PS4 and Xbox One resolution / frame rate discussion

[+Audioboxer Subscriber²]

  On 29/06/2014 at 15:29, George P said:

I have yet to see a review that talks about performance issues but w/e.  It's not a fast pace shooter anyways.

 

DF mentioned some

 

- PS4 almost matches PC IQ, running at ultra settings.

- XB1 has lower resolution artwork and reduced texture filtering and also limited indirect shadowing

- Fluctuating framerate on both consoles

- PS4 closest to delivering 60 fps experience with a 5-10 fps lead over XB1

- XB1 has trouble keeping a consistent framerate when vegetation is on screen

- XB1 suffers a lot from tearing 

- PC seems to have lower quality "buggy" shadows compared to consoles

 

  Quote

While Sniper Elite 3 doesn't mark a true next-generation push for the series, it shows a clear evolution of the groundwork laid down in the last game that really benefits from the more wide-scale implementation of large environments and open-world design. Coupled with decent draw distances and reasonably detailed visuals, we get a real sense that Rebellion is moving ever closer to nailing the feel of being a sharpshooter stuck behind enemy lines, albeit in a B-movie type actioner that doesn't always take itself too seriously when it comes to glorifying each and every hard-hitting shot.

 

As you would expect, the PC version offers up the most graphically complete package of all three releases, but also runs very well on lower-end hardware configurations compared to other recent multi-platform titles. 1080p at 60fps should be easily possible via lowering a few of the less essential settings down a notch - such as shadow quality and disabling obscurance fields. Meanwhile, owners of higher-end graphics cards should be able to take advantage of smooth frame-rates at 1440p and 4K without ruthlessly needing to pair back on the quality of effects.

 

Rebellion's in-house Asura engine proves that it has the potential to bring a 60fps experience to consoles, although the technology doesn't appear to be fully optimised for the task in hand given the large gap between PC, PS4 and Xbox One performance. The PS4 game holds up rather well in approaching a 60fps set-up while featuring almost identical graphical quality to the PC game running with ultra settings enabled. The frame-rate drops are still distracting, but aren't really severe enough to heavily impact upon the gameplay. It's clearly the most dependable console version and easily the one to go for given the choice.

 

In comparison, the Xbox One version feels like it could have used a little more time in development to better optimise around Microsoft's more complicated hardware set-up. The graphical compromises rob scenes of some fine detail, while performance fails to deliver anywhere near a perceptual 60fps. An obvious solution for achieving closer parity may have been to drop resolution, but in a game so reliant on picking out small detail from a distance, that probably isn't the best idea. There's the sense that Rebellion simply made the best compromises available. By and large, it works. There's still much to enjoy here - it's just that the experience isn't as solid as it is on competing platforms.

 

Example of tearing

 

 

[Guest]

  On 09/07/2014 at 11:36, Audioboxer said:

...

 

 

Which as nothing to do with the platforms, but with the devs' competence. But keep trying.

 

The part where they try to compare the PS4 with a PC is quite funny. :laugh:

  On 29/06/2014 at 15:29, George P said:

I have yet to see a review that talks about performance issues but w/e.  It's not a fast pace shooter anyways.

 

The game has problems on PC, for sure. Thanks to the amazing performance of the consoles, no doubt. Texture popping in 2014, hell yea, lets party like its the 90s!

[George P Global Moderator]

  On 09/07/2014 at 11:52, elenarie said:

Which as nothing to do with the platforms, but with the devs' competence. But keep trying.

 

The part where they try to compare the PS4 with a PC is quite funny. :laugh:

 

The game has problems on PC, for sure. Thanks to the amazing performance of the consoles, no doubt. Texture popping in 2014, hell yea, lets party like its the 90s!

 

I don't know what engine they use but it could just be part of how it's coded, not even that old/long ago we've talked about texture pop in games, any game that uses Unreal Engine 3 for example will have it, it's used to cut down/cut out level loading times.

[JonnyLH]

  On 29/06/2014 at 14:52, McKay said:

Again with day one patches.

 

I personally think the very idea should be considered unacceptable. 

 

:dontgetit:

I think it's perfectly fine. 

 

Why is it not? It gives developers another month+ to work on optimising the game after it's become gold. If this wasn't in place, releases for games would be months later.

[JonnyLH]

  On 09/07/2014 at 11:36, Audioboxer said:

Sniper Elite DF

These articles are insightful and I like their existence but I feel like the differences are just way over-exaggerated by warriors on the internet. I mean, tearing is bad and should never exist but other than that you have a nice 1080p game with very good IQ which is enjoyable on both platforms with the small differences made above.

 

Who's going to stare at rocks and judge the quality of the game based on a slightly higher rock texture resolution on one platform? This stuff is getting beyond a joke. TBH I'm quite surprised how well the XB1 matches the PS4 recently in terms of graphical difference. This game, Destiny being up'd, SO, FH2 etc. With the paper specs, it looked like a different scenario.

[McKay]

  On 09/07/2014 at 13:13, JonnyLH said:

I think it's perfectly fine. 

 

Why is it not? It gives developers another month+ to work on optimising the game after it's become gold. If this wasn't in place, releases for games would be months later.

 

Because they're shipping unfinished games with the hope that they can finish it later.

[JonnyLH]

  On 09/07/2014 at 14:47, McKay said:

Because they're shipping unfinished games with the hope that they can finish it later.

It's not really a hope. Work is planned out thoroughly inside these companies which know how many man hours they have, the complexity of the work and the man hours it'll involve.

 

I'd rather have the release of a game I want a month or 2 earlier with a day 1 patch rather than wait.

[+Audioboxer Subscriber²]

Developers only started to get really sloppy when it became really easy to patch games - There is a correlation.

 

Sure titles these days are more complex than Xbox/PS2 days, but there are definitely titles being shipped far too early simply because a patch can be done. Couple of generations ago some of the game bugs we see these days simply couldn't be let through (or there would be disc recalls...).

[Skiver Veteran]

  On 09/07/2014 at 16:10, Audioboxer said:

Developers only started to get really sloppy when it became really easy to patch games - There is a correlation.

 

Sure titles these days are more complex than Xbox/PS2 days, but there are definitely titles being shipped far too early simply because a patch can be done. Couple of generations ago some of the game bugs we see these days simply couldn't be let through (or there would be disc recalls...).

 

If software development is the same in games as it is elsewhere, I suspect these sorts of decision are made by people outside of the development team. I know the guys I work with will sit down, come up with an estimate as to how long it will take to develop X and then add a little more for safety but in reality software will always have bugs and they are found right up until the days before release. The release date is often agreed very early on though, and as long as quality targets are met they will release on that date whether its riddled with bugs or not.

[LaP]

Personally i don't mind day one patch at all. I usually buy games when they are 3+ months old :P

[George P Global Moderator]

There's no patch if you're either getting it digitally or if you get the 2nd batch of game discs that go out, probably 2 weeks later or so.  Being able to patch games has one benefit, we get them sooner than we used to, development time on games used to be longer though at the same time todays games are way more complex.   That's just how it's going to be until we're all mostly or fully digital only and don't buy discs.

[Polonium]

The major problem is the difference between ps4 and xbone is much larger than any of the differences between the last gen. MS have sure fudged up in a big way and I don't think even directx will make a dent.

Sure am glad I chose a ps4 as my main console.

[DrunknMunky Veteran]

Topic cleaned

 

Stick to the topic please and drop the subtle trolling

[spenser.d]

Just voicing my opinion ;)

 

  On 09/07/2014 at 13:21, JonnyLH said:

These articles are insightful and I like their existence but I feel like the differences are just way over-exaggerated by warriors on the internet. I mean, tearing is bad and should never exist but other than that you have a nice 1080p game with very good IQ which is enjoyable on both platforms with the small differences made above.

 

Who's going to stare at rocks and judge the quality of the game based on a slightly higher rock texture resolution on one platform? This stuff is getting beyond a joke. TBH I'm quite surprised how well the XB1 matches the PS4 recently in terms of graphical difference. This game, Destiny being up'd, SO, FH2 etc. With the paper specs, it looked like a different scenario.

 

Have to agree with this. If you're sitting around staring at scenery to discern these differences, you're probably not actually playing (and probably getting killed by an NPC), or you're the person writing these articles. I'm currently playing Tomb Raider on X1 right now which I'm sure is said to look better on the PS4, but I'm too busy shooting guys in the face with an arrow to notice some upscaled shrubbery. It looks pretty solid to me. There is a degree where games can look significantly better while actually playing them between two systems but it's certainly not large enough between the PS4 and Xbox One.

[Polonium]

Funny how the differences were big enough to mention last gen when in reality the differences were smaller. Nobody had an issue with Digital Foundry then, right? People wanted to know that Red Dead Redemption had less shrubs on ps3. The idea you were too busy shooting people or enjoying the game was laughed at.

Ironic isn't it?

[trooper11]

  On 09/07/2014 at 18:21, Polonium said:

The major problem is the difference between ps4 and xbone is much larger than any of the differences between the last gen. MS have sure fudged up in a big way and I don't think even directx will make a dent.

Sure am glad I chose a ps4 as my main console.

Yeah, you could be right, there may be no improvements MS can make over time. You made the best choice for you.

 

 

  On 09/07/2014 at 20:52, Polonium said:

Funny how the differences were big enough to mention last gen when in reality the differences were smaller. Nobody had an issue with Digital Foundry then, right? People wanted to know that Red Dead Redemption had less shrubs on ps3. The idea you were too busy shooting people or enjoying the game was laughed at.

Ironic isn't it?

Yes it is, for those that are on the winning side.

What I always find fascinating is how few people stick to a certain belief. So in this case, some people that argued these points were not a big deal last gen, just to turn around and make a big deal now, while at the same time chiding those that flipped the other way. People that will suddenly side with certain websites that support their side or oppose the other side when it was the opposite before.

I never felt it necessary to scrutinize the issue last gen. I had both, I was happy with both. Even with all of the negative that surrounds the X1 online, I'm still happy I picked it along with my ps4. The topic matters, but people take it way too far, to the point that most gamers tune it out and ignore the arguing. It becomes an echo chamber for a small, but vocal group.

[spenser.d]

  On 09/07/2014 at 20:52, Polonium said:

Funny how the differences were big enough to mention last gen when in reality the differences were smaller. Nobody had an issue with Digital Foundry then, right? People wanted to know that Red Dead Redemption had less shrubs on ps3. The idea you were too busy shooting people or enjoying the game was laughed at.

Ironic isn't it?

 

No. I always presumed the 360 and PS3 were pretty on par and thought this whole debate was dumb back then as well. The issue was that Sony touted Cell as being the end-all that would crush the competition and then it didn't. Kind like what Microsoft did this time around (think they'd have learned) with their 'engineering' spiel. Both gens were/are close though and to say otherwise is to be ignorant (or something else not mentionable here).

[Polonium]

Last gen it was extremely close... This gen it really isn't at the moment. Massive resolution differences, frame rate and general graphics

[trooper11]

  On 10/07/2014 at 07:04, Polonium said:

Last gen it was extremely close... This gen it really isn't at the moment. Massive resolution differences, frame rate and general graphics

Define massive.

Defining the terms is a good idea when you make sweeping generalizations.

Remember, the ps4's gpu is 50% stronger in terms of raw power. So your definition of massive cannot exceed 50% better. Anything beyond 50% is a developer issue, not a hardware issue.

[Polonium]

And 50% isn't massive, no?

[Emn1ty]

The resolution difference isn't massive, framerate differences aren't that huge either. Even the graphics are pretty close and often times come down to the developer more than the system (and devs have even said that resolution targets are 900p on BOTH consoles).

[trooper11]

  On 10/07/2014 at 17:45, Polonium said:

And 50% isn't massive, no?

I don't know to be honest.

In the pc world, that is not massive. Massive would be something that might be say twice as powerful at least. In terms of resolution framerate, if all t games on one console were 720p/30 with low to mid visual effects and all games on another were 1080p/60 with high to max visual effects, then that would sound in the massive territory for me

How much more powerful is the X1 and PS4 vs the WiiU? If that is say twice as powerful, then I would call that massive.

50%? Personally, I wouldn't consider that massive, just very noticeable depending on how the developer uses it.

[Polonium]

  On 10/07/2014 at 19:56, Emn1ty said:

The resolution difference isn't massive, framerate differences aren't that huge either. Even the graphics are pretty close and often times come down to the developer more than the system (and devs have even said that resolution targets are 900p on BOTH consoles).

They are massive, they are different and funny how even though 900p is the preferred res, the ps4 has hit higher and more consistently than in Xbox. So again, the difference is quite significant

[spenser.d]

  On 11/07/2014 at 19:32, Polonium said:

They are massive, they are different and funny how even though 900p is the preferred res, the ps4 has hit higher and more consistently than in Xbox. So again, the difference is quite significant

It's not though. You can say it is all you want by spewing numbers all day, but when you're actually playing the games, the difference isn't even close to massive.

[Polonium]

That old chestnut.. See, I DO notice the difference. I notice the poorer graphics, the screen tearing and I know when a game isn't full 1080p .. Its easy to see that.

So you can continue to spew that there are no visible differences and if you own both and don't notice, power to you. I however do