Support NeoGAF

[GHG]

The majority of vita games aren't native resolution. Who owns a vita and enjoys games on it?

What's your point?

DF has never been about enjoyment.

Its always been about Framerate and IQ... At least until this Gen came around.

 

[BruceLeeRoy]

Those games have like little to no AA, right? Maybe you confuse edge smoothing with "softness."

But I do notice the lack of AA on both of those.

 

[Curufinwe]

The comments on this article are gold, particularly the one comparing a DF to a chocolate teapot.

 

[Valkyria]

Digital Foundry a web created to analyse the differences in resolution and such on games last gen.

This gen: resolution does not matter for reasons.

Yeaaaah sure. So maybe they should close the web. I'm sure they can ask polygon for other sources of financing.

 

[Dictator93]

But I do notice the lack of AA on both of those.

Then I have no idea mate. lol

False Gods?

 

[nynt9]

I think you're the one not understanding 'the issue' here. Its mostly about how developers choose to improve visuals with a fixed power budget. Reducing pixel count(resolution) is one obvious way of freeing up resources to push the graphics and the best looking games on both platforms use this to obviously very impressive effect.

Nobody is saying resolution doesn't make a difference, but its a question of is it worth prioritizing at the expense of pushing the graphics?

I think its an interesting question to ask.

Yes but there are different ways to reduce pixel count and they result in vastly different IQ so listing them together is poor argumentation.

I'd even argue that 900p and "1080pr" are different as they produce different image types with different artifacts.

If we're having an honest discussion about image quality, there is no reason (other than arguing in bad faith) to lump different methods to maximize your pixel budget that produce significantly different types of results.

 

[shandy706]

I'm fine with res drops on consoles to hit the developers target/idea. It doesn't matter to me as long as the game delivers.

At the same time, I downsample most of my PC games. Not a single PS4, X1, or Wii U game can touch my PC's IQ, but it has no effect on my interest in exclusives and/or a good deal on a console game.

 

[michaelius]

Hmm if I remember articles from DF in ps3/x360 times resolution mattered quite a lot.

I wonder what have changed...

 

[Marlenus]

What? It's plain as day to the naked eye. I'm baffled that you're even questioning it.

Compare the difference between 480p and 720p to 1080p versus 2160p. In the second case the difference is much much larger, mathematically, but in real world conditions the jump from 480p to 720p appears much greater.

Besides, in cases of 600p or what not you usually had double scaling in effect - 600p to 720p and again to 1080p by the display. That just worsens the effect in most cases.

Well 480p to 720p requires interpolation but 1080p to 2160p does not depending on the scaling method used so the latter is going to give a sharper looking image. You of all people should know this.

As far as the latter point it would be a much fairer test to compare scaling to 720p on a native 720p screen to avoid that double scaling effect because what you are essentially saying is that scaling from 600p to 1080p looks worse than 900p to 1080p and that is a no shit statement.

 

[Synth]

He does allude to scaling though. He speculates whether these games would look better at 1080p.

Ryse would and we can see it on PC. If there were to be a PC version of The Order in hypothetical land, getting rid of the black bars would not improve picture quality. You just now have a bigger view.

I guess. I would imagine that a game with identical image quality, but no bordering would probably count as looking better to many people as well ("I have a 16:9 monitor, I should be seeing a 16:9 image" would probably be a similar arguement to the native res one, if the same game released with the X1 version having bars instead of a resolution drop). In both cases though, the tradeoff in pixel count is part of the reason each game is able to look the way it does. If either of them opted for 1080p native instead, then there would have been other graphical sacrifices, that many of us probably wouldn't prefer.

Those games have like little to no AA, right? Maybe you confuse edge smoothing with "softness."

I wouldn't actually consider that a confusion tbh... that's basically what edge smoothing is.

With that said though, if you don't notice Bayo 2 or MK8 as not being 1080p, then you're probably not very resolution sensitive at all.

 

[Joey Ravn]

People in this thread are actually, actively saying that the difference between 1080p and 4K is unnoticeable? Really? That there's literally no difference between 1080p one time and 1080p four times?

My mind is shattered, blown, drawn and quartered. Consoles are definitely not for me.

 

[DeSo]

Oh how the mighty have fallen.

 

[icecold1983]

Then I have no idea mate. lol

False Gods?

probably due to a complete lack of post processing. wii u games all look terrible.

 

[Dizzy]

Of course it is. Just like it was last gen when a smaller resolution difference = "omg do not buy this on ps3 because it looks so bad!!!1"


Funny how some people are so determined to downplay differences now that the consoles have switched positions.

 

[FullMetaltech]

I know of the difference, own both consoles, and still buy most multiplatform games on X1.

If resolution was such a big deal for me I would put more emphasis in returning to PC gaming. My friends all own X1, even in single player games the new acheivements leaderboard adds a degree of competition.

I respect that. It shows your a smart consumer and based your decisons on many factors. Not alot of people will do that though.

 

[benny_a]

probably due to a complete lack of post processing. wii u games all look terrible.

I think Mario Kart 8 looks great.

 

[Jedi2016]

It matters to me, and that's all that matters.

 

[hengyu]

Oh how the mighty have fallen.

They already have since that verdict that Watch_Dogs had a decent port + no downgrades or something.

 

[Cynn]

So a thing just happened to me recently that has me questioning the whole resolution thing.

When I played Sunset Overdrive and Ryse I could immediately tell they were softer than KZ and Infamous. They didn't have a crispness about them.

However, I just found out recently that Bayonetta 2 and Mario Kart aren't 1080p and that has kind of shattered my religion. I would have bet money they were both 1080.

A lot of Wii U games lack AA. It makes them sharper.

 

[BruceLeeRoy]

Then I have no idea mate. lol

False Gods?

Haha I need your help Dicator your the only one that can help me.
Do you guys notice it immediately with those games?

 

[Zukuu]

I thought this was a joke article and would consist of a single word. "Yes" lol

 

[CloverCarr]

In the meantime, perhaps the biggest takeaway from the survey data is that it's the Wii U owners that are having the most fun from their gaming hardware...

Um, that's not what the survey was asking. It asked why you bought something, not how you felt about it afterwards. I'm surprised the author made such a simple mistake.

 

[gelf]

Of course it is. Just like it was last gen when a smaller resolution difference = "omg do not buy this on ps3 because it looks so bad!!!1"


Funny how some people are so determined to downplay differences now that the consoles have switched positions.

I don't recall DF ever being that strong about its comparisons back then. It was usually just "we give the nod to the 360 version but you'll be fine with either". Barring some bad examples like Bayonetta and that was a framerate issue mostly.

 

[Synth]

I don't recall DF ever being that strong about its comparisons back then.

Yea, but that's how people remember it.

 

[i-Lo]

You know that xbox one games are all displayed at 1080p right?

 

[RedAssedApe]

they putting themselves out of a job lol

 

[CozMick]

You know that xbox one games are all displayed at 1080p right?

iunderstoodthatreference.jpg

 

[ironcreed]

Not to me. I would rather have better textures, more effects and smoother gameplay if sacrificing resolution a bit means I will get it. All of the above is of course preferable, but I still don't split hairs when it comes to something like 900p vs 1080p. Games can and often do end up looking absolutely gorgeous at sub-1080p and I am good with that.

 

[staticneuron]

Art Style > Framerate > Resolution

If the game is at least 720p/60FPS on the consoles, I'm fine with it. I was kinda disappointed, that not all games could reach 1080p/60FPS this gen, but at this point I don't really care anymore.

Well if you compare the same game at two different resolutions it is night and day. GTAV and TLOUR is a big example of that for me.

If it is the first time experiencing something then I agree with your assessment. If you have something to compare against then it is a toss up. It depends on how bad the framerate drop is on the high res version. I am perfectly ok with 1080p/30FPS. I can barely not ice the difference between 30 and 60 FPS without a direct comparison and personally don't feel all games even require 60 FPS.

 

[Refreshment.01]

This, please. It's very sad when infamous authors aren't allowed to start reasonable discussions just because of what they've written in the past.

Double standards are a very serious problem, we could be talking about something as trivial or harmless as ice cream flavors. The issue doesn't matter, the conduct should be pointed and punished accordingly.

Resolution differences during the 7th generation, which were substantially less than the ones during the 8th one, were giving relevance and used to judge games to declare which was the better technical version.

A lot of Wii U games lack AA. It makes them sharper.

It depends on the AA technique. Post process AA is the one that tends to create blurred image elements or shimmering. Good AA makes for a cleaner and smoother image. Non AA games at lower resolution than the native display tend to exhibit jaged edges, i wouldn't call that a "sharper image".

 

[farisr]

I usually oppose the "this guy has an agenda/this apparent bias" type shit, but man leadbetter sure makes it really hard to do so.

It's just so apparent.

 

[CozMick]

I wonder what Leadbetter would think if Uncharted 4 was the visual benchmark but 720p?

 

[GifGafIsTheBestGaf]

man, is like watching a puppet show

 

[ambar_hitman]

Leadbetter should just join Microsoft.

 

[BriGuy]

I thought this was a joke article and would consist of a single word. "Yes" lol

Reminds me of this article from National Geographic a few years back:

Anyway, put me in same camp that believes this article wouldn't even exist if the consoles' situations were reversed.

 

[Seanspeed]

Yes but there are different ways to reduce pixel count and they result in vastly different IQ so listing them together is poor argumentation.

I'd even argue that 900p and "1080pr" are different as they produce different image types with different artifacts.

If we're having an honest discussion about image quality, there is no reason (other than arguing in bad faith) to lump different methods to maximize your pixel budget that produce significantly different types of results.

This isn't a discussion about image quality, though.

 

[Seanspeed]

People in this thread are actually, actively saying that the difference between 1080p and 4K is unnoticeable? Really? That there's literally no difference between 1080p one time and 1080p four times?

My mind is shattered, blown, drawn and quartered. Consoles are definitely not for me.

I'm not seeing anybody who said that, so not sure what you're talking about.

 

[News Bot]

Even on smaller monitors, the difference in resolution is very noticeable. The whole "depending on TV size" thing is pretty much bullshit.

 

[Seanspeed]

Even on smaller monitors, the difference in resolution is very noticeable. The whole "depending on TV size" thing is pretty much bullshit.

Is it factually correct.

 

[icecold1983]

Double standards are a very serious problem, we could be talking about something as trivial or harmless as ice cream flavors. The issue doesn't matter, the conduct should be pointed and punished accordingly.

Resolution differences during the 7th generation, which were substantially less than the ones during the 8th one, were giving relevance and used to judge games to declare which was the better technical version.

It depends on the AA technique. Post process AA is the one that tends to create blurred image elements or shimmering. Good AA makes for a cleaner and smoother image. Non AA games at lower resolution than the native display tend to exhibit jaged edges, i wouldn't call that a "sharper image".

even msaa results in some blurriness compared to no aa.

 

[Synth]

The whole "depending on TV size" thing is pretty much bullshit.

It's not though, and the reasons should be so obvious that I'm surprised it ever gets challenged. Smaller screens mean smaller pixels at the same resolution. At some point those pixels are going to become smaller than your eyes can discern. This will happen ealier on a 32" screen than on a 65" screen... and much earlier on a 5" phone screen...

Seriously, think about what you're saying here.

 

[EGM1966]

It's an interesting article but I believe it comes across flawed and miss interprets some key elements.

Most particularly it seems to argue the market is perhaps focusing on the wrong metrics (1080p vs say frame rate) which might makes sense from an enthusiast point of view but gets tangled up in seeming to imply the market is backing wrong console as a result.

I just find a lot of his writing tonally odd this gen.

 

[GHG]

Is it factually correct.

How so?

Its a theory that assumes everyone sees things in exactly the same way.

 

[Doctor_Thomas]

If Digital Foundary are going to dismiss an important technical aspect as unimportant, then DF are functionally useless.

 

[SEGAvangelist]

Even on smaller monitors, the difference in resolution is very noticeable. The whole "depending on TV size" thing is pretty much bullshit.

You have to factor tv size AND viewing distance into the equation. It makes perfect sense. That said, I sit 4-5 feet away from a 50 inch tv, so I'm fairly sensitive to resolution differences. I didn't notice Dying Light wasn't 1080p on XB1 immediately, though.

 

[Markitron]

In DF threads I usually post something along the lines of 'It appears they are biased, even if I don't believe it myself'.

Now I actually do believe it. They had articles attacking The Order and Infamous because they don't have next-gen gameplay, why single these games out?

 

[Final Verdict]

Hmm, well this is interesting..

I am an X1 owner, and to me resolution does matter, but not to a defining degree.
I think that 900p is close enough to 1080p to be negligible, but I can tell the difference between 1080 and 720 quite easily...

But anyways, the most important thing I think is that both versions of a game run the same assets, and have good frame rates...

Also I will say that things like bad draw distance bother me a whole lot more than the resolution....I still haven't played an open wold game that does not have these issues..

 

[nib95]

This isn't a discussion about image quality, though.

Resolution is a large component of overall image quality. No 720p game this generation is going to be regarded as the visual benchmark, even if it does look amazing. At 720p, because of the large amount of scaling necessary producing blur, pixel artefacting etc, much of the effort that has gone in to art, high resolution textures, complex and finite geometry etc, is lost. Not saying a 720p game can't look great (we've had many great looking 720p games), but resolution differences do make an appreciable difference to overall image quality, notably if your set is native 1080p, worse still if your set is a higher native resolution than even that.

 

[nynt9]

This isn't a discussion about image quality, though.

It's only not a discussion about image quality because DF are arguing in bad faith. In the article they mention image quality metrics several times but then say "it doesn't matter that the Xbone has less visual fidelity because reasons".

The article truly has little point and is rather clearly disingenuous in favor of propping up one system. They just make subjective claims to dismiss objective differences without citing any reason that could actually be used to dismiss those differences, like PPI, human eye resolution, etc.

It's a sloppy article which feels like written as a kneejerk response due to misinterpretation of the Nielsen poll and uses poor/dishonest argumentation to handwave away factual differences without using any available legitimate methods that could have been used to do the same thing.

I'm completely done with digital foundry at this point. They've showed their hand. We should just post this article as fist comment in every future DF thread then lock it, if this is their take on the situation.

 

[TheChewyWaffles]

Not according to that recent survey, Playstation 4 owners had resolution as their number one priority for buying the console.

What survey? Only hardcore gamers would take a survey like that. It's gonna skew results.