PS4 and Xbox One resolution / frame rate discussion

[trooper11]

PGR was 30  :rofl: Definitely room for eyecandy in a game that isn't a full on simulator. On the other hand if GT suddenly decided to pull this it flat out wouldn't work.

Ah but you forget that PGR was released in a time when those things weren't quite as focused on or demanded.

Things are different now and a game that is running at 30fps has to justify its existence on a case by case basis.

[LaP]

I don't know if its a good idea to try and downplay the importance of resolution. You would need some VERY VERY compelling evidence to hold up to scrutiny.

Now frame rate, that you can do already.

Thanks to games like infamous and driveclub, there is plenty of evidence that 30fps can work and its not the end of the world if you are not running at 60fps.

 

30fps can work. Like 720p can work too.

 

But there's absolutely no denying that a rock solid 60fps is better than a rock solid 30fps specially for fast paced games. Over 60fps the gain is a little bit more questionable. I personally find 30fps to be borderline. It's playable as long as it doesn't drop below 30 fps but i prefer to run my PC games at a solid 40-60 fps with triple buffering (not dropping below 40). If i'm dropping below 40 fps too much i tune down the gfx a bit. But I'll never tune down the resolution to hit 40fps. If i can't hit 40fps at native res in most of the games it is time to upgrade (only gaming upgrade i did in the last 4 years was the gpu once).

 

What is better? 720p60 or 1080p30. To be honest i would be tempted to say it is a matter of taste. Personally i don't play console games competitively. I do it to relax with some exclusive titles that are different from the usual PC games. Since i can't stand any blur in my games i try to avoid upscaling and FXAA/MLAA at all cost. FXAA is already bad enough in my book i don't want any upscaling to be added to that.

 

One thing needs to be taken into consideration. Most console games use some bad FXAA making the image already blurry and making native res not as great as what it should be. The difference between 2x or 4x SSAA in Tomb Raider and FXAA is very big. FXAA pretty much destroy the advantage of native res in some games.

 

If you ask me what is the best i would say to devs aim for 1080p40-60 with 4x MSAA or 2x SSAA and enable triple bufering. Reduce the gfx until you can hit that minimum PC gamers have been using for ages now. But that's just my opinion. The cool thing about it is I would not need to use nVidia inspector anymore to ******* enable 4x MSAA in ******* console ports ()*#*(@)*#(@*#*@(*#@()*#*(@?&*$?@&*. FXAA in Dishonored was atrocious.

[+Audioboxer Subscriber²]

Ah but you forget that PGR was released in a time when those things weren't quite as focused on or demanded.

Things are different now and a game that is running at 30fps has to justify its existence on a case by case basis.

 

That's more to do with why is it only 30 on one console (60 or uncapped on other)/this game is 30 and it's graphics do nothing to suggest why it should be 30 (possibly not 1080p, or textures are just meh). Even the XB1's graphical powerhouse Ryse couldn't muster up 1080p with a 30 framerate, that's why questions are being asked, not simply because we're in 2014. If you're not going to hit 60FPS you're definitely going to have to hit 1080p and/or show that your game is a graphical powerhouse.

 

And your time frame remark isn't quite spot on, simulation racing titles have always been demanded at 60FPS. Even Gran Turismo 3 was 60FPS. PGR devs did have to explain their choice as well (and unsurprisingly it was to do with graphics).

[trooper11]

30fps can work. Like 720p can work too.

I agree it can work, but that is not enough right now.

The overwhelming response you get for games at 720p or 30fps is one of resistance bordering on anger.

So while it can work for a lot of people, the vocal people will demand a game justify its existence when running at either level since they deem it completely unacceptable.

[trooper11]

That's more to do with why is it only 30 on one console (60 or uncapped on other)/this game is 30 and it's graphics do nothing to suggest why it should be 30 (possibly not 1080p, or textures are just meh). Even the XB1's graphical powerhouse Ryse couldn't muster up 1080p with a 30 framerate, that's why questions are being asked, not simply because we're in 2014. If you're not going to hit 60FPS you're definitely going to have to hit 1080p and/or show that your game is a graphical powerhouse.

I don't think it has as much to do with comparing between consoles. Ryse got plenty of flack for only running at 30fps. Heck, even infamous got flack for the same thing before it came out. I think its hard to say that the environment around games online is not different from what it was years ago, say at the start of last gen. There are many reasons that has happened.

You further illustrate my point with your last line. A game must justify itself if is not hitting 1080p or 60fps.

 

And your time frame remark isn't quite spot on, simulation racing titles have always been demanded at 60FPS. Even Gran Turismo 3 was 60FPS. PGR devs did have to explain their choice as well.

Oh I'm not saying that sim racing games didn't have that same kind of attention. My point was that now every game gets that kind of attention.

Your right though, the PGR devs explained their choice. I can't remember how much online flack there was regarding that though, especially since PGR was clearly not a sim racing game. Still, the questions were asked even back then. I guess it turned out alright though, since the series was pretty popular.

[+Audioboxer Subscriber²]

I don't think it has as much to do with comparing between consoles. Ryse got plenty of flack for only running at 30fps. Heck, even infamous got flack for the same thing before it came out. I think its hard to say that the environment around games online is not different from what it was years ago, say at the start of last gen. There are many reasons that has happened.

You further illustrate my point with your last line. A game must justify itself if is not hitting 1080p or 60fps.

 

Oh I'm not saying that sim racing games didn't have that same kind of attention. My point was that now every game gets that kind of attention.

Your right though, the PGR devs explained their choice. I can't remember how much online flack there was regarding that though, especially since PGR was clearly not a sim racing game. Still, the questions were asked even back then. I guess it turned out alright though, since the series was pretty popular.

 

I didn't see much, 1080/30 was pretty much accepted right away for open world (AC4 was accepted at 1080/30 as well, it's fairly open world). Ryse mainly got a hard time as it was running at 900p (as for the framerate, it was more the fact it dipped to the low 20's that got people moaning). The biggest outcries though have definitely came from the multiplatform games, things like AC4, BF4, TR, Thief and Trials.

[trooper11]

I didn't see much, 1080/30 was pretty much accepted right away for open world (AC4 was accepted at 1080/30 as well, it's fairly open world). Ryse mainly got a hard time as it was running at 900p (as for the framerate, it was more the fact it dipped to the low 20's that got people moaning). The biggest outcries though have definitely came from the multiplatform games, things like AC4, BF4, TR, Thief and Trials.

Its cool if you didn't see much, but it was out there.

I'm not sure why its that weird to say that we as a gaming community are more aware of stuff like resolution/frame rate and focus much more on those things then in the past. I mean, its a natural result of being more exposed to this information thanks to online media,various forums, and social outlets like youtube that give people a chance to really delve into this stuff.

I'm not saying its necessarily bad (unless you become obsessed with it of course), just that its different from the past.

There is clearly an expectation among many gamers that the next gen consoles should be offering 1080p/60 minimums for all games and any games that do not hit that mark have to justify that. Justifying it can just mean putting a great game that people want to play, or maybe the developer tries to explain why they chose what they did (like in the case of DriveClub)

[George P Global Moderator]

Some games run just fine at 30fps, some need 60fps, it depends on the type of game and how fast it moves/plays.  AC plays slower, 30fps for that type of game is fine as well.  Something like a shooter though, specially on MP, would need higher framerates, so 60fps is the target.  Developers always take these things into account, it's a choice they make in the end for what they're going for.

 

As far as resolution goes, I could be wrong here but when it comes to huds and menus in a RPG and so on, those elements on the screen can have a different resolution to the rest of the game.  Your hud/menus can be 1080p while the rest of the screen is lower if it has to be.   The menus and hud is the last thing I worry about at this point.

[Houtei]

What I want to know is has anyone besides looking on a website at comparison videos, and besides comparing it to a 1000 dollar PC, really been offended or felt like they had a inferior game after they sat down and actually played a game for a few hours on either console? I have not.  I am very use to playing pc games at max settings but im also not a reswhore.  Really titanfall could look better on pc and XO but its perfectly acceptable looking to me and i have a lot fun on it.  I had fun with ryse and dead rising too.  On my ps4 for some reason i didnt like killzone and i have yet to finish it but I loved infamous and beat it after playing the crap out of it for 2 weeks and ff14 looked exactlly like my pc on max settings as far as i can tell and i played it on the ps3 which looked like crap when your used to the pc.  All of those games had moments where i was like man this does look a lot better than my 360/ps3 but none of them had any WOW that looked awesome!  Neither has the pc for me in a long time which is prolly why i just could care less as long as they take the time to make a fun game. 

 

My friend use to get so mad cause i didnt care for how crysis 1 looked but i agreed on a technical level it was up there but I still thought it looked like crap when it came to "style" which im more picky about.

[+Audioboxer Subscriber²]

So the Spiderman 2 game was released on XB1 after all. Looks like a POS though, doubt many will buy.

The Xbox One game has clear disadvantages against the PlayStation 4 release that we'll explore in a moment, but they're best described as annoyances as opposed to anything genuinely game-breaking.

The most immediately noticeable difference between the two platforms is the gamma level - it seems to be excessively skewed on Xbox One, resulting in clear black crush, especially impactful in night-time scenes, where PS4 resolves detail in a much more agreeable manner. Other differences are thin on the ground - there are some examples of textures shunted across and warped where they shouldn't be on Xbox One, and we also see a heavier/blurrier depth-of-field implementation, but these things aren't very noticeable and don't impact on the enjoyment of the game

While 1080p30 is the target, the PS4 release does the best job of sustaining that performance level. There are a few dropped frames, but virtually nothing impedes the flow of the gameplay. It's a different story on Xbox One, where we see the implementation of an adaptive v-sync - the game caps frame-rate at 30fps just like the PS4 version, but unlike the Sony platform, frame render time often slips over budget. At this point, the game flips the framebuffer as soon as the next image is ready, while the console scans out to the display, causing screen-tear.

On top of the crushed colour range, it's the tearing that's the key factor of differentiation between the Xbox One and PS4 versions of the game. It's a little annoying, manifesting mostly as a distracting wobble on-screen, making the experience less solid than the same title running on the Sony console.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2014-amazing-spider-man-2-performance-analysis

[vcfan]

I actualy bought this game. got to 30% and probably wont finish it. it really is a POS. it does tear, and the controls are complete garbage. there is also control lag sometimes when pressing many buttons during fights. I would advise anyone not to waste their money.

[McKay]

So the Spiderman 2 game was released on XB1 after all. Looks like a POS though, doubt many will buy.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2014-amazing-spider-man-2-performance-analysis

 

Looks like a POS on both platforms. I don't even think it looks any different to something we'd see running on last-gen hardware. Second Son put it to shame. Combined with some of the cheesiest voice actors I've ever heard in a game, and characters who barely resemble the actors I'd suspect most gamers would avoid it.

[BajiRav]

PGR was 30  :rofl: Definitely room for eyecandy in a game that isn't a full on simulator. On the other hand if GT suddenly decided to pull this it flat out wouldn't work.

 

Sony only have themselves to blame though for the tidal wave of Forza/Driveclub comparisons incoming. GT6 should have been PS4 launch with the usual cars look great, scenery pretty meh, with GT7 to hit ~2 years down the line. Internally they must have known Driveclub wasn't going to make the launch making the whole GT6 on PS3 even more stupid (voids any arguments of 2 racing games launching together on PS4/GT sinking Driveclub sales, etc).

PGR wasn't 1080p* either :rofl: so it will be ok if DriveClub decides to go sub1080p (or horizontally interlaced like KillZone).

 

 

*Don't know but just guessing here for argument's sake. :ninja:

[+Audioboxer Subscriber²]

PGR wasn't 1080p* either :rofl: so it will be ok if DriveClub decides to go sub1080p (or horizontally interlaced like KillZone).

*Don't know but just guessing here for argument's sake. :ninja:

You don't need to guess its been confirmed native

[theyarecomingforyou]

Looks like a POS on both platforms. I don't even think it looks any different to something we'd see running on last-gen hardware. Second Son put it to shame. Combined with some of the cheesiest voice actors I've ever heard in a game, and characters who barely resemble the actors I'd suspect most gamers would avoid it.

Yeah. It's clear that very little effort has been put into any platform - even the PC version is a disaster, as enabling vsync limits the game to 30fps. The only thing we can really take from it is that the PS4 version outperforms the XB1 version. In fact I don't think we've seen any game where the XB1 outperforms the PS4 version.

[compl3x]

Is it a game made because the movie just came out? Aren't they usually sub-par?

[George P Global Moderator]

Is it a game made because the movie just came out? Aren't they usually sub-par?

 

Yes, they all are, I don't know of one movie to game adaptation that's been good.  I felt this game was going to be terrible overall, it's got less to do with what system it runs on, it's just a bad game regardless.

[Ironman273]

From Penny Arcade:

 

[+Audioboxer Subscriber²]

The new COD's resolution on XB1 is going to be... 882p  :s 

 

We'll update should more media becoming available, but we'll go with a ballpark 1568x882 for now. The game gives the impression of a 900p title with post-process anti-aliasing, but the framebuffer appears to be slightly lower than that, representing a 50 per cent boost in overall resolution compared to Ghosts, but only 67 per cent of the pixel density of a full 1080p presentation. Bearing in mind that Xbox One optimisations tend to carry across to PS4 with its larger GPU and fully unified RAM, a native 1080p resolution for that version of the game isn't out of the question. However, we should remember that Advanced Warfare is still deep in development and could see substantial changes before it is released - though for a game like COD where a sustained 60fps is so important, we would hope for solid frame-rates taking priority over resolution increases.

 

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2014-resolution-boosted-for-call-of-duty-advanced-warfare-on-xbox-one

[Blackhearted]

Well, that's 162p more than i was expecting.

[spenser.d]

The new COD's resolution on XB1 is going to be... 882p  :s 

 

 

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2014-resolution-boosted-for-call-of-duty-advanced-warfare-on-xbox-one

 

Doesn't seem like a big deal given some of the rest of their impressions...

 

Of course, performance isn't related to just pixel-count alone. Based on an initial look at the trailer, what really catches the eye is the additional level of detail and effects work we see compared to Call of Duty: Ghosts. Bearing in mind the 60fps target - a core element of the COD proposition - what's pleasing to see is that the quality of the effects, such as the motion blur, also look reassuringly impressive, while lighting appears to be on another level compared to the previous game.

[George P Global Moderator]

So, developers second go around with the XB1 hardware gives us better visuals and also better performance, shock!   People have been saying this was going to happen in time, I bet the final version which is still months away will have a higher res.

[GotBored]

So, developers second go around with the XB1 hardware gives us better visuals and also better performance, shock!   People have been saying this was going to happen in time, I bet the final version which is still months away will have a higher res.

 

We can only hope! :)

[1337ish]

The new COD's resolution on XB1 is going to be... 882p  :s 

 

 

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2014-resolution-boosted-for-call-of-duty-advanced-warfare-on-xbox-one

 

Really??? you post res for a game out in 6 months time based on a video reveal, thats amazingly pointless.... so much could happen between then and now.

[+Audioboxer Subscriber²]

Really??? you post res for a game out in 6 months time based on a video reveal, thats amazingly pointless.... so much could happen between then and now.

 

So lets never report anything gaming related until release date because things can change?

 

Yeah, that's not how the internet works.