Not even close. It dropped to the teens and on very slim occasion the single digits.
Yet it still was better than GTA4; resolution, performance, and assets/shaders wise.
-
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.
Ubisoft: Watch_Dogs will run at 900p on PS4 and 792p on XB1, both at 30fps
- Thread starter nynt9
- Start date
Not even close. It dropped to the teens and on very slim occasion the single digits.
Yet it still was better than GTA4; resolution, performance, and assets/shaders wise.
They can't, because for most devs it never happened. Maybe with some shovelware.
Keeps popping up though. Gotta explain those low end APUs away.
CambriaRising
Member
In fact, it will actually make the iq worse than 720 due to improper scaling.
TAJ
Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.
They both divide evenly by 9.
792p will look cleaner and more detailed after being scaled straight to 1080p.
SenjutsuSage
Banned
I think GAF collectively is very wrong about this game, and has allowed things that really shouldn't weigh all too heavily against the game to successfully paint this aura of mediocrity and negativity that persists despite the fact that I don't really feel there has been nearly enough shown to warrant such an overreaction. I've always gotten the impression that this is a game that's hard to show off when you're not in the more exciting missions.
There are parts that look like they could use work, such as the animation when he's holding a cell phone in his hand in some of the cutscenes I've seen, but I think the rest looks perfectly fine. I still see every bit as much potential, if not more, for a game every bit as amazing as the initial E3 trailer implied it could be. The graphics somehow not seeming as awe inspiring doesn't really do much to dampen my excitement.
CambriaRising
Member
LapinAgile
Member
I played Dragons Dogma with black bars... the whole game... they were there. Yes people decried the decision and raged against the machine. And many, including myself wound up loving the game (and it's sequel.... please???) This pixel counting perversion infects threads on every new game that comes out. Features, gameplay, and mission discussions are not overwhelmed by graphics and resolution screenshot wars. I want to knock on the walls and test the foundation of the house, not stand on the lawn arguing about the color of the paint.
SenjutsuSage
Banned
Did you seriously just say 72 more pixels?
It's actually 193,536 more pixels.
nice try.
How bad do some people think people's televisions are?plagiarize
Banned
why the heck would you believe this? unless you have a native 720p fixed pixel display (and you almost certainly don't) 792p is always going to look better scaled to 1080p than 720p. the only resolution that are special are your native display, or one that is just a linear scale. anything else, more P's = more detail.
What was his methodology? Are we talking about setting the Xbox One to output at 720p, so that your TV handles the scaling vs having the Xbox One set to 1080p so it handles the scaling? That doesn't make what you think true.
It's way more than "72 pixels".
CambriaRising
Member
Did you seriously just say 72 more pixels?
It's actually 193,536 more pixels.
nice try.
Here you go.
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=103680287&postcount=1202
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=103689488&postcount=1267
Would love to see a 900p comparison as well.
plagiarize
Banned
I don't normally say this about Dark's stuff, but he's wrong here. A flat shape is a terrible thing to choose for upscaling comparisons.
They mention it in the blog post where they announced the resolution and framerate. Something along the lines of the delay took place to expand the gameplay, not to improve the visuals or performance. I'm sure they did some work on it, but only to clean up the game on the settings they already had in place. I'm sure it runs smoother and has better AA and such than it would have at launch, but they didn't go as far as to optimize to the point of being able to increase the resolution. I wouldn't doubt it if they lost a number of team members to other projects after the delay, and members of the tech team could have been among them.
Why does that matter at all? The point is that those games look better, while outputting a higher resolution than similar games earlier in the generation while performing pretty much the same in terms of framerate. Being locked to 30 or 60 is irrelevant if the games performed on par or better than the previous entries.
SenjutsuSage
Banned
I've read it, but still don't really buy it. I don't think it applies nearly as accurately across the board as he seems to think. There's way too much that can be going on behind the scenes that we simply aren't aware of, and to use such an example as that as this one size fits all formula for how things will be on every television isn't something I can take very seriously.
Even without using something like that, there's just so many extra factors, such as the possible inclusion of some level of MSAA and who knows what else.
CambriaRising
Member
I don't have anything else to refute what you are saying, but until proven otherwise I think ill go with what Dark provided.
plagiarize
Banned
I scaled my avatar down 66% and back up to the same size, and I scaled it down to 73% and I scaled it back up to the same size using a very dirty scale. You can clearly see more detail is lost in the image on the left than the one in the middle.
Max's eye looks too big in the one on the left. The ugly sharp edge on the top of the morphball is lost and it just looks perfectly round in the 720p example. The detail on the side of the morphball is much more unclear. The circle on it is obviously a circle at 792p but not 720p. The texture of the carpet and the jpeg artifacting is clearer in the 792p one. You cannot make out the headset wire at all in the 720p example, only it's shadow. It is faintly visible in the 792p example.
Both the middle one and the one on the left look much softer (as you would expect, but the one in the middle maintains more of the detail from the original.
Again, his example, which just focused on a single shape only brings our attention to the outline. It doesn't show us what happens to fine detail at all. 792p has more fine detail, and the 36% upscale doesn't lose that extra detail that it has over the one upscaled by 50%.
I can't lie I'm bummed about 900p since aside from BF4 its not a widespread issue (yet) on PS4, mostly because the game didn't seem that demanding graphically, if something like Witcher 3 winds up being 900p I could see why. I also don't have a gaming pc or the funds to build one anytime soon so that's not an option.
you think people should just accept this? its not acceptable at all... if people decided with their wallets, maybe devs would take a little extra time to think: "Hey, should we release this game @ 900p or work it a bit to get 1080?"
Id bet if people just said, "no, this is unacceptable." and waited to purchase watchdogs instead of running out and settling for it on launch day... the devs would see the sales and try to fix it by possibly giving it a patch.
I think at least part of the issue is 720p is associated with last gen, so MS wants to avoid that at all costs.
Titanfall ("Frame rate is king") went with 792p instead of 720p and the result was a game that tears frames and drops from 60 FPS on a regular basis.
boredandlazy
Member
Edit: Nevermind...
Stealthcobra
Member
70 pages about frames per sec? At what point do you realize you've been discussing nonsense. The only question that should matter is if the game is fun or not. This is the same crowd that plays and loves minecraft, and other 8 to 16 bit graphics games and you never once cared about frames per sec
It shows that even with "coding to the metal" and years of experience with the hardware, you can't meet target framerates, resolution and provide modernized effects all at the same time. And the 360/PS3 were powerful machines for their respective launch years.
There's less to learn and less room to grow this time around.
Cave Johnson
Member
One of the most noted PR tactic AAA publishers like to use is present a core gameplay "feature" then enact it in it's best possible light in order to create buzz to fill their own hype-bubble. Which is pretty standard as you want to need to rack up enough hype to justify the expenses on the project.
Where the problem lies, is that when updates upon updates that barely extrapolates on said feature; reducing it to a mere backdrop wrapped by the menagerie of blockbuster tropes that take popular cues from pop culture that is applicable to their game. That is the main reason why so many are complaining about discrepancy between the the reveal and the final promo material (IMO). It is as if Ubisoft is presenting 2 very different games hoping the recent PR would serve to alleviate any concerns about it's presentation. As you can see, this tactic clearly backfired as consumers today are far more wary that gives precedence to cynicism. Nevermind the downgrades on graphics which they PR placed themselves on.
I can see where your enthusiasm lies at this game. Until we get the final product, we are unsure of their delivery and quality. As for the 1080p/60fps issue, your concerns may be correct if it was just a simple design choice. But it isn't. It's a cross-gen issue. Their "vision", no matter how ambitious, must fit to the design which the platform is based on - in this case - the "last" gen consoles. This means, any so-called feature that could-have-been is completely nullified since the current-gen consoles (like the PC) are merely up-ports. So if you want to know where all potential for this game could be lost, it would not be in the focus of the resolution or frame-rate this gen...
it would be simply based on how capable the 360/PS3 is. Which means, you'll be judging the game based on that criteria and any faults you may find can only be concluded as such.
Simply Sami
Member
So why post in the thread?
Titan juice packs for $1000?
If this was the case then I don't see why there are 5 games running at 720p on the console.
Did any of those 5 come out as 720p after TitanFall? Genuinely curious because I don't know, I just know that MS wasn't really expecting Resolutiongate to become such a big deal.
And I honestly can't think of any other reason why Respawn would choose to set Titanfall to a resolution that clearly fails to meet their 60 FPS constant goal.
Do you really honestly think two developers would have gone with 792p as the native resolution for their respective games unless there was a perfectly valid reason for doing so?
These devs aren't dumb. I'm surprised that quite a few people here in the thread seem to think they are, and that they'd just go with an odd resolution, willy-nilly, just so it wouldn't be 720p.
MGS was the week after at 720. I don't think there have really been any other releases in general since then.
I do think the Titanfall thing is weird, but they also said they were going to patch in improvements(which is also weird in itself) and so far nothing has happened there. So I dunno what the hell happened.
Hm. Well maybe TitanFall is just the dev being rushed to meet a release date. We'll see what happens if/when the optimization patch drops.
Liabe Brave
Member
You can't do the test this way. You're scaling in both directions, which accentuates the blurring effects and swamps any potential anamorphisms. What you need are three unscaled, native images that are 720p, 792p, and 1080p, and then scale up the smaller images once to match.
I scaled my avatar down 66% and back up to the same size, and I scaled it down to 73% and I scaled it back up to the same size using a very dirty scale. You can clearly see more detail is lost in the image on the left than the one in the middle.
I actually agree that dark10x was overstating the case for scaling inaccuracies with odd ratios. But his test was well-structured, within its limits. His fault isn't using an unrepresentative source; the effects should be the same no matter how stark or variegated the image may be. Rather, his conclusion is too strong because of the algorithm he chose. Nearest-neighbor scaling is the least capable of interpolating odd ratios. (By definition, basically--it's the sharpest scaling method, which is another way of saying it averages values the least.) He's right that it will throw up anomalies, as will bilinear to a lesser extent. But bicubic so aggressively smashes contrast that any anamorphisms disappear into the haze (as seen in your images, where all sorts of detail just evaporates, in both versions).
Probably the same thing as the PS3/360 versions? Some low resolution upscaled to 720p.
Lé Blade Runner
Member
I don't know how much it looked like the initial reveal trailer, as I don't remember catching it, but it looked amazing regardless. Which, by the way, I expect Watch_Dogs to look, too.
I was bouncing between the PC and PS4 versions, but ultimately decided to go with PC. Cheaper price, and my PC is powerful enough to run it in high settings. Guess my PS4 will be collecting dust until the exclusives hit.
boredandlazy
Member
I'd wager that about only 10 of the pages has been about fps.
Anyway, don't come into a tech thread bitching about tech threads. It makes you look like a whinging fool.
Admiral Woofington
Member
Also sounds a bit like thread whining.
And how would you know? Last gen games weren't all native 720p either.
It's perfectly possible for 900p to become the 'subHD' of current generation.
Always-honest
Banned
Possible, yes. But thus far it seems 1080p will be the resolution for PS4. Killzone is, infamous is, ac4 is, MGS ground zeroes is, tombraider de is, CoD, NFS, knack, etc. And some are allready said to be 1080p (but we'll have to see).M°°nblade;112043119 said:
But 900p with great effects and good AA could also be a great alternative imo.
Riky
$MSFT
It's not 72 pixels.
It was also tested using other examples.
What does that prove? The 792p image is noticeably sharper...
Edit: Sorry, thought you were claiming 720p looked better
doniewhalberg
Member
All these comments from peeps in the beta have me worried haha. Originall,y I was disappointed by the console performance announcement but obviously, no problem settling with the PC version, but now it's sounding like the game might not even be worth launch day price on PC. The original reveal was fantastic too.
kriskrosbbk
Member
I am trying to follow up the thread but which comments are you refering to?
edit: This is taken from a watch dogs forum :
http://watchdogsforum.net/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=2434
It does make sense,most of the betas are indeed toned down from the final release
By "accept" I simply meant to not expect a 1080p patch at launch for this game. Better to be pleasantly surprised than to be disappointed even more.
Cthulhu_Steev
Member
It means his team has lost the game, so he's taking his ball, his goalposts, and his mates home with him.