Deep down you may be right, but the outcomes sometimes, just sometimes, aren't as squat as they appear to be, simply because there will be someone who will mock you or create threads to talk bad about your console or whatever. Beyond3D is a different place, but you might not want to see what's out there. Certain things that you mention will always exist, and have nothing to do with any kind of engagement
Fair enough. I don't know Arwin, it's just that it wouldn't be the first time Digital Foundry has admitted to botching certain captures. I pointed out at one issue they didn't see -don't blame them in this case though, just sayin'- in the PC version of FC4, like the black crush. IT wasn't easy to spot because some captures were just perfect but others were wrong because of said black crush.
That's what the body of the article says. It describes the pros and cons of both platforms.
Damn that was several pages of exactly this, I'm honestly starting to think the main graph in DF would better off being the frame time graph not the always misleading Avg.FPS. Been playing this on my now min. spec PC (2500k/7870/8GB) and the stutteriness is making me hanker after that DX12 goodness to at least try and edge my PC towards the smoother PS4 delivery
Yes, PS4 did. XBO is improving every day, if you compare the first CoD at 720p and the second at something like 1080p..., now the XB1 version is the one with the better framerate. BF4 was great on the PS4 and bad on the XBO, but now Hardline performs better on the X1, and Unity too. Most games are catered to the PS4 architecture, simply because of raw power. If only DF gave more credit to more platforms...
Were you concerned in the previous generation when the 360 was getting the nod?Yes, PS4 did. XBO is improving every day, if you compare the first CoD at 720p and the second at something like 1080p..., now the XB1 version is the one with the better framerate. BF4 was great on the PS4 and bad on the XBO, but now Hardline performs better on the X1, and Unity too. Most games are catered to the PS4 architecture, simply because of raw power. If only DF gave more credit to more platforms...
In their most recent article they wrote that now Borderlands runs at an almost perfect 1080p and 60 fps on the "PS4 and Xbox One", literally. The "and" was highlighted in italics, as if saying, "the game can run at 1080p 60 fps on the X1 too, can you believe it?". They are doubting the graphical capabilities of the consoles.
Still to me their most controversial article to date was the one they wrote about Mario Kart 8 for the WiiU, where they pinned down the framerate of the console. I mean the now legendary to me, the 59 fps thing.
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2014-vs-mario-kart-8
For your money that issue is an irrelevance, and irrational.
Plus, there are other flaws in their articles. They talk about budget PCs trying to compare them with consoles, performance wise. Okay, that's neat, but the problem is that those PCs don't run games like consoles and are like 300€ more expensive.
The issue at hand is that they use a Intel i3 processor as the CPU for their *budget* PC, but those PCs usually cost around 600€. Why is the i3 PC a budget PC when an Intel G3220 CPU would be a fairer comparison and a PC with that CPU could realistically cost what new gen consoles cost now?
:smile2:
Let me tell you temesgen that the pc is getting the nod in their articles now. Still, the console version, like most console versions, is like the pc version, but seven times better in every conceivable way #consolegamingmasterraceWhy wouldn't they? The paper specs suggest that the PS4 has greater graphical capability, developers have suggested that the PS4 is more capable, and comparisons between games tend to indicate that it has greater GPU throughput. So if the XB1 manages to keep up, it's an interesting result and emphasis is appropriate.
It's a patterned stutter on even interval. Many won't be bothered, but it'll grind some people's gears. It's not like they were overly harsh on it; they flat-out said that it wouldn't impact playability and that a majority of players wouldn't even notice it. They gave it a lengthy discussion because it was an interesting quirk.Still to me their most controversial article to date was the one they wrote about Mario Kart 8 for the WiiU, where they pinned down the framerate of the console. I mean the now legendary to me, the 59 fps thing.
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2014-vs-mario-kart-8
For your money that issue is an irrelevance, and irrational.
Some might point to the call for the PC as evidence of PlayStation hate, there were a decent number of gamers who gleefully awaited DF face offs who now say if power matters buy a PC.:smile2:
Well, I just hope they use dynamic resolution more, it's a fun tech f you use to preserve the framerate at all costs.
If they make comparisons, you must keep things objective.
They can. But they'd like to be objective. I mean objectivity towards XB1 instalment, abiding by the facts rather than hinting at a surprise tone because a game can run 1080p 60fps.
You're trying to be kind to them, okay, but their article says "Mario Kart 8 effectively operates at 59fps with a subtle but continuous stutter visible on-screen." In huge letters. That's very controversial.
