Face Off Preview : NFS Rivals ( One & PS4)
- Thread starter Variance
- Start date
- Status
"EA capped Need For Speed: The run @ 30 fps on pc's. They only uncapped it months later in a patch. What possible reason could they have had to cap a pc game at 30 fps in the first place?
It's obvious they didn't try very hard in nfs rivals. I even watched a video a few days ago with one of the devs talking about the game and he said they wanted to make sure the current gen versions didn't get out done so they made everything the same across the board. It's obvious that the ps4 version should look better but it doesn't and it's damn sure not because the xb1 is equal in performance."
From the last thread.
Devs making both versions the same seems to be rare so far. I wouldn't expect it to be the norm at all going by the multiplat launch lineup. I'm not sure how someone could assume "this will be the norm" when it's one of maybe two or three multiplat games that run the same (still not sure on nba2k14 and fifa14).
It's obvious they didn't try very hard in nfs rivals. I even watched a video a few days ago with one of the devs talking about the game and he said they wanted to make sure the current gen versions didn't get out done so they made everything the same across the board. It's obvious that the ps4 version should look better but it doesn't and it's damn sure not because the xb1 is equal in performance."
From the last thread.
Devs making both versions the same seems to be rare so far. I wouldn't expect it to be the norm at all going by the multiplat launch lineup. I'm not sure how someone could assume "this will be the norm" when it's one of maybe two or three multiplat games that run the same (still not sure on nba2k14 and fifa14).
Last edited:
What multiplats don't run close to parity? Nice job with the lazy devs excuse btw. *yawn*
Define "close to parity".
Yes from the evidence it seems the devs are trying to make the PC/PS4/XB1 versions run the same. It was pretty obvious this was going to happen in some next-gen games despite the hardware gap, but it seems to be uncommon/rare so far.
Yes from the evidence it seems the devs are trying to make the PC/PS4/XB1 versions run the same. It was pretty obvious this was going to happen in some next-gen games despite the hardware gap, but it seems to be uncommon/rare so far.
"I wanted to thank you for the excellent technical analysis of our game, but also ask for a small correction. The article states that the PS4 version of the game is missing ambient occlusion, but the fact is that the PS4 version actually is using it in the form of HBAO."
I'm actually surprised reviewers have been trumpeting this game for its graphic. I did not expect that from EA or the early screenshots.
It sounds also sounds like network stability is a bigger key to making this games enjoyable than graphics. Maybe now that gamers are actually getting their hands on these games we can start to evaluate them as a whole. 'Pees' don't make games fun.
It sounds also sounds like network stability is a bigger key to making this games enjoyable than graphics. Maybe now that gamers are actually getting their hands on these games we can start to evaluate them as a whole. 'Pees' don't make games fun.
Are you fabricating this quote like your others or does this one have a name of a real human being tied to it? Attribution and link?
Intellivision, that's not a wash. If in-game is better on X1 that's most certainly a very slight edge in its favor if all else is equal in-game. If this were a story driven game, maybe cutscenes with better blur would matter a bit, but for a racing game that's not really anything meaningful.
Devs create art with target platforms in mind. Then they make that art run as best as possible on each individual platform.
It's not uncommon at all. CoD, BF4, NFS, AC4 all run basically at parity. The first three all have advantages on X1 as well as PS4 but the overall result in each of those individual cases is extremely similar. The biggest advantage is resolution which BF4 showed in its DF comparison isn't an easily noticeable one by any stretch of the imagination and will arguably look cleaner on X1.
'Close to parity' meaning the average gamer won't be able to tell them apart (or many reviewers evidently). If you have to lean on pixel counting to find a difference you can't detect with the naked eye that's wash.
Stop whining about lazy devs. None of those devs are remotely lazy.
Last edited:
LOL. It's in the Eurogamer article this thread is based on! PLEASE tell me you actually read the article and noticed the quote? I have never "fabricated quotes", yet another false accusation.
Devs usually do that, but sometimes they cap a game's performance and leave power left unused for various reasons, not necessarily because they're "lazy". This is one of those games. This was expected to happen for a few multiplat next-gen games, and seems to be rare so far. I never said the devs were "lazy", yet another false accusation.
There are charts showing at which view distance, screen size, and resolution that most people can tell the difference in resolution. Blankly stating "the average gamer won't be able to tell them apart" while disregarding any other factors is wrong and ridiculous.
Reviews of CoD and AC4 were based on review copies where the resolutions were the same. Post-launch patches will apparently address that issue. You can't use those reviews as proof game reviewers can't tell res differences when they were the same in those review copies. The one review event (out of the 4 games you mentioned) where the games were at the proper res, BF4, the overwhelming number of attendants said PS4 looked better.
Those BF4 60 FPS 2GB footage files showed a significant difference. Still going on about contrast/sharpness/brightness filters when you can do the same thing fiddling with your TV settings. Saying ~50% more pixels with higher framerate and more IQ is "basically at parity", ok.
Last edited:
Most devs will take advantage of the power difference, so most multiplats won't be identical like this one (save for 1 or 2 IQ effects). This game seems like the exception not the rule.
Buying the console your friends are buying is good advice, though.
Last edited:
The only difference is PS4 uses HBAO and X1 uses SSAO.
...and EA didn't push either console, or even the PC for that matter.
...and EA didn't push either console, or even the PC for that matter.
I did a web search and nothing came up at all other than a gamespot forum thread in the console wars forum which wouldn't load at all. If they did say taht, you should have cited them instead of pulling some random quote out of thin air and posting it without attribution. Likewise, if DF didn't notice their HBAO for self shadowing, that doesn't bode well for that technique's application as DF still felt it looked noticeably better on X1 in that regard to the point they thought PS4's version had no self shadowing at all.
According to you we should be seeing 50% visual advantage...we don't. At all. We instead see visuals that I'd wager 95% of gamers on their tv under normal viewing conditions wouldn't be capable of discerning. You are confusing pixel counts with visuals. Pixels are worthless if the viewers don't notice their utility at all, which is what we see with games like BF4. And yes, you said they were lazy devs, just not in so many words. You are asserting that they left PS4's "powah" unused for some mysterious reason. Welcome to misterx conspiracy land. Stop making excuses. You have moved the goalposts far enough as is.
1) There is some utility to those visual acuity charts, but the ones you are likely citing are actually quite faulty for present discussion on viewing digital assets displayed in a frame (as opposed to live action films).
2) The average gamer is using a 720p tv or a 1080p tv that is much larger and thus they are likely sitting further away. I'm fully encouraging discussion on those other factors. You have actually ignored them in your blanket statements about higher res = better IQ as if IQ was only determined by resolution, which is naive as all hell.
And will it be similar to what we see with BF4 where the 720p version looks sharper and clearer than the 900p version? AC4 is a dumb example anyhow since it will likely see patches on both, and even if not it's a difference between 900p + really nice scaling and 1080p. It won't be noticeable. Just as it wasn't noticeable for RYSE.
..."overwhelming number"? We have a vastly larger number of ppl on forums who felt the opposite with like for like direct feed screens from DF in front of their faces. Oh, that doesn't count bc DF and MS have a conspiracy in progress, amirite?
No it didn't. You can see from the screencaps the side by side without any prejudice that it's identical, favoring X1 for many ppl if anything.
I'm not planning on 'fiddling with my TV' for every game that comes out, thanks. Your 'higher framerate' was a couple of frames out of 60, and it has better IQ on X1 (resolution isn't synonymous with IQ, it looks clearer and cleaner to me on X1 outside of AA). Pixels are only useful for improving clarity, but if X1 can handle that via other approaches then those additional pixels have no utility outside of AA. I'll take clearer assets and better color vibrancy over some checked box on the game's case any day, thanks. But you enjoy your meaningless metrics.
Last edited:
The launch games (multi-plats) definitely won't show much of a visual difference. But to discount 720p vs 1080p, or even SSAO vs HBAO (a much more demanding AO) is pretty ridiculous. Weather you you prefer a perceivable difference or a technical difference doesn't change the fact the PS4 is simply more powerful.
They are very close to one another, But I read somewhere that HBAO for PS4 was missing in the review copy which will be present after the day 1 patch . Given the fact we are seeing games come out showing the PS4's under hood grunt is not surprising (see BF4,AC:BF,CoD:G) I do expect this trend will continue.
If the end result visually is the same or better on X1 then nobody should care about PS4's purported power. You guys can't see the forest through the trees. Computing power is useless if you don't get efficient results. MS's box is more efficient computing-wise in that regard, allowing devs to get clearer IQ for free instead of throwing GPU cycles at pixels. the goal is to make great games, not to see who can burn through the most computing resources to achieve the same visuals on screen. That is the polar opposite of what a good design entails.
1) HBAO is in the build DF had. Evidently that route was a poor design choice.
2) None of these games look notably better on PS4. If that is a trend worth invoking it should anger Sony fans talking up "50% better graphics".
You can see HBAO in Digital Foundry's frame rate analysis video. How Richard could miss that or omit speaking on it in his article is anyone's guess, it's the same quality as the PC versoin. With that stated, I'm sad it's locked to 30fps on PC.
AC:BF and NFS do look very close, but BF and CoD look better on the PS4 with the increased resolution. If MS do some rapid optimization post X1 launch these differences will disappear and we will see parity between PS4\Xb1.
You can see HBAO in Digital Foundry's frame rate analysis video. How Richard could miss that or omit speaking on it in his article is anyone's guess, it's the same quality as the PC versoin. With that stated, I'm sad it's locked to 30fps on PC.
TBH, I couldn't tell if it was there or it wasn't....
I'm not a very good video analyzer. PC always get shafted, Lazy devs I say 
The raw pixel count between 720p and 900p or 900p and 1080p is ~50% all by itself. Whether viewers see a difference is a matter of screen size, view distance, resolution, eyesight, etc. but that has nothing to do with measurable hardware specs.
You're mixing objective specs and measurements like pixel count with subjective perceptions, which is nonsense. You can't directly translate objective "~50% more powerful GPU" measurements into subjective "50% visual advantage" perceptions like that. That has to be one of the silliest things I've read here.
People at the BF4 review event did subjectively notice a difference and overwhelmingly said PS4 looked better, according to jackfrags youtube video. I saw a significant difference in those 60 fps 2GB footage videos, and so did other people who watched it. Screencaps aren't 60 fps video where you can easily see crawling jaggies, large scale mosaic patterns, framedrops, motion blur, etc.
NFS: Rivals devs capped the PC/PS4 version's potential, even the PC version runs at 30 fps. 30 fps on PC usually means engine or netcode issues, not "lazy devs", but your continued false accusations say a lot. There's no "conspiracy" here. If you're trying to imply that the similarly of NFS:Rivals means the hardware potential between PS4/PC/XB1 is equal, you're wrong.
I never said "higher res = better IQ", res is part of IQ along with lighting, shading, AA, and other effects. That ~50% difference can be put towards res, framerate, or other IQ. It's more technically demanding on the system to execute.
It would be nice if Dice added the same cheap contrast/brightness/sharpness filter to the PS4/PC version just to quiet posters who think it's a huge "sharper and clearer" advantage rather than a trivial effect. Devs can add a contrast/sharpness filter without issue to PS4/PC if they wanted to.
The "Xbox is more efficient/lower latency/less bottlenecks/more offloaded/better scaler than PS4 therefore they're at hardware parity" claim is nonsense.
You're still mixing in subjective terms to claim an objective technical advantage, it does not work that way. There's a measurable specs difference, people can notice it under the right conditions, and quite a few people care about price/performance, despite your denials and fallacies.
Last edited:
I honestly don't give a crap about the rest of the discussion in this thread. The game is pretty fun and anyone with either a PS4 or X1 should get it IMO.
Measurable specs are 100% worthless if you can't see their utility on screen or feel it while playing. You have missed the entire point of modern gaming technology which is premised on improving efficiency in the face of highly diminished returns for viewers. As I said before, you have missed the forest through the trees. You worship at the alter of wasteful processing and scoff at more intelligent design considerations. Having more pixels doesn't mean better IQ and certainly not better visuals. You and your fellow Sony fanboys promised us dramatically better visuals.
It's hardly nonsense when the ONLY utility of processing more ops per second is to yield a subjectively pleasant image. If you process 10 times as many pixels each frame but the resulting iamge is still appearing LESS clear than alternatives, you still end up with weaker visuals to the end user. No excuses about how hard your lil box tried changes that result and in the end that is the end all, be all. I don't want excuses for why a box with more flops yielded a blurrier image with more pixels. I want to know how the other box managed to pull off that upset and give the praise to the company who actually earned it.
Ha! No s***! Most of us here have said as much since January only to have fanboys like yourself assert otherwise!
Your are changing your claim now. You claimed an overwhelming number had said that. Now it was someone else who you've pushed that claim off onto. And as I've noted before, nobody there was doing side by sides. Everyone doing any meaningful comparisons did so based on captured footage after the fact. So no, that excuse doesn't fly. We have the DF pics and will have ones that don't handicap X1 soon presumably. Should be fun watching you guys squirm to rationalize the updated gallery.
I watched them and saw nothing notable at all outside of art that popped more on x1 and looked better aesthetically. Also, you can see motion blur in pics, as well as sub-pixel aliasing and moire patterns. We have fps analyses for frame drops and they were basically identical on both versions.
YOU told me they didn't even try. Your words. Not mine kiddo.
YOU assert that they maxed out X1 but have lots of room to spare on PS4. Offer direct quotes to support this or pack it up and move to another thread. I think this thread has had enough of you asserting stuff without any rational backing.
Lighting isn't part of IQ, nor is shading. AA, AF, contrast, hue saturation, and resolution are. All are not created equal however. And you are focusing on what taxes the GPU only as your 'system'. X1 has more than just a GPU. It does its scaling along with the various IQ massaging in the display planes, external to the GPU entirely.
It's not 'cheap' just because your favored version for your favored piece of plastic didn't get it. Proof is in the pudding. The reaction to DF's pics don't leave room for much debate here. Stop whining. It's not trivial if it makes a 720p image look better than a 900p image.
You labeling something as nonsense changes nothing, much to your chagrin. The eSRAM is lower latency. The scaler is better than PS4's. Just because you are too ignorant and lazy to look into this stuff doesn't make it falsified.
I'm not claiming an 'objective technical advantage', I'm telling you that the tech is only there to yield a clean image and if a more nuanced approach yields more with less, it deserves credit where it is due.
The "measurable difference" was plain as day in the GAF thread of reactions to the DF comparison where probably 90% of ppl voiced their views that X1 had the better looking, cleaner version of BF4. How ppl view the side by sides is all that matters. Not how your box achieved the given results...only the results.
So now it's about price? Wat? And there is no performance delta worth noting here. BF4 runs smooth at ~60fps on both. PS4 had a middling handful of more frames, but at 60 per second that's nothing you'd notice with the naked eye while playing.
- Status