Ah cool thanks
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Digital Foundry :- Does resolution really matter?
- Thread starter DHC-Shannow
- Start date
- Status
Ah cool thanks
I don't think I've ever actually seen any real implication of this to be honest. There are varying opinions on how much better it would have looked, and various opinions of if it would be better on the same hardware (due to the sacrifices that would have been required to get it to that res)... but I can't think of a single example of someone implying the game simply wouldn't benefit from a resolution bump at all. Care to elaborate?
How is claiming that "all praise would stop" factual? How is that not downplaying it?
Ryse being an exclusive benefits it in graphical comparisons in the way most exclusives do, that being that the best looking among them have a tendency to look better than multiplatform games... whether that be Uncharted 3, Killzone 2, The Last of Us, God of War 3/Ascension or Halo 4, Forza Horizon, Viva Pinata, Gears of War 3/Judgement, etc. Ryse is singled out in this case simply because most people think it looks better than everything else on the platform. If exclusivity was the defining factor, everyone could simply pick a different exclusive that has a better framerate, or runs at 1080p or whatever... and doesn't have a PC version for comparison. What you're suggesting makes no sense, as Ryse would be one of the dumbest choices to use artificially as a showpiece.
Futhermore, using The Order to diminish what Ryse achieves is a little misguided. Would you accept Ryse's technical accomplishments more willingly if Crytek pushed out a patch that mapped the graphics natively 1:1 with blacks bars, rather than scaling to the native resolution? Out of a full 1920x1080, The Order only actually resolves 74% of that, contrasting with 69% for Ryse. I'd think someone criticizing Digital Foundry so enthusiastically for double standards would be more careful with the metrics they choose to compare offerings between two consoles.
Much like how many here suggest that DF should just accept the most logical reasoning for people answering the way they did in the survey (i.e. to them resolution is important), you should probably also accept the most logical reasoning why people choose Ryse as the graphical standout for the Xbox One (i.e. they think it looks better than everything else on the platform). Now... what that says about the importance of 1080p to this group... I'll just leave that one open.
NoMoChokeSJ
Banned
So... The millions Sony gave to Activision, for advertising, to promoted Destiny as primarily a PS4 game doesn't count? You know the game MS couldn't advertise as coming to their platform, hence the cologne ads mocking the advertising deal? This is completely different somehow?
miDnIghtEr20C
Banned
Ha ha.. I'm so old school with gaming that I find it funny nobody is hopping on the sides with the "fun factor". That's why I game.
Pathfinder
Member
Ain't nobody got time for the "fun factor" anymore with all these other things to worry about.
miDnIghtEr20C
Banned
Fun factor is great, except we're talking about games that are identical across both consoles in gameplay and only differentiate in a bit of graphics capability. So fun factor is exactly equal across both platforms on these games.
There are two reasons I find "fun factor" to be a strange answer.
1) It's a bit like someone asking you why you choose a specific food, and you reply with "because I'm hungry". That's not a good answer to why you chose a specific food, as combating hunger is a generic benefit that is expected of pretty much all food in general. There are very few situations where you can not have fun with a game, without it completely failing its intended purpose.
2) I buy consoles to play games. I buy the games themselves for their fun factor. I find it strange to credit the console directly for this, rather than the software.
serversurfer
Member
Hoping for 1080p and solid frame rates is probably a bit optimistic, given that the frame rates in Ryse were apparently quite low at times. That said, claiming the title of Most Beautiful while hitting neither the performance or resolution standards seems a bit of a thorny crown. I bet Ryse would've been stunning at 480p0.1.
Neither claimed they couldn't see the difference, but here, both Blizzard and Thomas Morgan of DF said they preferred 900p60 to 1080p50. Then here is where Morgan declared both versions basically equivalent, despite the actual performance difference and his own preference for performance over resolution. You probably didn't notice any complaining because DF said clearly that the Bone version turned out just as good, and as Microsoft Xbox Chief Marketing and Strategy Officer Yusuf Mehdi explains here, "In a broader set of community, people don't pay attention to a lot of the details. We've seen it in the research, we've seen it in a lot of the data points."
It's really not that strange. Well, I guess it may seem strange if you assume DF are here to tell us which games are technically superior.
Anyway, yes, engineering is a series of compromises, so developers will always be striking a balance between resolution, frame rates, and per-pixel quality, but Leadbetter completely glosses over the fact that fewer compromises will need to be made on the PS4 when compared to the Bone. No matter what the Bone is giving, the PS4 will almost invariably give you more. To their credit, it seems that most consumers have correctly identified resolution as what they're generally going to get more of. Leadbetter doesn't seem to want people to think they'll get more when they choose PS4, so he wrote an article downplaying the importance of resolution.
Actually, I think RAD's "solution" was probably ideal; they get the performance boost of sub-native resolution with no detrimental effect on the final image quality. Ryse definitely would've looked better if it had been letter-boxed, and I actually hope more developers adopt the solution. While full-screen 1080p will likely always be preferable, if you're not gonna make it, I'll take black bars over scaling any day of the week, and twice on Sunday.
If Activision's advertising money was going to buy favor with gaming journalists, I would imagine that favor would go to Activision.
Leadbetter wants us to choose based on fun, but with a substantially larger library than the Bone, the PS4 simply offers more fun too.
Rather than, "Because I'm hungry," think of it as, "Because it tastes good." Is that easier to swallow? /rimshot
Can't have one without the other.
NoMoChokeSJ
Banned
And yet Destiny didn't avoid critical reviews from these major gaming websites. Which is exactly what I was responding to. Advertising money does not automatically equate to favorable reviews or biasedness. Personally biasedness and product favoritism by individuals may exist, but the claim of moneyhatting by the individual I was responding to is unsubstantiated and tells of its own biasedness.
cHaOs667
Member
And don't forget that Ryse is still a launch title so what Crytek has achieved is really marvelous and award-winning - SIGGRAPH award for best real-time graphics.
I never said Sony aren't advertising where they feel they can target effectively, I'm saying that they don't have to advertise as indiscriminately or spend anywhere near as much.
The media who's survival depends on ad revenue will know this so they will avoid rocking the boat to ensure that their open hat at least is considered.
If I owned a gaming site I would do the same because I had to.
Poodle Cannon
Member
Yawn. For consoles, consistent frame rate is indeed more important for me. I have PC for the best of both worlds, unless the game is poorly optimized.
nkarafo
Member
They are also at least 60hz.
SapientWolf
Trucker Sexologist
I don't know if it's more important than resolution, but 30fps on an LCD looks nauseatingly blurry. I'm surprised no one ever mentions it.
StrongBlackVine
Banned
Why do you own a console then? Even if it is only for exclusives I still want the best visual fidelity possible. That's like saying can't get FF15 or Kingdom Hearts 3 on PC so who cares how it looks. Sounds ridiculous.
Because most of us don't have broken LCD screens from 15 years ago?
ninjablade
Banned
Lol exactly what I was thinking.
Maybe because most of the casual gamers are playing without Game-Mode with 200ms input lag?
Most of us lightboost users do but I guess that means none of you care about sharpness based on others logic I'm seeing. Not you in particular just this debate in general at this site or on the web.
To be honest in the discussion of graphics most consumers care but not enough and not where it really matters. If I say anymore it's just ruffled feathers on an issue very little care about.
Glomby
Member
I have a high end pc as well and I buy most games for consoles. A console is far better suited for a living room big screen experience while a pc is way better in a home office kind of setup. So most story based games (which is the majority of what I like to play) are better experienced on my 65" plasma home cinema setup and not my 27" PC monitor.
You might say, why not have a PC in the living room as well and I did try it, but it doesn't even come close to how easy and convenient a console is. The best of both worlds is the way to go, I don't think there is one platform that does everything the best. It makes sense to buy games for consoles even if you have the PC to max it out easily.
Glomby
Member
I think some people don't understand what this thread is about, like you.
It's not about if you can see the difference between 1080p and 900p and it's not about if you care or not. You can definitely see the difference and more pixels is always better.
The question is does it matter. There is so much more to a game than resolution. The question is would you rather sacrifice shadows, lod, textures, etc. just to hit 1080p or just keep it all and go down to 900p. Does it really matter?
Well, at least that's how I see it. You can't talk about resolution without talking about everything else.
SmashN'Grab
Member
I thought it was an interesting article, and I don't see what all the fuss is about. I agree that resolution is not the be-all-end-all of image and picture quality. Lots of people these days have large screens (65" and the like) and at 1080p that gives you a pretty low pixel density.
I mean, a 1080p screen on a 65" TV has about 33 pixels per inch (even a 42" TV gives you only ~50 ppi). By contrast, a 3DS XL has about 93 pixels per inch (Vita having 220 and iPhones having about 400). As a result, you'd need to sit back quite far from a large 1080p TV to resolve the image to a satisfactory degree. For this reason, I think resolution scaling isn't such a big deal in your living room, especially compared to handhelds and PCs.
I mean, a 1080p screen on a 65" TV has about 33 pixels per inch (even a 42" TV gives you only ~50 ppi). By contrast, a 3DS XL has about 93 pixels per inch (Vita having 220 and iPhones having about 400). As a result, you'd need to sit back quite far from a large 1080p TV to resolve the image to a satisfactory degree. For this reason, I think resolution scaling isn't such a big deal in your living room, especially compared to handhelds and PCs.
Exaggerate much, without game-mode on TV's your looking at 80ms tops. Most TV's these days are around 30-40ms. Same as controller input.Maybe because most of the casual gamers are playing without Game-Mode with 200ms input lag?
Yeah sure. Especially TVs with 200hz image interpolation. And then people are asking why they suck at CoD online.
That argument would make sense if PS4 was sacrificing those things to hit 1080p. It is not, so what fuck is the article about?
I'd like to see a HDTV calibration article from Digital Foundry, a lot of people have so much post processing shit enabled on their TV sets that fucks up IQ and adds unnecessary input lag.
PS4 can hit much easier than the Xbone 1080p but for example Killzone Shadow Fall could maintain a much more consistent 60fps if Guerilla went with 900p instead of 1080p. That's the kind of trade-off that the article is suggesting.
EASTC0AST_GH05T
Member
I have a Sony Bravia W700b and I turn all the BS off and do everything on game mode. There is even a impulse option that can decrease input lag even more but it makes the screen very dim and also adds in that old flicker nonsense that crtvs had. The input lag in game mode clocks in at 23 ms which isn't to bad.
Glomby
Member
It makes sense when it's about the Xbox one. People think the xbox can't hit 1080p no matter what. But it could if they would sacrifice other stuff. So again the question is should they always keep it at 1080p and reduce other effects or is it better to keep all other effects. That's where the does it matter question comes from.
It's the impact that's important. Is 900p really that much worse if you can't have AA, or higher res textures, or AF or whatnot? Even high end PCs can't do everything that's humanly possible. Yes you could down sample a game from 8k. That's technically possible, yet not an option if you care about frame rates at all.
This article is no console wars article, if you take it this route there is no need to even talk about it. If the ps4 can do everything the Xbox does at 1080p it's better all the time no matter what. But that's not what it is about.
Delusibeta
Banned
Leadbetter still being extremely bitter that the Xbox One is weaker than the PS4. That is the entire point of the article.
slavesnyder
Member
The answer is simple: People are different.
For some it matters, as we can see in this discussion.
Only because I have a family I would not say that all people would have to prefer cars with big trunks and 5 seats.
Of course this is another console war thing and that's great fun. And in this case the author started the fire. For me, resolution might be priority number 3 or 4 on my list. Otherwise I would never have bought a Nintendo Handheld. But if people say that they do not want to ruin their eyes with lower resolution and it HAS to be the best available - fine with me.
Leadbetter did exactly that. He compared ryse on pc at 1080p and 900p then suggested 900p "holds up", despite the resolution drop compared to the computer version. "Holds up" what? Is he trying to strongly imply it didn't make a difference to image quality (by linking to a youtube video no less)? Because it did
Go back a few years and he would have written paragraph after paragraph trying to convince you with stuff like this:
A patch that increased the number of pixels by 7% and made the framerate a more stable 30?
Considering you have been posting nonstop about sacrifices why exactly wouldn't that be somewhat impressive?
I mean, I think it says a lot more about you than it does Leadbetter that you're reading 'holds up' as 'strongly implying it didn't make a difference to image quality'.
But this is precisely the kind of tortured analysis that I've come to expect from the DF conspiracy theory crowd so I can't say I'm surprised.
I would suggest You to open both images Xbone and PC on Your TV on full screen and compare in console gaming conditions.
Elaborate on how you infer "holds up" then. Even 480p "holds up" I guess. It's also worth mentioning this was in the 'does resolution matter' article, not inferred from some quote out of context.
What exactly is a "console playing condition"? if you are suggesting that a person cannot see that difference because they cannot resolve the pixel pitch at a sofa distance then why exactly would leadbetter go on to say 4k would make a difference instead in the very next paragraph?
EASTC0AST_GH05T
Member
guys come on no matter how minor you think res is regarding getting the best out of a game technically what LB is doing is totally wrong and messed up. We clearly all have different opinions on what matters and what doesn't regarding gaming specs but shouldn't it be left up to us without having tech analysis try to push there own preference and hidden agendas on us?
MilkyJoe
Member
Hidden agenda aside. Resolution matters, but if the game is great fun, then it's not the end of the world. Not down playing it, but a developer only has the tools he's given, by tools I mean the capability of the consoles they are developing for.
slavesnyder
Member
That's obvious. But Digital Foundry telling you that technical aspects are not so important is like Scrooge McDuck saying that money is not everything....
hooijdonk17
Member
I would really like to meet these people who can't tell they are playing COD in lower resolution..
EDIT: Why the fuck do half the people in this thread have this avatar? Makes it impossible to follow who's saying what.
EDIT: Why the fuck do half the people in this thread have this avatar? Makes it impossible to follow who's saying what.
MilkyJoe
Member
Then don't lap it up, media is a bullshit machine, just give it a Jennifer Lawence "yeah ok" gif, and move on.
You'd be surprised.
I remember walking in from work and my housemate was playing Guitar Hero and the 360 set itself to 480i non-widescreen on a 42" Samsung. I walked in like "UGH WTF is up with the 360?", he said something like "What? Can't see any difference".
A lot of my mates were the same with the X1. I remember playing KI and making a remark about how the game looks pretty but 720p kills the image of the game. He stated how he couldn't notice a difference in resolution between KI and FIFA. I was confused.
slavesnyder
Member
Relax. Maybe I am just a dreamer who wants that media is taking their job seriously instead of being a bullshit machine.
But be assured. I will move on (but without Jennifer Lawrence).
SmashN'Grab
Member
They're not saying that technical aspects are not so important. They're saying that resolution, as one of the technical aspects they cover, is not automatically more important than any of the others. It's just one factor in the make-up of a game's visuals.
If you look at their previous face-offs, resolution is not always the most-discussed aspect. They also spend a lot of time covering things like anti-aliasing, lighting, effects, level-of-detail, post-processing, geometry, transparencies, tessellation, v-sync, motion-blur, shadows and, the part that receives the most focus, performance.
I don't see anything in this article telling us that all of a sudden technical aspects are not important to consider. Where do you see that?
I think you don't understand that this thread is about DF article.
From the said article:
"Battlefield Hardline launches later this month with a 720p Xbox One resolution and unimpressive image quality as a result."
Nobody, and I mean nobody in this thread said resolution is end all, be all... But does it matter? Hell yes it matters.
Game displayed in native resolution of your HDTV (amongst other things) is ideal solution for overall IQ.
I think argument is that one console have hard times hitting that target without a struggle and a sacrifice to certain effects and framerate, and the other doesn't.
Resolution absolutely matters, let's stop pretending people don't have eyes and let's stop downplaying things.
thetwinsattack
Neo Member
I wasn't a visitor to Gaf during the PS3 / 360 days but there sure seems a lot of anger towards DF for the perceived injustices towards PS3?
My thoughts are that it's a perfectly valid article that addresses a topic that has been given a lot of coverage over the last 12 or so months.
For the record I own an Xbox One and Wii U having owned both a 360 and PS3 last gen. There is no question that in terms of raw performance the PS4 is winning both on paper and in every face off I've seen. I'm not aware of DF giving the Xbox One the nod on more than a few occasions?
The article to me makes the point that whilst the XO is certainly loosing out in terms of resolution it's not such a difference to explain why apparently owners of the PS4 cite that as their primary reason for ownership. It also seems fair to say that for both consoles there are perhaps other avenues to be explored than simply chasing a baseline 1080p. Ryse obviously couldn't have reached 1080p on the hardware whilst maintaining the same effects and the trade off to 900p certainly seems worth it in my eyes. I would imagine the same is true of The Order which used black bars to cut it's pixel output to maintain extremely high detail and effects work.
There are other reasons than resolution I choose to own an Xbox over a PS4 and I'm fine with accepting that the trade off will be a reduced resolution in most titles. It's encouraging to see that work is being done to mitigate the visual differences where possible.
My thoughts are that it's a perfectly valid article that addresses a topic that has been given a lot of coverage over the last 12 or so months.
For the record I own an Xbox One and Wii U having owned both a 360 and PS3 last gen. There is no question that in terms of raw performance the PS4 is winning both on paper and in every face off I've seen. I'm not aware of DF giving the Xbox One the nod on more than a few occasions?
The article to me makes the point that whilst the XO is certainly loosing out in terms of resolution it's not such a difference to explain why apparently owners of the PS4 cite that as their primary reason for ownership. It also seems fair to say that for both consoles there are perhaps other avenues to be explored than simply chasing a baseline 1080p. Ryse obviously couldn't have reached 1080p on the hardware whilst maintaining the same effects and the trade off to 900p certainly seems worth it in my eyes. I would imagine the same is true of The Order which used black bars to cut it's pixel output to maintain extremely high detail and effects work.
There are other reasons than resolution I choose to own an Xbox over a PS4 and I'm fine with accepting that the trade off will be a reduced resolution in most titles. It's encouraging to see that work is being done to mitigate the visual differences where possible.
I mean, when you say that something 'holds up' you're generally comparing it to your impression of the same thing at an earlier time and saying that the quality of it hasn't diminished despite the passage of time.
'I rewatched The Matrix and the special effects still hold up' doesn't mean to 'strongly imply' that there is no difference between the special effects of The Matrix and of newer movies. You're saying that the quality of the thing hasn't been totally diminished because of newer, better, higher quality things.
So, yeah, it makes perfect sense to say that, say, Final Fantasy VI 'holds up' visually in 2015, and you're not suggesting at all that it looks just as good as FFXV or that 480p is the same as 1080p.
If I had to put an interpretation on it I'd say that what he's saying is that Ryse on Xbone still looks pretty decent despite the resolution deficit when he says that it 'holds up' in the face of 1080p.
Where i suggested anything? Stop with seeing or adding things that do not exist. Read what was it is, not what You think should be.
Just dont compare it on monitors, because thats not a point.
Console playing conditions are playing games on TV from few meters away.
'Holds up' doesnt imply same, or similar or even very close, but acceptable enough. And You cant argue that 900p isnt acceptable enough, especially on TV.
And thats without even mentioning that article doesnt focus on comparison between 1080p and 900p, but debating that full high resolution isnt as important as fidelity.
- Status