Сравнение мультиплатформенных игр

[dimm]

Предварительный анализ Alien:I - паритета достигли, но за счёт фрэймдропов на хуане (и тиринга), хотя вроде бы тормозить там особо нечему, что показывали пк-тесты, странно всё это,

Так PS4 версию сталлит постоянно (XB1 реже):

The refresh rate isn't perfect though, and dips in smoothness appear in the form of brief pauses, which prove a little distracting. Here we see frame-times between 200-460ms depending on the amount of duplicate frames displayed. The anomaly regularly occurs throughout the game, although the frequency appears to vary depending on the environment.
Similar engine stalls also appear on the Xbox One, but are much rarer and thus less distracting as a result.

Короче еще два кандидата были на 900p =))

 

[Каин]

Тиринг и фреймдропы хуже, конечно

 

[Каин]

Хреновый получился Definitive Edition у собак

On balance, United Front Games succeeds in creating the ultimate edition of its open-world crime drama, giving PS4 and Xbox One owners the most eye-catching console release so far. The only snag is that, in aspiring to the PC's top-end visual standard, the struggling 20-30fps performance is a high price to pay for this luxury. And with visible tearing creeping in too, the current-gen console experience doesn't feel quite as definitive as we'd hoped.

Compared to PC, the only visible console-side sacrifices are the lower-grade ambient occlusion - appearing faintly more intrusive on Xbox One - and a more prominent depth of field effect. But between the Sony and Microsoft releases, PS4's main advantage is undeniably on the performance front; Xbox One hitting the bottom end of the 20-30fps band during our tests, while segments of play unfold at 25fps at its worst on PS4.

The end result is that only the new PC version lives up to its Definitive Edition moniker. But are its extra touches worth the extra money for owners of the original PC release? While the broadened draw distances are a major plus, we'd argue many other tweaks are simply too subtle to justify another expense. Edits to character model designs, upped object density and new city atmospherics are welcome. But it's fair to say, for most developers, much of this falls into the territory of a courtesy, free post-release patch.

Be that as it may, for those arriving from the heavily stunted Xbox 360 and PS3 versions to this new release, it's a whole new world. On top of the ramp up in city detail, the Definitive Edition's inclusion of DLC missions, such as Nightmare in North Point, bolster the package's overall value. Neither PS4 nor Xbox One deliver the perfect playthrough - but if you can turn a blind eye to its performance lurches, there's still plenty to enjoy here.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/d...er&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=socialoomph

Сравнение чужих по всем пяти платформам

Creative Assembly wanted parity between PS4 and Xbox One and on the basis of image quality, detail and effects work it has managed it, but while native 1080p sharpness may please Xbox One owners, it has come at a cost, because while the Xbox One version delivers the core Alien experience mostly intact, overall immersion is compromised by frequent drops in fluidity. Performance is obviously the deciding factor here and it's clear PS4 has a distinct advantage. As such the PS4 game gets our recommendation for console owners, even though we're left with the nagging feeling that 60fps should have been possible on Sony's hardware based on the game's PC showing.

It's worth noting that Alien: Isolation takes advantage of specific features in both consoles to enrich the gameplay experience. PlayStation Camera and Kinect offer head-tracking so you can physically lean to look around corners in the game, while the microphone allows the Alien to track you via real-world audio. The DualShock 4 speaker also outputs the pulse of your motion tracker, which is a nice touch. These features can be disabled if they aren't to your taste, but we enjoyed them.

The last-gen releases of Alien: Isolation feature all of the core elements found in the PS4, Xbox One and PC releases to successfully recreate the suspense and much of the atmosphere of the top-end versions. However, the experience is compromised by low frame-rates and a rough, sub-720p presentation that makes it much harder to remain immersed. Xbox 360 gets the nod here, although some detail is lost to black crush in darker areas.

In the final analysis, the PC game is the definitive version of Alien: Isolation. While the level of graphical quality is only marginally improved over PS4 and Xbox One, the game is easy to run across a wide range of configurations, so 1080p at 60fps is achievable on older GPUs without having to dramatically lower graphical presets, while the low system requirements of the game easily open up running at 1440p at high frame-rates. A key advantage of PC gaming is the ability to scale the experience to your specific hardware, and the headroom available in Alien: Isolation opens up a vast range of options. Oculus Rift, anyone?
​

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2014-alien-isolation-face-off

 

[Каин]

Digital Foundry: Performance Analysis: The Evil Within (вывод - не трогать консольные версии даже метровой палкой, особенно для xbone)
640p - это рекорд

Resolution is the first order of business: the developer opts for an extra-wide aspect ratio, presumably in order to reduce the games' rendering load - though HUD elements are displayed in this region. Based on what's rendered inside the letterbox, however, we're left with a1920x768 resolution on PlayStation 4 and a meagre 1600x640 on Xbox One. In effect, it's the now-familiar 1080p vs 900p set-up here, but the intrusive borders serve to cut-down actual rendering resolution significantly. Only 71 per cent of the screen's real estate is actually used for gameplay - and the aspect ratio utilised is actually a higher 2.5:1 rather than the 'cinematic' 2.35:1.

However, the main concern here is frame-rate - and first impressions are not great. The very first scene in which the player is given control is an appropriately foreboding moment, not just in terms of horror but also performance. Neither version manages to run consistently and the narrow field of view combined with jittery camera motion only serve to exacerbate the issue. The closest analogue would have to be the original console release of Resident Evil 6, where the camera feels much too close to the player while the frame-rate regularly dips below 30fps.

How far does it go? Unfortunately nearly every major sequence, particularly outdoors, is fraught with dips that interrupt the action, resulting in a jarring, jerky experience. Scenes not unlike Resident Evil 4's seminal village sequence see dips into the low 20s.The tight camera work and unsteady frame-rate lead to some incredibly off-putting moments. Thankfully, when the game does return to more enclosed tunnels the frame-rate tends to jump back to a more steady 30fps but, more often than not, the experience feels choppy and inconsistent.

What's worse, on Xbox One, it almost feels as if the renderer is out of sync with the game simulation. These particular issues don't appear in the performance metrics yet the issue is very much present. As a result, even when the game is rendering out 30fps, it sometimes feels worse than it should. To illustrate the issue, right-click, save as, and download this Xbox One clip, and compare it with this matched PlayStation 4 clip. Both games are rendering at a locked 30fps, but something's clearly very wrong with the Xbox One build. Looking at the numbers alone suggests that both versions produce similar performance metrics with some scenes even operating a touch smoother on Xbox One but, in practice, the Microsoft version feels worse, but ultimately, neither version feels particularly smooth during normal gameplay.

As it stands the results aren't looking great for either console but the PS4 version takes the lead for the moment with its higher resolution and smoother update when running at 30fps. It is odd that certain scenes do operate with a slight advantage on Xbox One, however, and we'll have to play further to see how the game trends in later sections. Anyone sensitive to frame-rate issues is going to have an issue playing this game and should probably go for the PC version provided one has the specs to handle it.

If you're alarmed about buying the PC game based on Bethesda's alarmingly high recommended specs, at least we have some good news there. A 4GB graphics card doesn't seem to be required at all for 1080p gameplay, and we've run the game just fine on the mid-range GTX 760, while even the entry-level enthusiast GTX 750 Ti offers console-style frame-rates at 1080p on max settings. As for hitting a consistent 60fps - well, it's here that the unoptimised nature of the PC port becomes apparent: we'll have more on that in a later update.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2014-the-evil-within-performance-analysis

 

[-A-]

Digital Foundry: Performance Analysis: The Evil Within (вывод - не трогать консольные версии даже метровой палкой, особенно для xbone)
640p - это рекорд


http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2014-the-evil-within-performance-analysis

Не понятно чему там тормозить только. Графика вообще никакая. Я чувствовал падение фпс только пару раз, когда лампу включал. Мне кажется, игра реально под пс3 делалась и 360. А другие версияи уже портировались на скорую руку.

 

[Zografa]

The Evil Within Definitive Edition на следущем поколении confirmed.

 

[dimm]

В Evil Within даже на PC не поиграешь в "стабильные" 60fps, какой-бы конфиг у вас не был:

Bethesda has given PC users the tools to unlock The Evil Within's built-in 30fps cap, but we couldn't help but wonder - just how much computational power is required to double the game's frame-rate and produce a sustained, consistent 60fps experience at 1080p? It turns out that our PC test rig - fitted with a Core i7 3770K overclocked to 4.3GHz and matched with 16GB of DDR3 - couldn't handle it, not even when outfitted with the GeForce GTX 980, the fastest single-chip graphics card available on the market today.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/d...er&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=socialoomph

 

[SUGATA]

The Evil Within Definitive Edition на следущем поколении confirmed.

Это шутка или серьезно? откуда инфа?

 

[Bahamut2k]

 

[LEONID]

 

[Ken Rosenberg]

В версии для ящика текстурки-то чуток получше смотрятся, но момент с дергающейся машиной Тенпенни портит всю малину. Надеюсь в стиме получим это все с исправленными ошибками и в качестве обновления).

 

[Каин]

Digital Foundry: GTA: San Andreas HD для Xbox 360 оказался портом с мобилок
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2014-gta-san-andreas-on-xbox-360-is-a-mobile-port

Curiously, there isn't an equivalent new version of the game available on PlayStation 3. Instead, PS3 owners have to make do with the original PS2 release, which runs on Sony's software emulator and hands in visuals and performance that look like a very close match for the game in its original setting. That probably sounds like a back-handed compliment, but after playing the Xbox 360 remaster for a while, we're actually glad the original game is still available somewhere.

There has been some speculation about the basis of the new Xbox 360 HD version. Is it a port of the original PC version? Does it include assets from the enhanced mobile edition available on iOS and Android? What's the frame-rate like? And, bearing in mind the rudimentary nature of the visuals, is any anti-aliasing supported?

It becomes clear pretty quickly upon loading the game that we've seen a version of GTA: San Andreas rather like this before. Really quite recently in fact. The Android version formed part of our testing for the Nvidia Shield Tablet, and the Xbox 360 HD version appears to be a straight and somewhat uninspiring port of that mobile release, delivered by members of War Drum studios, whose names have been added to the credits.

Viewed side by side, Xbox 360 and Shield Tablet games appear to be a close match - the higher-resolution 2D artwork and the new front end are much the same, though the new console release appears to possess enhanced draw distance over the Android version (even when it's set to 100 per cent on the mobile version). Unfortunately, aside from the inclusion of Achievements, there's very little love given to this new edition. Just like the Android release, there's absolutely no anti-aliasing available, whereas even the original PC version supports this, while the vast majority of Xbox Originals on the 360 emulator supported 2x or 4x MSAA depending on the title.

What's even more unimpressive is that frame-rate is capped to 30fps and you don't even get a locked, consistent performance level. Travelling around Los Santos, we note occasional hitching and stuttering, with frame-time dips often in excess of 60ms, which translates into momentary dips where the game is running at the equivalent of 15fps.

In revisiting San Andreas, it's actually the PS2 original that comes across as the most authentic of the lot: a technological masterpiece of its time, with assets built to service what is today a relatively miniscule resolution, but at its most comfortable on the original target hardware. Curiously, despite the often crippling frame-rate, the controls just seem to feel better in some ways than the remastered version.

Scaled up to 720p and beyond, even with the enhanced assets, it's clear that the level of detail in the assets doesn't really stand up to scrutiny. The game wasn't really designed to scale in this way and it shows. At just £2.99, the Xbox 360 port is keenly priced for what it offers, but we can't help but wonder whether keeping the Xbox Originals version - at least alongside any HD remaster - may have been the preferable option.

 

[dimm]

Lords of the Fallen:

 

[Каин]

Как-то так.
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/di...allen-face-off

In what has become a bit of a standard announcement these days, the developers confirmed in September that Lords of the Fallen operates at 1080p on PlayStation 4 and 900p on Xbox One, and we can confirm that this is the case - not that the presentation is immediately obvious. In fact, first impressions actually suggest something below the suggested resolutions, with all the hallmarks of upscaling present on both consoles. The presentation is so murky, we actually had to fall back on good old-fashioned pixel-counting to absolutely confirm the resolution.

So what's going on? Well, Deck13 went a bit overboard with its implementation of chromatic aberration, to the point that the end results give the impression of a significantly lower resolution. We aren't huge fans of this type of filter, but it has its place - unfortunately, we can't help feel that an ancient monastery isn't the best venue for it. In Lords of the Fallen, the aberration is sometimes absurd to the point that it feels as if we were meant to don a pair of anaglyph 3D glasses.

the visual quality of the two console versions appears extremely similar, apart from a reduction in shadow quality and light glow on Xbox One. Shadow resolution is reduced significantly in comparison to the PS4 version, producing noticeable chunkiness in many scenes.

Curiously, on the PS4 version there's an observable, constant tearing occurring along the top five per cent of the image. We've chosen to omit these frames from our performance analysis video in order to produce something that was more readable (also, it's not obtrusive during gameplay), but regardless, torn frames routinely appear throughout the image and prove quite distracting. As the framebuffer is flipped at any point, the average frame-rate is ever so slightly higher on PS4 - but ultimately neither version feels fluid or smooth at all, often recalling the poor performance we were accustomed to on challenging PS3 and 360 titles that arrived at the tail end of the last generation.

Lords of the Fallen - the Digital Foundry verdict

Looking at the two console versions it's rather difficult to give a solid recommendation here as neither version performs well. Image quality is certainly superior on PS4 and, while performance is quite similar, screen tear is more noticeable. On the other hand, the Xbox One version suffers from more severe judder and its frame-rate dips even lower than the sub-optimal PS4 version. Both versions are playable but neither feels enjoyable as a result of the low frame-rate and inconsistent performance. We'd give the nod to the PS 4 version if pressed, but we can't help feel this is not the way the game should be played.

That particular honour goes to the PC version of Lords of the Fallen. It's a demanding title, but even middling hardware should be able to achieve a more stable 30fps than the consoles - and without the intrusive tearing. It's just a shame that the finished product ended up shipping with so many performance problems as the game itself is actually rather well made and definitely worth playing. For now, we can only hope that Deck13 concentrates on optimising console performance.

​

 

[SUGATA]

Как обычно, PC победил... Когда уже Valve Piston выйдет?

 

[Bahamut2k]

Как обычно, PC победил... Когда уже Valve Piston выйдет?

Зачем тебе ПК на линуксе размером с кулак за 1000$ и производительностью WiiU? HL2 хочешь перепройти?

 

[SUGATA]

Зачем тебе ПК на линуксе размером с кулак за 1000$ и производительностью WiiU? HL2 хочешь перепройти?

Неужели все так плохо?

 

[Bahamut2k]

Неужели все так плохо?

Что значит "плохо"? Помимо пистона есть еще и другие SteamMachines, гораздо мощнее, больше и дороже. Пистон просто самая маленькая и тормозная из них, но при этом могут быть конфигурации с i7 и двумя титанами.

ЗЫ Ну а выпустят их наверное одновременно с Half-Life 3.

 

[dimm]

Performance Analysis: Call of Duty: Advanced Warfare:
Full HD 1080p на PS4 и динамическое разрешение (в зависимости от "напряженности" сцены) от 1360 x 1080p до 1920 x 1080 на XB1.
Результат: просадки кадровки на плойке до 40fps и более стабильные 60fps на ване.
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/d...er&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=socialoomph

 

[Каин]

И опять crushed black на хуане