If lower resolution, lower framerate (significantly in boss battles), jaggy shadows and worse motion blur dont add upto major difference for you, what does?.
Graphics Discussion/Comparison Thread, v. 2
- Thread starter Andy
- Start date
- Status
If lower resolution, lower framerate (significantly in boss battles), jaggy shadows and worse motion blur dont add upto major difference for you, what does?.
It mattering or not is subjective. My question is this; If you only play one version. What difference does it make? I didn't think about the PS4 version of the Division, The Wither 3, Destiny, etc, when I was playing them.
The differences are not some huge chasm. Just like last-gen, their significance and superiority is vastly exaggerated.
You only know of the differences because you were told about them by some third party website. Then people go off on a rampage and go all good soldier in the fight for their console in tthe rather silly and childish console-war, that is merely a figment of imagination rather than an actual thing.
The differences are not some huge chasm. Just like last-gen, their significance and superiority is vastly exaggerated.
You only know of the differences because you were told about them by some third party website. Then people go off on a rampage and go all good soldier in the fight for their console in tthe rather silly and childish console-war, that is merely a figment of imagination rather than an actual thing.
No fam, the differences are HUGE!
In reality, the only massive gulf in power/visuals is PCvsConsole this gen. That difference is pretty much generational IMO.
No fam, the differences are HUGE!
In reality, the only massive gulf in power/visuals is PCvsConsole this gen. That difference is pretty much generational IMO.
Nah. PC vs Console shows insignificant differences - Random Ignorant Gamer
Well yeah when I run it 4k with 6-8k downsampling that will be generational in most other cases? NopeNo fam, the differences are HUGE!
In reality, the only massive gulf in power/visuals is PCvsConsole this gen. That difference is pretty much generational IMO.
Every game debut runs insane visuals on a state-of-the-art PC advertised as "console footage." But the actual console versions look ugly, and so the PC version gets modified to look even uglier. But developers are just as lazy about downgrading visuals on PC as they are about upgrading them and haphazardly leave the old graphics settings in a plain-jane text file where you can unlock all those hidden goodies.
So in a nutshell, PC looks so good by comparison to next gen consoles that publishers censor the difference between console and PC graphics, deathly afraid that gamers will jump ship and game on PC if they ever found out the truth about the awesomeness of PC graphics, but are all the same too afraid to advertise console footage as console footage. Talk about shady politicians
So in a nutshell, PC looks so good by comparison to next gen consoles that publishers censor the difference between console and PC graphics, deathly afraid that gamers will jump ship and game on PC if they ever found out the truth about the awesomeness of PC graphics, but are all the same too afraid to advertise console footage as console footage. Talk about shady politicians
Yup.
Big PR bullshotting sessions by their marketing dept. But by now, most people "should" know this, so it shouldn't be a surprise anymore.
But that's the sign of the times. Devs with zero balls to promote their products on those platforms in an honest way. Heck, for all the crap car companies get, at least when they promote a car on TV (which is always the premium model with add-ons), they say what car model it is with in the ad or in the small print. Don't get me wrong, nobody can notice what the fine print says, but at least they say something.
And what you see can be actually purchased. It's not like you go to a dealership and ask for a matching model from TV, and the sales guy says it can't be bought and that they used a prototype. You see it, you can buy it.
Game makers over the past 10 years promote this and that and you never really know which platform it really is. And when the game releases, half the time it gets downgraded. You'd think with an extra 1-2 years of dev time, that pre-alpha game would look better, but somehow it looks worse.
Back in the 80s, game makers would often advertise their games labeling the game which platform it is, both in ads and game box. Here's an example:
Now, they just cut and paste the art for every platform.
Last edited:
More often than not in the UK they would show Arcade or Amiga screenshots (usually labelled in small print) on a box for the 8 bit Amstrad/C64/Spectrum version.
U.S Gold and Ocean.
Bastards.
Resident Evil 6 is a hot new Capcom game that runs 1080p 60 FPS on both but using the resume function on Xbox One breaks it and makes the game run at half the frame rate until you reboot so don't do that, pass it on.
My fam never had a Commodore/Amiga, so we never played Euro centric games. But I do remember Ocean games. The dev who made 1/3rd of the screen humongous UI and number fonts to take up space to cut down on processing the actual game's visuals and gameplay.
FF15 Platinum demo comparison:
Lighting
Fully dynamic with global illumination. Great looking. Both consoles are identical in lighting, shadow quality and texture maps. Only difference between them is that gpu accelerated particle effects are reduced on Xbox one. They didn't see this in combat. Only witnessed the difference in certain situations like when you jump on a switch.
Overall it is one of the most impressively lit games this generation.
Frame rate
Fully dynamic frame buffer in this demo, while the previous one had a fixed frame buffer. Ps4 sometimes has an advantage of 5 fps. The game struggles to keep 30fps, partcilularly in the forest section. Each console can drop to a low of 15fps during the boss battle.
Ps4 has frame pacing issues. Sometimes see duplicate frames output in a row. This creates stuttering. Timing can fluctuate between 16ms and 50ms. Not an issue on xbox one. Much cleaner experience on X1. Though the overall frame rate is rough on both consoles, so the overall experience is still kind of rough.
Resolution
PS4 vs XBOX ONE
1980x1080p (max) 1568x882 (max)
1600x900 1408x792
1568x882 (lowest) 1368x768 (lowest)
PS4 hits highest rate when nothing much is happening, lowest in battles. Similar happens with xbox one. Xbox one always runs at a lower resolution than the ps4. Never matches resolution.
Post processing
Both consoles suffers from aggressive post processing AA, which creates blurring. Overall, ps4 is always clearer in direct comparison.
Lighting
Fully dynamic with global illumination. Great looking. Both consoles are identical in lighting, shadow quality and texture maps. Only difference between them is that gpu accelerated particle effects are reduced on Xbox one. They didn't see this in combat. Only witnessed the difference in certain situations like when you jump on a switch.
Overall it is one of the most impressively lit games this generation.
Frame rate
Fully dynamic frame buffer in this demo, while the previous one had a fixed frame buffer. Ps4 sometimes has an advantage of 5 fps. The game struggles to keep 30fps, partcilularly in the forest section. Each console can drop to a low of 15fps during the boss battle.
Ps4 has frame pacing issues. Sometimes see duplicate frames output in a row. This creates stuttering. Timing can fluctuate between 16ms and 50ms. Not an issue on xbox one. Much cleaner experience on X1. Though the overall frame rate is rough on both consoles, so the overall experience is still kind of rough.
Resolution
PS4 vs XBOX ONE
1980x1080p (max) 1568x882 (max)
1600x900 1408x792
1568x882 (lowest) 1368x768 (lowest)
PS4 hits highest rate when nothing much is happening, lowest in battles. Similar happens with xbox one. Xbox one always runs at a lower resolution than the ps4. Never matches resolution.
Post processing
Both consoles suffers from aggressive post processing AA, which creates blurring. Overall, ps4 is always clearer in direct comparison.
The original demo that came with Type-0 wasn't that impressive either. They are using a lot of tech, but the hardware can't handle it all I guess, and so the game is limited artistically. And half of what makes a look great is the artists' works. It's the difference between Far Cry 3's global illumination and Bloodborne's detailed, shader-rich environments. At least that is how I see it.Hmm, maybe it's the compression, but that doesn't look all that impressive
So much of the geometry looks last gen, unnarural, and lacking in detail. The characters do look fantastic, though.
Yeah. Basically that exotic field trip of theirs to study rocks was a complete waste.
And they can't even run it in full HD!Hmm, maybe it's the compression, but that doesn't look all that impressive
Didn't they have a very impressive next gen demo shown earlier, some magic and church scene ?
Never trust demos, unless from epic, hehe. All the demo they shown can be download & make Available for developers, and run on your PC .
Never trust demos, unless from epic, hehe. All the demo they shown can be download & make Available for developers, and run on your PC .
Shut your whore mouth!
Can you name a game that has respected the cultural integrity of rocks more?
Yes, it just coincided with the fact that the rocks used in the game were located within 20m of 7Star resorts/hotels. But that doesn't mean they weren't using those rocks to further the authenticity of the story.
- Status