Support NeoGAF

[thelastword]

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 :

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

I noticed that in the video too, I attributed it to the darker output of the xbone video, but your cap does suggest some issue may actually exist.

Some fog is missing as well.

Just a streaming issue?

I guess much of this AF and shadows is to maintain 1080p?

Well, I don't know what's up, but this game was more or less an xbone poster child when it was announced. I'm not sure if it's one of those exclusive marketing games on the xbone side, I have a feeling it is though.

Still, I wager that it's an optimization issue on the PS4, you only have to look at the alpha footage/experience of the ps4 version against the xbone to see which one was further ahead and which one got all the attention. There are also a multitude of multiplats with superior resolution, effects and do include af on the PS4, so I don't think they cut-off anything on the PS4 to maintain 1080p. I'm sure the missing effects can be patched, whether it will be is another question.

PC version is the best? Whew, didn't see that coming.

Not only is DF making themselves irrelevant by posting a lot of unsubstantiated jibber-jabber in their article, the inclusion of the pc platform against a static one is not in the least bit interesting. An interesting take on the PC side would be a comparison between AMD vs NVidia, how does a 290x/295 do against a 970/980 etc..They could also do a 7970 vs a 680 on the mid end or so. As it stands, their current gpu will always outpace the consoles in effects, rez and framerate, so it's actually making their articles less useful to read.

Pc gamers do not need a faceoff thread. Set the resolution in your menu, hit a few sliders, see how it runs, if it runs above 60 push up the effects or resolution even more, if it runs badly, you do the opposite, and don't worry I'm sure Nvidia has you covered with a 10% boost in performance with it's regular driver updates anyway.

I mean surely, there's no rocket science involved, you want to see your framerate, no problem, install fraps, you have a frame counter and capture software all in-one. I believe there may even be better software or even free software for this at this point. If I had a 980gtx, you think I'd be in this thread worrying if my setup will run this game right? Nope and none of the guys with the hardware really do, so it must be something else.

I must say though, with DF pushing the PC platform in the absence of a winning xbox machine, it's a bit curious. Last gen where was the PC in all these faceoffs that the 360 won? by tangible measures at that (1-2 frame disparities and 80-100,000 pixel differences over the PS3). Did COD, Farcry, Just cause etc...run worse on PC? Must have I guess.

 

[UnrealEck]

the inclusion of the pc platform against a static one is not in the least bit interesting

To you.

Pc gamers do not need a faceoff thread. Set the resolution in your menu, hit a few sliders, see how it runs, if it runs above 60 push up the effects or resolution even more, if it runs badly, you do the opposite, and don't worry I'm sure Nvidia has you covered with a 10% boost in performance with it's regular driver updates anyway.

I'm sure there's plenty of people who own a PC capable of playing these games have an interest in how they run and how they look including how they run and look in comparison to either console.

I mean surely, there's no rocket science involved, you want to see your framerate, no problem, install fraps, you have a frame counter and capture software all in-one. I believe there may even be better software or even free software for this at this point. If I had a 980gtx, you think I'd be in this thread worrying if my setup will run this game right? Nope and none of the guys with the hardware really do, so it must be something else.

So if you have a console, play the game and find out if it's to your liking. It's not rocket science.
Or perhaps people who don't yet own the game would like to know how it performs. Not everyone has a GTX 980 as well, so your comment on that is redundant.
There's also people who own consoles and a PC and want to know what to buy it on. For the same reasons the console analysis exists, the PC one does too.

edit: looking back a page, I notice people have went over this several times to people who seem to be getting a bit bent out of shape over DF's inclusion of a platform in these comparisons. They still show you how the PS4 and Xbox versions look. If you have those systems, you're still getting value from their article. Why do you care if PC is included? Your console is included too. It tells you how it looks on either console as well.
Seems people just don't want to see PC included because they want their preferred platform to be 'the winner'.

 

[BigDug13]

To you.



I'm sure there's plenty of people who own a PC capable of playing these games have an interest in how they run and how they look including how they run and look in comparison to either console.



So if you have a console, play the game and find out if it's to your liking. It's not rocket science.
Or perhaps people who don't yet own the game would like to know how it performs. Not everyone has a GTX 980 as well, so your comment on that is redundant.
There's also people who own consoles and a PC and want to know what to buy it on. For the same reasons the console analysis exists, the PC one does too.

Then they should do a full PC comparison with a few different hardware configurations capable of running the game on low, medium, high, ultra, etc, so that people who own various grades of PC hardware can get an idea how the game performs. You can brute force your way to having the PC version come out on top every single time if you have the hardware to handle it, so simply having "beefy PC hardware vs cheap consoles" as your comparison doesn't really do anything but state the obvious. That a beefy PC will win.

 

[UnrealEck]

simply having "beefy PC hardware vs cheap consoles" as your comparison doesn't really do anything but state the obvious. That a beefy PC will win.

They don't simply do that. They also mention lower end hardware and how the game performs on it.

 

[Kezen]

That a beefy PC will win.

By how much is the question. I don't mind PC being included in the platform face off, far from it.



It's still interesting to see a Gameworks game running better on GCN cards. Even though, for the time being there is no Gameworks effect to speak of. We will see how differently they will affect AMD and Nvidia GPUs.

 

[Rogue_Ledr]

OH COME ON!

More robust infrastructure on Xbox?

Where are they getting that nonsense from? Is this more of that dubious "Power of the Cloud/Azure" nonsense MS has been touting?

 

[belvedere]

Including the PC version of games in these comparisons isn't necessary, but is occasionally interesting to me if I double dip or get the PC version. The lengths DF are going to to try and manufacture evidence that XO titles are equal or better than their PS4 counterparts is baffling though. A 3% pixel count difference was the end of the world last generation, but a 30% difference in the present is outweighed by an ambiguous, speculative claim regarding online infrastructure.

 

[GeordieMark]

Including the PC version of games in these comparisons isn't necessary, but is occasionally interesting to me if I double dip or get the PC version. The lengths DF are going to to try and manufacture evidence that XO titles are equal or better than their PS4 counterparts is baffling though. A 3% pixel count difference was the end of the world last generation, but a 30% difference in the present is outweighed by an ambiguous, speculative claim regarding online infrastructure.

Why shouldn't PC be included? Some people own a PC capable of playing games, and a console. PC game performance varies from title to title.

It is just as appropriate as comparing the consoles. The only reason some don't like it appears to be because it means PS4 does not win.

This moaning about bias is DF articles is one of the most pathetic things about GAF.

The best thing about DF articles for me is to bring out the idiots on GAF so I know who to ignore in future. It's like a really effective form of weeding out the fanboys and adolescents.

 

[belvedere]

Why shouldn't PC be included? Some people own a PC capable of playing games, and a console. PC game performance varies from title to title.

It is just as appropriate as comparing the consoles. The only reason some don't like it appears to be because it means PS4 does not win.

This moaning about bias is DF articles is one of the most pathetic things about GAF.

The best thing about DF articles for me is to bring out the idiots on GAF so I know who to ignore in future. It's like a really effective form of weeding out the fanboys and adolescents.

Where did I say the PC version shouldn't be included? I simply said it wasn't necessary, required, imperative etc.

Hopefully you can now return to a sane, collected emotional state.

 

[On Demand]

So i'm not repeating myself-

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=149844101&postcount=203

 

[GeordieMark]

Where did I say the PC version shouldn't be included? I simply said it wasn't necessary, required, imperative etc.

Hopefully you can now return to a sane, collected emotional state.

Ha ha.

Saying that it isn't necessary or required suggests you don't think it should be included.

 

[GeordieMark]

So i'm not repeating myself-

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=149844101&postcount=203

Your comment doesn't take into account those who find themselves with a reasonably powerful PC, comparable with a console. Optimisation for PC varies from title to title.

 

[KageMaru]

Pretty good article, seems like both systems have their advantages.

OH COME ON!

More robust infrastructure on Xbox?

Where are they getting that nonsense from? Is this more of that dubious "Power of the Cloud/Azure" nonsense MS has been touting?

I think everyone taking issue with that comment is blowing it out of proportion. He's likely referring to this difference mentioned earlier in the article:

The Xbox One and PC versions of the game feel the most polished in these areas, with increased stability compared to the PS4 version. For example, matchmaking is a more inconsistent experience on Sony's system, often leaving you waiting between five and 20 minutes when things don't aren't quite working as they should.

That's something worth noting IMO for a game heavily reliant on online play.

 

[On Demand]

Your comment doesn't take into account those who find themselves with a reasonably powerful PC, comparable with a console. Optimisation for PC varies from title to title.

But those GPU's comparable to consoles still outperform them. Whatever little issues aside, PC version will be better overall.

Unless i'm mistaken and there are games that perform better on consoles compared with similar PC hardware.

 

[Lucifers Beard]

Why is this a face off between all three platforms? It should just be PS4 vs Xbox one. I'm playing on PC and I don't really think this kind of game would suit 30fps. Feels really twitchy all round. Especially when playing Hunters.

 

[Qassim]

People still come into these articles thinking about the stupid platform war. What the DF face off articles do is provide a look into the capabilities of each version of the game. I find it hard to see any problem with that without getting into platform war nonsense.

If you're not interested in the PC version, that's fine - the console data is still there.

 

[GeordieMark]

But those GPU's comparable to consoles still outperform them. Whatever little issues aside, PC version will be better overall.

Unless i'm mistaken and there are games that perform better on consoles compared with similar PC hardware.

There will be games that are more optimised for consoles by virtue of the fact that consoles are limited to one configuration. They are a fixed target, unlike PCs.

 

[mjp2417]

But those GPU's comparable to consoles still outperform them. Whatever little issues aside, PC version will be better overall.

Unless i'm mistaken and there are games that perform better on consoles compared with similar PC hardware.

Like Evolve?

"Moving on to PC performance, it's fair to say that Evolve is fairly heavy on the GPU. Our "go to" system for console-equivalent performance features a Core i3 4130 matched with an entry-level enthusiast GTX 750 Ti and 8GB of RAM. Here, we see 25-30fps performance at 1080p with settings matched to the consoles as close as we can (everything on high, with very high shadows). To achieve console-level frame-rates, you'll need to blend medium and high quality settings, or else simply drop down to 1600x900 resolution."

 

[Arrogant Bastard]

I'm sure there's plenty of people who own a PC capable of playing these games have an interest in how they run and how they look including how they run and look in comparison to either console.

Yes but this type of analysis tells you very little unless you happen to have the same PC they are using, no? I don't know, I just don't think they do the PC analysis very well. They go into so much detail comparing closed systems and the PC side is seemingly tacked on as an afterthought.

 

[Bru]

People still come into these articles thinking about the stupid platform war. What the DF face off articles do is provide a look into the capabilities of each version of the game. I find it hard to see any problem with that without getting into platform war nonsense.

If you're not interested in the PC version, that's fine - the console data is still there.

Those very same people will completely ignore your sensible comment and post their platform war conspiracy bullshit regardless. We're pissing into the wind my friend.... it's best just to leave them to it.

 

[On Demand]

There will be games that are more optimised for consoles by virtue of the fact that consoles are limited to one configuration. They are a fixed target, unlike PCs.

I was told optimization is a myth on consoles.

Like Evolve?

"Moving on to PC performance, it's fair to say that Evolve is fairly heavy on the GPU. Our "go to" system for console-equivalent performance features a Core i3 4130 matched with an entry-level enthusiast GTX 750 Ti and 8GB of RAM. Here, we see 25-30fps performance at 1080p with settings matched to the consoles as close as we can (everything on high, with very high shadows). To achieve console-level frame-rates, you'll need to blend medium and high quality settings, or else simply drop down to 1600x900 resolution."

Everything on high? Don't the consoles more closely match medium settings?

 

[The Dear Leader]

As a PC gamer, I really appreciate that they take into account the PC versions of games. Not sure why some people want a comparison article to be less informative to a large portion of gamer's just because it doesn't pertain to you. A Face-Off should include all applicable versions to find out which one is best. There is just as much differences between PC port quality as there are differences between the PS4 and XB1 versions.

On a side not, I'm actually impressed with how nice this game looks, I thought it was pretty good looking from the alpha I played but they seem to have got performance and visuals at a nice level for the final release.

 

[Glorified G]

Holy fuck at the infrastructure line.

I knew things were headed south when I read "PS4's 1080p resolution gives it a slightly more refined experience"

DF is not even trying to hide their bias anymore

 

[mjp2417]

Everything on high? Don't the consoles more closely match medium settings?

To be fair, we really don't know the exact settings used on consoles. But the point is that this is a very different situation from something like Alien: Isolation where a mid-range GPU easily trumps console performance. This seems like useful information for those who do own both a mid-range system and a console and are wondering which is the better option - it might be PS4 in this case.

 

[Rizific]

So another df thread where people are salty about the inclusion of the pc version? Me being someone who owns all current gen platforms as well as a mid range "gaming" pc, I'm very much interested in the comparison. If the game performs to my standards then I just might consider it for console, depending on how many/if any at all of my friends will also pick it up. It also allows me to see how my pc stacks up against the consoles and if I should start looking into upgrading soon.

 

[GeordieMark]

I was told optimization is a myth on consoles.




Everything on high? Don't the consoles more closely match medium settings?

You were told wrong then

 

[Rain City Gamer]

lmao at the online infraestructure thing. that's dumb

Seriously retarded. Why is it even and issue, and better yet why is it even mentioned in the article? Sounds like they grasping for straws to try and make it look like Both Console versions are similar when they are clearly not. Might as well have gone all the way and mentioned the magical "Cloud".

It's pretty obvious these articles are written with MS money in mind, and have been for the last 6 months.

 

[Papercuts]

As a PC gamer, I really appreciate that they take into account the PC versions of games. Not sure why some people want a comparison article to be less informative to a large portion of gamer's just because it doesn't pertain to you. A Face-Off should include all applicable versions to find out which one is best. There is just as much differences between PC port quality as there are differences between the PS4 and XB1 versions.

On a side not, I'm actually impressed with how nice this game looks, I thought it was pretty good looking from the alpha I played but they seem to have got performance and visuals at a nice level for the final release.

Yeah, I've liked seeing its progression from the alpha, to the beta, to now. It's a sharp looking game, especially when the weather effects kick in.

 

[Noobcraft]

Seriously retarded. Why is it even and issue, and better yet why is it even mentioned in the article? Sounds like they grasping for straws to try and make it look like Both Console versions are similar when they are clearly not. Might as well have gone all the way and mentioned the magical "Cloud".

It's pretty obvious these articles are written with MS money in mind, and have been for the last 6 months.

As a multiplatform owner I appreciate them going over more than frame rate and resolution. They said in their article that their matchmaking times on the PS4 were noticeably longer, anywhere between 5-20 minutes to find a match (which is a huge deal). Also while the PS4 runs at 1080p, thus having better image quality, it is missing some of the environment shadows and AF which are present on the XB1 and PC. The only clear winner in this face off is the PC.

 

[drotahorror]

Does anyone else remember a site from a couple years ago that compared console games? I think it might have had the word mirror in it? Man I can't remember it, they were solid.

Edit* Lensoftruth. I liked that site. Does anyone know what happened to that site?

 

[Percy]

Why shouldn't PC be included? Some people own a PC capable of playing games, and a console. PC game performance varies from title to title.

It is just as appropriate as comparing the consoles. The only reason some don't like it appears to be because it means PS4 does not win.

This moaning about bias is DF articles is one of the most pathetic things about GAF.

The best thing about DF articles for me is to bring out the idiots on GAF so I know who to ignore in future. It's like a really effective form of weeding out the fanboys and adolescents.

You know... your repeated meltdowns are getting as embarassing to read as any of the "fanboy" posts you seem to go on about constantly. You probably need to take a step back.

Also, I was under the impression that making blanket insults like this were a bannable offense on Neogaf.

 

[jmga]

You were told wrong then

Evolve in consoles is like PC in Medium settings with High shadows and textures.

You just have to look at this and ignore the text.

 

[Javin98]

Wow, DF's bias is strong with this one. I don't see how anyone can deny it when they actually brought in network issues into a graphics face off

 

[Pimpbaa]

The lack of AF in certain titles on ps4 is frustrating. Particularly when no developer ever comments on it. I'm playing Dying Light and not only is there no AF, but the is no trilinear filtering. There is zero excuse for this considering the ps4's fillrate and memory bandwidth and the fact that the far less capable xb1 has no problems with it. So what exactly is the issue here, something buggy with the current Sony SDKs in regards to texture filtering? Or is MS paying off developers to give games at least one thing superior graphically (I'm more inclined to believe the former). Anyway, this shit has got to stop.

 

[Jimmy Rustle]

That low AF in the PS4 version looks horrid. 1080p or bust i guess.

 

[Biker19]

Cause clearly M$ tossed them a whole bag of $$$ to get them to give the X1 a nod. Is that really what you want to hear or what you think. The sheer amount of conspiracy in some of these posts is silly.

It is an article on an online game, the noticed a slight issue that I'm sure will be fixed and commented on it. Why people are getting so hung up on this idea that they were attempting to slight the PS4 or toss the X1 a bone is really odd.

You think that I'm the only one who thinks of this? C'mon, man. A few posters on this thread have commented that they had no problems with the PS4 version of the online infrastructure whatsoever.

 

[Woo-Fu]

As an aside, WHY do they include the PC version in these Face-Offs? When is the PC version NOT the best version?

Early warning system for PC gamers to help them avoid shitty port jobs.

 

[StevieP]

You think that I'm the only one who thinks of this? C'mon, man. A few posters on this thread have commented that they had no problems with the PS4 version of the online infrastructure whatsoever.

A fruit fly's vagina queef can take psn down

 

[Kintaro]

It is time to hate Digital Foundery again? BOOOOOOOOOO!

 

[chromatic9]

To be fair, we really don't know the exact settings used on consoles. But the point is that this is a very different situation from something like Alien: Isolation where a mid-range GPU easily trumps console performance. This seems like useful information for those who do own both a mid-range system and a console and are wondering which is the better option - it might be PS4 in this case.

750ti is pretty entry level. 760 is also midrange and outperforms the PS4 in Evolve allowing higher settings.

Not sure about the point of Alien isolation. That was inferior hardware performing better iirc. Evolve joins the list of many games where all you need is the same GPU to get the same experience and with mid range graphic cards you can have High and Very high all the way with AFx16. The PS4 is a mixture medium and some high bits. DF has somehow painted a picture needing a beast GPU as the 750ti doesn't cut it on High but the 750ti is inferior to the PS4 GPU and also in the screens, PS4 is not on all High settings anyway, so not a good comparison or conclusion. The PS4 seems pretty poor choice comparing like for like and other mid range.

[/QUOTE]

 

[cgcg]

PC version *missing* shadows as well. OMG Xbone most powerful confirmed?

 

[QuantumZebra]

Such a relief we have a graphical comparison site advising on us on highly subjective (nowerdays) online infastructure differences.

They're just trying to give us all perspectives.....

Spoiler

Once you're on that Microsoft stick its hard to get off

 

[Arrogant Bastard]

You think that I'm the only one who thinks of this? C'mon, man. A few posters on this thread have commented that they had no problems with the PS4 version of the online infrastructure whatsoever.

Scenario 1: Eurogamer got mad cash from MS or felt bad so they tossed em a bone.

Scenario 2: Eurogamer actually experienced some issues and put it in their article.

Now if you want to argue that they shouldn't have put it in either way, sure. I guess I don't understand why people are getting so caught up with it in the first place.

 

[Bunta]

PC version *missing* shadows as well. OMG Xbone most powerful confirmed?

Balance achieved.

 

[mjp2417]

Not sure about the point of Alien isolation. That was inferior hardware performing better iirc. Evolve joins the list of many games where all you need is the same GPU to get the same experience and with mid range graphic cards you can have High and Very high all the way with AFx16. The PS4 is a mixture medium and some high bits. DF has somehow painted a picture needing a beast GPU as the 750ti doesn't cut it on High but the 750ti is inferior to the PS4 GPU and also in the screens, PS4 is not on all High settings anyway, so not a good comparison or conclusion. The PS4 seems pretty poor choice comparing like for like and other mid range.

Alien: Isolation was in many ways an outlier (it appeared to underperform on consoles, while being very well optimized on PC) while Evolve, like most multiplatform games so far this generation, performs fairly predictably given what we know about the hardware on each platform. However, it is still useful to know when a game is under-/overperfoming relative to hardware expectations across all three platforms even if there isn't an exact GPU/CPU match possible between PS4 and PC, or between XB1 and PC. As far as I'm aware, DF is the only site that regularly does this across both PC and console. I'm not advocating for its absolute accuracy so much as I am for its general utility as a buyer's guide.

 

[NoMoChokeSJ]

You think that I'm the only one who thinks of this? C'mon, man. A few posters on this thread have commented that they had no problems with the PS4 version of the online infrastructure whatsoever.

There are also tons of threads on GAF where people cite various speed issues pertaining specifically to them on PSN. As well as somebody on here claiming that matchmaking can take a overly long time for them. Maybe...
Just maybe.... DF experienced network inconsistencies while comparing the versions.

Personally, I think all the moneyhatting, conspiracy theory posting comes off as console warriorish. Shame that it exists here.

 

[Ghazi]

There are also tons of threads on GAF where people cite various speed issues pertaining specifically to them on PSN. As well as somebody on here claiming that matchmaking can take a overly long time for them. Maybe...
Just maybe.... DF experienced network inconsistencies while comparing the versions.

Personally, I think all the moneyhatting, conspiracy theory posting comes off as console warriorish. Shame that it exists here.

As someone who owns solely an Xbox One, XBL is far from perfect and frequently goes through its own issues. Halo, the posterchild for XBL when 2 launched, struggles to work on the One and the online infrastructure is surely part of the problem. Just saying.

 

[Abylim]

Wait, they are saying it took them 20 minutes at one point for matchmaking on the PS4?

And people are believing it?

 

[Arrogant Bastard]

Wait, they are saying it took them 20 minutes at one point for matchmaking on the PS4?

And people are believing it?

I know right, why would people believe that. Surely, they are lying or took mad money from MS. Right?

It is 100% impossible for something like that to happen, hell you can ask Halo or Driveclub players, shit like that just doesn't happen.

Still not sure what I find more silly. The Face-Off discussing a minor 'infrastructure' issue that they experienced or people going full conspiracy mode on it potentially occurring.

 

[AgentP]

Pretty good article, seems like both systems have their advantages.



I think everyone taking issue with that comment is blowing it out of proportion. He's likely referring to this difference mentioned earlier in the article:



That's something worth noting IMO for a game heavily reliant on online play.

Now you know the bias is real...