Maybe they don't have anything better to play on?
I'll go PC unless it's a crap version. Otherwise X.
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
VGTech: DMC5 Console Comparison - Release Version
- Thread starter chandoog
- Start date
I'll go PC unless it's a crap version. Otherwise X.
Maybe people find performance more important than resolution? I don't even think you will even notice much difference in resolution with this fast action game. Do people only need to purchase the X version because of the "hallelujah true 4K" stuff? I don't know if i going to purchase this game but i will go also go Pro because i did the same with RE2: Remake.
Last edited:
Frames are the most important thing for DMC so the PS4 Pro is the definitive Console Version
Picking Resolution over Performance on Devil may Cry hahaha
Hope the PC Version is running smooth
Picking Resolution over Performance on Devil may Cry hahaha
Hope the PC Version is running smooth
OP
OP
RE2 was sharper on PS4 Pro but had more visual noise / worse SSR and Shadow dithering. So we will need to wait for DF
Its always like that, even if we are talking about minimal differences not accouting for the extra 30% of pixels being displayed.
Why wouldn't it be? It is most powerful console, so it is always the way to go if you want best possible graphics and performance. There are maybe couple games where pro somehow does better, but that's usually devs fault and is patched pretty fast.
I have both version of RE2R. The only visible difference in favour on the X is performance. SSR is better on the X just in police hall and some spot but just because FXAA eliminate the noise effect in some surface. Other than that SSR is carppy noisy on the X too and dithering shadows are there too (graphic setting is the same for all version). Now pro has more shimmering surely but softness too on the X is annoying as hell in some spots and FXAA soft the rough edge more than fix it. I don't see a clear winner there except for performance. About DMC the only flaws on the Pro I seen are the CBR artifacts which in some surface cause jaggies. But I noticed it practically just in a single cutscenes. DF can say whatever they want but I don't see a reason to prefer the X version if not just for personal preference.
The difference in framerate is a lot smaller comparatively than the resolution, so the X is offering the best visual/performance ratio even if not as big as with other games... Whats's wrong with people wanting that?
Having both ps4 pro and xbox one x, I bought the xb version.
Using elite controller is a must for me to play action games like that
When ps5/xb2 launches next year, if capcom doesn't patch the game, xb2 will have stable 4k60fps for gameplay and cutscence while ps5 will have stable 1800p60fps. I can tolerate the slightly poor performance drop on x for betting a better quality in next gen
Using elite controller is a must for me to play action games like that
When ps5/xb2 launches next year, if capcom doesn't patch the game, xb2 will have stable 4k60fps for gameplay and cutscence while ps5 will have stable 1800p60fps. I can tolerate the slightly poor performance drop on x for betting a better quality in next gen
I mean I'm playing the game right now and 4k does its job, not visible in clarity? Not sure what that means. Game is sharp as hell.
And having 1,5 difference in average framerate during gameplay is miniscule, the fps range from 45 to 50 during stress sections at the end isn't really that noticeable after the initial drop. As long as it's somewhat consistent it's fine. I'm already past that moment in gameplay and didn't even notice it tbqh.
So true. Took me a while to get used to the paddles but now I am, I can never go back.
You do not have to worry about a thing! A friend of mine got an early copy as he works for a retailer in my country and today, before I went to work i went to his place. He has a PS4 slim with a 4K TV. The game is stunning and runs smooth as f*ck!
Game is less sharp on the X with RE engine cause capcom tech choice. You prefer it just because you give more importance to the pixels count then the sharpness, reading your post. Nothing of wrong about it but this time more pixels not means sharper IQ.
Fuck yeah. My body can't wait another 5 days (when I should finally be able to play)
And sharper does not necessarily mean better IQ. You still seem confused.
Average frame-rate doesn't tell the whole picture. Pro is substantially smoother in gameplay if we look at percentile frame-rate stats.
A difference of 5 fps in both 5th Percentile Frame Rate (46 / 51) and 1st Percentile Frame Rate (44 / 49) should be noticeable during gameplay (respectively XBX / Pro). Also minimum framerate tells the same thing: XBX drops 5 fps lower than Pro.
It means that when the game drops, it drops much lower on XBX.
A difference of 5 fps in both 5th Percentile Frame Rate (46 / 51) and 1st Percentile Frame Rate (44 / 49) should be noticeable during gameplay (respectively XBX / Pro). Also minimum framerate tells the same thing: XBX drops 5 fps lower than Pro.
It means that when the game drops, it drops much lower on XBX.
Oh, it's definitely worth noting that DMC5 is the first game to make my XOX somewhat audible, only noticed it after my PC shut itself down due to inactivity so it's not loud at all, but surprised me a bit.
This is mostly due to X dropping harder in cutscenes (which both versions do). During gameplay there's not much difference.
I played demo on both consoles and while a little more audible than usual on X it was nothing like my ps4 pro. It's not like I can find a physical copy of the deluxe on pro right now anyways. I also like to play these games on a freesync monitor so X makes sense.
Sorry. I thought those stats were just covering the performance throughout the whole game.
Yup, this. People only seem to be focusing on the median/mean framerates and ignore everything else. During certain scenes, performance gap is considerable. Maybe not enough to justify the difference in IQ for some people, but not minimal by any means like some people are making it out to be.
I don't get why people don't understand that some favor performance over IQ, or vice versa. Seems like people are just trying to justify/support their purchase decision.
I really wish they capped the cut-scenes at 30fps. The performance just isn't close enough to 60fps to look smooth at all.
You seem really bothered that some may prefer to get it on the 1X.
You seem really bothered that some may prefer to get it on the 1X.
People bitching about the Pro versus X difference in resolution when it's using both FXAA and TAS on X and thus having a blurry image, haven't actually had the chance to ply them both side by side.
The issue with the RE engine is that it ovwrsharpwns your image, and as such some things sre VERY overblown. Imagine a black wire on a bright blue sky. Now imagine one screen has AA, and you see no hard edges, and one screen has a sharpening filter, and looks utterly terrible.
Now apply that to alpha tested surfaces (hair, foliage) and anything where brightness contrasts dark (specular highlights etc).
So, yes the X produces a slightly more blurry image, but the pro is so visually noisy that it's actually really difficult on the eyes to play. Imagine a 4k video running at 1080p, with no downsampling at all applied. That's the sort of visua noise you're dealing with.
So while pro users keep going on about their sharper image, it's avtually ruined, because in motion it's utterly dreadful.
The issue with the RE engine is that it ovwrsharpwns your image, and as such some things sre VERY overblown. Imagine a black wire on a bright blue sky. Now imagine one screen has AA, and you see no hard edges, and one screen has a sharpening filter, and looks utterly terrible.
Now apply that to alpha tested surfaces (hair, foliage) and anything where brightness contrasts dark (specular highlights etc).
So, yes the X produces a slightly more blurry image, but the pro is so visually noisy that it's actually really difficult on the eyes to play. Imagine a 4k video running at 1080p, with no downsampling at all applied. That's the sort of visua noise you're dealing with.
So while pro users keep going on about their sharper image, it's avtually ruined, because in motion it's utterly dreadful.
Last edited:
OP
OP
Played through RE7, RE2 and DMC's demo on a Pro (along with RE7 and RE2 on PC).
Vehemently disagree with the "really difficult for eyes to play" and "utterly dreadful" commentary here.
Some people don't like the added blur the extra dose of AA causes, it's really not that hard to fathom. Just like some people don't like the visual noise the Pro's implementation of TAA causes in RE engine games.
I don't know what sharper IQ is but sharpness in general is not necessarily meaning better. You can even say that anti-aliasing is producing a worse image because it takes away the "sharp" pixel edges.
OP
OP
Using this RE2 image as an example, arguably it's not 1 : 1 what we could see in DMC because of difference in resolution (RE2 ran at the same resolution on both).
You can see how the added blur caused by the stronger AA implementation makes textures look blurrier/lower res. Note the Police Desk sign, marble status, RPD tag on Leon's shirt etc.
yikes
youre talking about an average fps of 2, compared to a more than 30% increase in resolution
lmao
Once again, you're comparing a static picture to a real time game. That's not how it works.
This mind bending logic sounds like TheLastWord from *the other place*, a poster who quite clearly has Sony tattooed on his anus.
So I'll say it again, just to be clear here. The visual noise that the Pro displays is much much worse in movement and when, you know, "playing the game". Yes, it looks slightly sharper in images, but in real time on a real display, it's nowhere near as good.
This is almost as mind bending to me, as the people who complained RE2 was better on pro over X because the game had better FPS in cutscenes on Pro, when the X had better FPS in gameplay. It's so backward it makes no sense.
This mind bending logic sounds like TheLastWord from *the other place*, a poster who quite clearly has Sony tattooed on his anus.
So I'll say it again, just to be clear here. The visual noise that the Pro displays is much much worse in movement and when, you know, "playing the game". Yes, it looks slightly sharper in images, but in real time on a real display, it's nowhere near as good.
This is almost as mind bending to me, as the people who complained RE2 was better on pro over X because the game had better FPS in cutscenes on Pro, when the X had better FPS in gameplay. It's so backward it makes no sense.
Last edited:
Nah, I know what you mean but I was nitpicking that sharper image quality is not a good wording. You can have a sharp image or good image quality but both can work independently from each other.Using this RE2 image as an example, arguably it's not 1 : 1 what we could see in DMC because of difference in resolution (RE2 ran at the same resolution on both).
You can see how the added blur caused by the stronger AA implementation makes textures look blurrier/lower res. Note the Police Desk sign, marble status, RPD tag on Leon's shirt etc.
Your nothing different at "the other place" about everything Xbox. Why so mad?
I feel more like you can't stand people choosing the Pro version over the One X.
OP
OP
The static picture is just an example, moreover going by recent coverage of RE2 and DMC5's demo from sources like DF or NXGamer, they mention sharper image quality in general, not just on stills. The sharper IQ extends to the real time game as well.
eg DF's RE2 coverage
Or NXGamer's DMC5 Demo coverage
I'm merely saying your comments about RE engine games on Pro being "difficult for the eyes" or "utterly ruined" are severely hyperbolic at best.
Multiple users on this very forum decided they prefer the sharper image on the Pro after checking out the recent demos. We can safely say some people might possibly be more bothered by blurrier IQ than pixel crawl.
As an owner and developer of both, I have no money in one single machine.
However, I can be more of a fan of one, and make no secret about being a fan of the Xbox. However, what I simply cannot stand, is people who are ignorant of the facts. So when Pro wins, and it wins against the X, it simply shouldn't. When PS4 wins against the One S, it simply should. It's that simple, really.
If people only have one console, then by all means you're limited in choice, so pick your console version. But don't start throwing false facts about because you can't afford the other.
So yeah, TLDR, I don't care which machine has more sales or what anybody has, but keep facts to facts.
I disagree. I played RE2 on X and Pro switching back and forth for HOURS. The X version isn't just slightly more blurry, it's very blurry. Yes, there are more jagged edges and crawling on the Pro in some areas as a result. Saying it's "utterly dreadful" is hyperbolic and also comes down to your preference. The softness of the X is too much for me, so I did the majority of my playing on Pro.
Who is throwing false facts? chandoog is simply relaying what DF/NX said. Are they throwing false facts too?
Sure XB1X is more powerful and in theory SHOULD win every time. But if you leave it in the hands of the developers, they don't necessarily always make the 'right' choice for everyone.
I'm not going into specifics, but that's the whole reason I post over at the other place in "those threads". You'll notice I actually stick up for all consoles, not just one, and will point out issues when they come up.
An example of a false fact is how the pro is better than the x in this thread, when... the x doesn't even have the later updates. When the pro is running the same revision as the x is running, it's peformance is much worse as well. So in this case, it's a pointless argument because you're comparing two different things. May as well fight the Pro against the S and say the pro is a clear winner there too. Makes no sense.
I'm in the discussions for one thing; technical analysis. I don't care which one comes out on top, however, when the pro beats the X badly, I'll be confused and discuss "why", as that shouldn't happen.
Well we are comparing what's on display here, and I don't see how people don't understand why some would favor the performance over IQ (and vice versa). The performance gap is certainly not insignificant IMO.
It should definitely be noted that they're not running the same version, as VGTech stated and is noted in the OP. But, FWIW, it was the same situation in the demo.
But let's wait and see I suppose.
OP
OP
Do you have a source or comparison vid on this ?
or is this just based on eye balling ?