Support NeoGAF

[Synth]

If someone sees a "MASSIVE" difference between 576p and 720p (RDR), than surely they have the perception to see at least a very noticeable difference between 900p and 1080p.

You can't proclaim to have a technical eye for such disparity and then either downplay or mitigate the 40% difference in resolution at twice the pixels.

As mentioned above, I notice a huge difference between Halo 3 and Project Gotham 3, compared with Halo Reach and Project Gotham 4... and those weren't even as low as 576p. I do however struggle to differentiate between 1080p and 900p on my current setup.

The numbers are unimportant, because my TV set didn't grow in proportion to the resolution changes (in fact, it didn't grow at all), so the pixels simply got smaller to the point where I fail to discern them individually, until some horrid lack of AA sets them off crawling in motion.

 

[Respawn]

People are irrational and dogmatic on this issue. Sure it matters. No it doesn't matter that much.

This gen's two best-looking games are both sub-1080p on consoles (Ryse and The Order). Would they look even better at 1080p? I guess. But the fact of the matter is that resolution is only one of many many factors. Since it's an easy one to put a number to, people on these boards get silly and make it a deal breaker.

The article's most important findings was not expanded on, but it was the blind test. I fully suspect a large majority of people would not tell the difference between a game at 1080p and 900p, all other IQ settings being equal.

I dont think you know what you're talking about good Sir.

 

[OdysseusVA]

Yeah, I'm done with giving DF clicks.

 

[Derpyduck]

Framerate easily trumps resolution, but it doesn't mean resolution doesn't matter. It just doesn't matter nearly as much as performance. One reason I still have a PS4 and got rid of the Xbox One is that most every single multi-plat I played performed better and had a better resolution on PS4. Not surprising since the goals of MS and Sony were completely different when they designed their boxes. MS went the all-in-one-route and got justifiably reamed for it, whereas Sony set out to make a games-first console. I easily jumped from PS2 to 360 and now back to PS4. Brand loyalty means nothing to me.

 

[888]

So after years of high end pc gaming I slid back into consoles to join some friends online in GTA etc. My xbox one is on a 70inch led and I sit roughly 10 feet back. I have played lots of games and I can forgive the resolution but the framerate is where I feel the pain the most.

 

[drugo]

LOL Digital foundry, the resolution is a foundamental element of image quality, this is an objective parameter.

 

[yazanov]

Why wasn't the same article written the previous Gen?

 

[Derpyduck]

So after years of high end pc gaming I slid back into consoles to join some friends online in GTA etc. My xbox one is on a 70inch led and I sit roughly 10 feet back. I have played lots of games and I can forgive the resolution but the framerate is where I feel the pain the most.

I play on PS4 and the bump in resolution is nice, but the framerate when driving is just atrocious a lot of the time. Makes me wish I was a PC gamer, but I don't like Windows or PCs. So I'm stuck with consoles.

Why wasn't the same article written the previous Gen?

Similar questions were asked repeatedly in reference to the Wii's sub-HD resolution.

 

[Ploid 3.0]

Yes.

On PC I lower just about everything before I touch lowering resolution if I need to drop things. I don't think I ever think about running at a lower resolution to see if the framerate stabilize at 60 more. Before that I'd probably just stick to 30 and lock it since 60 most likely won't be locked even if I drop the resolution along with other things.

 

[Gestault]

Resolution really does matter for image clarity, but with a fairly large asterisk if there's elements of IQ and performance in the mix, which there often is. This says nothing to inconsistencies or underlying motivations of an author, but:

Simply saying that if there's a choice between 1600x900 and 1920x1080 with some performance cost, 1600x900 can be preferable for many isn't crazy.

Pointing out that 1920x1080 can have worse resulting image quality than a higher-quality image at 1600x900 is fair.

Noting that the difference in discernible detail between 1600x900 and 1920x1080 isn't as dramatic as resolution gaps in the past had been is also fair.

 

[baconcow]

It is hard to take DF seriously when they think this way.

 

[DJ88]

I'm never going to understand the majority of GAF's reaction to any article even suggesting that resolution isn't a huge deal instantly being that it's a joke article and that the author is in bed with MS or prefers XB1. It's just so shortsighted and dumb.

 

[zashga]

The most disappointing thing about this console generation is that native 1080p isn't the standard. Hard to believe we have to put up with 900p (and worse!) for 5+ years. It's weird that tech-minded sites like DF are making excuses for this sorry state of affairs.

 

[HardRojo]

You know, I think I never commented on the possibility of this author being biased, that could be because I didn't really think so at first and I'm fine with the gameplay comments as long as they serve a purpose in the analysis, but I gotta say that going as far as writing an article like this... Yeah, I guess he can't help it anymore. It would be really nice to have some other sites for technical analysis.

 

[chromatic9]

It really, really isn't.

Again, I'm 10 feet away from my HDTV and can see the difference clearly.

900p upscaled is blurry even in the so called best case Ryse.

Regarding the article, pointing to your compressed youtube video is really misleading. 900p whether its Ryse, Black Flag or AC unity is blurry, its immediately obvious to me.

Running native res does matter if one does and one doesn't but if we take an exclusive and running 1080p native means excluding subsurface scattering, removing lighting, dropping PBR then its a good question. Alan Wake went 540p with screen tear for alpha and x4 AA but the result was poor.

 

[Haint]

Gamespot's reality check had participants viewing a 27" PC MONITOR FROM AN APPARENT 6+ FOOT DISTANCE. The fact that Gamespot did it and that Eurogamer has attempted to loosely base an article on it is a circus of stupid on the level of IGN.gif for both outlets. Screen Size Vs. Distance, it's elementary level common sense. How do some of these people have jobs?

 

[Solid Samus]

I sit in front of my 1080p computer screen at a natural distance (which, surprise, isn't six feet for a normal sized fucking monitor) and I can tell a difference between every single stage of sub-native resolutions, native, and even supersampled resolution. It's one of the top TWO most important visual elements of a game and it impacts every aspect of the visual package. Of course it really matters, what the fuck. You might not value it like me but if you've convinced yourself resolution makes no difference at all you should time travel to 2008 GoNintendo where you belong

I'm never going to understand the majority of GAF's reaction to any article even suggesting that resolution isn't a huge deal instantly being that it's a joke article and that the author is in bed with MS or prefers XB1. It's just so shortsighted and dumb.

I mean it's not like HD standards were this big thing last generation... There was no paradigm shift in display formats, right! people didn't damn near universally spend hundreds to thousands of dollars these last 10 years adopting new standards in resolutions, so why should we even expect modern technology to adhere to these standards introduced ten years ago

 

[CyberPunked]

I play at 4K on a 32" monitor which sits about 3ft from my face when I play games, and I could still go for higher resolution. Until games are crystal clear, the resolution isn't good enough.

 

[Peltz]

Gamespot's reality check had participants viewing a 27" PC MONITOR FROM AN APPARENT 6+ FOOT DISTANCE. The fact that Gamespot did it and that Eurogamer has attempted to loosely base an article on it is a circus of stupid on the level of IGN.gif for both outlets.

You shouldn't be playing high res games 6+ feet back on such a small monitor. For most people's vision, at 6ft you should be playing on a 42" monitor to take advantage of all of detail that 1080p offers.

Here's the size to difference relationship at 1080p:

http://www.rtings.com/info/television-size-to-distance-relationship

On a 27" monitor, the user should be about 3 feet away to see a difference. Gamespot's results make sense, because at 6 ft, you cannot perceive a difference between 720p and 1080p on anything less than 35". Again, 42" is the proper size at that distance, though.

 

[Three]

Tekken wasn't 720p on the 360 either though, so I'm not sure what your point here is. Obviously the same res looks better with better processing... The same would be said today about 900p or 1080p where one version lacks AA.

I'll never agree with anyone that claims 640p to 720p is less noticeable than 900p to 1080p though. The difference is smaller in numbers, but without a huge jump in screen size, the resulting disparity is much clearer. Halo 3 and PGR3 were absolutely destroyed by that res.

No offence but clearly you don't remember it very well. Tekken 6 ran at a resolution higher than 720p on 360 without motion blur.

It was
xbox360: 1365x768, motion blur off,
Ps3: 1024x576, motion blur off, better AA

Guess we would have to disagree then but there is no logical reason why you would think a difference between 640p/720p is bigger than 900p/1080p. You are talking about a 44% difference vs a 25% difference in resolution. How exactly would you explain 44% as less than 25%?

I'll even calculate the screen size difference for you when I get on my PC later tonight.

 

[Angel_DvA]

900p upscaled is blurry even in the so called best case Ryse.

Regarding the article, pointing to your compressed youtube video is really misleading. 900p whether its Ryse, Black Flag or AC unity is blurry, its immediately obvious to me.

Running native res does matter if one does and one doesn't but if we take an exclusive and running 1080p native means excluding subsurface scattering, removing lighting, dropping PBR then its a good question.

Yes it is, I don't understand the narrative about the fact it's not but whatever, DF is right, I'm looking at DF articles for helping me to choose the best version i can on console but because they say to me it doesn't matter, i don't need to click on their article anymore.

Thx DF.

 

[Purest 78]

Yeah, I'm done with giving DF clicks.

I'm done with majority of sites.

 

[ShapeGSX]

Sure, but if both consoles cost 400$ would you choose the console that generally displays games better or the one that doesn't?

I use my consoles almost only for gaming, mostly SP games. I don't really care about either brand so i choose the console that plays most games better than the other, just like i did last gen with the 360.

I chose the console with the games I like. Done.

 

[Haint]

You shouldn't be playing high res games 6+ feet back on such a small monitor. For most people's vision, at 6ft you should be playing on a 42" monitor to take advantage of all of detail that 1080p offers.

Here's the size to difference relationship at 1080p:

http://www.rtings.com/info/television-size-to-distance-relationship

Even 42" is insufficient for most at 6'. That is the size:distance you can start to tell the difference between 720p, not where you can appreciate the full detail of 1080p. That would require over 50" at 6'. I'm not sure if you're intending this for me or others, I am well aware of all this. Did you perhaps misinterpret my post?

 

[Pathfinder]

I chose the console with the games I like. Done.

This is, of course, the right answer.

 

[KKRT00]

No offence but clearly you don't remember it very well. Tekken 6 ran at a resolution higher than 720p on 360 without motion blur.

It was
xbox360: 1365x768, motion blur off,
Ps3: 1024x576, motion blur off, better AA

Guess we would have to disagree then but there is no logical reason why you would think a difference between 640p/720p is bigger than 900p/1080p. You are talking about a 44% difference vs a 25% difference in resolution. How exactly would you explain 44% as less than 25%?

I'll even calculate the screen size difference for you when I get on my PC later tonight.

Because You display all of those resolutions on 1080p display and rendering in higher resolution means higher precision for quite a lot of rendering features.

 

[kitch9]

You shouldn't be playing high res games 6+ feet back on such a small monitor. For most people's vision, at 6ft you should be playing on a 42" monitor to take advantage of all of detail that 1080p offers.

Here's the size to difference relationship at 1080p:

http://www.rtings.com/info/television-size-to-distance-relationship

On a 27" monitor, the user should be about 3 feet away to see a difference. Gamespot's results make sense, because at 6 ft, you cannot perceive a difference between 720p and 1080p on anything less than 35". Again, 42" is the proper size at that distance, though.

Lol.

 

[Windforce]

Come on, Eurogamer.

When Xbox 360 was beating PS3, it did matter.

Now that PS4 beats XB1, it doesn't matter.

Fuck off...

 

[Synth]

No offence but clearly you don't remember it very well. Tekken 6 ran at a resolution higher than 720p on 360 without motion blur.

It was
xbox360: 1365x768, motion blur off,
Ps3: 1024x576, motion blur off, better AA

Guess we would have to disagree then but there is no logical reason why you would think a difference between 640p/720p is bigger than 900p/1080p. You are talking about a 44% difference vs a 25% difference in resolution. How exactly would you explain 44% as less than 25%?

I'll even calculate the screen size difference for you when I get on my PC later tonight.

My bad... it actually just occured to me that I only actually own the PS3 version of Tekken 6, lol. Most of my multiplat purchases were 360 last gen, so I kinda attributed my memory of the game to being a 360 version.

I'd have to see the 360 version to make my mind up on this one, but I'd be pretty surprised if I felt that the 576p of the PS3 version was preferable, as I honestly recall it looking very rough IQ-wise. Far worse than the average game I played that gen.

As for how I perceive 640/720 and 900/1080... I think the reasoning for that is pretty logical... I'm using the same TV, from the same distance. At 900p the pixels on my screen are pretty fucking small. 720p (or 792p in Titanfall's case) I can see the difference very clearly, so I guess somewhere between there and 900p is my threshold for easily seeing the difference. 640p happens to be waaaaaay below that point.

 

[kitch9]

I chose the console with the games I like. Done.

The two aren't mutually exclusive.

 

[aerts1js]

Was this the same website that used to run constant PS3/360 comparison videos and would consistently champion 360's superior resolution for most 3rd party games?

 

[Hawk269]

Agree. Want 60fps for all games.
And then 1080p would be nice. But if they cant get that with locked 60 i am fine with lower res also.

This. I have both systems and a very high end PC rig running games at 4k. As much as a resolution/IQ snob I am, I still prefer rock solid performance at the best possible resolution, but frame rate is paramount to a good experience. Now with that said, there has be lines drawn in the sand. Would I think a 720p/60fps with outstanding IQ acceptable on Xbox One/PS4, not really as at 720p the IQ suffers considerably.

 

[Rurunaki]

well shit.. looks like I wasted money buying a 1080p TV..

 

[Night Angel]

I think we all know the answer to that question.

Yeah, we do. It's because the person recognizes their own preferences and doesn't let them influence their articles, as they pointed out in that very post.

Or are you crying about fabricated hivemind everybody hates MS bullshit?

 

[Hawk269]

Was this the same website that used to run constant PS3/360 comparison videos and would consistently champion 360's superior resolution for most 3rd party games?

Times change man. Let go of the hatred from when 720p or even below was standard and fine.

 

[EGM1966]

Y'know what I think is more important thAn whether people can tell the difference is how they behave when they believe there's a difference.

It's obvious to me that the perception that PS4 plays games "better" is helping drive their lead (amongst other factors) and therefore with respect to sales resolution certainly matters as a factor shaping that perception.

The idea there might be a better balance of focus is fine but it would still favour PS4 so it hardly matters. Whether it's resolution, frame rate or better effects they will shape market perception and favour more powerful console.

And while PS2 dominated without being most powerful that aspect has changed in market, most notably in US and UK and to a lesser extent other a Western markets.

 

[Purest 78]

900p upscaled is blurry even in the so called best case Ryse.

Ryse certainly looks blurry at 900p to me.

 

[RibMan]

Regardless of how you feel about the perceived IQ difference between 900p/1080p or 640p/720p, the author's intent is obvious...

Spoiler

clicks

True. They have a direct monetary incentive to be hypocrites this generation, so it shouldn't come as a surprise that they're willing to publish contradictory content.

It's a shame, but it's the reality of analysis-driven businesses. Businesses that deal with data and data-analysis are willing to publish unintelligent information in order to get-by. The good news is that the outcome of continuous stupidity in an analysis-driven business is devaluation. It's only a matter of time before their publication 'officially' becomes a joke.

 

[Elandyll]

well shit.. looks like I wasted money buying a 1080p TV..

I know you're being sarcastic, but there is also a fundamental truth there.

HDTV screens are 1080p for the most part nowadays. 1080 games should be a given, specially in 2015.

 

[c0de]

I really hope people read the full article, but I predict lots of surface scratching and then jumping to assumptions.

There's some interesting stuff in there.

Look at how dark10x' posts get ignored while others continue to do whenever resolution is a topic.
People want to share their opinion on this and aren't interested in discussion.

 

[DavidDesu]

To me resolution makes a big difference, its so good finally seeing AAA games in 1080p after an era of 720p and other esoteric lower resolutions in use on PS3 and 360. Games like Infamous look pin sharp, there's so much detail in textures, and its at the stage where nothing does justice to the game's visuals apart from playing the game on your own TV. Much of that fine detail is lost elsewhere. It's sad that some games are 720 on XB1 but 1080 on PS4. That IS a huge difference. Anything not native is a bit fuzzy.

I had to double take when he seemed to be suggesting that games should render to a lower resolution and layer on post effects. While a game like The Order looks great it is still natively 1080p and image quality is all the better for it.

Just sounds like a very reaching article to me, yet again trying to paint the power differences as insignificant. They ARE irrelevant to most consumers, but if you're selling a device that does the same as someone else's, for the same or a higher price, these differences are important. Consumers shouldn't be misled that it's all just swings and roundabouts like this. One clearly gives you better band for your buck and you should be honest about that.

 

[Industrialist]

I don't think the whole "Eurogamer is biased against PS4" argument flies particularly well. Even if they were, they'd be one of the few outlets that isn't absolutely the opposite way. There's an inherent bias against Xbox One in most places, if you look at it closely. Not saying that isn't Microsoft's fault or anything.

The fact of the matter is that both consoles have decent games. Both represent value for money - given what they do - and both provide entertaining gameplay experiences.

Digital Foundry has taken a very small part of the gaming experience - how many lines are on the screen - and helped to blow it up into the ONLY thing that people talk about. "Non-gamers" sit and bellow about how it's the better machine and about the resolutions that the PS4 SOMETIMES outputs in SOME games, without even knowing what actual titles are available for it.

Whether they back down now and say "resolution doesn't matter" or not, Digital Foundry has single-handedly helped to set gaming back by years, by effectively telling people that the actual gameplay doesn't matter, just as long as a single cutscene doesn't take a drop to 59fps for four seconds in a twenty hour game, or that an otherwise unnoticeable difference in resolution is incredibly important on games that have much bigger problems to be worrying about.

Digital Foundry panders to the cock-measuring crowd who would rather die than play an entertaining game that didn't run at 1080p. Now they're backing away. Fuck that.

 

[FairXchange]

I still remember the article written up by Leadbetter leading up to the launch of the new consoles where he tried to compare two off the shelf amd gpus, making the argument that there would be little discernible, if any, difference in performance between the Xbox One and PS4. The very fact that he's now writing articles attempting to reframe the performance differences demonstrates that this whole situation has played out differently then he clearly would have hoped for.

 

[BigDug13]

What I don't get are his closing remarks. How he hopes that the next poll will show that people are choosing one console over another based on how much more "fun" it offers than the other or things based on "gameplay". But when 99% of the games are identical across both, how is "fun" supposed to be a differentiating factor to choose a PS4 over XBO or XBO over PS4?

The REASON things like resolution become important is because of how similar both of these consoles are in every other way for playing the majority of games.

If he wants it based on nothing but fun and gameplay and maybe "complete games without the need for day one patches" and "less nickel and diming on bullshit DLC", then he should be hoping everyone chooses Wii-U the most on the next poll.

If people are choosing PS4 over XBO when most of the games are identical in gameplay, then resolution seems like something to consider, otherwise there's very little to consider at all outside of what your friends own.

It also seems to go against their entire reason for existance. "Don't look into the technical differences, choose based on fun". Ok so then why do I need your website anymore?

 

[Inuhanyou]

Y'know what I think is more important thAn whether people can tell the difference is how they behave when they believe there's a difference.

It's obvious to me that the perception that PS4 plays games "better" is helping drive their lead (amongst other factors) and therefore with respect to sales resolution certainly matters as a factor shaping that perception.

The idea there might be a better balance of focus is fine but it would still favour PS4 so it hardly matters. Whether it's resolution, frame rate or better effects they will shape market perception and favour more powerful console.

360 was the go to console partially for that reason as well. The stigma was games on 360 played better. Now its on the PS4. Such differences and how it related to the audience didnt change

 

[Fezan]

I don't care about resolution much but saying resolution difference between 900p and 1080p is less noticeable doesn't work for me. My PC monitor is 1600*1050 and if I play dota 2 1400*900 its clearly very much blurry

 

[Marc]

Erm... wow.

So he is arguing that his job is redundant and they should close down the digital foundry section of EG.


People are paying serious money for 1080p TV's at large sizes and consoles to play at that resolution, so yeaaaah.

 

[dark10x]

New DF article: better everything does not matter according to new survey.

Dark10x, I must say you have been drinking a little too much DF kool-aid lately. You are describing PS3 in the worst way (happened only in very few games) yet using 900p for Xbone. Why is that?

It's a hypothetical situation - nothing more.

 

[KKRT00]

I still remember the article written up by Leadbetter leading up to the launch of the new consoles where he tried to compare two off the shelf amd gpus, making the argument that there would be little discernible, if any, difference in performance between the Xbox One and PS4. The very fact that he's now writing articles attempting to reframe the performance differences demonstrates that this whole situation has played out differently then he clearly would have hoped for.

You remember them wrongly, because they were completely on point. They actually compared resolutions differences similar to current ones between two consoles, 900p vs 1080p

And this article is anything but comparison between platforms ...

 

[PHOENIXZERO]

It seemed to mattered a lot last generation with the rise of these "comparison" sites... Odd how it's not as much of a big deal this time to the same people.