Digital Foundry Article Technical Discussion Archive [2012]

[kagemaru]

It's not a case of 'harping on' if you're asking for understand of why games differ. That's one of the principles to anyone wanting to discuss games/realtime graphics technology. How was this effect achieved? How does it vary with that other developer? What are the trade offs, the advantages, the difficulties faced? If an exclusive titles manages a tech, their RnD effort may be applicable to other titles, such as GOW spearheading MLAA on PS3 and that becoming a part of the PS3's libraries for devs to use. So if ND implemented SSAO into 1ms, it'd be nice to know how, and how that compares with Gearbox's efforts, and whether Gearbox could have integrated the tech themselves.

I can certainly agree with this.

On the one hand we don't want 'lazy devs' being thrown around every time a game lacks a feature or two. But on the other, there are different qualities of games, and some don't reach the same standards as others (eg. Ghostbusters), for which fair criticism and evaluation are part of the console tech discussion. Cross-platform developers can't get carte-blanche any more than they should be tarred with the 'lazy dev' brush. What we need is understanding of the underlying tech. We rarely get that, of course, leaving us guessing and having to draw dodgy comparisons with what we see, but at least when we have actual numbers, that's some use. Gearbox taking 3ms to render SSAO on XB360 where ND (and the devs don't matter; only the results) can achieve an SSAO implementation in 1ms suggests there's room for improvement.

That was my concern with this discussion to begin with. It seemed like some people were falling back on the lazy dev argument when that's rarely, if ever, applicable.

 

[assurdum]

I can certainly agree with this.



That was my concern with this discussion to begin with. It seemed like some people were falling back on the lazy dev argument when that's rarely, if ever, applicable.

I'm not that sure. How is it possible to exist pc porting worse of the console counterpart & why can't happen the same thing on the ps3 front, for example. Are the developers that untouchable categories? How exist worse company than others, same thing happen in the videogame market. I think it's normal.

 

[Ruskie]

You'll be singing different song once ACIII comes out. There will probably be plenty of frame rate problems, especially in the open with alot of trees.

 

[assurdum]

You'll be singing different song once ACIII comes out. There will probably be plenty of frame rate problems, especially in the open with alot of trees.

Nah, I don't think, imho. When there are lot of trees lack others details (npc for example), is not that impossible to run at acceptable fps.Well, of course I'm not talking of smooth like silk.

 

[kagemaru]

I'm not that sure. How is it possible to exist pc porting worse of the console counterpart & why can't happen the same thing on the ps3 front, for example. Are the developers that untouchable categories? How exist worse company than others, same thing happen in the videogame market. I think it's normal.

Are you asking if it's acceptable to consider ports to the PC lazy then why not for the PS3 as well?

For what it's worth, I don't consider even sub-par ports to the PC "lazy". Again, studios are always under a limited budget when it comes to time and resources (be it manpower, money, or both). With PC arguably being a smaller market for game sales, I'm not surprised that platform sometimes gets the short end of the stick in terms of porting. Still I would not call the developers lazy since working under such restrictions requires sacrifices somewhere. However the same is rarely said about the PS3 where games sales are strong enough to warrant proper support, or at least equal to the 360 IMO.

I forget who, but someone here once said that any developer who has never shipped a game should be called lazy (or something along those lines) and I thought that was a great line to hold up to. These people pull off some amazing things, but they can't bend time and space to always give every version the time and love us gamers think they deserve.

So you can fall on that excuse, but I just refuse to out of respect for the hard work they consistently do and are usually shit on over.

 

[assurdum]

Are you asking if it's acceptable to consider ports to the PC lazy then why not for the PS3 as well?

For what it's worth, I don't consider even sub-par ports to the PC "lazy". Again, studios are always under a limited budget when it comes to time and resources (be it manpower, money, or both). With PC arguably being a smaller market for game sales, I'm not surprised that platform sometimes gets the short end of the stick in terms of porting. Still I would not call the developers lazy since working under such restrictions requires sacrifices somewhere. However the same is rarely said about the PS3 where games sales are strong enough to warrant proper support, or at least equal to the 360 IMO.

I forget who, but someone here once said that any developer who has never shipped a game should be called lazy (or something along those lines) and I thought that was a great line to hold up to. These people pull off some amazing things, but they can't bend time and space to always give every version the time and love us gamers think they deserve.

So you can fall on that excuse, but I just refuse to out of respect for the hard work they consistently do and are usually shit on over.

Well, I have a different opinions. I know there are people who are sacrified, with a lot of passion, but I don't exclude exist other developers worse than others.

 

[Lucid_Dreamer]

I understand there is a point in showing what a piece of hardware is capable of, but you know resources and time are not finite. So comparing a exclusive studio to a 3rd party studio is largely pointless in this sense. Or should we start harping on every 3rd party game, that has to spread their resources to multiple platforms, for not reaching graphical standards set by exclusive titles?

You can't use the time argument with UC2 or UC3. UC2 was done in 2 years or so. UC3 was done in 18 months. Their budget was modest. I guess you can stick with the "3rd party developers aren't as good" argument, though.

 

[ERP]

It's not a case of 'harping on' if you're asking for understand of why games differ. That's one of the principles to anyone wanting to discuss games/realtime graphics technology. How was this effect achieved? How does it vary with that other developer? What are the trade offs, the advantages, the difficulties faced? If an exclusive titles manages a tech, their RnD effort may be applicable to other titles, such as GOW spearheading MLAA on PS3 and that becoming a part of the PS3's libraries for devs to use. So if ND implemented SSAO into 1ms, it'd be nice to know how, and how that compares with Gearbox's efforts, and whether Gearbox could have integrated the tech themselves.

It's virtually impossible to compare the technical merits of one game vs another just by looking at them, there are too many variables, and many of them just not exposed visually.

You can do what DF does and compare the same game on two platforms, but comparing game A vs game B is just a pissing match, with little to no technical merit.

The first question you have to ask that you can't answer is are they CPU or GPU bound, in practice it's not a simple A or B answer since being CPU bound in part of the frame can starve the GPU, and there is no way to tell visually.

Then you need to look at why? what set of decisions got them into that state? do you agree with the tradeoffs?

Great artists and good tools can overcome an enormously poor engine implementation, and all you can really compare is the final product.

 

[kagemaru]

Well, I have a different opinions. I know there are people who are sacrified, with a lot of passion, but I don't exclude exist other developers worse than others.

Of course there are developers and studios of varying skill levels, but how are we to determine exactly how they all relate or compare without knowing all the variables behind each game's development? You can't, so I much rather not assume.

You can't use the time argument with UC2 or UC3. UC2 was done in 2 years or so. UC3 was done in 18 months. Their budget was modest. I guess you can stick with the "3rd party developers aren't as good" argument, though.

I can most certainly use time as an argument and in no way am I downplaying ND's effort or skill in doing so.

You can't directly compare an exclusive studio and their games (which are strictly linear) to a 3rd party studio who's resources are stretched over multiple games and platforms. The amount of content in Borderlands 2 alone absolutely dwarfs what we see in Uncharted, and that is certainly something that should be considered.

Again to be clear, I'm not at all knocking or downplaying ND or the uncharted games. I love the games and the studio, but it's not hard to see how a linear and scripted game could grant certain luxuries or benefits over an open world multi-platform title.

Also I never used nor would I ever use the argument that 3rd party developers aren't as good, so I don't know why you would even put such a thing in quotes.

Also what ERP said since that better represents the point I've been trying to make this whole time.

 

[forumaccount]

On the one hand we don't want 'lazy devs' being thrown around every time a game lacks a feature or two. But on the other, there are different qualities of games, and some don't reach the same standards as others (eg. Ghostbusters), for which fair criticism and evaluation are part of the console tech discussion. Cross-platform developers can't get carte-blanche any more than they should be tarred with the 'lazy dev' brush. What we need is understanding of the underlying tech. We rarely get that, of course, leaving us guessing and having to draw dodgy comparisons with what we see, but at least when we have actual numbers, that's some use. Gearbox taking 3ms to render SSAO on XB360 where ND (and the devs don't matter; only the results) can achieve an SSAO implementation in 1ms suggests there's room for improvement.

It's not that important... everything is about time/space/efficiency tradeoffs. Aside from running on different hardware (which makes comparisons pointless to start with) SSAO implementation A chose different tradeoffs from SSAO implementation B. Oh well.

Maybe the tradeoff was fixing bugs in another part of the game, maybe the tradeoff was working on another platform. We'll probably never know and it doesn't matter. Games are too complex even to try to compare the same effects in different places. Maybe 4 or 5 people max on the Borderlands 2 development team know why their SSAO takes as long as it does. You'd have to ask them directly to come to any conclusions at all, and chances are they don't know the details of Naughty Dog's implementation and wouldn't be able to offer much insight on the difference anyway.

There is always room for improvement. It just becomes harder and harder to find as time goes by. But it is always there. Every game ever made could have been better than it was when it shipped with an extra 3 weeks of development time, even on so-called "maxed out" hardware.

 

[Reiko]

Resident Evil 6 Comparison Up.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-resident-evil-6-face-off

A user on GAF found something interesting that didn't get picked up. Could you explain this AlStrong? Is it just terrible AF or is some parts of the PS3 version being rendered in lower resolution?

Quote: miladesn
"another one, see the brick wall on the right, that's not just filtering differences...
background already mentioned. they should probably look into their own comparison gallery a bit."

 

[Gitaroo]

seems like they just wrote the article as quick as possible, but overall, both version does have their advantages almost equally IMO, texture vs lighting, input lag vs couple fps higher. But PS3 version seal the deal for me for PCM 5.1.

 

[Reiko]

seems like they just wrote the article as quick as possible, but overall, both version does have their advantages almost equally IMO, texture vs lighting, input lag vs couple fps higher. But PS3 version seal the deal for me for PCM 5.1.

Sounds like the games needed more polish. There are sections where there is bloom on PS3 and there is none for Xbox 360 and vice versa in the same area.

 

[Gitaroo]

need A LOT of polish, just finished the Leon campaign, can't believe this is a main line RE game. They probably want to push it out a month before Halloween and the November COD and Halo month.

 

[N_B]

Textures are utterly dreadful on both platforms, any 'victory' on either side is hollow.

 

[Reiko]

Textures are utterly dreadful on both platforms, any 'victory' on either side is hollow.

At some points in Leon's Campaign I thought I was playing RE4 in HD again

 

[assurdum]

Textures are utterly dreadful on both platforms, any 'victory' on either side is hollow.

Texture dreadful are in almost all capcom game; I don't understand why someone notice that only in RE6. I remember RE5 sucks too in a lot of places.

 

[AlNom]

A user on GAF found something interesting that didn't get picked up. Could you explain this AlStrong? Is it just terrible AF or is some parts of the PS3 version being rendered in lower resolution?

Quote: miladesn
"another one, see the brick wall on the right, that's not just filtering differences...
background already mentioned. they should probably look into their own comparison gallery a bit."

Maybe it's just a missing detail map.
As for the background, could be some sort of LOD thing (mip selection included). Even the barbed wire fence is partially not rendered on ps3 shot. Dunno, camera might even be at the threshold. *shrug*

 

[Gitaroo]

was just at the same level in PS3 Chris campaign, took a off screen picture of the building in a distance

does looks at lot more detail closer up doesn't it. Barbed wire fence also show up.

 

[Reiko]

Yep. LOD issue.