You misread the PS3 post. "Hard to imagine" means it doesn't.
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Digital Foundry :- Does resolution really matter?
- Thread starter DHC-Shannow
- Start date
- Status
You misread the PS3 post. "Hard to imagine" means it doesn't.
It matters a great deal to me as a technophile who traditionally buys all platforms.
I switched my lead platform (read 3rd party games machine) from Xbox to Playstation this generation mostly due to ResolutionGate. The more innovative controller also helped.
In retrospect, given my distaste for the Xbox One UI, this was a great decision.
I switched my lead platform (read 3rd party games machine) from Xbox to Playstation this generation mostly due to ResolutionGate. The more innovative controller also helped.
In retrospect, given my distaste for the Xbox One UI, this was a great decision.
Head.spawn
Junior Member
The second one, which is the one that you are completely misquoting and misrepresenting again...
Did you reread it?
slavesnyder
Member
As long as we have no like-button for other peoples' post you will never know.
please let this never happen...
I think the difference between our arguments is that you desperately want to show how the PS4 beats the XBO. It does, I don't give a shit about that. What I said was that in the big picture of the gaming industry (you know, that thing that we're fans of instead of just one device or company), both devices need sacrifices now to hit 1080p. As games progress over the next several years, they'll need even more to keep up.
With the time and budget needed for AAA games, developers are hitting all three of the "big screens" (PC, PS4, XBO) with more and more titles. Unlike previous generations, the consoles didn't launch on top technologically this time. They launched a little above your phone and far behind your PC. Assuming we want games to keep looking better and better for the next ~6 years, and assuming PCs will keep up, more and more will have to be cut for the PS4/XBO version. There's plenty to talk about in how those cuts are made so that they are the least painful.
And again, yes, I know that the PS4 is more powerful than the XBO. I'm talking about developers' "vision" vs console abilities, not console 1 vs. console 2.
There were quite a few other series that started at 1280x720 and declined. Off the top of my head, The Darkness, Bioshock, Dead or Alive, and Splinter Cell. The decline of MSAA in favor of FXAA is worth considering too, after all, it is the sacrifice of additional resolution (in the form of the AA samples) in favor of softer image quality and freeing up processing power.
As for the 1280x720 requirement, if I recall correctly it was a 1280x720 render resolution and the "free" 2xMSAA. This was axed after finalized hardware went out, but before public launch, and supposedly specifically because of PGR3 and its 1024x600 resolution. Would've been silly to require a resolution higher than the best looking and arguably flagship launch title.
Crayon
Member
I think you may be mireading it. It says the ps3 version wont be like less... If.... You havent seen the 360 version. Right? I couldn't nt find the whole quote on the last page but i remember it i think.
Very good points, and I'm one of the ones in love with the PS4's power over the X1. But even with that delicious 8GB GDDR5, its still quite weak, as you say. The only solution is to fast track PS5/Xbox Two and deliver them before the end of the decade at the latest. The days of "ten year" console lifecycles are over. We need to get back to the much faster console lifecycles of the 80s and 90s.
serversurfer
Member
You're missing the qualifiers. "Play on PS3 without having seen the 360 version" "Hard to imagine" only applies if you don't know what you're missing. Like, if you read the article where the claim was made, for example. Once you know, then it's not hard to imagine at all. Also, there's "massively," which further implies that the game is slightly less fun even if you don't know what you're missing, because good graphics are obviously part of the fun.
"Play on PS3 without having seen the 360 version and it's difficult to imagine that the fun factor of the game has been massively impacted."
Digital Foundry included the qualifiers, not me. I am neither misquoting nor misrepresenting what they said. Their statement regarding GTA on the Bone included no such qualifiers, and therefore definitively states that the Bone version is just as fun.
/me gives cookie
slavesnyder
Member
As long as they are not making money on hardware, and earn more money the bigger a userbase gets (games and subscriptions) it does not seem logical that they would like to dive into a new gen too soon.
I think they are quite happy with the power of the consoles. these are 400 $ machines, not high-end PCs. have mercy.
I see what you and crayon are saying now. Makes sense. I've gone and got myself in a semantics debate again too.
Crayon
Member
Me type on phone. Me love cookie.
Aight, let's get started on replying to some of the posts addressed to me. Gonna split them into separate posts, and just hope people post between them.
Nowhere in that article is he claiming that the look the same, or that the game wouldn't/doesn't look better at 1080p. He doesn't even say that it "basically looks just as good at 900p". Those are words you've inserted yourself, and even then when someone says something "X is basically as good as Y" that is itself generally an acknowledgement that they aren't the same... but somewhat occupy a similar range on whatever internal scale their using. So even your altered inserted dialog doesn't mean what you claim in your previous post. I want a real example of an implication that a game at 900p would look no better at 1080p. None of this "he's not giving the difference the same weight I do" nonsense please. The passage dealing with Ryse also has no need to mention the PS4 at all. Not every sentence of every article needs to directly contrast the two consoles. The PS4 is mentioned in this article where it is relevant (such as games that exist on both platforms).
Despite the PS4 part of the survey being the jump off point for the article, the topic itself is hardware independant, so comparing what the PS4 could do with the same game, is no more important than comparing what the Wii U would have to do to run the same game. The issues discussed affect all consoles, including the PS4, and that is even alluded to with the mention of The Order.
I'm going to cover this properly in a response to thelastword, but the short version of this is that there isn't really an "ideal" solution. There are solutions that you prefer, and there are solutions I prefer, and apparently in this case they aren't the same. You hope more developers adopt the letterbox solution, but the truth is that every time a game comes out at 900p or 1080pr or whatever, it's pretty much the dev telling you that they preferred the other option.. or at the very least believe more of their potential customer base does.
This is true, but "game library" (which appears in the PS4 choices) much better describes this when attributing it to a console, rather than this strange second-hand association. Unless of course they're describing the console OS or something as fun... which I guess may be what they're saying. Sounds like a stretch though.
Nowhere in that article is he claiming that the look the same, or that the game wouldn't/doesn't look better at 1080p. He doesn't even say that it "basically looks just as good at 900p". Those are words you've inserted yourself, and even then when someone says something "X is basically as good as Y" that is itself generally an acknowledgement that they aren't the same... but somewhat occupy a similar range on whatever internal scale their using. So even your altered inserted dialog doesn't mean what you claim in your previous post. I want a real example of an implication that a game at 900p would look no better at 1080p. None of this "he's not giving the difference the same weight I do" nonsense please. The passage dealing with Ryse also has no need to mention the PS4 at all. Not every sentence of every article needs to directly contrast the two consoles. The PS4 is mentioned in this article where it is relevant (such as games that exist on both platforms).
Despite the PS4 part of the survey being the jump off point for the article, the topic itself is hardware independant, so comparing what the PS4 could do with the same game, is no more important than comparing what the Wii U would have to do to run the same game. The issues discussed affect all consoles, including the PS4, and that is even alluded to with the mention of The Order.
I'm going to cover this properly in a response to thelastword, but the short version of this is that there isn't really an "ideal" solution. There are solutions that you prefer, and there are solutions I prefer, and apparently in this case they aren't the same. You hope more developers adopt the letterbox solution, but the truth is that every time a game comes out at 900p or 1080pr or whatever, it's pretty much the dev telling you that they preferred the other option.. or at the very least believe more of their potential customer base does.
This is true, but "game library" (which appears in the PS4 choices) much better describes this when attributing it to a console, rather than this strange second-hand association. Unless of course they're describing the console OS or something as fun... which I guess may be what they're saying. Sounds like a stretch though.
The article is anything but hardware independent even if it tries really hard to masquerade as one. There would have been a very good article and case being made if it were. I can think of one very good example.
Extremely weak example. On PS3 the resolution actually increased with Bioshock 2 before dropping to slightly lower than BS1 levels for BSI. On 360, BS1 and BS2 use the same resolution, with BSI dropping slightly.
Extremely weak example. Resolution dropped off a cliff for the second entry in the gen, and increased back to very nearly 720p for the next.
//=======================
If we're just playing top-of-the-head list wars, there are plenty of series that increased. Halo, PGR, Tomb Raider, 360 iterations of Final Fantasy, Gran Turismo...
This isn't completely up-to-date, but it gives a general picture of how things went. Which is to say, very little in the way of trends.
Hi Three, I'm merging your posts a bit to make the responses more coherent.
No he didn't. Saying something "holds up" by comparison is not the same as saying they are they same, or equally as good as one another. I feel like half of the discussion in this thread is a result of people reading every line intently looking for evil undertones. Saying something holds up, is pretty much like saying something/someone is able to "hold their own" against something else. That something else is nearly always something considered to be stronger/better. It in no way directly implies a tie, or victory.
See now, godelsmetric's mistake here (despite getting the general point right) was offering an example with left you with an opening to deem it invalid for a somewhat different case. Luckily I've seen a rather recent example of a game that "holds up" well compared to a superior version of the same game in the Project Cars - PC vs. PS4 graphics comparison. You can clearly see even on youtube that concessions have been made between the two versions... however, these people aren't wrong:
Someone saying something "holds up" is simply a quick way to state that they don't consider it to be substantially inferior, even if it's not quite as good as what they're comparing with. So again, no Leadbetter didn't do what you're accusing him of here.
Again, I'll respond to this properly in a reply to thelastword, as it was his point originally. I don't want to repeat the same general points in each post.
The article isn't hardware independent, as it references the individual consoles, and was prompted buy the results of a survey involving them. However the topic of resolution and tradeoffs is. The consoles only really serve a common measurement. It all pertains to my PC as much as it does the Xbox One or PS4, so there is no direct requirement to contrast every game mentioned with imaginary ports to the other platform.
Just gonna throw this one on the end, as it's too silly a comment to deserve a detailed separate post. Yes, the PS4 is "sacrificing" things to reach 1080p. If it weren't then logically if we were all happy to remain at 1080p as a standard forever, we'd never need a new console. The PS4 would just push the exact same graphics as whatever the top PC game of 2097 is, just at 1080p (and obviously 60fps, because it doesn't need to sacrifice that either).
No he didn't. Saying something "holds up" by comparison is not the same as saying they are they same, or equally as good as one another. I feel like half of the discussion in this thread is a result of people reading every line intently looking for evil undertones. Saying something holds up, is pretty much like saying something/someone is able to "hold their own" against something else. That something else is nearly always something considered to be stronger/better. It in no way directly implies a tie, or victory.
See now, godelsmetric's mistake here (despite getting the general point right) was offering an example with left you with an opening to deem it invalid for a somewhat different case. Luckily I've seen a rather recent example of a game that "holds up" well compared to a superior version of the same game in the Project Cars - PC vs. PS4 graphics comparison. You can clearly see even on youtube that concessions have been made between the two versions... however, these people aren't wrong:
(Please don't bother with a "but 1080p/60fps" response to this... remember that you're claiming that "holds up" implies a lack of difference at all)
Someone saying something "holds up" is simply a quick way to state that they don't consider it to be substantially inferior, even if it's not quite as good as what they're comparing with. So again, no Leadbetter didn't do what you're accusing him of here.
Again, I'll respond to this properly in a reply to thelastword, as it was his point originally. I don't want to repeat the same general points in each post.
The article isn't hardware independent, as it references the individual consoles, and was prompted buy the results of a survey involving them. However the topic of resolution and tradeoffs is. The consoles only really serve a common measurement. It all pertains to my PC as much as it does the Xbox One or PS4, so there is no direct requirement to contrast every game mentioned with imaginary ports to the other platform.
Just gonna throw this one on the end, as it's too silly a comment to deserve a detailed separate post. Yes, the PS4 is "sacrificing" things to reach 1080p. If it weren't then logically if we were all happy to remain at 1080p as a standard forever, we'd never need a new console. The PS4 would just push the exact same graphics as whatever the top PC game of 2097 is, just at 1080p (and obviously 60fps, because it doesn't need to sacrifice that either).
I'll address this point only since it covers all the other points being discussed. The article is not hardware independent at all. It starts off with Leadbetter being somewhat dismayed that people value resolution, it goes onto how the hardware gap is closing and shouldn't be a problem, then it tries to make a silly comparison between PC and XB1 ryse looking almost identical at 900p and 1080p, then it closes on what is essentially Leadbetter being disappointed with the publics decision to value resolution on PS4 without having made a case for much.
If the aim of an article is to discuss how other effects are more important than resolution it can be tested on a PC very easily. Get a PC game, set some midrange hardware limit or whatever you like, try to hit a given performance level by adjusting resolution and other effects. Make a case why other effects are more important for overall image quality than resolution when aiming for that performance target. This is what a developer does on a console. That would be a good hardware independent article.
What I essentially took away from that article:
why did people choose resolution? unbelievable. Xbox handles the Resolution drop well and the gap is closing, framerate is more important anyway. Besides imagine what we can do if we drop the resolution. we asked some people. It will mean better AA to mask the lower res, shaders and lighting. Look at Ryse it's amazing as is the Order. Ryse looks amazing because it's 900p those other 900p games don't look as good as ryse but we'll ignore those for now to drive home this point that lower res means more realistic. Look at this video of an xbox one game running at 900p compared to the same xbox one game ported to PC running at 1080p. can you even tell the difference? with xbox one running at 900p you essentially get PC graphics. 900p holds up pretty well, we are not talking about anything else, forget what I just told you about framerate too, image quality. So in conclusion what is the implication of running lower res? 900P games will look like Ryse except the ones that don't and perhaps it will mean better image quality in some way due to AA. Did I mention the gap is closing. I hope you don't choose resolution next year.
Now I hope people don't refuse to read the article because they think this tongue-in-cheek post of mine is the same as it, the article is far more informative but the crux of the article is there. Leadbetter makes a case for resolution not mattering by posting a video where resolution is the only difference in a ported game, then says it holds up. What is he saying there if not the fact he thinks the resolution boost makes no difference? Why is he even comparing platforms throughout the article? That is the most bizarre thing to me in the article. Why the constant platform comparisons if your article is about the importance of effects.
Is he suggesting that the xb1 can do what a PC does if it's lower res? If you are making a case for the importance of other effects when given extra graphical processing power wouldn't you enable said effects on the PC version that dramatically improved image quality over resolution rather than post a video showing resolution is the only difference then try and downplay it as not noticeable anyway? It's a port, as is often the case for PS4/XB1 games. The extra power is used to boost the res on the PC. It's not like he hasn't shown his lack of interest in every other graphical differences throughout this gen anyway. What exactly does he want the performance difference to be invested in when the games he's comparing have AA already?
If he weren't trying to strongly imply 1080p/900p doesn't make much of a difference he wouldn't say something like this nor would he make a xbox one to pc comparison because it simply wouldn't be necessary to even compare to XB1
Let me post my reply to this in a form of a question because I don't see the the parallel to the example. If I posted a video and said "does framerate matter?"
Look at this video of Project cars on PC at 60fps and PS4 at 54fps. It holds up quite well. Wouldn't I be suggesting there is little difference between the two framerates?
I agree that a comparison between the two versions of Ryse would become more common than the current comparison between it and the current top PS4 of the time. However, although Vernia bolded the line about comparing, I'm actually referring to that post in general, and especially the line I mentioned. You claimed that all praise of Ryse would cease if it weren't a exclusive. So you're saying that it oly receives praise for that reason, and not as a result of any of its own graphical merits. Multiplatform games' graphics don't fail to be praised by people (see GTAV and even ACU). Bad looking games do on the other hand.
I don't really want to argue about "feel" here unless the meaning of it made perfectly clear. When working on java software, I'd often set the "look and feel" of my application to "Windows" fo the software fit in amongst other software on the platform. This general simply meant that it looked and acted the way a Windows application typically does. This is way too vague a term to be jumping all over in my opinion. If he said it had "the feel of 60fps", then we might be getting somewhere.
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
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.
Yea, those numbers are facts up there.
What isn't a fact however is if they prevent the game being the best looking game, or most impressive game, or graphical showpiece or whatever, as none of those things are actually representable by facts... only the perception of those viewing it.
Here are a few facts about my "gaming" televison:
Size: 42" (measured diagonally)
Refresh Rate: 60hz
Pixel Dimensions: 1920x1080
Now, considering "my TV is 1080p, I expect my games to be" is so very popular a metric, based on these facts, I'm going to see how well The Order uses my screen to its fullest.
Visible Size? Not sure (feel free to do the math for me). Not 42" measured diagonally though. That's for sure.
Framerate? Mostly 30fps. So about half my TV's capable output.
Resolution? 1920x800.
So... basically there isn't actually a single metric in which The Order fully utilises my TV's capabilities. There are however quite a few other games that do. So by this logic The Order should be disqualified as a graphical showcase, as it fails to hit the most logical metrics for what should be required to be the most visually pleasing game. Except... it doesn't work like that. A game can come up short in any individual (or even many) metric and yet still be considered a showcase, because the stuff it does do, it just so happens to be freakishly good at. This is both Ryse and The Order for many people. Crytek could have dropped Ryse to 720p in order to have a better framerate, but it seems the decided 900p was the point before the imapct on the image became more of an issue than the extra performance was worth. In hindsight, see how Ryse has been received graphically in comparison to any game that was 720p/60fps... it would seem that their decision paid off.
Also, the article also focuses on performance yes. That does not make the "visual" comparison made with Ryse invalid. They compared how the game looked at 900p compared to a 1080p PC version, and considered it to close enough. They then stated how the real differences were in performance, even drawing attention to the fact that the XB1 version suffers inconsistent frame timings. They're not actually saying the Ryse example is ideal overall, only that it's implementation of 900p looks good. In a different less demanding game this could be the difference between a stable 30fps at 900p, and a framerate that's all over the place at 1080p.
Now, seeing as these numbers all mean so much to you, I'd be interested what you think is for example the best graphics showcase for the PS3? If you're thinking Uncharted, God of War, The Last of US, Killzone, Beyond, etc... I want you to stop and answer why not Ridge Racer 7? Because that game proved at launch that the others have no excuse. Why is the line for "acceptable compromises" being drawn directly in front of The Order? Why not place it up high with other games that map 1:1, fill your entire screen, and never drop a frame?
You were using The Order to diminish Ryse. If you were reliant only on facts that there would have been no reason for a direct comparison at all. You used The Order as a game you "wouldn't put Ryse in the same class as". Which is subjectively fine, but is a ridiculously poor example to use for purely technical reasons. You may demand everything to be mapped 1:1, but this isn't objectively better. The Order may very well be designed around this aspect ratio (I don't know as I'm not likely to play it unless it becomes free with PS+ or something), but I absolutely would not want a similar implementation to be used in exchange of 900p upscaling in game I play. Upscaling artefacts are something that some people notice easily, whilst others dont. This is also somewhat dependant on the screen used as well (PC monitor vs plasma TV etc). Many people complained about Gamespot's Reality Check test, because they used a 27" screen at about a 6ft difference, with the result obviously being that any resolution issues became very difficult to notice. You know what everyone who took that test absolutely would have noticed, 14" CRT from 10ft or not... black bars occupying 25% of the screen. This is the sort of choice that actually has real gameplay implications, so to act like some added blurriness is unforgivable, yet literally disregarding the shape and size of my screen is perfectly fine, and should be the default solution is absolutely ridiculous in my opinion. I honestly don't expect to see The Order's implementation chosen by many games in the future, because I don't believe that many people actually would prefer it in most games over 900p upcaled. Hell, half the people I know are so adamant about filling out their entire screen that if you throw them something 4:3 they'll simply "fat vision" it to claim the rest of their screen back.
With that said, if I ever do decided to play The Order, it's one of the vew few games that'll get played on my "movie" televsion.
It'd get scaled in all four directions to fill it though. Come at me.
Double post... but that last one was long enough that I didn't want to append to it.
Well actually, addressing that one quote doesn't really cover everything else. The main point of contention I had with your post was your claim that by Ryse at 900p "holds up" to the PC version at 1080p, that he was literally claiming that the game would look no better at a higher resolution. When you say "he did exactly that", you leave no wiggle room for interpretation. Your claim (along with surfer) was simply false. I even gave you other examples of how the term is very commonly used. Saying something compares well, is NOT the same it is equivalent. I don't know how this is even a point to dwell on. You're changing the meaning of the term in order to attack it. Would you have done the same to people in the Project Cars thread? They thought the PS4 version held up well... the little shits, amirite?
As for the article not being hardware independant... I know... I said that in the post you quoted. But the article discusses a common topic that is hardware independent (note that article and topic aren't the same thing... an article can have a lot of topics if desired). They could do everything with PC's, but that would simultaneously decrease interest (let's be honest, this thread would be much smaller), whilst also divorcing it from the survey that brought the topic up in the first place. The console hardware as examples is fair game, as it allows them to point at the two games on both machines and say "these are considered the best looking despite not being full 1080p". A PC example doesn't quite have the same effect, as PC games in general don't typically get discussed as being "the best graphics available", so showing two configurations of Star Citizen would probably just be lost on people.
The article contrasts the Xbox One and the PS4 in each of the multiplatform offerings it uses as an example (whether favourable or not). What serversurfer is complaining about is the lack of contrasting being done in the absence of a specific version. So because they don't talk about how much better Ryse may look on PS4, or how much worse The Order would look on Xbox One, it's all apparently horribly wrong. I personally don't see the point in commenting on something that simply doesn't exist. This thread can handle that itself, with just as accurate results.
What do you class as "policing" the thread? One more post and I'll knock Seanspeed off the top.. but I don't think I'm "policing" anything here. Numerous people took the time to respond to me, and I like to respond back (generally until there's no discussion left to be had). Isn't that the point of a forum?
I don't really post in a lot of threads, but will tend to post a lot in the ones I do post in. I prefer to have longer substantial discussions with people, rather than just blanket bomb 30-40 different threads a day with a single one liner post. However, it often seems like many here prefer people do the former rather than the latter.
EDIT: Anyhow, I'm off to bed for now. If anyone replies directly, I'm not likely to see it for a long time.
Well actually, addressing that one quote doesn't really cover everything else. The main point of contention I had with your post was your claim that by Ryse at 900p "holds up" to the PC version at 1080p, that he was literally claiming that the game would look no better at a higher resolution. When you say "he did exactly that", you leave no wiggle room for interpretation. Your claim (along with surfer) was simply false. I even gave you other examples of how the term is very commonly used. Saying something compares well, is NOT the same it is equivalent. I don't know how this is even a point to dwell on. You're changing the meaning of the term in order to attack it. Would you have done the same to people in the Project Cars thread? They thought the PS4 version held up well... the little shits, amirite?
As for the article not being hardware independant... I know... I said that in the post you quoted. But the article discusses a common topic that is hardware independent (note that article and topic aren't the same thing... an article can have a lot of topics if desired). They could do everything with PC's, but that would simultaneously decrease interest (let's be honest, this thread would be much smaller), whilst also divorcing it from the survey that brought the topic up in the first place. The console hardware as examples is fair game, as it allows them to point at the two games on both machines and say "these are considered the best looking despite not being full 1080p". A PC example doesn't quite have the same effect, as PC games in general don't typically get discussed as being "the best graphics available", so showing two configurations of Star Citizen would probably just be lost on people.
The article contrasts the Xbox One and the PS4 in each of the multiplatform offerings it uses as an example (whether favourable or not). What serversurfer is complaining about is the lack of contrasting being done in the absence of a specific version. So because they don't talk about how much better Ryse may look on PS4, or how much worse The Order would look on Xbox One, it's all apparently horribly wrong. I personally don't see the point in commenting on something that simply doesn't exist. This thread can handle that itself, with just as accurate results.
What do you class as "policing" the thread? One more post and I'll knock Seanspeed off the top.. but I don't think I'm "policing" anything here. Numerous people took the time to respond to me, and I like to respond back (generally until there's no discussion left to be had). Isn't that the point of a forum?
I don't really post in a lot of threads, but will tend to post a lot in the ones I do post in. I prefer to have longer substantial discussions with people, rather than just blanket bomb 30-40 different threads a day with a single one liner post. However, it often seems like many here prefer people do the former rather than the latter.
EDIT: Anyhow, I'm off to bed for now. If anyone replies directly, I'm not likely to see it for a long time.
Sure, as I pointed out if the comparison being made was one specific aspect of a game I would completely question their claim of something holding up. I wouldn't call them little sh*ts though because that'll be mean
Like my example above, if somebody posted a video with PC 60fps and PS4 hovering in the 50s I would say somebody suggesting the performance holds up against the PC version is full of it regardless of who that person is, let alone somebody who runs a site who has been trying to tell me how the little differences mean a lot for the past few years now changing his tune.
So what you're saying is that it's clickbait?
It's fairly obvious to me that leadbetter was upset about the outcome of the poll and instead of having a genuine discussion about how important resolution is to a games image quality ended up writing an article where he said the poll was unbelievable, that the gap was closing, that Ryse looks great anyway, comparable to PC graphics at 1080p, and that he hopes the gap closes further so that next years result is different. It almost read like a salty forum post.
Sure, as I pointed out if the comparison being made was one specific aspect of a game I would completely question their claim of something holding up. I wouldn't call them little sh*ts though because that'll be mean
Like my example above, if somebody posted a video with PC 60fps and PS4 hovering in the 50s I would say somebody suggesting the performance holds up against the PC version is full of it regardless of who that person is, let alone somebody who runs a site who has been trying to tell me how the little differences mean a lot for the past few years now changing his tune.
So what you're saying is that it's clickbait?
It's fairly obvious to me that leadbetter was upset about the outcome of the poll and instead of having a genuine discussion about how important resolution is to a games image quality ended up writing an article where he said the poll was unbelievable, that the gap was closing, that Ryse looks great anyway, comparable to PC graphics at 1080p, and that he hopes the gap closes further so that next years result is different. It almost read like a salty forum post.
Still around, lol. Will definitely be gone after this one though.
I think if you actually would say the same to the people in the Project Cars thread, them this is all mostly pointless to discuss, as you have a very different view of what something "holding up" implies compared to those saying it. Also, there's no point in putting that "specfic aspect" qualifier there for this. If someone says the PS4 version of Project Cars holds up well to PC version, then that would apply to all of it. So by your standard it would have to actually be the PC version's exact equal. This is clearly not what anyone in that thread was claiming, and is not what's being claimed in this article either. You've talked about getting bogged down with semantics in this thread before. This is all you're arguing at this point. The most you really would have on any of these statements (if your interpretation of the term was actually correct) is that they should use a different term in its place. That's all. You know the intention isn't to say they're exactly the same, so why try to make the claim into something malicious? The only remaining explanation is that you're unhappy with any claims that they're close.. which isn't actually objectively quantifiable.
Let's look at it a different way. If the PC version was a constant 60fps, and literally never dropped a frame ever... and then the PS4 version was mostly 60fps, but dropped to say 59fps once every minute or so. Would you still consider those that say the PS4 version holds up to be full of it? I mean, they're not exactly the same right? If not, then what you're really trying to discuss is the disparity that term can be applied to... which is completely pointless as it'd depend on each person. It'd be like trying to define a point where someone stops being short, and starts being tall.
The article is somewhat clickbaitish yes. It' very much supposed to draw attention. Most articles online are to be honest... hell most threads and posts on this forum are. Nobody wants to be left shouting into an abyss. That doesn't make everything stated within it false though. I'm not even saying that I think the article is very good (the title is awful, and has done a lot of harm to this discussion)... but most of what's covered is perfectly fine for what it is, and wouldn't really benefit from constant reminders of "if Ryse were on PS4 it could be 1080p, woo!". And really, that's what most of the critique against it in this thread seems to be boiling down to.
hooijdonk17
Member
Ladies and gentleman, the nail has been hit on the head.
Yeah, quote only fragments without quoting explanations of those sentences, that will make a point.
Read whole freaking article, everything is explained. Those points are not separated from the whole article and point of the whole article.
But i'm basically out of this thread. I feel bad for arguing semantics, especially with people who cant read article in context, but focus on some isolated words or sentences.
It is also pretty telling that the same people completely ignore the similar article from 2012 from Leadbetter. Seems it doesnt fit the bias theory that much, so its irrelevant to discussion.
Resolution has never mattered that much to me - I couldn't recite the resolution of a single PS3/360 game and solid frame rate was always my target when PC gaming - but I let the resolutiongate drama get to me for a short while when I was choosing which console to buy this generation.
I was combing through digital foundry threads and resolution announcements and blowing up screenshots to compare 400% crops side by side. I even downloaded Fifa Street 3 to try and determine how important native resolution was to me.
In the end I just decided I wanted to play Forza and Halo and said screw it. Since then any anxiety or investment in resolution differences has completely dissipated. I just don't care.
I understand why multi-console owners want to know they're buying the best version of a game and it's important to know if a particular consoles performance is significantly hindered but beyond that, I think the focus on resolution this generation has gotten a bit out of hand.
I was combing through digital foundry threads and resolution announcements and blowing up screenshots to compare 400% crops side by side. I even downloaded Fifa Street 3 to try and determine how important native resolution was to me.
In the end I just decided I wanted to play Forza and Halo and said screw it. Since then any anxiety or investment in resolution differences has completely dissipated. I just don't care.
I understand why multi-console owners want to know they're buying the best version of a game and it's important to know if a particular consoles performance is significantly hindered but beyond that, I think the focus on resolution this generation has gotten a bit out of hand.
Well it's clear we will not see eye to eye on the subject and that's understandable but let me just reiterate that the "specfic aspect" qualifier is absolutely crucial. If somebody said "Project cars holds up to the PC version considering it's 1080p/60fps" I cannot make any judgment on them because I really wouldn't know what they consider as holding up. Do they mean no parts of the track are blocked off? Do they mean the car models LOD are identical? Without jumping to conclusions it's wrong to make any comment on how I disagree with them. If, however, that person made a thread "does framerate matter" and argued "performance holds up" and posted a video showing 60fps PC vs 50fps PS4 I can and would tell them they are full of it. especially if that same person had been harping on about the virtues of 30fps vs 28fps not so long ago. That's the part you are ignoring. If you read the initial post I made I took issue with the fact that this wasn't always the case, objectively smaller differences were considered in the past as affecting the image quality in distant objects. I hope that covers your example of 60fps vs 59fps too. At any rate it's clear we aren't seeing eye to eye and that's cool Synth.
martino
Member
Yeah they just define and prove their bias.
Birgitte2004
Member
It seems to me you are doing the exact same thing you accuse others of, because the article as a whole includes the pieces you keep outright dismissing.
The article includes ALL of the stuff. You seem to be one who keeps dismissing the parts you don't want included, even if the people you are talking to are doing something similar.
EDIT: Re: 2012 article: In 2012 he was talking about how games could be improved if you focus on things other than Resolution. Now he's talking about how even though there is a difference in resolution, things can still be comparable. That's not even remotely the same argument, unless you do what you continue to do(and continue to accuse others of), throw out everything except what you agree with.
Incidentally I fail to see how "You are biased" is any better of an argument than "You are a fanboy". Both are blindly dismissing anything you don't want to hear, the adult version of sticking your fingers in your ears and doing the "I can't hear you!"
Journey
Banned
So that comparison is deceiving. To me PC on low and normal look sharper than PC on High. The shots would have you think Xbox One is running less than PC on low, but meanwhile is it actually running filters only found on high that actually make it look a bit blurry? That's what I've been saying for a while, Ryse's blurriness seem to come from some of their high end filters, as seen on their High settings looking duller than even PC on Low lol.
So that comparison is deceiving. To me PC on low and normal look sharper than PC on High. The shots would have you think Xbox One is running less than PC on low, but meanwhile is it actually running filters only found on high that actually make it look a bit blurry? That's what I've been saying for a while, Ryse's blurriness seem to come from some of their high end filters, as seen on their High settings looking duller than even PC on Low lol.
It comes from the temporal AA used which can be disabled on PC. Not sure what other filters could blur like that.
Astral Dog
Member
I can't imagine how they are going to do that, games take more time to be made now, not less, with the PS4 selling great Sony is not going to be in a hurry, with Xbox ONE selling better (still below ps4 but better) Microsoft will want to keep it, even at second place.
6 years at minimun. Sony won't throw the PS4 so soon, not for the sake of technology, they couldn't on the PS3, this generation is just starting.
Nintendo? well they will try to release a new system, but even they can't afford to rush a console to the market.
There is an investment made on consoles for a period of time ,as long as budgets increase and games take longer to be made, i doubt this generation will be shorter (and if its, not by much)
In a way the new systems are still getting their "launch" titles.
On the contrary, the era of console cycles lasting 4 years might be over.
Journey
Banned
Well clearly (no pun intended) the blurriness seen in Ryse has more to do then the game running at 900p. It's false to use Ryse as an example of how 900p games make look blurry.
When someone says 900p looks blurry compared to 1080p and then uses Ryse as an example, is pretty much being disingenuous about the true downgrade 900p, sure 1080p is sharper and less jaggie, but the blurriness you see in Ryse is due to other reasons, that was my point.
Looking at this DF comparison of Metro (1080p on PS4 and 900p on XBO) I'm pretty sure that in a double blind test would be very hard to differenciate.
Close-up crop:
Here's another cropped close-up where you can see on the hand and knife on his chest where the PS4 has an advantage, but again in a blind test would be really hard to tell apart, not the blurry mess we see with Ryse.
That's exactly why this article is somewhat poor. Because they could have done a 1080p/900p comparison simply using a PC and changed no settings other than resolution. Instead they compare a PC version with settings options, with a XOne version with no options. In that shot XOne is visibly inferior to all three other PC options, and it is partly because of resolution loss, and partly because of the AA blur filter.
And if the artistic merits is what they want to discuss, apply or remove those same filters to the PC version at the same resolution so you can identify each change independently.
Yea, I think we're at a point we're each of us kinda gets what the other is saying, and can probably somewhat see the discussion from their point of view. I doubt we'll ever end up agreeing, but we've made it further than most discussions in threads like these manage to go.
I did find the bolded part of you quote interesting though, as I feel that's exactly what is actually happening here. Your issue with their claim seems to primarily stem from an assumption of what is meant by it. I can fully appreciate if you don't think 900p vs 1080p is a close enough comparison to count as "holding up", but in your first response to me you were actually suggesting that what they said had "exactly" the same intent as saying that the game simply looks no better at a higher res. Even if I'm completely wrong, and Leadbetter actually did intend it to mean that (unlikely), there is nowhere near sufficient clarification to draw such an absolute conclusion... and without that, I don't see why you'd be comfortable jumping to conclusions in order to disagree with it so heavily. Despite the mention of 1080p and 60fps in the Project Cars quote, I'd argue that it's clearer that quote is referring to the whole package (it didn't say "the resolution holds up", or "the framerate holds up"... it simply says "it holds up", and logically "it" would be referring to that version of the game).
I also hear you on the whole "defending 50fps vs 60fps, but not 28fps vs 30fps" thing. The issue I have with this though, is that I don't believe you can simply math away any explanations to why someone may not see these two situations as being the same. Like, if you offered me a room to stay in, and it's 7ft by 5ft (Room A), I'd probably complain it's too small, but would be happy with a room twice it's size (Room B). That doesn't mean that I'd feel the same about a comparison between a room 3 times to size of Room B (C) and a room twice as large as that one (D). At some point it ceases to make much difference to me despite being a mathematically equivalent comparison. In my mind they now both simply fall into the bracket of "fucking huge". One is still better than the other, but it's importance to me is nowhere near the same, and I'd rather have a nicer bed and room service rather than even more space. This is how I feel about resolutions today compared to previous generations.
I agree that the article could definitely have been done better. However, I'm not actually convinced that using PC settings is a flawless approach either. After all, even when you adjust settings, the vast majority of games change very little to benefit from additional performance. You could demonstrate halving the framerate, and all you may have to show for it would be something like The Last of Us' additional shadow detail (or fancy hair for Lara Croft), whereas if the game were created with the different target in mind to start with, it may have instead been Uncharted 4. You don't simply move sliders to get that, because the core has to satisfy the lowest common denominator somehow... which isn't the case for budgeting resources on fixed hardware.
This isn't true. It runs slightly above 900p.
Here is 900p vs 1080p of a distant object in destiny before the 1080p patch
serversurfer
Member
Sorry, I got distracted by the Morpheus stuff. Anyway, this is really the heart of the matter. The fact is, all else being equal, Ryse would've been 1080p on PS4, and that's why people are choosing the PS4 over its competition. Except Leadbetter can't believe anyone would actually choose a PS4 just because it's more powerful than the Bone, so he assumes Nielsen got it wrong, and then goes on to make the case that not only is the bump to 1080p inconsequential, games like FC4, Ryse, and The Order show us that sub-native games are actually preferable, because they look and perform so much better that way.
No, none of the stuff he said in the article was technically incorrect. Rather, the entire article was a steaming plate of red herring intended to make people feel foolish for choosing PS4 just because of its superior resolution. Not only should we not look down at the sub-native resolutions on the Bone, we should admire them, because it's giving us so much more of what really matters.
How is people choosing PS4 for its superior resolution any more unbelievable than people choosing the Bone "because it's an XBox"? Why didn't he write an article about how misguided those people are, saying, "WTF? Have I taught you nothing over the last decade??"
serversurfer
Member
Sorry to quote myself, but really, this is the most telling/laughable aspect of the entire story. Bone owners told Nielsen, "Really, I put loyalty to the brand ahead of all other considerations." Technical guru Richard Leadbetter looked at that and said, "Right on, right on. Brother man, keepin' it real. And what's up with people getting a PlayStation just because the games look better? pfft Fuckin' nerds. My Xbox is totally just as much fun. More fun, really."
MilkyJoe
Member
Willing to bet the brand loyalty means controller loyalty.
Weltall Zero
Member
For me, it goes framerate/vsync > resolution > polycount. Which is why I tend to find PS2 remasters on PS3 much more palatable than PS3 native games.
That the PS4 could runs Ryse at 1080p all else being equal doesn't matter in the context of that segment though, because all else doesn't have to be equal, so the same considerations apply. Would it be worth making Ryse simply look better in other ways if the hardware were stronger? If not, then should the same not apply in reverse? Why not make the Xbox One version more simplistic to allow for 1080p?.. and by extension why 720p last gen, if the consoles proved that 1080p was possible then too? This is why the PS4 is unimportant in regards to talking about Ryse, because the conversation is bigger than Xbox vs Playstation. The two don't need to be cross-referenced at the end of every sentence. The article has plenty of comparison between software that applies to both for that purpose (and freely acknowledges that resolutions can definitely be too low in some cases).
Also, the article doesn't try to make people feel foolish for their reasons in choosing a console. More that he finds it surprising that resolution specifically is the number one catalyst. This reason was selected over the more generic "most powerful" or "best graphics" reasoning that I personally would also have expected more casual players to answer the question with. Unless resolution was the only graphically inclined answer that was selectable, it's definitely not what I'd expect to see as the number one reason outside of forums such as this. I do find it somewhat interesting that in a single generation sites like DF have managed to embed the importance of concepts like resolution deeply enough that they now become the most common answer in a mass market survey. With that said though, I guess companies like Apple (Retina display) and the mobile industry as a whole has done more to push such terms into the mainstream.
The reason why the Xbox's number one reason being "brand" isn't strange to not receive a similar article is pretty simple in my opinion... it's too obvious a reason for a survey like this. There's really nothing surprising about it at all. It wouldn't come as a shock to any industry today, and wouldn't come as a shock to any industry 50 years ago. It's simply an expected reasoning.
Brad Grenz
Member
It's pretty obvious Crytek chose their visual target before they knew the Xbox One wasn't going to be powerful enough to accomplish it at native 1080p.
And consider this, if we are to believe people can't see a 30% increase in resolution, why are we supposed to believe a 30% increase in shader complexity will be more readily visible? The "diminishing returns" argument applies in both cases, and there's every reason to believe people will have an easier time seeing the clarity of native resolution versus the "correctness" of marginally more complex lighting or materials.
Jesus with this...phone? Really...go away...I don't even care if you were trying to be funny
..
Lemme get this straight. So a phone which draws 3 watts at full load is slightly behind a 137 watt console, but somehow there's a massive gulf between said console and PC?
Before you compare smartphones to the PS4, at least wait until current smartphones outperform last gen consoles.
Firstly. nobody's claiming people can't see a difference in the resolutions (although this obviously does vary by person). This is the same strawman argument that's been used earlier in the thread. Not thinking there's a huge difference in the resulting image isn't the same as claiming there's no visible difference.
Secondly, even if that's true for Ryse, what about other 900p games like Sunset Overdrive, that likely had a clear view of the hardware before anything needed to be locked in? Are you suggesting every exclusive game from here on out will be 1080p? And what about those Wii U games? They know the specs, why are they just making games that'll fit within a 1080p processing budget?
Thirdly, how exactly do we have "every reason to believe" that people notice resolution over other aspects of the image. I assume you have some hard evidence to back this up? If that is so obviously the case, why is Ryse considered the best graphics game on the console? Why don't multiplats just target the Xbox One and scale assets up slightly for PS4 instead? According to your theory the end result would be almost the same. because the PS4's extra processing couldn't be making that much of a difference to the assets/shaders anyway right?
One of the main differences with resolution increases, is that it's an across the board change. You can't just pretty up what you consider to be an important area of the screen, and give it 40% more resolution. However you can do things like this in other graphical areas. You may take all the gains you have from decreasing the resolution, and dump it all onto the main character that just happens to be on screen at all times. This could be improving this particular area of the graphics far more than 40%, and people will simply notice it more because it's being made the focus of attention.
In summary, I don't think you've made very strong points here.
Brad Grenz
Member
Bullshit. Lots of people claim the difference is "imperceptible" to "most" and Leadbetter has strangely been at the forefront of promoting that specious claim.
It's not hard to figure out. Xbox One and WiiU don't exist in isolation. If Xbox One devs want their games to have that "next gen look" and the bar is being set by games on PS4, even exclusives will need to drop resolution to achieve what has become "expected".
Suddenly we require hard evidence to support our claims? You don't seem to think Leadbetter's article requires anything of the sort.
But to answer your question: What is going to be accomplished by dedicating more compute power to shading than additional resolution? Well, probably more "correct" behavior for light in terms of reflections, shadows, illumination, subsurface scattering, etc.The problem is "most people" are not equipped to recognize when those things are being done right. They don't know about HDR, tone mapping, realtime lighting, etc. They know when stuff looks cool which is why graphics programming has always been about expedient cheaps.
But anyone with good vision can see an increase in resolution. A higher resolution will simply look more clear.
No kidding. You, not unlike Leadbetter, have been arguing in bad faith this whole thread.
No, every tiny difference would be exaggerated to warp factor 10.
If you ask me if I think many people won't notice the difference between 900p and 1080p in a blind test, then I'd say that's pretty likely. It holds true for myself in most cases, which is why dropping the res to 1600x900 is generally the first optimisation I make to PC games if I'm encountering performance issues (my PC is hooked up to the same plasma TV as my consoles). There have even been times when I'll go to drop the res, only to realise that it's already set to that resolution from before, and I just forgot. That doesn't mean that I'm claiming no difference can be seen... and if I could clone my entire set up, and place the 1080p version directly next to it, I could probably call out which is which with some decent consistency... but that's not a very useful metric to me if I don't notice in any other scenario. I'm also not claiming either that everyone will notice, or that everyone won't notice... nor that all setups handle the differences equally as well. You're accusing some people of making the claim that nobody can see the difference, period. now someone may actually have claimed this at some point, but I don't think I've ever personally seen the claim made.
I generally don't require hard evidence to support any claim someone may make in a forum post. But when that person confidently exclaims that "there's every reason" to believe something, I'd imagine that they would be more than happy to actually present a good few of these reasons in order to strengthen their position. If you don't feel like doing so, that's fine... but then I'm just left to assume it's because we don't actually have every reason to believe that at all.
I'm not arguing in bad faith here. Your post contains two conflicting points. You're both trying to argue that resolution differences are more obvious than other graphical elements, whilst also arguing that Xbox One exclusives are dropping the resolution because they need to in order to attain that "next gen look". If your second point holds true (which I believe it does), then it implies that these graphical difference that contribute to a "next gen look" are actually more noticeable to the average viewer than the resolution bump to 1080p would have been. If having a 1080p resolution was consistently preferable, then exclusives would want to target it at all costs, as that would logically leave them as the best looking games on the platform.
serversurfer
Member
Again, it is the context for the article.
"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."
I've already discussed the introduction several times, so let's take a look at the conclusion, where he tells us what we should hope to see in the 2016 survey, once people start buying their consoles for the right reasons. Now, if he was making the argument you claim he's making that we should all buy PS4s for improved frame rates rather than buying them for improved resolutions then you'd think he'd mention something like stable frame rates or high-quality temporal AA in his conclusion. Instead, while measuring your ePeen is cool and all, he wants us to pick our consoles based on how fun they are, and everybody knows that being stuck on PSN is no fun at all. Amirite? Oh, and Wii owners have the most fun of all, so obviously graphics don't really matter. Hue hue hue.
Yea, we've already discussed the intro plenty of times... but that doesn't mean every single sentence or paragraph in the article needs to mention the PS4. The paragraph which discusses Ryse, is talking purely about how the game looks at 900p in comparison to 1080p in order to show that 900p doesn't completely destroy the game's graphics comparatively. As there is no PS4 version of this game, it is compared to the PC version which actually exists. There's absolutely no reason to mention the PS4 here, as any comparison would be entirely imaginary. The article adequately acknowledges that the PS4 can basically do what the Xbox One does at 900p, but at 1080p when discussing all the multiplatform games, and the differences between them. There's no need to reiterate this in the Ryse segment too.
As for the conclusion of the article... This seems to talk more about how hopefully the resolution won't be seen as such as huge distinction going forwards, primarily due to the Xbox One titles becoming more comparable in that area. Whether that be 900p with good processing, or 1080pr or whatever. The general point is that there should hopefully be less MGSV and BF: Hardline situations that exhibit "unimpressive image quality" as a result of their resolutions. This is the what's meant by "enough progress". Not that everyone simply changes their outlook, with everything else remaining the same. It refers to the previous paragraph which states that "there's still a long way to go" in regards to the Xbox One resolving it own IQ issues. The Wii U "fun factor" stuff at the very end I'll agree shouldn't be there though. I actually personally think that's the most questionable answer given in the survey, for the reasons mentioned in my previous reply to you.
- Status