Face-Off: EA Sports UFC

Eurogamer :

"EA's next-gen only UFC title can be considered a success overall, even if the revelatory jump in fidelity we saw in the last-gen Fight Night series isn't replicated here. Similar to Fight Night Champion, the use of a 30fps frame-rate and liberal use of post-processing creates a more intense and almost cinematic feel that works well. However, with all that extra power on tap in the new consoles we can't help wonder whether GPU resources should have been deployed on a 60fps gameplay experience rather than the post-processed, smoother look here.

In the multi-platform stakes the PS4 game benefits from superior effects work and better image quality, giving this version a slightly more refined look. Performance is a little more solid on Xbox One, but the pros and cons for each version have minimal impact in terms of the impact on gameplay. Overall, the PS4 version of UFC nudges ahead but it must be said that the experience is virtually interchangeable across both consoles. With that in mind, if the bulk of your competition lies with Xbox One owners online we have no hesitation in recommending that version too."

Read Full Story >>
The story is too old to be commented.
n4rc1580d ago

OK what the hell?

There is absolutely no difference in the comparison at all.. So why does the article go on about "superior effects and image quality" on the ps4?

Just because some need to hear it doesn't mean you have to say it.. Especially when it obviously isn't true

NextLevel1580d ago

Because it has "superior effects and image quality" on almost every game. Is it really that hard to believe?

What is hard to believe, is this game is not 60fps. It's 2 people in a small confined space. This game screams parity.

jackanderson19851580d ago

except you know they're not on par... what with the PS4 having a slightly higher effects work and the X1 having a slightly steadier framerate

NextLevel1580d ago (Edited 1580d ago )

Slightly is the keyword. The PS4 and Xbox One do not have slighty different hardware capability. The PS4's GDDR5 and GPU absolutely crush the Xbox One's hardware capabilities. The CPUs are similar with the Xbox One having a slight advantage, but games these days heavily rely on the GPU not the CPU which will give the PS4 the advantage everytime and this isn't taking into consideration the benefits of GDDR5 vs esRAM. This is not an opinion.

1080p vs 900p vs 720p, 60fps vs 30fps is what I'm talking about.

Anything other than differences like that are maintaining parity.

Darkstares1580d ago (Edited 1580d ago )

Basically it boils down to this,

Visuals and effects are better on the PS4 due to 4x MSAA (compared to 2x on the X1), motion blur and shadowing.

Performance is better on the X1, steadier frame rates and no torn frames.

They prefer the PS4 version still, which has become quite common due to the beefier hardware.


Your making it sound like the PS4 is far more superior than it really is. So stop trying to make this into something bigger than it really is.

NextLevel1580d ago


I'm not speaking my opinion on the hardware side of thing. Numbers are numbers and most to all of the relevant numbers are much higher on PS4.

n4rc1580d ago (Edited 1580d ago )

Except no games have the disparity you seem to think exists.. Let me guess.. The ps4 would run this at 1080p60 but Xbox holds it back, right?

Bf4 too right? Would a easily done 1080p60 since it absolutely crushes the Xbox.. But they downgraded it to 900p to make us poor Xbox owners feel better.. Lol

But that's not the point I was making.. I don't care if its parity or not.. Both look identical so why go on about a superior image quality you can't see?

Its about the article and game.. Not each systems hardware.

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 1580d ago
Kayant1580d ago

"There is absolutely no difference in the comparison at all.. So why does the article go on about "superior effects and image quality" on the ps4? " - You're watching a compressed youtube video so the differences are not easily picked up if you're not used to them or know what they are but the AA, motion blur differences are easy to spot in that.

"Just because some need to hear it doesn't mean you have to say it.. Especially when it obviously isn't true" - Just because can't spot the differences doesn't mean they don't exist ideal.

Fact is PS4 has superior effects and image quality and XB1 has the steadier framerate and no torn frames.

Evilsnuggle1580d ago (Edited 1580d ago )

EA UFC = Parity . End of Story
No thanks

Kayant1580d ago

There is no parity. PS4 is the superior version.

RedCloud881580d ago

As an owner of a ps4, xb1 and a high end pc, and a fan of ufc who has followed this game since its announcement, I dont believe a parity clause affected the game at all. Ea was flat out lazy here. Early on they said the game would run at 30fps with motion blur, stating they could easily do 60 without the blur, but it looked better with blur. So thats a decision they just made themselves. My problem is they also said 1080p on both systems from the beginning. This is a sports game people, its not that hard to run. Nba 2k14, with ten very detailed players on screen at once in a bigger playing field is 1080p 60fps on both consoles. Lets not blame either sony or microsoft for ea's shortcomings on this one.

MasterCornholio1580d ago

I agree with you that EA was just lazy with this title.