oooookay
Now we're arguing that added effects make it look worse so they should be disregarded.
Next we'll be arguing that 1080p is too crisp so should also be disregarded under the wholistic view.
Digital Foundry Article Technical Discussion Archive [2014]
- Thread starter DieH@rd
- Start date
-
- Tags
- digital foundry
- Status
oooookay
Now we're arguing that added effects make it look worse so they should be disregarded.
Next we'll be arguing that 1080p is too crisp so should also be disregarded under the wholistic view.
Added effects can absolutely make a game look worse. They can be visually unstable, or not contribute very well to the look of a scene.
Obviously that gets extremely subjective, but that's kind of the core issue here; people want to run down a list of scored bullet points for the sake of staying "objective", when the needs of a game and the user are going to change on a case-by-case basis. Any bullet point list which lays out how to score things is going to be subjective in its own right, on top of being flimsy if applied without change to any and all games.
Obviously if DF awards a "winner" beyond simply presenting the information in the way they do now, you're adding in a layer of subjective game reviewer shenanigans on top of the results. The point Strange is making is that a bunch of checkboxes wouldn't really solve this problem, just divert its representation (and in a way which is in some respects bad, since it would likely wind up awarding stuff with no respect to how it contributes to the game's actual visual makeup from the end user perspective, which is theoretically the primary reason for DF analyses).
Hence why a lot of people around the internet are calling for DF to "just present the facts."
(((interference)))
Veteran
What I don't quite understand is why the PS4 would have an issue with texture filtering when the XB1 doesn't. Since the GPUs are basically identical except with the PS4 generally having more of everything.
I'm guessing the devs found it just too expensive to do AF when you're running at 50% higher resolution than XB1?
djskribbles
Legend
This is not a thread to debate personal preferences, it's a technical discussion forum.
djskribbles
Legend
They're neither right or wrong. But, we have every right to question their decision if it's not a clear win.
I think it would be better if DF just presented the facts.
I think it would be better if DF just presented the facts.
But we then end up discussing in essence, their preferences.
Some game could technically trounce another version in every area, framerate, polygons, shaders, textures, but then if they put the worst smearing Vaseline AA X10 on top of it, how can it be declared superior? Such an extreme example can help us illuminate the issue.
I dont get the big deal, occasionally DF rewards the technically less skilled (generally the key metric being resolution) version due to some presentation quirks. It's fairly rare but it's happened throughout, on all platforms. Such as GTA 4.
djskribbles
Legend
What I meant was that this is not a thread to debate whether or not added effects are visually appealing.
Last edited by a moderator:
But I think DF declared a winner based on better texture filtering, feeling that outweighed a few other minor disadvantages.
You yourself a few posts back
Based on...preferences...
Which really isn't what my post was doing, even if I brought it up as a practical point of discussion in articles like those DF writes. My post was a discussion of the role and impact of personal preferences in technical review.
Which you're doing as well, considering that you're arguing (or at least stating without argument) that Digital Foundry ought to not bother with recommendations (which in any reasonable situation is going to factor in personal preference).
That said? Ironically, unlike actual debate of personal preferences, this discussion that we're having about DF's methods actually is probably off-topic according to the thread OP, and maybe should be deleted (or moved to some sort of Console Forum philosophy thread).
djskribbles
Legend
Way to take my post out of context. This is what I said.
What I meant by that, was that it looks like a clear win for the PS4 version if we were to compare bullet points, but I can see how some would pick the XB1 version. I was not trying to say that the PS4 version is definitively better and that DF was wrong.
You're not getting it... all I'm saying is that I didn't think that this thread was to discuss whether or not added effects are visually appealing or not, which is what you were doing... saying that the use of POM makes it look worse as if it were a fact, disregarding it completely just because you don't think it looks good.
Last edited by a moderator:
Maybe they did, I don't know the texture power of either machine offhand but af's hit on system bandwidth, sampling, etc increases dramatically as the level of af is cranked up. If they were already touching borderline unacceptable 1080p performance then maybe they had to drop af a bit to keep things running acceptably. It can be so hard to know why without a performance profile because these things don't always affect system load in a linear manner, maybe af took them over the top and they decided to drop it because 1080p was more important to them. Of course it could all be a bug as well, af is usually set in the artist tools so all it takes it one export bug and poof all af gets set wrong. In the end though df saw the games running first hand, which is the only way to appreciate af, and felt the difference was important enough to make note of. I certainly can't judge af from youtube videos, there's just too much compression to do any valid form of comparison there.
A number of captures from the Gamersyde copy of an MP pre-release trailer showed it quite readily, actually.
RenegadeRocks
Legend
Thats news ! Had no idea. I thought the MP looked different because they tweaked the gfx for lesser load, to get higher framerates. I don't remember seeing a blur in MP compared to the SP.
RenegadeRocks
Legend
What are the telltale signs?
Lots of striped artefacts in the rendering during movement. It was especially noticeable on transparencies, but some shots with the temporal ghosting showed it as well.
http://www.gamersyde.com/gallery_23640_en.html Most of the screencaps (even with the craptastic compression) show the problem here.
RenegadeRocks
Legend
Can u pls point out a bit ( circle it or something) in any screenshot to distinguish between it and aliasing and simply lack of pixels? I do not know about temporal scaling.
http://i.imgur.com/MybmmCm.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/pzchWhM.jpg
There's more that I didn't circle, but the green is the interlaced artefacting. I also circled in red the parts that look like typical half-res upscale in the first image.
Anyways, toodles.
Now this is interesting; I remember Timothy Lottes suggesting they do this several months before launch, i think he deleted the post though.
Edit; Does anyone know why my post history from before april last year is not there? does this have something in common with my post count sometimes not increasing after several posts?
Last edited by a moderator:
- Status
Similar threads
