They have always covered most every cross-platform game in the past. SE3 actually has some good reviews (IGN 8.2).
Digital Foundry Article Technical Discussion Archive [2014]
- Thread starter DieH@rd
- Start date
-
- Tags
- digital foundry
- Status
They have always covered most every cross-platform game in the past. SE3 actually has some good reviews (IGN 8.2).
Metascore is at 73, and I don't think the studio is anywhere close to a powerhouse developer.
You should get a trophy for the best meltdown in the history of B3D. Dropping "AIDS ridden" is pretty much automatic victory. I salute you.
What does that have to do with DF? Go check their history, metacritic doesn't play into it at all.
Point is that top tier developers tend to be able to "figure out" the technical limitations more so than smaller studios, hence my mentioning of Bungie's Destiny. They also tend to have more resource to be dedicated to polishing the games. The reality is that when faced with a hard deadline, you prioritize your resources and hope for the best. Sure DF did a comparison on Strider too, guess how that one turned out.
(and honestly I don't follow this logic, I said game is mediocre, you said IGN gave it good score, I said Metascore indicates otherwise, now you told me score doesn't matter...?)
Last edited by a moderator:
Just sounds like you put blame on the devs, when it's the machines problem form being so weak in comparison. Any "figured out", is nothing less than forced parity.
As for the scoring comment,what does that make Ryse,which sits at a 60? It's just dumb to bring that up at all
Just sounds like you put blame on the devs, when it's the machines problem form being so weak in comparison. Any "figured out", is nothing less than forced parity.
As for the scoring comment,what does that make Ryse,which sits at a 60? It's just dumb to bring that up at all
Yes, the X1 has a weaker system spec in comparison, and Ryse is a shitty game with only graphics going for it, so what's your point?
Long time ago when I was in the industry, when deadline came, the best looking and running version turned out to be on the weaker system, why? because more than half of the company are put on it versus the other platforms. There wass no conspiracy to sandbag the "better" system for "forced parity", we have enough bugs as is, who had time for that, people are pulling all-nighters and sleeping in office already!
Last edited by a moderator:
You want to talk imagination? Imagine 2 pc's. exact same amount of memory, same processor. Now fit one with a worse GPU. change the memory to a much lower speed. Cut connections between the GPU and CPU. remove ROPs, remove ACE's. Now add some TV stuff that needs CPU and GPU cycles reserved
Unless the strongest of those PC's is running a super unoptimised, resource heavy OS, with buggy beta drivers; there will never be parity, unless it's forced
DF always mentioned the strengths of the 360 and the difficulty of the PS3 architecture.
This time around, there are no such differences, same architecture. Any optimisations that can be made on the Xbox One, can be bettered on the PS4. It's basic science.
DF doesn't mention this, because they want to keep fanboys on both sides happy, but it's almost a miracle that we have EA games looking as closely as they do.
Unless the strongest of those PC's is running a super unoptimised, resource heavy OS, with buggy beta drivers; there will never be parity, unless it's forced
DF always mentioned the strengths of the 360 and the difficulty of the PS3 architecture.
This time around, there are no such differences, same architecture. Any optimisations that can be made on the Xbox One, can be bettered on the PS4. It's basic science.
DF doesn't mention this, because they want to keep fanboys on both sides happy, but it's almost a miracle that we have EA games looking as closely as they do.
Last edited by a moderator:
In a multiplatform game, the weaker system will always have the weaker graphics. It's a general rule of thumb. No need to get upset about it.
Richard Leadbetter didn't write a line of code on any commercial games either, yet he is doing pretty well
Digital Foundry is showing you differences, if you don't want to accept them, that's up to you.
I just think your sense of entitlement is unbearable: "top tier devs", have you ever written a single line of code? Or are you saying that Ubisoft, Activision, and every other dev aside from EA Sports are not "top tier"?
"AIDS ridden" is a very, very unfortunate naming decision. Surely there's another way to call it.......
There probably is.
Point is that games are being riddled with gameplay (and immersion) harming technical compromises because the ability to resist the 1080p-at-any-cost disease has been weakened. Some something immune system something.
But "AIDS ridden" wasn't a nice way to put it. Neither was referring to it as a cancer when I did that either.
Perhaps I should leave out the medical / disease analogies from now on ...
Meltdown? I'm barely even warmed up. That's not even in my top fifty (lol Mass Effect 3).
This is going to be a long generation. 1080p is going to be the target for PS4 for many games for a while to come, and Xbox 1 isn't going to stop being less powerful. Developers need the room to make good decisions on how to handle that gap, because turning off aniso and having a game stumble and tear it's way through an inadequate number of frames per second is not a good way to handle the difference.
Is there any evidence that sub 1080p cross-platform games on XB1 have sold proportionately less? I thought game sales were pretty much the same based on install base, showing that despite internet noise against sub-1080p, actual XB1 owners don't care all that much. Similar to PS3 owners buying inferior versions of games. At the end of the day, if that's the console you own, you buy the inferior version because it's all that's available. In which case, devs should maximise the machine's version for most Fun* (seeing as these are games consoles).
* entertainment experience, which may not necessarily be fun. Could also included shock, horror, spectacle, etc.
* entertainment experience, which may not necessarily be fun. Could also included shock, horror, spectacle, etc.
D
Deleted member 86764
Guest
Oh I don’t know about that…
I found Microsoft’s reveal of the Xbox One about as inviting as sharing a hot tub with the residents of a leprosy colony.
1080p at any cost is a great idea in the same way that gouging out your eyeball makes sense because you like pirates.
Seriously though, I haven’t watched the DF videos of this game yet, I read the text and they didn’t make out it’s as bad as everyone’s suggesting here. Do you really get points that are < 30fps? I’ll check it out later today…
Billy Idol
Legend
But what choice did XB1 gamers had - buy the 1080p version?
Imo not a good measurement of the importance of 1080p.
I am not sure why 1080p is always the target for the hate. I personally think that it should be general the target of any dev developing on the new consoles. But I also agree with ol' function that if a dev struggles, 1080p should not be set in stone just for the bullet point PR.
I still believe that it should be left to the dev to make the best choice when dealing on a closed system with finite resources. Same goes for refresh rate, see e.g. 30Hz DriveClub which seems to profit quite nicely due to the graphics/effects/features the low framerate enables.
On a different note, I really think that it is important that DF puts out these comparisons and shows the differences. This was also important back then, when the PS3 struggled. The internet buzz surrounding those comparisons should be enough to keep MS on track to improve the situation for the XB1 console - if no one would care and scream, they wouldn't improve imo. Hence, at the end, all XB1 users profit in the long run from the work of DF imo. Same was the case for PS3, where after a disastrous initial phase, we even got the occasional multiplat title that performed slightly better on PS3.
Although, at the moment, I don't really believe in the potential cloud computing offers for real time graphics/physics, it could be that MS invests more money into this tec and maybe find ways to set off the lower powered hardware - one never knows. This is only positive for all XB1 owners imo, and DF helps to put the finger into the wound to constantly remind the company that they need to improve!
You have a choice which console to buy, for what there are a lot of factors affecting your choice. If you buy the console that's not as powerful at some games, you either buy the less powerful version of that game, or don't buy the game. So on PS3, when DF revealed a version of a game ran less well on the PS3 than the XB360, it really didn't matter. If you owned a PS3 instead of an XB360, you'd buy the game anyway - didn't matter that it wasn't as good.
Relative performance to other devices isn't a huge issue IMO, save as a talking point. I find it hard to believe that someone looking at a game and wanting it and intending to buy it is suddenly going to change their mind once they read it has higher tearing than an alternative platform. In this specific case, how many XB1 gamers who are eyeing Sniper Elite 3 are now going to decline to buy it because of tearing? Alternatively, how many would refuse to buy it if it was 900p? We have a decent comparison with relative sales. Given the same game on two platforms, XB1 and PS4, presumably representative of the same general demographic, if XB1's version is sub 1080p and there's a notably smaller proportion of XB1 owners who buy the game, and this is repeated for multiple titles, we can start to see a correlation. Without that, with XB1 gamers buying titles just as much as PS4 gamers buying titles even with lower resolution, it'll prove resolution decision isn't going to affect sales.
Sigfried1977
Legend
A couple hundred comments under a digital foundry article may look impressive on a web page, but at the end of the day it's still just a drop in the ocean (and most of these comments are from console/PC warriors anyway. Guys who made up their minds long before the article was published). The only game I ever skipped because of technical inferiority was Bayonetta because it was supposedly a heavily compromised experience on the PS3. Unlike the majority of console owners I follow this kinda stuff really closely. So when even a guy like me doesn't really care that much when push comes to shove (I enjoyed Red Dead Redemption just fine on the PS3), how much do you think "XxXCoD_FifaXxX" cares?
- Status
Similar threads
