• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

Xbox One | Ryse confirmed running native at 900p

Status
Not open for further replies.
Someone said it's not the fact that it is not 1080p, but is a first party launch title not running at 1080p. This is hurting my head. People are comparing the X1's and PS4's launch titles and now they're comparing their resolutions.
 
LittleJohnny said:
And I wouldn't call it a "sacrifice" it's more of a balance. Ryse visuals are ambitious enough to consider 1280 x 720 yet it's running at 56% more pixels. I think 1600 x 900 is a pretty decent target resolution for next gen. Of course 1080p is golden, but 1600 x 900 should be pretty crisp, that's actually the highest resolution of the X1 Carbon laptop that I'm using to post lol.
Click to expand...

Just wow.
 
Pain said:
1080p should be standard next-gen.
A multiplatform game running sub-1080p can be forgiven considering we're in the launch window rush. An exclusive? No excuses.
Click to expand...

My thoughts exactly. Don't tout "next-generation 1080p gaming" when so far Killer Instinct is native 720p, Dead Rising 3's resolution will "fluctuate", and now this Ryse bullshit with 900p. Digital Foundry will be my best friend this holiday because I'll be curious to see how developers on both consoles will fudge the numbers.
 
Team Vernia said:
Has any of this been confirmed, though? We haven't even seen most of the multiplatform launch titles even running on actual units, right? Hasn't 1080p just been assumed for most titles? I think we need lists. I feel uninformed right now.
Click to expand...

Well, we already know first party games are 1080p. Ubisoft titles are also confirmed 1080p. Watch Dogs is 1080p/30, and AC4 is 1080p/30 for single and 1080p/60 for multiplayer. As far as I know, the only game we don't know the final resolution is BF4.
 
I don't see what's so surprising about them using 900p. Before we got confirmation of 1080p for a lot of games, i remember a bunch of people saying they'd be shocked if 1080p would be the most used resolution for xbone/ps4. it wasn't until resolutions were confirmed that people were like, "whoa!"

I've always believed that we'd see resolutions ranging from 720p through 1080p this gen. It doesn't have to be either or, there's resolutions in between that they'll use and 900p is acceptable. We have games running much below 720p on current gen, 900p is still a big jump over these low res games.

PS4 will have an advantage being that it has more horsepower to secure a 1080p resolution for their games, but that's no guarantee. Xbone has less horsepower and they'll have to make sacrifices to keep up. Resolution is the easiest way to get performance back. I think it will be pretty common to see 900p like resolutions for next gen games trying to push the envelope w/ graphics
 
Timeaisis said:
Well, I understand that. I understand wanting to prioritize graphics over image quality. It makes complete sense. However, this is just another reason why this next generation is so underwhelming. If Crytek isn't able to make a gorgeous game run native in 1080p, what does that mean for future titles? I know I'm sounding nitpicky here, and I really don't care about 1600x900 vs 1080p or whatever word they want to use to spin it (like "900p"), I'm just concerned that this next generation consoles are graphically weaker than they led us to believe, and that my wife's 3-year old gaming laptop is still beating consoles in the graphics wars. Which is sad. And confusing that they are asking $500 for it.
Click to expand...

They can, they just chose to make a more gorgeous game at 900p.
 
SapientWolf said:
Comparing the relative performance of gaming platforms seems to be the popular thing right now. Not surprising that everyone wants to join in. I don't think people buying the One care about how much faster the PS4 is reported to be, and yet that gets brought up quite a bit in unrelated threads. I wonder how those people feel. Probably the same way you do.
Click to expand...

Good thing I don't rub it in people's faces then isn't it? It's embarrassing when PC gamers do it and it embarrassing when console gamers do it. I don't mind a civilized discussion about the delta between the two consoles, but I don't appreciate a dick measuring contest from anybody. And that's exactly what that post I replied to was. For whatever reason, he felt the need to insult people, based on their choice of what hardware they play games on. It's ridiculous. If you look at the beginning of this thread, you can see that I predicted this would be a shitstorm, because it just adds fuel to the fanboy fire. And I know I'm not the only one who gets annoyed with the PC master race bullshit, and they seem to inject themselves into even civilized conversation about the 2 consoles specs.
 
alterego said:
y39yZU7.png
Click to expand...

So we're down to pixel pie charts now are we. Shake my head.
 
TheGreyHulk said:
I don't see what's so surprising about them using 900p. Before we got confirmation of 1080p for a lot of games, i remember a bunch of people saying they'd be shocked if 1080p would be the most used resolution for xbone/ps4. it wasn't until resolutions were confirmed that people were like, "whoa!"

I've always believed that we'd see resolutions ranging from 720p through 1080p this gen. It doesn't have to be either or, there's resolutions in between that they'll use and 900p is acceptable. We have games running much below 720p on current gen, 900p is still a big jump over these low res games.

PS4 will have an advantage being that it has more horsepower to secure a 1080p resolution for their games, but that's no guarantee. Xbone has less horsepower and they'll have to make sacrifices to keep up. Resolution is the easiest way to get performance back. I think it will be pretty common to see 900p like resolutions for next gen games trying to push the envelope w/ graphics
Click to expand...

I believe that most of Sony's in house titles have been confirmed 1080P so far. I expected Ryse to be 1080P because Microsoft is paying for it.
 
krizzx said:
That is interesting considering all of the convo's I've seen Wipeout HD used as a poster board for PS3 capabilities in.

I will certainly remember this.
Click to expand...
Not sure how it having variable resolution detracts from that.


That said, it's hardly the pinnacle of PS3 graphics anymore anyway. The game is almost 5 years old lol
 
tkalamba said:
1080i/p optimal viewing distance, anything higher than these distances and the differences from 720p won't be noticeable.

• 28-inch set: 3.7 feet
• 32-inch set: 4.2 feet
• 37-inch set: 4.8 feet
• 40-inch set: 5.2 feet
• 42-inch set: 5.5 feet
• 46-inch set: 6 feet
• 50-inch set: 6.5 feet
• 52-inch set: 6.8 feet
• 60-inch set: 7.8 feet
• 63-inch set: 8.2 feet
• 70-inch set: 9.2 feet

with 60 inches, you'd need to be sitting at 7.8 feet to see any difference at all. Any closer, and you'd need a higher resolution, anything further, and the quality degrades to the point where there's no difference between 1080p and 720p

The point is, most people use TV's in their living rooms at sub optimal ranges and can't even see the 1080p to it's full effect. Most Living Room sizes don't even allow for it and you'd either be seeing 1080p suboptimally, and a higher res would be better if you are too close, or you are too far back and you'd be better off with 720p. The resolution for consoles matters less than on PC in the end.
Click to expand...
There are several problems with this.

1. Being further than the optimal distance for 1080p does not immediately mean that 720p is "enough". You would need to use the values for 720p to draw that conclusion.

2. These values are based on the ability of the human eye to distinguish letters on a board. That is not the same thing as perceiving sharpness or lack thereof on a TV screen, or noticing aliasing moving along a high contrast edge.

3. These values are based on 20/20 vision which is not "perfect" vision. Young adults often have much better vision than 20/20, up to 20/12 which obviously changes the calculation.
 
MaLDo said:
If 1600x900 is 56% more pixels than 720p

If 1600x900 is 56% more pixels than 720p

---->IF<---- 1600x900 is 56% more pixels than 720p


1280x720 * 1.56 = 1600x900

1280x720 * 2.25 = 1920x1080


IF 1.56 is 56% more, 2.25 is 125% more.

125% more than something = 100% (something) + 125% = 225% of the initial number

56% more than something = 100% (something) + 56% = 156% of the initial number


You can't mix both methods to compare. ;)
Click to expand...

LukasTaves said:
Not sure if it was his intention, but at least semantically he is right. 2.25 times the number of pixels does not mean 225% *more* pixels, it's 125% more.
Click to expand...

Ahh! I can't english. Sorry.

That sorry was sincere that time.
 
OTIX said:
There are several problems with this.

1. Being further than the optimal distance for 1080p does not immediately mean that 720p is "enough". You would need to use the values for 720p to draw that conclusion.

2. These values are based on the ability of the human eye to distinguish letters on a board. That is not the same thing as perceiving sharpness or lack thereof on a TV screen, or noticing aliasing moving along a high contrast edge.

3. These values are based on 20/20 vision which is not "perfect" vision. Young adults often have much better vision than 20/20, up to 20/12 which obviously changes the calculation.
Click to expand...

Not to mention the distances. Those distances may not seem very large, but if you took a tape measure from your TV to your couch, you maybe surprised by the lower-than-expected number that comes back. Our 72" DLP sits about 6.5 ft from the center of the couch.
 
OTIX said:
There are several problems with this.

1. Being further than the optimal distance for 1080p does not immediately mean that 720p is "enough". You would need to use the values for 720p to draw that conclusion.

2. These values are based on the ability of the human eye to distinguish letters on a board. That is not the same thing as perceiving sharpness or lack thereof on a TV screen, or noticing aliasing moving along a high contrast edge.

3. These values are based on 20/20 vision which is not "perfect" vision. Young adults often have much better vision than 20/20, up to 20/12 which obviously changes the calculation.
Click to expand...

Yeah that is a ridiculous list of "optimized" viewing distances. Maybe if you're 85 with cataracts it works out though.
 
Bummer that this generation has to start like this :-/
A scaled image can never be compared to a native res one, scaling alsways takes away iq no matter how "small" the gap in resolution is.
 
I must admit it was pretty hard not to post a KillZone:SF gif in the Ryse thread when some people was running amok saying that it looked better than all the other games on both next gen consoles. but I think it will be ok at 900P especially if the upscaling hardware is really good.
 
vpance said:
Yeah that is a ridiculous list of "optimized" viewing distances. Maybe if you're 85 with cataracts it works out though.
Click to expand...

Yup. I sit about 7 feet from a 50 inch 1080p television. I can easily spot the difference between 1080p and 720p.

But all in all... this is expected for launch titles. Perhaps less so for the PS4, but I think all developers are in a crunch to make strict deadlines. I don't think this is THAT big of a deal and I say this as a person who has ZERO interest in the Xbone.
 
JonathanPower said:
Well, we already know first party games are 1080p. Ubisoft titles are also confirmed 1080p. Watch Dogs is 1080p/30, and AC4 is 1080p/30 for single and 1080p/60 for multiplayer. As far as I know, the only game we don't know the final resolution is BF4.
Click to expand...

Watch Dogs is 1080p/60.
 
I wish they'd delay it a few months to optimize. Almost every game site that has touched it
Says the game needs work.

The game has allot of potential as a showcase killer app but the rushed agenda to finish shows up with every new article.

Push the bloody thing back and give us a better product.
 
Jamessh said:
I wish they'd delay it a few months to optimize. Almost every game site that has touched it
Says the game needs work.

The game has allot of potential as a showcase killer app but the rushed agenda to finish shows up with every new article.

Push the bloody thing back and give us a better product.
Click to expand...



I really do feel like perhaps it would be best to have this go head-to-head with Infamous in February instead, but maybe Titanfall is releasing relatively early next year?
 
MightyHedgehog said:
Gonna be a very long generation if something like this is a big deal before launch when it's very likely that we're going to see so many titles on both new next-gen systems run at less than 1080p natively. *sigh*
Click to expand...

It's a big deal before launch because I expected more from my next generation consoles. It won't be a big deal if it continues to happen, but it will definitely be a disappointment.
 
Jamessh said:
I wish they'd delay it a few months to optimize. Almost every game site that has touched it
Says the game needs work.

The game has allot of potential as a showcase killer app but the rushed agenda to finish shows up with every new article.

Push the bloody thing back and give us a better product.
Click to expand...

Definitely, especially given the lineup for the PS4.
 
IT Slave said:
Because Occam's Razor would be applied. PS4 threads are such a bastion of common sense, reasonable discussion and downright excitement. Why? Because people believe it's "the most powerful console ever." So there's always a logical reason for why a game is this resolution or runs at that frame rate.

But an Xbox One thread is a different story. It's an "Xbox 361" casual Kinect TV, TV, TV box that will run sharper versions of X360 games. So when we see an announcement like this, most automatically conclude that it's because XONE is under powered. All logic and common sense goes out of the window. Even when games look great and run at 1080p/60fps we see "LOL baked lighting" or the assumption that there must be some smoke and mirrors somewhere.

The only thing that will fix this is time. Time will provide the reality check.
Click to expand...
great assessment
 
Jamessh said:
I wish they'd delay it a few months to optimize. Almost every game site that has touched it
Says the game needs work.

The game has allot of potential as a showcase killer app but the rushed agenda to finish shows up with every new article.

Push the bloody thing back and give us a better product.
Click to expand...
I've been saying this for a long time. Game has serious potential but I don't think they'll be able to pull it off by launch.
 
Jamessh said:
I wish they'd delay it a few months to optimize. Almost every game site that has touched it
Says the game needs work.

The game has allot of potential as a showcase killer app but the rushed agenda to finish shows up with every new article.

Push the bloody thing back and give us a better product.
Click to expand...

A higher resolution wouldn't change the sales of the game, so why delay it?
 
BigDug13 said:
But how many are simply upscaled to 1080p?

/s
Click to expand...

They're not upscaled.

-Cwalat- said:
Killzone Shadow Fall | 1080p/60fps multiplayer, 1080p/30fps single player
DriveClub | 1080p/60fps target, currently running at 1080p/30fps
Knack | 1080p/30fps
InFamous Second Son | 1080p/30fps (currently running at closer to 60fps)
Resogun | 1080p/60fps

vs

Forza 5 | 1080p/60fps
Ryse | 900p/30fps <<<
Killer Instinct | 720p/60fps <<<

Looks to me like the PS4 is more powerful indeed. I mean, you can't deny actual performance capabilites of games that are coming out.
Click to expand...

PS4's more powerful, indeed. The Xbox One can't handle native 1080p perfectly like PS4 could. Microsoft simply designed the Xbox One as a multimedia machine first, & a gaming machine second, while Sony designed the PS4 as a gaming machine first, & a multimedia machine second.

That is a fact in which Xbox fanboys keeps denying.
 
Skilletor said:
It's a big deal before launch because I expected more from my next generation consoles. It won't be a big deal if it continues to happen, but it will definitely be a disappointment.
Click to expand...

Personally, I think you should then prepare for generation-long disappointment. Why would they bust their asses on launch software on new, unfamiliar hardware when most people don't seem to care as long as the end-result is good/great? They're just trying to make launch at this point. Most people who claim to be into graphics on serious level here don't usually make a big deal out of the native resolution being less than full HD because they can't tell, or tell very easily, anyway. Most of the time, someone else tells them and, all of a sudden, it's a gamebreaker despite their having no issues before that revelation. I guess I understand on the purist level and that we expect minimum bars to be cleared with expensive new hardware, but I think both platforms are going to have this struggle all generation long because people tend to prefer the sacrifice (once they're made aware of it by someone else) that means they get snazzier visual effects quality and solid framerate performance at a mostly undetectable resolution loss. I figure we'll get more dynamic resolution-based games than anything else when these consoles should have no problem upscaling.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

The Xbox One has been hacked
12
416
Bry0 replied
Marathon rated for PS4 and Xbox One
2
94
1K
Redneckerz replied
AI Lady is running Xbox - how long do you give DF?
14
334
Insane Metal replied
  • Locked
PS5 running Linux
5
347
Hudo replied
Epic Games confirms that Epic Games Store will support the next Xbox hardware "on day one"
News Platform 
11
344
nial replied
Top Bottom