Support NeoGAF

[BigDug13]

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?

The article was spawned from Nielson poll results where multiplat gamers picked PS4 because of resolution advantage. PS4 isn't "sacrificing" things to reach 1080p. Gamers want the system that has more native resolution games. The article is trying to paint a picture where their number one reason for getting a PS4 isn't really important, and I guess that's kinda true. But when both systems on multiplat games are identical in every other way and resolution is one of the only distinguishing factors between them, it's no mystery why resolution is an important reason to choose PS4 in that instance.

He wants "gameplay" to be the reason people choose one console over another. But what "gameplay" advantages does one console have over another in multiplats?

 

[KKRT00]

The article was spawned from Nielson poll results where multiplat gamers picked PS4 because of resolution advantage. PS4 isn't "sacrificing" things to reach 1080p. Gamers want the system that has more native resolution games. The article is trying to paint a picture where their number one reason for getting a PS4 isn't really important, and I guess that's kinda true. But when both systems on multiplat games are identical in every other way and resolution is one of the only distinguishing factors between them, it's no mystery why resolution is an important reason to choose PS4 in that instance.

He wants "gameplay" to be the reason people choose one console over another. But what "gameplay" advantages does one console have over another in multiplats?

First of all, article is not about multiplatform or comparisons between them, but how devs are using resources.

PS4 games can and did sacrificed native resolution, for framerate and fidelity already.

He didnt say he wants people to choose gameplay as a reason, but he more focused on quality of gaming, which means things like framerate for example, but also input lag etc.
You cant argue that stable framerate is more important factor than resolution.

 

[Three]

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.

I can't say I agree with that interpretation because this isn't about a different movie or a different era. This is the same game with two different resolutions being the only differentiating factor in the posted comparison. he was comparing 1080p Ryse on Pc to 900p Ryse on Xbox one.


If I had said "FF VII in 480p still holds up in image quality to FF VII in 1080p." in an article called 'does resolution matter?'.

How would you interpret that other than 1080p making little difference to image quality?

But ultimately this is all semantics and one thing I've learnt is to never argue semantics.

 

[Journey]

First of all, article is not about multiplatform or comparisons between them, but how devs are using resources.

PS4 games can and did sacrificed native resolution, for framerate and fidelity already.

He didnt say he wants people to choose gameplay as a reason, but he more focused on quality of gaming, which means things like framerate for example, but also input lag etc.
You cant argue that stable framerate is more important factor than resolution.

Can you stop it with the logic thingy? You're messsing up the fun, now let's go back to roasting Leadbetter

Spoiler

/s

 

[KKRT00]

I can't say I agree with that interpretation because this isn't about a different movie or a different era. This is the same game with two different resolutions being the only differentiating factor in the posted comparison. he was comparing 1080p Ryse on Pc to 900p Ryse on Xbox one.


If I had said "FF VII in 480p still holds up in image quality to FF VII in 1080p." in an article called 'does resolution matter?'.

How would you interpret that other than 1080p making little difference to image quality?

But ultimately this is all semantics and one thing I've learnt is to never argue semantics.

And again, You are missing the point.

The point was that resources that lowering resolution from 1080p to 900p offers ability to fidelity, which can lead to much better image than just a resolution bump.

He posted 1080p and 900p comparison as a point that 900p still looks pretty decent, even though it frees up 30-40% GPU time.

I really dont get, how such a simple and short article can bring so much confusion. Its written in really simple way. Now i kinda understand why Durante's strictly tech written article about AA was rejected.

 

[AlphaDump]

so... why wouldn't we want the more clear image?

 

[Three]

What exactly is a "console playing condition"? if you are suggestioning 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?

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.

I'm sorry, but I'm having a hard time parsing your response when you say "Stop with seeing or adding things that do not exist" even though I asked and said if, then you go on to mention exactly what I thought you were suggesting. Doesn't make any sense to me.

 

[KKRT00]

so... why wouldn't we want the more clear image?

Because You have limited resources on consoles. And 30% of GPU time is a lot.

---

I'm sorry, but I'm having a hard time parsing your response when you say "Stop with seeing or adding things that do not exist" even though I asked and said if, then you go on to mention exactly what I thought you where suggesting. Doesn't make any sense to me.

Why are You even ask this question? You assumed, like with DF article, that this was my intention and just wanted a verification.
Why didnt You answer for all points i wrote to You about the article?

 

[AlphaDump]

Because You have limited resources on consoles. And 30% of GPU time is a lot.

if all else is the same, why wouldnt you go with the more clear image?

 

[KKRT00]

if all else is the same, why wouldnt you go with the more clear image?

No one is saying that. Article is not talking about such situations.
Of course if the only way to use free GPU resources is by increasing resolution, then resolution bump is way to go, but thats not what this article is about.

---

I am asking you. Which do you prefer?

Ability to control post-processing and downsampling. Thats what i prefer, thats why i game on a platform where i decide about IQ, not devs.

 

[AlphaDump]

No one is saying that. Article is not talking about such situations.

I am asking you. Which do you prefer?

edit:

 

[Radec]

Is it me or is it just the PC High is worse than PC Normal and Low on that screenshots.

 

[Night Angel]

When I game on PC I target my monitor's resolution and 60 fps. On some games that are too demanding that start looking a bit rough, I lower the framerate to 30 (locked) if it doesn't massively impact gameplay (so not shooters).

Why should I expect developers to do it differently on consoles? It seems like a waste to put a bunch of resources in generating beautiful assets only to shit on them with a ton of non-native resolution blur.

 

[Dictator93]

Is it me or is it just the PC High is worse than PC Normal and Low on that screenshots.

PC high shot seems to include the TAA (much like the x1 shot), the others either do not... or have a lessened form of it on.

 

[AndyD]

PC high shot seems to include the TAA (much like the x1 shot), the others either do not... or have a lessened form of it on.

I almost feel like PC high and low were switched, as medium is in between.

 

[Glomby]

When I game on PC I target my monitor's resolution and 60 fps. On some games that are too demanding that start looking a bit rough, I lower the framerate to 30 (locked) if it doesn't massively impact gameplay (so not shooters).

Why should I expect developers to do it differently on consoles? It seems like a waste to put a bunch of resources in generating beautiful assets only to shit on them with a ton of non-native resolution blur.

Because it's not "unbearable" blurry. It's not like at 1079p you can bearly see anything and at 1080p it's a clear image. The answer to your question has been answered by the developers themselves.It seems to make sense for them to accept a slightly blurrier image to get some better effects in.

And as often stated in this thread. Non-native resolution on a PC monitor is far worse looking than on a TV. I'd even go so far and say that most people have their TVs set up in a way that there IQ is garbage anyway, and way more than a 900p to 1080p difference.

 

[KKRT00]

I almost feel like PC high and low were switched, as medium is in between.

This shot fragment shows only textures, which are all set to Very High here, so the difference between settings are not visible except for TAA [active in High], shadows and slightly better shaders.

 

[Zombie James]

Is it me or is it just the PC High is worse than PC Normal and Low on that screenshots.

PC High has better anti-aliasing.

 

[Birgitte2004]

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.

It doesn't focus on it, but it's the launching point of the article.

Thus, the rest of it is de-facto in response to the comparison between differing resolutions.

If it's not in response to that, it's a giant straw man, because (almost) nobody believes that resolution is the be-all, end-all, and so by arguing against that he's saying nothing interesting.

 

[KKRT00]

It doesn't focus on it, but it's the launching point of the article.

Thus, the rest of it is de-facto in response to the comparison between differing resolutions.

If it's not in response to that, it's a giant straw man, because (almost) nobody believes that resolution is the be-all, end-all, and so by arguing against that he's saying nothing interesting.

In some way i agree, but on the other You have ton of people claiming '1080p or death' or 'i'm not buying game thats not 1080p', when i reality this is just one component of graphics.
Actually native resolution doesnt imply that game will be sharp, You can pretty much make native game blurrier than upscaled game if You want to, so in the end, You have to consider all.
And there is always the point of fidelity, are devs willing to sacrifice native resolution for some additional fidelity or more stable image? Thats why he even linked his gameindustry.biz article from January 2012 [so way before current gen consoles] that was about this topic after some claims from graphics engineers like Timothy Lottes:
http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/digitalfoundry-tech-focus-does-pixel-count-matter

This also shows how out of touch are people claiming that this article happened, because of some Microsoft bias, when he wrote something similar before we knew specs for both consoles ...
But fanboys gonna be fanboys i guess ;\

 

[SniperHunter]

resolution only matters to PC gamers who sit close to their gigantic monitors and refuse to play games at anything below 1080p

in console and handheld markets, resolution and unnecessary graphic features are completely meaningless

 

[AlphaDump]

resolution only matters to PC gamers who sit close to their gigantic monitors and refuse to play games at anything below 1080p

in console and handheld markets, resolution and unnecessary graphic features are completely meaningless

 

[serversurfer]

Here, I wrote a better article:

-------------------------------------------
Is 900p a Good Compromise for the Bone?

Yes. Thanks to its hardware limitations, outside of a few edge cases, the Bone will never deliver the same level of gaming experience as the PS4 can, but a game will be much more enjoyable at 900p30 than it will be at 1080p17. So try to be happy developers are dropping the resolution on the Bone, because it's better than the other compromises they may make instead.

Obviously, 1080p30 will always be preferable to 900p30 — especially on a 1080p display — so kudos to the Nielsen respondents for recognizing that and choosing the PS4.

The End
-------------------------------------------

No charge, Dick. <3

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.

Didn't it? The pro score for Destiny on Metacritic is 14 points higher than the user score. Advanced Warfare scored 25 points higher with the pros.

so... why wouldn't we want the more clear image?

Because that would mean getting the PS4 instead of the Bone. Try to keep up.

No one is saying that. Article is not talking about such situations.

Leadbetter is saying that. As stated clearly in the introduction, it's an article explaining why people are "ridiculous and almost unbelievable" to choose 1080p30 over 900p30, because 900p30 "holds up" just fine.

 

[thelastword]

How is claiming that "all praise would stop" factual? How is that not downplaying it?

That's not downplaying it, If a superior version of Ryse lands on the PS4, then Ryse Xbone would no longer be compared to a PS4 exclusive. Why? because a comparison between the two versions would be made instead. Curiously enough, Leadbetter believes that there's not much difference between the PC version of Ryse and that of the xbone. so it goes without saying that he'd have the same opinion on a better PS4 version too.

What's clear from our testing though is that the overall look and feel of the Xbox One version of the game is a very close approximation of the top-end settings on PC.

Link
You better believe it's clear, that the xbone holds up, not only in looks but feel . What exactly is this feel here, is that framerate? What's up with this article then talking up lowered resolutions and better framerates? Leadbetter seems to contradict himself quite a bit.

Despite all this, here are the actual facts I was referring to. I'm sure you knew that anyway.

Ryse XBONE:
Sub native rez=check

Blurrier image as a result=check
(Any body who thinks that the extra blur brought about by upscaling is some type of design decision is fooling themselves). The framerate is still at tartars. They should have gone down to 720p for a better design decision then, that would be more blur and a more solid framerate. perfect for what crytek was going for. As to cevart Yerli's Tweet. The pc version didn't even have a 1600*900 option for resolution when Leadbetter tested it, for shame. Anyway...

Sub 30 fps=check
Low drops to the teens (15-16fps)=check

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.

Remember this article is more about performance than just looks, well according to leadbetter. "Does resolution really matter?' You bet it does.

Does framerate really matter? You bet it does. Ryse xbone was found wanting on both counts. To use Ryse as some poster-child for his argument is absolutely disingenuous.

"Originally touted as a solid 30fps experience, Ryse misses the mark more often than we'd like with frame-rates often fluctuating between 26-28fps and the most challenging situations even seeing the frame-rate drop into the teens."

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.

I'm not using the order to diminish Ryse. I'm using the facts to set ryse in focus. 1920 * 800 is greater than 1600 * 900 all on it's own, that's a fact. Even if the 1920*800 was upscaled, it would still be superior technically. 1920 * 800 native with black bars is even moreso against 1600*900 as there's no upscaling involved on the former. The order's framerate is a predominant 30fps, that's a fact. Ryse framerate struggles throughout, that's a fact. I understand that they use ryse because it's the best technical accomplishment on the xbone, but based on the point Leadbetter is trying to make it does not even stack up.

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.

Hey, I don't have any issues with people declaring Ryse as the best looking xbone game, however I disagree with persons who declare that it has the same IQ with native games. The pic above is evidence enough to substantiate my viewpoint.

I also disagree here with Leadbetter who tries to use it to make a Lower resolution/Equal IQ/Better performance spiel, again, he's wrong on all counts.

I respect devs who uses native res and give a unique look to their games through pp. IQ and detail is not muddied in that instance. When a dev who does not have enough power to render their game goes below native, it's their decision too, but don't insult my intelligence by declaring it's a design decision or there's minimal or no difference.

The double whammy on crytek is this, if you lower rez, you better hit your framerate target, apparently that design decision needed more compromises.

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.

Ha, I have no doubt that the PS4 would hold a solid 30fps on Ryse. I'm pretty sure that there's been some improvements a-la processes/efficiency on the engine as well. They had two stabs at it already as it stands. I would not mind seeing the port to be honest.

Interesting articles you linked, I wasn't even aware such statements were made by DF, or maybe it's because It's been a while since I read those. Funny fella that Morgan, he has his misses and hits just like most of them, but there's no doubt that he toned it down quite a bit for the full face-off, it's almost like he was on a leash, that faceoff pretty much ended "everyone's a winner". Sometimes I do wonder if Leadbetter as (editor in chief) has final edit on these articles.

Anyway, I've been reading a few faceoffs since this thread popped and I found this article. written by Leadbetter on Ryse PC, that article was definitely a preface to this new resolution piece. So much gold in that piece, if anyone says they don't know where Leadbetter is coming from they are lying, he tells you at every turn.

Well, at least that's how I see it. You can't talk about resolution without talking about everything else.

You know what's awesome? Native resolutions and great framerates. You know what's bad? sub native resolutions
and worse framerates still.

 

[KKRT00]

Leadbetter is saying that. As stated clearly in the introduction, it's an article explaining why people are "ridiculous and almost unbelievable" to choose 1080p30 over 900p30, because 900p30 "holds up" just fine.

There is nothing like that in this article. What are You even reading?

---

Hey, I don't have any issues with people declaring Ryse as the best looking xbone game, however I disagree with persons who declare that it has the same IQ with native games.

No one has ever said that

Anyway, I've been reading a few faceoffs since this thread popped and I found this article. written by Leadbetter on Ryse PC, that article was definitely a preface to this new resolution piece. So much gold in that piece, if anyone says they don't know where Leadbetter is coming from they are lying, he tells you at every turn.

January 2012!
http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/digitalfoundry-tech-focus-does-pixel-count-matter

 

[nycgamer4ever]

Art Style > Framerate > Resolution

If the game is at least 720p/60FPS on the consoles, I'm fine with it. I was kinda disappointed, that not all games could reach 1080p/60FPS this gen, but at this point I don't really care anymore.

That is ok if you have a 720p tv. but if you have a 1080p tv why the hell would you settle for a 720p game!? That is just stupid and basically squandering your tv's potential.

 

[dwells]

Damn, everyone's rabid in here. What I took away from the article is that sacrificing resolution in favor of other visual effects can ultimately result in a more pleasing/realistic image. I don't think it's a console war or "Xbone being 50% weaker doesn't matter" article at all, more of "how best do we utilize processing power regardless of hardware" article.

If what you're after is absolute ultimate sharpness and detail, then of course higher resolution is better. But since games today are often using post-processing AA and other effects which result in a softer image and therefore loss of detail, the effects of upscaling from a somewhat lower native resolution are far less noticeable than they would be if you were upscaling an unfiltered, no AA image. i.e. the inherent softness associated with much of the post-processing used today tends to cover-up scaling somewhat.

As a result, intentionally choosing a lower native resolution provides free power for visual processing and effects (better lighting, etc.) that are more noticeable than if that power were instead used to run at a native res.

 

[MilkyJoe]

That is ok if you have a 720p tv. but if you have a 1080p tv why the hell would you settle for a 720p game!? That is just stupid and basically squandering your tv's potential.

Tvs are multifunction. It's not that fellas fault this gen is a bit pony.

 

[cgcg]

I'm not using the order to diminish Ryse. I'm using the facts to set ryse in focus. 1920 * 800 is greater than 1600 * 900 all on it's own, that's a fact. Even if the 1920*800 was upscaled, it would still be superior technically. 1920 * 800 native with black bars is even moreso against 1600*900 as there's no upscaling involved on the former. The order's framerate is a predominant 30fps, that's a fact. Ryse framerate struggles throughout, that's a fact. I understand that they use ryse because it's the best technical accomplishment on the xbone, but based on the point Leadbetter is trying to make it does not even stack up.

Sorry bud, too much facts. Let's talk about feelings instead. Please?

Damn, everyone's rabid in here. What I took away from the article is that sacrificing resolution in favor of other visual effects can ultimately result in a more pleasing/realistic image. I don't think it's a console war or "Xbone being 50% weaker doesn't matter" article at all, more of "how best do we utilize processing power regardless of hardware" article.

If what you're after is absolute ultimate sharpness and detail, then of course higher resolution is better. But since games today are often using post-processing AA and other effects which result in a softer image and therefore loss of detail, the effects of upscaling from a somewhat lower native resolution are far less noticeable than they would be if you were upscaling an unfiltered, no AA image. i.e. the inherent softness associated with much of the post-processing used today tends to cover-up scaling somewhat.

WTH? What? If anything PP AA and *other* effects make sub-native res even worse, opposite of "far less noticeable than it would."

 

[kitch9]

Because it's not "unbearable" blurry. It's not like at 1079p you can bearly see anything and at 1080p it's a clear image. The answer to your question has been answered by the developers themselves.It seems to make sense for them to accept a slightly blurrier image to get some better effects in.

And as often stated in this thread. Non-native resolution on a PC monitor is far worse looking than on a TV. I'd even go so far and say that most people have their TVs set up in a way that there IQ is garbage anyway, and way more than a 900p to 1080p difference.

The consoles to the scaling so the image will look the same on any display.

 

[Inuhanyou]

resolution only matters to PC gamers who sit close to their gigantic monitors and refuse to play games at anything below 1080p

in console and handheld markets, resolution and unnecessary graphic features are completely meaningless

Er....i don't know what parallel world i've stepped into where technical and visual progress on consoles no longer matters even though that's been the case since the advent of such devices..

 

[twobear]

But ultimately this is all semantics and one thing I've learnt is to never argue semantics.

I mean surely you have to realise that this is the most insane, cop-out argument dodge of all time. You put forward a totally absurd interpretation of what someone was saying in order to 'demonstrate' that they have some hidden agenda or bias. I pointed out that only someone with an absurd bias could possibly read the words as saying that. Now you're saying, 'oh well that's a semantic dispute and I'm not going to argue about it'.

But you are the one who was making the semantic claim in the first place; a semantic claim that, as it happens, is absurd, and reveals your position to be the intellectually dishonest shell of an argument that it actually is. You can't now turn around and say you wont get into an argument over semantics.

 

[Qwell]

resolution only matters to PC gamers who sit close to their gigantic monitors and refuse to play games at anything below 1080p

in console and handheld markets, resolution and unnecessary graphic features are completely meaningless

I do the majority of my gaming on a 32" 1080p TV at my computer desk along with a 28" monitor. Even when I'm gaming in the living room on a 60" 1080p TV I pull up a chair and sit just a few feet from the TV. I don't know if its my age, or what but I just can't game when I'm sitting on a couch like 8 feet away, I need to be close to the screen, I want to see the details.

So regardless if I'm playing PS4, Xbox One, PC, or Wii U I want a nice crisp image. I don't necessarily need native 1080p, but I do want the upscaling if there is any to be done by the console and NOT the TV as TV scalers can be good or really bad. Even console scalers probably aren't the best, but I imagine the console devs are at least working with the console scaler when they are putting the finishing touches on the IQ of the game.

I know its anecdotal, but most of my friends also play like this, we are all adults, we tend to all have man caves which is usually our office that serves both our computing / office needs along with console gaming. And with these setups it is very easy to see the difference between 720p, 900p and 1080p.

 

[RedStep]

That argument would make sense if PS4 was sacrificing those things to hit 1080p. It is not, so what fuck is the article about?

The article was spawned from Nielson poll results where multiplat gamers picked PS4 because of resolution advantage. PS4 isn't "sacrificing" things to reach 1080p.

Where does this mentality come from? On a "modern gaming technology" scale of 1-10, the XBO and PS4 are like a 3 and 4, respectively. There are absolutely sacrifices required (notice the lack of 60fps in games that have it on PC?) to get 1080p on either console. The PS4 isn't a supermachine that automatically spits out 1080p, it's just a somewhat less low-end gaming device.

Questions like whether 900p/60 or 1080p/30 is better (or 900p with more effects/bigger textures or 1080p without) apply to both consoles and will become more important as the generation goes on and more is expected out of AAA games.

 

[ethomaz]

I felt disappointed with last gen when they didn't give me 1080p and I'm still disappointed with this gem not reaching 1080p@60fps.

And I was hoping for some 4k games

 

[Three]

I mean surely you have to realise that this is the most insane, cop-out argument dodge of all time. You put forward a totally absurd interpretation of what someone was saying in order to 'demonstrate' that they have some hidden agenda or bias. I pointed out that only someone with an absurd bias could possibly read the words as saying that. Now you're saying, 'oh well that's a semantic dispute and I'm not going to argue about it'.

But you are the one who was making the semantic claim in the first place; a semantic claim that, as it happens, is absurd, and reveals your position to be the intellectually dishonest shell of an argument that it actually is. You can't now turn around and say you wont get into an argument over semantics.

It was no copout, just as me not replying to kkrt100s
"And You cant argue that 900p isnt acceptable enough, especially on TV." was no copout. It's that I have no desire to argue with somebody that has already tried to ridicule a position without an argument because it's clear they have made up their mind on the matter. Why exactly can I not argue that 900p isn't acceptable? 480p is acceptable you cannot argue with it! Semantics is a similar topic. One of them topics you brought up, you had a problem about how I interpreted "holds up" in this context and suggested I was a conspiracy theorist because of it. You had a problem with how I interpreted it. My argument wasn't semantics, it was yours. I said why it's logical/easy to interpret that way right here

I can't say I agree with that interpretation because this isn't about a different movie or a different era. This is the same game with two different resolutions being the only differentiating factor in the posted comparison. he was comparing 1080p Ryse on Pc to 900p Ryse on Xbox one.


If I had said "FF VII in 480p still holds up in image quality to FF VII in 1080p." in an article called 'does resolution matter?'.

How would you interpret that other than 1080p making little difference to image quality?

You can call it absurd if you like and that's fine but it certainly isn't a "copout" because I said what I had to say about the subject. You can add to it or refute it but I will not get into an argument about semantics because it's a losing game and what is actually a shell of an argument is your reply.

 

[serversurfer]

There is nothing like that in this article. What are You even reading?

Dude, I quoted the relevant bits in my post. Here they are in full.

From the introduction:
"This one took us by surprise. A study undertaken by US pollmeisters Nielsen revealed this week that "better resolution" is the top reason people bought PlayStation 4 over its competition. It's a remarkable, perhaps even unbelievable result, and one we wanted to dig into more deeply, so we contacted the director of Nielsen Games, Nicole Pike, asking about the size and make-up of the sample and how respondents were directed into giving their answers."
So, he was so gobsmacked by the idea that people would choose 1080p on the PS4 over 900p on the Bone that his first assumption was that Nielsen's methodology must be flawed.

Well, I guess Nielsen are legit, so what gives?
"It all makes for fascinating reading. In an era where the relevancy of the specialist press is under scrutiny, we find that coverage of the resolution issue not just made it into the general public's consciousness - but also defined buying intentions, to the point where it was still considered an issue a whole year after the release of the current-gen consoles. Obviously this is our own personal interpretation, but our take on it is that resolution became a way of quantifying the technological capabilities of PlayStation 4 and Xbox One - a relatable metric, if you like. We're not sure if 'console A is more powerful than console B' was one of Nielsen's 30 reasons, but resolution is a parameter by which the differing power levels of the machines can be addressed, and was certainly the way the specialist press - ourselves included - went about it."
It's hilarious that he actually shoulders the blame for duping people in to thinking resolution mattered.

On 900p Vs. 1080p, specifically:
"Ryse is still one of the most visually striking titles on Xbox One, and as this PC comparison demonstrates, its image quality holds up, despite the resolution drop compared to the computer version."
So as I said, Leadbetter is explaining why consumers are unbelievable and ridiculous for choosing 1080p on the PS4 over 900p on the Bone, and it's because 900p is clearly good enough, as his compressed video demonstrates.

Nielsen: Why did you choose the PS4?
Consumer: Because it has better resolution.
Leadbetter: Unbelievable! You're being ridiculous.

Please don't attempt to distort reality to cover for Leadbetter's attempts to distort reality.

 

[thelastword]

Where does this mentality come from? On a "modern gaming technology" scale of 1-10, the XBO and PS4 are like a 3 and 4, respectively. There are absolutely sacrifices required (notice the lack of 60fps in games that have it on PC?) to get 1080p on either console. The PS4 isn't a supermachine that automatically spits out 1080p, it's just a somewhat less low-end gaming device.

Questions like whether 900p/60 or 1080p/30 is better (or 900p with more effects/bigger textures or 1080p without) apply to both consoles and will become more important as the generation goes on and more is expected out of AAA games.

Consoles are not pc's, PC's are exponentially better the more you throw cash at parts, If I buy a PS4 for $5000.00, it's still has the same specs as any other.

The PS4 may not be a supermachine, but it was built for 1080p output and 1080p games, which is fair considering the majority of us have had a 1080p tv for a couple of years now. Persons chose PS4 because they wanted sharper clearer more detailed games and that's what they demand.

Furthermore, console games are predominantly 30fps efforts outside of fighters, sports and some action games, I think the fact that's there are millions of console owners suggests they are ok with that target generally.

I also don't know where you're going with 900p/60 or 1080p/30, most games which are 1080p 30 on ps4 are 900p 25~ or so on XBONE. If we had games that were 1080p 30 on PS4 and then 900p 60 on the bone, then Leadbetter would have a half-decent-argument since the IQ would still be superior at 1080p, but we all know that's not happening. Hell, when the xbone is at 900p/60fps, the PS4 is right there at 1080/60fps maybe less a few frames in some titles, other titles we see larger differences like 720p/60fps XBONE, 1080/60fps PS4 with more effects.

If a PS4 game is 900p 60fps going forward or in the future, it is almost guaranteed that the XBONE version will be 720p or Sub-hd/60fps

Generally, resolution improves the further into a console's life cycle, I'm not sure if you observed the PS3, but that was certainly so, even with multiplats which was very troublesome for that platform upon inception.

I don't know what you're talking about bigger textures, but if you mean higher rez textures, they're almost certainly a waste at subnative resolution, subnative rez plus upscaling kills detail anyway. I'd wager you'd easily get away with lower rez textures (high-med perhaps) at subnative rez due to that fact, people may just say it's blurrier due to the upscaling..

 

[serversurfer]

Well we've gotten various little 'charts' that are based on such findings. I don't always agree with them, but the one posted here earlier actually seemed pretty good.

The only problem comes in the form of quantifying impact. What is a big difference to one person may not seem like a big deal to another. Or maybe a person says they can technically see a difference but don't feel its worth anything(cost, development sacrifices, etc). You can create a general range where people say it makes a difference and then maybe put yourself at either end of the spectrum depending on how important or sensitive you are to it.

Isn't that precisely what Leadbetter is doing here? Telling us that we shouldn't let a 40% increase in resolution distract us from the things that are really important, like a couple of dropped frames and matchmaking issues seemingly made from whole cloth? Quantifying the impact of resolution in an effort to explain to people why they're "ridiculous" to choose a PS4 because of resolution is the entire point of the article, and it's a point you have defended repeatedly throughout this thread.

I take your abandonment of the thread to mean you concede the point, but it's kinda funny that five days later, you still top the Wall of Shame.

 

[Synth]

I take your abandonment of the thread to mean you concede the point, but it's kinda funny that five days later, you still top the Wall of Shame.

Oh he won't be for long. I've been casually browsing this thread whilst at work, and there's soooooo much that's been said that I want to respond to (so little time). Will probably have to make multiple posts just to cover them all lol.

Also, as future wall of shame king, I'd like to offer up a preemptive defense. It's a LOT easier to end up at the top of a thread when you hold the minority opinion. In threads where most people agree with me, it's more likely that someone else has already covered what I would like to say, making me less likely to post. This combined with the fact that if many people are arguing against your point, you'll often find yourself having numerous responses to each of your posts, and you'll probably in turn reply to all of them. Usually if someone's not arguing against my point in a thread, I'm done after a single post... but if they are, I'm probably there as long as they'll entertain the discussion.

I've never really understood why having many posts in a thread is automatically assumed to be a bad thing, so long as each post is on topic and adds something to the discussion. It's like you're basically saying the less you have to say on GAF the better, in which case, why are any of us even here? Hell, you're even now using the lack of continued posts against him, lol... damned if you do...

 

[Crayon]

...snip...

I've never really understood why having many posts in a thread is automatically assumed to be a bad thing, so long as each post is on topic and adds something to the discussion. It's like you're basically saying the less you have to say on GAF the better, in which case, why are any of us even here? Hell, you're even now using the lack of continued posts against him, lol... damned if you do...

Theres always a handfull who work overtime policing threads and they tend to end up at the top of the list. Over and over.

 

[dwells]

Nielsen: Why did you choose the PS4?
Consumer: Because it has better resolution.
Leadbetter: Unbelievable! You're being ridiculous.

I don't think that's what he's saying at all. He's saying he's surprised that resolution was such a key factor in consumer decisions.

Think of the average console buyer. Do they have any idea what a rendering pipeline or a framebuffer is? Probably not. Do they understand the difference between native resolution and output resolution? Also probably not - that's why Microsoft pulled that "everything is output to your TV at 1080p" nonsense when confronted with lower native resolutions.

There's a lot of people who buy into this notion and are similarly convinced that a 4K TV magically makes everything you throw at it look great, like heavily compressed 720p cable streams. These are the same people who running their TVs in torch mode, think 6500K color calibration looks weird and yellow, and are convinced that the brightest LCD panel is the best. They decide the market, and that's the reason why plasma is dead and TVs compromise picture quality in favor of being thin.

Given that knowledge, it's pretty reasonable to be surprised that resolution is a top reason cited by PS4 buyers. The majority of buyers are not like the people who post on GAF.

Generally, resolution improves the further into a console's life cycle, I'm not sure if you observed the PS3, but that was certainly so, even with multiplats which was very troublesome for that platform upon inception.

Didn't the last generation show the exact opposite of this? Microsoft initially specified a 1280x720 render resolution as a minimum for certification, but this requirement was dropped. Titles initially still made an effort to stick to that resolution (in fact, Xbox 360 even had a couple early native 1080p 3D games), but resolution started to dwindle toward the end of the console life. Developers wanted new effects and techniques, and realized they could sacrifice native resolution to achieve them. Let's take the Call of Duty franchise, a major mainstream staple and look at the resolution:

• Call of Duty 2: 1280x720
• Call of Duty 3: 1040x624
• Call of Duty 4/MW2/MW3/Ghosts: 1024x600
• Call of Duty World at War: 1024x600
• Call of Duty Black Ops:1040*608
• Call of Duty Black Ops 2: 880*720

Infinity Ward dropped down from 1280x720 at launch to 1024x640 and then stayed there for all their remaining titles. Treyarch decreased from 3 to WaW, decreased again from WaW to BO, decreased once more from WaW to BO, then moved laterally for BO2.

Many other games later in the release cycle did the same - having seen the performance gains possible with sub-720p resolutions, they opted for that approach and put the saved performance to other things instead.

 

[Head.spawn]

And here's what they said about the lack of foliage on the Bone in GTA5: "However, it's fair to say this isn't something which impacts the enjoyment of the Xbox One game" So when the PlayStation version is lacking, it's massively less fun, but when the XBox version is lacking, it makes no difference.

Wow, did you even read the quote? It actually doesn't say what you gleaned from it at all. Maybe the problem you have is you assume it says one thing, skim it, then claim what's in your head to be fact?

Read it again?

 

[serversurfer]

Also, as future wall of shame king, I'd like to offer up a preemptive defense. It's a LOT easier to end up at the top of a thread when you hold the minority opinion. In threads where most people agree with me, it's more likely that someone else has already covered what I would like to say, making me less likely to post. This combined with the fact that if many people are arguing against your point, you'll often find yourself having numerous responses to each of your posts, and you'll probably in turn reply to all of them. Usually if someone's not arguing against my point in a thread, I'm done after a single post… but if they are, I'm probably there as long as they'll entertain the discussion.

Sure. I'm often on top of the wall when issues like feature parity come up, for example. Apparently, I'm the only one who actually cares about it or sees how it harms the industry as a whole. /shrug

I've never really understood why having many posts in a thread is automatically assumed to be a bad thing, so long as each post is on topic and adds something to the discussion. It's like you're basically saying the less you have to say on GAF the better, in which case, why are any of us even here? Hell, you're even now using the lack of continued posts against him, lol... damned if you do...

Nah, I wasn't giving him shit over posting so much; if he's got something to say, then by all means, he should say it. I just thought it was kind of funny that one of Leadbetter's most vocal supporters was silenced so easily.

Mostly though, I was just a little disappointed that he didn't even have a rebuttal, so I was hoping to tease him in to providing one. But as they say, it's better to say nothing and be thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.

 

[HTupolev]

Didn't the last generation show the exact opposite of this?

No, not really. Not that it agrees strongly with it either.

Call of Duty dropped relative to CoD2, but it had a big change in visual makeup. After the first big drop the changes were pretty small.

Some series actually increased, i.e. Halo.

There really wasn't much of a trend anywhere, unless we're counting the moderate decline in geometry samples due to MSAA falling out of favor.

Microsoft initially specified a 1280x720 render resolution as a minimum for certification, but this requirement was dropped.

If the 720p4xMSAA requirement was ever actually a thing, it was dropped well before launch. There were several first-party launch titles running sub-HD.

It certainly never made as much sense for the 360's architecture as MS originally pretended that it did.

 

[system11]

PC High has better anti-aliasing.

End result is it just looks soft/blurry. PC normal wins hands down in that set of images for me, with PC low just after.

 

[Three]

End result is it just looks soft/blurry. PC normal wins hands down in that set of images for me, with PC low just after.

The problem with that is that it's an image and an image in motion can tell a different story.

 

[serversurfer]

I don't think that's what he's saying at all. He's saying he's surprised that resolution was such a key factor in consumer decisions.

Think of the average console buyer. Do they have any idea what a rendering pipeline or a framebuffer is? Probably not. Do they understand the difference between native resolution and output resolution? Also probably not - that's why Microsoft pulled that "everything is output to your TV at 1080p" nonsense when confronted with lower native resolutions.

The consumer viewpoint may be a bit reductionist, but as has been pointed out before, in a multi-platform game, resolution is likely to be the only significant differentiator, because it's the easiest change to implement, and it generally has the least impact on the overall experience. Really, I think it'd be better if both platforms ran at 1080p30/60, and devs just improved per-pixel quality on the PS4. But since improving PPQ actually takes additional effort from the dev, the most reasonable solution is to target 1080p30 on PS4, and then dial back the resolution until the Bone stops choking on it. Especially when they can rest assured that DF will always be there to say, "Yup, looks just as good on the Bone, and the matchmaking! THE GLORIOUS MATCHMAKING!! /swoon"

If/when resolution is the only differentiator between two copies of the same $60 game, then why wouldn't it influence purchasing decisions? Why shouldn't it?

Wow, did you even read the quote? It actually doesn't say what you gleaned from it at all. Maybe the problem you have is you assume it says one thing, skim it, then claim what's in your head to be fact?

Read it again?

Which quote are you referring to? The one where they said missing that stuff on the Bone makes no difference, or the one where they said missing it on the PS3 makes the game massively less fun once you realize what you're missing out on?

 

[hydragonwarrior]

I am now really curious - if XBone had the same resolution max as PS4, would there be as much debate over this article? Because the only ones arguing that it does would be PC gamers...

 

[Kezen]

End result is it just looks soft/blurry. PC normal wins hands down in that set of images for me, with PC low just after.

You can disable temporal AA in the option so high would win.