Because reasons? Who knows. This is the most important part here though.
Native Vs. Non-native is big.
Digital Foundry - Metro Redux (Console Analysis)
- Thread starter stryke
- Start date
Because reasons? Who knows. This is the most important part here though.
Native Vs. Non-native is big.
Dragonborn
Member
Haha, man. I also live the 30% advantage one.
This will be my last reply as I don't want to shit up the thread but I find your reply mostly nonsensical and defensive and need to express why.
This is a nonsensical spin on the analogy. The point of DF analysis with respect to resolution or frame rate or tearing comparison is which is better in direct comparison. Your example deliberately takes the wrong view and introduces context. There's no element of which is better for town driving vs motorway - the analogy comparison is simply which is faster and the DF comparison is which renders at higher resolution. The answer is empirical and not open to opinion. 100mph is faster than 75mph and 1080p is higher resolution than 912p. But if we look at it your way then the XB1 version is better for town dirving where your speed is limited and the PS4 version is better for the open road. Good to know.
Of course they should be able to give their view but only on what matters to them - that's what I already pointed out. Saying 100mph isn't much faster than 75mph or 1080p isn't much higher resolution than 1080p in your opinion is frankly stupid and wrong. Saying I don't mind the difference or I don't notice it much or I prefer the controller on this console and don't mind a resolution difference is of course sensible and fine.
As I noted this is a common problem in DF threads or any technical threads - people confusing their opinion on what it means to them and applying it to the empirical data which again is just getting stupid and leads to thread shitting in the end.
I respect opinions but I also deny there relevance when applied directly to empirical matters - that's just being an average joe giving an uninfirmed vew which is frankly useless. I would fight to defend people's right to opinions but I wish they'd get better at understanding how to express and apply then particularly relative to empirical matters.
But that's just like my opinion man. Maybe the speed of light isn't that fast after all, only slightly quickly than my walking speed.
Seems your understanding of my logic is pretty flawed so let me explain:
Easy huh? And after all it's DF idea of make these analysis VS analysis, which means how does each version rate respective to itself and then how do they rate respective to each other.
Now let's stick to what DF threads should be about, the actual facts of the analysis (is any one version horrible? are there tearing or frame rate issues, which has the advantage and where) and while of course opinions will be given let's hope more are relative and sensible to the data and less are "yeah but that's not really much of a difference IMO" when speaking about whichever version is weaker in some aspect as that doesn't add much at all and to be blunt is highly suspect as to motives.
This is a nonsensical spin on the analogy. The point of DF analysis with respect to resolution or frame rate or tearing comparison is which is better in direct comparison. Your example deliberately takes the wrong view and introduces context. There's no element of which is better for town driving vs motorway - the analogy comparison is simply which is faster and the DF comparison is which renders at higher resolution. The answer is empirical and not open to opinion. 100mph is faster than 75mph and 1080p is higher resolution than 912p. But if we look at it your way then the XB1 version is better for town dirving where your speed is limited and the PS4 version is better for the open road. Good to know.
Of course they should be able to give their view but only on what matters to them - that's what I already pointed out. Saying 100mph isn't much faster than 75mph or 1080p isn't much higher resolution than 1080p in your opinion is frankly stupid and wrong. Saying I don't mind the difference or I don't notice it much or I prefer the controller on this console and don't mind a resolution difference is of course sensible and fine.
As I noted this is a common problem in DF threads or any technical threads - people confusing their opinion on what it means to them and applying it to the empirical data which again is just getting stupid and leads to thread shitting in the end.
I respect opinions but I also deny there relevance when applied directly to empirical matters - that's just being an average joe giving an uninfirmed vew which is frankly useless. I would fight to defend people's right to opinions but I wish they'd get better at understanding how to express and apply then particularly relative to empirical matters.
But that's just like my opinion man. Maybe the speed of light isn't that fast after all, only slightly quickly than my walking speed.
Seems your understanding of my logic is pretty flawed so let me explain:
- XB1 version is great - looks great, plays great and has no obvious or noticeable flaws in visuals and performance
- PS4 version is great -looks great, plays great and has no obvious or noticeable flaws in visuals and performance
- PS4 version is empirically superior in a number of factors (higher resolution, less tearing, less shimmering, improved asset detail) and is even better than the great XB1 version if you're directly comparing them (although thankfully not in a way that will matter to gameplay just IQ)
Easy huh? And after all it's DF idea of make these analysis VS analysis, which means how does each version rate respective to itself and then how do they rate respective to each other.
Now let's stick to what DF threads should be about, the actual facts of the analysis (is any one version horrible? are there tearing or frame rate issues, which has the advantage and where) and while of course opinions will be given let's hope more are relative and sensible to the data and less are "yeah but that's not really much of a difference IMO" when speaking about whichever version is weaker in some aspect as that doesn't add much at all and to be blunt is highly suspect as to motives.
It's a treat reading your post. Sure the light bulb in my hallway is slightly better than a summer sunset. See, you're right.
Dictator93
Member
Well, I guess it can depend on what tv/monitor you're playing on. Nonetheless, yeah for the majority...
yeah it is definitely worse on cheaper tvs.
Yeah:
Ouch.
Yeah:
Would they not leave it in tact in the PC version?
AyaisMUsikWhore
Member
This is weird but, it sucks that I have this on PC. I want to play this on the PS4 just for better control support and trophies so I have to buy it for that. However I wish there was a way I could gift 2033 to someone. Can you do that on steam?
BigTnaples
Todd Howard's Secret GAF Account
Lack of volumetric lighting sucks, but still an impressive achievement by 4A.
30fps option with volumetric?
30fps option with volumetric?
Yeah:
Yah that's a pity. I hope it's still in the PC remaster. If not I'll probably just get these on PS4 as a different experience to what I've already played on PC. If they are in PC version then I'll probably double dip on PC/PS4.
This discussion started with a subjective comment. Then people came in to try and objectively prove him wrong, which just doesnt work.
And the subjective impact of a jump in resolution is not immaterial. It is actually the most important part of this.
Also, an 'x' percent increase in pixel count will never amount to a 1:1 improvement in subjective impact, and the higher we go in resolution, the smaller the impact becomes. This is true for all people. So anybody using this argument seriously is not being fair and I have to question the motivation for doing so.
If you honestly felt that way, then there is no argument from me.
Yeah:
everything in the bottom screen looks wayyyyyyy better.
Yeah:
Damn *smh*
Dictator93
Member
To be fair, the bottom screen is a full res loss less capture with 4XMSAA and injected SMAA among some other things. The PS4 screen is from a crapy lossy video since I have no access to source material (DF really needs to start releasing more loss less material in terms of screens and videos. It really hurts their comparisons.).
Given how expensive the effect is even on PC, it is not surprising that it is not on console versions targeting 60fps. One can only hope that they did not gimp the PC version.
Agree, but do keep in mind the top pic has been captured from a Youtube vid and isnt fullscreen.
Yeah:
I am very disappointed now.
I will play PS4 version anyway, but I would more happy if I didn't see this image.
AyaisMUsikWhore
Member
Yeah:
Not that much of a graphics Queen but this looks harsh. I'm guessing this is a technique that consoles don't really have the power to push. Despite being quite disappointing, the core game itself is stable so I guess the give and take is manageable.
Super Muffin
Neo Member
The top image being from a YouTube video and not full screen doesn't mean we can't see the change in lighting...
There is not a single legitimate reason as to why they'd do that. Gimping on PC makes no sense regardless of the performance hit.
PC gaming is scalable for a reason.
I trust them to do the right thing. Their DX11 DOF was also immensely taxing but I hope it's still in 2033 Redux.
I want the original bells and whistles and the new ones in a single package.
Maybe they should start aiming for 1680x1050 for Xbone games. Bring those sweet 16:10 monitors back in style.
Dictator93
Member
It's pretty obviously not there given how in your face volumetric lighting is. There are many other moments in the video where I could show that they removed it.
A number of games run volumetric lightihng on consoles (Ryse, KZSF), but they are no where near the quality of the PC implementation in Metro 2033, and they do not run at 60fps. It is really not that surprising, 60fps is probably much more worth it for posterity sakes.
The person I quoted was talking about everything, not just the lighting.
CambriaRising
Member
Ask this again on the 19th, I will have an answer for you.
It's not that pretty obvious how you said from youtube, I seen the video, I have some difficult, personally.
Yeah:
I might wait to get a new rig before buying this on console then :/
The difference between scaled and native resolutions is only unnoticable if you are beyond 2 dioptrin and you don't wear glasses.
Yes, but this works both ways. His subjective comment doesn't change the fact that the image is 40% better by the objective metric being measured by, and so it's not unreasonable to say the image is '40% better'. To a certain extent it doesn't matter if we want to talk about measurable things whether someone thinks the perceptual improvement is '1:1' or not. At least, we cannot put someone's opinion or perception on the same level as measurable quantities.
Human perception in rendering and graphics is an interesting topic, but if we can't say one image is better than another by x% because, all else being equal, one has x% better resolution...well, what can we say? Protesting such a simple statement carries questions about motivation too IMO. It would diminish all discussion here into the realm of subjectivity, and make any or most measurement pointless.
But coming back to the topic of visual perception, you are right about resolution improvement carrying varying importance depending on your starting point and all that. But for many, any improvement that brings an image to 1:1 with a display's res will actually be 'perceptually superlinear'. I think it would wrong to suggest returns on increasing resolution are equally diminishing for everyone, at least.
I hope they at least optimized the effects for the PC version, they are unnecessarily taxing on modern hardware.
Thanks - I will return to check.
I'd question the "unnecessarily" part. Diffusion Based DOF is legitimately expensive, same goes for full res volumetric lighting.
I don't want developpers on PC to be scared off by the fact that their game is demanding. Ultra settings exist for a reason. As long as very taxing effects are optional I don't see a reason to complain.
derExperte
Member
It is obvious for everyone who knows how old 2033 looks on PC. And since they moved it over to their newer engine I bet the better lighting won't make it even to PC Redux. I'll be happy if I'm wrong, already preordered, but won't get my hopes up.
No.
Dictator93
Member
That is real disappointing to hear, added so much to the atmosphere of the game...
Stallion Free
Cock Encumbered
It's really disappointing that both console manufacturers seemed to have picked hardware that struggles with tesselation.
Summer Haze
Banned
No. 60fps > graphical bells and whistles, every time. Especially with an FPS.
I ran the game in the lower to mid 40's maxed (0xAA) on a 570, I still can't hit 60fps consistently with a 780 OC'd to 780ti levels. I would expect to if the effects were optimized. Hopefully they work on this.
It makes such a difference in the PC version :
http://www.geforce.com/whats-new/guides/metro-last-light-graphics-breakdown-and-performance-guide#last-light-tessellation
http://international.download.nvidia.com/geforce-com/international/comparisons/metro-last-light/metro-last-light-object-tessellation-comparison-1.html
http://international.download.nvidia.com/geforce-com/international/comparisons/metro-last-light/metro-last-light-environmental-tessellation-comparison.html
DDOF uses compute which isn't Kepler's strong suit so this is not surprising.
Improvements are sorely needed in that department, get to it Nvidia.
Dictator93
Member
Question, are you running 4XMSAA with Advanced Depth of Field? @ what resolution?Then given what it is doing at both of those settings, it is not surprising that you cannot always hit 60.
Kocolino67
Member
True true
I think it is pretty obvious:
Ouch, and again. But I guess that trade-offs had to be made.
0xAA