BronsonLee
Member
What an odd turn of events.
EVERYBODY BE SNEAKIN
EVERYBODY BE SNEAKIN
Man, look at this pre-release MP screenshot:
The game doesn't look even CLOSE to that level of clarity. It makes me mad now knowing that the resolution is so low.
.
Is that why some stairs are shaped like crescents and not a straight line?
Disappointing GG and/or Sony was not just honest about this right up front.
I would imagine this is going to forever cast doubt on any technical claims they make in the future, which is a shame as they are damn good developers at the end of the day.
I think they clearly felt the pressure of being "the graphical title" for the PS4, especially since they were the "chosen ones" at launch.
Shame really as this is no doubt going to tarnish their reputation some I would imagine.
Yeah but to be fair SP DOES look this good.
Because it runs at half the framerate.Yup.
It depends how you look at it.So for months people have been playing at a supposed unacceptable resolution without an issue. LOL! ....never change neogaf!
I don't know what they're going to be skeptical about before any of their new games come out.Everyone will probably shut up once we see their new IP. GG just needed more time.
Stuff like it has been used in other games. Temporal sampling has been used in Ryse, KZSF's single-player, and even a few last-gen games like Halo: Reach, for cheap "supersampling."makes you wonder if this method has been implemented in other games
Compressed Facebook images so they're not too helpful but I had them handy
Campaign:
Multiplayer:
The reason that pixel counters could have a hard time catching this is that the game uses temporal reprojection. The previous "960x1080" field is reprojected based on motion buffers and used in the next frame (alongside the current 960x1080 field), so in static imagery, you actually DO get a full 1920x1080 image. It's not "upscaled."
It just gets a bit flaky when the game is in motion. It's not going to look quite as clean as raw 1920x1080 renders, and of course things that don't get tracked nicely by the motion buffer (like small particles) and going to look like they've been shoved through an interlaced CRT.
Sort of a clever solution, and it arguably looks significantly cleaner most of the time than 720p-ballpark content, but I wouldn't personally call it "native 1080p."
Well, 40fps most of the time.Because it runs at half the framerate.
But I agree it looks dope.
Thanks
I didnt and your right I dont care about the issue of the game itself. Its more of nobody knew what the resolution was of the game until now. Do you know how many games were dogged about resolutions that people knew because it was confirmed yet this went unoticed? People thought this game was 1080p so much because of what developers said that even when some people grew suspicious they couldnt pinpoint it. It couldnt possibly be the resolution.Man, look at this pre-release MP screenshot:
The game doesn't look even CLOSE to that level of clarity. It makes me mad now knowing that the resolution is so low.
No, but if you haven't noticed the multitudes of people that have talked about KZ's MP blurriness all the time, you must not have cared about this issue until something controversial like this has been brought up.
btw this game was "downgraded" big time after the initial showing. That initial demo didn't run at 60 FPS, but it looked a lot better. I think GG made the wrong call with 60 FPS and at the end it didn't mater because the frame rate fluctuates too much and it failed to attract the CoD crowd
or the initial releases were bullshots.
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=95150260&postcount=4844
taken with an avermedia extremecap u3
Was there some threads about the multiplayer looking off I missed?
I was thinking the same thing. I mean, just go tag fishing if you wanna do that.
Because it runs at half the framerate.
But I agree it looks dope.
Lighting, AA, and character models were all improved from the February showing. The color of the lighting in the scene changed so you may not have liked it as much subjectively but on a tech level it improved.btw this game was "downgraded" big time after the initial showing. That initial demo didn't run at 60 FPS, but it looked a lot better. I think GG made the wrong call with 60 FPS and at the end it didn't mater because the frame rate fluctuates too much and it failed to attract the CoD crowd
btw this game was "downgraded" big time after the initial showing. That initial demo didn't run at 60 FPS, but it looked a lot better. I think GG made the wrong call with 60 FPS and at the end it didn't mater because the frame rate fluctuates too much and it failed to attract the CoD crowd
Did they patch this in post-launch to stabilise the frame rate in multi or something?
Either way, the longer this gen goes on, all this proves is that more people need to get gaming PC's if your going to be so obsessed with pixel counting down to the n'th degree like this.
Those last two shots are awful. Interlacing and artifacts everywhere.
Wait! I have seen it before. Many other games, like hundred of them in last gen most on 360 I played.
Maybe it was never full 1280x720 last gen. It could be lot of miscount pixel counts. I suspect there are many 640x720 last gen games
Those two considerations are not mutually exclusive.I'm no expert, so just honestly wondering. Was the 960x1080 and temporal reprojection chosen because it was the best choice for GG performance wise at the time or was it chosen because it was difficult to discern from native 1080p which they promised?
Just reminds me that the 1080p/30fps and 720p/60fps compromise for consoles is never going anywhere. Consoles can never be PCs.
Considering we call 1080p that is because it is usually based off the second part of a full resolution for example: 1920x1080p. MPs resolution ends with 1080p so it kind of gets by on a technicality.
I think you've done enough Sony defending for one day
So now we have to shit on Killzone's multiplayer?
Shit still looks cray.
Do you remember some of those games?
Call of Duty Black Ops, Wipeout HD and Gran Turismo 5.
60fps is 60fps, yo.
Black Ops was like 960x540 or some shit.
Do you remember some of those games?
Call of Duty Black Ops, Wipeout HD and Gran Turismo 5 used this form of resolution.
I was exploring on my game list. I think I remember see them in GTA4 and SR2 most.
cray?
I need to get with the times and pop culture it seems :/
such odd words these whippersnappers say these days
so BF4 with dynamic environments and 64 players run better than this?
lol
better than any gif!And what happened then? Well, in GAFville they say that the fanboy's small dick grew THREE sizes that day. And then the true meaning of Console Wars came through, and the fanboy found the strength of ten fanboys plus two!
Where are all the people who COULD TELL the difference between resolutions now?
I like to see what GG does next.Possibly, but I have a feeling that it was more that the game was designed for 1080p 30fps until devs were pressured late into the game to make it 60fps, creating this situation with the lower resolution.
No. They said it was native 1080p. If they wouldn't have used the word native, then you could make the argument that it does output in 1080p, but the game isn't rendered to that resolution internally. However, Sony/GG's statement that it's native 1080p is quite plainly complete bullshit.
Stuff like it has been used in other games. Temporal sampling has been used in Ryse, KZSF's single-player, and even a few last-gen games like Halo: Reach, for cheap "supersampling."
I've never heard of a final game build using temporal sampling to bring the game up to the baseline pixel count, though. (It's not a method that popped out of nowhere, though, it's similar to how 480i60 sixth-gen games work.)