ShutterMunster
Junior Member
So what? Perhaps it is. Companies have to make money and it doesn't seem they're giving you much of a compromised experience by doing so. If you disagree, go PC. Seems like a pretty chill solution.
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Digital Foundry :- Does resolution really matter?
- Thread starter DHC-Shannow
- Start date
- Status
So what? Perhaps it is. Companies have to make money and it doesn't seem they're giving you much of a compromised experience by doing so. If you disagree, go PC. Seems like a pretty chill solution.
Yeah the ESRAM (think it's called that) was obviously a mistake. Then again, could they ever went with GDDR5 and have both consoles crippling the RAM supply?
MS should have gone with another chipset.
geordiemp
Member
But your missing the point, when you buy a car or a washing machine or a toaster do you not google it sometimes....? Read the review from a few places ?
Many may not know the IQ of a Ps4 is 'often' better and may need good equipment to see it, but they don't need to, they just want to know its objectively better and social media is quite powerful in 2015.
Hence, if a console maker wants to put out a console today it should have hardware subsidy, as its pay for online and games have margin in for the console maker. Both MS and Sony have been poor this gen making money with hardware + Software / online margins.
They should of done more, and MS was up its own ass pleasing the American market with NFL deals, USA TV integration, USA app integrations, it was disgusting viewing being a UK 360 player at E3 - I hated it. UK TV is PAL 50 for gods sake and is mainly satellite based for most (Sky)....In UK Xb1 was £ 425, as we always need 2 consoles, that's £ 950. Nine hundred and fifty pounds.
Yes IQ will not fly very far outside enthusiast circles. It is not what will make or break this gen's offering for the mass market. But winning the enthusiast circle is a part of what will help put one ahead though.
2015...and we are still talking about this?
It has been 1 year guys, there is no point in downplaying resolution.
The article makes DF looks bad...Resolution has always mattered.
We upgrade our PC for better resolution.
We upgrade our console for better resolution.
If resolution doesn't matter, I would still be playing PC games like Warcraft 1 in 600x480 resolution instead.
It has been 1 year guys, there is no point in downplaying resolution.
The article makes DF looks bad...Resolution has always mattered.
We upgrade our PC for better resolution.
We upgrade our console for better resolution.
If resolution doesn't matter, I would still be playing PC games like Warcraft 1 in 600x480 resolution instead.
So basically you explained everything for me, how ridiculous it is to complain about a consoles power. There will always be a weaker console, and some manufacturers will make, what can be seen to silly decisions. The ps3 had a stupid architecture and it got ripped, but it was ultimately fine and went to outsell the 360 at the end?
I'm sure the xbox one will be fine and resolution ultimately does not matter at all. People have probably argued until they are blue in the face, but there has always been a console with a lower resolution and less powerful, yet they have been fine. So with that I am done with this thread.
there will always be a weaker console, doesnt stop it from having my favourite games. Like the last of us last gen.
IndoAssassin
Banned
Yah good for them they want to make a profit. I don't own their shares so I could care less. Fine if MS wants to make an inferior console next gen they lose a sale from me. I don't only play exclusives, I play multiplats as well. Actually looking at my collection right now on both consoles, multiplats outnumber the exclusives I own.
Also if I go exclusively PC I ain't playing another EA or Ubisoft game again because I refuse to install extra DRM however good it may be. Also I like to own physical copies of my games and most of the time pc physical releases don't come to the stores here.
Don't ask, just say it.
I agree, never said otherwise. It is ironic though that resolution seems to be the most prevalent reason when Xbox One has the better games according to metacritic and the differences are not that large. That's the value of the study - it matters and is why Richard referred to Gamespot's blind 1080p test, where people couldn't tell in gameplay.
EASTC0AST_GH05T
Member
but the competition is a better overall gaming console and that's why more people are buying it. I don't care ahout tv fearures and voice commands.
I don't think Sony has been as active marketing that - as they could potentially have, and/or should. I think MS has been more active trying to blur the "perception challenge" as they call it much more than Sony marketing the difference.
ShutterMunster
Junior Member
Enjoy this last hurrah then. 👋
PS3 was considered more powerful and capable than the 360 by many, many people. And I think the top PS3 exclusives made a good case for it.
Either way, acting like the 360 was somehow seen as the 'top dog' in terms of hardware specs or power last gen is absolutely inaccurate at best, dishonest at worst.
BF Hardline is 900p on both consoles.........
720p on Xbox unless that has changed recently.
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2015-battlefield-hardline-console-performance-analysis
GTA4 on 360 was 720p.
Also how is a myth that lower res results in better graphics? lower res means more available resources to the developer. And don't try to use the GTA comparison to say otherwise because what is shown above is the evolution of an engine, the PS3 toolset and a change on the lead platform.
I fully agree that the Wii U as of now has some amazing looking 1st party games that are built around the platforms limitations, what stops MS from doing the same thing and deliver great looking games? If anything Forza Horizon 2 looks like a step in the right direction with the intended forward+ rendering approach in mind.
SappYoda
Member
Remember when Digital Foundry criticized Quincunx anti-aliasing for blurring the image? While Quincunx provided 4XAA MSAA quality anti-aliasing it blurred the image a bit.
To further prove their point they put this comparison of Assassins Creed 1 running on 360 vs PS3:
This effectively did what Leadbetter is asking for. Better anti-aliasing at the cost of image clarity.
You can find it in this article: http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/the-anti-aliasing-effect-article
To further prove their point they put this comparison of Assassins Creed 1 running on 360 vs PS3:
This effectively did what Leadbetter is asking for. Better anti-aliasing at the cost of image clarity.
You can find it in this article: http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/the-anti-aliasing-effect-article
Yes it's written by Leadbetter.
Stilton Disco
Member
It really was, by a lot of people.
And most of the time, with direct one to one comparisons between multiplats, the 360 was hands down the superior machine, with higher frame rates, resolution, superior textures, and undeniably better online infrastructure.
The PS3 was more powerful on paper, and late into 7th gen, as exclussives became more refined and third parties got to grips with the hardware, that was proved to be potentially true.
But in actuality, the more straightforward to develop for hardware of the 360 won the majority of the spec comparisons out there. It was an incredibly well thought out system, if not the most reliably built, and people quite rightly pointed out the superior quality of titles running on it as proof of it being the more powerful machine on a practical basis.
This gen the roles are almost reversed, except Sony have both the more powerful console on paper and the more straightforward hardware to develop for, with the only advantage MS can bring to the table being slightly better developed programming tools and a marginally higher CPU speed.
geordiemp
Member
Well you got sony ads 'worlds most powerful console' ....
and from MS you got many DF articles and interviews about releasing cores in Xb1, freeing up Kinect etc, so MS know as well as they put more effort into such topics
It's definitely a tough spot to be reactive to that. Not necessarily sure if it's worth to acknowledge the problem and actively downplay it, combat it (and give the issue more credence and PR as a result) or just let it slide instead. The media certainly doesn't want to let it slide.
What I find perplexing is the amount of PC Gaf in here downplaying the relevance of hardware and Resolution? I mean this article goes against the basis of PC choice.
I also seem to find yourself Sean ever at the front of arguing in Defense of DF in these types of articles and then calling them out for "bias" against PC in the Res Evil Face-off. It is as if the PS4 is a common enemy for some sides.
My take is this article is WAY off the mark and full on contradiction in itself, previous tests and DF as whole.
The point should be Resolution is not everything to a game, any gamer knows this. Ryse at 900 looks leagues better than Black Flag on PC even at 4k, this is obvious. But trying to downplay the benefits of a higher resolution is absurd, I cannot take anyone seriously/No agenda that agree's with the point and delivery of this article it just comes across as salty!
StrongBlackVine
Banned
So basically you explained everything for me, how ridiculous it is to complain about a consoles power. There will always be a weaker console, and some manufacturers will make, what can be seen to silly decisions. The ps3 had a stupid architecture and it got ripped, but it was ultimately fine and went to outsell the 360 at the end?
I'm sure the xbox one will be fine and resolution ultimately does not matter at all. People have probably argued until they are blue in the face, but there has always been a console with a lower resolution and less powerful, yet they have been fine. So with that I am done with this thread.
there will always be a weaker console, doesnt stop it from having my favourite games. Like the last of us last gen.
PS3 wasn't really weaker though as the exclusives showed. But the multiplats were definitely lagging. Even multiplats started performing equal or better in the latter part of the generation. That will never be the case for Xbox One.
Impeccable
Member
It apparently doesn't this generation.
I'm not talking about what 'won' most of the multiplatform comparisons. I'm talking about this idea that there was a 'well deserved' reputation for Xbox's to be 'top dog' machines in terms of hardware power. I don't think this is the case at all. OG Xbox came out later than PS2 was indeed more powerful. But with their 2nd console, there wasn't really anything in it. Xbox's popularity did not come from being more powerful, but from various other factors, namely having a better game lineup and being at the forefront of online gaming. The amount of people who cared about DF comparison articles last gen was only a fraction of what it seems to be now. I really don't think 'top dog' hardware was what Xbox360 was known for at all.
That comment about RER2 and the PC was a joke man. lol I was poking fun while trying to make a point. I couldn't care less about that comment.
In actuality, I do think DF and Leadbetter are biased and have a favoured platform - but its PC, not the XB1. What a lot of people don't realize is that DF do lots of articles that are PC-specific and it seems to be a big focus for them(they also do lots of reviews of other sorts of tech like smartphones and tablets). They just don't tend to get posted here very often because their game comparison articles tend to be better 'discussion pieces'(and I use that phrase very loosely here...). So people get this idea that DF's sole reason for existence is these game comparisons when that's really not even remotely true and I reckon they(including some of the other authors) ultimately care more about the PC than this console race. Just the console stuff gets them lots of clicks, obviously...
Anyways, your point about Ryse looking better at 900p, on an XB1, than Black Flag does at 4k on a PC is really the kind of thing that this article was trying to get at. Ever since the next-gen consoles came out, resolution has become something of a buzzword and I don't think many people understand how it even works. So while resolution plays a factor, the point is that its maybe not quite the be-all, end-all that it gets treated as, especially in a living room situation(it becomes more pronounced for PC's and desks, obviously).
BradleyLove
Member
QFT.
I loved ps3 hardware but the real reason of bad porting was the incredible unbalanced hardware over the 'complicate' coding. Memory was a mess, bandwith was the main bottleneck and gpu sucked. Thanks to God it had a remarkable CPU for the graphic task but free roaming were a fucking nightmare on it to develop and in some case ps3 was undeniably inferior compared the x360 hardware (unified shaders and high buffer).
Is disagree with that specific to US and UK. Lastvgen I believe general market perception (I.e. Not DF, GAF or anything enthusiast related) was that 360 was the top dog power wise.
As with this gen last gen's first 12 months of comparison saw a clear lead for 360 with some terrible ports and efforts for PS3.
In general for many of the popular multi-platform titles the 360 version performed better which furled that perception.
It's importsnt to understand market perception may be factually wrong - for example PS3 could be more powerful or equally powerful but perception could still favour the 360.
Heck lastvgen you saw people talking about how 360 had 512 MB memory and PS3 only 256 MB.
Lastvgen if argue 360 won the perception war in key western markets wheras this gen so far PS4 has won that battle.
SappYoda
Member
The problem with that argument is that the reason Ryse looks better than Assassins Creed IV has nothing to do with resolution. It's more about what the games are aiming at delivering, and the hardware they were made for. I don't think it's fair to compare an open world game against a linear game, or a crossgen game against a current gen game.
Multiplats started performing equal or better because the PS3 became the lead platform for a lot of publishers/devs mainly because the opposite didn't work very well in most cases.
I think people argued that 360 had more memory, rightfully, and that made a difference, but I don't think the general perception was that the 360 was some 'top dog' machine. It had slightly better hardware in some respects, worse in a few others, but most importantly - was considered easier to develop for. But other than that, I think there was plenty of people arguing one was superior to the other, neither really able to ever 'win' the argument or have any sort of concensus on the subject.
And outside of GAF or enthusiast circles, who ever knew anything about this stuff? Nobody knew what was more powerful or cared that RDR had a slightly better resolution and performance on 360. The 360 might have been considered 'top dog' in terms of the choice of console to get, for other reasons, but not for its superior hardware power.
That's not a problem with the argument. That hits the point right on the head, in fact.
No it doesn't, quite the opposite in fact. If it was Ryse 900p (XboxOne) vs Ryse 4K (PC), than it would.... Otherwise it's like comparing oranges and potatoes.
We need better resolution, because current hardware (near future too) can`t come even close to render that hollywood movies IQ level. Therefore rendering something at lower resolution, with the current AA solutions, will always look worse than 1080p+post aa. Especially if you go under 1600x900. Talking about TV`s, anything under native res on pc monitor looks shite.
SappYoda
Member
My point is that Assassins Creed IV does not look worse because the resolution increase prevented it for having better graphics. But more because it is a game that aim a different experience and was made for inferior hardware.
Decreasing resolution won't give a GPU enough resources and/or processing time to make Models more detailed, texture with more resolution, better lighting and shaders, etc. It does not have that equivalence. The resolution cost is not that high.
And this is the problem with the article. Decreasing the resolution won't make games look better on the PS4. In my point of view increasing the resolution is an easy way to increase the overall image detail without much effort. It can make texures look more detailed, distant objects more distinguishable (this is important on a game like Assassins Creed IV), reduce input lag, etc.
Fox_Mulder
Rockefellers. Skull and Bones. Microsoft. Al Qaeda. A Cabal of Bankers. The melting point of steel. What do these things have in common? Wake up sheeple, the landfill wasn't even REAL!
Lol Leadbetter
Lol Digital Foundry
Lol Digital Foundry
Its really not. It makes the point very well.
The article isn't really about PC where you can throw extra muscle at a problem to get better res/performance/graphics. Its about what you do with a limited graphics budget. If you can create a game that looks better than another while being lower resolution, then how important is resolution truly? Nobody is denying that cranking up resolution can help a game look better. That is not the point, even though I think that's what a lot of people are jumping to assuming. You cant just take Ryse on the XB1 and then crank up the resolution on it and suddenly have a better looking game like you can on PC. They would have to make cuts elsewhere, and the cuts made would probably involve other important graphics factors, potentially IQ-affecting ones. The end result might have actually been less impressive. We cant say for sure obviously, but its not an unreasonable assumption given how much overhead you get by reducing resolution, particularly in a GPU-limited scenario which I figure includes most games.
>-Baron-Spamedi-<
Member
It absolutely can if the devs wanted to put in the work to do it. You're right though - just turning up the resolution is a much 'easier' thing to do instead.
If Ryse could run the same at 1080p on Xbox One it probably would. It doesn't though. Ryse is overwhelmingly considered to be the Xbox One's best looking game. It probably wouldn't be if it were 1080p, with the sacrifices required to get it there.
Resolution matters, but in many cases it's not the most important factor as to what people consider the best looking game. If it were, some other 1080p Xbox One game would have that title.
With no performance hit and no graphics cuts, sure. But unless the XB1 has gotten some sort of GPU add-on that gives it this miracle ability to crank up resolution with no downside, then you're not really getting the point.
SappYoda
Member
And PS4 has the hardware to take a game with XBOX One assets and increase the resolution without much effort. So I think it's a clear advantage the PS4 has, and one that this article tries to downplay.
Last gen and before I heard of neogaf I used to use eurogamer as my primary game news site. Overtime I realised the God awful bias from that site, can't stand a single article from there these days. Evolve being one of the funniest.
As many have pointed out, it was all about resolution last gen, this gem it doesn't matter. They are nearly on polygon's level.
As many have pointed out, it was all about resolution last gen, this gem it doesn't matter. They are nearly on polygon's level.
>-Baron-Spamedi-<
Member
But the Xbox doesn't live in a vacuum.
There is a competing console that almost certainly could run Ryse at 1080p whilst retaining or improving asset and image quality.
Which makes it totally reasonable for people to choose the competing console for reasons of 'resolution' (although when people quote resolution as the reason for choice I believe they simply mean 'more powerful').
thewhitehawk
Member
On the television I don't really mind lower resolutions all that much because I'm sitting far away from the screen, but on a PC monitor, I try to never go below native resolution.
>-Baron-Spamedi-<
Member
The point I am getting is I can no longer tell whether you are whiteknighting for Microsoft, Digital Foundry or both.
Doctor_Thomas
Member
It is funny how DF have tried to downplay differences this gen, differences that are much bigger than the differences last gen. I'm not going to say they're biased, but there's definitely a feeling of moving goalposts or trying to fit a narrative. If resolution isn't a big deal in a technical analysis, then neither if framerate, or AF, or AA... at which point, why even do a technical analysis at all?
Like I said, I don't think they're biased or anything like that, but I do question their ability to accurately give a technical breakdown if they're even questioning resolution or talking about gameplay in a technical comparison/breakdown.
I hope another website pops up and starts doing proper analysis.
Like I said, I don't think they're biased or anything like that, but I do question their ability to accurately give a technical breakdown if they're even questioning resolution or talking about gameplay in a technical comparison/breakdown.
I hope another website pops up and starts doing proper analysis.
>-Baron-Spamedi-<
Member
That is fundamentally a problem with XboxOne... and the difference between PS4 and XboxOne. Ps4 can do 1080p without taking a hit on all of the above.
So, just because there are flaws with XboxOne hardware design, let's not push this (ridiculous) narrative, that resolution doesn't matter, because it does (just ask people who were playing AC Black Flag on PS4 before and after 1080p patch if they noticed the difference).
Resolution native to your 1080p HDTV is ideal, anything less is ok and good, but just not good enough...
I don't think you're quiet getting this...
If the PS4 could run Ryse looking as it is, at 1080p... then it could also run a version of Ryse at 900p that's simply better graphically overall. It's never a free trade. The two games that are considered the best looking on both current consoles don't resolve a full 1080p image (Ryse and The Order). They both take different approaches in order to save on resolution, but the fact remains that if you sacrifice pixels, you can apparently make better looking games on fixed hardrware.
- Status