PS4 and Xbox One resolution / frame rate discussion

[Emn1ty]

frames and resolution aren't exactly minute details though, not really. If a game doesn't run at a constant frame rate it hampers the enjoyment, if resolution isn't up to scratch the game will look muddy and not as clear as it should do.

Hardly minute really. If your console of choice has a great UI and can play movies over a network, music, etc, etc but has choppy, muddy games - it's not a great games console, is it?

Yes, big discrepancies in these areas can be big problems. But we aren't discussing chugging framerates or horribly artifacts and upscaled visuals with horrendously small textures. We're talking differences that are only noticeable if you're looking for them.

[BajiRav]

It's a silly argument in the first place, but to go along with it, you think Sony could outbid MS? Sony couldn't outbid a homeless person.

AC has been co-marketed by Sony for last few years, now it's being done by MS. Tomb Raider has historically been PS tied, and sold better on that console, now it's a timed XB1 exclusive. Sure they managed to get Destiny, but MS already control COD, both published by Activision, potentially conflicting interests for MS to take on both.

MS just paid 2.5 billion for Minecraft... I'm sure your post is clickbait sarcasm, but if you're serious, really, Sony being able to outbid MS?

clickbait? :laugh: Sarcasm yes. My post was a pure joke post. The notion that MS is paying them to reduce PS4 resolution is laughable.

[zalberg]

Sonys debt and microsofts deep pockets are what honestly scare me about my premature adoption of a PS4. I feel that MS could control the industry direction despite them having a much lower adoption rate and inferior hardware. Money does talk, and everyones got their price.

 

As for the Unity release of 900p I'm sure that is more to do with developers seeing if their peak laziness would be embraced or rejected within the community. Both systems are x86 - so design the game to run on the weakest of the bunch then port it to the stronger ones without any improvements.

[DirtyLarry Veteran]

I don't think this is true in the slightest. Inferior resolution does not a poor console make. We have less than a handful of genuinely good titles on either console to really judge from, with games on both sides hitting high resolutions and framerates (be it both at the same time or not).

 

What I find mystifying is that we are judging the "inferiority" of a console based on how many fps/pixels it has rather than the quality of their interfaces, the refinement of their dashboards and the library/services available. Hardware differences are only one part of a console. What frustrates me about this console war is people seem to be hyper-focused on two of the most minute details about any gaming machine.

I bolded and increase the font size of the last sentence and the most important words in that sentence for emphasis. You yourself say "gaming" machine. If we are judging it as a gaming machine, is the primary focus not games? And if that is the case, is the focus not the technical specifications of said games? As such how can you say they are two of the most minute features if we are talking about games? They are two very important factors when discussing games, especially from a technical standpoint. Really there is no point in discussing story and design or anything along those lines if you are comparing one console to the other as none of those things are impacted because of the console. They will be whatever they will be regardless of the console.

So really it does come down to two primary things. Frame Rate & Resolution. I would even make the argument you can throw audio in there as well, but neither console has an advantage over the other in that department.

 

Now if you said media center, sure, those other things come into play and are important. But if we are talking just about gaming, I can even make the argument that the PS4's OS is superior because of its simplicity and ease of launching said games.

 

I think this distinction is very important.

 

With all that said, everything I said above is actually irrelevant. I feel it needs to be pointed out again this thread is not about comparing the consoles head to head which would of course include comparing all features of the consoles. This thread is about framerate and resolution. Which yes, means it is specifically about the games. Talking about either of those things is not "mystifying" in the slightest when they are the sole purpose of the thread to begin with.

[Showan]

I bolded and increase the font size of the last sentence and the most important words in that sentence for emphasis. You yourself say "gaming" machine. If we are judging it as a gaming machine, is the primary focus not games? And if that is the case, is the focus not the technical specifications of said games? As such how can you say they are two of the most minute features if we are talking about games? They are two very important factors when discussing games, especially from a technical standpoint. Really there is no point in discussing story and design or anything along those lines if you are comparing one console to the other as none of those things are impacted because of the console. They will be whatever they will be regardless of the console.

So really it does come down to two primary things. Frame Rate & Resolution. I would even make the argument you can throw audio in there as well, but neither console has an advantage over the other in that department.

 

Now if you said media center, sure, those other things come into play and are important. But if we are talking just about gaming, I can even make the argument that the PS4's OS is superior because of its simplicity and ease of launching said games.

 

I think this distinction is very important.

 

With all that said, everything I said above is actually irrelevant. I feel it needs to be pointed out again this thread is not about comparing the consoles head to head which would of course include comparing all features of the consoles. This thread is about framerate and resolution. Which yes, means it is specifically about the games. Talking about either of those things is not "mystifying" in the slightest when they are the sole purpose of the thread to begin with.

You are right in regards to the PS4 has the superior hardware to produce better graphics and resolution.

No doubt about that.

But I've yet to run into any One game where the frame rate hampers the game. I've yet to see a game where frame rate hampers the ps4 as well.

Frame rates seem to be a saving grace on both systems so far. This is something that the ps4 should have consistently going for itself this generation.

If you take AC:Black Flag, it plays well on both consoles. Looks good on both consoles, wouldn't notice much a difference unless u put the 2 side by side.

I would have more of a problem if it were like Skyrim: 360 vs PS3. Now that was obvious.

No one should be shocked that ps4 will (well at least should) have more "spit polish" to them

[Emn1ty]

I bolded and increase the font size of the last sentence and the most important words in that sentence for emphasis. You yourself say "gaming" machine. If we are judging it as a gaming machine, is the primary focus not games? And if that is the case, is the focus not the technical specifications of said games? As such how can you say they are two of the most minute features if we are talking about games? They are two very important factors when discussing games, especially from a technical standpoint. Really there is no point in discussing story and design or anything along those lines if you are comparing one console to the other as none of those things are impacted because of the console. They will be whatever they will be regardless of the console.

So really it does come down to two primary things. Frame Rate & Resolution. I would even make the argument you can throw audio in there as well, but neither console has an advantage over the other in that department.

 

Now if you said media center, sure, those other things come into play and are important. But if we are talking just about gaming, I can even make the argument that the PS4's OS is superior because of its simplicity and ease of launching said games.

 

I think this distinction is very important.

 

With all that said, everything I said above is actually irrelevant. I feel it needs to be pointed out again this thread is not about comparing the consoles head to head which would of course include comparing all features of the consoles. This thread is about framerate and resolution. Which yes, means it is specifically about the games. Talking about either of those things is not "mystifying" in the slightest when they are the sole purpose of the thread to begin with.

 

Yes, that's what this thread is about. But I am seeing statements in here which are claiming the consoles are hands down better or worse based on these two factors. And that is simply not the case.

 

A game is more and always will be more than its technical specifications. If this weren't the case, indie games wouldn't be so popular. There are plenty of them which are very light on the technical side yet creative and innovative in storytelling or mechanics.

 

It's all well and good to say the PS4 has better resolutions or frame rates more often. Heck, sure it's more powerful in the hardware side. But this does not make the X1 an inferior console nor does it make its library an inferior library. We cannot water down our judgement of this generation to two factors, least of all two that to be frank are minute in relation to what we've seen in the games. We've yet to see a game which has real cause for concern in either area in months. In fact, both consoles seem to pretty good at performing in locked frames and v-sync with the television's maximum fps. Not to mention 900p vs 1080p is (according to anyone who knows how resolutions and viewing distances work with televisions) not a large difference nor even a real problem.

 

This discussion may be about resolution and frame rate specifically. This does not mean we can blow their importance out of proportion just because we're focusing on them as a topic.

[trooper11]

I bolded and increase the font size of the last sentence and the most important words in that sentence for emphasis. You yourself say "gaming" machine. If we are judging it as a gaming machine, is the primary focus not games? And if that is the case, is the focus not the technical specifications of said games?

I think the only reason some have issue with the statement is the use of the term gaming. It invokes the idea that a game is just better on one console or another.

What you are really saying is that the ps4 is better for resolution and frame rate in most cases due to more powerful hardware. Your not saying games are better necessarily, but that the res/framerate most of the time is better.

The WiiU is very gaming focused and while its hardware is inferior, it still produces great games (maybe not in a large enough quantity, but that's a different subject). Games for that system never get mentioned in this thread though.

Regardless of my points above, this thread is not meant to be a discussion of the implications of each console, or to make judgments on them. This thread is meant to be one to simply share the technical details of games as we learn bout it, not to turn it into a debate thread. I find it a very useful tool as long as it doesn't get derailed.

[+Asmodai MVC]

But I've yet to run into any One game where the frame rate hampers the game. I've yet to see a game where frame rate hampers the ps4 as well.

Really? I've seen multiple reviews that point to frame rate issues on the PS4. Not that there is a hardware problem but the developers wanted to show off 60fps so bad they left the frame rate unlocked (or 60fps CAPPED instead of locked) and while it may hit 60fps most of the time it drops down to say 45 or so in high stress situations and that drop can be jarring and impair gameplay. I believe multiple games as a result have added a fps lock option so you can run it locked at 30fps which it has no problems hitting all the time or unlock it and let it run 60fps most of the time but be aware that drops will be possible during intense scenes. You don't hear this so much with the Xbox One because in such games it can't run 60fps most of the time anyway so they just lock it at 30fps out the gates.

[+Asmodai MVC]

Yes, that's what this thread is about. But I am seeing statements in here which are claiming the consoles are hands down better or worse based on these two factors. And that is simply not the case.

I think you're oversimplifying the argument. Granted resolution and frame rate aren't necessarily the most important factors in determining quality graphics and granted quality graphics doesn't necessarily make a great game. With those two things in mind though most of the comparisons in this thread are about how cross-platform games compare (graphically) between the consoles. In the vast majority of cases the GAMEPLAY of these games is pretty much identical on both consoles. As are the lighting, object models, textures, and other graphics related factors you may consider more important than resolution and framerate. When comparing two things you don't talk about what is the same. You talk about what is different and in a lot of cases the differences comes down to resolution and framerate only. So with all other graphics elements being equal "claiming the consoles are hands down better or worse on these two factors" does indeed make sense.

[Showan]

Really? I've seen multiple reviews that point to frame rate issues on the PS4. Not that there is a hardware problem but the developers wanted to show off 60fps so bad they left the frame rate unlocked (or 60fps CAPPED instead of locked) and while it may hit 60fps most of the time it drops down to say 45 or so in high stress situations and that drop can be jarring and impair gameplay. I believe multiple games as a result have added a fps lock option so you can run it locked at 30fps which it has no problems hitting all the time or unlock it and let it run 60fps most of the time but be aware that drops will be possible during intense scenes. You don't hear this so much with the Xbox One because in such games it can't run 60fps most of the time anyway so they just lock it at 30fps out the gates.

 

 

I got Child of Light, MG:Ground Zeroes, Infamous:SS, KillZone:SF, TLoU, Shadow of Mordor, Resogun... 

 

And I've yet to have an issue with framerates with any of these games.  I don't consider the blip of a stutter every 50minutes to be an issue.

 

Maybe this is an issue in the games I don't own....

[+Asmodai MVC]

I got Child of Light, MG:Ground Zeroes, Infamous:SS, KillZone:SF, TLoU, Shadow of Mordor, Resogun... 

 

And I've yet to have an issue with framerates with any of these games.  I don't consider the blip of a stutter every 50minutes to be an issue.

 

Maybe this is an issue in the games I don't own....

 

Infamous: SS

http://gamerant.com/infamous-second-son-patch-details-bugs/

 

Killzone: SF

http://www.gameranx.com/updates/id/20266/article/killzone-shadow-fall-patch-lets-players-lock-framerate-at-30-fps/

[Polonium]

They are more pacing issues than framerate issues though if I remember correctly

[+Audioboxer Subscriber²]

http://www.gamespot.com/articles/dragon-age-inquisition-is-1080p-on-ps4-900p-on-xbo/1100-6422882/

 

Dragon Age, PS4 1080, XB1, 900.

 

"We maximized the current potential of each platform," BioWare said.

 

 

 

Bioware doing what Ubisoft can't?

[soniqstylz]

 

http://www.gamespot.com/articles/dragon-age-inquisition-is-1080p-on-ps4-900p-on-xbo/1100-6422882/

 

Dragon Age, PS4 1080, XB1, 900.

 

 

Bioware doing what Ubisoft can't?

 

 

Two different games, but the trolling is pretty funny.

 

Javascript is not enabled or refresh the page to view.

Click here to view the Tweet

 

Now, if they can explain why AC:U is 900p and why GTV is 1080p, lemme know.

[0nyX]

Dragon Age is another example proving a pattern of games with detailed textures not being able to hit 1080p on X1

[dead.cell]

Those are all Sony exclusives not running at 1080p/60fps. These games should have been "optimized" to run at what is apparently a golden standard of gaming.

This guy. :rolleyes:

 

Yes, Microsoft is totally high-fiving everyone on their team, giving out bonuses, and celebrating with tickets to a Seahawks game... because of the fps on a few games that their console won't see anyway. I don't even man...

 

I think the only reason some have issue with the statement is the use of the term gaming. It invokes the idea that a game is just better on one console or another.

What you are really saying is that the ps4 is better for resolution and frame rate in most cases due to more powerful hardware. Your not saying games are better necessarily, but that the res/framerate most of the time is better.

As someone who still enjoys the Xbox One, it still is a bit upsetting to see the hardware not only lack, but for Sony to stomp them in sales even in their home turf. I want things to be on a more even keel, as competition has always served gamers best. Unfortunately, that's not how things are going. Seeing Microsoft stumble much like Sony did last generation, I can only hope they recover just as Sony did too.

 

And then they go and buy Minecraft for 2.5bn and I facepalm... (at least Sony and Microsoft will both benefit having Minecraft for Vita; that'll be a day-one buy for me!)

[BajiRav]

This guy. :rolleyes:

 

Yes, Microsoft is totally high-fiving everyone on their team, giving out bonuses, and celebrating with tickets to a Seahawks game... because of the fps on a few games that their console won't see anyway. I don't even man...

 

As someone who still enjoys the Xbox One, it still is a bit upsetting to see the hardware not only lack, but for Sony to stomp them in sales even in their home turf. I want things to be on a more even keel, as competition has always served gamers best. Unfortunately, that's not how things are going. Seeing Microsoft stumble much like Sony did last generation, I can only hope they recover just as Sony did too.

 

And then they go and buy Minecraft for 2.5bn and I facepalm... (at least Sony and Microsoft will both benefit having Minecraft for Vita; that'll be a day-one buy for me!)

I don't understand why you quoted that post and rolled eyes at me so I will just return favor by :rolleyes: for quoting posts out of context and then going on an unrelated tangent.

As for second half of your post, Microsoft can't recover from the resolution/fps point because their hardware is set in stone. They might start hitting 1080p regularly down the line but who knows.

I think they are doing just fine in other parts by having a steady flow of exclusives, better network and regular refinements/updates.

The sales angle - that can still sway in either direction especially in US and China (if there is really a market for 5M XB1s in Chinda because Sony can sell a max of 200K in their first year)

[dead.cell]

I don't understand why you quoted that post and rolled eyes at me so I will just return favor by :rolleyes: for quoting posts out of context and then going on an unrelated tangent.

Sorry, I was up later than I should have been, and I probably just took the tail end of your comment the wrong way. My apologies.

 

As a gamer, I just feel it's a bit useless looking at first party titles. I'm not trying to sway numbers here (because PC master race), but would you really care about what the next Halo or Mario game ran at? Probably not, you'll still buy it if you're a fan so long as it looks promising.

 

However, for those that are fans of the Elder Scrolls, From Software, Rockstar, etc., you might be concerned with how well each console will hold up in terms of graphics, controls, or whatever little kinks may exist. That's where my focus lies at least, and I'm keeping a keen eye as the PS3 didn't have the best experience when dealing with Bethesda. Will this change this generation? Who knows, but I feel these are the things much more worthy of concern.

[123456789A]

You hit the nail on the head with this one. The X1 is inferior for gaming.

 

If that was the case, I wouldn't be using consoles at all since my PC is more powerful than the Xbox One, PS4 and Wii U combined.

 

Yet I still play a lot of console games, including on 'retro' consoles that still provide an excellent gaming experience. These are not "inferior" experiences.

 

Bottom line, processing power/resolution is not the end of the story when it comes to gaming.

[+Audioboxer Subscriber²]

Farcry 4 PS4 should be 1080/30

[KevinN206]

I really have to say I am not sure how we are expected to have any type of real conversation about this topic if people just cannot accept the truth of the current situation.

The PS4 is the more powerful gaming console out of the two consoles.

There it is. Saying this does not make me any better of a person. It does not make anyone else any worse of a person.

However what it does make me is a realist.

At this point in time it has proven itself to be the better console from a purely gaming perspective.

If people cannot accept this simple fact how can we have any real conversation on this topic?

 

You can speculate about what the One may be capable of doing, and it very well may even do it one day, but the simple truth is so in this console generation, the PS4 has proven to be the dominate console from a technical perspective when the conversation is games.

Sure, the argument can be made the One handles other things better, which it absolutely does, I own both consoles myself so I have no issue saying that either, but the title of this thread is in regards to resolution and frame rate. Two aspects which are relative to the games themselves. Not the social features. Not the motion or voice control features. Not the media player functionalities. Games.

 

So sincerely and truly, if you want your opinion on things to be taken seriously and not questioned or called out or subject to scrutiny, your opinion does need to also have some fact behind it in order to be considered legitimate.

If you cannot admit what has been proven over and over thus far as the reality of the situation, and you insist on continuing to defend a console which has not proven itself to be defendable in regards to the very things you are choosing to defend it for, how is anyone supposed to take what you say seriously?

 

I just wish people would sit back and realize that accepting the reality of things does not make you any better or any worse than anyone else. If you prefer the XBox One over the PS4 more power to you. Rock on with your bad self. There are plenty of legitimate reasons to prefer either console over the other one. Raw processing power in regards to frame rate and resolution just happens to be the one feature where there really is not much of a debate. At least not yet.

 

It seems like most people are just brainwashed to think that 1080p is the defacto for better gaming. At what cost? An empty street like InFamous Second Son with barely any NPC. You can create a 1080p with any game, but there's a ton of stuffs that are as important. How is it possible that Ryse at 900p won the SIGGRAPH for Best Real-Time Graphics? Sometimes dropping the resolution actually helps with picture quality because you can do a lot more with each pixel.  Heck, even the director of ISS said an interview that resolution sometimes must be scarified to keep frame rate and special effects. 

 

http://www.thesixthaxis.com/2014/03/11/infamous-second-sons-director-explains-why-the-game-runs-at-30fps/

 

I don't think XB1 gamers have much to worry in terms of being "50% weaker" considering FH2 is one of few next-gen games with 4xMSAA. Remind me what is DC AA solution? The future is bright for XB1. Look on the bright side, Minecraft is 1080p on both consoles

 

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2014-the-making-of-forza-horizon-2

 

 

Digital Foundry: Perhaps the biggest surprise for us is the inclusion of 4x MSAA in Horizon 2 in an era where any form of multi-sampling is on the endangered list. There's the perception - rightly or wrongly - that bandwidth is at a premium in both of the new consoles and resources are better spent elsewhere. What's your secret?

 

Andy Sage: It does seem sometimes that we are going in a different direction to the majority of games that are pushing for deferred rendering with FXAA or other combined anti-aliasing approaches. For us, image quality is highly important, and we found that we can achieve that best with the benefits of Forward+ lighting combined with MSAA. In terms of resource allocation, this is factored in during the planning phase of the project to make sure we spend the right amount of time balancing the cost versus quality trade-offs involved. In some respects this decision gives us more flexibility, as we don't have to spend time investing in custom anti-aliasing solutions as some other approaches might require.

[Polonium]

Not sure if serious....

[trooper11]

I think it would be an interesting experiment to discuss these things focused on a single console. It would eliminate most of the tendency to defend or attack based on console arguments.

 

Whether its the X1 or the ps4, you can point to games that don't hit 1080p or don't hit 60fps. So if you only looked at say the ps4, how does the conversation change. Its hardware is good, but not good enough to guarantee 1080/60 on all games. When a developer chooses to cut the frame rate or resolution, is that acceptable? For me personally, its fine as long as the finished result looks good. Infamous may run at 30fps, but its a good looking game. The Order may run below 1080 and at 30fps but its a good looking game.

 

Its also interesting that in most cases, developers give a similar excuse for choosing a res/frame rate. They point to a 'cinematic' experience. I know everyone likes to attack that reason, but I'm starting to wonder if at least some developers actually believe that.

[BajiRav]

I think it would be an interesting experiment to discuss these things focused on a single console. It would eliminate most of the tendency to defend or attack based on console arguments.

 

Whether its the X1 or the ps4, you can point to games that don't hit 1080p or don't hit 60fps. So if you only looked at say the ps4, how does the conversation change. Its hardware is good, but not good enough to guarantee 1080/60 on all games. When a developer chooses to cut the frame rate or resolution, is that acceptable? For me personally, its fine as long as the finished result looks good. Infamous may run at 30fps, but its a good looking game. The Order may run below 1080 and at 30fps but its a good looking game.

 

Its also interesting that in most cases, developers give a similar excuse for choosing a res/frame rate. They point to a 'cinematic' experience. I know everyone likes to attack that reason, but I'm starting to wonder if at least some developers actually believe that.

I think most developers don't care about the 1080p/60fps ####fest that has plagues the industry since PS4/XB1 reveal. The PR guys are only adding to the mess by using it as a marketing tool.

The sooner people drop off the useless need for 1080p/60fps the better it is for everyone.

The AC:Unity debate is another example of PR addressing this useless metric of a game's performance. There is no proof that PS4 could easily hit 1080p/60fps on its own when we know that its cross-gen predecessor didn't make it until Sony paid for further development/optimization. This time Sony didn't pay and the title is even more demanding (being next-gen only etc.) and hence is left where it ended at the end of dev-cycle.

[+Asmodai MVC]

I think it would be an interesting experiment to discuss these things focused on a single console. It would eliminate most of the tendency to defend or attack based on console arguments.

 

Whether its the X1 or the ps4, you can point to games that don't hit 1080p or don't hit 60fps. So if you only looked at say the ps4, how does the conversation change. Its hardware is good, but not good enough to guarantee 1080/60 on all games. When a developer chooses to cut the frame rate or resolution, is that acceptable? For me personally, its fine as long as the finished result looks good. Infamous may run at 30fps, but its a good looking game. The Order may run below 1080 and at 30fps but its a good looking game.

 

Its also interesting that in most cases, developers give a similar excuse for choosing a res/frame rate. They point to a 'cinematic' experience. I know everyone likes to attack that reason, but I'm starting to wonder if at least some developers actually believe that.

Personally I don't care about 1080p and 60fps at all.  If the game is single platform the developers can throw super high poly models, tons of objects, extreme effects, etc. and make it impossible for even a high end PC to hit 1080p.  So having a platform exclusive that is say 900p30fps is fine with me.  On cross platform games though where both platforms are using the same models, lighting, textures, etc. if the resolution and frame rate are identical then I have to assume the devs slacked on the game (such as ignoring the extra compute units on the PS4) or intentionally held the PS4 back for parity.  Again to me the issue isn't if they hit 1080p and 60fps or not, it's that I feel the developer has taken advantage of the strengths of each platform (like the Dragon Age tweet said).

 

If a game comes out that's 900p 30fps on PS4 and 720p 30fps on Xbox One I'm cool with that even though neither hit 1080p or 60fps because clearly the dev used the extra hardware on the PS4 to push the resolution higher and maybe they did just decide their game works better with higher quality models, effects, etc. than the extra resolution... that's fine with me.  In the case of the Ubisoft situation I can't help but think they are either rushing the game out and ignoring the PS4's extra CUs or they are intentionally holding back the PS4 version in the name of parity.  Given the initial quote that they've since tried to backpedal on it seems to be the latter.

 

The reason 1080p@60fps is important though is because 60Hz is the power frequency in the U.S. and other NTSC counties and 1920x1080 is the native resolution for most HDTVs.  So a game running at 1920x1080 and 60fps doesn't require any sort of interpolation or scaling or other such things.  It runs completely native on most displays which is nice so it makes a nice IDEAL to strive for but it's not the end of the world if it misses it.  We aren't going to hit 4k resolution or 120+ fps on AAA titles this generation, the hardware just can't handle it so 1080p@60fps makes the most logical target to shoot at.