Its more than missing AA. Its that fuck of a sharpening filter, dithering, sub-pixel breaks and crushed blacks. Micrososft wouldnt have implemented all this bullshit post processing scaling if they werent 100% sure about the inferior hardware and the possibility that most games wouldnt run in native 1080p. They did this on purpose to achieve a "popping" picture, by destroying everything that makes a fine image. Ryse runs with inconsistent framerate under 30 fps, CoD runs in 60fps. You wont believe the amount of power it needs to achieve 1080p60fps in a modern FPS.
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
What's the best for Xbox One .. lower graphics or lower resolution ?
- Thread starter Contra11
- Start date
- Status
Its more than missing AA. Its that fuck of a sharpening filter, dithering, sub-pixel breaks and crushed blacks. Micrososft wouldnt have implemented all this bullshit post processing scaling if they werent 100% sure about the inferior hardware and the possibility that most games wouldnt run in native 1080p. They did this on purpose to achieve a "popping" picture, by destroying everything that makes a fine image. Ryse runs with inconsistent framerate under 30 fps, CoD runs in 60fps. You wont believe the amount of power it needs to achieve 1080p60fps in a modern FPS.
As long as the Framebuffer is 1080p, everything is fine. Cryteks upscaler in Ryse is absolutey amazing.
maybe ryse would run better on ps4, but nevertheless has the xbox one launched with the graphically most amazing title ever (or at least on same level as killzone SF) - If there will be huge differences in 2-3 years when the one is maybe at the limit and ps4 can still power on, then we should talk about it then
The difference is more the missing AA then the resolution. also we should wait how the multiplatformers outside the launch window will look like. i dont think that the developers spend whole lot of time into their one and ps4 version. its impossible that ryse runs in 900p with AA smooth but something like CoD runs in 720p.
Uh, higher resolution mitigates the need for more AA. The higher the res, the less AA you need.
A game running at 720 is going to need a much stronger AA solution than one at 1080.
BibiMaghoo
Member
This. Most people now have 1080p sets. This was pushed last gen by both HD twins. They simply cannot hold at that 720p. They must make them full HD at what ever cost in effects, textures, whatever.
I have also seen many, many people say they would rather have a game 1080p and dump some effects, so it seems to be something others want.
EtherMagic
Member
Digital Foundry actually done a segment on how Ryse at 900p actually looks better then many/most games at 1080p. Crytek is absolutely SICK at taking what they are working with and simply muscling out there own tricks to get what they need out of what they are working with.
Crytek is known to bring GPU's to there knees, this is why they call themselves "Crytek".
If they can make games like Ryse look this good now, I cannot imagine what they will be capable of in the future working with much better drivers and optimized hardware.
We all have an awesome road of gaming ahead of us!
.
ionicbluebird
Member
And 10% of the GPU is locked away, so that re-equals 738 shaders.
Sorry, had to say it.
Edit: Ah, beaten!
Melchiah
Member
I'm sure Leadbetter likes to think so.
Although, based on the screenshots it does look good, just not as good as Killzone.Fox_Mulder
Rockefellers. Skull and Bones. Microsoft. Al Qaeda. A Cabal of Bankers. The melting point of steel. What do these things have in common? Wake up sheeple, the landfill wasn't even REAL!
Wii U > xbone confirmed
Just curious: how do you optimize console hardware?
Definitely lower resolution, who gives a fucking shit from a distance.
However polygons, shaders, lighting stuff, world detail? Fuck omitting that. Hell if you vote for lower graphics but definite 1080p ,... god damn you people. Why not just play PS2 games in 1080p? They must look flawless! Let's play PS1 games at 4k.
Nope, definitely drop the res
However polygons, shaders, lighting stuff, world detail? Fuck omitting that. Hell if you vote for lower graphics but definite 1080p ,... god damn you people. Why not just play PS2 games in 1080p? They must look flawless! Let's play PS1 games at 4k.
Nope, definitely drop the res
Optimized hardware? And there's just so much they can do with drivers. Maybe they will be able to push out 10-20% more out, but what's stopping Sony from doing the same and keeping ahead of MS?
dragonelite
Member
Microsoft does have to work on that sharpening filter.
And give devs the option to disable snap function and claim extra gpu performance.
Cynn
Member
Can you imagine what Crytek will do on the PS4 with all that extra power? I bet you are excited to see.Crytek is known to bring GPU's to there knees, this is why they call themselves "Crytek".
If they can make games like Ryse look this good now, I cannot imagine what they will be capable of in the future working with much better drivers and optimized hardware.
We all have an awesome road of gaming ahead of us!
.
yeah pretty much, while most have moved on, some of them are still stuck in denial stage,
It's almost as if these consoles haven't come out yet. Seriously the difference has been proven in nearly every multiplat and exclusive. Ps4 has more raw horsepower. It can push out better effects at a higher average framerate and resolution. (BF4, Killzone, Ac4, Need for Speed Rivals, Ghosts, NBA 2k14). People acting like there isn't empirical evidence to support this are delusional. Whether or not the game looks better to you is irrelevant and completely subjective data. The only good metric is looking at image quality, effects, framerate, etc. and the ps4 is the clear winner out of the two next gen consoles.
I think relative numbers are more important. I mean, in absolute terms the jump from 320x240 > 640x480 was only a difference of 230,400 pixels, which seems small compared to 900p > 1080p, but it was actually a MASSIVE 4x increase in resolution.
In the same way 720p > 900p is a 1.56x increase and 900p > 1080p is 'only' a 1.44x increase.
I'm nearly finished KZ and I gotta goddamn say, ok some of the early stuff is good but the later levels, holy, fucking, goddamn, shit! Guerilla know how to manhandle console hardware.
KZ2 is still impressive to me, KZ3 is impressive but SF, wow. It took a while to grow on me but yeah, pimp as fuck.
Haha. I guess you've never seen screenshots of PS2 games running in high res in an emulator. They do look incredible! Your argument is invalid.
DonMigs85
Member
When you think about it it's amazing that the N64 games that supported the Expansion Pak didn't slow to a crawl in hi-res mode. That system had a measly 30 megapixels/sec fillrate and slooow memory.
BigTnaples
Todd Howard's Secret GAF Account
Yup.
I have both, but this thread reeks of posters stuck with just an Xbox One and in denial that it is inferior hardware.
It is a less capable gaming system, and a more capable media box. It will still get great looking games, like Ryse, Quantum Break, Halo 5, etc. But had those same games been on PS4, they would look better. Just like third party games are already showing early on at launch. The gap will only widen.
AdventureRacing
Member
Personally neither bother me much but i'd be fucking pissed if it meant a worse framerate in games i like. That's much worse than slightly worse graphics.
EtherMagic
Member
Absolutly!
The PS4 will pull ahead down the road, for christ sakes it has twice as many ROPs as Xbone, and has 50% upper hand on it's GPU.
The fact is, we will not be seeing these "Major" differences for another 3-4 years. We already know MS is implementing tricks within it's drivers to make up for the ROPs, a dev already came out and stated this, that MS will have tricks within there optimizing process to deal with this.
Point is, MS will NOT be able to keep up with PS4 3-4 years from now. 3rd party games most likely will be the same, but 1st party games we will start seeing PS4 taking a huge leap in the graphical direction.
.
.What do you mean? Most of them did. They already ran at 20 fps anyway. Try playing legacy of darkness in HD mode.
They look better. As do PS4 games running in 1080P. Higher res makes graphics look better. That's the point.
Saying you want better graphics over resolution is a pointless argument since higher resolution also leads to better graphics.
Always-honest
Banned
Yes, Ryse looks amazing and clean.Digital Foundry actually done a segment on how Ryse at 900p actually looks better then many/most games at 1080p. Crytek is absolutely SICK at taking what they are working with and simply muscling out there own tricks to get what they need out of what they are working with.
Crytek is known to bring GPU's to there knees, this is why they call themselves "Crytek".
If they can make games like Ryse look this good now, I cannot imagine what they will be capable of in the future working with much better drivers and optimized hardware.
We all have an awesome road of gaming ahead of us!
.
What i don't like is you saying that there is no debate possible. Maybe this kind of nonsense talk helps in your personal life when you want to avoid discussions or maybe you learned this behaviour in your childhood but in here it will only make you look like a supersilly fanboy.
There is no need for that.
Yes, crytek did an amazing job within the limitations if the hardware. But you have to wonder what they'd be able to do on PS4.
As well as PS4 owners knowing multipkats will always look better on a highend PC
Now that sounds realistic. Depending on what you call major ofcourse. Many think AA, resolution and Framerate are a major difference.
Not sure if the differences between multiplats will he larger or smaller in the years to come.
TakeItSlowDude
Member
I think that the Xbone should target AA schemes like SMAA T2X or TXAA which give games a more cinematic look. These types of AA makes textures look more blurry, but most people sit far enough back (on consoles) that eliminating jaggies is more important than texture sharpness. When seen in motion I prefer slightly blurry but jaggy free graphics over ultra sharp graphics with jaggies. I would much rather have 720p with good AA and a steady framerate than a higher resolution with bad/no AA or low/inconstant framerate.
Gonna? Have you missed the last two months? The hardware gap is already quite apparent even with shoddy launch software.
Does anyone think Ryse isn't that good an example of Xbox One's power ?
There is a small bunch of characters on screen in a tiny space. It shows they can only show that much detail at 900p in small directed areas. Set pieces are strict in direction as well which doesn't say much for the hardware. I'm not denying it looks nice and maybe being a Kinect title before is the real reason for small arena areas and tightly directed set pieces. It just feels like the Xbox One maybe couldn't handle anything else. Time will tell.
There is a small bunch of characters on screen in a tiny space. It shows they can only show that much detail at 900p in small directed areas. Set pieces are strict in direction as well which doesn't say much for the hardware. I'm not denying it looks nice and maybe being a Kinect title before is the real reason for small arena areas and tightly directed set pieces. It just feels like the Xbox One maybe couldn't handle anything else. Time will tell.
If you seriously can't fathom that Crysis at 720p doesn't look better than Quake 1 at 720p then you're either lying to yourself for the sake of an argument or need an optical checkup.
Maybe you resolution guys have no sense of imagination? You can't fill in the gaps? That must be it!? No sense of disbelief? I think I've fucking finally got the goddamn answer here for these ongoing arguments back and forth.
I can see a "blurry", 720p room filled with objects and items and realistic lighting on the curtains and my sense of disbelief "smoothes the room" I look past the technical bullshit and see the floor of the kids room in this game is scattered with magazines, 2 pairs of shoes a skateboard, some dirty clothes a poster on the wall.
You tech / resolution guys don't give a fuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuck if the room has 1 item on the floor as long as it's rendered photorealistically.
That's the difference here and that's exactly the op's point when he says "lower graphics"
I am hoping here that you just missed the point of the thread and you're not arguing the semantics of "lower graphics" for sport. Since that would be pointless and a waste of everyones time.
P.S this isn't a "why not have both" equation, we all get it, the Xbox One lost for GPU power, we know,.. very much already that it lost, ok? Honest - all of you, we get it. Doesn't change the OP's point, world items / stuff / lighting / particles / polygons on models OR resolution. Yes we'd love both, not gonna happen.
EDIT: for anyone here who isn't fluent with the term.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suspension_of_disbelief#Video_games
JimiNutz
Banned
For me personally it's resolution but I suppose it depends on the genre.
If I'm playing a game where my ability to see small objects off in the distance (maybe an FPS) could impact my performance, then I would rather resolution over fancy graphical effects.
If it's something like a fighting game, or brawler then fuck the resolution, give me the pretty graphics.
If I'm playing a game where my ability to see small objects off in the distance (maybe an FPS) could impact my performance, then I would rather resolution over fancy graphical effects.
If it's something like a fighting game, or brawler then fuck the resolution, give me the pretty graphics.
GoofsterStud
Member
I'm a bit confused atm.
1.) People downplaying 900p to 1080p. I find non-native resolution in some situations to be a bigger jump visually than 720p to 900p.
2.) Some people say that frames matter.
Ryse is a sub 30 frame rate combined with a sub 1080p resolution.
CadetMahoney
Member
whatever makes framerates the priority, but they might aswell just pack it with such underpowered hardware tbh.
Damn, I wake up click on gaf and I feel like I went back in time. OP was fanboy bait. Should there be a "What will PS4 have to sacrifice vs PC? Resolution or Effects?" That headline would have been locked into oblivion, but its a negative XB1 topic so let it ride.
You would think it was the whole multiplat catalog with different resolution, but nope. Only 3 out of the 12 games released on both systems have different resolutions. I love the heartbreak post every time a developer announces they're game will be 1080p both. "Must mean its 120fps on PS4 lol". Will see how the year plays out as the "1080p on both" momentum picks up starting with Tomb Raider in January. That cut and dry resolution argument becomes a more cloudy "look at this screen shot, don't you see it has better boken,hboa,msaa,ssoa blah, blah, blah" argument.
You would think it was the whole multiplat catalog with different resolution, but nope. Only 3 out of the 12 games released on both systems have different resolutions. I love the heartbreak post every time a developer announces they're game will be 1080p both. "Must mean its 120fps on PS4 lol". Will see how the year plays out as the "1080p on both" momentum picks up starting with Tomb Raider in January. That cut and dry resolution argument becomes a more cloudy "look at this screen shot, don't you see it has better boken,hboa,msaa,ssoa blah, blah, blah" argument.
there are still those who believe that man never landed on the moon. For them, there's no amount of arguments, evidence, logic, or math will convince them otherwise. They live in their own little bubbles, there's just no helping them
Naked Lunch
Member
Smooth gameplay is all that matters. The rest is pointless eye candy. End of story.
travisbickle
Member
There will be games made dedicated to next-gen hardware by the end of next year, if not sooner.
And by "dedicated to next-gen" I mean made for high end PCs and ported/optimised for consoles.
Windom Earle
Banned
DonMigs85
Member
Actually the only ones I have experience with are Rogue Squadron, Turok 2 and Episode 1 Racer. They didn't seem that much worse.
It depends on the game for me.
Given a 1080p TV I'd prefer resolution over effects for the most part but recognize some games are more "showy" by nature graphically.
For me 900p/30fps should be the minimum concession to graphics. Anything below that and graphic effects should be dropped. Ryse for example I still think needs an effect or two shaved or further optimization to get smooth 30fps.
I see the 720p games as more about launch but if too many XB1 games are 720p or 900p with frame rate dips I'll probably never be getting one.
900p/30fps and preferably 1080p/30fps or 1080p/60fps with graphical concessions as necessary to ensure smooth frame rate and decent resolution.
Given a 1080p TV I'd prefer resolution over effects for the most part but recognize some games are more "showy" by nature graphically.
For me 900p/30fps should be the minimum concession to graphics. Anything below that and graphic effects should be dropped. Ryse for example I still think needs an effect or two shaved or further optimization to get smooth 30fps.
I see the 720p games as more about launch but if too many XB1 games are 720p or 900p with frame rate dips I'll probably never be getting one.
900p/30fps and preferably 1080p/30fps or 1080p/60fps with graphical concessions as necessary to ensure smooth frame rate and decent resolution.
EtherMagic
Member
Childish behaviour is a bit extreme, and if you heard me out right (which you obviously did not), you are the one who sounds a tad bit bias.
I simply included obvious opinions on the games for clear comparison for those without knowledge.
Facts are facts. The vast majority on these/this forum chose Ryse over KillZone as the better Graphically looking game. As well as someone I know has. Not a big deal, there are many more games to come.
.
Turok 2 runs at like 15 fps regardless.
symmetrical
Member
I see what you're saying, but again remember 10% is dedicated to kinect which will reduce the performance for games.
EtherMagic
Member
More like 10 fps! My lord that game.
- Status