• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
  • Hi Guest. We've rebooted and consolidated our Communities section, so be sure to check it out and subscribe to some threads. Thanks!

Killzone: Shadow Fall Multiplayer Runs at 960x1080 vertically interlaced

BadAss2961

Member
Mar 21, 2012
18,098
1
480
I think GG made a bad move by trying to go for 60fps in the MP. The end result was pretty shoddy.

They should have kept it at 1920x1080, lowered some effects and try to get a solid 30fps.
Nah, it plays better than it otherwise would've.

I'm not even sweating this... It's Guerrilla Games. They were in a rush. Next time they do a multiplayer it'll look better than Shadow Fall's, and run at true 1080p/60fps.
 

HTupolev

Member
Aug 13, 2012
5,333
0
0
So not the same thing that's done in Shadowfall MP? disappointed

I thought we're on the verge for big discovery.
No, massive-scale temporal reprojection for achieving baseline resolutions would have been a huge deal last gen, and would not have flown totally under the radar for years and years. Devs would have wanted to talk about how cool it was, if it was a commonly-accepted thing.

It was a pretty big deal even when games used temporal antialiasing, and I'm not sure if any PS360 games even bothered to reproject with their motion buffers (Halo: Reach actually turned AA off for pixels with detected motion).
 

GHG

Member
Nov 9, 2006
16,332
1,769
1,410
It's a technical thread talking about the resolution of a game that is different than what we thought previously.

I suggest you don't enter these threads if it irks you so much.
Technical? Hahahaha. Sorry, must have missed it. It's gone way over my head. My diploma in CompSci isn't good enough to stand up to all the PhD level technical discussions in this thread.

This is not a technical discussion. If you want technical discussions, close the GAF tab on your browser and go to somewhere like beyond3D.
 
May 22, 2011
30,475
2
0
Did you just ignore all the other posts that replied to you?
People DID notice! They just thought it was the AA solution, and didn't think GG was outright lying.

Resolution matters. If it's not native, it will look off on native displays.
This furthers proves that point.
No I read the posts, I understand you guys completly! Please dont think im saying something else, all Im saying is the resolution NOW matters because we know it. Yes the resolution was the issue all along....but some people though it was AA and NOT the resolution. Understand? Im not trying to prove a point just simply stating. It is what it is.
 

Sho_Nuff82

Member
Jan 2, 2007
39,634
0
0
Ryse was ripped apart for running at 900p, which is actually higher than this game

Double standard everywhere. At least Crytek had the courtesy to be honest.
so BF4 with dynamic environments and 64 players run better than this?

lol
After all these months and so much focus on resolution, nobody noticed this.

Wait, so TitanFall beta is higher res than Killzone SF multiplayer? That is pretty funny.
This makes a lot of the last few months a lot more interesting.

And by interesting, I mean hilarious.
 

dallow_bg

nods at old men
May 8, 2007
28,696
4
0
Texas
www.dolefulorange.com
No I read the posts, I understand you guys completly! Please dont think im saying something else, all Im saying is the resolution NOW matters because we know it. Yes the resolution was the issue all along....but some people though it was AA and NOT the resolution. Understand? Im not trying to prove a point just simply stating. It is what it is.
The issue wasn't AA or resolution, the issue was MP looking worse and blurry compared to SP.

The difference today is we now know the true cause.
 

badb0y

Member
May 20, 2013
3,095
0
420
Ryse was ripped apart for running at 900p, which is actually higher than this game

Double standard everywhere. At least Crytek had the courtesy to be honest.
For multi-player you are right but single player was still native 1080p.
so BF4 with dynamic environments and 64 players run better than this?

lol
Yep, lol.
After all these months and so much focus on resolution, nobody noticed this.

Wait, so TitanFall beta is higher res than Killzone SF multiplayer? That is pretty funny.
1.) People did notice this but thought it was because of some other reasons since we were told KZSF MP was 1080p native.
2.) Yep, Titanfall beta is higher resolution, LOL.
 

chubigans

y'all should be ashamed
Dec 7, 2006
27,115
0
1,290
www.vertigogaming.net

msdstc

Incredibly Naive
Jan 6, 2007
24,382
0
1,080
MASS
The whole thing has been handled poorly in terms of the MP, you can tell it was absolutely squeezed out at the last second. The current issue I'm having now is unplayable lag.
 

VanWinkle

Member
Jul 8, 2011
27,804
1
575
West Virginia
Hey, someone do me a biggy. Remember this direct feed video they released before the game came out? They said not to host streaming because it would compress it.
http://blog.us.playstation.com/2013/11/04/killzone-shadow-fall-ultra-high-bitrate-multiplayer-footage/

Can someone download that and see if the same problem we're seeing now exists in this video?
Woah, so about 10 days before launch Guerilla themselves said that the MP runs at native 1080p. That really kind of irks me.
 

TheD

The Detective
Mar 29, 2012
3,575
0
0
The trash cans outside your house.
All of this zooming in to images to spot flaws really irks me. Who sits that close to their tv/monitor to even see games like that. It's a pointless exercise. If you're going to be so concerned about this stuff to a point where your zooming into images and looking at them that closely, do yourself a favour and get a gaming PC. That way you can spend more time actually gaming rather than bitching about this pointless shit in DF threads.
People that are sitting the correct distance from a screen! (if you could not see the differences between a 1080P screen and a 720P screen at your viewing distance, you have just wasted money buying the higher res screen FFS!).

All of the hyperbole in this thread is killing me.

The game looks awful all of a sudden now?

Nobody even knew or noticed this before today, and for all intents and purposes, everyone was saying the game looked awesome and how it was one of the, if not the, best looking next gen title... Now we are inspecting 100x zoomed in images looking for artifacts?

Like seriously?
That is OBJECTIVELY WRONG!, sangreal posted half an hour before you did, linking to one of his posts with screenshots from last year, in it he complained about the IQ of the multiplayer!
 
Jan 31, 2012
1,387
0
0
Hey, someone do me a biggy. Remember this direct feed video they released before the game came out? They said not to host streaming because it would compress it.
http://blog.us.playstation.com/2013/11/04/killzone-shadow-fall-ultra-high-bitrate-multiplayer-footage/

Can someone download that and see if the same problem we're seeing now exists in this video?
I'm just curious what this matters now. No one even knew or bothered to find out for over three months.
 

badb0y

Member
May 20, 2013
3,095
0
420
Not only that, but the fact that they can't get it to run at a solid 60 FPS with such a low resolution is laughable.
 

Havel

Member
Sep 27, 2013
1,341
0
345
Hey, someone do me a biggy. Remember this direct feed video they released before the game came out? They said not to host streaming because it would compress it.
http://blog.us.playstation.com/2013/11/04/killzone-shadow-fall-ultra-high-bitrate-multiplayer-footage/

Can someone download that and see if the same problem we're seeing now exists in this video?
Just watched it, and I'm pretty damn sure the same problems exist here. It looks identical to those direct feed shots from a few pages back.

Pre-release:



Post release:
 

BuggeryBugz

Member
Sep 10, 2013
1,121
2
0
Technical? Hahahaha. Sorry, must have missed it. It's gone way over my head. My diploma in CompSci isn't good enough to stand up to all the PhD level technical discussions in this thread.

This is not a technical discussion. If you want technical discussions, close the GAF tab on your browser and go to somewhere like beyond3D.
Thanks, but maybe you should take your own advice.
 

HTupolev

Member
Aug 13, 2012
5,333
0
0
People that are sitting the correct distance from a screen! (if you could not see the differences between a 1080P screen and a 720P screen at your viewing distance, you have just wasted money buying the higher res screen FFS!).
In terms of native render resolutions over the content of most modern games, if you're sitting so far from your screen that the difference isn't evident, you probably aren't seeing much of anything at all. Clarity issues become irrelevant after fairly* short distances, but aliasing is some pretty crazy stuff. You can sit 15 yards from your TV, barely be able to play anything, and Halo 3's specular aliasing is still going to stick out very obviously.

*Hehehehe
 

ZehDon

Member
Jun 13, 2013
2,047
630
535
Australia
As I mentioned in the other thread, this explains to me why the game looks blurry and worse than SP. I've always just assumed terrible AA was used to claw back the FPS, and left it at that. However, now that we know we're dealing with low pixel counts and some temporal witchcraft I don't understand, it makes me question why the game cannot retain a constant 60FPS.

I shrugged off the performance fluctuations because hey, a 1080p next-gen launch title is gonna have some issues. I questioned the "AA problems" and wished for a crisper image, but hey - 1080p next-gen launch title, right? But... it's not 1080p. And it's not 60FPS. And the maps aren't all that big. And the player count isn't all that large.

I still love the game, but trading a Full HD image for a fluctuating 30-60 FPS doesn't feel like the right decision to me, given that this was supposed to be the first title to really push the visual standard on PS4. For me, it's pretty disappointing that they didn't come clean. I'm not gonna go all "FUCK YOU PS4", I love my console, but I'm certainly not going to buy into the hype next time. Is this a sign of things to come?
 

hawk2025

Member
Jan 20, 2013
15,489
0
0
I don't want to overstate this too much, but it's disgusting how we were straight up lied to by the constant claims of NATIVE 1080p on the multiplayer.

It does explain a lot about how off and weird the multiplayer looked.
 

Liabe Brave

Member
Jan 23, 2007
4,509
0
1,000
Lawrenceville, GA
Man, look at this pre-release MP screenshot:



The game doesn't look even CLOSE to that level of clarity. It makes me mad now knowing that the resolution is so low.
Interestingly, this does pixel count as 1920x1080--but the interlacing artifacts are there too (though very mild). It might be a bullshot, but another possibility is that the temporal effect achieves better results with less camera motion. Maybe in certain circumstances the resolution truly is almost indistinguishable from native...only in MP, you're basically never going to be sitting still. Just a guess.
 

ArchedThunder

Banned
May 12, 2012
22,567
0
0
Some people seem to be a little confused at the resolution thinking that it upscales from 960x1080 to 1920x1080 like you would upscale a sub 1080p game to 1080p, it doesn't. I made some images to help.

Okay, so let's say the red lines are what is being updated while the black lines are empty space.

Now this is what it looks like on frame 1
On frame 2 this is what it looks like

And when frame 2 comes it it blurs the information from frame 1 to fill in the black spaces. This is why it looks fine when standing still but looks blurry and odd in motion. If we could take a single frame of KZSF's multiplayer with this effect turned off it would look something like this.
Zoom in to see the full effect.
The grey lines are dead space where nothing is being rendered on this frame.

So techinically the game is rendering at 1920x1080, just not on each frame.
 

MeBecomingI

Member
Sep 16, 2010
4,050
0
0
So now we have to shit on Killzone's multiplayer?

Shit still looks cray.
Of course. People are so picky about everything now that this type of thing is turned into a huge fucking deal and everyone loses their minds over it. Put Killzone and this type of thing together and... anarchy.

All of the hyperbole in this thread is killing me.

The game looks awful all of a sudden now?

Nobody even knew or noticed this before today, and for all intents and purposes, everyone was saying the game looked awesome and how it was one of the, if not the, best looking next gen title... Now we are inspecting 100x zoomed in images looking for artifacts?

Like seriously?
Because everyone needs something to bitch about. You mean it isn't 1920x1080?! Just fire everyone and close the studio! I'm so angry at Guerrilla! Mrgrgr, those no talent hacks! Worst game ever, it bombed and they should never make a game again! I'm selling this crappy, technical shitshow of a game! My ignore list grows pretty quickly in threads like this.

That type of shit is ridiculous. But I digress. This is going to happen throughout this generation. The multiplayer still looks fucking fantastic and better than almost everything else out there. Whatever method they are using does a pretty good job all things considered.
 

Frayne Daddy

Banned
Nov 19, 2013
555
0
0
I don't want to overstate this too much, but it's disgusting how we were straight up lied to by the constant claims of NATIVE 1080p on the multiplayer.

It does explain a lot about how off and weird the multiplayer looked.
Agreed this is the biggest concern. Being lied to. having Sony straight up lie to consumers is shady.
 

VanWinkle

Member
Jul 8, 2011
27,804
1
575
West Virginia
Interestingly, this does pixel count as 1920x1080--but the interlacing artifacts are there too (though very mild). It might be a bullshot, but another possibility is that the temporal effect achieves better results with less camera motion. Maybe in certain circumstances the resolution truly is almost indistinguishable from native...only in MP, you're basically never going to be sitting still. Just a guess.
Interesting. I, and I'm sure others, have brought up before how the game is significantly less blurry while standing still than with any movement at all.