-
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.
Alan Wake - The First 12 Minutes (German)
- Thread starter Max@GC
- Start date
I see 2 good things in there:
1/ blurry rendering is works well for dreamy /nightmarish atmosphere.
2/ the kind of compromise they have done ,tells me there's a PC version coming latter.
Scalling buffers is the kind of trick you certainly use to avoid breaking the tech for scalling up.
1/ blurry rendering is works well for dreamy /nightmarish atmosphere.
2/ the kind of compromise they have done ,tells me there's a PC version coming latter.
Scalling buffers is the kind of trick you certainly use to avoid breaking the tech for scalling up.
Trunchisholm
Member
lherre said:
Actually, all those factors ARE and excuse for its resolution. Not all games would benefit from such a resolution drop, but this one seems to make a compromise in that department that, in the end, might benefit its overall visual quality.
If Remedy had come forward to tell the truth about the game's resolution, that would have been welcomed by many of us, but, ultimately, that doesn't change how the game looks or plays, which should be our only concern.
brain_stew
Member
LiquidMetal14 said:
Quincunx AA is MSAA (2x msaa, and msaa itself is a form of fsaa) but with a custom filter applied on top of that as well. It blurs the overall image but gives edge smoothing similar to 4xmsaa. It was a pretty smart choice for KZ2 though, as that game wasn't really big on intricate texture detail but the smoother appearance did mesh well with the very "CG like" appearance of the post heavy engine. Imo anyway.
As for Alan Wake, if you read back, I actually said that I'd be able to stomach that huge decrease in resolution if the tearing is gone but its looking like that might not be the case, which would be really disappointing. The combination of a super low resolution, tearing and poor texture filtering just isn't a combination that I particularly relish because those are three areas of visuals that I probably value above all else. I'd have been quite happy for Remedy to drop some of the transparencies and volumetric lighting (or even switch to 2xmsaa) if it meant a nice crisp presentation free of tearing but alas, a closed box system means that the user doesn't get that choice. I'll still wait and see but for the moment it looks like one for the bargain bins.
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
Shogun PaiN said:
or seen any game play video at all ?
because you've been completely dismissing anyone who tries to say that it doesn't look nearly as blurry in game play videos as it does in that last batch of screens.
thelastword
Banned
Lowering the resolution of a game can only benefit framerate, it does not make your game look better in the process. If a game like Alan Wake involves exploration, keeping the game at an HD resolution would be ideal, in order to decipher clues and what not in a more detailed/pristine gaming enviro . It may be a foreign concept to some folks here, but post processing is not negated at higher resolutions, hell, it's more impressive at such resolutions. So far this gen, Killzone 2 has been the most impressive game as it relates to PP, in that game; a dark, war torn, brooding atmosphere was created and it was done at 720P. Obviously, I'm not suggesting that the 360 is just as capable in that regard, but keeping the game at HD rez and then bumping up the PP as much as they could, would be more impressive as opposed to what they have done in AW.Trunchisholm said:
One of the reasons besides gameplay; many folks were following this game because of all tech and hype from the devs and many forum goers. This deflates the hype for the title, no one can deny that. Still those who can't take the tech talk, and those already claiming it goty should be more seasoned with their hype, at least till they play.
Trunchisholm
Member
thelastword said:
It doesn't automatically make it look worse; there are many other factors involved, that was my point, and framerate is only one part of the equation. A drop in resolution is always going to be detrimental to a game's looks, but only if the other factors -geometry, postprocessing, framerate, etc.- remain the same. I was only pointing out that they've made a compromise in that regard to accomodate a lighting system and postprocessing that might be more important for the game's visuals than an increased resolution. And comparing Alan Wake to other games when it comes to postprocessing without knowing what effects are being implemented in the game does not sound like a good plan.
thelastword said:
If only Remedy would have known what you know.
thelastword said:
One would think Remedy went through a couple prototypes with various renderings in an attempt to determine what would look best for their game. Then again, they may have made a quick, baseless, stupid decision that is easily seen to be stupid even by the interwebz.
MightyHedgehog
Member
Nah, all they have to do is hire brain_stew since he thinks Remedy's decisions were irrelevant.JaggedSac said:
thelastword
Banned
Why is it wrong, does lowering of a game's resolution make it a better looking game in any scenario? Please explain, hmmm...perhaps you should show me.zoukka said:
As for #2 if there's a cut in geometry then I'm thinking, that's to keep the framerate up. The point is, alot more detail is lost at a lower resolution as opposed to taking out a few light sources and lowering PP ouput to maintain a higher resolution.
I mentioned Killzone2 because it was brought up before, but it's relevant in light of the point I was making, as it relates to a game trying to create a certain atmosphere with PP.
Trunchisholm
Member
thelastword said:
You seem to think that lowering the resolution has no advantages besides framerate, which is an extremely flawed argument. A lower resolution means that developers can accomodate more postprocessing effects, among other things which can help in making a game look better, something you seem to be forgetting.
I take you've played the game and know exactly which light sources and postprocessing effects can be taken out without affecting the game's look. Your words are pure speculation. I think Remedy know a bit more about this than anybody else here, and they decided to make this compromise. They must have had strong reasons to do so, because nobody uses a lower resolution unless they feel it's the right decision.
A certain atmosphere which is not AW's atmosphere AT ALL. The fact that it is an extremely different, and entirely linear, game doesn't help either. They're simply hardly comparable.
thelastword
Banned
Well, the problem with that argument is that lowering the resolution to maintain their PP and lighting visions results in detail loss, so the benefits are not apparent to me. It begs me to ask the question, if the devs offered a choice between a 720P AW with lighter effects but maintaining higher detail as opposed to upshooting the PP and effects at 540P, how many would choose 540P on their HDTV's?Trunchisholm said:
Gaming at a lower resolution simply has no benefits as opposed to gaming at a higher resolution, besides the framerate factor. If you've gamed on the PC you would know this.
thelastword said:
GTFO already. All my friends play Tekken 6 on the blur mode for the added motion blur. And so do many GAFers. There's a threshold to resolution too. At a certain point the added resolution starts to reveal the smoke & mirrors. For example see: Resident Evil 4 PC.
brain_stew
Member
Trunchisholm said:
No, it really does.
LiquidMetal14
hide your water-based mammals
Terrible comparison.DMPrince said:
Trunchisholm
Member
thelastword said:
They don't offer it, because they simply choose what they think is best; that's the point. Besides, talking about resolution/effects choices for a console game is just silly. The developers don't actually need to cater to your curiosity, you know...
I know that if I lower the resolution I can have better filtering/effects on. Following your PC analogy, I'd rather play a game at highest settings and with proper edge and texture filtering than the same game at lowest settings and ten times the resolution. Saying that there are no benefits for lowering the resolution apart from a higher framerate is pure ignorance.
brain_stew
Member
zoukka said:
Smh. Keep up the stupid, GAF.
Trunchisholm
Member
brain_stew said:
No, it doesn't, unless you think that they're willingly dropping the resolution without adding anything else. You seem to have read that sentence alone, without reading the rest of my post. I've already explained that:
- Provided the same effects/geometry/shaders are being used and the framerate is not affected, a lower resolution is ALWAYS a bad thing.
- Otherwise, it should judged on a case by case basis. A lower resolution might be a necessary evil to reach a particular target in terms of presentation, and this seems to be the case.
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
brain_stew said:
No it really doesn't.
brain_stew
Member
Trunchisholm said:
We've not "gained" any extra effects since the SD+ resolution revelation came out, the game looks just as it did before just now it comes with a free coating of vaseline for your HDTV.
I understand why the choice was made (it has more to do with removing ugly A2C artefacts than anything else, hence the "necessity" to persist with 4xmsaa at all costs) but I'm not exactly thrilled with them to say the least. I'm an image quality whore and 540p + shitty texture filtering and tearing is really pushing the boundaries of my tolerance levels.
thelastword
Banned
Doing more at lower resolutions is not a point of contention, however saying that it looks just as good or that shooting up the PP at lower rez makes a game look better, I'm just not seeing this at all, perhaps you should use some pics to demonstrate.Trunchisholm said:
I take you've played the game and know exactly which light sources and postprocessing effects can be taken out without affecting the game's look. Your words are pure speculation. I think Remedy know a bit more about this than anybody else here, and they decided to make this compromise. They must have had strong reasons to do so, because nobody uses a lower resolution unless they feel it's the right decision.
From your post, I've realized that you've simply argued from the "they had strong reasons to do so" but you must know that the 720P 4xAA was touted by the dev, I recognize your admittance to the sacrifice in resolution being a knock to their graphical aspirations, however, you still want to maintain that it looks just as good at the lower resolution, that just makes no sense to me.
Anyways, lets not fool ourselves guys, we've had many subhd debates before, we all know what 720P is. All the screenshots and even the trailers prior to were nice and sharp and we acknowledged it, but closer to release as has happened many times another chip is thrown into the game. We all know that these trailers can be played with and doctored or perhaps even from other platforms, for e.g. I saw crisp 720p trailers of GTA4 on the PSN, but I certainly didn't play a crisp GTA4 on the PS3, in many ways, that was a disappointment based on presentations prior to the game's release, it's happening to often imo. If you advertise your game one way and get me excited about it, that's the product I want in the end, yes, when I plop my $60. I'm I being unfair here?
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
brain_stew said:
If the game looks just as it did before what's all the issue here ? the game play videos are there and they look fantastic sub HD or not, wonder if anyone would have even noticed anything if it wasn't for the pixel counting.
brain_stew
Member
zoukka said:
Well, I've actually played Resident Evil 5 at 1080p/60fps and I can tell you that you're talking complete shit. Even if the higher resolution doesn't resolve extra detail in assets near to the camera (though it does in RE5, btw, but whatever), it reduces all forms of aliasing, increases detail in distant objects and allows you to 1:1 map to a 1080p panel, it brings all sorts of benefits, only a few of which I have mentioned. Fffs, even GCN games look much better @ 1080p and above. Keep telling yourself otherwise, whatever helps you sleep at night, I guess.
We seem to have a Clash of Cultures in this thread.
On one hand we have a primarily PC game culture with people who are used to discussing technical aspects of games, and with an acceptance of a critical/analytical approach to upcoming games.
On the other hand we have primarily console gamers, to whom any critical comments on an aspect (in this case, resolution) of an upcoming game is seen as simply a fanboy attempt to discredit the opposition in the "console war".
On one hand we have a primarily PC game culture with people who are used to discussing technical aspects of games, and with an acceptance of a critical/analytical approach to upcoming games.
On the other hand we have primarily console gamers, to whom any critical comments on an aspect (in this case, resolution) of an upcoming game is seen as simply a fanboy attempt to discredit the opposition in the "console war".
Speedymanic
Banned
brain_stew said:
Most recent footage on Live doesn't look like it 'comes with a free coating of vaseline'. That's actual gameplay footage, not cut-scenes or hudless footage.
But then you'd know this if you had watched it, I guess it's more fun to argue about something that doesn't really exist when watching actual gameplay footage on a 37" screen.
Even paused it and everything. Amazingly clear and visually stunning.
thelastword said:
You are not. In fact I hate it when videogames are so easily manipulated PR wise. But that's the grim reality and the work of the PR people. Yet, none of us has played the game so nobody knows how big of an impact the not-so-high resolution is. Might be noticable. Might not.
Yeah no. The games look best on the resolution they were made for. I have played RE4 on PC and it sure as fuck didn't look as good as the original GC version with a nice SD TV. Poor taste might naturally affect the outcome also.
I do agree on the framerate part at least.
EDIT: Read wrong, you meant RE5. Which most definately will look better on PC just because of the framerate. And did I say that any increase in resolution is bad? No.
brain_stew
Member
zoukka said:
Effects in general and the level of msaa for starters. The 360 really wasn't built to handle extensive volumetric lighting, and the fact that the first title to use it extensively has to be rendered in near SDTV resolutions delivers a pretty strong relying upon it. So that can go as well. I don't like playing in games in vaseline - o - vision, as far as I'm concerned it doesn't matter how many extra fancy effects or texture detail you throw at something if its all hidden under several layers of blur. Oh, and use a few MBs of that memory budget for triple buffering support, please.
Edit: Oh great, an apples to oranges comparison of a different game entirely, real clever of you.
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
Speedymanic said:Most recent footage on Live doesn't look like it 'comes with a free coating of vaseline'. That's actual gameplay footage, not cut-scenes or hudless footage.
But then you'd know this if you had watched it, I guess it's more fun to argue about something that doesn't really exist when watching actual gameplay footage on a 37" screen.
Even paused it and everything. Amazingly clear and visually stunning.
Your word means absolutely nothing :lol
He read on teh internetz that it's 540p therefore it must be a piece of shit looking game, his logic is flawless !
Trunchisholm
Member
DennisK4 said:
Such a terrible oversimplification... I've been a PC gamer for many many years, and still am. The fact that you don't agree with someone else's opinion in this regard, doesn't mean that I am a console fanboy. Stop with the name calling, please.
The amount of moral superiority based on the use of a given platform -the PC- is just too much to take. In this case, there's a clear trade tradeoff that has been made in terms of resolution. I like to game at high resolutions as much as any other PC gamer, but let's not forget it's 5-year old hardware they're coding for. Xenos, as good as it was back in the day, cannot even sneeze at modern GPUs.
thelastword
Banned
Why are you putting the developer on a pedestal? I'm the one buying the game....are you saying I have no say in the matter?Trunchisholm said:
I know that if I lower the resolution I can have better filtering/effects on. Following your PC analogy, I'd rather play a game at highest settings and with proper edge and texture filtering than the same game at lowest settings and ten times the resolution. Saying that there are no benefits for lowering the resolution apart from a higher framerate is pure ignorance.
Well the onus is on you to show me how a lower rez game looks better than a higher rez one, even when the lowere rez game has a bit more PP effects going on. I've played many games and I'm simply not convinced, perhaps you could show me. Do you have screenshots or a video to clarify, I don't like remaining ignorant, clearly.
pr0cs
Member
This game is sort of different though.DennisK4 said:
There are a lot of PC centric gamers who feel somehow 'slighted' that Remedy and Microsoft decided that Alan Wake should not be released on PC. This pretty much damned the game (no matter how good it is) to being nitpicked to death on it's technical flaws because it's on a less power console instead of the master race PC.
Anyone would have known the game would have looked better on PC, like most games. But that isn't the case anymore so rather than discuss what we can look forward to playing we have 10 pages of the endless dead horse beating of how the game is now technically inferior.
brain_stew
Member
chandoog said:
You do realise that every single piece of media released from Remedy has been doctored in some way, right? Why should I believe that video is representative of the game when nothing else they have released previously has been? I know what a resolution roughly equivalent to 800x600 looks like on my display, I've seen the direct captures on the very display I use to play all my games and I know how the lower rendering resolution is going to affect the image quality of the game.
ZombieSupaStar
Member
zoukka said:You are not. In fact I hate it when videogames are so easily manipulated PR wise. But that's the grim reality and the work of the PR people. Yet, none of us has played the game so nobody knows how big of an impact the not-so-high resolution is. Might be noticable. Might not.
Yeah no. The games look best on the resolution they were made for. I have played RE4 on PC and it sure as fuck didn't look as good as the original GC version with a nice SD TV. Poor taste might naturally affect the outcome also.
I do agree on the framerate part at least.
EDIT: Read wrong, you meant RE5. Which most definately will look better on PC just because of the framerate. And did I say that any increase in resolution is bad? No.
i thought the re4 pc port was based on the crappier ps2 version?
