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

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Digital Foundry: Red Dead Redemption 2 Analysis

SvennoJ said:

What I said on Eurogamer:

As expected and rather underwhelming. The idea of the pro consoles delivering more detail, better textures, more effects, longer draw distances etc has apparently completely been abandoned. Even HDR seems to be on the back burner, it's only mentioned once in the tech review as couldn't find much of a benefit for now.

So it's a simple resolution difference and more stable frame rate. Is that really worth upgrading for?

When the pro consoles were about to launch it was all about enhancements, what do you get extra on the pro console. Ports like tomb raider had extra features enabled and more games had a choice between performance and picture quality. Basically what we have here is no extras, which does allow to get the biggest resolution differences between the platforms. What I'm kinda disappointed in is to read was this: However, in terms of the common feature set across all systems, I'm not sure HDR is providing much in the way of a tangible benefit, and certainly the calibration system is limited. HDR has a much bigger impact than a higher pixel count.

So while the resolution difference is certainly noticeable, I find it quite disappointing that that's all the pro consoles have going for them.

Anyway bring on the game, will pick it up tomorrow. Without HDR providing any benefits I won't have to bother removing the breakout box every time. hdmi 1.4 is plenty for 4k checkerboard.

Much higher picture resolution, better shadow resolution, higher resolution textures...

What else were you expecting?



Around the Network
loy310 said:

Pro should be closer to XB1X, the consoles are only a year apart, no doubth RDR2 development begun on base consoles years ago but optimizing for Pro should be on par with XB1X. Something dont seem right something happned while developing on mid gen upgrades.

LOL what?

The PS4 Pro as a console is not on par with the XBox One X, so why do you expect games to look and run the same on both?



loy310 said:

Pro should be closer to XB1X, the consoles are only a year apart, no doubth RDR2 development begun on base consoles years ago but optimizing for Pro should be on par with XB1X. Something dont seem right something happned while developing on mid gen upgrades.

XONEX is a bigger beast than the PS4Pro hardware wise.



loy310 said:

Pro should be closer to XB1X, the consoles are only a year apart, no doubth RDR2 development begun on base consoles years ago but optimizing for Pro should be on par with XB1X. Something dont seem right something happned while developing on mid gen upgrades.

The Ram alone in the X vs Pro is 12gig GDDR5 vs 8gig GDDR5. Its not always about the percentages. The X is quite superior to the Pro in more ways than just brute force.



Hynad said:
SvennoJ said:

What I said on Eurogamer:

As expected and rather underwhelming. The idea of the pro consoles delivering more detail, better textures, more effects, longer draw distances etc has apparently completely been abandoned. Even HDR seems to be on the back burner, it's only mentioned once in the tech review as couldn't find much of a benefit for now.

So it's a simple resolution difference and more stable frame rate. Is that really worth upgrading for?

When the pro consoles were about to launch it was all about enhancements, what do you get extra on the pro console. Ports like tomb raider had extra features enabled and more games had a choice between performance and picture quality. Basically what we have here is no extras, which does allow to get the biggest resolution differences between the platforms. What I'm kinda disappointed in is to read was this: However, in terms of the common feature set across all systems, I'm not sure HDR is providing much in the way of a tangible benefit, and certainly the calibration system is limited. HDR has a much bigger impact than a higher pixel count.

So while the resolution difference is certainly noticeable, I find it quite disappointing that that's all the pro consoles have going for them.

Anyway bring on the game, will pick it up tomorrow. Without HDR providing any benefits I won't have to bother removing the breakout box every time. hdmi 1.4 is plenty for 4k checkerboard.

Much higher picture resolution, better shadow resolution, higher resolution textures...

What else were you expecting?

He said what he wanted, just reread.

Hynad said:
loy310 said:

Pro should be closer to XB1X, the consoles are only a year apart, no doubth RDR2 development begun on base consoles years ago but optimizing for Pro should be on par with XB1X. Something dont seem right something happned while developing on mid gen upgrades.

LOL what?

The PS4 Pro as a console is not on par with the XBox One X, so why do you expect games to look and run the same on both?

He said closer not same... so 25-50% power difference is getting almost double pixel count with other benefits, so it seems like X1X had more enhancements and polish made for the comparable power difference.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

Around the Network
loy310 said:

Pro should be closer to XB1X, the consoles are only a year apart, no doubth RDR2 development begun on base consoles years ago but optimizing for Pro should be on par with XB1X. Something dont seem right something happned while developing on mid gen upgrades.

You really cannot look at development like that.  There is so many variables that goes into a game.  It could be that how RS engine works, it's just better optimized for the X1 or certain aspect of the hardware is utilize better like the CPU, GPU and memory speed.  You also cannot forget about support from the OEMs, optimization of their tools, resources and things like that, how familiar the devs are with each system.  



loy310 said:

Pro should be closer to XB1X, the consoles are only a year apart, no doubth RDR2 development begun on base consoles years ago but optimizing for Pro should be on par with XB1X. Something dont seem right something happned while developing on mid gen upgrades.

It might simply be a choice the developers made. Upscaling 1920x2160 has its benefits and perhaps with their rendering solutions looks better than upscaling 1800p. 1800p checkerboard might have also caused some frame rate dips, limited by gpu, while right now the pro is stable and seems to be limited rather by the cpu in some occasions.

What R* could have done (and what I kinda referred to in my original post as lack of enhancements) is offer a performance mode and one prioritizing picture quality. Having the vertical resolution native is great for wide screen open world games where you are always not far above the ground. Definitely a good choice to prioritize that.

What is surprising is that base XBox One is only 65% of the res of base ps4, or base ps4 having 1.56x the pixels of the base Xbox. If anything went 'wrong' during development it's there. Yet perhaps not that surprising as double the GPU rarely means double the pixel resolution. So the reverse is also true, you need to drop res a lot more to keep it running. If anything it suggests RDR2 development was done for the XBox One X and resolution turned down for the other consoles.



This game may as well be an xbox one x exclusive judging by the graphics.



SvennoJ said:
loy310 said:

Pro should be closer to XB1X, the consoles are only a year apart, no doubth RDR2 development begun on base consoles years ago but optimizing for Pro should be on par with XB1X. Something dont seem right something happned while developing on mid gen upgrades.

It might simply be a choice the developers made. Upscaling 1920x2160 has its benefits and perhaps with their rendering solutions looks better than upscaling 1800p. 1800p checkerboard might have also caused some frame rate dips, limited by gpu, while right now the pro is stable and seems to be limited rather by the cpu in some occasions.

What R* could have done (and what I kinda referred to in my original post as lack of enhancements) is offer a performance mode and one prioritizing picture quality. Having the vertical resolution native is great for wide screen open world games where you are always not far above the ground. Definitely a good choice to prioritize that.

What is surprising is that base XBox One is only 65% of the res of base ps4, or base ps4 having 1.56x the pixels of the base Xbox. If anything went 'wrong' during development it's there. Yet perhaps not that surprising as double the GPU rarely means double the pixel resolution. So the reverse is also true, you need to drop res a lot more to keep it running. If anything it suggests RDR2 development was done for the XBox One X and resolution turned down for the other consoles.

So the base Xbox running at 900p while PS4 runs at 1080p (like almost every single multiplat out there) is surprising to you, but the Xbox One X running at 100% higher resolution (with better frame rates) than the PS4 Pro is normal?  



Got damn native 4k. My sig delivers yet again.