But were the maps bigger on PS4 compared to PS3?
Digital Foundry Article Technical Discussion [2021]
- Thread starter BRiT
- Start date
- Status
BF4 on PS3 is around 25fps (i think they targetted 30?). BF4 on PS4 is quite much closer to 60fps then the PS3 version is to 30. Even more intresting, the PS3 version can dip to below 10fps, even crashes could happen. Look it up its all over the reddit forums still. As for resolution, its around 720p, never really exceeding that. So the resolution jump to a steady 1080p was quite the improvement.
All this not considering the midgen refreshes (pro and X), ofcourse.
Edit: as for map sizes, the 7th gen was limited to conquest small. Anyone familar with BF4 would know what that ment. Fun for domination-like matches, though (on other platforms).
Indeed, but framerates where doubled going from PS3 to PS4, so essentially pushing twice the pixels just going by framerate. The PS4 could maintain its target much closer than the PS3 did, too. Also, the PS4 kept to the large maps aswell as settings at High and some at Ultra (correct me if im wrong there). The PS3 version ran lower than low. To note, going from low settings to high and ultra has a more severe impact then any (humane) resolution increase on pc.
No version was ever a constant 60fps (aside from pc), but atleast it was playable on PS4, quite nicely so. I would def say (like the other poster above) that cross-gen BF was a larger jump PS3 to 4 then it is this time around.
The maps where confined to a size that doesnt belong to any serious conquest BF experience on PS3. Along with a sub 720p experience at around 25fps if things were easy-going. The lower than low setting preset made a world of a difference in what you where looking at. The PS4 version was doing close to 60 most of the time running at 1080p at the high/ultra preset, with the conquest large maps available. It either didnt dip to unplayable framerates like the PS3 version did. BF3 PS3 was quite OK, but BF4 was just too much for the system to handle. It wasnt even 'Battlefield' in the sense as it was/is on PS4/PC etc. 2042 on OneS atleast looks like to be much closer to the full experience one gets on the stronger platforms.
The resolution increase falls apart whenever you'd come from the pro or OneX.
The PS4 and PS5 versions of 2042 are closer to eachother than the PS3 and PS4 versions ever were.
The larger map sizes have more of an impact vs player count, in BF4 atleast. Rouge transmission with 64 full slots TDM puts less stress on a system vs 64 CQ on the same map.
The resolution increase falls apart whenever you'd come from the pro or OneX.
The PS4 and PS5 versions of 2042 are closer to eachother than the PS3 and PS4 versions ever were.
The larger map sizes have more of an impact vs player count, in BF4 atleast. Rouge transmission with 64 full slots TDM puts less stress on a system vs 64 CQ on the same map.
wwhy do you compare to pro/XsX ? it's not relevant in this case since we are comparing at release of these games, thus BF4 was not enhanced for midgen refreshes, or should we wait for eventual PS5 Pro/ XsXXX ?
we are guessing anyway, you can't tell for sure, i can't either, only devs could.
and why map size would be more important ? would'nt they just reduced map size because of player count instead ? we've seen larger maps on PS3 in a lot of games, but a bigger map with only 24 players would be very frustrating.
we are guessing anyway, you can't tell for sure, i can't either, only devs could.
and why map size would be more important ? would'nt they just reduced map size because of player count instead ? we've seen larger maps on PS3 in a lot of games, but a bigger map with only 24 players would be very frustrating.
davis.anthony
Veteran
Not sure why a DF PC video is posted in the console technology section.
I think because much like the "Current Generation Games Analysis Technical Discussion" thread, it's more of a general all encompassing thread.
There's not enough activity on the forum unfortunately (more specifically on the PC gaming side) to really warrant separate threads in each sub forum. In the PC section it would largely go unnoticed and not receive much of a response. Here, it's more visible, and it's still pertinent. All these games and tech discussions revolve around the same or very similar technologies.
Anyway, it just keeps things consolidated and cleaner. I prefer everything being here, and that way we can easily cross reference Digital Foundry videos for both Consoles and PC.
Looks like they've actually done a good job here unlike with Crysis 1 remastered. C2 is particularly impressive,
Inuhanyou
Veteran
Somewhat disappointed with this analysis...would have loved to see direct comparison between PC and console remastered. What settings are console using compared to what settings on PC, what PC hardware is performing equivalent to the consoles ect. They did a console video but it was largely confined to the fps being good and res being "over 1440p for enhanced consoles and pc" with no real details on each platform. Also no details on crysis 3 for consoles or how switch performs.
I think we could have just done with a quick mention of the 360 and PS3 being terrible if juggling the platforms was too hard
Article @ https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2021-dying-light-on-switch-another-mobile-miracle
Dying Light on Switch - another mobile miracle?
An intelligently designed, impressive port.
Last month, developer Techland revealed that its open world survival horror game - Dying Light - would be coming to Nintendo Switch. Bearing in mind its sheer scale and scope, plus the fact that the game targeted 30fps on the much more powerful PS4 and Xbox One, we had to wonder... could this conversion possibly work? Surprisingly, the answer is yes. Dying Light has obvious compromises but the game is content-complete, performance is decent, image quality is better than expected and played in handheld form especially, it's a treat.
To a certain extent, this port bucks the trend - many Switch conversions from the current-gen consoles run at 30fps from source material that ran at 2x frame-rate (an easy way to save on CPU and GPU resources). Meanwhile, resolution often comes crashing down, to the point where upscaling artefacts and blur can cause problems. Then there's the whole concept of an open world with granular detail - a test for Switch's memory, CPU and bandwidth, but an environment that simply has to be delivered with quality on a game like this.
...
Dying Light on Switch - another mobile miracle?
An intelligently designed, impressive port.
Last month, developer Techland revealed that its open world survival horror game - Dying Light - would be coming to Nintendo Switch. Bearing in mind its sheer scale and scope, plus the fact that the game targeted 30fps on the much more powerful PS4 and Xbox One, we had to wonder... could this conversion possibly work? Surprisingly, the answer is yes. Dying Light has obvious compromises but the game is content-complete, performance is decent, image quality is better than expected and played in handheld form especially, it's a treat.
To a certain extent, this port bucks the trend - many Switch conversions from the current-gen consoles run at 30fps from source material that ran at 2x frame-rate (an easy way to save on CPU and GPU resources). Meanwhile, resolution often comes crashing down, to the point where upscaling artefacts and blur can cause problems. Then there's the whole concept of an open world with granular detail - a test for Switch's memory, CPU and bandwidth, but an environment that simply has to be delivered with quality on a game like this.
...
Consoles are back compat, next gen consoles running between medium and high with no RT, planar reflectionsn etc. There. It is not the interesting story here at all.
davis.anthony
Veteran
Failing to see why Dying Light is such a 'miracle' port and I feel that John needs to tone the Nintendo fanboy down.
Switch may have less power then Xbox One and base PS4 but it's GPU hardware has the exact same features as GCN which makes porting much simpler as they won't have to remove rendering features or come up with clever solutions to emulate one.
Granted the developers should get some praise for making the right cuts in the right areas and preserving the games 'look' but in no way is this a 'miracle' port like John makes it out to be, simply turn 'X' settings down until the game runs at an acceptable quality.
Switch may have less power then Xbox One and base PS4 but it's GPU hardware has the exact same features as GCN which makes porting much simpler as they won't have to remove rendering features or come up with clever solutions to emulate one.
Granted the developers should get some praise for making the right cuts in the right areas and preserving the games 'look' but in no way is this a 'miracle' port like John makes it out to be, simply turn 'X' settings down until the game runs at an acceptable quality.
Consoles are using the high res texture pack, while PC needs 12 GB VRAM atleast, as recommended by Ubisoft.
That is VERY interesting.
Edit: oops, it's about Crysis. I was still in Far Cry 6 mode.
- Status
Similar threads
