Digital Foundry Article Technical Discussion Archive [2014]

[function]

I believe you're thinking of the wrong game 60fps game.

Yeah, my bad, it bottoms out at 45 fps and not at ~ 40.

I must have been thinking of Infamous, or Killzone, or the stunningly inconsistent Titanfall, or one of the other single-format games that's much less impressive in its consistency than Fifia.

I find it funny that so many people rush to crap on EA sports when they're making a game across 8 platforms - at least two groups of three which will share much of the same code base - while rushing to defend games that are exclusive to their platform of choice.

From a software engineering pov what they achieve is far more impressive than heavily defended and unceasingly praised single-platform standard bearers.

No need to thank me function

Thnx anyway m8!

 

[function]

The only thing that this game shows is that EA still aimed to high for the One version if the wanted flawless framerates. The proof is the PS4 that doesn't have the same frame drops.

I think they aimed just right, and did a surprisingly good job. Xbox One handles the gameplay sections well, but PS4 is more consistent and polished because it's more powerful.

If you by achieved means being able to dial the XBOX One version down, then yes. I would applaud them if they were able to create a One version that ran flawless and a PS4 version that took advantage of the extra graphical power. What we are seeing now is just the lowest common denominator setting the bar.

They make a game across eight platforms, on an incredibly tight schedule. This is what I mean about EA taking criticism for things that others - like Naughty Dog - get a free pass on.

And I'm not asking for people to slag off Naughty Dog. They'll have done the best they could in the time they had and with the resources they had, and they made a great product. But sure as hell, they aren't using the 'full power' of the PS4 either.

People shouldn't be so quick to dismiss the efforts of multiplatform developers, and assume that platform exclusive or even "first party" games are greater or even as-great achievements. Too much of what people claim is "proof of power" or a "technical achievement" is based on how people "feel" a game makes their favourite platform look.

 

[betternatethanlever]

The aliasing looks horrendous in the FIFA 15 screenshots. They should have opted for SMAA, or a hybrid of both FXAA or 2x MSAA.

 

[Shortbread]

People shouldn't be so quick to dismiss the efforts of multiplatform developers, and assume that platform exclusive or even "first party" games are greater or even as-great achievements. Too much of what people claim is "proof of power" or a "technical achievement" is based on how people "feel" a game makes their favourite platform look.

EA games is like fast food... the McDonalds of the gaming industry. Nothing special IMHO, just something to tied you over for something better. And when they do present something different, possibly special, it's usually a bloated offline trailer. Not saying other developers aren't guilty of this... it's just EA tends to leave a bad taste/stink after what's actually presented.

Anyhow, EA isn't about to push PS4, nor XB1, beyond a middle ground approach that both systems can achieve equally. When you see games like Quantum Break, DriveClub, Infamous Second Son and so-on... I really don't see EA pushing games like these from a graphical standpoint, but more so, something both systems can achieve equally without getting into system specific areas that could result in better IQ/performance over the other.

 

[BRiT]

EA games is like fast food... the McDonalds of the gaming industry. Nothing special IMHO, just something to tied you over for something better.

You mean EA Sports games?
If not, then all Activision games seem the exact same as all EA games. I don't see any difference between those big two. Shrug.

 

[Goodtwin]

Digital Foundry's article is up on Eurogamer: "The new Wii U port takes on the Xbox 360 original - and the infamous PS3 conversion."

Yep, amazing when a developer really puts in the effort to faithfully reproduce a 360/PS3 game on Wii U. Not only does it stand toe to toe with the 360 build in terms of average framerate, but it does so with no screen tearing. It makes you wonder what the 360 version would fun like if it had Vsync applied? With the numerous underperforming ports sent to Wii U, its nice to see another high quality one made.

 

[Shortbread]

You mean EA Sports games?
If not, then all Activision games seem the exact same as all EA games. I don't see any difference between those big two. Shrug.

EA as a whole. But yes, I do agree Activision is in the same boat... especially when it comes to mediocre PC ports.

 

[dobwal]

EA games is like fast food... the McDonalds of the gaming industry. Nothing special IMHO, just something to tied you over for something better. And when they do present something different, possibly special, it's usually a bloated offline trailer. Not saying other developers aren't guilty of this... it's just EA tends to leave a bad taste/stink after what's actually presented.

Anyhow, EA isn't about to push PS4, nor XB1, beyond a middle ground approach that both systems can achieve equally. When you see games like Quantum Break, DriveClub, Infamous Second Son and so-on... I really don't see EA pushing games like these from a graphical standpoint, but more so, something both systems can achieve equally without getting into system specific areas that could result in better IQ/performance over the other.

Yeah, from a graphical standpoint the Deadspace, Crysis and Battlefield console titles look like real dogs in comparison to their first party console brethren.

 

[-tkf-]

People shouldn't be so quick to dismiss the efforts of multiplatform developers, and assume that platform exclusive or even "first party" games are greater or even as-great achievements. Too much of what people claim is "proof of power" or a "technical achievement" is based on how people "feel" a game makes their favourite platform look.

I am not dismissing anything, i am was just pointing out that equally looking games from EA doesn't tell us that EA is able to tap extra juice out of the One so that it can stand the ground against the PS4. It just tells us it´s another middleground, middleware run of the mill multi million platform title made to fit the lowest common denominator. As for first party games, yep they do really show the true power of the platform they re-present. It's not a feeling imho, it's something that we have learned over many years on many platforms to be fact.

 

[function]

Yep, amazing when a developer really puts in the effort to faithfully reproduce a 360/PS3 game on Wii U. Not only does it stand toe to toe with the 360 build in terms of average framerate, but it does so with no screen tearing. It makes you wonder what the 360 version would fun like if it had Vsync applied? With the numerous underperforming ports sent to Wii U, its nice to see another high quality one made.

The lack of tearing certainly does make the WiiU version of Bayonetta the definitive one. Tearing is awful.

Triple buffering doesn't have much of a performance impact at all, but it does require a few megabytes of extra memory - something that the WiiU certainly does have over the 360.

I have a hypothesis that the most significant factor in performance differences between versions of Bayonetta 1 is vertex/polygon processing. A lack of complex CPU culling would explain why the PS3 was so far behind, and why the WiiU was very slightly ahead of the 360.

PS3 was 250 mpps, 360 is 500, U is 550. Superficially that might seem to explain the most significant aspects of the performance differences. Cell is a culling monster, but without that, a high poly game would well and truly fuck over the PS3, and be massively faster on the 360 and a few percent better still on the WiU.

I can't state it's as a fact, but perhaps something worth considering?

 

[forumaccount]

I am not dismissing anything, i am was just pointing out that equally looking games from EA doesn't tell us that EA is able to tap extra juice out of the One so that it can stand the ground against the PS4. It just tells us it´s another middleground, middleware run of the mill multi million platform title made to fit the lowest common denominator. As for first party games, yep they do really show the true power of the platform they re-present. It's not a feeling imho, it's something that we have learned over many years on many platforms to be fact.

There isn't any extra juice in the Xbox One that lets it stand its ground against PS4. You can't fault people for not finding something that doesn't exist.

Parity is a perfectly legitimate choice, too. It doesn't mean that the product was lazy. If you think that all the talent in the industry lies in first party studios you're sorely mistaken.

 

[function]

I am not dismissing anything, i am was just pointing out that equally looking games from EA doesn't tell us that EA is able to tap extra juice out of the One so that it can stand the ground against the PS4.

I'm not necessarily saying that EA can tap extra juice from the Bone, I'm just saying that tapping any kind of juice from 8 platforms as once is a feat of software engineering accomplishment.

I'd also add that being ALU or ROP bound is a worst case for the Xbon. Out side of that, the difference is massively less than 40%, so running the same game but at more stable frame rates isn't necessarily a reflection of a lack of ability from EA's programmers - let alone their software engineers who have a design, planning and implementation job that would guaranteed make every armchair developer here - let alone somewhere like NeoGaf or GameFaqs - shit themself.

It just tells us it´s another middleground, middleware run of the mill multi million platform title made to fit the lowest common denominator. As for first party games, yep they do really show the true power of the platform they re-present. It's not a feeling imho, it's something that we have learned over many years on many platforms to be fact.

Lowest common denominator for Fifa is massively blow Xbox One. 3DS, Wii, PS3, PSP, 360, and most PCs are well below the Xbox One.

First party games do not necessarily represent the maximal performance of any given piece of hardware. Development is so much more complex than that, that it isn't remotely funny.

 

[-tkf-]

I'm not necessarily saying that EA can tap extra juice from the Bone, I'm just saying that tapping any kind of juice from 8 platforms as once is a feat of software engineering accomplishment.

You original post:

With this and Destiny, MS's efforts to "catch up" are paying off, at least on the big titles.

Clearly is about the One catching up to the PS4, how it suddenly can turn into a EA defense force and developing for 8 platforms is a tad confusing. Yes they are closing the gap, but everyone here knows that there is a gap that simply never will be closed. So everytime we see a 3rd party game that runs equally on both platforms the PS4 version has been dialed down.

There is no reason to carry on this, it will just spin even more out of control.

 

[B Real]

Cool. I want my face in all games so people can admire me.

+1 but applying to myself

 

[zed]

a high poly game would well and truly fuck over the PS3, and be massively faster on the 360 and a few percent better still on the WiU.

I can't state it's as a fact, but perhaps something worth considering?

polygon counts havent really had a major impact for many years, think of it 250million verts / 60fps = 4 million verts per frame. the frameimpact bayonetta = blended polygons not number of polygons

 

[ultragpu]

Hands on with Ryse PC
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/d...er&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=socialoomph
The motion blur is way over done in motion, the 1080p upgrade is pretty significant in foliage shots as expected, I'm also finding PC even on Low settings looks better simply due to the increased resolution.


Now I think we all wanna find out how this thing runs with a naughty naughty 7850 at 1080p don't we ?

 

[betternatethanlever]

I agree. The Xbox One version looks too blurry.

What boggles me is how a GTX 980 couldn't keep a consistent 1080p 60FPS. Maybe it's rendering something heavy in the background?

 

[function]

You original post: ... [snip] ...
Clearly is about the One catching up to the PS4, how it suddenly can turn into a EA defense force and developing for 8 platforms is a tad confusing.

Well my original post about catching up was because it's catching up - as indicated by DF's face offs (though I don't think it will catch up fully and it certainly isn't catching up in terms of sales ...).

I then moved onto defending EA and the latest Fifa, because Fifa - and indeed everything that EA make - were being unfairly dismissed. In fact, all none-exclusive were, I think.

I agree we don't need this spinning out any further though!

 

[function]

polygon counts havent really had a major impact for many years, think of it 250million verts / 60fps = 4 million verts per frame. the frameimpact bayonetta = blended polygons not number of polygons

Yeah, I was using one vert = one poly.

I would have thought the same about poly counts not having a major impact, but for the developer comments I've read about the need to use aggressive culling on Cell to get the same kind of performance from PS3 as the 360. The 360 GPU being twice as fast at setting up, testing and rejecting polys means that without CPU culling the PS3 is at a major disadvantage.

I've read this in a few different places - I'm pretty sure that one was an EA sports developer funnily enough, who was talking about early generation frame rate differences. I think Sony developed some Cell culling libraries actually...

Anyway, making the (perhaps incorrect) assumption that the PS3 port of Bayonetta didn't do additional CPU culling, I thought it was interesting the way that the different versions of Bayonetta in some ways resemble poly setup rates.

 

[joker454]

What boggles me is how a GTX 980 couldn't keep a consistent 1080p 60FPS. Maybe it's rendering something heavy in the background?

According to the article Crytek didn't allow benchmarking on this build:

Crytek says that the press build is not representative of the final build performance-wise, and pretty much the only exercise it prohibited on the build it released was benchmarking.

So it might be a release build with debug info so they can still more easily deal with bugs that crop up. Personally I'd wait for the final product before diving into performance issues.