I don't know why people keep saying this. Even the concept art is at that aspect ratio.
It's a design decision.
-
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.
List of known resolutions for next-gen games
- Thread starter artist
- Start date
I don't know why people keep saying this. Even the concept art is at that aspect ratio.
It's a design decision.
ConteZero76
Member
Too early to say. Game is stated for a later release (2014 ?).
Always-honest
Banned
Maybe. I can imagine it being a decision though.
Cool
Infamous 2 was probably the smoothest open world game I've played this gen at native res, so I'm actually not too concern with the framerate, good to know they can keep up with the resolution.Indeed, the black bars from what they have said and their concept art shows that it was something they wanted to do quite a while ago, not something they did because they ran into a performance hurdle with the console.
And to be honest, there's really no reason to doubt Ready at Dawn at this point, unlike some companies they have no history that I know about of bullshitting us.
Captain Smoker
Member
Wii U:
Mighty Switch Force HD = 1920 × 1080
Super Smash Bros. Wii U = 1920 × 1080
The Legend of Zelda: The Wind Waker HD = 1920 × 1080
Scribblenauts = 1920 × 1080
Pikmin 3 = 1280 × 720
Mighty Switch Force HD = 1920 × 1080
Super Smash Bros. Wii U = 1920 × 1080
The Legend of Zelda: The Wind Waker HD = 1920 × 1080
Scribblenauts = 1920 × 1080
Pikmin 3 = 1280 × 720
The debate about if the use of scope is for performance, or 'art', is kind of impossible to determine.
It could be as simple as someone saying 'films look cool in scope, lets do that', and a technical member of staff noting it would have notable fillrate advantages.
I remember people on GAF who were so sure that the black bar on Gran Turismo PSP was an excuse to save performance, and it ended up being optional.
It could be as simple as someone saying 'films look cool in scope, lets do that', and a technical member of staff noting it would have notable fillrate advantages.
I remember people on GAF who were so sure that the black bar on Gran Turismo PSP was an excuse to save performance, and it ended up being optional.
I think calling it a 'filmic' effect is too vague. By nature, anything 16:10 or even 16:9 could be called that.
I think a more accurate description would be, they are really going for a Lawrence of Arabia -esque 'CinemaScope' effect; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CinemaScope
I think it's smart as it serves both the role of giving their visuals a more cinematic quality, as well as the obvious performance boost provided by the lower resolution without the problem of scaling artifacts. It will STILL turn some people off given the mandatory black bars, however, so it still represents a compromise.
Yea I agree. I mentioned in another thread, but I was pretty annoyed when the Blu-ray version of SkyFall came in 2:40:1, despite there being an IMAX cut of the film (which I watched at the cinema). There was an interview with Sam Mendes and the topic came up, he said his preferred aspect ratio and framing was the former, which is why the blu-ray shipped with it.
They ought to make it an option then, if there's no technical issues( like with GT PSP StuBurns mentioned). For many people the black bars are an issue no matter how you try to justify it.
No I want to see it universally applied. Optional features always come of halfbaked.
That doesn't really make sense.
Guns are a design decision, should they make them optional too?
There's no question that the performance advantage will be used, it's not as if they'd choose to make the game less pretty than they could because they're 'cheating' on the aspect ratio.
rbanke
Member
Why, because some people don't like it? If they are doing it for artistic reasons then it should be up to them to show us what they want us to see. The same with art style, control layout, color design, play style, theme, everything. Perhaps those should all be options as well.
BloodMoney
Banned
Didn't realize the order was going to render in Letter box format. If they aren't going to render at native 1920x1080, I actually like that solution. Keep the horizontal native and crop the image (instead of having a smaller image that is stretched to fill the screen).
bodeiseifer
Member
Clear
CliffyB's Cock Holster
rbanke said:
I know... its such a silly thing to complain about when BD movies frequently are presented at the same aspect/resolution.
I cannot express how badly this culture of pixel-counting depresses me, especially in a situation like this where there is just a single platform version so you cannot make an A<>B comparison where the change self-evidently was the result of memory/fillrate shortfall.
Always-honest
Banned
No, if it's a design choice, it's clear it shouldn't be optional.
Jaded Alyx
Member
.....where did he say different?
Please, did you even watch the gameplay footage they release after e3? The biggest problem Second Son has of right now is some pop-in issues - but these will be optimised out by launch.
You're so very, very wrong.
Dictator93
Member
You must be used to poorly developed games. Some games support their optional features quite well.
Wut? Is sweeping, blind statements your thing? Ryse looks amazing, even PS4 fans would agree. Credit should be given where its due. FYI Infamous looks even better.
Lambda Pie
Banned
Blacklight: Retribution, the F2P FPS, was running at 1080p at E3.
edit: PS4 version.
edit: PS4 version.
Some options are easier than others, because they have a more limited scope of impact. I've never seen a game that offers a first/third person perspective switch that I thought wouldn't have been better off picking one or the other and sticking with it. Framing and field of view can affect everything from cutscenes to the world layout, to the visibility of incoming attacks. I don't think this would make a particularly wise option, either.
The point isnt about Ryse looking amazing or looking meh, the point is Ryse would look even better at 1080p. And that's not even an opinion, its a fact.
Nice reference thread.
One thing though : It's great to list the sources of course, but it would be nicer to have each source directly aside each game's name. So we could check the source for a specific game. If you use tags it shouldn't bring the readability down too much.
One thing though : It's great to list the sources of course, but it would be nicer to have each source directly aside each game's name. So we could check the source for a specific game. If you use tags it shouldn't bring the readability down too much.
velociraptor
Junior Member
The game hasn't even reached alpha. It's more than a year away from release. Logically, your argument has no basis at all.
anchorman128
Member
I'm just going to hope that you somehow didn't know that <1080p means less than (<) 1080p.
While I am excited for my PS4 for Sony and console Exclusives. This thread is exactly why I will almost always buy the game on my PC. Resolution and frame rate are absolutely key to IQ imo. It's really hard to justify buying a on a non-console exclusive game when developers cut the pixels and upscale, or leave huge frame rate dips in their games.
A console is a bit overpriced for getting just 1-2 games because the developer/publisher is too much of an asshole to not port it to the PC.
Literally the only reason I ever use my consoles is because of this reason. Otherwise I play it on my PC where I can get good control schemes and graphics.
If Sony/MS wants to drag me away from my pc, they need to at least appeal to my interests.
No.
ConteZero76
Member
The game is going to be built with 2.40:1 aspect ratio in mind so there won't be anything worth mentioning in the "hidden" screen portion.
HeLLKnight
Banned
Can't believe a game like Killer Instinct gonna be 720p only, given the low graphics workload of 1vs1 fight games compared with other genres. Can be called laziness of the developers, or just a time-rushed game development for X1 launch?
SEGAvangelist
Gold Member
Budget, time rush and the need for locked 60fps, more than likely. The game is using a lot of cool particle effects and the stages seem fairly detailed. It's upsetting that the game is 720p, though. Most people who have played it haven't mentioned the resolution as a complaint, though. It's the same for Ryse, so maybe the Xbox One scales these games really nicely. I'm really curious to see both games in action. Maybe it'll sell me on lower resolutions being ok, or maybe I'll be annoyed with the image quality. Who knows?
Backfoggen
Banned
With a lot of those games the only information we got was "1080p" which isn't really confirmation that it's not upscaled.
velociraptor
Junior Member
I suspect they are also widening the FOV by pulling back the camera ... not just adding letter boxing. So what they reduce in fillrate requirements, they increase in geometry, AI, etc.
Obviously this is assuming they did it for gameplay reasons.
Stallion Free
Cock Encumbered
I should try running a performance test on one of the Dead Space games to see the performance difference between 16:9 and 2.40:1 since they actually implement 2.40:1 support perfectly.
WeAreStarStuff
Member
Um, plenty of people are buying the new consoles for graphics.
Increasing FOV doesnt affect FPS in any meaningful way on PC, at least i havent noticed any visible difference in any game. Reducing resolution though, thats another story.
Liquidsnake
Banned
As long as its up scaled right.
Right?
Right?
TheGuardian
Member
Increasing FOV will increase the amount of visible elements and as such will affect the render time.
Of course, but only be a very small amount (unless you go for an insanely high, fish-eye FOV which is just ugly).
I'd say it really doesn't have any meaningful impact on performance.
Chinpoko_Master
Member
I'm very pleased with the amount of games running at 1080p on PS4.
But thats insubstantial in comparison to decreasing resolution.
Examples with quite advanced rendering info displayed from CE 3.5 SDK:
You can also notice that fov 70 in 1080p gives about the same horizontal visibility as fov 55 in 1920x800.
1920x1080 cl_fov = 55 --- 31.9 fps
1920x1080 cl_fov = 70 --- 31.2 fps
1920x800 cl_fov = 55 --- 39.4 fps
1920x800p cl_fov = 70 --- 39.2 fps
Sorry for chromatic aberration, but i've changed shading options before shots and forgot to set it up again to 0.5 [its 1.5 by default on every shading settings ;\]
===
@Liabe Brave
Crytek's games are always upgraded visually in comparison to earlier showings, not downgraded.
Liabe Brave
Member
Ryse does look amazing in the recently released footage. Unfortunately, that's not what the game's going to look like, because that stuff is native 1080p and Ryse is really 900p. Will anything besides resolution be downgraded when we actually see the game? There's no way to tell (though the included "This does not represent final game quality" warning is suggestive).
TheGreyHulk
Member
edit.... checked the internet and GG confirmed it. nevermind
I was talking to guy comparing it to PC Graphics, no one is buying the consoles to get PC level graphics.
If you are buying a $400-$500 console for 2 games, then you shouldn't...
If you think that there will only be 1-2 games that wont be ported to PC, then you are delusional.
Stallion Free
Cock Encumbered
Damn, literally fractions of a frame difference with very obvious FOV differences while the resolution change netted 8 frames.