• 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 - Black Ops 2 and the 60fps Challenge

N

NBtoaster

Member
An analysis of the released Black Ops 2 footage.
There are some notable changes since Treyarch's last game. It also raises the question at just how much the engine can improve before the almost-60fps fluidity is lost.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-black-ops-2-60fps-challenge

Based on analysis of trailer footage (which seems to be from Xbox 360), the series' 1024x600 native resolution also sees a slight bump too - in one axis at least - now rendering at 880x720 with 2x multi-sampling anti-aliasing (MSAA).
Click to expand...

In its marketing to date, Treyarch also talks about "bounce lighting" and ambient occlusion as new additions to the Infinity Ward engine. Based on what we've seen thus far, these appear to be "baked" into the levels (pre-rendered in other words) and the AO in particular is not present where we would expect to see it as a real-time screen-space effect - on downed opponents for example. We'll need to get a closer look at the game to see a better view of other new additions to the engine; intersecting shadows, self-shadows and "reveal mapping" (some kind of texture-blending technology we're not entirely clear on) have also been added to the mix.
Click to expand...

Treyarch's intent seems to have been to target something approaching the visual richness we see in top-tier 30 frames per second shooters while retaining Call of Duty's trademark 60Hz update. While the overall sophistication of aspects such as physics, particle effects, texture quality and lighting might not be quite up to the standards of Battlefield 3, the overall level of presentation we see just from this slice of Black Ops 2 gameplay is impressive. Unfortunately, in common with the original Black Ops there is a clear hit to frame-rate and perhaps a sense of over-ambition in the design that is actively impeding performance.
Click to expand...

Yes, the E3 code is obviously not final and we'd hope to see an optimisation push in the lead up to the product shipping, but the concern is that Black Ops 2 could break that perceptual 60FPS barrier - especially when the end segment of the demo, including the airborne section actually appeared to be running at a locked 30FPS. For what it's worth, video of the multiplayer mode shown on Spike TV (not taken from a live console in the studio, but direct-feed nonetheless) appeared to show a significantly higher frame-rate - not quite as solid as Modern Warfare 3 performance, but well within the perceptual 60FPS threshold. Arguably, maintaining that frame-rate is more crucial to the online game, where players running at a lower frame-rate - even momentarily - would be disadvantaged compared to those who aren't.
Click to expand...
 
S

Sethos

Banned
Steelyuhas said:
880x720? What the hell kind of resolution is that? It's not anywhere near the aspect ratio of 16:9 or 16:10.
Click to expand...

Don't worry, once you upscale it and the TV post-processes that image into a big blob smear, no non-IQ savvy person will notice.
 
R

Rocket Scientist

Member
HD gaming? HD gaming. Mostly play PC games so I wasn't aware of the fact that these sub-HD resolutions still existed in console gaming. Thought it was just a launch thing.
 
GHG

GHG

Gold Member
And its resolutions like that which are the reason i game almost exclusively on the pc now with the odd exception for exclusive games on the ps3 or games that never make it to the pc like dragons dogma
 
R

Raide

Member
GHG said:
And its resolutions like that which are the reason i game almost exclusively on the pc now with the odd exception for exclusive games on the ps3 or games that never make it to the pc like dragons dogma
Click to expand...

And yet, the vast majority of the millions and millions that will buy the game really don't care. God I hope they get a new engine for next-gen.
 
C

Corky

Nine out of ten orphans can't tell the difference.
Sethos said:
Don't worry, once you upscale it and the TV post-processes that image into a big blob smear, no non-IQ savvy person will notice.
Click to expand...

Don't hate on my cinematic experience mate.

Who needs new consoles?



KillerTravis said:
I'm glad that I'm not a PC gamer and don't really care about those little details.
Click to expand...


I'm glad that I'm not a _ and don't really care about those _.

Let me get this going.

I'm glad I'm not a music listener and don't really care about those little instruments.
 
B

Backfoggen

Banned
I once read that you don't perceive upscaling as much when it affects the horizontal resolution, so their new res is probably better.
I'm personally fine with some 30 fps segments in single player, as long as they do something new with the visuals.
 
G

Gaogaogao

Member
Corky said:
Don't hate on my cinematic experience mate.

Who needs new consoles?






I'm glad that I'm not a _ and don't really care about those _.

Let me get this going.

I'm glad I'm not a music listener and don't really care about those little instruments.
Click to expand...

on the flip side, I am a music listener, but im not an audiophile concerned with super high bit-rates.
 
E

Erasus

Member
KillerTravis said:
I'm glad that I'm not a PC gamer and don't really care about those little details.
Click to expand...

These are not "little details", framerate and resolution matters in games. Even when I was a ps3 only gamer I cared about the stuff DF wrote. I do notice it more after getting a pc, but subHD games look kinda shit, and framerate drops like in Enslaved/RE5 actually disrupts gameplay.

So yea, dont generalise like that please, you are just justifying your own ignorance
 
C

Corky

Nine out of ten orphans can't tell the difference.
Gaogaogao said:
on the flip side, I am a music listener, but im not an audiophile concerned with super high bit-rates.
Click to expand...

Touché but the difference between 2560x1440 and whatever that 880x720 monstrosity is, is infinitely more discernible between say 320kbs and flac or w/e.
 
J

j0hnny_385

Member
880x720?!?

OMFG... I just can't believe it. That kind of a budget, those sales and obviously no fucking technical know-how how to make a god damn game engine. It's 2012. people... 880? Seriously?
CoD fan, btw...
 
DonMigs85

DonMigs85

Member
GT5 renders at 1280x1080 then it's stretched horizontally.
The worst offender on PS3 is probably Midnight Club LA - it's full 720p on the 360 but a mere 960x720 on PS3, so it's noticeably blurrier.
 
M

mxgt

Banned
880
KuGsj.gif
KuGsj.gif
 
E

Erasus

Member
Rocket Scientist said:
Noob question but, why does that resolution look incredible on a TV and much less on a monitor?
Click to expand...

TVs, and plasmas in partucilar, handle non-native resolutions better. But a PC monitor is designed to be run at its native resolution, in my case 1920x1080, so I dont think monitor makers bother to put a good scaler ship in a monitor, but on a HDTV where people watch SD stuff/DVD still (why.jpg) a good scaler is needed.

I have also heard that LCD is worse at handling upscaling than plasmas, but someone else has to confirm this
 
N

Nibel

Member
They talk about all these enhancements and it still looks like to be on par with the last few games.
 
B

BlazinAm

Junior Member
Is there a way to figure out what the the original resolution is? As far as I know multisampling is a way to render a higher image then downsample for the output render image.

IvanI said:
880x720?!?

OMFG... I just can't believe it. That kind of a budget, those sales and obviously no fucking technical know-how how to make a god damn game engine. It's 2012. people... 880? Seriously?
CoD fan, btw...
Click to expand...

I think your statement is more OMFG... sigh.
 
E

Erasus

Member
IvanI said:
880x720?!?

OMFG... I just can't believe it. That kind of a budget, those sales and obviously no fucking technical know-how how to make a god damn game engine. It's 2012. people... 880? Seriously?
CoD fan, btw...
Click to expand...

They need to keep 60fps. (-ish)

Games like BF3, Killzone and Uncharted look amazing but are 30fps.

60fps has become a part of the CoD experience on consoles, they take it away and people would complain its "not as smooth/fluid"
 
A

adelante

Member
IvanI said:
880x720?!?

OMFG... I just can't believe it. That kind of a budget, those sales and obviously no fucking technical know-how how to make a god damn game engine. It's 2012. people... 880? Seriously?
CoD fan, btw...
Click to expand...
Did you not get the part they're targeting 60fps, like you know, every COD console game this gen?
 
K

KillerTravis

Banned
Erasus said:
These are not "little details", framerate and resolution matters in games. Even when I was a ps3 only gamer I cared about the stuff DF wrote. I do notice it more after getting a pc, but subHD games look kinda shit, and framerate drops like in Enslaved/RE5 actually disrupts gameplay.

So yea, dont generalise like that please, you are just justifying your own ignorance
Click to expand...

Hey hey I'm not generalising anything. I said I'm glad I'm not a PC gamer and I do not care about these things. I didn't say I'm glad I'm not a PC gamer so I do not care about the details.

And yes, I'm ignorant to those kind of specs, I just play what I found fun.
 
TUROK

TUROK

Member
IvanI said:
880x720?!?

OMFG... I just can't believe it. That kind of a budget, those sales and obviously no fucking technical know-how how to make a god damn game engine. It's 2012. people... 880? Seriously?
CoD fan, btw...
Click to expand...
That explains your ignorance.

You obviously have no idea how goddamn hard it is to maintain such a high framerate with so many enemies, particles, and scripted crap happening all around you. The CoD engine is one of the most efficient around. They even upped the pixel density from the previous games on ancient hardware, for fuck's sake.

BlazinAm said:
Is there a way to figure out what the the original resolution is? As far as I know multisampling is a way to render a higher image then downsample for the output render image.
Click to expand...
That's not what multisampling, you're thinking of supersampling.
 
J

j0hnny_385

Member
BlazinAm said:
I think your statement is more OMFG... sigh.
Click to expand...

Erasus said:
They need to keep 60fps. (-ish)

Games like BF3, Killzone and Uncharted look amazing but are 30fps.
60fps has become a part of the CoD experience on consoles, they take it away and people would complain its "not as smooth/fluid"
Click to expand...
adelante said:
Did you not get the part they're targeting 60fps, like you know, every COD console game this gen?
Click to expand...
Ok, stop.
Let me say something:

Is it not weird to you folks that a company like ATVI with that much money (primarily from CoD sales) and studios like Treyarch, IW, SG, ... isn't capable to make a brand new, 60fps game engine for those games? Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed BO and MW1-2-3 on my X360 and thought they looked and played great but to see them drop the resolution so much for a game that's supposed to be the "biggest CoD yet" is just absurd.
60fps can be achieved with great visuals (Rage and Bayonetta come to mind) and even if you factor in network play, I'm baffled that they can't figure out how to make a 60fps (which btw is perceptual 60fps, not a locked 60fps) with that much money and support. But obviously they don't have the tech know how. I can't see it other way.
Again, I love CoD games, I play them (not a diehard fan, but I get my share of fun) and this is just plain silly to me.

edit:
TUROK said:
That explains your ignorance.
Click to expand...
Don't insult me. I know a thing or two about game engines and how they're made and I feel perfectly OK expressing my opinion.
 
The Faceless Master

The Faceless Master

Member
IvanI said:
Ok, stop.
Let me say something:

Is it not weird to you folks that a company like ATVI with that much money (primarily from CoD sales) and studios like Treyarch, IW, SG, ... isn't capable to make a brand new, 60fps game engine for those games? Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed BO and MW1-2-3 on my X360 and thought they looked and played great but to see them drop the resolution so much for a game that's supposed to be the "biggest CoD yet" is just absurd.
60fps can be achieved with great visuals (Rage and Bayonetta come to mind) and even if you factor in network play, I'm baffled that they can't figure out how to make a 60fps (which btw is perceptual 60fps, not a locked 60fps) with that much of money and support. But obviously they don't have the tech know how. I can't see it other way.
Again, I love CoD games, I play them (not a diehard fan, but I get my share of fun) and this is just plain silly to me.
Click to expand...

of course they CAN, but that would mean diverting resources from making their annual games to making a new engine. Activision doesn't do that, if you aren't making games, you're getting laid off or fired.
 
TUROK

TUROK

Member
IvanI said:
I'm baffled that they can't figure out how to make a 60fps (which btw is perceptual 60fps, not a locked 60fps) with that much of money and support. But obviously they don't have the tech know how. I can't see it other way.
Again, I love CoD games, I play them (not a diehard fan, but I get my share of fun) and this is just plain silly to me.

Don't insult me. I know a thing or two about game engines and how they're made and I feel perfectly OK expressing my opinion.
Click to expand...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OZg8ebaARmY

No, you don't know jack shit. Stop pretending you do. Bayonetta is not 60 FPS locked on either console, and Rage has no dynamic lighting and uses a dynamic framebuffer to keep it at 60 FPS, so instead of dropping frames, it drops pixels.

They can definite change their engine to stay at 60 FPS most, or all the time, but that would require trade-offs in other areas, tradeoffs Treyarch is obviously not going to take, given the crap they take from people complaining about the graphics.
I enjoyed BO and MW1-2-3 on my X360 and thought they looked and played great but to see them drop the resolution so much for a game that's supposed to be the "biggest CoD yet" is just absurd.
Click to expand...
880x720 has a higher pixel density than 1024x600.
 
W

wonderdung

Member
IvanI said:
880x720?!?

OMFG... I just can't believe it. That kind of a budget, those sales and obviously no fucking technical know-how how to make a god damn game engine. It's 2012. people... 880? Seriously?
CoD fan, btw...
Click to expand...

None of the years between 2005 and 2012 gave the Xbox 360 more EDRAM. Although with post-aa you could fit it all.

(As a point of comparison, the only other major 60fps console game I'm aware of (Rage) chose to not have AA at all *and* drop the resolution dynamically rather than use a fixed framebuffer size with AA.)

Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed BO and MW1-2-3 on my X360 and thought they looked and played great but to see them drop the resolution so much for a game that's supposed to be the "biggest CoD yet" is just absurd.
Click to expand...

It's an increase in resolution.
 
A

Atruvius

Member
Damn! If 360 isn't holding 60 fps and isn't even HD, I wonder how bad the PS3 will be... This will affect my buying decision, if it's as shitty port as Blops then no sale.
 
S

SolidSnakex

Member
Atruvius said:
Damn! If 360 isn't holding 60 fps and isn't even HD, I wonder how bad the PS3 will be... This will affect my buying decision, if it's as shitty port as Blops then no sale.
Click to expand...

To be fair, the previous 360 versions were the same way. They weren't locked at 60fps and they didn't run in HD. Not that it means that the PS3 version is safe. It's Treyarch, so you never know what you're going to get after the job that they did on Black Ops.
 
A

adelante

Member
IvanI said:
Ok, stop.
Let me say something:

Is it not weird to you folks that a company like ATVI with that much money (primarily from CoD sales) and studios like Treyarch, IW, SG, ... isn't capable to make a brand new, 60fps game engine for those games? Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed BO and MW1-2-3 on my X360 and thought they looked and played great but to see them drop the resolution so much for a game that's supposed to be the "biggest CoD yet" is just absurd.
60fps can be achieved with great visuals (Rage and Bayonetta come to mind) and even if you factor in network play, I'm baffled that they can't figure out how to make a 60fps (which btw is perceptual 60fps, not a locked 60fps) with that much money and support. But obviously they don't have the tech know how. I can't see it other way.
Again, I love CoD games, I play them (not a diehard fan, but I get my share of fun) and this is just plain silly to me.

edit:

Don't insult me. I know a thing or two about game engines and how they're made and I feel perfectly OK expressing my opinion.
Click to expand...
Seriously? For starters, the environments in the Call of Duty games casts real-time shadows, as opposed to Rage's baked in lighting. If your teammates walk past any spotlights or lamps in those COD multiplayer maps, you'll see their shadows on nearby walls too. And lets not forget that the character models have self-shadowing as well, something Bayonetta doesn't.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

[ Digital Foundry] Helldivers 2 - PlayStation 5/PC - Tech Review
Analysis Review 2
79
11K
GymWolf replied
LTTP: COD Black Ops 2 (PS3)
9
659
calistan replied
Digital Foundry: Half-Life 2 & The Orange Box - 4K 60fps Mod For Xbox Series X - 1440p 60fps on Series S!
18
2K
RPS37 replied
LTTP: Call of Duty Black Ops III (PS4) 2015 via PS5 store
1
377
Operations66 replied
Digital Foundry: Grounded Tech Review - Problems on PS5 and Switch - All Consoles Tested
Analysis Review 2 3
115
8K
onQ123 replied
Top Bottom