By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming - Digital Foundry analysis of Watch Dogs - PS4 version.

ironmanDX on 29 May 2014
Zekkyou said:
ironmanDX said:
supernihilist said:
so now 24 fps is ok while they had to put enphasis on MK8 going 59 fps???? amazing....
and screen tearing should be in the "oh god why category"

Yeah. The deal they made about it was absurd. Now less than half is acceptable. Pretty ridiculous. 

Except DF didn't make an issue of it at all. They said in the same paragraph that it was a relatively minor issue, and that the majority wouldn't notice it at all :/

It's their job to report on everything they find. Something weird like every 60-ish frame repeating itself is justified in being mentioned, and noticeable to the small number of people sensitive to light stutters.

It was made an issue of. Especially given that they praise one game for a much larger drop. Take the next quote, for example:

 

"We've collected laps from a handful of different environments. Notice how the frame-rate inconsistencies manifest during gameplay. This issue is difficult to observe in a 30fps video but quite noticeable during actual gameplay"

 

Quite noticable during gameplay? 24 fps still relatively impressive?

 

What's that smell?

 

 

Bullshit.



Around the Network
Zekkyou on 29 May 2014
ironmanDX said:
Zekkyou said:

Except DF didn't make an issue of it at all. They said in the same paragraph that it was a relatively minor issue, and that the majority wouldn't notice it at all :/

It's their job to report on everything they find. Something weird like every 60-ish frame repeating itself is justified in being mentioned, and noticeable to the small number of people sensitive to light stutters.

It was made an issue of. Especially given that they praise one game for a much larger drop. Take the next quote, for example:

"We've collected laps from a handful of different environments. Notice how the frame-rate inconsistencies manifest during gameplay. This issue is difficult to observe in a 30fps video but quite noticeable during actual gameplay"

Quite noticable during gameplay? 24 fps still relatively impressive?

What's that smell?

Bullshit.

They are completely different issues. If it were simply 59fps, then yes no one on the planet could tell, but it's not. The 59fps is simply the way in which the repeating of frames manifest. As they said, most won't notice a thing, but the doubling up of a frame every second or so can create a pretty obvious stutter for those sensitive to it or paying attention for it.

WD is a 30fps games that they managed to get down to 24fps with heavy stress testing. For an open world game that utilizes an advanced physics engine, that's pretty damn impressive for a console.

Anyway, let's let this drop. I was pretty clear in the OP about people start frame rate wars.



SvennoJ on 29 May 2014
Zekkyou said:

There is a quote in the artificial saying "Strip out the initial CG inserts and the final PS4 title hands in an overall experience that realises the E3 2012 reveal."

Which parts of the trailer do you suppose they are referring to as CG? They weren't particularly clear.

No idea, looks like that's supposed to illustrate gameplay in that comparison. Does the game look significantly different in CG sections, does it have pre-rendered cgi?

I'm not sure why they're saying the delay was worth it with a result of 900p 30fps, occasional screen tear and still clearly a downgrade from the initial reveal. Not worth it in the gameplay section either according to their review. Playing it safe, no surprises, hacking merely a button press or the occasional pipe mania puzzle. Just another run around a (american) city and blow shit up.



BenVTrigger on 29 May 2014

Here's some direct feed footage I just took from the PS4 version. 

 



SvennoJ on 29 May 2014

^ That's pretty blurry. Dunno why the pc gets a bad rep, your pc screenshots look a lot better.



Around the Network
torok on 29 May 2014
episteme said:


That? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xU7WGAJPRRw&feature=kp

It's not that much worse in my opinion... Eurogamer and others compared it.

I don't even think that the E3 2012 looked as impressive as everyone says... Some parts during the rain at night were as shiny as games with cartoony graphics. I don't like that in games with realistic graphics.


Comparing to the E3 demos:

What is good:

- Games looks awesome with rain. They toned down the reflexes and achieved a pretty realistic look but keeping that impressive look.

- Reflexes in general are pretty good (the water ones).

- Shadows are good.

- Lightning is good.

What is worse:

- Textures are pretty bad.

- Reflexes on metal and glass are bad.

- Car models are terrible.

 

Of course, when I say "good", it's simple and plain "good", not equivalent to top 8th gen graphics and in the same level than late 7th open world games. From a visual standpoint, GTA V (as an example of a late 7th gen sandbox) wins in some aspects and lose in others.



Bet with jetforcejiminy: PS4 will pass the Wii lifetime numbers.

BenVTrigger on 29 May 2014
SvennoJ said:

^ That's pretty blurry. Dunno why the pc gets a bad rep, your pc screenshots look a lot better.

Yeah now that Ive played both the PC version does look considerably better. That being said the PS4 version does look nice in motion and at tines at night it looks really good.

But yeah the PC version is a lot nicer looking. I noticed the difderence immediatly when I started up the PS4 version.