• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

Face-Off: Evolve - PC/PS4/X1

From the article:


With that quote in mind it seems perfectly reasonable to say what they did. Minus the typo lol.

fair enough. thanks.

it just stood out as odd in that, because it was talking about system performance. like, do we know if Evolve also suffers from crushed blacks on Xbone? everything just seems like a "slight" advantage, and then the infrastructure comment further dilutes it.

it would help me if they separated graphics and online performance comparisons in different paragraphs.
 
Up to 20 minute wait times for a match on PS4?! Something sure needs to be straightened out on Turtle Rock's end, that's just unacceptable.
 
That probably takes glossing over a lot of what I said, but you're gonna see what you want to see, obviously.


They apparently did mention the issue of connectivity in the Destiny faceoff.

Excuse me if I'm wrong, but I could understand that wording if both games were using some sort of Cloud based graphic compensation that would show some cracks in the fidelity but neither are doing it, so what is the point of that comment?

Were they reviewing the game, or the graphics?
 
You stated you wanted to talk about which platform performed the best graphically and I just stated which platform that was. No need to get so uppity.

Well, come on, you must have seen the context. You can't ignore everything in favour of finding 'balance' by stating it 'seemed' to perform worse online, especially when lots of people have had the exact opposite experience.

Facts are not eradicated by one subjective opinion.
 
So it's better in all ways but DF throws the vague XBL is better line. Haha, hilarious. If you played the online side by side you wouldn't be able to tell the difference (well, you could since the PS4 version would look and Perform better).
 
That probably takes glossing over a lot of what I said, but you're gonna see what you want to see, obviously.


They apparently did mention the issue of connectivity in the Destiny faceoff.

Objective opinion? Ugh.

He stated that the matchmaking takes longer on PS4, no? People in this thread have said the same, no?

That seems like something based on facts.



Again, and this is the area where I understand the issue. If this is going to be just about a graphical face off then it probably shouldn't come into the picture. The only reason why I assume it did is because it is an online title.


That's the only reason why it feels really out of place, would love to do our own tests on this, we need a non biased Gaffer to test this, lol.
 
Objective opinion? Ugh.

He stated that the matchmaking takes longer on PS4, no? People in this thread have said the same, no?

That seems like something based on facts.

People in this thread have also said the opposite as well as in OT. If there is no fundamental problem with networking on PS4 then it shouldn't be taken into account in the conclusion because it's subjective and can differ for people unlike graphics settings that is set for every PS4.

i.e -
I just ran a quick test on PS4.

I searched for 6 Evacuation pvp matches and used a different preference each time. All of the matches were with new groups. The average time to find a match was 47 seconds. 57 highest - 26 lowest.

I don't feel like using matchmaking in a vs situation is right unless it's objective. For example, it was impossible to matchmake with a party on Ps4 in the Alpha and Beta.
That would be a objective reason to preorder one over the other.


Up to 20 minute wait times for a match on PS4?! Something sure needs to be straightened out on Turtle Rock's end, that's just unacceptable.

* In their experience during testing*. There is no proven fundamental problem with matchmaking on the PS4 version.
 
Excuse me if I'm wrong, but I could understand that wording if both games were using some sort of Cloud based graphic compensation that would show some cracks in the fidelity but neither are doing it, so what is the point of that comment?

Were they reviewing the game, or the graphics?
Well they tend to end the faceoffs with a 'recommendation' of which version is the one to get. So I'd say its fair to include potential connectivity issues on one as a factor in their thoughts.

Whether it actually is a factor here is up for debate, obviously.
 
Where that shadows at Sony ???

SCZQk9V.jpg
 
Pretty clear cut case.

Frame rate and resolution are winners on PS4.
The lack of AF sucks, though.

And the extent of their issues with online does not seem to be relatable with those who have it here.
 
That's the only reason why it feels really out of place, would love to do our own tests on this, we need a non biased Gaffer to test this, lol.

Again it is a bit abnormal on a traditional game, but I can partly understand the reasoning when the game is 'on-line only'. Additionally, it will more than likely get fixed in the next few weeks. I don't know, I think a solid portion of individuals reading the face-off aren't simply looking for a graphical breakdown. Honestly, do you need a report on that? PC>PS4>X1 for damn near every multi-plat. 1080P/30 fps on PS4, 900P/30fps on X1, or some minimal variation.
 
Perhaps because he didn't experience it, thus it isn't in the article?



Ok? You have a point that you are going to make, wish you would just state it.

I just dont see how such a point could be made regarding a face-off.

Graphical features and performance are based on facts that are the exact same on all ps4s and xbox ones.

Connection issues are not, I have never taken more than 60-90 secs to find a full lobby, this includes people in this thread and friends.

Their complaint and +1 for xbox one is different from person to person so therefore shouldnt be in the article whatsoever, hell, I wouldnt be surprised if x1 had the exact same issues.
 
Interesting .. didn't realize network connectivity and online infrastructure was part of the face-off measurements. Sure this point has been already noted but still can't believe it.
 
fair enough. thanks.

it just stood out as odd in that, because it was talking about system performance. like, do we know if Evolve also suffers from crushed blacks on Xbone? everything just seems like a "slight" advantage, and then the infrastructure comment further dilutes it.

it would help me if they separated graphics and online performance comparisons in different paragraphs.
Yeah, it's especially hard to gauge multiplayer experience because players may have dramatically different results based off of their network setup, distance to servers, ISP practices, etc. It's nice that DF included it, and hopefully TR fixes that particular aspect on the PS4 because it reads like a bug that slipped through.
 
Looks like medium to me, why did they talk about high settings ? I'm dizzy.

PS4 high
TRnb.jpg


In the forest/jungle PS4 looks like medium and in some instances below medium. So mostly medium, some high and some cut backs that appear below medium. That jungle level is anything but a close match for PC high setting.
 
Is that cherry-picked, or actually representative of those areas in-game?
Representative in some ways. But its a different time of day, which is why there's no shadows in one. And of course the guy uploaded this shit to imgur so the quality of the image there is degraded a fair bit.
 
* In their experience during testing*. There is no proven fundamental problem with matchmaking on the PS4 version.

Well, any PS4 user can simply watch others playing the game on PS Live to see for themselves what the wait times look like. Even ask the player if they've experienced long wait times.

That would be better than a DF article if that's the concern.
 
You should maybe read the image description next time before posting it.

"Changing lighting and environmental conditions results in variable light and shadow positions across all three platforms."

I just took screenshots from the video. Didn't read the full article yet..:-\

BTW..based on the 3 platforms screenshots I just saw on DF the sun seems to be in the exact same position and the PS4 is clearly missing something.
 
Well, any PS4 user can simply watch others playing the game on PS Live to see for themselves what the wait times look like. Even ask the player if they've experienced long wait times.

That would be better than a DF article if that's the concern.

To be even more fair to the PS4, streamers might encounter more issues because they're pumping in/out extra bandwidth for the stream itself. That being said, I've seen more than a few reports from real users about similar issues they've run into on PS4, so I don't think it's made up.
 
Not even in the beta I had to wait more than 3 minutes to find a game and I live on the other side of the world lol DF get the fuck off with this biased BS
 
Since they have zero impact on my gaming (I have one console, plus a desktop and laptop not designed for performance) I generally love these threads for entertainment purposes and dark curiosity of just how many people will end up getting banned for pointless console warring.

But this is just stupid. "We were able to objectively state in an article about objectively comparing hardware performance and visual output that one console version was superior to the other, but who cares? We personally had a lousy matchmaking experience during our tests on the PS4, so screw those guys." Did the tropes of "CPU limitations?", "PS4 version is visually superior but we guess it's sorta close" and "900p gives dat feel of 1080p" get outdated and they needed something new?

I miss the DF of "A B and C are better here, X Y and Z there, and overall we'd give the edge to console Q. The end."
 
I don't have the game on either platforms and just basing my assumptions from the videos. Here's another one: No shadows on the monster :
jfgyYMf.jpg


Could be the streaming issue..I really don't know.

This is making the Xbox One version visually, look a lot better.
 
"Making a firm recommendation on which to buy is a little challenging: the PS4's 1080p resolution gives it a slightly more refined experience, and performance is a little more stable too. However, this is an online-focused title and the backing infrastructure here doesn't seem quite as robust as it is on Xbox One and PC."

This is a technical analysis. I know I personally haven't seen any real evidence/statistics of XBL's advantage over PSN. Evolve isn't using Microsofts Azure servers as far as i know so they should be using identical server set-ups.

PS4 is a higher resolution and its a more stable frame-rate. What's so challenging about recommending that version?
To be even more fair to the PS4, streamers might encounter more issues because they're pumping in/out extra bandwidth for the stream itself. That being said, I've seen more than a few reports from real users about similar issues they've run into on PS4, so I don't think it's made up.
But why would they only encounter these issues on PS4? What's the game doing differently on XBO?

Sounds like anecdotal conjecture to me.
 
DF is getting laughable with each passing day. They must be getting new buzzwords from Microsoft to use in their "face-offs".
 
So the ps4 has streaming issues, and vastly reduced AF. But has a higher resolution and a better performance? Plus longer wait times.

Whatever, I bought the ps4 version and am loving the game. If anything, the biggest disappointment for both console versions imo is the fact that settings are generally set on medium. Especially when there's such a large gulf in vegitation between medium and high.
 
So it's better in all ways but DF throws the vague XBL is better line. Haha, hilarious. If you played the online side by side you wouldn't be able to tell the difference (well, you could since the PS4 version would look and Perform better).

In all ways?

Resolution, hitching on both console versions and connectivity aren't the only things mentioned in the DF analysis. Doesn't sound so clear cut to me, especially after reading this:

Digital Foundry said:
General graphical quality remains largely familiar too, with many of the same curious differences found in both the alpha and beta making their way across to the final game. The level of anisotropic filtering remains noticeably lower on the PS4, blurring texture details on the ground as a result, while streaming is often a little slower than Xbox One - particularly at the beginning of a game. While we see the same highly detailed artwork and shader effects bestowed across the lush landscapes and characters, lower quality LOD (level of detail) models are sometimes displayed for longer on PS4 compared to the other versions. In other areas, ambient occlusion is given a higher quality implementation on PS4 and PC, while the rest of the effects work - alpha buffers, shaders, and shadow quality - are a match between both consoles.
 
But this is just stupid. "We were able to objectively state in an article about objectively comparing hardware performance and visual output that one console version was superior to the other, but who cares? We personally had a lousy matchmaking experience during our tests on the PS4, so screw those guys." Did the tropes of "CPU limitations?", "PS4 version is visually superior but we guess it's sorta close" and "900p gives dat feel of 1080p" get outdated and they needed something new?

I miss the DF of "A B and C are better here, X Y and Z there, and overall we'd give the edge to console Q. The end."

That has never really been the case. I remember a user trying to prove that DF is biased towards Xbox by posting a Batman Arkham Asylum Face-off link in which the DF crew talked about how the PS3 exclusive missions were an advantage for the console, while also downplaying the PS3 version's inferior AA by saying "the game has dark environments so the jaggies are less pronounced". There is no bias. Of course that will never be accepted by platform warriors who just want to see their favorite platform "win".
 
Top Bottom