Why are people surprised? First game that used this tech was released in 2008 ...
-
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.
Call of Duty: Advanced Warfare Xbox One resolution at least 1360x1080
- Thread starter bombshell
- Start date
Why are people surprised? First game that used this tech was released in 2008 ...
In terms of numbers it is but it's quite different to feed a 1080p panel a 1380*1080 signal than a 1024*576 one. I bet the difference in IQ will be less noticeable in the former (especially with the better scaling due to the 1080 vertical res) but I guess we'll have to wait and see the DF comparison to be sure.
aygomyownroad
Member
I am Okay with this. After Ghosts 720P crap, I am glad we have a 900P minimum game.
Shpeshal Nick
aka Collingwood
I just played it today on bone and I think I could tell which scenes were 1360. Still looked great.
Phat Michael
Banned
yep. see no problem with this. If you have to work within the confines of your hardware, then do it this way so the framerate doesnt chug.
It really is. This way you st least get the full native vertical resolution with a wider pixel which displays better than scaling the pixel both vertiCal and horizontal.
Always-honest
Banned
Honestly, great that they achieved this for XboxOne owners.
I don't like dynamic resolution at all. From my experience with Tekken Tag tournament 2, Ninja Gaiden 3 Razor's edge, IQ gets blurry and shitted up everytime there's a little stressing of the engine on scene. Not ideal.
Good thing the PS4 version is solid though.
Good thing the PS4 version is solid though.
Those were last gen games where the resolution dipped below 720p.
CoD on XB1 is above 900p at all times. It's not gonna look blurry.
It isn't a simple case of not having to do vertical scaling. You're also doing twice the amount of horizontal scaling than you would at 1600x900. You just get twice the horizontal artifacting in exchange for no vertical artifacting.
You are going to notice the upscaling though, that is not in question. The only question is whether or not its a tolerable compromise to the user to the point where it isn't an issue.
I'd rather the developer optimize the game at a fixed resolution and a stable framerate instead of dynamic res. Its less to do about COD for me and more about consistency in the visuals and presentation. That shit just drives me insane because i do notice.
Gabotron ES
Member
Considering how good this look compared to Ghosts I'm impressed lol
Edit: I think KZ. Shadowfall did something similar to this, am I right?
Edit: I think KZ. Shadowfall did something similar to this, am I right?
Earthpainting
Member
What is the practical difference between 1360x1080 and the usual 1600x900? Is there a benefit to respecting the horizontal axis, or will this result in a similar type of blurriness when everything is scaled up to full 1080?
Surely you can agree that momentarily blurry image quality is preferable to dropped frames, though, right?
Also, since these new games are above 720p the drops in resolution aren't going to be as severe.
i own both..but would buy it on the xbox one, because of the online infrastructure..
No, they did something smarter but whether it's produces a better result is questionable, particularly when it still didn't reach solid 60fps
Jawbreaker
Member
I could notice it while playing Wipeout on the PS3 and it was a bit annoying, but since it was such a fast-paced game and happened so infrequently, it didn't bother me too much.
How often does it switch in this game?
How often does it switch in this game?
This sounds forced. You do know what the threads about right?
If it keeps consistency in the controller response, i would take dynamic res over dropped frames if there was a gun held to my head, but that would only be if the otherwise drop in framerate was so huge it necessitated this dynamic res. If your 60 going to 55 or even 50 only every once in a while, i would not take dynamic res over consistency in the visuals. But if your going down to 40 or 30 consistently, i would take dynamic res as a compromise.
Of course, we don't know the state of the original XB1 version which necessitated this change to dynamic res.
No, they switched out transitional frames using the in between pixels to artificially boost image quality to something resembling the original framebuffer.
If they were having such an issue getting to 60(which they still dont in KZSF), i would have preferred them just lock singleplayer to 30 and multi to 30 and just use 1080p original framebuffer.
30fps as a framerate is no different from the previous KZ games to begin with and they were fine, so i didn't see why they felt the need along with the boost in visuals to lie about 60fps when they could not hit the target. Just be honest and say you couldn't do it or that it was fine as it was already.
Except it is?
The SP uses traditional 1080P rendering and it gives you the option to lock it at 30 if you want, it's the MP that uses the trick to increase the framerate and it is much higher than 30FPS, BF4 has a very similar framerate and that was fine with everyone (since no one called them out and suggested they use 30FPS instead because they couldn't hold 60FPS). This trick is why the MP runs at a higher FPS at similar visual quality. It's a neat trick and it's much more complex than simply "reusing old frame to fill the gaps and create a new image", it's not artificially boosting image quality since there is actual computation done to guess the approximate location of the new pixels.
It has very few drawbacks since it looks clean as a 1080P image all the time with minor artifacts when moving (especially on your gun) which is very easy to miss in a multiplayer, especially when playing 4-5 feet away from a screen. My friend who is not aware of resolution and tech in games found the MP better looking than SP because of the higher framerate, the common user would not notice the artifact but would definitely notice the increase in framerate or a sub native resolution even if subconsciously.
You misunderstood me. I meant that 30fps is the same framerate as the previous games anyway. So if they could not reach anywhere near a consistent 60 like they said they could before the game came out, they should have simply owned up it it and made it locked 30 and bypassed all that unnecessary work around with trying to get some approximation of 1080p in multi.
I don't think anyone would have complained if Guerrilla had just said "30fps is our safe zone, we're trying to push the visuals like our other KZ games." Trying to act like you can get to 60 even though you can't is just misleading to the userbase. Its the same with Evolution studios going back and forth about 60 versus 30 even though they knew they could never reach 60 with those visuals with what they were packing in the game.
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
Good on them for managing to bring it closer to the PS4 version.
If more companies do these dynamic framebuffers, it would be pretty good in the overall scheme for Xbone owners .. the resolution would drop in hectic scenarios where the player probably doesn't have enough time to stand still and look around, and go back up to native 1080p during calmer moments, all without compromising performance.
win win for all.
If more companies do these dynamic framebuffers, it would be pretty good in the overall scheme for Xbone owners .. the resolution would drop in hectic scenarios where the player probably doesn't have enough time to stand still and look around, and go back up to native 1080p during calmer moments, all without compromising performance.
win win for all.
Diablohead
Member
I don't mind dynamic resolutions as long as it doesn't end up going down to extreme and tiny numbers just because it can, I would hate to see 960x1080 for example, ugh.
Metro interview...
http://metro.co.uk/2014/11/03/cod-a...ew-fans-were-demanding-something-new-4932358/
GC: OK, well from a real world controversy to a very specifically games-related one: resolution.
MC: [laughs] I can tell you the frame rate is rock solid on both Xbox One and PlayStation 4, 60 frames per second. Thats kind of the heart and soul of Call Of Duty. Youve probably heard that for years, right? PS4 runs at 1080p and Xbox One runs at 1080 scalable. Which will scale from 1360 all the way up to true 1080. So 1360×1080 up to 1920×1080.
GC: Is that dependent on the game mode?
MC: Thats dependent on the performance hit of the scene
GC: Oh, so its changing in real-time?
MC: In real-time, yes. On a frame by frame basis. So Xbox One at times will run at true 1080 and sometimes itll run at 1360×1080 and scale in between those two marks. Its minimum threshold is 1360×1080 but the majority of time it runs above that. And 1360×1080 as the low bar is 50 per cent higher resolution than Ghosts at 900.
GC: Oh, that seems very clever. Ive never heard of that before. And weve been playing on Xbox Ones with the multiplayer here [PlayStation 4s were used for the single-player GC] and I dont think anybodys noticed any variation.
MC: Somebody will tell you they see it. My old eyes dont but its still a big advancement for us.
GC: But thats very interesting. Because of course the big conspiracy at the moment is that Microsoft are leaning on developers to lower the resolution on the PlayStaiton 4 version to maintain parity that way. But thats obviously not happened here, even though you have a DLC deal with Microsoft.
MC: Its not something Ive heard of at a Sledgehammer level.
GC: Have you ever heard of anything like that happening anywhere in the industry?
MC: In my experience of developers we all want to get every ounce of power out of those systems, and so Microsoft has helped push and leant support and helped make the game the best it could be. But no, its certainly not a conversation Ive ever been a part of.
http://metro.co.uk/2014/11/03/cod-a...ew-fans-were-demanding-something-new-4932358/
GC: OK, well from a real world controversy to a very specifically games-related one: resolution.
MC: [laughs] I can tell you the frame rate is rock solid on both Xbox One and PlayStation 4, 60 frames per second. Thats kind of the heart and soul of Call Of Duty. Youve probably heard that for years, right? PS4 runs at 1080p and Xbox One runs at 1080 scalable. Which will scale from 1360 all the way up to true 1080. So 1360×1080 up to 1920×1080.
GC: Is that dependent on the game mode?
MC: Thats dependent on the performance hit of the scene
GC: Oh, so its changing in real-time?
MC: In real-time, yes. On a frame by frame basis. So Xbox One at times will run at true 1080 and sometimes itll run at 1360×1080 and scale in between those two marks. Its minimum threshold is 1360×1080 but the majority of time it runs above that. And 1360×1080 as the low bar is 50 per cent higher resolution than Ghosts at 900.
GC: Oh, that seems very clever. Ive never heard of that before. And weve been playing on Xbox Ones with the multiplayer here [PlayStation 4s were used for the single-player GC] and I dont think anybodys noticed any variation.
MC: Somebody will tell you they see it. My old eyes dont but its still a big advancement for us.
GC: But thats very interesting. Because of course the big conspiracy at the moment is that Microsoft are leaning on developers to lower the resolution on the PlayStaiton 4 version to maintain parity that way. But thats obviously not happened here, even though you have a DLC deal with Microsoft.
MC: Its not something Ive heard of at a Sledgehammer level.
GC: Have you ever heard of anything like that happening anywhere in the industry?
MC: In my experience of developers we all want to get every ounce of power out of those systems, and so Microsoft has helped push and leant support and helped make the game the best it could be. But no, its certainly not a conversation Ive ever been a part of.
Yup especially for a game like this.
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
Wolfenstein, Rage, there's a few racing games like Wipeout that did it on PS3.
There may be other examples I can't recall right now, but its not an unheard of practice.
edit: you can see a potential list here:
http://forum.beyond3d.com/showthread.php?t=46241
Black ops 2 on PS3 did it too apparently.
It does.
Lockjaw333
Member
This to me sounds like a really clever solution to what will be an ongoing problem this gen. This souds like a much better option to me than choosing 900p.
I haven't seen it in action, but I would assume that at least always having native res on the vertical plane would help improve IQ quite a bit over just using 900p.
Hopefully more games start using this trick moving forward.
I haven't seen it in action, but I would assume that at least always having native res on the vertical plane would help improve IQ quite a bit over just using 900p.
Hopefully more games start using this trick moving forward.
Brerlappin
Member
As a PC gamer the notion of a game lowering its resolution on the fly just to save a few FPS is abhorrent. Either make the game run 1080p60 or don't bother. 'Dynamic resolution' is just a bs term for "the console cant do 1080p60 so well have an inconsistent resolution instead"
wait, what?
we've been through a full year of "60fps or don't even bother releasing it" threads, and now this shit?
for people who play games, it seems like a smooth experience is by far the most important
SerTapTap
Member
Unfortunately it'd probably be a much bigger deal to press/casuals if they actually decreased things like shadows, model detail, textures ect, because it'd make for really bad comparison screenshots. Though personally this sounds better than inconsistently dropping framerate or consistently dropping res. But if it were up to me to tweak the settings on PC, I'd kill whatever to get native res @ 60FPS
Pretty sure he means drop stuff that isn't res or framerate. I think a lot of PC gamers will gladly drop almost anything before FPS and framerate. So it's kinda weird that there's this power gap on console and they don't just use the "Medium" shadows/models/whatever. But like I said, it'd look bad side to side more obviously in still shots.
justsomeguy
Member
So why even bother posting in a thread that's for console gamers?
Absurd.
Every game has varying levels of performance demand. You can always tax an engine to harm performance. You choose to look at it like diminishing the quality to maintain performance, that's just a view point. It's as much that as it is increasing a base-level of quality when performance eases up.
They could choose to neglect that surplus performance, but that's not objectively better.
Personally, I'd rather have a consistent IQ than a shifting one, but that is just that, a preference.
samurai1226
Member
Bought it on Xbox One for splitscreen, otherwise i would have bought the pc version. Started playing for half an hour at midnight at the mp looked really sharp to me. No noticable alaising or anything like that, nothing like Titanfall.
Seems like their engine is doing that scaling pretty well and the constant 60fps felt so great in mp!
Seems like their engine is doing that scaling pretty well and the constant 60fps felt so great in mp!
the pc gamers who do that are chasing a number. visual effects are more important to making the experience than just resolution. development of a game involves a lot of choices, but if you have to choose between shadows+hq textures+ detailed models, I'd rather have those than a few extra pixels.
I've only played the multiplayer so far (on X1) but it looked sharp and ran smoothly. Ghosts on any platform last year looked like trash, from what I've seen I think they made the right call.
artsi
Member
Personally I'd rather take dynamic resolution than a jumping framerate or constantly bad resolution.
J
JoJo UK
Unconfirmed Member
Sounds like a great compromise, better to upscale once rather than on the horizontal & vertical, I'll be playing this later today when I get home.
I wonder what Ubisoft are saying right about now...
I wonder what Ubisoft are saying right about now...
Leafhopper
Banned
We getting there.
I have a hard time understanding some of the negativity concerning dynamic 1360-1920x1080. Unless you´ve been living under a rock every core gamer by now should know PS4 multiplatforms are and for the duration of this generation will almost always be technically superior due to the power gap between the consoles. Casual gamers on the other hand don´t care anyway.
This dynamic 1080P solution isn´t a bad thing, it´s literally the best possible scenario in a multiplatform game. It looks better than fixed 900P and during scenes where the load isn´t heavy it can sometimes even be identical to the PS4 version. Sledgehammer should be commended for making such a superb XBO version. This is a day and night difference compared to what Ghosts looked like. I just played AW for the first time expecting it to be 900P and was surprised how good the IQ was. Actually my first thought was that this doesn´t look native 1080P at all times, but this isn´t fixed 900P either. Impressive engineering! Very happy with this as an XBO owner.
This dynamic 1080P solution isn´t a bad thing, it´s literally the best possible scenario in a multiplatform game. It looks better than fixed 900P and during scenes where the load isn´t heavy it can sometimes even be identical to the PS4 version. Sledgehammer should be commended for making such a superb XBO version. This is a day and night difference compared to what Ghosts looked like. I just played AW for the first time expecting it to be 900P and was surprised how good the IQ was. Actually my first thought was that this doesn´t look native 1080P at all times, but this isn´t fixed 900P either. Impressive engineering! Very happy with this as an XBO owner.
Similar threads
- Poll