Support NeoGAF

[artsi]

If anyone has the time, maybe they can create a comparison between PS4 and PC where this is the case e.g sniping has added benefit on PC? Because I don't really see it here.

This one just shows that it's pretty much the same on both platforms when you zoom in, but here's one I quickly did.

PS4 normal view
PC normal view

PS4 zoomed
PC zoomed

 

[adelante]

I really like the obmb in the new call of duty games. Their rpesentation on it points out a lof cool stuff they tried to do to make it more natural.

You just made me look it up and I think I found it, thanks man! More games could definitely benefit from some of graphical stuff Sledgehammer did in Advanced Warfare.

 

[Dictator93]

You just made me look it up and I think I found it, thanks man! More games could definitely benefit from some of graphical stuff Sledgehammer did in Advanced Warfare.

Yeah it is a cool presentation. They create this awesome motionblur and then they limit it purely to cutscenes and menus :0

Why not give the user a choice if they want it on!

 

[hesido]

I think most motionblurs are rather similar (per object). Rather, some games dirty up their image with other post processing (filmgrain is a big one). This then makes it look decided more natural in stills.

Most obmb has noticable edges and banding in a still image, but it isn't about stills anyway... but how it appears in motion.

I really like the obmb in the new call of duty games. Their rpesentation on it points out a lof cool stuff they tried to do to make it more natural.

The DOF in The Order is magical, I keep saying... But yeah, just had to revisit some shots and the motion blur is not on the same level as the DOF implementation but it's still rocking.

You make a good point, though you mean "exponential" rather than "logarithmic"

It's why object distance (as well as foliage etc. distance) in an open world game is generally a very impactful setting.

Oh, yeah. I meant if you had to plot it, the increase in number of objects could be linear in a logarithmic chart, depending on camera angle (Yeah, I screwed there, didn't I.)

 

[thelastword]

You may not be denying it, but you are definitely downplaying it's significance. It's a huge, noticeable difference. And this isn't about GTA5 so I don't understand why you keep bringing that up as if it has some significance to the MGSV comparison thread.

Wow, so many persons came out of the woodwork to do drivebys. Thanks for at least acknowledging I'm not denying the difference. Technically it's better no doubt........Let's put it this way, if Konami offered me an option of 16xAf or Very High Model detail on the PS4 version, I would take 16xAf and not bat an eyelid.

Hmmmm, just looked at the Candyland video and saw some other closeups. I can confirm that I'd take AF and it makes a bigger difference in the drawn image. Even the rocky patch in the distance is blurred out on the PS4 version.

 

[hesido]

You just made me look it up and I think I found it, thanks man! More games could definitely benefit from some of graphical stuff Sledgehammer did in Advanced Warfare.

Oh, this is wonderful stuff. How did I miss this. Their DOF implementation looks superb, and the motion blur is killer. They did really well to hide object silhouettes.

 

[Krappadizzle]

Wow, so many persons came out of the woodwork to do drivebys. Thanks for at least acknowledging I'm not denying the difference. Technically it's better no doubt........Let's put it this way, if Konami offered me an option of 16xAf or Very High Model detail on the PS4 version, I would take 16xAf and not bat an eyelid.

Hmmmm, just looked at the Candyland video and saw some other closeups. I can confirm that I'd take AF and it makes a bigger difference in the drawn image. Even the rocky patch in the distance is blurred out on the PS4 version.

I've been here since the second page. Not sure why you are so defensive.

 

[Momentary]

Have you even seen the game in person on the ps4. It looks better than those pictures would have you believe

Have you even seen the game in person on an enthusiast PC? It looks better than those pictures would have you believe.

 

[MaLDo]

Wow, so many persons came out of the woodwork to do drivebys. Thanks for at least acknowledging I'm not denying the difference. Technically it's better no doubt........Let's put it this way, if Konami offered me an option of 16xAf or Very High Model detail on the PS4 version, I would take 16xAf and not bat an eyelid.

As you wish.

As you can see, AF doesn't solve the problem. Low asset density is equally palpable.. Anyway, consoles don't have graphics options.

 

[Noobcraft]

The PC version is obviously the definitive version of the game (graphically) and is for the majority of multiplatform titles. The only exceptions being games that ship broken.

 

[THRILLH0]

Did they patch in the PS4's missing forehead texture yet?

 

[MaLDo]

Did they patch in the PS4's missing forehead texture yet?

 

[On Demand]

Are we going to have another grassgate thread? Boy that last one was fun!

Edit: If that was X1/PS4 there actually WOULD be a thread by now.

Time for new grassgate .gif

Except that isn't grassgate. XB1 had missing foilage in GTAV no matter how far or close you got. What you're looking at with PS4 and PC is draw distance and LOD. PS4 has just as much grass and detail as the PC screen, you just have to get closer to that area.

These zoomed in pics are really exaggerating the differences.

 

[Krappadizzle]

Except that isn't grassgate. XB1 had missing foilage in GTAV no matter how far or close you got. What you're looking at with PS4 and PC is draw distance and LOD. PS4 has just as much grass and detail as the PC screen, you just have to get closer to that area.

These zoomed in pics are really exaggerating the differences.

Are you looking at the pics? In one there is no grass/shrubbery in the other there is. Zooming in may be highlighting the difference, but it's not exaggerating them.

 

[Javin98]

Now I'm not downplaying the differences between the PC and PS4 versions, but I personally think it's not as big as some make it seem to be. The PC version does look significantly better, though, extra high lighting setting, especially shows quite a big difference. And before someone jumps on me with a Grassgate pic, I do think the gap between the PC and PS4 versions is much larger than the the gap between the PS4 and XB1 versions. However, I do think the reduced LOD on consoles still holds up quite well and doesn't seem as obvious as in GZ when compared to the PC version. Probably because TPP had denser foliage, I think. Also, I wonder why DF made no mention of the SSR found in certain places on PS4 at all.

I'm rather surprised the i3/750 Ti combo was able to keep up with the PS4 version in this game, but then again, it has been in many multiplatform games. I hope next time DF uploads a video to prove their claims, though. Luckily we had someone in this thread to back it up, albeit with an i5.

 

[On Demand]

Are you looking at the pics? In one there is no grass/shrubbery in the other there is. Zooming in may be highlighting the difference, but it's not exaggerating them.

That's because PC can render far away objects better. They are there on PS4 too.

 

[Krappadizzle]

That's because PC can render far away objects better. They are there on PS4 too.

Well....yeah. But on one they are rendered, in the other they are not. If you have to move closer to see them, it's not the same.

 

[MaLDo]

That's because PC can render far away objects better. They are there on PS4 too.

 

[On Demand]

Now I'm not downplaying the differences between the PC and PS4 versions, but I personally think it's not as big as some make it seem to be. The PC version does look significantly better, though, extra high lighting setting, especially shows quite a big difference. And before someone jumps on me with a Grassgate pic, I do think the gap between the PC and PS4 versions is much larger than the the gap between the PS4 and XB1 versions. However, I do think the reduced LOD on consoles still holds up quite well and doesn't seem as obvious as in GZ when compared to the PC version. Probably because TPP had denser foliage, I think. Also, I wonder why DF made no mention of the SSR found in certain places on PS4 at all.

I'm rather surprised the i3/750 Ti combo was able to keep up with the PS4 version in this game, but then again, it has been in many multiplatform games. I hope next time DF uploads a video to prove their claims, though. Luckily we had someone in this thread to back it up, albeit with an i5.

I think the gap between last Gen and current Gen is larger than PS4 to PC.

Well....yeah. But on one they are rendered, in the other they are not. If you have to move closer to see them, it's not the same.

Yes but it isn't so called grassgate people love to freely use. PS4 has those details.

 

[Javin98]

I think the gap between last Gen and current Gen is larger than PS4 to PC.

I think so too. 720p is such a blurry mess when you view those comparison shots. The reduced LOD on last gen consoles is also more noticeable when compared to current gen versions than the PC and PS4 versions.

 

[Pearson]

I can hardly ever actually see any difference on these comparisons.

My ps4 works perfect

 

[thelastword]

I've been here since the second page. Not sure why you are so defensive.

I wasn't referring to you, I had hoped you didn't get that impression when I typed that. My response to you began after that line I believe the significance of a few tufts of dry grass in the distance is being overblown though. You watch the candyland video and the missing AF is much more significant on approach.

 

[LQX]

Game runs great on PC but really don't think it looks all that better than consoles. Looks about the same on the XB1 from the short time I saw it being played.

 

[Tagyhag]

Yes but it isn't so called grassgate people love to freely use. PS4 has those details.

Lol it's not literal grassgate, it's just poking fun at that whole debacle and the huge hypocrisy that came with it.

 

[Krappadizzle]

Yes but it isn't so called grassgate people love to freely use. PS4 has those details.

Not at a distance.

I wasn't referring to you, I had hoped you didn't get that impression when I typed that. My response to you began after that line I believe the significance of a few tufts of dry grass in the distance is being overblown though. You watch the candyland video and the missing AF is much more significant on approach.

Missing AF is a big ommision I'd say too. I don't understand why this is such a common occurence across consoles. I was under the impression(and I may be wrong) that AFX16 has minimal performance impact.

We cool tho'.

 

[EatChildren]

I don't even know why this is a point of discussion. PC has, and always will, be superior in rendering distance due to the theoretically unlimited additional headroom in processing power and RAM over consoles. There's no ceiling other than the market and how much you're willing to spend, and in game development (including on PC) culling draw distance is a textbook, tried and true, reliable method of reducing draw calls and maintaining performance in games where interactive play space is rendered via large vistas (eg: every open world game in existence). Whether or not it matters to someone is subjective, but the difference is nevertheless worth noting, and it doesn't really make sense to suggest they're basically the same when one is rendering literally fewer assets over distance than the latter. Draw distance is, you know, a thing, and if the comparison were Xbox One to PS4 we'd never hear the end of it. End of the day if what you're after is detailed vistas in open world games, buy a PC, because that's the place you'll get them best and consoles will never match them.

 

[On Demand]

Lol it's not literal grassgate, it's just poking fun at that whole debacle and the huge hypocrisy that came with it.

Still. That debate was because XB1 couldn't at all render the grass PS4 did. Don't think this is quite comparable.

 

[Noobcraft]

Still. That debate was because XB1 couldn't at all render the grass PS4 did. Don't think this is quite comparable.

In GTAV view distance is pretty much purely cosmetic. In MGSV view distance is pretty important because scouting out enemies at a large distance is a part of the gameplay. I've had enemy soldiers pop out of my view while scouting out villages for missions, and it is super annoying.

 

[thelastword]

I don't even know why this is a point of discussion. PC has, and always will, be superior in rendering distance due to the theoretically unlimited additional headroom in processing power and RAM over consoles. There's no ceiling other than the market and how much you're willing to spend, and in game development (including on PC) culling draw distance is a textbook, tried and true, reliable method of reducing draw calls and maintaining performance in games where interactive play space is rendered via large vistas (eg: every open world game in existence). Whether or not it matters to someone is subjective, but the difference is nevertheless worth noting, and it doesn't really make sense to suggest they're basically the same when one is rendering literally fewer assets over distance than the latter. Draw distance is, you know, a thing, and if the comparison were Xbox One to PS4 we'd never hear the end of it. End of the day if what you're after is detailed vistas in open world games, buy a PC, because that's the place you'll get them best and consoles will never match them.

I don't think any body is against what you just said. PC will always shine in those areas of extra, there is always something you will be able to push more on PC, AA, AF, LOD. Mods can boost it even more, if you have the money, rig and skill...so agreed...

I thing the debate emanated from comparisons to other open world games and how much they had to render over MGSV in the distance. Based on the locale in MGSV, it didn't have to draw as much as some other open-world games, so the difference in foliage density is not as stark. The question was raised then, how much power is really necessary to render the extra tufts of grass that we see at very high setting in MGSV. I'm thinking not so much....on this one in particular.

 

[bede-x]

Please note that DF is being a bit general with their statement, they're never precise, they say console settings, but even then, we know that not all console settings are the same.

No, they don't say that at all and are quite precise in this instance. You are mis-reading what they're saying. DF doesn't talk about "console settings", but default settings (To which they add volumetric clouds and better texture filtering):

To work from the ground upwards, Nvidia's GTX 750 Ti is still a front-runner for the budget-orientated PC gamer, with prices recently cut to £90. However, at default settings, it's clear that stock clocks don't quite cut it, with the card hitting 32fps on alpha-heavy explosions in battle, and 50fps for regular shoot-outs. The fix is simple however: raising the memory clock by 400MHz (in our case via MSI's Afterburner utility) we clear the bottleneck entirely, and can hit a perfect 60fps - without even touching the core clock. There's headroom to switch volumetric clouds and superior texture filtering on too, and the default preset also qualifies it for broader draw distances than on console. So with minimal tweaking, our budget gaming PC is actually capable of handing in a more refined version of the game at 1080p, inching ahead of the PlayStation 4 version.

So what they do is take default settings and switch volumetric clouds and better texture filtering on. Now you post a video of a guy, who not only have volumetric clouds and maxed out AF on, but also goes even higher than DF in settings: better shadows, better model detail and better textures (and maybe even AF, where we only know DF is using better than default. We don't know if that's high or extra high, the last of which is what your guy is using). From 1:14 until he changes his settings, he's getting mostly 50+ fps, slightly lower that DF, but he's also using higher settings.

The fact that he gets slightly lower fps than DF, while he's using higher settings, is exactly what you'd expect. The weird thing would be if the comparisons were exactly the same despite them using different settings.

You need to read what they write more carefully..

 

[Dictator93]

No, they don't say that at all and are quite precise in this instance. You are mis-reading what they're saying. DF doesn't talk about "console settings", but default settings (To which they add volumetric clouds and better texture filtering):

I misread that as well. Wow.

 

[thelastword]

No, they don't say that at all and are quite precise in this instance. You are mis-reading what they're saying. DF doesn't talk about "console settings", but default settings (To which they add volumetric clouds and better texture filtering):

There's no need to talk about better texture filtering, it's always at 16x AF on PC for comparisons and it comes at no performance cost. My point is simple, Default settings in MGSV implies texture filtering and shadows on medium, everything else on high and volumetric clouds off.

PS4
Textures:Extra High
Motion Blur: High
Lighting: Extra High
Effects: Extra HIgh
Post Proessing; Extra High
Ambient Occlusion: High
DOF: ON
Volumetric Clouds: On
Texture Filtering: Medium
Shadows: Medium
Model Detail: Below Low
1080p, solid 60fps....

Now, I said this is not "console settings" because the xbox does not match that, it has lower filtering, lower effects. (lack of SSS etc..), lower post processing (lower quality MB etc...). When NXgamer weighs in, we will adjust the list above as necessary as he will give a more comprehensive picture as to console settings, but this is what we know thus far as far as consoles go....

The settings Santiago left on Extra High was Model Detail, Textures and Texture filtering. Textures are the same quality on console and PC (Extra High), Filtering is free on PC (does not affect performance) and model detail serves as the biggest disparity between the two. Though I think it's impact is not great. (visually or performance),but the difference is there nonetheless.

As I said to you, the i3/750ti from the video I linked is a higher overclocked card than what DF referenced, so DF's performance would be even lower, much lower still if the card was at stock, which is where all the rage of the i3/750ti began in the first place, now it's got to be overclocked.

Regardless, with these settings, on an overclocked 750ti he could only muster around the low 50's on average. When he approached an outpost and used his binoculars frames stared dropping to the late 40's frequently. When he entered the village/outpost, he was pretty much at 50-47 fps fluctuating. DF's framerate would be lower in comparison.

Again, Santiago, said that he could only get a 60fps lock at 1080p with everything on high and motion blur off. It would be nice if DF presented a video to substantiate their claims, however, there's no doubt that NXgamer has the 750ti setup, so we'll wait on that to know how that setup really does....with evidence of course.

 

[bede-x]

Now, I said this is not "console settings" because the xbox does not match that, it has lower filtering, lower effects. (lack of SSS etc..), lower post processing (lower quality MB etc...).

No. You answered by quoting me and claiming that DF is being general with their statement/not precise and say console settings, when in fact they said no such thing and are pretty precise in this 750 Ti comparison. Now it seems like you're talking about something completely different..

The settings Santiago left on Extra High was Model Detail, Textures and Texture filtering. Textures are the same quality on console and PC (Extra High), Filtering is free on PC (does not affect performance) and model detail serves as the biggest disparity between the two.

The textures that DF use in the comparison are not the same. They are using default, not extra high. And they are using lower shadows (medium setting vs high with your guy) as well (in addition to what I mentioned previously)

Regardless, with these settings, on an overclocked 750ti he could only muster around the low 50's on average.

Using higher settings, a differently clocked card and while recording. You posted the video to demonstrate how DF was wrong. Since there are several differences in settings, clocking and recording, it's only natural that the tests show two different things. I don't know how to say this any clearer than that, but I think I've made my point, so I'll just leave it at that.

 

[DarkLordMalik]

This one just shows that it's pretty much the same on both platforms when you zoom in, but here's one I quickly did.

PS4 normal view
PC normal view

PS4 zoomed
PC zoomed

Thanks. This just proves my point about their being more light sources at night, which seem to have more impact on the scene than using binoculars/sniper.

 

[alexandros]

When NXgamer weighs in

Oh God, this is what it has come to?

 

[c0de]

Oh God, this is what it has come to?

It's a recurring pattern. Make DF look worse than they are, make look NXGamer better than he is.

 

[MutonCommander]

Minimal doesn't mean what you think

Why is the image so blurry on PS4?

 

[GhostTrick]

There's no need to talk about better texture filtering, it's always at 16x AF on PC for comparisons and it comes at no performance cost. My point is simple, Default settings in MGSV implies texture filtering and shadows on medium, everything else on high and volumetric clouds off.

PS4
Textures:Extra High
Motion Blur: High
Lighting: Extra High
Effects: Extra HIgh
Post Proessing; Extra High
Ambient Occlusion: High
DOF: ON
Volumetric Clouds: On
Texture Filtering: Medium
Shadows: Medium
Model Detail: Below Low
1080p, solid 60fps....

Now, I said this is not "console settings" because the xbox does not match that, it has lower filtering, lower effects. (lack of SSS etc..), lower post processing (lower quality MB etc...). When NXgamer weighs in, we will adjust the list above as necessary as he will give a more comprehensive picture as to console settings, but this is what we know thus far as far as consoles go....

The settings Santiago left on Extra High was Model Detail, Textures and Texture filtering. Textures are the same quality on console and PC (Extra High), Filtering is free on PC (does not affect performance) and model detail serves as the biggest disparity between the two. Though I think it's impact is not great. (visually or performance),but the difference is there nonetheless.

As I said to you, the i3/750ti from the video I linked is a higher overclocked card than what DF referenced, so DF's performance would be even lower, much lower still if the card was at stock, which is where all the rage of the i3/750ti began in the first place, now it's got to be overclocked.

Regardless, with these settings, on an overclocked 750ti he could only muster around the low 50's on average. When he approached an outpost and used his binoculars frames stared dropping to the late 40's frequently. When he entered the village/outpost, he was pretty much at 50-47 fps fluctuating. DF's framerate would be lower in comparison.

Again, Santiago, said that he could only get a 60fps lock at 1080p with everything on high and motion blur off. It would be nice if DF presented a video to substantiate their claims, however, there's no doubt that NXgamer has the 750ti setup, so we'll wait on that to know how that setup really does....with evidence of course.

PS4 lighting setting isnt Extra High though.

 

[Garrett Hawke]

PS4 lighting setting isnt Extra High though.

Neither are textures, according to DF:

Resolution: 1920x1080 (or 1600x900 for Xbox One)
Vertical Sync: On
Frame-Rate: Auto (60)
Motion Blur: High
Depth of Field: Enabled
Model Detail: Low
Textures: High
Texture Filtering: Medium
Shadows: Medium
Lighting: High
Post-Processing: High
Effects: High
Ambient Occlusion: High
Volumetric Clouds: On

Also the PS4 is not on extra high effects/post processing.

 

[Dictator93]

PS4 and xb1, according to all evidence posted, do not have volumetric clouds. thelastword, do you have the ps4 version? If so, take a pic of the sky... no one has posted one yet at all with the volumetric clouds.

Also, if it is anything like MGS GZ, why would anything at all be on extra high? at all?

Also, extra high unlocks bokeh and SSR on every surface, the PS4 only has SSR in certain scenes and a normal gaussian DOF.

Why do you assume things without proving them? Why would DF lie about things instead of perhaps just being mistaken.

Also effects have yet to be proven to even being high, they are definitely not extra high, but no video has been put up yet by DF or otherwise showing how the particle sprites work. They could very well be on low.

 

[Garrett Hawke]

PS4 and xb1, according to all evidence posted, do not have volumetric clouds. thelastword, do you have the ps4 version? If so, take a pic of the sky... no one has posted one yet at all with the volumetric clouds.

Also, if it is anything like MGS GZ, why would anything at all be on extra high? at all?

Also, extra high unlocks bokeh and SSR on every surface, the PS4 on has SSR in certain scenes and a normal gaussian DOF.

I'll boot it up right now and check.

 

[Dictator93]

I'll boot it up right now and check.

Could you perhaps take a ps4 share video of you doing the medical platform target practice akin to this video?
http://www.gamersyde.com/thqstream_mgs_v_tpp_effects_setting_pc_-BT2k9zya1GZTe4Bm_fr.html

 

[Garrett Hawke]

Could you perhaps take a ps4 share video of you doing the medical platform target practice akin to this video?
http://www.gamersyde.com/thqstream_mgs_v_tpp_effects_setting_pc_-BT2k9zya1GZTe4Bm_fr.html

I don't think PS4 share would be very useful so I'm going to use my elgato. Should I go 1080/30 or 720/60? (It's not the one that supports 1080/60 unfortunately)

 

[GhostTrick]

Neither are textures, according to DF:

Also the PS4 is not on extra high effects/post processing.

True !

PS4 and xb1, according to all evidence posted, do not have volumetric clouds. thelastword, do you have the ps4 version? If so, take a pic of the sky... no one has posted one yet at all with the volumetric clouds.

Also, if it is anything like MGS GZ, why would anything at all be on extra high? at all?

Also, extra high unlocks bokeh and SSR on every surface, the PS4 only has SSR in certain scenes and a normal gaussian DOF.

Why do you assume things without proving them? Why would DF lie about things instead of perhaps just being mistaken.

Also effects have yet to be proven to even being high, they are definitely not extra high, but no video has been put up yet by DF or otherwise showing how the particle sprites work. They could very well be on low.

Maybe we should wait for NXGamer analysis

 

[Dictator93]

I don't think PS4 share would be very useful so I'm going to use my elgato. Should I go 1080/30 or 720/60? (It's not the one that supports 1080/60 unfortunately)

The highest resoloution is most important to see the details.! Thanks mate.

 

[derExperte]

You guys realize that thelastword will never, ever move one inch from his position no matter how much evidence you throw at him? He'd rather unlearn the English language as shown in the the Mad Max DF thread. There was always lots of bias and fanboyism going on but I liked it when in the end these threads were about actual tech comparisons and not him making shit up to be able to continue shilling for NXGamer and Sony. Though it's worth a chuckle that his main beef remains that the PS4 isn't quite as shitty as a mighty i3/750Ti. Talk about ambitious goals.

The PS4 isn't shitty tho. It's the equivalent of a solid starter gaming PC and in some cases it can perform better than that combo. And it's cheaper.

I am exaggerating, it's totally fine for what you pay and as shown the 750 is a cool card. I'd be interested in a normal discussion about which one beats which in new games but not like this.

 

[MaLDo]

Why is the image so blurry on PS4?

Because console versions add a cheap bloom to simulate depth of field effect in the distance to conceal the lack of distant elements.

 

[Garrett Hawke]

You guys realize that thelastword will never, ever move one inch from his position no matter how much evidence you throw at him? He'd rather unlearn the English language as shown in the the Mad Max DF thread. There was always lots of bias and fanboyism going on but I liked it when in the end these threads were about actual tech comparisons and not him making shit up to be able to continue shilling for NXGamer and Sony. Though it's worth a chuckle that his main beef remains that the PS4 isn't quite as shitty as a mighty i3/750Ti. Talk about ambitious goals.

The PS4 isn't shitty tho. It's the equivalent of a solid starter gaming PC and in some cases it can perform better than that combo. And it's cheaper.

 

[c0de]

The PS4 isn't shitty tho. It's the equivalent of a solid starter gaming PC and in some cases it can perform better than that combo. And it's cheaper.

Yeah, that wasn't... necessary.

 

[ecosse_011172]

I have a Gaming PC connected to my 65" Plasma along with my other consoles and use it for all 3rd party stuff. The consoles are for exclusives.
However, I'm selling my PS4 (been replaced 4 times) and looking to buy the MGSV LE in an attempt to get a quiet console.
It doesn't seem as if it's worth selling the PS4 copy and getting it on PC, I'd be as well just playing on PS4 as the PC improvements are relatively subtle.

Would you agree?