-
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: Stellar Blade Demo - PS5 First Impressions - Every Mode Tested!
- Thread starter adamsapple
- Start date
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
- All cut-scenes in the demo are rendered in-engine
- Game is running on Unreal Engine 4
- 3 graphics mode. Performance, Balance, Resolution
- Light sources, high quality bokeh and filmic presentation praised
- Physics praised on for debree etc in the game
- Occasional last-gen textures with low resolution texture maps
- Reflections are SSR only, no RT even on the Resolution mode
- Besides resolution, visual features are a match between all 3 modes
Balanced Mode:
- Aims for 60 FPS with reconstruction, DRS between 1080p~1440p reconstructed to 4K
- Balance mode can add some artifacts to finer things like fence meshes, rare to see but it is there
- FPS drops to mid 50s in areas in the demo, but it is within the VRR window
- Cut-scenes also run at 60 FPS
Performance Mode:
- Native 1440p with no up-scaling
- Produces a coarser image with the most visual noise
- Anti aliasing is adequate but pales compared to Balanced in terms of IQ
- Perf mode avoids the artifacts in Balanced mode on fine details
- Locked 60 FPS with no drops seen during the demo
Resolution:
- 2160p with minor DRS at 30 FPS
- 30 FPS is 'quite a sacrifice for this type of game'
- Aside resolution, no other visual settings are tweaked for this mode
- 30 FPS is evenly frame-paced
Verdict:
- Balanced mode is DF's recommend way to play the game
- Game is running on Unreal Engine 4
- 3 graphics mode. Performance, Balance, Resolution
- Light sources, high quality bokeh and filmic presentation praised
- Physics praised on for debree etc in the game
- Occasional last-gen textures with low resolution texture maps
- Reflections are SSR only, no RT even on the Resolution mode
- Besides resolution, visual features are a match between all 3 modes
Balanced Mode:
- Aims for 60 FPS with reconstruction, DRS between 1080p~1440p reconstructed to 4K
- Balance mode can add some artifacts to finer things like fence meshes, rare to see but it is there
- FPS drops to mid 50s in areas in the demo, but it is within the VRR window
- Cut-scenes also run at 60 FPS
Performance Mode:
- Native 1440p with no up-scaling
- Produces a coarser image with the most visual noise
- Anti aliasing is adequate but pales compared to Balanced in terms of IQ
- Perf mode avoids the artifacts in Balanced mode on fine details
- Locked 60 FPS with no drops seen during the demo
Resolution:
- 2160p with minor DRS at 30 FPS
- 30 FPS is 'quite a sacrifice for this type of game'
- Aside resolution, no other visual settings are tweaked for this mode
- 30 FPS is evenly frame-paced
Verdict:
- Balanced mode is DF's recommend way to play the game
Last edited:
rodrigolfp
Haptic Gamepads 4 Life
PC version, save us!
MadchesterManc
Member
Balanced mode seemed fine when I tried it. You can tell there's reconstruction in play as with all techniques, but when coupled with VRR to take care of the drops, its exactly as described looking generally better than performance. 1440P/60 performance & 4K/30 graphics modes is as expected for PS5.
Gamer_By_Proxy
Member
*Verdict:
- Balanced mode is DF's recommend way to avoid playing the game cause ewww woman.
- Balanced mode is DF's recommend way to avoid playing the game cause ewww woman.
Last edited:
Mister Wolf
Member
Balanced Mode for VRR owners.
Xdrive05
Member
Sad that a journo deserves credit for actually doing their damn job and not editorializing with their social politics, but such is #current_year.
Game looks like a technical slam dunk so far! Great job, devs!
Last edited:
winjer
Gold Member
LectureMaster
Member
Your summary is best. If other people want to post DF videos without this tldr, they shouldn't.
Thick Thighs Save Lives
Gold Member
The one thing Tom should have checked in this demo build was the input latency, and ofc he failed in doing that... Meh.
Physiognomonics
Member
Performance mode was my favorite in the demo and now I understand why. native 1440p FTW. It shows all those 720p / 1080p games running on PS5 with terrible IQ could run at native something (like 1080p or 1440p) with much better IQ.
Last edited:
LectureMaster
Member
So out of all of those great physics, debrees was all you saw? Do better Tommy.
alphachino
Member
Looking forward to this, but won't play it with these compromises. 4K/60 or nothing for me. Let's hope for my sake PS5 Pro can deliver this... let's hope for Sony's sake they can deliver the PS5 Pro before the PC release. Your move Sony.
SEGAvangelist
Member
This is what I was curious about too. Seems like a real miss to not test it.
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
It's only for PR screens.
Clear
CliffyB's Cock Holster
If its evenly paced its not too bad visually, and if the input and render loops run async like they should, actual latency needn't suffer.
mckmas8808
Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
mckmas8808
Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
Sharper than Balanced?
Physiognomonics
Member
Higher native resolution in the performance mode! reconstruction without AI not worthy!
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
They specifically say that the IQ is better in Balanced mode multiple times in the video.
The only thing Performance does better is that it doesn't have the reconstruction artifacts on some very fine meshes but that's something no one would even know without a 400% zoom.
Luipadre
Member
It has smoother IQ not sharper tho.
They need something to do for the full review, if the graphics mode remains untouched in the final release then they can pad out the video with latency tests instead.
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
Not sharper, more aliased, that's probably what makes it look sharper to you.
It's your choice in the end, ultimately, but IMO, Balanced mode is the better option, especially if you have a VRR display.
The Cockatrice
Member
edited, reply below.
Last edited:
Luipadre
Member
what? VRR has nothing to do with resolution.
The Cockatrice
Member
I know, I phrased it wrong. I meant a lot of ppl just have standard 4k tv's no vrr, so the frame drops on balanced mode will be shit most likely later in the game, this is just a demo. And the same ppl with standard 4k tv's if they choose performance mode, it looks way too washed, lack of anisotropic filtering, just doesnt have a clean look at all. I tried all modes and i hate 30 fps but performance looks....too greasy for me. Balanced seems OK but i noticed the frame drops quite severely. I might just play it with 30 fps like FF16.
Last edited:
Fbh
Member
Balanced felt good in the demo.
Image quality was decent and I personally didn't really notice the drops on my VRR display.
Diminishing returns.
Lots of newer games do more advanced stuff on paper but the actual result is lacking and 90% of the time isn't worth the impact to performance and image quality.
I tried Immortals of Aveum the other day (since it's on Plus). Sure it's UE5 and it has nanite and lumen ....but the end result I'm seeing on my screen looks like shit.
And the performance is shit too.
Image quality was decent and I personally didn't really notice the drops on my VRR display.
Diminishing returns.
Lots of newer games do more advanced stuff on paper but the actual result is lacking and 90% of the time isn't worth the impact to performance and image quality.
I tried Immortals of Aveum the other day (since it's on Plus). Sure it's UE5 and it has nanite and lumen ....but the end result I'm seeing on my screen looks like shit.
And the performance is shit too.
Fake
Member
For watching cutscenes at native 4K in your 4K TV maybe.
If there is an option to watch all cutscenes without replaying the entire game.
Kingdom Hearts 3 had this mode.
Mr.Phoenix
Member
People need to look at games like these when talking about any number of those games that are dropping rez to 900p just to hit 0fps. Or cant even do native 1800-2160p@30fps. (looking at you FF16.
I will keep saying this shit. Most devs these days just use the power on tap in these consoles to facilitate a more lax development process and just get shit out in their idea of a "good enough" state. Rather than actually take the time to optimize their game/engine for the hardware.
You don't even have to get to technical, just do the eye-test. If games like this, Horizon FW, SM2, and Ratchet can exist, and all have 60fps modes, no other devs thus far have an excuse. I have not seen a single game with a lower IQ or performance that looks on par or significantly better than those.
I will keep saying this shit. Most devs these days just use the power on tap in these consoles to facilitate a more lax development process and just get shit out in their idea of a "good enough" state. Rather than actually take the time to optimize their game/engine for the hardware.
You don't even have to get to technical, just do the eye-test. If games like this, Horizon FW, SM2, and Ratchet can exist, and all have 60fps modes, no other devs thus far have an excuse. I have not seen a single game with a lower IQ or performance that looks on par or significantly better than those.
Kings Field
Member
Balanced mode plz
Danjin44
The nicest person on this forum
I agree, based on this video other than resolution there is no much difference between each mode, I think I might just go with performance mode as well.
In demo level design is much more linear but we know that later on we going get more open areas to explore and so in Balanced mode we might see even more FPS drops in those more open areas.
For me given the choice I always go performance, lesser resolution doesn't bother much.
Crayon
Member
I don't get how so many people are talking about this but nobody just hooks it up to one of those test thingies and checks. :/
My bet is 5-8 frames. Most of the actions in the game have a lot of startup and I think that's confusing people. Even the blocking animation has (guessing of course) 10 or 15 frames of startup and you don't block/parry until the sword is in position in front of her.
rickybooby87
Member
poodaddy
Member
What in the holy mother of God is going on in this photo?! Lol, that can't be real.....right?We already know
Killer8
Member
If "the human eye cannot see more than 30fps" was a big meme, I feel like an actually true contender could be "the human eye cannot see more than 1080p from a normal viewing distance".
A big hubbub is made about the low-resolution of console games, but let's face the facts: the average TV size only finally exceeded 50-inches in 2023. In terms of viewing distances, I have no idea how to get data on what's typical, but the recommended distance for a 50-60 inches is a mere 2 meters.
Yet, almost every home I have been in and in any given online video of people's setups, the TV is typically many meters away from the couch. If you sit even 3 metres away rather than 2, are you really going to have a 98" screen appropriate for that distance? Fuck no you aren't. And yet, that is what the recommendation from THX would be (3 meters = 118 inches, x 0.835 as per their calculations = 98.53 inches). Now think about all the people sitting even further away:
I wonder if the 'rich people' who own this living room would be able to even tell the difference between 720p and 4K from that distance!
I came to the realization that a lot of resolution analysis is educational but also is just mental masturbation for most use cases. It's splitting hairs. On paper, a 200-400p difference might sound gigantic, but who is really going to notice the difference? I'll make a big exception for PC gaming and monitors, as these are under a meter away from our eyes. But for an average sized 4K TV at an average distance in a average living room, viewed by a person with average vision? You're going to need to take a Pepsi challenge to actually tell the difference.
A big hubbub is made about the low-resolution of console games, but let's face the facts: the average TV size only finally exceeded 50-inches in 2023. In terms of viewing distances, I have no idea how to get data on what's typical, but the recommended distance for a 50-60 inches is a mere 2 meters.
Yet, almost every home I have been in and in any given online video of people's setups, the TV is typically many meters away from the couch. If you sit even 3 metres away rather than 2, are you really going to have a 98" screen appropriate for that distance? Fuck no you aren't. And yet, that is what the recommendation from THX would be (3 meters = 118 inches, x 0.835 as per their calculations = 98.53 inches). Now think about all the people sitting even further away:
I wonder if the 'rich people' who own this living room would be able to even tell the difference between 720p and 4K from that distance!
I came to the realization that a lot of resolution analysis is educational but also is just mental masturbation for most use cases. It's splitting hairs. On paper, a 200-400p difference might sound gigantic, but who is really going to notice the difference? I'll make a big exception for PC gaming and monitors, as these are under a meter away from our eyes. But for an average sized 4K TV at an average distance in a average living room, viewed by a person with average vision? You're going to need to take a Pepsi challenge to actually tell the difference.
Fake
Member
And 1440p is not a lower resolution either.
If they gonna do a mix bag reconstruction work, I better stick with locked 60 fps and locked resolution.
Katatonic
Member
Love it! Will play on PS5 on balanced mode which looks awesome at 60 fps and then re-play later on the Pro/PS6 at full 4k 60fps or (or higher). Never have to be forced to play at 30 fps, unlike an upcoming major release..
EDIT: Every game from now on must include Performance, Balanced, and Quality modes.
EDIT: Every game from now on must include Performance, Balanced, and Quality modes.
Last edited:
winjer
Gold Member
But the thing is, that photo is real.