Riky
$MSFT
That was because they mixed it with other upscaling. Look at Gears 5, higher resolution, not noticeable and 120fps. Like everything it just has to be implemented properly.
Forza Motorsport will show the potential.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
[Digital Foundry] Final Fantasy 16 - PlayStation 5 - Tech Review
Forza Motorsport will show the potential.
rofif
Can’t Git Gud
True but didn’t it save only like 2% performance in gow5?
01011001
Banned
up to 13% I think.
they have dynamic res on, and thanks to VRS the game actually looks better in many scenes because the dynamic res can in many instances rise by 10%, especially whenever any sort of depth of field is on screen, as basically all the blurred out details, that are covered by depth of field, will have drastically reduced render precision.
Last edited:
ChiefDada
Gold Member
"8k/60fps"
"720p/30fps" (inaccurate but we'll go with your words)
Hopefully you now understand why throwing numbers out without context is idiotic (and yeah, the Series S is a nuisance for current gen development).
Fbh
Member
This has turned into the most embarrassing disingenuous thread in a long while. In game screenshots none are photomode.
Yea, 720p ... /s
I've been way too busy playing and enjoying the game to read this shit but now I'm at work. >.< some of you are just full of it.
I mean it doesn't look bad, and it's true that these DF threads are usually a lot of hyperbole with people taking the absolutely worst case scenario described in the video and then pretending it's the way the game runs all the time.
But also nothing I've seen about this games looks impressive enough to be pushing the console this hard, it honestly looks pretty cross gen to me (specially outside of cutscenes) and yet performance mode isn't even close to 60fps while running at 1080p or lower. Meanwhile games with comparable visuals like Gow Ragnarok or Horizon Forbidden West run at higher internal resolutions while also running at basically locked 60fps
Chukhopops
Member
It feels weird seeing all those people suddenly super fine with 1080p or 720p.
You can see the same people saying « 1080p looks like ass on 4K tvs » a month ago.
What a journey lmao.
You can see the same people saying « 1080p looks like ass on 4K tvs » a month ago.
What a journey lmao.
Low Moral Fibre
Member
Something people need to bear in mind when looking at screenshots is that some of these good looking areas are absolutely tiny and super linear and even then there can be loads of pop-in.
Everything is broken up by load screens and while they are so short they may as well not be there having everything in tiny chunks should mean better performance. Running through a tube of forest with no other NPCs shouldn't be sub 48fps.
I definitely think DF have gone way too easy on this game but maybe John is a big FF fan?
Not going to pretend that I'm not enjoying the game as it's really fun and the best FF in years but the presentation and performance is incredibly erratic.
HDR is perfect and probably the best I've seen on an OLED so I can see why the dark scenes blow people away but the daylight stuff can look really rough.
Everything is broken up by load screens and while they are so short they may as well not be there having everything in tiny chunks should mean better performance. Running through a tube of forest with no other NPCs shouldn't be sub 48fps.
I definitely think DF have gone way too easy on this game but maybe John is a big FF fan?
Not going to pretend that I'm not enjoying the game as it's really fun and the best FF in years but the presentation and performance is incredibly erratic.
HDR is perfect and probably the best I've seen on an OLED so I can see why the dark scenes blow people away but the daylight stuff can look really rough.
Celcius
°Temp. member
Last edited:
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
Not at the moment, but supposedly Square are aware and have said they will add a toggle in a later patch.
TheKremlinBossMan
Banned
It's not just about the graphics pushing the game. The open areas are really large with a lot of moving parts. When or if you get there you will see what I mean. A wheat field with thousands of blades of moving wheat and different types of grass with tons of geometry. It is definitely not something that could have been done last gen sorry it just isn't. I have a bunch of pictures that I will post once I complete the game that shows geometry that would have made PS4pro burst into flames.
I feel like Ghost of Tsushima did a pretty great job and managed to run at 60fps too.
Mattdaddy
Gold Member
This performance is straight ass. Its legitimately distracting from what I think could otherwise be a fun game. I cant even run around town without it feeling like im in a strobe light.
1,000% my own fault. I bought a PS5 for this cause I didnt think I could wait for PC version. I got smoked.
PC delay completely worked for them. They got me to buy a PS5, they got me to but this game on ps5, now Im sure I'll have to double dip when it comes out on PC. And all they had to do was shat out a technical turd.
Flawless victory for them, well done. Ill go play Diablo and lick my wounds, lesson learned.
Massive AAA game release running at 720p and still bouncing all over the place between 30-60 frames. While the devs had the stones to look us in the eye and go "Yeah this shit was totally ready a year ago. We've just been putting the ole' spit shine on it. Yaaaaaaa boi!!!!!!!"
I've got legit heartfelt sorrow for the console bros that are going to have to suffer Starfield in this same manner. Its criminal.
Edit - Ill give credit where its due, the fight sequences hold pretty well. But just running around outside of combat can be painful to where I feel punished for trying to explore around.
1,000% my own fault. I bought a PS5 for this cause I didnt think I could wait for PC version. I got smoked.
PC delay completely worked for them. They got me to buy a PS5, they got me to but this game on ps5, now Im sure I'll have to double dip when it comes out on PC. And all they had to do was shat out a technical turd.
Flawless victory for them, well done. Ill go play Diablo and lick my wounds, lesson learned.
Massive AAA game release running at 720p and still bouncing all over the place between 30-60 frames. While the devs had the stones to look us in the eye and go "Yeah this shit was totally ready a year ago. We've just been putting the ole' spit shine on it. Yaaaaaaa boi!!!!!!!"
I've got legit heartfelt sorrow for the console bros that are going to have to suffer Starfield in this same manner. Its criminal.
Edit - Ill give credit where its due, the fight sequences hold pretty well. But just running around outside of combat can be painful to where I feel punished for trying to explore around.
Last edited:
Shifty1897
Member
Not currently, I think I saw they were looking into giving an option with a patch.
FWIW, the graphics mode is properly frame paced, and maybe I'm just used to 30 fps right now because I just came off 80 hours of Zelda but it hasn't bothered me that much.
This and Zelda have really challenged the notion for me that 30 fps is unplayable. Is it noticeable, I do wish a locked 60fps option would be available, but I'm realizing it's not the deal breaker I thought it would be, especially as good as FF16 looks. There are some areas that are just otherworldly, I would routinely stop and look around at the sheer geometric density of the level.
Celcius
°Temp. member
Yep same here... I find myself stopping to look around at all the amazing sights.
I switched to graphics mode and 30 fps feels totally fine to me as well.
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
More coverage on the DF Direct today. John believes the game was designed as a 30 FPS game and a performance mode was added much later into development which is why it feels like the game is not optimized for it.
Last edited:
Hugare
Gold Member
Thank god for that
If they were aiming 60 FPS from the start, we wouldnt have those impressive boss fights. 100%. It can reach low 20 FPS sometimes, even at performance mode.
This is why 30 FPS will never die. Droping resolution is not a magic bullet. It doesnt fix CPU limitations.
Celcius
°Temp. member
This is exactly was I was thinking to myself yesterday. It feels like graphic mode is what they intended to be played.
MarkMe2525
Gold Member
I agree, these games would look great on a 480p display. Some people are more concerned about their console war fodder than what the game actually looks like. Of course sharper is better, but that doesn't lead to a softer looking game being bad visually.This has turned into the most embarrassing disingenuous thread in a long while. In game screenshots none are photomode.
Yea, 720p ... /s
I've been way too busy playing and enjoying the game to read this shit but now I'm at work. >.< some of you are just full of it.
Many people don't conflate the game looking softer as looking bad. There are some ugly games that are sharp as hell, and great looking games at softer/lower resolutions.
Last edited:
I'm a bit of a framerate snob, I play competitive shooters on a 1440p 360hz monitor and all my TVs are 120hz capable. I'm always pushing for frame rate mode in games and have left 30fps behind a long time ago.
That being said, the graphics mode + motion blur reduction on low = god tier for FF16. At least on console. For the 100 fps experience it's going to take a PC port, as in almost all instances AAA console games perform way better on PC. So see you next year for the GOTY edition? It's not like anything is different, and it's not like they promised 4k60.
It took me starting a session on graphics mode and after 10 minutes I forgot about it because the game is so engrossing.
While more frames are always better, consistency is key. People need to stop making sacred cows out of the numbers and focus on the experience. If the frame was chugging in graphics mode like it does in performance mode, we'd have a problem.
That being said, the graphics mode + motion blur reduction on low = god tier for FF16. At least on console. For the 100 fps experience it's going to take a PC port, as in almost all instances AAA console games perform way better on PC. So see you next year for the GOTY edition? It's not like anything is different, and it's not like they promised 4k60.
It took me starting a session on graphics mode and after 10 minutes I forgot about it because the game is so engrossing.
While more frames are always better, consistency is key. People need to stop making sacred cows out of the numbers and focus on the experience. If the frame was chugging in graphics mode like it does in performance mode, we'd have a problem.
Last edited:
GymWolf
Gold Member
Did they released a patch to tone down the blur?
DenchDeckard
Moderated wildly
Which is exactly what I said and got jumped on for it...its blatantly obvious when you look at it.
DeVeAn
Member
Honestly, neither mode is good enough. Fidelity mode has so much judder when panning the camera. The idea that suggests we are not suppose to move the camera seems insane to me. I tend to move the camera a lot in 3D games. I mean the is an entire analog stick dedicated to it for a reason.
FrankieSab
Member
Would not have changed anything, both version needs higher base resolution to work properly, not 720p.
SlimySnake
Flashless at the Golden Globes
I notice the game dropping to 1080p in several areas. It becomes very grainy all of a sudden. Most of the times, its fine, but trees display a lot of flickering which is kinda annoying. Regular old TAA or FSR 2.0 would have eliminated that.
Bojji
Member
Yeah i see drops in res in quality mode too, game IQ is quite medicore in Q mode and complete shit in P mode.
I really don't know where all this console power is going here, game is attractive but looks more like high quality PS4 game than current gen experience.
I think that those weak jaguar CPU cores forced devs to be more efficient and optimize, now they don't give a fuck...
Last edited:
StealthGoblin
Banned
Given I don’t think this game is particularly a looker and the environments aren’t as large as other games, it’s just weird that the resolution/frame-rate is so poor.
If you are going to have a performance mode it should run in 60fps.
If you have a resolution mode it should be 4k30fps
If you are going to have a performance mode it should run in 60fps.
If you have a resolution mode it should be 4k30fps
Feel Like I'm On 42
Member
No! It's insane there's no option to lower blur. It's got the worst motion blur I've seen in a modern game.
It doesn't need on ON/off switch though, it needs a slider. If motion blur is turned off completely the game will look super choppy at 30 fps.
This generation is turning into the "unoptomized generation".
It's crazy that devs still havnt figured out the basics like motion blur needing a slider, how auto zoom/center cameras need option to turn off, how deadzones need to be the correct size etc
Ff7 did these things well and gave us options! How is it the next game in the series forgets?
Fake
Member
Of course would make difference, just not at 720p.
hinch7
Member
Well 30fps is going to look and play like crap considering how fast paced and frantic the action gets, epecially in bigger fights. Tried both and left it on performance and it looks fine. Much more enjoyable to play and look at, the game not looking like a juddery mess.
Last edited:
Mister Wolf
Gold Member
I'm looking forward to the PC port.
DeVeAn
Member
I agree but, it’s so inconsistent in performance mode. Neither modes are ideal.
hinch7
Member
True its not ideal but its way lesser of two evils. Its way more playable on performance mode anyhow.
Would've loved it to release on PC and have the best of both worlds but ho hum. Have to wait another year or two.. and ain't nobody got time for that.
Last edited:
Go_Ly_Dow
Member
I reached a coastal type area. I won't say anymore but, the visuals are mindblowing!
linko9
Member
I'm strongly in the anti-motion-blur camp, despite never minding it in other games. I think it mainly has to do with two things: the 30fps cap, and the extremely high level of detail in the world.
Switching to performance mode, the motion blur is much less distracting, so that's all I can really say about that. I guess with close to half the frames to work with, your brain is much worse able to understand the image in motion.
The detail is a big factor: the game's assets are so high quality, that you're really focused in on small details more so than in most games. When the slightest touch of the right stick blurs the entire screen, it's hugely frustrating to not be able to make anything out in scenes that have the potential to look so good and display such complexity. The game doesn't do much to make its world "legible" by having interactables, characters, etc. pop out in any way, so you really want to rely on being able to parse that detail, but the motion blur makes it impossible. I find myself constantly stopping still to take in the scene, much more so than I would in other games.
Lastly, John made a comment in the podcast that he was confused as to whether players were constantly moving the camera. I found that odd— the answer is clearly yes, that's how pretty much everyone plays 3rd person games with a free camera during exploration. Not so much in combat, so the blur isn't really an issue there (admittedly that's mainly down to the fact that you're only focusing on Clive and the enemy, rather than the whole scene).
Switching to performance mode, the motion blur is much less distracting, so that's all I can really say about that. I guess with close to half the frames to work with, your brain is much worse able to understand the image in motion.
The detail is a big factor: the game's assets are so high quality, that you're really focused in on small details more so than in most games. When the slightest touch of the right stick blurs the entire screen, it's hugely frustrating to not be able to make anything out in scenes that have the potential to look so good and display such complexity. The game doesn't do much to make its world "legible" by having interactables, characters, etc. pop out in any way, so you really want to rely on being able to parse that detail, but the motion blur makes it impossible. I find myself constantly stopping still to take in the scene, much more so than I would in other games.
Lastly, John made a comment in the podcast that he was confused as to whether players were constantly moving the camera. I found that odd— the answer is clearly yes, that's how pretty much everyone plays 3rd person games with a free camera during exploration. Not so much in combat, so the blur isn't really an issue there (admittedly that's mainly down to the fact that you're only focusing on Clive and the enemy, rather than the whole scene).
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
They really should have had that motion blur on/off toggle in the day 1 patch. It's way too excessive.
It's not the motion blur that breaks things for me in the 30fps mode its the increased input lag. The camera just feels like its floating, In the 60fps version it's perfect though well when it's near 60fps. I tried this without playing 60ps mode first to make sure It wasn't influencing me and instead compared it to Zelda TOTK in real time as they are both 30fps and found the camera to be much more responsive in zelda. So the game definitely appears to have more input lag and it puts me off.
Last edited:
TheRedRiders
Member
There's strange artifacting around Clive when he's in motion, this is in both the performance and resolution modes, reminds me of the UE5 Matrix demo.
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
Yes, I noticed that as well, looks like a prominent ghosting trail. I gotta imagine it's an FSR1 relic ? Fast motion is also a bit nauseating, shades of FF Type 0 when you move the camera a lot very fast.
A simple toggle to turn it off or intensity slider will go a long way in improving the Quality mode, IMO.
Last edited:
TrebleShot
Member
Im with you
adamsapple
both modes are terrible.
30fps - absolutely horrendous unless standing still, the motion blur is unbelievable I can't believe it passed QA its a constant strong blur I thought It would get better with time but no its still disgusting id rather have a the choppy effect.
60fps - all over the place, more like 35/40 fluctuating mode but ok in combat but even in combat if you take your eyes off of the enemy you realise your in low low resolution, I think it could run well optimised at 1080p/60 and use FSR 2.1 FFS I don't think its very playable outside of combat.
Needs a patch ASAP but really disappointed this is a PS5 exclusive but hasn't been optimised at all for the console, games should be designed around 60fps and optimisation on the console especially if an exclusive.
People saying wait for PC, trust me it will be an absolute shit show on PC, they couldn't optimise for closed arch and get as little as 1080/60 which should be possible of any game in 2023.
On PC you'll need a 4090 and top end CPU to even get close to 60fps at a respectful res. Let's hope it supports DLSS.
Great game, disgusting performance on both modes.
adamsapple
both modes are terrible.30fps - absolutely horrendous unless standing still, the motion blur is unbelievable I can't believe it passed QA its a constant strong blur I thought It would get better with time but no its still disgusting id rather have a the choppy effect.
60fps - all over the place, more like 35/40 fluctuating mode but ok in combat but even in combat if you take your eyes off of the enemy you realise your in low low resolution, I think it could run well optimised at 1080p/60 and use FSR 2.1 FFS I don't think its very playable outside of combat.
Needs a patch ASAP but really disappointed this is a PS5 exclusive but hasn't been optimised at all for the console, games should be designed around 60fps and optimisation on the console especially if an exclusive.
People saying wait for PC, trust me it will be an absolute shit show on PC, they couldn't optimise for closed arch and get as little as 1080/60 which should be possible of any game in 2023.
On PC you'll need a 4090 and top end CPU to even get close to 60fps at a respectful res. Let's hope it supports DLSS.
Great game, disgusting performance on both modes.
Lucifers Beard
Member
I’m a ways into the game now and loving it. However, that motion blur is fucking gross and they should tone it down some. It’s really hard to see what’s going on sometimes because of it.
In one Eikon fight, I couldn’t see anything through blur and effects. It was fucking weird.
In one Eikon fight, I couldn’t see anything through blur and effects. It was fucking weird.
Agent_Nobody
Member
It’s not even just the motion blur being overboard, something else weird is going on with it that just makes it look really really odd at times; like specular highlights that get shifted slightly but not smudged like the stuff around it, or panning the camera and the artifacts off of Clive looking almost exactly like SSR artifacts as if he was standing in front of a water body.
I think the upscaling is making it worse than it actually is and sharpening certain things it shouldn’t while in motion and just generally muddying up everything else.
Last edited:
Black_Stride
do not tempt fate do not contrain Wonder Woman's thighs do not do not
30fps is fine.
Does the game 40 lock on 120hz panels?
Does the game 40 lock on 120hz panels?