Digital Foundry Performance Analysis: The Order: 1886
- Thread starter Savantcore
- Start date
Savantcore
Unconfirmed Member
Including bars and scale, yes it is.
Certain aspects, yes....maybe, others no.
The facial animations, skin, and the hair of Marius from Ryse are more impressive to me.
Unity (ignoring the crappy parts) can supply some more impressive screenshots.
UnrealEck
Member
Yeah I really don't have the same impression on the graphics as these guys. The game looks good in its aesthetics but not impressive or exceptional overall. Everyone's been going on about how good the game looks and it's not impressing me. I like the characters though. So with that said, the steady 30 FPS is predictable performance, especially given then resolution too.
nelsonroyale
Member
Yeah, in motion this looks much more consistent than Unity. Overal detail in the character models and detail in the environments I think looks better than Ryse. Post processing also creates a more cohesive vision in my opinion. In comparison, Ryse looks like it is a bit of a tech showcase. It doesn't come together as solidly in comparison. It still looks stunning though, and has very good environmental art.
I wouldn't argue with this at all. Definitely why I pointed out certain aspects.
I think that's about as unbiased with it as one can get in either direction.
We could push the argument into 4k Downsampled stuff like I do on my GTX 980, but I'm not the kind of person that thinks even 10% of gamers have the stuff to do that.
thelastword
Banned
I must have missed that then, but my point still stands. I don't want to read their take on gameplay, If I wanted to read Eurogamer's 8/10 review I would have. Just goes to show, they recommended the PS3 version, the 360 had some dvd to hdd issues and was worse overall, notwithstanding that it came on two DVD's on the 360. They brought in the review bit to suggest that the game plays the same on either console and beyond all the PS3 plusses "it's really the same game guys". I mean "it's on two DVD's on the 360 but the video cutscenes are the same quality, we swear", Df used so many lines to put the 360 version in a positive light when it's the worse version, it's like they're always making a case for a 360 game even if it's worse.
It's the same reason that I found DF talking about Square Enix not doing the best work on FF13-360 to be BS, they sounded so butthurt in the ff13 article, why are they so invested in how a game runs on an ms console, spinning hard on how much better the 360 version could be, it's just wrong. Oh boy, and as I was saying, what do you know? DF is still going on about FF13 360 in that very article that you linked, this is what people get tired of, it has no place there. All of that is not necessary in DF articles because it's heavily lop-sided, anytime a 360 game lost a faceoff it's excuses time, or the game is the same despite the better version existing.
When the tides are turned, DF never gave the PS3 the same benefit of the doubt and usually their assumptions are always wrong anyway. Where was DF defending the PS3 from the woeful quick port called bayonetta on the PS3, they never blamed the dev like they did Square Enix for FF13-360. These little injections into their articles are too angled and they should weed them out outright.
The majority of DF's assumptions are plain wrong. Bayonetta would have been a much better port on the PS3 if it got the same development time as the 360 version and if it had a competent developer, that's a fact. Case in point Zoe2 HD.
This generation, in about every article. 600k pixel difference, better effects, better framerate on the PS4, it's like most games are like for like, no big differences in the games guys. The words, slight, subtle are the order of the day, can't tell the difference bro. I'm sitting 2" from my screen and I still can't tell. Yet a game that has a slight framerate advantage on the xbone (ACU-initially) suddenly has a tangible advantage, all the conspiracy theories of games being cpu bound on PS4 is now full in motion. They say the same about, DA-I, GTA5 etc..All of that was proven wrong, through other faceoffs and in patches for ACU.
If DF really wanted to know the state of things, they would ask developers. For example, why is there no AF on the PS4 version of that game, why is there a drop in framerate accessing the menu's in DA-I or just walking in a barren land? Now if Df did their research and ask the devs questions, got answers and reported back, people would see them as a link in getting games patched and getting better products, but when their speculation and opinions are so off chain, I'd rather not hear about their opinions, it's not that why I go to their site anyway.
A weaker machine, yet it can do bigger vistas with better motion blur and DOF and you're still downplaying that the IQ is native. I'm not even sure you believe what you say.KKRT said:
Well, the thing about Ryse's facial animations is that we only ever see them in pre-rendered sequences. It's in-engine but not real-time. The fact that The Order runs entirely in real-time is something I think is very impressive. Many other first party Sony releases resorted to pre-rendered, in-engine sequences but RAD stuck with fully real-time sequences.
There are a lot of facial animations during combat and non-combat sequences that don't switch to the in-engine cut-scenes.
Well that's sort of the opposite of what you said first
Agree to disagree then 
Yes, there are, and they look great, but I still think The Order has the overall edge on that front.
Dictator93
Member
They are real time in the one bridge scene I in the beginning and the bridge scene in the forest (WHAT IS IT WITH BRIDGES?!).
Ha ha, that's right, I saw that scene so many times when testing the PC version.
Yes, that is an incredibly impressive scene too.
I do think they could have pulled off more scenes in real-time but chose not to in order to hide loading as the game has VERY long loading times on Xbox One.
Dictator93
Member
The install is like 2.5 hours if I remember correctly. But this is OT.
I await the tech analysis!
Shin-Ra
Junior Member
They were using Killzone 3+ technology for the original PS Move supported title.
Wat. How does that work out for The Evil Within or lower resolution 900p games with sub-30 performance issues?
Heheh, I just noticed something funny when chasing the Lycan.
The player aims 4 feet above a gate at the Lycan, fires while it's feet are still above the wall, but the shot arcs downward and takes out the gate.
It forced the shot to do what you're supposed to do next.
Yet, only short time later he shoots the arc gun at the Lycan and the arc shot goes over multiple metal things, including inches over a metal fence and hits the Lycan.
Details..haha
The player aims 4 feet above a gate at the Lycan, fires while it's feet are still above the wall, but the shot arcs downward and takes out the gate.
It forced the shot to do what you're supposed to do next.
Yet, only short time later he shoots the arc gun at the Lycan and the arc shot goes over multiple metal things, including inches over a metal fence and hits the Lycan.
Details..haha
From the Ryse performance analysis, actually written by Leadbetter:
I'm really tired of wandering into Digital Foundry threads and seeing console warriors jumping at ghosts.
I will say this, at least RAD said up front that they're aiming for 1920x800, and hit that target at 30fps. plus they polished the hell out of their target. never was that interested in the game, but I'd like to at least Gamefly it to witness it or get it later.
... and I'd love to see a Jak and Daxter game with this tech
... and I'd love to see a Jak and Daxter game with this tech
CaptainTiptop
Member
They started commenting on the quality of gameplay ever since the new generation started.
JinjoUnchained
Member
So The Order: 1886 is the new Rise of the Robots?
I think a point about the balance between interactivity and not for a game-centered analysis isn't really off-base.
Mind quoting your source, as what you quote is not taken from the tech analysis I quoted myself, in spite of what you seem to imply?
And it has nothing to do with "warrior mentality" as you say so elegantly.
A tech analysis should simply be about tech, whatever platform the game happens to be on. Otherwise it's called a "review".
Shocking. I know.
I watched some Gamersyde video of them playing on Hard and the AI does the same thing. Guns can feel awesome to shoot, but its pointless when your enemy encounters are dreadful.
It doesn't matter man. This will go ignored by people pushing their agendas as this sort of damning evidence always does.
entremet
Member
But it is one? Just because they add comments on the gameplay, it doesn't negate it being one. This all or nothing stuff seems strange. Let the writer make that choice.
thelastword
Banned
Ahh, that explains it.
Linneman wrote the DF vs. article. Leadbetter wrote the earlier article with the performance analysis (equivalent to what we have now for The Order).
DF often does a quick, shorter performance analysis to coincide with an embargo dropping or release day of a game (obviously to get hits when all the other outlets are putting their reviews up, and also to appease readers who whine when a tech analysis isn't available now), that has a framerate test of early parts of a game and a cursory look at the tech and things easily observable like resolution, and often provides brief talk about gameplay.
A full tech analysis comes later when they actually have the time to spend looking at the full game. The Order will presumably get a full tech analysis over the weekend or next week.
I actually just found the piece he refers to.
It's funny, because it's -not- a full tech analysis like the one we are talking here (whether for The Order or Ryse).
His Leabetter comments are from a very short piece called "Next Gen Now" that also happens to contain some tech bits (and was a prelude to their actual Analysis, which I linked and which contained 0 gameplay comments). Leadbetter's phrases are also a mere introduction here, unlike for the "The Order 1886" piece.
here it is:
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-next-gen-now-ryse-son-of-rome
So ... yeah.
Again, I don't care if the game is on platform X or Y. If you say it's a full Tech analysis (like the op link is supposed to be), keep it to tech analysis.
In case you are wondering, no I do not imply that there is a "Grand Conspiracy" against Sony or RAD here.
It's just bad form, whatever the game or platform, period.
If the chosen title is performance analysis a choice has already been made. The info about the performance is there, but it also has redundant stuff not suggested by the title. Most likely it's just difficult for an individual to analyse a game on a purely technical basis and not say your overall gameplay opinion about it. Guys review games for a living anyway.
Now, we already know the performance + a gameplay summary is in many DF perf analysis (e.g. "Ryse is boring"), so all I would like is for a simple adjustment to use a proper title or leave the other stuff for their proper places in a review "If you'd like to know how we feel about the gameplay, follow this link".
Check my post:
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=152763725&postcount=157
But The Order analysis is also not full. It is just performance preview.
Full article will also be done by John Linneman and published this weekend
Have You even read it?
But The Order article being talked about in this thread isn't a full tech analysis. It is clearly labeled as a performance analysis, which has become the norm for them to release on "day one" so to speak, with a full tech analysis to come later. The full tech analysis is always called Digital Foundry vs. _____ or labeled a Face Off.
Aye I just saw that Leadbetter mentions Lineman working on a full analysis at the end of the article.
Guess I was a bit thrown off by Leadbetter calling his prelude a "Performance Analysis" wherehas he called it a "Next Gen Now" back with Ryse.
Point standing that in either case, calling something a "tech analysis" is one thing. Criticizing gameplay is another (and both have plenty to be criticized it seems).
I don't care what you think the content of a performance analysis should be dictated by. The ultimate point is that there are always people who come into Digital Foundry threads and pull do this "why did they do x, why didn't they do it for y" junk.It seems to always come from people with vested interests and short memories in relation to the fact that Digital Foundry has ALWAYS editorialized content.
It's a good thing for you then that they note at the bottom of their similarly one page article on the Order that they'll have a fleshed out technical analysis this weekend. Almost like what they did for the exact game you accused them of being inconsistent with. Almost like what they did for Vanquish, a game that similarly came under scrutiny for it's run time, so they delineated their long form technical article from their shorter one addressing the game's criticism for length(and that also had leadbetter spinning his own take on the quality of the game).
im not really sure why everyone is all bent out of shape about the article to be honest...Leadbetter basically just laid out the facts...
i agree that the comments about length and ratio of cutscenes:gameplay doesnt really belong in a tech argument...
but we knew the game was short...we knew the game was story driven...we knew it had a lot of cutscenes...and we knew it wasnt going to revolutionize gameplay...we knew it was gonna play like a standard TPS (not a bad thing btw)...
and what Leadbetter did confirm was that its the best looking game on consoles...ever...and has pretty damn flawless performance...
DF does these "Performance Analysis" things all the time then a few days later you get the whole "Digital Foundry vs (insert game title here)" article...
what exactly is all the fuss about?
i agree that the comments about length and ratio of cutscenes:gameplay doesnt really belong in a tech argument...
but we knew the game was short...we knew the game was story driven...we knew it had a lot of cutscenes...and we knew it wasnt going to revolutionize gameplay...we knew it was gonna play like a standard TPS (not a bad thing btw)...
and what Leadbetter did confirm was that its the best looking game on consoles...ever...and has pretty damn flawless performance...
DF does these "Performance Analysis" things all the time then a few days later you get the whole "Digital Foundry vs (insert game title here)" article...
what exactly is all the fuss about?
I've webm it
http://a.pomf.se/qhhdaa.webm
The scene when You enter with Nero the Palace is also real-time.
http://i3.minus.com/iWwAXA32Vp0ka.png
And the facial animation in cutscenes is about the same as in QTE executions.
----
Put both in full screen.
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2013-11-25-ryse-son-of-rome-tech-gallery
What point of view?
Comparing tech features one to one is somehow serving my point of view? Its objective comparison.
Less subpixel aliasing is from MSAA which i already said, but You of course missed and not quoted, because it Your stupid theory irrelevant.
I've also made analysis of TAA, although not completely fair, because from PC version that had slightly upgraded algorithm. There is almost no subpixel aliasing.
http://a.pomf.se/owwgio.webm
http://a.pomf.se/vrbhfg.webm
nycgamer4ever
Member
Then what is the review for then. Just merge the two and call it a day.
I've seen all the media on Digital Foundry, and other lossless pics of Ryse on NeoGAF in various threads, as well as first hand experience with other 900p titles. I made my comments with all of that knowledge in mind and feel it's clear The Order resolves more detail and doesn't look as blurred as 900p games.
Your "point of view" that causes you to inevitably post Ryse screenshots and gifs in The Order threads.
I don't know what I missed and didn't quote since you didn't mention MSAA in the post I responded to. I was clearly responding to your idea that you've repeated in several threads at this point that RAD ruined the IQ of The Order and it is as blurry as 900p games. I disagree with that and posted some reasons why.
Too late, just posted that.
But if you want to keep going we can.
There -is- a discrepancy between the way the two titles have been treated, a pretty obvious one at that.
Leadbetter "Next Gen Now" about Ryse:
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-next-gen-now-ryse-son-of-rome
And that's it. 2 sentences. One intro sentence, and one comment around the middle.
Now, for the Leadbetter "Performance Analysis" on the Order 1886:
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2015-the-order-1886-performance-analysis
We're talking no less than -7- paragraphs about gameplay and design decisions critic.
But yes, other than that, both "initial tech analysis" pieces are perfectly the same.
I dont post them in The Order threads, i post them in TECH threads, where we compare technology. Its hard to not post something from a game that actually has desired tech in, when we are discussing something. Give me similar videos, shots, webm from games on UE 4/Frostbite and i'll post them too.
They destroyed IQ, its even hard to see the level of AF in many shots, because they are so blurry. If You dont see how blurry they are in comparison to native games, then i really dont know what more i can say.
nelsonroyale
Member
Just for consistencies sake, I suppose you also think Crytek destroyed the IQ in Ryse then? Fair enough.
UnrealEck
Member
I'm not sure what you're asking. TEW's performance was rather poor. A steady 30 FPS in TO1886 is what I'd expect.
Can you rephrase your question?
Thank science someone else sees it. I saw people praising the IQ. It's as if people don't know what IQ means.
ShinMaruku
Member
It doesn't look as tack sharp as a full 1080p game without post processing or any form of AA to soften the image, but it also obviously looks astronomically sharper to me than a 900p game with poor FXAA, like BF4, and it even looks sharper to me, retaining more fine detail in the overall image, than a 900p game with fairly sophisticated AA like Ryse.
I know what IQ means just fine, and I also know how to put it in the proper context when talking about a console exclusive, and when taking the goals of a games visual presentation into account. The idea that only a clinically clean game, free of post processing and using something like super sampling to remove aliasing is what needs to be qualified as "good" IQ is absurd to me, because that suddenly removes a great many of the artistic choices and tools that developers can make and use to create a game's overall look.
For comparison's sake, video/transfer quality for a movie on Blu-ray like The Social Network has a different meaning and expectation than video quality for a movie like Children of Men.
I wrote that few times already. Crytek already had non-native game. The point is that RaD didnt have too destroy it, where Crytek already did with upscaling.
Personally, and I wrote it already few time too btw, for gameplay i'll take slight blur over lack of aliasing, but for screenshoting i will always disable blur.
icecold1983
Member
have to disagree on battlefront having any shot at looking better.
i also dont think ryse or the order suffer from "destroyed IQ". the IQ is phenomenal in both games.