-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Alan Wake - The First 12 Minutes (German)
- Thread starter Max@GC
- Start date
RustyNails
Member
I was browsing through N4G and the top story is Remedy confirming that the game is neither 520p nor 720p. If you ask me, I couldn't give a flying crap about native resolution. If the game looks good, it looks good.
It's disappointing that it's such a low res, but hopefully they can at least eliminate the tearing. Game still looks good and I will be picking it up. Those defending the 540p saying it doesn't matter should look here:
http://comparescreenshots.slicx.com/comparison/50143
(mouseover is 720, i switched them accidentally)
I took a random screen from the PC thread with lots of detail and downressed it to 540, then back to 720p in photoshop. Tons of detail loss and it hurts the overall image quality. It doesn't make the game look bad, but it sure doesn't look as nice.
http://comparescreenshots.slicx.com/comparison/50143
(mouseover is 720, i switched them accidentally)
I took a random screen from the PC thread with lots of detail and downressed it to 540, then back to 720p in photoshop. Tons of detail loss and it hurts the overall image quality. It doesn't make the game look bad, but it sure doesn't look as nice.
I literally realized 10 minutes ago that my eye site sucks so the resolution means dick all to me really. I can just sit 10 feet back and question the difference between 720p and 1080p, 540p and 720p, etc all day. I love epiphaniesY2Kev said:Splinter Cell is the worst looking "major" game I've played in some time. Resolution is so critical. You are losing detail. People that can't see this have very...special...eyes. 720p and nice AA (wether it be MSAA or MLAA) look so fantastic. Alan Wake being lower res than FF13 360 is a huge "" for me.
Still not sure if I'm buying this game though.
fizzelopeguss
Banned
Dax01 said:
TBH you've got a DS9 avatar
And i also remember the pages and pages of arguments ages ago where you tried to say halo 3's photo mode was what that game actually looked like. You ain't got a clue.
It sure as fuck looked better than the ps2 version which is WHAT IT'S A PORT OF.
mintylurb said:
Based off the screenshoots 540p...and it based on pre-released screenshots. This can change in the final game though. The explanation given by the dev was similiar to what some ps3 games do but in reverse where the actual geometry is rendered in HD but some of the particle effect are rendered at a quarter of the resolution to save on BW. In this case the actual geometry(what is used the determine resolution..ala pixel counting) is rendered in subHD and maybe some particle effects(smoke, sparks, etc) is rendered in HD. The HUD kind of proves the screens shots are real unless someone photoshopped a 720p HUD onto the image.
The Librarian
Banned
fizzelopeguss said:
2 Minutes Turkish
Banned
The funniest thing is the people posting comparison shots of 720 vs 540.
Guess what?
I'm betting 99.99% of 360 owners wont have 2 consoles set up on 2 screens with 2 different versions of the game running showing them how bad this game they love looks.
And also, to the pixel whiners.
No one is saying resolution doesn't matter. They're (we're) saying we don't notice the difference. If I hadn't been in this thread, I would never have known this game was sub 720.
Which is basically the point of the argument, and renders all your arguments invalid. If you CAN tell, great, don't buy the game, and live your life.
In the meantime, the rest of us wil enjoy the game and love how awesome it looks.
Guess what?
I'm betting 99.99% of 360 owners wont have 2 consoles set up on 2 screens with 2 different versions of the game running showing them how bad this game they love looks.
And also, to the pixel whiners.
No one is saying resolution doesn't matter. They're (we're) saying we don't notice the difference. If I hadn't been in this thread, I would never have known this game was sub 720.
Which is basically the point of the argument, and renders all your arguments invalid. If you CAN tell, great, don't buy the game, and live your life.
In the meantime, the rest of us wil enjoy the game and love how awesome it looks.
mentalfloss
Banned
nilam01 said:
The difference is so minimal it would be irrelevent to my enjoyment of the game. But to each their own. I'm part of the problem.
REMEMBER CITADEL
Banned
chubigans said:
Do I really have to explain?
Forget the grabs I posted, they were just randomly picked from Gamersyde's "First 10 minutes" video grab galleries. The point is that some people (not a lot of them, but as it usually goes, they're extremely vocal about it) keep complaining about the possible blurriness, when we all know that many PS3 games look rather soft compared to their Xbox 360 counterparts thanks to QAA and blur filters that are sometimes used instead of proper AA - yet people keep buying, loving and praising them (and rightfully so).
We all know that Guerilla chose the soft look for Killzone 2 both as an artistic choice and to complement the strengths of its engine (and rightfully so), yet it's somehow preposterous to think that another developer could decide to do the same for its highly atmospheric game.
We all know that people masturbated vigorously over MGS4's sub-HD visuals (and rightfully so), yet apparently it's impossible for another sub-HD game to look good and be a technological marvel.
We all know that video grabs are not really a good representation of a game's looks - and screens are not always a good representation of what a game looks like in motion - yet video grabs are used repeatedly as some kind of proof that Alan Wake looks bad and even as a proof that all officially released material was doctored! (Unless there are some actual devkit direct feed shots around here somewhere - I didn't see them, but I skipped over some pages.)
And then there are the hilariously one-sided pleas to "account for the whole package", serious warnings about artifacts on that Killzone 2 grab, while obvious artifacts on Alan Wake grabs are being ignored, unsubstantiated claims, half-informed tech talk and so on.
This thread is so full of hypocrisy and just plain ridonculousness that it boggles the mind. Well, it would if I wasn't already fully expecting such things from this place. Threads such as this one are a constant source of amusement, but also depressing bewilderment.
2 Minutes Turkish
Banned
REMEMBER CITADEL said:
You just spoiled the fun with your stupid logic and reality speak.
Revolutionary
Member
Why are you being so defensive? This has happened to several games in the past few years, on this very forum, and will continue to happen as long as games are released at sub-HD resolutions when they are advertised to be higher.2 Minutes Turkish said:
No need to be up in arms about it with the "take it or leave it" argument.
jett said:Man AC2 on the PC has much better looking textures than what I played on the PS3.While we are on the AC2 topic, when you force 1080p on the PS3 version the game actually defaults to 960x540, and the blurriness is quite noticeable.
1080p? is that a new phone or something?
Oh, so you were serious. Well...
The blurry screencaps you posted...look at the HUD. It's also blurry. Now look at the HUD of the 540p screenshots of Alan Wake. It's not blurry. Therefore, it's a direct feed screen or something very close to it. Video quality is not to blame for this. At all.
I'd love to know what the obvious artifacts on Alan Wake are, aside from the badly compressed trailer making the rounds. I dont think anyone is talking about those screenshots.
Ok...REMEMBER CITADEL said:
Having a soft look at 720p is INCREDIBLY DIFFERENT than having a soft look at 540p. You do not artistically choose a soft look by scaling down to 540p. There are other much better methods than that.
The blurry screencaps you posted...look at the HUD. It's also blurry. Now look at the HUD of the 540p screenshots of Alan Wake. It's not blurry. Therefore, it's a direct feed screen or something very close to it. Video quality is not to blame for this. At all.
I'd love to know what the obvious artifacts on Alan Wake are, aside from the badly compressed trailer making the rounds. I dont think anyone is talking about those screenshots.
It might have been be an artistic choice on behalf of Guerilla, but -if it is confirmed it's sub HD- going with the resolution they -allegedly- went into for AW must habe been a technical necessity for Remedy. They must have considered the trade-off worth it in chosing to lower it in favor of other visual goodies. Just wanted to react on that...Not taking from the OBVIOUS visual qualities of the title, of course.
2 Minutes Turkish
Banned
Revolutionary said:
Why not though?
So one argument is ok to make and another isn't? I see how this works.
So it's cool for people to whine about something 99% of gamers won't notice, but when the 99% argue back that no one will notice or give a shit, they're suddenly defensive and shouldn't say anything?
Awesome.
I don't quite understand how folks buying softer looking ps3 games has anything to do with this current discussion..Oh, wait..you are saying in a roundabout way that those who are making an issue out of AW's blurriness are actually ps3 fans. I didn't know brain_stew and WickedLaharl were such big ps3 fans!REMEMBER CITADEL said:
Man, you were being serious. :lolREMEMBER CITADEL said:
Anyway, the game looks good for an open world game. I just hope the game runs rock solid at 30fps with minimal tearing..
540p huh :/
I wonder what happened , I really don't think it's the 360 limitations since Assassin's Creed 2 , GTA4 , Condemned 2 ,Metro 2033 all do 720p native and looking just as good imo , and I didn't see anything that special or different in Alan Wake ( well according to the 12 mins video ) that can cause this.
I don't know if it's because the game was lead on PC ( and as open world game ) so it's not optimized to take advantage of 360 powers or because it's their first game on a console, but then again MGS should have helped them if they have any problems with it I guess.
I wonder what happened , I really don't think it's the 360 limitations since Assassin's Creed 2 , GTA4 , Condemned 2 ,Metro 2033 all do 720p native and looking just as good imo , and I didn't see anything that special or different in Alan Wake ( well according to the 12 mins video ) that can cause this.
I don't know if it's because the game was lead on PC ( and as open world game ) so it's not optimized to take advantage of 360 powers or because it's their first game on a console, but then again MGS should have helped them if they have any problems with it I guess.
REMEMBER CITADEL
Banned
chubigans said:
Actually, it very much depends on video quality. The HUD is not that blurry in these either, for instance, and they are definitely video grabs.
These are obviously badly compressed. I see that there are also these, which are definitely better (and with a single exception, they look pretty good), but I don't think we can tell with certainty whether they are direct feed screens or just grabs from a better compressed video. The HUD still doesn't look entirely crisp to me, for instance.
Pistolero said:
And why couldn't have it been like "well, we are going for the softer, dreamy look for this game so we might as well go with the lower resolution in order to make room for more effects"? Does it really matter what the reason is if the results look good in the end?
(By the way, this is not strictly about Alan Wake, but why do you think Killzone 2's soft look was entirely an artistic decision? Just because the game is in 720p, doesn't mean that softness doesn't also accentuate the game's strengths and hide its weaknesses. It's not like we have any other game on that engine to compare it to.)
REMEMBER CITADEL
Banned
mintylurb said:
It's still built on open-world tech. I think Blim talked about that, but I'm not sure if it was in this thread.
LordPhoque
Banned
Totobeni said:
Now Condemned 2, GTA IV and AC2 are all looking as good as AW. I've always seen you trolling non PS3 games thread, but I must admit this one is top notch troll. And for god sake, this kind of post is just ridiculous when you know that AW is the best looking game on 360 by far. Stop liking like it's a technical disappointment or something, it's just silly.
Anyway, REMEMBER CITADEL nailed it to me. Except that I'm still skeptical about the game being 540p. Not that it would bother me that much, but still, in Remedy I trust.
LordPhoque
Banned
Jigsaw said:
Alan Wake takes place in both night and day time. And you do notice jaggies whatever the situation is, see SCC. And if the game is truly 540p, nothing tells you that it's because they used 4XAA. It can be achieved with a 720p native resolution, many games proved that.
LegendofJoe
Member
Why in the world is this thread so big? Is the video really that impressive and/or controversial?
LordPhoque
Banned
LegendofJoe said:
Video is really impressive. But at this point, nobody is talking about it anymore.
riceandbeans
Member
LegendofJoe said:
Nope. Just drama queens carrying this on...
2 Minutes Turkish
Banned
LegendofJoe said:
Depends on how controversial you consider 18 less pixels than advertsied to be.
brotkasten
Member
LegendofJoe said:
No one knew that the game looks horrible, but then someone finally counted the pixels.
2 Minutes Turkish
Banned
jett said:
Well it depends.
Some people view covering up low poly models and average textures 'cheating'. What do you do.
Red Blaster
Member
TEH-CJ said:
First party title. It'd likely be under 480p on PS3 also.