Support NeoGAF

[Durante]

That's a bit of a weak article for a site purportedly dedicated to technical analysis. With a title like this, I'd at the very least expect some in-depth information on the human perceptive apparatus, the frequency space of images and video and how to distinguish between good high-frequency detail and undesired noise, or an in-depth analysis of the objective and perceptual trade-off between heavy post-AA methods and lower/higher resolution.

Of course, the one article I started to write for DF got rejected on grounds of being too technical

 

[impact]

no kennyS plays on 1024 black bars

But seriously I think for competitive games it's all about performance, for single player or co-op I like my stuff to look nice. CoD teams handle this really well I think, well for consoles. On PC I start at native resolution and work the rest of my settings around that.

 

[madmackem]

Another reality check hopefully for the world. Resolution has never been such an issue until this generation. It's embarrassing. 1080p was available last gen for pc players but no one seemed to care. Biggest load of bollox this gen and I think games are suffering because of it

Utter horse shit, it was always brought up in Df articles it's always been important. It was alway brought up by Df if PS3 had a lower res than the 360 counter part.

 

[Nev]

Another reality check hopefully for the world. Resolution has never been such an issue until this generation. It's embarrassing. 1080p was available last gen for pc players but no one seemed to care. Biggest load of bollox this gen and I think games are suffering because of it

Are you being remotely serious? I remember lower resolution in PS3 CoD games alone compared to 360 being the end of the world.

 

[omonimo]

That's a bit of a weak article for a site purportedly dedicated to technical analysis. With a title like this, I'd at the very least expect some in-depth information on the human perceptive apparatus, the frequency space of images and video and how to distinguish between good high-frequency detail and undesired noise, or an in-depth analysis of the objective and perceptual trade-off between heavy post-AA methods and lower/higher resolution.

Of course, the one article I started to write for DF got rejected on grounds of being too technical

The purpose of the article it's not to be tech informative; seems quite clear to me, sadly.

 

[onanie]

Another reality check hopefully for the world. Resolution has never been such an issue until this generation. It's embarrassing. 1080p was available last gen for pc players but no one seemed to care. Biggest load of bollox this gen and I think games are suffering because of it

Lead better is reality now? Lol.

 

[TheChewyWaffles]

I've posted this opinion before and been mocked, but when I can watch movies like Finding Nemo in 480P SD (before the blu Ray was out) and they look amazing then I'm inclined to think there are other factors that weigh far more heavily into the experience than resolution. Call it image quality, frame rate, motion blur, AA or some combination thereof.

 

[benny_a]

It's quite comparable if you ask me in a big screen.

I think it's less significant, as the total amount of pixels is higher, so each individual pixel is valued less.

At least that's my take. But I also think the way Ryse and The Order make up their image is desirable. (Intentional blurriness.)

 

[Tidus_Great]

Are you being remotely serious? I remember lower resolution in PS3 CoD games alone compared to 360 being the end of the world.

people made a huge deal over a few blades of grass in red dead redemption. but now it doesn't matter cause xbox is on the losing end lol.

 

[El-Pistolero]

Is it me or does the author kind of imply that the Xbox One is somehow synonymous with better performing versions of games? And you want to persuade me that somebody who can not differentiate between 1080p and 900p on a crisp TV screen, has the finesse to detect a 1-2 fps drop in a 5 seconds sequence?

 

[Hydrargyrus]

They have no shame.

 

[StrongBlackVine]

I think it's less significant, as the total amount of pixels is higher, so each individual pixel is valued less.

At least that's my take. But I also think the way Ryse and The Order make up their image is desirable. (Intentional blurriness.)

The Order has no upscaling unlike Ryse.

Also the article is a joke. Native resolution is extremely important to me and millions of others.

 

[Stone Ocean]

Another reality check hopefully for the world. Resolution has never been such an issue until this generation. It's embarrassing. 1080p was available last gen for pc players but no one seemed to care. Biggest load of bollox this gen and I think games are suffering because of it

Most games last gen were 720p on consoles and they suffered dearly for it, but since consoles had terrible specs people just got used to it. Now that better image quality can be achieved people should just accept anything? Fuck that shit, I didn't pay 400 bucks on a console to deal with that shit again.

 

[labaronx]

Is it me or does the author kind of imply that the Xbox One is somehow synonymous with better performing versions of games? And you want to persuade me that somebody who can not differentiate between 1080p and 900p on a crisp TV screen, has the finesse to detect a 1-2 fps drop in a 5 seconds sequence?

Ithought that was funny myself

 

[omonimo]

I think it's less significant, as the total amount of pixels is higher, so each individual pixel is valued less.

At least that's my take. But I also think the way Ryse and The Order make up their image is desirable. (Intentional blurriness.)

That's... very subjective. I prefer 1080p over 900p tons of times but I mean it's just matter of personal preference.

 

[Gurish]

FarCry 4 runs better on XB1? I thought the other guy that checks frame rate (on his YouTube channel) said it runs and look significantly better PS4 no?

Though it's Leadbetter so I'm not too surprised by this article.

 

[benny_a]

The Order has no upscaling like Ryde.

That is true, but earlier in the thread Dead or Alive Last Round was mentioned and I think Ryse and The Order: 1886 share more image commonality than The Order and Last Round.

That's... very subjective. I prefer 1080p over 900p tons of times but I mean it's just matter of personal preference.

Yeah, it's all personal preference and how much certain things are valued. I just wanted to give a perspective on how I don't think it's ridiculous to think the difference in resolution now is less important than it used to be.

 

[blazeuk]

It doesn't matter that much to me, the problem lies with owning multiple platforms, if I'm paying the same price no matter what then why would I opt for an inferior version when I have the choice not to? Exclusive titles I don't care about at all as long as it runs smoothly.

Those with decent PC's, I wouldn't expect them to choose any console version given they get the advantages of both cheaper prices and usually better performing games.

 

[dark10x]

FarCry 4 runs better on XB1? I thought the other guy that checks frame rate (on his YouTube channel) said it runs and look significantly better PS4 no?

Though it's Le so I'm not too surprised by this article.

Nah, I think he's talking about CoD which does run better in campaign.

 

[system11]

Oh DF....

Of course some parts of the article are correct, frame rate is more important than resolution, but the fact that one silly survey (with a tiny sample size in one market) was enough to prompt that kind of arcticle speaks volumes.

If they/he really cared about how games are to play, we'd see articles on how little certain IQ enhancements are worth, and criticism of effects that spoil image clarity. And we don't.

 

[funkystudent]

Huh. Minute differences in resolution seemed super important to DF last gen.

What changed?

Of course, the one article I started to write for DF got rejected on grounds of being too technical

Bwhahaha.

 

[BeeDog]

Why didn't they run these types of articles during the previous generation?

 

[Joey Ravn]

Absolutely not. Progress is not important. 480p = 4K. Human eye, games should be fun, etc.

 

[Kayant]

Those titles should be outliers though, and fingers crossed that across 2015 we'll see enough progress that next year's re-run of the Nielsen survey sees the quality of the gaming experience as the motivating factor behind investing in console hardware. 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

Hmmm - http://www.eurogamer.net/?topic=digital_foundry

Digital Foundry

In-depth technical analysis of games and gaming hardware at Eurogamer.net

Illustrating that despite a yawning chasm in resolution between PS4 and Xbox One, it's very hard for the majority of those participating to tell any difference in actual gameplay conditions.

Yes because we apparently have the results from the public vote and a sample size of 6 people from the test is somewhat an indication of anything.

Yep balance 2.0 right here.

Well at least we got the methodology for the survey.

 

[bobbytkc]

Why didn't they run these types of articles during the previous generation?

Last gen went on for 7 years. I'd think they would have plenty of time to say that.

 

[Freedom = $1.05]

This would be like the blue book coming out and telling you that the car doesn't matter so much as it can get you somewhere with a decent experience.

 

[liquidtmd]

Digital Foundry are asking this???

They're in the wrong business.

 

[bombshell]

Is Leadbetter aware he has reached parody status? The same differences that was paramount last gen in determining which version they gave the nod to have suddenly become not important.

 

[El-Pistolero]

Nah, I think he's talking about CoD which does run better in campaign.

That makes his selective process even more transparent. This is highly misleading, imo, and tends to create the impression that the Xbox One is inherently better at running games. That is to say that it sacrifices resolution (and some effects leadbetter is obviously not interested in citing) on the altar of smoothness and fluidity.
Such a strange article!

 

[Mohasus]

Resolution is paramount. If you have a PC play a game at 720p on your 1080p monitor and look at the nasty blurring.

Eh, pretty sure I was playing FFXIII @720p yesterday without any problems. Being able to read enemies' info was more important to me than some extra pixels.

Spoiler

And I have a 1440p display.

 

[Withnail]

People should read the article. The title does it no favours.

If a fully playable game was photorealistic and looked as good as a live action DVD movie, would it really matter if it was sub 1080p? Personally I think it's fine if devs want to experiment with lower resolutions.

 

[The Janitor]

Nah, I play at 1x1. Saves a lot of performance.

 

[JAYSIMPLE]

Are you being remotely serious? I remember lower resolution in PS3 CoD games alone compared to 360 being the end of the world.

Ok it must have mattered to some and not to me. I would play a 320p game if it was good. I feel sorry for those it genuinely gets in the way of them enjoying something. Such a shame


I admit I've not read the article I'm on my phone I just wanted to chime in that resolution wars this gen is beyond stupid

 

[StrongBlackVine]

Nah, I think he's talking about CoD which does run better in campaign.

But it looks better and runs the same on PS4 in multiplayer though?

I see...so fair and unbiased.

 

[CambriaRising]

Of course, the one article I started to write for DF got rejected on grounds of being too technical

Why doesn't this surprise me?

 

[CozMick]

People should read the article. The title does it no favours.

If a fully playable game was photorealistic and looked as good as a live action DVD movie, would it really matter if it was sub 1080p? Personally I think it's fine if devs want to experiment with lower resolutions.

We clearly see the article writers intentions, lets not pretend here.

 

[Bl@de]

That's a bit of a weak article for a site purportedly dedicated to technical analysis. With a title like this, I'd at the very least expect some in-depth information on the human perceptive apparatus, the frequency space of images and video and how to distinguish between good high-frequency detail and undesired noise, or an in-depth analysis of the objective and perceptual trade-off between heavy post-AA methods and lower/higher resolution.

Of course, the one article I started to write for DF got rejected on grounds of being too technical

Lol. Did you really expect anything else?

On Resolution: Yes it does matter. 1080p is still far away from good on a 23-27" display. I want 4k/5k ... And more. More is always better in terms of resolution. Until we reach the limit of the human eye.

 

[King_Moc]

Ok it must have mattered to some and not to me. I would play a 320p game if it was good. I feel sorry for those it genuinely gets in the way of them enjoying something. Such a shame

Monster Hunter Tri on Wii is 320p. It was unplayable on my 1080p TV. Literally like looking at a fully blown up low quality YouTube video. It looks infinitely better at a native 240p on 3ds.

 

[Bootador83]

Digital foundry questioning it's own relevence

 

[KKRT00]

I remember ps3 version of Rage lose a face off because drop too much the res compared the x360 although 60 fps was more steady.

Bullshit. Check face-off videos again.

---

The Order has no upscaling unlike Ryse.

Also the article is a joke. Native resolution is extremely important to me and millions of others.

It has not upscaling, but it still much blurrier than native 1080p games like Infamous:SS or Far Cry 4

 

[GeoramA]

Microsoft must love this guy.

 

[DeFiBkIlLeR]

People need to compare 1080p to 4K, not 1080p to 720,900p or whatever odd resolution the devs choose to use.

4k will make anyone a believer that resolution really does matter...

 

[JAYSIMPLE]

Monster Hunter Tri on Wii is 320p. It was unplayable on my 1080p TV. Literally like looking at a fully blown up low quality YouTube video. It looks infinitely better at a native 240p on 3ds.

It was seriously unplayable? Like impossible to play? You in no way could play it? One of the best monster hunters. That's a shame


Edit. I played it fine

 

[El-Pistolero]

Ok it must have mattered to some and not to me. I would play a 320p game if it was good. I feel sorry for those it genuinely gets in the way of them enjoying something. Such a shame

Except that we are comparing the same damn game on two -or more- different platform! Fun is not germane to the conversation. If the core of the game is the same, if the story is identical and if the mechanics are unchanged...well, guess what is vital in determining which versions to seek?

 

[CozMick]

People need to compare 1080p to 4K, not 1080p to 720,900p or whatever odd resolution the devs choose to use.

4k will make anyone a believer that resolution really does matter...

Isn't the difference between 1080p and 4k smaller than 720p and 1080p?

 

[Javin98]

Wow, Digital Foundry just hit a new level of low and hypocrisy with this article. How the hell does a tech site even sprout bullshit like the resolution difference isn't that significant? I would prefer native resolution and have 2-3 occasional FPS drops rather than have an upscaled image. And why wasn't this article written last gen when the resolution differences between the PS3 and 360 were much smaller in terms of numbers? First it was next gen gameplay, now it's resolution differences aren't that significant. Never change, Leadbetter....

 

[Kayant]

Ok it must have mattered to some and not to me. I would play a 320p game if it was good. I feel sorry for those it genuinely gets in the way of them enjoying something. Such a shame

That eye opening world reality check.... hehehe.

And PC gamers do/have cared there is a reason DSR, VSR exist now.

 

[omonimo]

Bullshit. Check face-off videos again.

I remember Rage on ps3 drop below 60 fps less frequently, honestly. The only problem of the ps3 version it can't be full installed in the HDD and texture streaming is more prominent just for this. The same Carmack claimed ps3 version hit 60 fps a bit better if I'm not wrong, thanks to the dynamic res. Said that I never intended x360 fps wasn't unacceptable eh.

 

[theDeeDubs]

Framerate will always be king to me. That's not to say a crisp resolution doesn't matter, but when switching inputs on my TV while playing Tomb Raider and Assassin's Creed on both consoles, the only version I could immediately tell the difference between was Tomb Raider because of the framerate. This is viewing a 55" TV at just a bit short of 8' viewing distance. Of course everyone's eyes are different, so this is just for me personally.

 

[dark10x]

Why didn't they run these types of articles during the previous generation?

I keep seeing this line of thinking trotted out but I don't think you're really think things through.

The lower your resolution, the more those pixels matter. The difference between a 3D game running at 320x240 and 640x480 is much larger, perceptually speaking, than the difference between a 640x480 to 1280x720 title. The gap between 480p to 720p, then, is much larger than the gap from 900p to 1080p.

Also, with last gen games, we often had situations where you'd see double scaling - the game would render at, say, 600p which would be scaled up to 1280x720p and then again, by the TV, to 1080p. 600p on a 1080p display looks a LOT worse than 720p on a 1080p display. The difference between those resolutions is much more pronounced than 900p to 1080p.

You also need to consider that consoles are typically played on a TV. The perception changes dramatically based on screen size + distance. With a TV, most people sit far enough away from the display that differences become less pronounced. When sitting in front of a PC monitor, however, those differences feel much greater. I use a 32" 1440p monitor - 900p looks insanely bad on that display from my seating position but, on my plasma, it can look pretty good.

Now we're dealing with superior AA techniques alongside more pixels in general - the difference is less pronounced. Last generation that gap was much larger.

That's my take on it. The amount of pixels + view distance + display size + display type all determine the outcome.

That said, given the choice, I'd always take native resolution over scaled but dropping resolution to 900p from 1080p is one of the first things I'd do in order to fix performance issues. It's all about compromise in the console space these days.

That makes his selective process even more transparent. This is highly misleading, imo, and tends to create the impression that the Xbox One is inherently better at running games. That is to say that it sacrifices resolution (and some effects leadbetter is obviously not interested in citing) on the altar of smoothness and fluidity.
Such a strange article!

Yeah, I agree with that. It's a weird choice especially bringing FC4 into this.