-
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
psn
Member
Between x360 and ps3 its around 110.000. Between ps4 and x1 more than ten times more:1.152.000
Tripolygon
Banned
Oh I know there are issues with PS4 version, I'm just stating why you get comments like PS4 version runs over 60fps sometimes.
The only problem I have with this line of thought, is that it assumes that differences at higher resolutions are equally noticeable as at lower resolution. If you doubled the pixel count of my phone, I probably wouldn't notice anywhere near the amount of difference that I did when I had a phone with half my current pixel count.
Mr Moose
Gold Member
You play Call of Duty on your phone?
While this is partially true, the native resolution of your display determines the image quality unless its supersampling but thats out of the question for the xbone though. Even with something 800p the non 1:1 pixel mapped image would look considerably worse than a native 1080p picture.
There's no exaggeration. Halo 3's IQ is absolutely abysmal. And the fact that the game doesn't even look great adds insult to injury.
Mr Moose
Gold Member
Caayn
Member
10 Times? The difference isn't that much bigger compared to the 360/ps3.
Black Ops PS3 vs Xbox 360. Xbox 360 has about 21% more pixels compared to the PS3 version.
Ghosts PS4 vs Xbox One. PS4 has about 125% more pixels compared to the Xbox One.
Advanced Warfare PS4 vs Xbox One. PS4 has about 49% more pixels compared to the Xbox One.
Looking at it from this standpoint (Black ops vs Advanced Warfare) the gap is "only" 2.3 times bigger, not 10 times. Directly comparing the pixel difference isn't a good method, as with increased pixel densities the difference will only become higher while relatively it hasn't increased much.
Nah, I exaggerated the example a bit, as I'm pretty confident I'd notice a doubling of my TV's resolution.
However something like Halo 3 has around 80% of the pixels of a 720p, and the difference in IQ was far more noticeable to me than a 900p game is to a 1080p game, despite it only having 66% of the pixel count.
The difference in pixels between Black Ops on PS3 and 360 is more than the total combined pixels of a 320x240 res game from the 32bit gen. Does that make the IQ gap more noticeable than when a 640x480 high res game turned up in that same generation?
The numbers can't really be used in such a concrete manner.
It still identifies a large performance gap, larger than last gen. If a company decided to make their PS4 port the same resolution as the XBO, they could almost double the framerate as we've seen, compared to the PS3/360 being the same resolution results in only a moderate advantage on 360.
Um maybe now it looks that way but it was certainly impressive in 2007.
Really? Because I played it on launch day and I wasn't impressed.
Yea, I agree. But he wasn't talking about performance gaps. He was using the numbers to illustrate the image difference as being more noticeable to the average viewer than earlier examples... which I think is a very flawed approach.
It was nasty. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise.
(IQ wise that is. The game itself looked ok... certainly not very impressive though imo).
You missed my point entirely. I was trying to explain how this The Crew quote was different to the other "we are delivering the same great game on both platforms" quotes by other devs.
mangochutney
Member
Yeah Treyarch were known for shitting out crap PS3 ports back then.
They stepped it up for BO2, though there was a lot of shitty things wrong with the PS3 version on that at launch.
I don't remember it ever being impressive. It ran at 1152x640 without any AA. You could cut down an oak in half with those jaggies.
It was nasty. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise.
(IQ wise that is. The game itself looked ok... certainly not very impressive though imo).
Yeah, I was actually pretty shocked given that Halo 2 was one of the better looking Gen 6 games that Bungie completely fell off a cliff with Halo 3. It really did look like a marginally improved Halo 2.
I read a comment somewhere, by another developer, to the effect that sometimes when you develop a game you get a really 'clever' technical idea in your head, and you work it out and it doesn't really work, and it's often very difficult to admit that it hasn't worked out, scrap it, and do it the conventional way. He thinks that this is basically what happened to Bungie with their 'two framebuffers' thing. By the time they'd spent all the effort implementing it they were loath to cut it, even though it was a millstone around the engine's neck that held back absolutely everything from IQ to the lighting engine.
It struck me immediately that for a AAA game with that much talent and manpower behind it, it was incredibly visually lacklustre.
I don't think that was the case, I believe it was to do with the fact that their priority was to get a game with a great netcode, forge, film mode, 4 player split screen (I think you could even play online with 4 player split screen), quick loading etc...basically a very seamless multiplayer experience with lots of additional features. Halo 3 was the first game to pioneer such a thing on consoles I believe.
I also think the lighting gave Halo a special look and for its time it was really something special. The cutbacks in other areas had to happen because tradeoffs, if you compare it to games released from around that time, Halo 3 didn't really do that bad especially considering it had very large levels. (Except the character models which were definitely Gen6 like)
The Real Napsta
Member
I read it here on GAF