geordiemp
Member
Crytek are a good developer and have a strong engine for graphics, COD is a 16 ms per frame twitch shooter = I doubt the Cryengine would be good for such a game on consoles...
Although I agree COD engine is getting old and rough..
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Resolution boosted for Call of Duty: Advanced Warfare on Xbox One
- Thread starter EL CUCO
- Start date
Crytek are a good developer and have a strong engine for graphics, COD is a 16 ms per frame twitch shooter = I doubt the Cryengine would be good for such a game on consoles...
Although I agree COD engine is getting old and rough..
ComputerMKII
Banned
Windom Earle
Banned
You really don't see the hilarity in his statement? What exactly is the impression of 900p? The impression of a blurry sub native resolution? That is hilarious damage control. 900p isn't some amazing gold standard, it's an embarrassment in 2014.
And Leadbetter has been in meltdown mode ever since the Xbone reveal. Remember the secret developers bullshit? Or the ESRAM write/read secret sauce stuff? He's nothing more than a fanboy who shouldn't be taken seriously.
SMOK3Y
Generous Member
Most of gaming journalist are MS apologists now Leadbetter is the worst
it goes to like 40 fps on ps4 in places if not less
I don't see the hilarity in that statement, no. He's referring to a resolution most have likely never seen before, so he's making a comparison so people have some idea what it most closely resembles when compared to other more common resolutions. In this case the resulting image looks similar to that of a 900p game. I'm not sure where the idea of him claiming it is some sort of gold standard is coming from... maybe you need to highlight this for me.
I don't follow what Leadbetter writes in general, so I'm not sure of other things he may have said that would actually qualify as a meltdown, but this quote you're focusing on does not give that impression at all, and it seems to have more to do with you simply disliking the guy.
travisbickle
Member
The impression of a 900p game with AA?
Is this post serious? this is my exact problem. So 900p is a problem but massive frame rate drops from the intended refresh rate of the game isnt?
Am i in some alternate reality where we are playing individual screen shots for internet arguments sake, and not a game that is a moving entity, with animations and framerate??
nintendo was doing 60 fps 20 years ago. How is it unnacceptable to be under 1080p in 2014 but everyone is giving a free pass to framerate issues.
The ps4 is not handling call of duty at 1080p. FACT!!!!
Coulomb_Barrier
Member
I agree with you.
It's baffling really, the 'impression of 900p' has never, ever existed as any kind of standard until Leadbetter and his article here.
It's almost like he is trying to continually justify the weak performance of the Bone with these articles, like a one-man crusade. He can't be taken seriously anymore, it's just bizarre.
Windom Earle
Banned
Not my point at all. I am simply laughing at DF's victory dance over "the feel of 900p". That's an incredibly low standard to have.
FTFY
I don't really think it's much of a "victory dance". It's more so "hey, it looks like it won't be 720p again".
I have a few 900p games and the difference between them and 720p is much bigger to me than 900p and 1080p. Personally, I would take 900p at a smooth framerate any day over 1080p at a worse framerate. I honestly don't see that big of a difference between the resolutions to make me want the latter.
Hmmm... that's strange. I wonder how he pulled all this off...
EDIT: To clarify, him saying it gives "the impression of 900p" isn't him creating a new standard. It's a description, comparing the observed resolution with one that actually IS a standard.
So if it was 721p, and he said that it gave the impression of being 720p, that would be hilarious too?
I don't really follow Leadbetter at all, but's that's not the impression at all from after reading the article. He simply meant his initial impression of the trailer is a game running at 900p, but after pixelcounting it's actually slightly lower. There is no "victory dance".
And if he's really that butthurt according to some of you, he wouldn't mention right after that the PS4 has a better GPU/CPU and RAM, 1080p being possible etc..
Brad Grenz
Member
Yes, on B3D they have found what appear to be various resolutions across a number of scenes, from as low as 720p up to near 900p.
Objectively Bad Opinion
Member
The foliage looks really bad still. It's the biggest eyesore in call of duty atm imo.
I really think he was being sarcastic guys.
Memorabilia
Member
Agreed it looks worse...I dont know about far worse. And wouldnt 720P on a native 720P TV arguably look better than either rez upscaled to 1080P? There are millions of 720P sets in peoples homes, but no TV I know of that displays these odd rezes.
I'd also think actual differences in upscale IQ vary based on distance from your eyeballs to the TV screen and TV size.
For example...at 8-12 feet away on my 65 inch Vizio...sure, I'd likely notice 720P vs 900P upscaled.
But, the same distance on my 55 inch Panny plasma? Debateable.
The same distance on my 40 inch Sony? Probably couldnt see a difference.
I'm always all for higher *native* rez and since most TVs are 1080P I believe MS made a pretty big error in opting for lower specs in favor of kinect. But I also believe this resolutiongate stuff is somewhat overblown as the actual persceptible difference between different *upscaled* resolutions is situational.
It just seems to me this issue has taken on a life of its own. The bottom line is if you arent rendering in the native rez of your display then the image your eyes actually see is just varying degrees of sub-optimal.
Bragging that you can maybe hit 882P or 900P is kind of like issuing a press release you have figured out how to shine a turd. And yes, BF4 on PS4 elicited the same reaction from me. Sure, it's better than 720P on the Xbone version when upscaled to 1080P. But I'd be interested to see the Xbone version on a 720P TV just for shits n giggles.
Riky
$MSFT
Well below 60fps and sustained for a few seconds.
Windom Earle
Banned
Hmmm... that's strange. I wonder how he pulled all this off...
So people are playing console games on 900p PC screens. Gotcha. Besides this, full HD has been the standard for PC screens for years.
What does this have to do with my post? Where do I mention the PS4? Oh you're right, a few pages back I am pointing out that the "judder due to higher framerate" is a GAF myth and non existant since the game has been patched.
To me it reads like hilarious damage control.
Not at all. Unlike 900p, 720 has been a standard resolution for years and many people actually did own 720p sets back in the day. Also there would be no need to call it "impression" as it would actually be (ever so slightly) superior to 720p.
Ricerocket
Member
The damage control part is that he took a cutscene section with the highest pixel and concluded it as that after reading the B3D posts.
My Panny plasma is only 42 inch, and I'm about 7 feet from it. I can clearly notice the difference between 720p and 900p. Far easier than I can notice the difference between 900p and 1080p actually... hence why as per my screenshot I have my PC running 900p through it (well, that, and for the increased text size).
Does 900p actually look worse than 720p on a 720p TV btw? Does the scaler do a bad job downscaling the image? Regardless I think targeting the few people playing on a 720p set over those that are playing on a 1080p set makes no sense. If someone is playing on a 720p set, then they're almost certainly not the type that is sensitive resolutions anyway. If they absolutely can't get the game running up to par above 720p, then sure, go for 720p... but if they can mostly match the PS4's 1080p performance with a 900p Xbox One version, why cut the res down further for no real benefit?
Exploratory
Banned
Or maybe it's because the games 6 months from being released?
Not to mention we shouldn't be discussing this at all since the way they got the res is highly questionable. The game could be 720 or 1080 already for all we know.
Then made a click-bait article that basically said "XBO version got an upgrade" and based that article on the fact that some cutscenes are rendered at higher resolution. And in the process got everyone all riled up about resolution again and we end up with a ton of pages in a thread.
Chobel
Member
Wait a second, you use 900p instead of 1080p in your PC?
Some people, sure. The point is that 900p (1600x900) is a resolution standard, and one I've been using by choice for years.
1600x900 is a resolution standard. It has been around for a lot longer than this (or last) gen, and isn't a random resolution plucked from thin air. It is no longer common as a panel resolution, but as a rendering resolution it remains a standard.
Yes, my PC is connected only to my TV. Windows isn't the greatest at dealing with scaling, so the PC is easier to use at that res, as I can comfortably read text.
Memorabilia
Member
That's a fair point and a good post. Some of this may be subjective and some may be due to display size and upscaler/downscaler differences. I'd like my overall point to stand that most of this issue is competition driven nonsense (especially when considering the average consumer who couldnt give a rats ass about 720P vs 1080P aside from being told one is better because its a higher number). Still, I'm mostly playing Devil's advocate on this issue and sort of arguing the opposite of my usual stance since typically I'm a bonafide graphics-whore.
~
Chobel
Member
900p for PC monitor maybe, 900p as standard in normal TVs? C'mon. We're talking about consoles here, so most people will use normal TVs.
For rendering, not for the panel. It doesn't matter if we're talking about TV's or monitors when it comes to rendering resolutions. It's either a standard, or it isn't. 1600x900 is... 882p isn't... which is why a comparison is in order.
Memorabilia
Member
True. Although I dont think hes implying 900P is a standard rez for TVs...at least I hope not. Merely that on some PC screens you can opt to display that rez natively I believe. That said, all of the PC monitors I have must down or upscale anything other than 1080 or 720, and generally look like shit doing so. In any case with regards to TV IQ Im not sure how this helps the argument. Upscaling/downscaling generally always looks worse than native rez to my eyes.
plagiarize
Banned
Standard or not, the Xbox One cannot output in 900p. So it doesn't matter. You can render at literally any framebuffer you want and upscale it to 1080p (or downscale it to 720p).
If the Xbox One could output in 900p to a 900p display, I wouldn't be calling 900p arbitrary, but it can't.
I can easily spot upscaled 900p to 1080p on a 1080p display. I very much doubt I would be able to easily tell the difference between 900p upscaled and 882p upscaled.
You can't just talk about internal resolution while ignoring what the console can actually output.
That your graphics card can output at 900p has nothing to do with anything.
mcz117chief
Member
Did we have to put up with these ridiculous resolutions last gen too or is it some new thing ?
Don't worry, I'm not.
I'm not actually too sure on the downscaling side of things. From what I've heard LEGO Marvel on PS4 actually benefits from being rendered slightly above 1080p. Whether this has more to do with their downscaling implementation, and wouldn't be valid with the console's universal scaler I have no idea. In the worst case scenario though, I can't see 900p having a significantly negative impact on a 720p panel when compared with having 720p instead of 900p on a 1080p panel. It seems like you'd be severely crippling the image for one set of users (likely to be a far larger set too), in favour of a very small benefit for the other set, who's choice is TV implies that they won't give half a shit anyway.
Hmmm... that's strange. I wonder how he pulled all this off...
EDIT: To clarify, him saying it gives "the impression of 900p" isn't him creating a new standard. It's a description, comparing the observed resolution with one that actually IS a standard.
I can't believe you guys. This argument is absurd.
Also, how the hell do you know what he meant?
I'm not sure if we're arguing the same thing here. I understand your point of the splitting the resolutions into two groups (native vs non native). I'm just discussing Leadbetter's choice in selecting a resolution to compare with. You state that you probably couldn't tell the difference between 882p and 900p on a 1080p panel, and that was kinda the point I was trying to make. Making a comparison to 900p makes sense for Leadbetter, because many people already have some idea what this resolution would look like on their screen, as multiple console games are rendered at this resolution. That you wouldn't be able to differentiate between 882p and 900p, whereas you probably would notice the difference between 882p and 720p, or 882p and 1080p, means that saying it looks like 900p is the best description that can be given.
I wasn't arguing with the point you made, I was arguing with somebody claiming that 900p has never been a standard at all.
His words were pretty simple, "the impression of 900p" is not a new standard it's him describing a non-standard resolution by comparing it to a standard one. Shouldn't you be asking how anybody can know that he's declaring it a new standard from those words?
If he starts comparing future resolutions using descriptions like "the impression of 882p", then I'll join you in declaring it ridiculous.
Sir Blaming
Member
So 882p? Are we boosting by the negative now?
Look, professionals have standards.........
Look, professionals have standards.........
ricardo_sousa11
Member
Are they struggling to get those 900p ?! xD
BigTnaples
Todd Howard's Secret GAF Account
Game is still a long while off, there is always hope they could get it to 1080p onXBO. Though I doubt it.
Infinity Ward couldn't.
Respawn couldn't.
Dice couldn't.
And two of those games were significantly less graphically intensive than Advanced Warfare.
I just don't see anything higher than 900p happening for the XBO version of Advanced Warfare. Hopefully they can get the pixel quality to a point where it is tolerable. Not Ryse levels obviously, but hopefully it will look somewhat smooth.
Infinity Ward couldn't.
Respawn couldn't.
Dice couldn't.
And two of those games were significantly less graphically intensive than Advanced Warfare.
I just don't see anything higher than 900p happening for the XBO version of Advanced Warfare. Hopefully they can get the pixel quality to a point where it is tolerable. Not Ryse levels obviously, but hopefully it will look somewhat smooth.
Edit: I had a paragraph plus post explaining why but someone told me don't even bother. So in turn let me apologize for responding to you and not following up to your latest post.
Chobel
Member
So you tried to increase the text size but the text looked bad? Did you try this http://windows.microsoft.com/en-US/windows-8/make-text-screen-larger-smaller/?v=t
hendersonhank
Member
I'm pretty sure he did not mean "this 882p game upscaled to 1080p gives the impression of a 1600x900 game rendered at its native resolution on a 1600x900 pc monitor".
I think the point everyone's trying to make is that that's pretty much exactly what he's doing. "This game rendered at this arbitrary, sub-optimal resolution upscaled to 1080p gives the impression that it's rendered at this marginally higher arbitrary, sub-optimal resolution upscaled to 1080p". Both resolutions suck and his phrasing makes it sound like he's trying to put lipstick on a pig. "Hey guys I know the resolution sucks and sounds unacceptable, but with all this fancy postprocessing, it actually gives the impression of a whole 18 more lines of resolution".
Saying "the impression of 900p" is pretty meaningless in any objective way, since it's not like the "look of 900p" is so sharply defined in anyone's eyes that that description gives any more information than just saying "it's a crappy combination of blurry and jaggy just like every other upscaled resolution".
Yes, but many UI elements remain unaffected (task bar, right click menus etc), and plenty of programs also don't cooperate with this setting. It gets annoying very quickly to constantly deal with all the edge cases that keep popping up. If I was using an LCD panel where each pixel is more distinct, then 1080p would probably be more beneficial, but on an plasma, it has proven not to be time and time again for me. Text isn't the only reason either though. I often play games at this res simply because with a bit of AA applied I don't see much of a visual difference compared to 1080p from my current viewing distance.. so I'd rather have the improved performance. I never drop it to 720p though, because that it always noticeable.
Yea, I'm pretty sure he didn't mean that either. Maybe if he had simply said "the resolution looks roughly on par with BF4 on the PS4, as opposed to BF4 on the X1" then everybody would be okay with his comparison. I only see it as him trying to convey what the game looks like compared to other games a user may be familiar with. People are familiar with 900p if they've played any of the games rendered at that res. It makes for a good point of comparison.
I'm really surprised people have so much issue with how he phrased it.
BigTnaples
Todd Howard's Secret GAF Account
No way.
It's too much common knowledge that there is a problem and a hardware gap. The internet would explode, and the deceit wouldn't be worth the backlash.