-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Digital Foundry :- Does resolution really matter?
- Thread starter DHC-Shannow
- Start date
- Status
In terms of consumer choice, I would agree that buying a console that plays the same games as another, but a bit better, is perfectly reasonable. So all else equal, sure, pick the one that will play games at a better resolution. But not everything else is equal. I guess if all you cared about were multiplatform games, and nothing else, no preference for controllers, no desire for exclusives, no care about OS/ecosystem, no friends to take into account, I can see 'being able to play games at slightly better resolution' as the largest selling point.
And I do agree that people might have meant more of a 'more powerful' thing by resolution, in which case, the basis for the article would be a bit off, but I cant blame him for taking it at face value, and even if the basis isn't 100% sound, there are still plenty of good points of discussion made. Its definitely something I've thought about since the new consoles came out and I feel that the resolution hype had gotten a little blown out of proportion, especially when I see plenty of people who don't even understand how resolution works.
The Order 1886 runs at native 1080p. Look it up.
""Resolution is measured in pixel density, and The Order may have a display ratio of 1920x800, but keeps the same pixel density as a 1920x1080 resolution.
>-Baron-Spamedi-<
Member
I don't think you are quite getting this.
If resolution didn't matter the Xbox One would be the console with almost 20m units sold and 'resolution' wouldn't be cited as a reason for people preferring PS4.
Native 1080p looks better on most TVs because the image is a pixel for pixel match and requires no upscaling.
The Order's image does not require upscaling stop being disingenuous.
The trade between resolution, fps, image quality and asset quality on fixed specification is obvious to everyone surely. It's hardly a startling revelation.
The downplaying of resolution as an important part of the equation is a new development mainly being championed by people who own an Xbox One as far as I can tell.
The end.
This isn't about whether resolution can make a game look better or not! lol How many times does that have to be said?
Anyways, I see that PS4 *does* have to take cuts in graphics to run at 1080p. PC versions of multiplatform games make this pretty obvious. I guess PS4 has a fundamental hardware problem as well.
Are we talking consoles here now, or PC, or resolution....? You lost me...
Are you offended? If that's the case, I apologise, although I don't understand why are you taking all this so very personally.
The idea that resolution might not be the most important aspect of these factors does seem to have a lot of people quite baffled, though.
>-Baron-Spamedi-<
Member
What does any of this have to do with resolution or power?
It doesn't make the differences in resolution/power less significant or important. It just gives a list of reasons why someone might be prepared not to buy something despite the power/Resolution differences.
I'm not offended, no. It was just pointing out that the 'fundamental problem' with the hardware thing was a silly comment. All hardware is limited. My high-ish end PC is limited. I can only do so much with it, and just because there is another machine that can do more than mine does not make my PC have a 'fundamental problem'. This isn't about which console is more powerful, its about whether resolution should be the priority when it comes to improving how a game looks. Its the popular way to do it. But is it the best? There is reasoning to think that, at least in some situations, it isn't.
I know this. Which is why I say the two games take a different approach to save on pixels. Ryse could be letterboxed to maintain 1:1 mapping and run mostly unchanged as well. What they wouldn't be able to do though is produce a full 1920x1080 without sacrificing in other areas. Same with The Order.
In regards to The Order, see above.
If you agree in regards to the trade-offs for resolution on fixed hardware, then you actually agree with me.
I'm not claiming that resolution isn't important. I've already stated in here plenty of times that games like BF4 on Xbox One have a resolution I simply can't be dealing with. I don't think at 720p Ryse would be commonly cited as being the best looking game on the console. At the same time though resolution isn't the only factor as the two X1 games that immediately follow BF4 in terms of games I've seen that have nasty IQ are both 1080p (Forza 5 and Dead or Alive 5). Bumping the res is always better if all else is equal.. but unless the game in question simply has nowhere else to spend its processing budgets (i.e. because it's a multiplat that need to run at 900p on Xbox One, or it's simply just a very simple game graphically like Minecraft) then I don't think resolving 1920x1080 actually leads to the best overall image in many cases.
Also I own all three current gen consoles along with a PC, and all three last gen consoles too... so I'd prefer if you didn't simplify my status as "Xbox One Owner". There's a good chance that MS would be getting their assess handed to them right now, even if their console matched the PS4 identically in specs. It's not as if having the most powerful console in any previous gen caused them to be a global market leader.
>-Baron-Spamedi-<
Member
Again, it should be fairly obvious, there isn't a 'most important aspect'. The whole thing is a balancing act based on the capability of the system. The PS4 simply has the more capable system for delivering native 1080p consistently. Where both systems do have native 1080p the PS4 usually has improved assets etc (unless parity rears its ugly head).
I'm not sure why accepting this causes so much angst for some people.
Native resolution IS important because it stops the image being degraded by scaling.
Running a game at non native res is ugly, no amount of bells and whistles can make up for that.
I can run D3 at 720p with AA and everything maxed and it still looks worse the. At 1080p with everything medium.
Running a game at native res should be priority if you want a good crisp IQ.
I can run D3 at 720p with AA and everything maxed and it still looks worse the. At 1080p with everything medium.
Running a game at native res should be priority if you want a good crisp IQ.
Sure, resolution isn't the only factor there, but about 90% of the time the PS4 version of the game is equal in almost all aspects yet has higher resolution so it just looks flat out better. Which is what this article is trying to downplay.
travisbickle
Member
Resolution is important because it's a recognisable measurement. TVs are 1080p, if a games console is struggling to meet that number people will understand the consequences.
Doctor_Thomas
Member
This is pretty much it for me.
And you think that most consumers understand this?
fabricated backlash
Member
Personally I don't mind lower res all that much. I just don't find it very obstrusive to my enjoyment of games.
BUT!!
Digital Foundry doesn't get to backpedal on this.
They either focus on technical empirical analysis, or they drop the pretense and go full fanboy wank material.
BUT!!
Digital Foundry doesn't get to backpedal on this.
They either focus on technical empirical analysis, or they drop the pretense and go full fanboy wank material.
>-Baron-Spamedi-<
Member
And I'd prefer it if you didn't start posts addressing me with patronizing remarks like 'I don't think you're getting this' - oh well I guess we all have crosses to bear.
The Order was decided to be in 1920x800 as a design choice due to adopting a cinematic framing approach early in its design stage. It does not require upscaling to fill a native 1080p display.
Any effects on performance are secondary to the design choice.
Ryse is 1600x900 because they couldn't run the visuals at 1080p. Effects on performance are the primary reason for the resolution choice. It requires upscaling to fill a native 1080p display.
Trying to imply there is a similarity between these two cases is just dishonest.
>-Baron-Spamedi-<
Member
And you think that most consumers understand this?
It seems most consumers understand that the PS4 is more powerful and many consumers cite that as a reason for buying a PS4.
Why? Are you claiming to have a solid understanding of what 'most consumers know'?
DF/Leadbetter just reposted an article they did on the making of Uncharted 2 with Naughty Dog, originally posted back in 2010. It includes technical stuff but also goes into lots of other aspects.
They do more than just technical analysis. Always have. People have gotten this super narrow view of what DF is and get this ridiculous notion that DF shouldn't be doing anything other than FaceOffs or whatever. Like they've decided that's all DF is good for and anything they else they have to say is unwanted and ruins their reputation. Its pretty awful.
KratosEnergyDrink
Member
Resolution matters.
But framerate and vsync are much more important.
But framerate and vsync are much more important.
Dishonest? Its factually similar. Just because there is *a* difference doesn't mean the point of using a reduced resolution to free up resources to push graphics elsewhere isn't just similar - but the exact same concept. They just go about it slightly differently.
Its dishonest to pretend there is no similarity.
I think you should probably have a better idea of what the article was getting at now, even if you're going to try and sidestep it as much as possible.
>-Baron-Spamedi-<
Member
It isn't factually similar. Stop talking crap.
One game runs in native resolution - the other doesn't and is upscaled.
One game was chosen to run with cinematic framing early in its development cycle before performance could even have been a consideration.
The other had its resolution reduced once it became clear it could not be run in native resolution for performance reasons.
You are an intellectual fraud.
Your constant whiteknighting for DF and or Microsoft is laughable. There. I've said it.
Valkyria
Banned
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
Yes it's written by Leadbetter.
I said "I don't think you're getting this" because you continuously appeared be misunderstanding the point that we were making. This is evident from you actually agreeing with us in your response ("The trade between resolution, fps, image quality and asset quality on fixed specification is obvious to everyone surely"), and also that for the reasons you see my Ryse/The Order comparison as being "dishonest".
I'm not talking about Xbox One vs Playstation 4 here. On both consoles there are games that are 1080p, and games that are 900p. I was just discussing the tradeoffs that are required to run a game at full 1920x1080, and stating how in my opinion (and based on Ryse's reception, many others) hitting that exact resolution isn't the most important factor in how good a game looks. The Order and Ryse aren't similar in terms of how you perceive them when they hit your screen, however in regards to what is being asked of the hardware itself they are very similar. In both cases the hardware is basically being told "no, don't worry about those pixels... focus on making these ones looks as good as possible". In both cases this has allowed the games to look better than they otherwise would have (and better than any 1920x1080 game on the same hardware), and in both cases this tradeoff needs to be balanced. Just like how dropping the resolution too low in Ryse would at some point overshadow any graphical gains being made, there would also be a point where cutting too much of the screen would overshadow the graphical benefits for The Order, regardless if the remaining pixels were still mapped 1:1 or not.
FanDeNintendo
Neo 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
Yes it's written by Leadbetter.
Wow, do not let this post overlooked.
>-Baron-Spamedi-<
Member
As evidenced by early design artwork etc. they chose to make a game in cinematic framing. This was an early artistic design choice.
It obviously has given them resources to spend elsewhere but that is after the fact. The image is in native resolution on a 1080p set.
Ryse had its resolution dropped after they realised they couldn't get it to run at 1080p. That is a choice forced by performance requirements later in the development cycle.
It is not in native resolution and requires upscaling.
Evil Within is a game with black bars forced by performance later in development and would have been a far more appropriate example.
Journey
Banned
The PS4 is more powerful, sure, but Crytek themselves said if they did a PS4 version, they would also target 900p, and would've likely had a rock solid 30fps and maybe a better AA solution, but straight out of the horse's mouth 900p just like BF4 is what we would have gotten.
That would actually be a really poor example given that the black bars are simply part of the hud and not a result of a cinematic resolution.
The Evil Within wouldn't be a far more appropriate example, because it kinda looks like shit tbh. The whole point was to focus on the game that's considered to be the best looking game on each console. The Evil Within isn't close to that for either.
Regardless of if the end resolution was something decided ahead of time, or if it was reactionary due to performance issues encountered later (do you have a source that states Ryse wasn't always intended to be 900p btw?), the end result is that the games are able to do things graphically that they otherwise would not be able to. Crytek could have changed the graphics in ways other than dropping the resolution. They didn't though, and that's an equally deliberate choice, even if made later.
MilkyJoe
Member
Ok so you agree losing 30% has allowed for higher IQ in the 800p left for the Order . Ryse went for high IQ at full screen, in doing so they had to reduce the resolution to achieve this.
Both are trade offs regardless of original intent.
Yes, that is how they are different. But they are also similar in the way explained.
An orange and a tangerine are different, but also similar.
Performance is always a consideration. Either way, whether it happened earlier on or not, the fact is - the reduced resolution frees up resources that allow them to push the graphics in other ways.
Yes, lashing out is often a popular tactic for those with weak arguments.
Sorry for being an inconvenience to the DF bashing party, though.
Heh, recall that The Evil Within shipped at 900p anamorphic (1600x900 squished into a wider aspect). The patched version runs at 1920x768 and operates at a better, but still awful, frame-rate. Xo version is 1600x...something (I forget) and runs even worse.
That game was a mess. Still can't hit 60 fps on my pc.
What Crytek said here it's a stupid PR bullshit. How did they knew 900p was the best solution on ps4 without working on it? The Witcher 3 will be 1080p why Ryse shouldn't? They just tried to promote the xbone port as the best possible console version , no more.
DirgeExtinction
Member
The Order could have maintained the same graphical quality at a full 1920 x 1080(no black bars), with just 2xMSAA. Just wanted to point that out.
Don't know when the last time you play it was, but it plays at a pretty regular 60fps with my GTX970 now. Not solid, but consistent enough for me.
Are you actually suggesting that Crytek are unqualified to make a prediction on how the PS4 would benefit their multiplatform engine? As far as I recall they never said they wouldn't have improved the game in other areas as a result of not bumping the resolution.
Yup, I know. Which would be a noticeable sacrifice to the game's IQ, something that is very regularly pointed out as a significant strength.
It's been awhile. I'll load it up later and see how it fares now. Would love to play it at 60.
My 2 cents.
From PC gaming days always ran at monitor native.
If FPS got to be a slide show, first downgraded were shadows and then lighting and then AA. Never the resolution.
From my Consoles.....less than native resolutions is blurry to me. Text is hard to read. I prefer native resolution over all.
Black Flag was a perfect example on the PS4 for me. Night and day difference when patched.
Put my vote in the resolution hat.
From PC gaming days always ran at monitor native.
If FPS got to be a slide show, first downgraded were shadows and then lighting and then AA. Never the resolution.
From my Consoles.....less than native resolutions is blurry to me. Text is hard to read. I prefer native resolution over all.
Black Flag was a perfect example on the PS4 for me. Night and day difference when patched.
Put my vote in the resolution hat.
lingpanda
Member
Doesn't matter to me. However I do take notice when comparing products. Let's take 1080p vs 4k.I would like to have a 4k television. I'm settling for a resolution reduction in 1080p. I will also go to Redbox and rent a DVD over Blue ray if that's the format that is available. #My2Cents
I just said it was a PR talks and they are not new to such stuff. Did you remember the CG thing about them talking of their engine on ps360? The person who released this PR stuff most of time isn't a graphic coder, if I'm not wrong. In any case how did they knew 900p was the only available option without working on it? That's a weird assumption.
To be honest, they probably just think 900p with an AA implementation like Ryse's is good enough. They would then just continue to turn everything else up to 11 whilst retaining that res. Basically if the overhead were their to bump the res, they'd choose to spend it elsewhere every time.
Seems like a simple enough call to make, even without having made the game on that platform itself.
Yea, you wont find many PC gamers willing to reduce resolution except under desperate circumstances or if they've got like a CRT monitor or something. When you're sitting close up to a display, resolution differences are more pronounced.
And I think everybody prefers native resolution. I don't think that's under question.
but if you actually read what he said in that article, he says that the edge smoothing is superior on QAA.
What he does allude to is QAA being an usual choice given that 2XMSAA uses a similar level of resources and this is the option that the 360 uses.
It's not the same situation with rendering resolution, as this does have performance implications.
I'm not even sure why Assassin's Creed has been brought into this thread, the PS3 version is up there with Bayonetta and the Orange box for terrible performance on PS3, it's AA solution was the least of it's worries.
DirgeExtinction
Member
Is there really much of a difference between 2xMSAA and 4xMSAA? Honestly curious.
But those things change during the development cycle. You can't know what is it the best choice possible without working on it. Said that, I highly doubt they were intellectually honest considering they are promoting their game in the same period.
Because is it undeniable. Why he shouldn't said that? I think the problem was more why at the time care more to catch the sharper IQ, higher res and suddenly fps is above the IQ. If I'm not wrong QAA at the time was the most hated AA solution for the 'muddy' issue.
- Status