Alien: Isolation 5 platforms Face Off

DriedMangoes

DriedMangoes

We The North 🦖🍁
Sep 12, 2013
26,158
8,954
3,930
Interesting how they concluded that the devs wanted parity on this title. Also that they believed 60FPS was achievable on the PS4.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2014-alien-isolation-face-off

Creative Assembly wanted parity between PS4 and Xbox One and on the basis of image quality, detail and effects work it has managed it, but while native 1080p sharpness may please Xbox One owners, it has come at a cost, because while the Xbox One version delivers the core Alien experience mostly intact, overall immersion is compromised by frequent drops in fluidity. Performance is obviously the deciding factor here and it's clear PS4 has a distinct advantage. As such the PS4 game gets our recommendation for console owners, even though we're left with the nagging feeling that 60fps should have been possible on Sony's hardware based on the game's PC showing.

It's worth noting that Alien: Isolation takes advantage of specific features in both consoles to enrich the gameplay experience. PlayStation Camera and Kinect offer head-tracking so you can physically lean to look around corners in the game, while the microphone allows the Alien to track you via real-world audio. The DualShock 4 speaker also outputs the pulse of your motion tracker, which is a nice touch. These features can be disabled if they aren't to your taste, but we enjoyed them.

The last-gen releases of Alien: Isolation feature all of the core elements found in the PS4, Xbox One and PC releases to successfully recreate the suspense and much of the atmosphere of the top-end versions. However, the experience is compromised by low frame-rates and a rough, sub-720p presentation that makes it much harder to remain immersed. Xbox 360 gets the nod here, although some detail is lost to black crush in darker areas.

In the final analysis, the PC game is the definitive version of Alien: Isolation. While the level of graphical quality is only marginally improved over PS4 and Xbox One, the game is easy to run across a wide range of configurations, so 1080p at 60fps is achievable on older GPUs without having to dramatically lower graphical presets, while the low system requirements of the game easily open up running at 1440p at high frame-rates. A key advantage of PC gaming is the ability to scale the experience to your specific hardware, and the headroom available in Alien: Isolation opens up a vast range of options. Oculus Rift, anyone?
 
The game isn't locked 30fps on ps4. I would buy that if it was completely locked and the xb1 version was the only one dropping fps, but it isn't, it still struggles with 30fps. The truth is, ps4 can't handle most games at 60fps/1080p unless it looks last gen for the most part. That's were we are unfortunately.
 
DriedMangoes said:
Interesting how they concluded that the devs wanted parity on this title. Also that they believed 60FPS was achievable on the PS4.

even though we're left with the nagging feeling that 60fps should have been possible on Sony's hardware based on the game's PC showing.
Click to expand...
The+Truth+Is+Out+There-8x6.jpg
 
I looked at the fps video. PS4 has the more stable fps, no doubt. Well, its the more powerful hardware no matter how people want to spin it. However, there are fps drop as wells, not as frequent as X1, but there are, so very unlikely its able to handle 60fps, which required double the performance. Maybe it can handled 45fps (in line with the performance difference of about 30-40%), but no one uses 45 fps. (locked frame rates are usually preferred to be multiple to 30).

The days of X1 having half of PS4 resolution or FPS are over (with exception from Konami), the hardware difference doesn't translated to double the performance on PS4. Its probably a combination of very poor tools & Kinect bottleneck on X1 side.

With better tools, the game performance will be more in line with the hardware difference. Also, with the hardware fixed (the earlier games, the spec of the hardware weren't yet fixed), designers have better understanding of the capability of the hardwares & hence able to design with the res/fps in mind & adjust the game asserts to fit the lowest denominator. If the hardware difference are exploited, developer may be obligated to add some extra effects like better AA or shadow to the better hardware, otherwise the difference maybe minimal, especially if they locked the fps.
 
DriedMangoes said:
Interesting how they concluded that the devs wanted parity on this title. Also that they believed 60FPS was achievable on the PS4.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2014-alien-isolation-face-off

Creative Assembly wanted parity between PS4 and Xbox One and on the basis of image quality, detail and effects work it has managed it, but while native 1080p sharpness may please Xbox One owners, it has come at a cost, because while the Xbox One version delivers the core Alien experience mostly intact, overall immersion is compromised by frequent drops in fluidity. Performance is obviously the deciding factor here and it's clear PS4 has a distinct advantage. As such the PS4 game gets our recommendation for console owners, even though we're left with the nagging feeling that 60fps should have been possible on Sony's hardware based on the game's PC showing.

It's worth noting that Alien: Isolation takes advantage of specific features in both consoles to enrich the gameplay experience. PlayStation Camera and Kinect offer head-tracking so you can physically lean to look around corners in the game, while the microphone allows the Alien to track you via real-world audio. The DualShock 4 speaker also outputs the pulse of your motion tracker, which is a nice touch. These features can be disabled if they aren't to your taste, but we enjoyed them.

The last-gen releases of Alien: Isolation feature all of the core elements found in the PS4, Xbox One and PC releases to successfully recreate the suspense and much of the atmosphere of the top-end versions. However, the experience is compromised by low frame-rates and a rough, sub-720p presentation that makes it much harder to remain immersed. Xbox 360 gets the nod here, although some detail is lost to black crush in darker areas.

In the final analysis, the PC game is the definitive version of Alien: Isolation. While the level of graphical quality is only marginally improved over PS4 and Xbox One, the game is easy to run across a wide range of configurations, so 1080p at 60fps is achievable on older GPUs without having to dramatically lower graphical presets, while the low system requirements of the game easily open up running at 1440p at high frame-rates. A key advantage of PC gaming is the ability to scale the experience to your specific hardware, and the headroom available in Alien: Isolation opens up a vast range of options. Oculus Rift, anyone?
Click to expand...
Of course 60 fps is possible for the PS4 version but when you have MS parity you get the s***ty end of the stick and PC trolls pointing out the 900p/30fps ness of certain PS4 versions.
 
starseeker said:
I looked at the fps video. PS4 has the more stable fps, no doubt. Well, its the more powerful hardware no matter how people want to spin it. However, there are fps drop as wells, not as frequent as X1, but there are, so very unlikely its able to handle 60fps, which required double the performance. Maybe it can handled 45fps (in line with the performance difference of about 30-40%), but no one uses 45 fps. (locked frame rates are usually preferred to be multiple to 30).

The days of X1 having half of PS4 resolution or FPS are over (with exception from Konami), the hardware difference doesn't translated to double the performance on PS4. Its probably a combination of very poor tools & Kinect bottleneck on X1 side.

With better tools, the game performance will be more in line with the hardware difference. Also, with the hardware fixed (the earlier games, the spec of the hardware weren't yet fixed), designers have better understanding of the capability of the hardwares & hence able to design with the res/fps in mind & adjust the game asserts to fit the lowest denominator. If the hardware difference are exploited, developer may be obligated to add some extra effects like better AA or shadow to the better hardware, otherwise the difference maybe minimal, especially if they locked the fps.
Click to expand...
You do know when synching or limiting fps you could get fps drops right?
COD Ghosts PS4 says hello.

It does translate to double the performance and this has been shown but that parity BS changes things.
 
de3d1 said:
The game isn't locked 30fps on ps4. I would buy that if it was completely locked and the xb1 version was the only one dropping fps, but it isn't, it still struggles with 30fps. The truth is, ps4 can't handle most games at 60fps/1080p unless it looks last gen for the most part. That's were we are unfortunately.
Click to expand...
Here you go again

You do know that almost no 60 fps (PC included) is locked at 60 fps right?
I will answer for ya no you don't.
Forza 5 is one of the only games in gamings history that actually never dips below 60fps.

When a game is 60 fps its considered 60fps dips or not period.
 
VaLLiancE said:
You do know when synching or limiting fps you could get fps drops right?
COD Ghosts PS4 says hello.

It does translate to double the performance and this has been shown but that parity BS changes things.
Click to expand...

What do you mean double the performance? 30 to 60 fps is double the performance but its not possible for PS4 because PS4 is not twice as powerful as the X1.

Edit: Ok, I looked at the video again, you may have a point regarding the fps drop due to synch. I notice that when frame drop for PS4, its one step, then return (as opposed to a lengthy drop over a period for X1 case) , & the pattern is consistent. So it may be a drop due to the frame lock design resulting in rounding off to 30fps or something like that.

So the argument that PS4 also have frame drop, as reason it can't do 60fps may not be a strong argument. However, my argument still stand that its unlikely possible as PS4 is not 2X more powerful than X1.
 
Last edited:
starseeker said:
You may get 1 maybe 2 fps drop due to rounding off to 30fps, but there are lower drops in the videos.

What do you mean double the performance? 30 to 60 fps is double the performance but its not possible for PS4 because PS4 is not twice as powerful as the X1.
Click to expand...
Over 40%/= double the performance=some non MS parity games being 60fps on PS4 vs 30 fps on XBO and 1080p/900p vs 900p/720p on XBO.

You do know that the above examples exist right?
 
VaLLiancE said:
Over 40%/= double the performance=some non MS parity games being 60fps on PS4 vs 30 fps on XBO and 1080p/900p vs 900p/720p on XBO.

You do know that the above examples exist right?
Click to expand...

Yes, but only in the early days when X1 is poorly optimised & kinect as bottle neck. That time has since pass. Kinect can be disabled, & SDK have improved more in line with the hardware capability. I am talking about currently, with better tools. Why else you think KI season 2 is able to run at 900p compare to 720p at launch?

If you haven't notice, the double the performance gaps in game have all but disappeared between the platforms (except Konami games).
 
Last edited:
The problem with people who are spouting off 40% difference/the PS4 could do 60fps are forgetting one important aspect.
There is a craptacular CPU in both the PS4 & XB1.

No amount of GPGPU or brute GPU power is going to overcome this. People stop and take a reading on how modern game engines utilize hardware.

Yes...it is ~40% difference in GPU POWER between the two, but CPU power is just as important and needs to be balanced in the equation before spouting off 'bbbbuttt ttehhhh GDDR 5 RAMZ and teh GPU.'

Not factoring the CPU into it all is just naive.
 
VaLLiancE said:
So Xbox One tools improve to lessen the gap and the PS4 tools are in limbo= over 40% gap gone!

Gotcha!
Click to expand...
My patient is wearing thin, if you cannot just calm down & think for a second, this will be the last time I reply to you.

Both platform will continue to improve. As a matter of fact, after the initial imrpove of X1, the next improvements will be much less, because the main improvement on X1 is NOT about lessening the gap of the system. The 40% or so gap is always there. The improvement for the X1 is so that X1 can produce the performance of its intended hardware.

Using a car analogy. Say PS4 is a car with a 2l engine, & X1 is 1.6l engine. At launch, the 2L PS4 is able to utilize most of its engine capability, say 80%, which give it a power of 160hp.

At launch the 1.6 L X1 have a few choke points, Kinect & tuning, which allow only an output equivalent to 55% efficiency, giving it an output of 95hp.

So when the car race at the start of season, it was left far behind. SO the X1 engineer was hard at work to make the car more efficient. So after a year, it manage to squeeze 85% out of the engine, giving it 136hp. PS4 engineers are not resting as well, but as the car is already optimise, there is less gain going forward, & but they manage to get the performance to 85%, so now it runs at 170hp.

170hp is still more than 136hp, & is more indication of the performance difference base on the engines (1.6L vs 2L), but its a far cry from 169/95hp, at the beginning of the season.

From here on, the X1 performance gap will not shrink as much, if at all, as the optimisation gets harder as as it go towards its theoretical 100%. This is the reason why PS4 isn't able to pull so much ahead as its quite optimistic already from the start.
 
VaLLiancE said:
Here you go again

You do know that almost no 60 fps (PC included) is locked at 60 fps right?
I will answer for ya no you don't.
Forza 5 is one of the only games in gamings history that actually never dips below 60fps.

When a game is 60 fps its considered 60fps dips or not period.
Click to expand...

No surprise, but you make no sense. The problem is the cpu. The same reason almost no next gen games are 1080p/60fps and they won't be.
 
Last edited:
The Living Tribunal said:
The problem with people who are spouting off 40% difference/the PS4 could do 60fps are forgetting one important aspect.
There is a craptacular CPU in both the PS4 & XB1.

No amount of GPGPU or brute GPU power is going to overcome this. People stop and take a reading on how modern game engines utilize hardware.

Yes...it is ~40% difference in GPU POWER between the two, but CPU power is just as important and needs to be balanced in the equation before spouting off 'bbbbuttt ttehhhh GDDR 5 RAMZ and teh GPU.'

Not factoring the CPU into it all is just naive.
Click to expand...
Actually, the estimation of the theoretical difference is base on combine factor of mainly CPU, GPU & Ram. The GPU in PS4 is actually about 50% more powerful. Its due to factoring in CPU that the differences is reduced slightly to about 40%. Reduction could have been more if the ram are similar (with PS4 ram being significantly faster).

I think 30-40% is in my opinion a reasonable deduction of the performance gap, but Computer programs are not like say cars. A car of 40% more power will run circle around the other car, but in computer graphics, you need a huge performance difference to get a very visible jump in visuals.
 
starseeker said:
Actually, the estimation of the theoretical difference is base on combine factor of mainly CPU, GPU & Ram. The GPU in PS4 is actually about 50% more powerful. Its due to factoring in CPU that the differences is reduced slightly to about 40%. Reduction could have been more if the ram are similar (with PS4 ram being significantly faster).

I think 30-40% is in my opinion a reasonable deduction of the performance gap, but Computer programs are not like say cars. A car of 40% more power will run circle around the other car, but in computer graphics, you need a huge performance difference to get a very visible jump in visuals.
Click to expand...

Yeah I know this and generally agree.
My initial post was to illustrate that CPU power has a huge bearing on framerates.

The PS4 having a craptacular CPU isn't going to magically make all of its games run at 60fps.
 
The Living Tribunal said:
Yeah I know this and generally agree.
My initial post was to illustrate that CPU power has a huge bearing on framerates.

The PS4 having a craptacular CPU isn't going to magically make all of its games run at 60fps.
Click to expand...
I see. You are right.
 
And the gap continues to close. $ony kinda blew the whole thing with the CPU bottleneck. Good comparison for sure.
 
If the game dropped below 30fps then 60fps is out of the question. Perhaps they could have lowered some more settings on the console versions to get to 60fps.
 
From the eurogamer article:

In comparison, both consoles target 30fps as the target frame-rate, although neither manages to solidly stick to it under load. Performance is mostly stable on PS4 with frame-rates incurring a light drop in combat
Click to expand...

Its not just vsync, the consoles can't handle a locked 30fps throughout in combat, much less 60fps would be all over the place.


Judging by PC results on lower-end hardware, it doesn't seem outside the realms of possibility for the PS4 - and to a lesser extent the Xbox One - to deliver something closer to a 60fps experience given the benefits of closed-box optimisation. So what could be the limiting factor on consoles? Perhaps the low-power AMD CPU cores are to blame.
Click to expand...

Pretty conclusive, we were extremely shortchanged on the cpu side. You can't expect miracles with old laptop cpus.
 
The CPU used in these machines are pretty low end. I think this is the first gen after the PS1 where is console hardware are not cutting edge compare to the PC rivals. The laptop I bought in mid 2012 have more CPU juice.
 
Kvally said:
And the gap continues to close. $ony kinda blew the whole thing with the CPU bottleneck. Good comparison for sure.
Click to expand...

There will always be a 30-40% GPU gap. It will be there till the end of time. It isn't closing.
Also, both consoles have crappy CPUs and the framerate deficiency imposed therein will only grow as the generation matures.

I expect locked 30fps console games will soon become the norm.
 
Yep, and going forward its not like games are suddenly going to be less demanding. lol
 
VaLLiancE said:
Here you go again

You do know that almost no 60 fps (PC included) is locked at 60 fps right?
I will answer for ya no you don't.
Forza 5 is one of the only games in gamings history that actually never dips below 60fps.

When a game is 60 fps its considered 60fps dips or not period.
Click to expand...

I don't understand this statement. Are you saying a PC gamer can't lock a game to 60fps without it dipping below that?
 
VFX_Veteran said:
If the game dropped below 30fps then 60fps is out of the question. Perhaps they could have lowered some more settings on the console versions to get to 60fps.
Click to expand...

Shadow quality comes to mind.
Considering the base game has no decent AA to speak of I think lowering just one setting (DOF, SSAO) could have bumped the console versions to 60fps most likely.
 
Last edited:
I have the 1120 x 720 Xbox 360 version which is superior to the 960 x 720 and lower average frame rate PS3 version.

It is the fourth best version of Alien Isolation.

Who wants to touch me?
 
The Living Tribunal said:
The problem with people who are spouting off 40% difference/the PS4 could do 60fps are forgetting one important aspect.
There is a craptacular CPU in both the PS4 & XB1.

No amount of GPGPU or brute GPU power is going to overcome this. People stop and take a reading on how modern game engines utilize hardware.

Yes...it is ~40% difference in GPU POWER between the two, but CPU power is just as important and needs to be balanced in the equation before spouting off 'bbbbuttt ttehhhh GDDR 5 RAMZ and teh GPU.'

Not factoring the CPU into it all is just naive.
Click to expand...

Disagree
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back