Xbox One - General Discussion (NO DISCUSSION REGARDING PS4 - MOD WARNING Post 6903)

FlyingIrishMan

It's probably worth nothing that DigitalFoundry said they botched up the comparison for the X1 and PS4, that the settings were different, which is very noticeable. The X1 footage is so dark half the time I can barely make things out.

Grayditch

FlyingIrishMan wrote: »

It's probably worth nothing that DigitalFoundry said they botched up the comparison for the X1 and PS4, that the settings were different, which is very noticeable. The X1 footage is so dark half the time I can barely make things out.

Ah right. Pretty big fail on their part. I'd rather adjust the contrast to how I like it on my t.v than have it come that dark. They might look a whole lot more similar if the same settings are used.

ShadowHearth

Why they dont use same damn TV for it?

drunkmonkey

This resolution thing is getting daft..god only knows what screens and calibration there using. Somebody even mentioned there not even the same screen those comparison vids are running on.

Hands up who's had there TV professionally calibrated?

Who's using Led and Lcd TV's?

Unless you using close to reference quality screens for your gaming the differences are negligible. So someone with an average TV shouldn't get to worked up about shades as it's not going to make very much difference.

CatInABox

drunkmonkey wrote: »

This resolution thing is getting daft..god only knows what screens and calibration there using. Somebody even mentioned there not even the same screen those comparison vids are running on.

Hands up who's had there TV professionally calibrated?

Who's using Led and Lcd TV's?

Unless you using close to reference quality screens for your gaming the differences are negligible. So someone with an average TV shouldn't get to worked up about shades as it's not going to make very much difference.

The video is captured as it leaves the consoles, so what you are seeing is the direct feed from the console. EDIT: Just realised the capture device could also have been calibrated wrong, so it might be that.

But I do agree, most people will not be able to tell the difference while playing.

Truth be told, I usually play Battlefield in a mild state of panic, sprinting from shadow to shadow, whirling around, shooting at anything that moves, including team mates. The chances of me being able to tell if my target is properly aliased or not is pretty low on my list of priorities at that stage.

ShiverinEskimo

I'd say if you did a study, a user notices graphics maybe in the first 5 minutes of the game and then never again unless there's a glaring glitch/problem.

Crysis for the fuss about graphics was a very pretty game, but after the first set of droplets rolled down my screen coming out of the water I never gave it a second thought.

Honestly - how often do you sit back and say "wow - those graphics sure are something?". Bar a few scenes here and there which are sometimes more to do with the setting/characters/mood than anything else I reckon it's not very often at all.

Xenji

ShiverinEskimo wrote: »

I'd say if you did a study, a user notices graphics maybe in the first 5 minutes of the game and then never again unless there's a glaring glitch/problem.

Crysis for the fuss about graphics was a very pretty game, but after the first set of droplets rolled down my screen coming out of the water I never gave it a second thought.

Honestly - how often do you sit back and say "wow - those graphics sure are something?". Bar a few scenes here and there which are sometimes more to do with the setting/characters/mood than anything else I reckon it's not very often at all.

This is all very true, but with a new generation of consoles people will be looking more at the graphics at the start and comparing them to the previous generation, same with friends who come over and see what the fuss is all about with the new consoles.

CatInABox

Xenji wrote: »

This is all very true, but with a new generation of consoles people will be looking more at the graphics at the start and comparing them to the previous generation, same with friends who come over and see what the fuss is all about with the new consoles.

We go through this every generation, with people saying that they're not upgrading until the graphics get better. In fairness, they're probably right.

ShiverinEskimo

Xenji wrote: »

This is all very true, but with a new generation of consoles people will be looking more at the graphics at the start and comparing them to the previous generation, same with friends who come over and see what the fuss is all about with the new consoles.

If people do that it'll only be because of all the fuss over it now.

And even at that I doubt it will last. The Last of Us was the first game in a while I was truly impressed with the graphics - if only because Joel and Ellie were so well animated.

Before that, it was Enslaved - for the same reasons - facial animations.

Before that, it was the crossing into Mexico in Red Dead and that was more to do with the scenery coupled with the music setting a memorable scene.

Character design, lip-syncing, facial animations, motion capture etc. stick out far more in terms of technical achievement for me than outright resolution. Resolution is brilliant but games will still benefit more from other areas IMO.

Xenji

I still remember being in awe of the Summoner on the PS2 when I was about 13, the way the backgrounds just seemed to be painted in the distance as you moved about and then it was Final Fantasy X that made me go this is next gen, maybe it was due to me being older, but never had the game feelings with the PS3.

CatInABox

Xenji wrote: »

I still remember being in awe of the Summoner on the PS2 when I was about 13, the way the backgrounds just seemed to be painted in the distance as you moved about and then it was Final Fantasy X that made me go this is next gen, maybe it was due to me being older, but never had the game feelings with the PS3.

Pffffff. I remember being blown away by Super Mario Kart.

Mode 7 graphics!

CatInABox

A clarification of the video posted earlier of the UI was issued:

Albert Penello wrote:

- The way the voice text gets created on-screen doesn't work that way. It will appear as one block.

- The video assumes that the user ALREADY has a movie started (hence why Pacific Rim is in the middle of the film), and ALREADY has a game started. In that cause, the UI will switch that fast.

- The "Activity Feed" does not go over the UI like that, it snaps to the side

- When the player resumes Titanfall, obviously he would have to "unpause" the game or however the individual game deals with coming back up. But you can absolutely have a game paused, and use your voice to launch new apps exactly how the video does.

- The only egregious feature error is when the VO says "Xbox Share" or something similar. Now, the user would actually have to accept the notification or go to upload studio and share from there. We don't share directly with voice.

- Besides those small nuances, the transitions, speed, movement and everything else is a pretty accurate. I think it's a fine representation of the experience.

He also said that every company does this sort of thing with ads, and he's totally correct on that point.

Xenji

CatInABox wrote: »

Pffffff. I remember being blown away by Super Mario Kart.

Mode 7 graphics!

Sonic 3D Blast really messed with my head as a kid as it looked like no other game I had seen before till I got the Saturn.

2Mad2BeMad

Doesnt look like much difference if I'm honest
apart from the xbox looking alot darker in some areas
in some areas it looks nice and shiny then in others it looks well too dark, I could barely make out the black man in the first pic because of it :L hopefully its changed abit

but I am not impressed at all by either consoles graphics on the game
looks like bf3 on the 360 to me :L

syboit

FlyingIrishMan wrote: »

It's probably worth nothing that DigitalFoundry said they botched up the comparison for the X1 and PS4, that the settings were different, which is very noticeable. The X1 footage is so dark half the time I can barely make things out.

Did anyone from DF ask the dice development team why the XO version is running at 720p ? I'd like to know is it due to physcial hardware limitations in the Xbox or anything to do with the rumours about the microsoft SDK harder to work with. (will we see more of these types of comparions going forward? where Xbox versions seem to be lagging behind spec wise? )

Xenji

I wonder what Digital Foundry were trying to pull with the screens and videos they put up, JackFrag was at the same event and used what Dice gave him to get video and images and they look completely different to what DF have put out using their own equipment.

Both X1

TerrorFirmer

2Mad2BeMad wrote: »

but I am not impressed at all by either consoles graphics on the game
looks like bf3 on the 360 to me :L

They look a lot better than the 360, not to mention, the huge leap forward with 64 player servers vs 24 man servers, and a much higher frame rate to boot. Night and Day really.

Grayditch

What the hell were Digital Foundry at?

Xenji

Why so different? DF uses their own hardware for capturing while DICE were handing out Elgato boxes to everyone else. The DF hardware is actually much more capable but it works differently and, without the experience of working with these new consoles, I can see a situation where settings were dialed in wrong.

JF used what DICE provided and probably didn't even attempt to change any settings which, in this case, turned out to be for the best.

It would seem for a more truthful comparison we need to look at these video's

They are JackFrags videos, not DF's.

IGN have a very good comparison as well

http://ie.ign.com/videos/2013/10/28/battlefield-4-xbox-oneps4-graphics-comparison

NTMK

Grayditch wrote: »

What the hell were Digital Foundry at?

DF werent able to test at their own place so werent able to calibrate correctly and they didnt realise until they looked at the footage probably. you'll see a better comparison in a month

Moiph

I got accepted to attend the Xbox One event in the Ambassador on the 15th so looking forward to that

Just wondering, did anyone else who applied for a plus one get accepted to it? Doesn't say anywhere in the e-mail about me being able to bring a plus one even though I chose the option.

2Mad2BeMad

TerrorFirmer wrote: »

They look a lot better than the 360, not to mention, the huge leap forward with 64 player servers vs 24 man servers, and a much higher frame rate to boot. Night and Day really.

Looks close to the same to me, maybe a little improvement but nothing major, maybe il notice more when its in front of me

Techniques07

2Mad2BeMad wrote: »

Looks close to the same to me, maybe a little improvement but nothing major, maybe il notice more when its in front of me

The best way to notice the difference is to play it on next gen and then go back and look at bf3 on 360 or ps3. You'll notice faults you just didn't see before.

brav

Xenji wrote: »

I wonder what Digital Foundry were trying to pull with the screens and videos they put up, JackFrag was at the same event and used what Dice gave him to get video and images and they look completely different to what DF have put out using their own equipment.

Grayditch wrote: »

What the hell were Digital Foundry at?

NTMK wrote: »

DF werent able to test at their own place so werent able to calibrate correctly and they didnt realise until they looked at the footage probably. you'll see a better comparison in a month

Digital Foundry released a Q&A:
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-battlefield-4-face-off-qa

Eurogamer.net wrote:

The big question - did Digital Foundry botch its Battlefield 4 captures?

We've now examined Xbox One and PlayStation 4 game and UI/dashboard elements and have concluded that the equipment did exactly what was asked of it - it acquired digital video in a mathematically lossless format at 1080p60, in the full range RGB (0-255) colourspace. Dashboards and control panels were all set accordingly to match the requirements of the equipment. We're now satisfied that the captures on PS4 and PC are exactly as they should be - digitally lossless transmissions of what came out of the hardware.

......

Why isn't anyone else's footage from the same event showing the crushed blacks?

EA provided Elgato Game Capture HD consumer-level devices at the Stockholm event. They're great little units but they are unsuitable for DF work because they cannot acquire 1080p at 60 frames per second and they do not provide lossless video. The reason they do not show crushed blacks on Xbox One is because they operate at limited range RGB (16-235) and the XO dashes were set accordingly. We are told that the current Xbox One appears to be fine operating in limited range RGB, so this is a good match for the unit. We also know that both PS4 and XO hardware at the EA event was set by default to limited range RGB, so other attendees were good to go straight off the bat while we had to make changes to suit our more specialised equipment.

...

Did a Digital Foundry employee admit that you botched the captures?

New freelancer John Linneman made comments online suggesting that the workflow was in error and that there wasn't time to correct it. We love John, but he wasn't privy to the workflow of last week's events, nor involved in any of the internal discussions we had. While his heart was in the right place, his post doesn't accurately reflect the facts as they stand and they are certainly not official comment from Digital Foundry.

maximoose

Moiph wrote: »

I got accepted to attend the Xbox One event in the Ambassador on the 15th so looking forward to that

Just wondering, did anyone else who applied for a plus one get accepted to it? Doesn't say anywhere in the e-mail about me being able to bring a plus one even though I chose the option.

Yeah I got my ticket today aswell, nothing about a plus one and it seems no one else's tickets mention them either. Hopefully it's recorded on their side....

Xenji

Just watched the videos again of BF4 but on my TV this time, I know the quality will be better when it is actually right in front of you and not watching secondhand videos, but neither of the versions of the game really strike me as that impressive, my mate thought I had a 360 review of the game on when he walked in.

Cheerful Spring

Just finished work and just now reading what has been said about the PS4/XB1 versions of Battlefield 4. I see on Neogaf lot of people are saying the XB1 version looks better. I'm surprised to say the least as the XB1 console was less powerful, according to everyone.

It must be because of direct 11.2X its exclusive to XB1 and Windows 8

Cienciano

If you were to decide on what console to get based on the graphics in that video, you'd be struggling

Xenji

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Just finished work and just now reading what has been said about the PS4/XB1 versions of Battlefield 4. I see on Neogaf lot of people are saying the XB1 version looks better. I'm surprised to say the least as the XB1 console was less powerful, according to everyone.

It must be because of direct 11.2X its exclusive to XB1 and Windows 8

If you look at the Digital Foundry videos it does, but they messed up the settings so it does not actually look like that, the Jackfrag videos are a better comparison, the X1 version looks very jagged and has some framerate issues, but neither of them really look that good in honesty.

wampyrus77

\any way wiiu still has better graphics then xbox the one

Xbox One graphics currently output in 900p


Wii U Graphics has 1080p 60fps

[/h]http://www.christianpost.com/news/wii-u-graphics-comparison-ps4-and-xbox-one-have-less-1080p-60fps-hd-titles-than-nintendo-106896/