Digital Foundry Article Technical Discussion Archive [2014]

Status
Not open for further replies.
The comparison to the Tlou remastered is a very stupid one. Such a good interview otherwise.
Leadbetter just seems not to be able to help himself sometimes.
I kind of dislike the state of the Digital Foundry these days. Their articles seem aimed to please the masses, which certainly is a no go for me.

I think Digital Foundry had displeased the PS mass after the amount of owneds the Xbox 360 was giving during the past generation and now they want to sound neutral and they like to make the Xbox One look like drivel when opportunity arises, as most people are now PlayStation fans and they want to look good to the masses.
 
I kind of dislike the state of the Digital Foundry these days. Their articles seem aimed to please the masses, which certainly is a no go for me.

I think Digital Foundry had displeased the PS mass after the amount of owneds the Xbox 360 was giving during the past generation and now they want to sound neutral and they like to make the Xbox One look like drivel when opportunity arises, as most people are now PlayStation fans and they want to look good to the masses.
Take the cynical glasses of and try look for the obvious answer to this problem.
360 was easier to develop for last generation and PS4 is both more powerful and easier to develop for this generation. It isn't a conspiracy. Games are just better on PS4.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
:???:

Take the cynical glasses of and try look for the obvious answer to this problem.
360 was easier to develop for last generation and PS4 is both more powerful and easier to develop for this generation. It isn't a conspiracy. Games are just better on PS4.
Agreed.
 
Take the cynical glasses of and try look for the obvious answer to this problem.
360 was easier to develop for last generation and PS4 is both more powerful and easier to develop for this generation. It isn't a conspiracy. Games are just better on PS4.

You need to edit the last line of your post so it says "Graphics are just better on Ps4".
Games being better on the Ps4 is a blanket statement. I know it may be heresy on B3D but graphics do not make a game play better to all gamers.
I do find it sort of ironic though when people accuse DF of showing bias.
If you ever read the comments in the DF articles you have tons of PS fans accusing Richard Ledbetter of showing Xbox favoritism. In the same comments you have Xbox fans saying the exact opposite.
 
You need to edit the last line of your post so it says "Graphics are just better on Ps4".
Games being better on the Ps4 is a blanket statement.
Although technically right, in these face-offs the games are cross-platform and identical apart from the graphics. Unless one feels lower resolution and/or framerate makes for a better game, the generalisation PS4 has better games (same games in better quality) is fine. Only if there's a real game difference (input schemes, maybe, with Kinect enhancements or DS4 control issues) could XB1 have a better game without having better graphics on a multiplatform title.
 
Better graphics don't make a better game... but worse graphics and/or performance can make a game a lot worse. Case in point is Bayonetta on PS3. While still playable, the drop in resolution, and moreso framerate made it less good of a game.

But when we're talking about the new consoles, the difference between 900P and 1080P is not not big enough for me to say one or the other is a better game. 900P is just 70% of 1080P. So the same difference from 720P would be ~500P. That surely gets muddy and people would suggest the difference is too big (something like GTA4 comes to mind). I might (depends on other figures as well, like MSAA, framerate, upscaling algorithm...) as well.
 
If both games are exactly the same but the PS4 version is 1080p and the Xbox One version is 900p, the PS4 version is better. Even if it's only in a miniscule way. This is often the case with most multiplatform games so far this generation.
 
If both games are exactly the same but the PS4 version is 1080p and the Xbox One version is 900p, the PS4 version is better. Even if it's only in a miniscule way. This is often the case with most multiplatform games so far this generation.

Pretty hard to argue with that.
 
See, now you are missing the point I made. By game, I mean gameplay. As long as the difference in resolution isn't too big and the framerate doesn't suffer (I can't care less about a handful of dropped frames), the game is "the same". It's such a negligible difference... it's not really important.

Of course I'd prefer all games to be native to my display and 60Hz... but with such a big difference between PS4 and X1... that doesn't happen. But the best for X1 is still good enough for nearly all people... and it wont negatively affect the gameplay, either.
 
Lower framerates can affect gameplay by making it harder to aim/control.

TheWretched said:
Better graphics don't make a better game... but worse graphics and/or performance can make a game a lot worse. Case in point is Bayonetta on PS3. While still playable, the drop in resolution, and moreso framerate made it less good of a game.
Right. It was less good. Something else that is 'more good' is by definition 'better'.

But the best for X1 is still good enough for nearly all people...
This is a rather unnecessary tangent. Whether consumers by and large are happy with XB1's output or not doesn't change DF's analysis if they report a higher resolution/framerate version of a game as the better game. Given two products, exactly identical save for one area where one product surpasses the other in a quality, the one with the advantage is better.
 
Although technically right, in these face-offs the games are cross-platform and identical apart from the graphics. Unless one feels lower resolution and/or framerate makes for a better game, the generalisation PS4 has better games (same games in better quality) is fine. Only if there's a real game difference (input schemes, maybe, with Kinect enhancements or DS4 control issues) could XB1 have a better game without having better graphics on a multiplatform title.

I totally get what you are saying Shifty and I agree that a bad framerate can hinder once expeirence. My point is that some people prefer certain experiences of one platform over the other. One example is online play and another is the comfort of the controller.
 
See, now you are missing the point I made. By game, I mean gameplay. As long as the difference in resolution isn't too big and the framerate doesn't suffer (I can't care less about a handful of dropped frames), the game is "the same". It's such a negligible difference... it's not really important.
It's negligible, but that isn't the point, the game is still better. It isn't totally unimportant though. The aliasing in up-scaled 900p games is awful.

Also games on PS4 aren't always better on the resolution side. Tomb Raider and Sniper Elite for example. They run so much better on PS4. That's more than just a negligible difference. The one that runs better is the better game.
 
*AHEM* Back to discussing the DF articles or vacations will be given out...
 
Face-Off: Plants vs Zombies: Garden Warfare on PS4

"We're especially excited for fans to experience Plants vs Zombies Garden Warfare on PS4, where it will be playable at a native 1080p resolution and blazing fast 60 frames per second," PopCap's Gary Clay said, confirming to Eurogamer earlier in the year that the PS4 version would benefit from a 44 per cent boost in resolution over the Xbox One game, closely in-line with the gap in raw GPU power between the two consoles.

The extra 44 percent of resolution over the Xbox One version certainly wins the numbers game, but the reality presents us with a slightly different picture. The PS4 game appears slightly more refined when closely scrutinising still images, but in motion the use of anti-aliasing and the game's distinct art style helps to reduce upscale artefacts on the Xbox One, thus delivering a very similar presentation.

Indeed, despite pushing 44 per cent more pixels on-screen, the experience on PS4 is more consistent than on the Xbox One when the engine is under stress. When all hell breaks loose we see a heavier drop in performance on Xbox One, while the PS4 usually maintains its solid 60fps lock without any fuss. In these scenes Garden Warfare displays an extra layer of fluidity on the Sony console - although we should point out that the core gameplay never feels compromised on the Xbox One. PS4 simply offers a slightly more refined version of the same experience.
 
"Our Intel Core i5 and GTX 680 machine delivered a perceptual 60fps experience quite similar to that of the Xbox One version of the game, but with the more sustained drops in performance"

I'm amazed that a GTX 680 is giving an inferior experience to the PS4 at 1080p.
 
"Our Intel Core i5 and GTX 680 machine delivered a perceptual 60fps experience quite similar to that of the Xbox One version of the game, but with the more sustained drops in performance"

I'm amazed that a GTX 680 is giving an inferior experience to the PS4 at 1080p.

Are they actually rendering the same thing? These types of comparisons tend to ignore the visual extras that the pc versions add so it's hard to say if they are actually drawing the same thing. For all we know on the pc side maybe shadows are cleaner, lod's are better, draw distance longer, more stuff in the environment, etc...
 
Are they actually rendering the same thing? These types of comparisons tend to ignore the visual extras that the pc versions add so it's hard to say if they are actually drawing the same thing. For all we know on the pc side maybe shadows are cleaner, lod's are better, draw distance longer, more stuff in the environment, etc...
He suggests the only difference is LOD levels of foliage. Everything else (including AA) is a match.
 
To be fair, PC is running HBAO (vs SSAO on console) and has better foliage in certain spots. But the PS4 version matches up quite well all things considered. Visually it looks very close.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top