PS4 and Xbox One resolution / frame rate discussion

By DrunknMunky
in Gamers' Hangout

 Share

Recommended Posts

Experienced

blerk

Posted
Posted

Just changing the topic a little:

 

Found some comparison images (guess where!) of Quantum Break gameplay footage vs. reveal trailer. It's nice to see that at least one developer seems to be hitting the quality target so far. 

(As per the original thread, VGX reveal images come first, recently released gameplay teaser second)

 

iXwY9iY84CgBu.png

ibkzanGDn2S3Rh.png

 

ibqJBUArIKNTp0.png

ibqsYqGsPcE4bg.png

 

Also face animations looking nice:

 

ibszC9Rh5ZOK8z.gif

Rising Star

Polonium

Posted
Posted

Quantum Break is just Xbox one though, right? No Xbox 360 to hold it back. .

I think games that are just this gen and don't bother with the last gen consoles will look close to any reveals that have been shown.

Let's just.hope that a first party developer can actually get 1080p/60 out of the Xbox.

Grand Master

trooper11

Posted
Posted

Assassins Creed on ps4 looks better than it does on Xbox one on my TV sitting the same distance. I notice it. Many do. Those that don't do seem to be the ones trying to justify it.

Remember though, this is not strictly about resolution. Assassin's Creed and just about every other game you guys argue over has more then resolution as a difference.

If you take a movie screenshot and put that up on a TV at 900p or 1080p, then those TV guidelines apply. At certain distances of normal viewing, many people cannot spot the difference.

However, you cannot just apply those rules to game footage unless you knew that all other visual aspects of the game were identical on both versions. Things like levels of AA, gamma, etc, etc are usually also different between each platform, making that resolution discussion silly since your focusing on just one part. It's a lot easier to pick out the difference in games when the visual effects are at different levels of quality. Resolution is simply one part of that. AC looks better because of more than just resolution, which is also probably why its easier to pick out differences regardless of distance.

 

Even I can notice the difference between Netflix 1080p and a Blu Ray disc. If you know what compression artefacts, aliasing and "jaggies" look like, you're going to notice them. Argue how much that affects your enjoyment, it probably doesn't all that much, but arguing we shouldn't be able to see them... That is arrogant.

I agree that no one should claim that no one can tell the difference, but I also don't think its fair to claim that most people can tell the difference. This back and forth is all about subjective opinions. Strictly talking about resolution, which really only applies to movies, there is a general rule of thumb that has been proven to apply to most viewers. Again, this can only be applied to viewing movies as I pointed out above. Games are very different and there is no generally accepted rule of thumb for viewing distances vs quality.

Then there is the whole frame rate issue. Many people are adversely affected by high frame rates in movies (see the reaction to the Hobbit @ 48fps for example), and yet that same rule does not necessarily apply to games. I don't know of any official numbers, but I would guess that fewer people are affected by high frame rates in games then in movies.

Of course the bottom line is that when you get back to the topic, X1 vs PS4, you can see a difference when a game is running at different resolutions and with different levels of visual detail. That fact is clear. The pc standard is in full affect. So if a ps4 game is running at a higher resolution (even when its pretty close such as 900p vs 1080p) vs an X1 version, the difference become more pronounced thanks to the other visual differences. 

 

Anything else is going to be a subjective opinion.  People will see the differences in different ways and some won't notice them as much as others.  You can't use that to argue the differences aren't there though. 

 

Forza is half a game that hardly looks next gen so don't count that :-)

 

Not a good idea to go there.  Try to stay above that kind of stuff.

Mentor

JonnyLH

Posted
Posted

Forza is half a game that hardly looks next gen so don't count that :-)

Well that just proves the intent within your post. Forza 5 is a game which really suffers with its lack of AA/AF, although its assets are gorgeous.

 

I don't get this resolution debate with TVs which has spawned this gen, anyone who has a keen eye for it can always spot it. Un-enthusiasts on the other hand, usually cannot.

Grand Master

Emn1ty

Posted
Posted

Those comparisons might be better for films/video, but games do have very noticeable differences when running at lower resolutions versus higher. People happily reported GTA4 looking sharper on their Xbox 360s, the difference there is (1120?630) compared to (1280?720). Why all of a sudden with the bigger gaps this generation are people like yourself telling us all if we can notice a difference we're somehow rubbing our eyeballs on our TV?

 

Even I can notice the difference between Netflix 1080p and a Blu Ray disc. If you know what compression artefacts, aliasing and "jaggies" look like, you're going to notice them. Argue how much that affects your enjoyment, it probably doesn't all that much, but arguing we shouldn't be able to see them... That is arrogant.

 

These rules are for televisions, not "films and video". I am also not saying you're "rubbing your eyeballs on your tv". I'm saying that there's a certain viewing distance for televisions of specific resolutions and it's a good idea (in order to get the most out of your screen) to sit at that distance.

 

The difference between Netflix 1080p and Blu Ray is compression, not resolution. One is streamed, the other isn't.

 

Also, just because these are games doesn't mean you can magically hand-wave the fact that televisions and computer monitors are entirely different display devices with a completely different set of rules that govern them.

 

 

I don't get this resolution debate with TVs which has spawned this gen, anyone who has a keen eye for it can always spot it. Un-enthusiasts on the other hand, usually cannot.

 

I think anyone can spot it if they look for it, but that's not really an issue. What would be a problem is if you could notice it without trying to find it. That would be noticeable, and a problem.

Grand Master

trooper11

Posted
Posted

These rules are for televisions, not "films and video". I am also not saying you're "rubbing your eyeballs on your tv". I'm saying that there's a certain viewing distance for televisions of specific resolutions and it's a good idea (in order to get the most out of your screen) to sit at that distance.

 

The difference between Netflix 1080p and Blu Ray is compression, not resolution. One is streamed, the other isn't.

 

Also, just because these are games doesn't mean you can magically hand-wave the fact that televisions and computer monitors are entirely different display devices with a completely different set of rules that govern them.

 

 

I agree with your premise that the standards are there to apply to viewing any content on a TV screen, but trying to compare games in this way is not going to work.

 

Again, resolution is only one part of the story.  I know this thread and many people online love to focus on just the resolution differences, but that is just one piece of it.  Something as simple as gamma value could be different between versions and that value is more visible at distance then say resolution.

 

That's why I don't get why people focus so much on two numbers: Resolution and Framerate

 

Anyone trying to use this thread as a guide for how good a game is going to look is doing a disservice to themselves.  What you learn here is merely one part of the final product.

Rising Star

Polonium

Posted
Posted

Well that just proves the intent within your post. Forza 5 is a game which really suffers with its lack of AA/AF, although its assets are gorgeous.

I don't get this resolution debate with TVs which has spawned this gen, anyone who has a keen eye for it can always spot it. Un-enthusiasts on the other hand, usually cannot.

The smiley face, I thought, was a giveaway for the way in which it was meant to be taken.

For the record I think it's a great looking game with a few issues ...

Grand Master

trooper11

Posted
Posted

The smiley face, I thought, was a giveaway for the way in which it was meant to be taken.

For the record I think it's a great looking game with a few issues ...

 

 

I think the standard for conveying that you weren't being serious is: ;) or /s

Just another example of why communicating through text is a messy business :laugh:

Rising Star

Polonium

Posted
Posted

I also thought by me saying forza wasn't a pretty game might have given it away lol

Its a damn fine looking racer...until you come to a stand still of course but then why people moan about that in a racing game is beyond me.

Grand Master

vcfan

Posted
Posted

The discourse around resolution and framerate continues to make headlines as developers optimise their games as they see fit. Fulton and the team at Playground are firmly of the belief the next-generation is about light rather than resolution, but he did confirm Forza Horizon 2 on Xbox One would display at 1080p and, like the original Forza Horizon, a locked 30 frames-per-second.

Despite the shared technology, there?s one big difference between Forza Motorsport 5 (which displays at 60 frames-per-second) and Forza Horizon 2 that necessitates this different approach.

?The biggest difference is that, obviously, we?re an open-world streaming game,? says Fulton. ?We need to be able to drive in any direction at up to 270 miles an hour, if you?re gonna soup up a Veyron or something like that.?

?So one of the big technical challenges that we had to face was making sure that we could stream in a world that is next-gen beautiful, but fast enough to keep up with the fastest car. That?s a huge tech challenge but it?s one that our guys just eat up.?

http://www.ign.com/articles/2014/06/04/forza-horizon-2-resolution-framerate-music-more-detailed-ign-first?page=3

  • Brendeth, BajiRav and trooper11
  • Like 3
Grand Master

vcfan

Posted
Posted

EA Sports UFC demo

UFC appears instead to operate at 1600x900 on both consoles.

The PS4 version utilises a much more comprehensive 4x MSAA solution (perhaps with a post-process anti-aliasing technique on top) that manages to nearly eliminate aliasing in most situations despite the lower resolution. Xbox One doesn't fare quite so well, with image quality falling short of the PS4 version - 2x MSAA appears to be present, though we're not sure if there's a post-process on top, or whether we're just seeing the results of upscaling.

Unfortunately, despite utilising a lower resolution, EA hasn't aimed any higher when it comes to frame-rate, with a target of 30fps on both consoles. While they both generally maintain this level of performance, we found that slight frame-rate disturbances impact the fluidity of the experience, particularly on PS4. The fights themselves maintain a mostly consistent update, but the rest of the experience feels unpolished as a result. We also observe occasional torn frames manifesting on PS4 along the top ten per cent of the image though the darkened arena does a good job at hiding this flaw most of the time.

So, while PS4 has a distinct advantage in terms of image quality, it is the Xbox One version of the game that has the slightest of performance advantages.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2014-ufc-demo-performance-analysis

Grand Master

+Audioboxer Subscriber²

Posted
  • Subscriber²
Posted

A sports game with a focus on 2 main characters on screen running below 1080p is pretty shoddy, strange from EA given FIFA. No need to go for 4xMSAA either, 1080p and 2xMSAA on a title like this would be fine. As does this sound sloppy. Couple of seconds okay, but almost 2x the length?

 

Looking beyond the frame-rate, there are also issues with the interface surrounding the game. This aspect of UFC feels incredibly unpolished and poorly optimised with transitions often stuttering and skipping about while moving between menus. These types of issues regularly appear in EA Sports titles, and we feel that it's about time something is done about it. While not inherently key to delivering a great gameplay experience, these interface issues do add up over time and create something that feels less polished than we'd like. Along those same lines it should be noted that loading times on Xbox One are significantly longer than on PS4. You're looking at around 36 seconds to load a match on Xbox One while the PS4 is ready to go in just 20.
Grand Master

dead.cell

Posted
Posted

Sounds like UFC would be better on the PS4 over all. Distinct visual advantage and load times versus slightly better performance? No brainer there.

 

I was watching a trailer the other day and it looked pretty awesome. Just curious as to how well it'd play.

Grand Master

trooper11

Posted
Posted

Sounds like UFC would be better on the PS4 over all. Distinct visual advantage and load times versus slightly better performance? No brainer there.

 

I was watching a trailer the other day and it looked pretty awesome. Just curious as to how well it'd play.

Yeah, ps4 win again.

As long as your ok with 900p/30, than it just comes down to how much you like the gameplay.

Grand Master

George P Global Moderator

Posted
  • Global Moderator
Posted

I thought the whole problem was that 900p/30fps isn't good enough, but it's fine now?  Are we just going to move this performance bar around when it's convenient? 

This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing