batman2million
Member
Looking forward to giving this a spin, even if it's just for the visual novelty.
Digital Foundry Performance Analysis: The Order: 1886
- Thread starter Savantcore
- Start date
because performance is too good?
nelsonroyale
Member
Is that really the reason why you are not impressed? I think it is more likely bias. It is obvious they focused on making the game super linear not for technical reasons but because they wanted to make a super-linear narrative driven game. Given the rock solid performance, it is likely they could have created larger, more scalable levels.
On XB1...
I never said it was a 'problem'. Just speaking to the game's technical merits. Like you say, to get it to full 1080p, they'd probably have to sacrifice in certains areas, possibly AA, maybe FoV, maybe toning down or removing certain effects.
I imagine not. Seems to be a technical marvel, I thought there would be constant issues with those graphics.
FunkyPajamas
Member
Yup. I'm still going to play this one once I have a PS4, but knowing that the engine is there, and the guys have the basic shooter mechanics nailed, makes me hopeful for the sequel (hopefully there'll be a sequel).
You know, I agree with this. Once we see proper "next-gen" (ugh. current gen, please) gameplay, we'll know.
We've already had destructible environments, but not always the freedom to go *everywhere* on the environment. Or really challenging AI (better than Halo CE/FEAR). Or an RPG where decisions actually do affect the entire world/population.
SimpleCRIPPLE
Member
"To illustrate, the first hour of gameplay sees almost 50 per cent of the duration dedicated to cut-scenes, with exploration and combat equally divided at around 15 minutes a pop. "
Wow. They out Metal-Geared Metal Gear.
Wow. They out Metal-Geared Metal Gear.
Yeah, don't care what you think. Take or leave my comment as you wish.
Well, it's as much 1080p as the majority of Blu-ray movies you buy with that aspect ratio. It's still 1:1 in the image you see. It's not being upscaled.
Especially this game. He was banned in that Order thread a week or two ago for trolling.
dragonbane
Member
To allow these graphics they definitely had to pay the price by making most of the combat sections in small corridors and have the breathtaking vistas in areas with no AI and physics to account for. Nonetheless it looks absolutely fantastic!
I'm gonna put it down to bias too, man. You wear it on your sleeves and I'm not surprised to see you in a thread about a fantastic looking console game talking about not being impressed.
Insane Metal
Member
Basically a very beautiful techdemo for the PS4... we're still waiting for a great big budget, first party game (which will obviously Bloodborne).
Its got the same fidelity/PPI as full 1080p, though. The reduced resolution comments aren't about how it looks, or anything to do with native vs non-native, its about rendering costs.
Sure. That's why last gen the best looking console titles featured sprawling environments and lots of AI and interactive environm... oh no wait.
I don't know if they chose to create a superlinear on rails game or if they decided to make an impressive looking game and were constrained by that.
It doesn't matter, though. The end result is the same.
Heh it is always pretty funny how they can't just ever stick to an analysis of the performance, they gotta have metacommentary about its other elements in there as a "you know we're not saying this is actually good" way
I'm curious, are people interested in seeing more 1920x800 games in future for the extra visual fidelity on a console?
Personally, although I hate the idea of playing a game like that with the border, I love 21:9 type ratios and would happily get a monitor to play such games taking up the whole screen at least at a 1080 or 1440 resolution on PC.
Personally, although I hate the idea of playing a game like that with the border, I love 21:9 type ratios and would happily get a monitor to play such games taking up the whole screen at least at a 1080 or 1440 resolution on PC.
Pessino did state that they could have gone for full 1080p if they had used something less than 4xMSAA...i don't know what that constitutes though. I would have liked to see 2XMSAA in combination with FXAA, or SMAA to see the impact of differing results
Yeah, how dare they! Telling a website dedicated to performance analysis to stick to performance analysis? The audacity!
Pop
Member
They can't help it. It's the thing to do right now.
Maintenance
Member
They can write about anything they want.
They, however, should expect us to react anyway we want to that too.
Only if they allow user to control post processing. In current state, the blur will kill photo enthusiasts.
Length and gameplay can be discussed in the review of the game. Currently I think Digital Foundry is kind of loosing the focus in the performance analysis. You work there right? Maybe you should all have a discussion about going back to giving only performance analysis as is, and put the rest in a review. That's what the analysis is all about anyway as people just want to know how the game runs. Getting sidetracked to other elements is a bit baffling.
Check the analysis for e.g. Wolfenstein The New Order. Just performance, nothing else. Simple and easy to read. It has an amazing story and nice old-school gun-play but that's not what New Order's performance analysis needed.
Edit: and length can be measured, but it is not a performance metric. Change the title just to 'analysis' in that case without performance.
entremet
Member
They could do whatever they want. It's the Editors platform.
I also am kinda put off by the over-reliance on referencing 'next gen gameplay' to take points off of games. You could just say that 1886 was a bad game in the gameplay sense without invoking vague terms that can never really be reached or explained by the person doing the explaining.
People can react however they want to, it doesn't make any reaction justified. DF, on the other hand, are entirely justified in not keeping within super strict, fan-made guidelines of what they can and cant write about.
Its performance analysis, not tech analysis article.
They included 12 minute video with framerate analysis, do You really need to read that game has stable fps after that?
Dont like their comments, dont read them.
They have full right to have an opinion and express it.
Maintenance
Member
Entirely justified? And still call it a Performance Analysis?
Mind you, I don't give two fucks about The Order, but DF is not a saint by any means.
Just add this to the review part and nothing will be lost, make it an extra page and voilà, they stopped being subtle / only a performance analysis a long time ago.
Objectively Bad Opinion
Member
Next-gen gameplay is stuff that wasn't possible last-gen; larger multiplayer matches, emergent/player-driven scenarios, more dynamic environments... And on and on.
I realize you're being facetious but it doesn't take much thought to locate areas in gameplay where the ante can be upped solely due to more powerful hardware. And it's no controversy to say that the gameplay found in this game would have been possible in the last generation consoles. Or at least, I hope not.
Nobody knows. Maybe games in 4D. Or Morpheus or Oculus Rift.
As long as we have a TV and a controller, 'next-gen' gameplay doesnt exists, as long as the games want to be accessible and easy to understand, and not confusing as hell.
I'm impressed. The best looking game in the market right now and it holds a rock solid 30FPS. It's amazing how this game almost looks like it's straight out of a CGI movie. The first game to surpass it visually will be Uncharted 4 IMO. But then again, if ND still aims for 60FPS with those larger environments, The Order 1886 may end up looking better. Kudos to Ready at Dawn!
What part of:
"Lighting and materials tech/shaders are pure gold" Is biased exactly?
Oh I see, when I say something that console gamers like about their game, I'm not biased. But when I point out the FACT that the game features very little going on other than rendering the game and the linear levels and the rendering resolution, and opine that maybe 30 FPS isn't super impressive. THEN I'm biased.
I think I'm getting it now.
"This game is the best third person shooter ever!" - not biased.
"This game is really not a very good third person shooter" - so biased!
Am I doing it right? Or maybe can we stop paying attention to the the fanboys whining and continue discussing the actual merits of the game and the graphics performance without having to sugar coat everything? You know, like adults. I mean these people are STILL, Page 2, hung up on a single sentence of the damn foundry analysis calling the game "cinematic".
Oh the horrors!!
Open world games, of course! /s
SolidSnakex
Member
The people that want it don't even really know what it is. There was a thread last year where someone was asking for the games with next gen gameplay. He brought up the first game that he thought brought it to the table in the previous gen, that game to him was Gears of War. A game that CliffyB openly stated was a combination of Kill.Switch and Resident Evil 4 in terms of gameplay. Two games from the generation before it.
Imru al-Qays
Banned
I don't see why people are complaining that DF is offering gameplay commentary. As I recall this has always been Leadbetter's MO.
thelastword
Banned
Saves a bit less performance than 1600*900 I'd imagine, also, none of that blurry upscaled imagery.
Arguably none of those are gameplay related. In the case of VR, they are display and input technologies. They can demand a different type of gameplay, or even the same gameplay as previously. The experience of playing VR is indeed very different, but I don't consider that gameplay
Unless I'm misreading something their saying 800p is the rendering resolution. Besides it wouldn't make sense to take the performance hit of 1080p only to have 280 lines dedicated to black pixels.