Digital Foundry Article Technical Discussion [2018]

Look, I didn't pursue that career, they did though. Its their homework, but they are skimping on it...

 

Personally i dont care so much if theres some errors in their presentations, im seeing with my own eyes how it looks and behaves. They can say for example that Cyberpunk or any of the Sony games look the best, or have the best tech or even next-gen quality, its not something that changes my mind on how a title looks or if its the best looking, hyping is something that attracts more people. DF is enjoyable anyway since their presentations are very well done, and they certainly know more then the average joe that watches/follows them.
Perhaps that i would like to see is more equal platform attention, and/or disable the comment section on youtube since its only people flaming each others xbox or ps consoles there.

 

The can be blamed for what they say. If they had a disclaimer in their videos that said: "this is just superficial speculation, we actually have barely a clue about what we're talking about" it would be less of an issue.

 

Where on earth do they ever indicate that it's anything more?

 

this on current gen...

 

On a Pro mind you, thats late 2016 hardware. It could look as good on a standard ps4 but we dont know yet, atleast we see what great art and design can do.

Is it going to be a openworld game like hzd? The draw distance is impressive.

 

Isnt Pro's gpu atleast twice as fast? More memory too. Some games show a difference in filtering and texture resolution aswell.
Would only be good though if theres no difference other then resolution in upcoming games like tlou2, ghosts, death stranding etc, i wouldnt need a pro then, used vanilla ps4's are easy and cheaper to obtain.

 

Pro is Really useful if you have a 4k tv and/or a psvr. For 1080p tv and no vr don't bother. And ps5 arrives in 2019

 

Is there anybody else that is doing it better?

 

You are right on that one. I like the fact they exist. I dont think they do more harm than good. But there sure is room for them to do a better job.

 

Maybe I should ask my question in another thread, so it can be moved. I don't know if my question is correct, but how many compute is used in current games?

 

What do you mean how many compute? Compute queues? Compute shaders?

 

Compute shaders.

 

If people are expecting this: http://www.adriancourreges.com/blog/2016/09/09/doom-2016-graphics-study/

I think there is space for both, but certainly DF cannot get to this level with any realistic model for profitability. It's likely not profitable either for them.
They do a decent job at explaining to customers the platform differences with the same title. Outside of that they try to do their best in explaining differences between newer and older titles.

 

I'm ok with their scope, but they just say stuff that is simply wrong way to often, I think.

 

Maybe you can correct them?

 

True the X allows more upgrades due to nearly double the amount of ram available for games with 320gb/s speed

 

I mean sure, if DF had hardware level access and debug tools for all the consoles I don't think that level of postmortem would be out of the question. I use tools for my PC games where if there is DoF or camera motion blur I can't toggle off in options I just find the shader address and shut it off.

John (and even the new guy Alex (on the PC)) does this level of analysis on DF retro games because he has the option to use emulators to debug the game. DF primarily focuses on new consoles so there is a lot of eyeball work to determine all the buffer resolutions and it gets even more complex with dynamic scalers so its not surprising they get it wrong sometimes.