They wouldn't have to though. Leaving as is, I'd wager Ryse would be 1920x1080 with a stable frame-rate vs the XB1 verison without much work. Ryse already looked great at 900p so a jump to 1080p would improve IQ.
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Digital Foundry :- Does resolution really matter?
- Thread starter DHC-Shannow
- Start date
- Status
They wouldn't have to though. Leaving as is, I'd wager Ryse would be 1920x1080 with a stable frame-rate vs the XB1 verison without much work. Ryse already looked great at 900p so a jump to 1080p would improve IQ.
Because in that situation improving the image quality wouldn't have degraded the frame rate.
that's what I just said.
Well, games with the latter are generally considered to have the best image qualities on console (for example Forza Horizon 2). It's definitely noticeable.
They may not have been... and it's one of those cases where even if they're telling the truth, it may be what they would always say anyway. However 900p isn't at all an unknown quantity. They will be aware of the IQ gains made by bumping the game to 1080p (as they would have seen this on their PCs anyway). If they feel that if given X% more graphical power, that they'd rather use it for other stuff, then that's their call to make. And it's definitely not something that'd be out of character for them, based on the games they've released in the past, and the hardware that they knew people were going to have to try running them on.
I'd be confident it could as well. But I can also believe that if the game were a PS4 exclusive, they would have just made the base game look better, rather than have it look identical, but at higher res.
This problem is existed from a long time. Of course if you haven't choice it's better lower the res. But if the sacrifice it's a tiny worse fps I prefer 1080p over the times.
I bet what you want who talked was more interested to give the idea Ryse was the best version possible on console than answer to the genuine question if 1080p was possible on ps4.
I don't actually think you are reading what I'm saying.
Maybe. Though them dropping it to 900p on Xbox One was so they could achieve the graphics they were wanting without having to degrade things further. PS4 would have let them keep it at 1080p. The only other Cryengine (yes, I know it's not Crytek) game out for current gen I can think of is Evolve, and it's 900p vs 1080p on the consoles with the PS4 version still having the better frame-rate. I wish Deep Silver would port the game to PS4 (since it's on PC too) so we could actually see what the differences would be.
I've just gone back I cannot see you explaining any variables to me.
ok, the single thing responsible for the blur in the AC port was the QAA
MSAA has the same performance footprint as QAA, therefore it would not have affected the performance , but would have improved the image quality.
Dictator93
Member
Maybe. Though them dropping it to 900p on Xbox One was so they could achieve the graphics they were wanting without having to degrade things further. PS4 would have let them keep it at 1080p. The only other Cryengine (yes, I know it's not Crytek) game out for current gen I can think of is Evolve, and it's 900p vs 1080p on the consoles with the PS4 version still having the better frame-rate. I wish Deep Silver would port the game to PS4 (since it's on PC too) so we could actually see what the differences would be.
Just wait for Homefront 2... that will actually use Cry-engine features well unlike Evolve. That will show a more interesting difference most likely.
Quite a bit yes.
Maybe, but they weren't even talking about whether or not the PS4 could run Ryse at 1080p. They were saying it wouldn't... i.e. they wouldn't choose to. They believe the IQ they achieved was good enough and would rather have more bells and whilstles instead... which is consistent with pretty much everything they've ever released, ever.
Maybe. Though them dropping it to 900p on Xbox One was so they could achieve the graphics they were wanting without having to degrade things further. PS4 would have let them keep it at 1080p. The only other Cryengine (yes, I know it's not Crytek) game out for current gen I can think of is Evolve, and it's 900p vs 1080p on the consoles with the PS4 version still having the better frame-rate. I wish Deep Silver would port the game to PS4 (since it's on PC too) so we could actually see what the differences would be.
I'd think that the developer is more important than the engine in this discussion. Outside of the Fox and Frostbite engines, the 900p/1080p relation seems pretty consistent. If your point is that as a multiplat game the PS4 version of Ryse would have been 1080p, then I'd probably agree with that, because they probably wouldn't want to throw in a load of additional stuff that prevents the X1 version for achieving 900p. That's not the same thing if they were to have built the game for the PS4 in the first place though.
As for what their original targets were. The game started life as a 360 title, its target was obviously moved very far forwards at some point in development when it changed generation, and there's not really anything to state that the new target wasn't based on a 900p resolution. If the Xbox One had the same specs as the PS4, or if the game was being moved to the PS4 itself, the visual target may not actually have been the same.
There seems to be this strange assumption that developers are unable to place a realistic graphical target on the Xbox One, and as a result have to consistently drop the resolution to 900p, even on exclusives (such as Ryse or Sunset Overdrive). Really though, setting such a target isn't really any different then setting a target at 1080p, if you overshoot it on PS4, you're still gonna have to bring the game in line somehow right? If you can get a game out at 1080p on PS4 having taken the console's capabilities into account, then you can do the same with the Xbox One... you'd just have set the target slightly lower. If a game comes out at 900p instead, then they've likely chosen that based on the console's capabilities, and believe it to be more beneficial than 1080p.
We're talking about multiplats. It's disingenuous to pretend that the 360 didn't hold an advantage in the VAST majority of those titles. And some open world games like Skyrim were straight broken on PS3. In the realm of games from EA, Activision, Ubisoft, etc. 360 had clarity and many times, framerate and resolution advantages.
If we were talking about exclusives, this article wouldn't exist because resolution isn't a factor one would consider for exclusives. Because they're exclusive. They have no other console choice.
staticneuron
Member
Agreed.
ninjablade
Banned
damn it, is Leadbetter trying to kill DF and get it shut down. DF whole site is based off small advantages that games have over each other that wouldn't matter to the average gamer, yet he's making an article about if resolution matters.
Shin-Ra
Junior Member
Probably not the best comparison, as after a certain point this would certainly cease being an advantage.
wellthereitis.gif
lol, almost like an Aaron Greenberg quote. Why isn't the PC version locked to 900p then?
miDnIghtEr20C
Banned
We'll have to agree to disagree. You've repeated you're previous view and I won't bother repeating mine as that's just circular.
I believe in 360 key markets the console did enjoy the perception of being "best bang for your buck" although of course that one didn't esyre its success.
This gen, with even less exclusive titles early on making much impact, the idea of "best bang for your buck" has enjoyed even more sway in market in affecting people's purchasing decisions.
IMHO.
thelastword
Banned
The XBONE version is a tad more consistent in SP, but we're talking 2-3 fps differences at odd times, it's also worth noting that the xbone version drops vsync quite often to maintain framerate whilst already in deficit of 600k pixels. The PS4 version never seems to drop vsync, if it does, I have not seen it or it's very rare.
In any case, the SP is not all there is to CODAW, it's multiplayer is the same 1080p native on the PS4 and it holds it's framerate much more consistently over the XBONE version, so the consistency there is much more important over the short campaign of the SP, I made that point to show that leadbetter never mentions that, the mode more people play is ignored entirely.
In any case, his argument was a that a lower resolution is not much different from native rez, and with good AA and PP it's a wash, that however is not so. AW's campaign looks much nicer on the PS4, it's IQ is better and I don't think the odd drops that it has warrants it looking worse for a locked framerate. So yes, the xbone drops vsync and it still drops frames, so if he is using that game as an example of his Lower Resolution/Equal IQ/Better Performance/Balance schtick, then I think he's missed the mark. I always knew such an article was coming, the Editor in Chief at DF prepared quite a bit for it.
You cannot imagine? Have you read the DF article on FC4?Dark10x said:
LinkEurogamer said:
Perhaps if it wasn't for NXGAMER, people would still believe that FC4 has a better framerate on the XBONE, and that goes without saying, since some believe everything that comes out of DF or at least pretend they do because it's suits their fancy.
DF used one instance of an explosion to give the xbone the edge(in framerate). Hell, it doesn't take much to give the xbone the edge at DF and when they do, you better be sure it will be done with some spiffy adjectives for emphasis. Curiously, when the explosion happened, the PS4 player was much closer to the explosion, which would explain the larger dip on the PS4, the video was not like for like, it is something that I have even questioned you about in the DA.I thread, which you've been reluctant to answer. When you watch the framerate video of FC4 at DF and compare it to NXGAMER's findings it's just downright embarrassing, it's like Eurogamer is fabricating falsehood right there in their video.
Even COD-AW's campaign framerate video was not exactly like for like (a linear game, not even multiplayer where you can understand some disparity) and of course so many other games I've noted before. In any case, I'd like to give due where it's deserved and I must say that the MORGAN guy did a good and accurate comparison on Vanilla Dark Souls 2 (PC) vs The (PS4) Remaster. Link.I really appreciate how like for like his video was, it's the best comparison video I've seen on DF in quite a while. Also his findings were quite interesting, funny I never saw a thread on that one.
It would be interesting if you'd do some more like for like videos of some of these older games. Longer videos across many scenes is also something that should be done.Dark10x said:
FinalStageBoss
Banned
lol hilarious question coming from a site like digital fucking foundry
GunslingerVit
Banned
Because of hackers. Don't give them a reason to hack your game and enable more options.
/s
TheLaughingStock
Member
PS3 had the terrible RSX and was weak. The PS4 is clearly more powerful than the competition in virtually everything. Resolution mattered then and it matters now for the same reasons DF use to give for 360 face off wins.
I think the problem is Richard's articles are meant for the general public not for the hardcore (he writes for a major European publisher), and he's right the general consumer is not looking up resolutions or obsess over them, but at GAF it is the opposite. People on GAF are hardcore and do pick at the resolutions, so it is pretty much a Joe vs a JomJom in his articles.
Primethius
Banned
Tsk tsk tsk, people always forget the best secret exclusive feature that the PS4 OS has that is only possible using the power of the PS4.
Proper gamma display.
Such a ridiculous premise. Developers are not locking the resolution at 900p on the xbox due to some preference, it is a hardware limitation. We see this time and time again where the ps4 is native 1080p and the xbox one is a lower resolution.
Would we even be having this discussion if Microsoft had not gimped their console?
Would we even be having this discussion if Microsoft had not gimped their console?
I'd think that would depend on the game itself tbh. a 900p/60fps Telltale game is probably not better than your alternative scenario.
We probably wouldn't be having this discussion without there being a reasonable gap in the capabilities between the two main consoles, no.
As for developers not locking the Xbox One to 900p out of preference, I disagree with that. Sure, if not a preference of 900p over 1080p, but it is a preference of more complex graphics at 900p over more simplistic graphics at 1080p. 1080p isn't some special resolution that has only become achievable with the release of these two consoles. Much like how the OG Xbox had a 720p version of Soul Calibur 2, and the PS3 has a (mostly) 1080p Wipeout Fusion (or Ridge Racer 7), the resolution itself is fully achievable if you choose to build your game to target it. If it was purely a case of the Xbox One being weaker than the PS4, then it should only really be affecting multiplatform titles.
krypt0nian
Banned
Exactly why I walked away from them. If there is a true next xbox, hopefully these fans don't reflect their next design philosophy.
I think "underpowered" is hyperbole. It's capable of outputting some genuinely great looking games such as Ryse, at launch.
Both manufacturers have striken a good enough balance between hardware and value.
By the way, "underpowered" compared to what ?
Its sad how often it keeps having to be repeated, the argument here is that on a fixed system to work with, if done well you could subjectively get a better image quality at 900p with better effects then 1080p with worse/less effects. That goes for any fixed console hardware, no need for any platform wars bullshit.
The argument is not 900p is the best image quality for the game and you don't need to go higher as people can't see it. If you could up the resolution for free you would but its never free and to hit that 1080p target you may have to compromise elsewhere, possibly resulting in a subjectively worse looking image. On a PC its up to the user to decide what compromises to take if any. I myself now with an ageing system have to make these compromises all the time.
The gist of this article is really the point that resolution isn't the be all and end all in terms of image quality. And before someone else missing the point wants to paint me as an Xbox fanboy/apologist, I haven't owned one since the OG Xbox. I have a PS4.
The argument is not 900p is the best image quality for the game and you don't need to go higher as people can't see it. If you could up the resolution for free you would but its never free and to hit that 1080p target you may have to compromise elsewhere, possibly resulting in a subjectively worse looking image. On a PC its up to the user to decide what compromises to take if any. I myself now with an ageing system have to make these compromises all the time.
The gist of this article is really the point that resolution isn't the be all and end all in terms of image quality. And before someone else missing the point wants to paint me as an Xbox fanboy/apologist, I haven't owned one since the OG Xbox. I have a PS4.
I'll be honest, your accusations do actually hurt a lot. Knowing how many hours it takes to put this stuff together combined with the fact that I've been learning all this video work along the way - the fact that you brush it off as if it were rigged in some way? The Dark Souls video? You have no idea how that was made - I don't even HAVE the capability to do that yet.
You know what? You win. I'm done. I'm trying my best and you're shitting all over it. It's genuinely making me depressed at the moment. You're ready to jump down someone's throat because you think they are biased in favor of a platform you hate when, in reality, they happen to be a much larger fan of the thing you love.
I'm feel sorry for you but keep doing what you do please. I enjoy your articles.
Some people will just see bias wherever they want, without realizing they are biased themselves.
psn
Member
I think you both misunderstood at least a little bit what the other was trying to say. I think that most of his complaints are not directed at you, they are directed at Richard Leadbetter.
SapientWolf
Trucker Sexologist
The article never explored the balance between resolution and graphics settings on anything other than a superficial level, so it essentially required people to take the author's word on it. On my PC setup, the scaling artifacts are so deleterious to the graphics that I will drop every single setting to min before I drop to 900p. But it's harder to tell the difference on a living room setup.
wellthereitis.gif
Lol
That settles it folks! One Gamespot test proves it all in your head.
Has this dude lost his mind?
Let's have another test: let's have the display toggle back and forth between 720 and 1080 while playing FarCry 4 on 10 second intervals and ask the players which resolution they think looks better.
Has this dude lost his mind?
Let's have another test: let's have the display toggle back and forth between 720 and 1080 while playing FarCry 4 on 10 second intervals and ask the players which resolution they think looks better.
Anyone besides me that only cares about fps? I legit just bought a 980, not for the res capabilities, but just to run bl2 at a smooth 60fps without tears. My Xbox one is awesome for exclusives, but for 30fps games? Cmon, do people not notice smooth gameplay, or am I crazy? Then again my poor eyes can't notice the difference between 900p and 1080p, unless side by side. I still can't believe people aren't voicing their hate for slideshows. It's 2015!
Doctor_Thomas
Member
If you think 30fps is a slideshow, but can't tell the difference between 900p and 1080p (or even know that the former isn't as clear) then I don't know what to tell you.
This thread is not a slight on you but one person in particular.
Thank god I have the option with pc to correct what I personally feel is wrong. And yes. Unless side by side I couldn't tell the difference between res. Show me 30 vs 60 and I could notice right away. A slideshow vs 60fps+ to me is easily noticeable.
The last setting you will drop in games running on the 980 is resolution below monitor native.
I just ordered it last night. Can't vouch for it yet, but I'm playing on my Sony w800b so I hope I never see those horrible frame rates again. Res. yea whatever is smooth will work.
Crayon
Member
So far, dark10 has had to answer for RL's actions. Its been going on for months. I dont blame him for feeling worn down.
- Status