've managed to bring over to the console is impressive especially given that some areas can show some aesthetic (if not technical) improvement but there's no way the two versions could be considered equivalent. Especially not after reading that article.
DF seem to be pretty strange leaning towards the console version though. Having just watched that video for the first time, although there are the odd moments where the console version could be argued to look better (and one where it unarguably does - the fire in the castle as viewed from the ship) for the most part is is quite clearly an obvious step below the PC version.
What they've managed to bring over to the console is impressive especially given that some areas can show some aesthetic (if not technical) improvement but there's no way the two versions could be considered equivalent. Especially not after reading that article.
On the default setting is still does let a few jaggies through, and it's best combined with their post AA. But you can increase it's quality with an ini tweak (at massive cost).
Digital Foundry vs. Starhawk
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-vs-starhawk
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-vs-starhawk
Don't let me wrong, DF probably gives the best service when we talk of face off article , but everytime which I read the final part of the article, I can't to avoid to feel an unpleasant sensation... I mean, is it so important to give the nod especially when the differences are so marginal? It's just a personal observation, but I think that ruins the reading of the rest of the article imho.
What's the problem - i just want to get the superior version and here there is a clear verdict.
Also , maybe i'm wrong but i don't remember you feeling unpleasant whenever the nod was the other way ..
I never understand why a developer would have an unlocked frame rate. If you're game is hovering around 35fps anyways, why not just lock it to 30 and prevent any jittery motion for the player?
Even though he explains things well enough, there could still be many instances where people may not understand the content of the article. There really is no reason not to give an overall verdict, especially when neither party is stuck with crap ports these days.
Bingo...
Even though he explains things well enough, there could still be many instances where people may not understand the content of the article. There really is no reason not to give an overall verdict, especially when neither party is stuck with crap ports these days.
Bingo...
Really?
All these years later you'd think people would be used to this scenario by now... Multiplats for the most part run better on one than the other.
Kudos to Rockstar for bringing that gap closer than ever on their engine though.
That is, after all, the entire point of the Face-Off. DF would have a hard time of it if every title were exactly the same across all platforms.
TheWretched
Regular
Sure... to get clicks. Those articles surely are some of the "most viewed" ones, especially highly debateable ones. I find it strange, that they ALWAYS get "verdicts" as clear cut as they make it out to be... there's so little difference that saying one is better than the other is just a massive overstatement.
I am still waiting for the PC version, though. 35GB installation is quite insane, especially if most of this data is in fact fmv. But it is nice to see Rockstar making progress on PS3. Looks like their earlier problems with GTA4 and RDR are all but gone (though I wonder if the changes are down to the non-sandboxy nature of the game or not).
SedentaryJourney
Regular
DF kinda put their foot in it by concluding that the stadium lights were removed for performance reasons when it was just a bug. Judging by DF's own comparison gallery I might have given the PS3 version the edge based on slightly better reflection quality. Bloom seems to be missing in a few parts on the 360 and is generally higher quality on the PS3 as well. I gather performance is better on average for the 360 version.
- Status
Similar threads
