Support NeoGAF

[Facism]

This really begs the question of why not use a dynamic res on the PS4 as well??

if multiplayer is rock solid at 1080p...then leave both consoles the way they are, but if there are slight dips in the PS4 version of the campaign then why not go with the dynamic resolution...It would likely not need to drop as low as the Xbone version, or anywhere near as often and probably hold a 1920x1080 res for the vast majority of the time.

it just seems silly and dumb for Sledgehammer to go dynamic on one version to achieve a solid (or as close enough as makes no difference) 60fps on the Xbone, while keeping the PS4 locked at 1080p and suffering frame drops (as minor and sporadic as they may be)

because the frame-drops are minor and sporadic, like you say. It's not a big deal, especially if the meat and 2 veg of the game (multiplayer) is locked up hard like Ocalan.

 

[iceatcs]

I'd rather have a variable framerate (especially when we're talking 5fps drops) over a variable resolution :S - dear god, I'm imagining that the game goes from looking washed out to super sharp back and forth with seconds in between on XB1. No thank you.

To be honest I'd rather they just kept it 900p on One than this.

Yeah, I think it is why MP disable dynamic resolution. It will affect the slight scope if the resolution changing, especially on the sniper scope.

 

[scoobs]

Dat split second drop from 60 to 58 fps... Aaarghhhhh, my eyes!!!1

 

[thelastword]

It would probably drop many, many more frames without dynamic res.

Even if there are rare dropped frames, that doesn't mean dynamic res is not a valid implementation.

I'd like to see a day when dynamic res is the standard, even if in some implementations it is almost never engaged.



Or that the game becomes CPU bound at points.

It would drop even more frames if it was properly vsynced too. A game where dynamic rez has worked according to plan is rage, it never ever drops frames, but this one is a weird implementation as it does drop frames and even tears to prevent further drops. It's definitely a double whammy against this implementation.

What's also apparent in this implementation of D-rez is that it stays mainly at the minimum scale of 1360*1080, so there's hardly any dynamic rez scaling anyway. In essence, you could call it a 1360*1080 experience on the xbone as it's predominantly at that rez. Compare this to Wipeout HD rez on the PS3 which was predominant at 1920*1080p.

When the difference is that much it becomes unbalanced. It needs to be in the order of 880x720 vs 832x624, in which case it is a world away.

At that time a 100,000 pixel difference was massive, now a 600,000 pixel difference is hardly a tangible difference.

I just read the campaign faceoff again and the wording the author uses is so skewed, you would never tell that the xbone drops frames too in campaign, of course the resolution is not a big deal and he actually makes it sound like vsync is a bad thing against tearing. Read this.

The only concession on Microsoft's platform, besides its variable resolution, is the use of adaptive v-sync. In practice, this causes frames to tear during spikes in concurrent alpha effects, or scenes involving multiple allies on-screen. While very rare, this helps the platform avoid any delay in getting the next frame on screen, in cases where the hardware's resources are unexpectedly pressed. By comparison, the PS4's approach is to engage v-sync permanently, waiting until the next frame is rendered in its entirety, causing a touch more stutter.

So in this case, he actually prefers tearing or at least puts it in a favorable light. It's funny the tone of the article, read the paragraphs just before that, they read as a pre-amble. He tried so hard to diminish the rez deficit on the XBONE by speaking of motion blur, CA etc.. yet, motion blur neither CA are predominant features in this game.