• 56 results
  • 1
  • 2
#1 Posted by Syed117 (391 posts) -

Turns out that people don't really care about games. They just care about what resolutions the games run at. True, there hasn't been a killer app on either machine yet, but it's sad to see the things people think they care about.

The all powerful PS4 with the ability to run every game at 1080p60 was the greatest thing ever. So if it turned out that maybe it wasn't running a game at that resolution or that framerate, would that game suddenly become worse?

I can't count how times I saw people praising Killzone shadowfall for running 1080p and looking so good. All the rabid Sony fans on these forums and others. Losing their minds about how 1080p is what makes a game. How amazing that Killzone multiplayer looks.

Turns out that the multiplayer for shadowfall runs at 960x1080.

People were apparently lied to and they believed it with all their heart. That's all it takes.

So what now? Does that game suddenly look like trash?

Just for reference.

960x1080 = 1,036,800 pixels - Killzone

1408x792 = 1,115,136 pixels - Titanfall

Titanfall pushes more pixels that the Killzone multiplayer. Yeah, call the a source engine game and whatever other bullshit you want, but it proves a simple point.

People don't really care about these things. They just think they do. It lets them sleep better at night if someone tells them that their black box is better than the other guys. No one is debating that the xbox one is the weaker machine. That's fine and everyone accepts it. Killzone was said to run at 1080 native for both single and multiplayer. That turned out to be a lie.

People just need to be told what they want to hear. The average person isn't sitting around counting pixels or lines of resolution. Games can look great at 720 scaled, just like they can at 900 or 960.

#2 Posted by BigJeffrey (5111 posts) -

No one notice cause no one was playing multiplayer

#3 Posted by cmblasko (1354 posts) -

I just really want them to shoot for 60 FPS.

#4 Edited by Syed117 (391 posts) -

@bigjeffrey: yeah, I think that games multiplayer is average at best, but it still looks good.

If you asked people a few days ago what they thought of the graphics in shadowfalls multiplayer, they would have gone on forever about how amazing native 1080p is. It just makes everything so much better.

Those same people scoff at anything but full HD images. They use their superhuman eyes to find little imperfections after zooming in a hundred times. Now it turns out that this fantastic looking PS4 launch game is crippled in the same way as all those xbox one games.

They were losing this minds because titanfall was running at such a low resolution. Scaled garbage!

#5 Edited by captain_clayman (3328 posts) -

960x1080? What the hell are you even talking about? That wouldn't even be a 16:9 aspect ratio

960p at 16:9 aspect ratio, I think would be 1706.66x960, which equals 1,638,400 pixels.

Edit: Can I get a source on that resolution?

#6 Edited by Syed117 (391 posts) -

@captain_clayman: there you go. Digital foundry should be credible enough for you.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2014-in-theory-1080p30-or-720p60

"In the single-player mode, the game runs at full 1080p with an unlocked frame-rate (though a 30fps cap has been introduced as an option in a recent patch), but it's a different story altogether with multiplayer. Here Guerrilla Games has opted for a 960x1080 framebuffer, in pursuit of a 60fps refresh. Across a range of clips, we see the game handing in a 50fps average on multiplayer. It makes a palpable difference, but it's probably not the sort of boost you might expect from halving fill-rate."

The point isn't that it's running at a random resolution. The point is that it is not running at 1920x1080. That's the magical number. It's not hitting that. It's being scaled and we all know when a game is scaled, it automatically becomes terrible.

#7 Posted by captain_clayman (3328 posts) -

@syed117 said:

@captain_clayman: there you go. Digital foundry should be credible enough for you.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2014-in-theory-1080p30-or-720p60

"In the single-player mode, the game runs at full 1080p with an unlocked frame-rate (though a 30fps cap has been introduced as an option in a recent patch), but it's a different story altogether with multiplayer. Here Guerrilla Games has opted for a 960x1080 framebuffer, in pursuit of a 60fps refresh. Across a range of clips, we see the game handing in a 50fps average on multiplayer. It makes a palpable difference, but it's probably not the sort of boost you might expect from halving fill-rate."

The point isn't that it's running at a random resolution. The point is that it is not running at 1920x1080. That's the the magical number. It's not hitting that. It's being scaled and we all know when you a game is scaled, it automatically becomes terrible.

That's such a bizarre resolution...it's definitely not 16:9 and it's not even 4:3. That's some bullshit, because multiplayer still couldn't even keep a solid 60fps, and it looks blurry as fuck. It was definitely noticeable to me, but I thought maybe it was due to a weird AA solution. There are plenty of people who talked about how the multiplayer looks significantly worse from the beginning. I think you're arguing against a strawman/the GAF hivemind that's such a small yet vocal minority of internet fanboys. For the record though, to me it's still very noticeable when a game isn't hitting 1080p. I won't write off a game entirely because of the resolution, but given the choice between 1080p and something lower, I'll choose 1080p.

#8 Edited by joshwent (2353 posts) -

@syed117 said:

All the rabid Sony fans on these forums and others. Losing their minds about how 1080p is what makes a game.

I could be wrong, but I've NEVER seen a thread on here about people refusing to play a game entirely because of its pixel count, or even trying to argue that 1080p is what makes a game. And these supposed "rabid Sony fans" just don't exist here.

What we do have for whatever reason, is people who start completely unprovoked defensive rage threads about why everyone else is wrong. You're fighting an imaginary fight. If you think Titanfall looks awesome, just enjoy it (like I'm sure millions of other folks will regardless of "p"s), and stop flame-baiting the angry voices in your head.

#9 Edited by Marcem (8 posts) -

960x1080? What the hell are you even talking about? That wouldn't even be a 16:9 aspect ratio

960p at 16:9 aspect ratio, I think would be 1706.66x960, which equals 1,638,400 pixels.

Edit: Can I get a source on that resolution?

As 960x1080 is exactly half of 1920x1080, I imagine they just double each horizontal line, basically like line doubling deinterlacing with 1080i.

#10 Posted by believer258 (12210 posts) -

*ahem*

1080p refers to the fact there are 1080 vertical pixels. Usually it's implied to mean 1920x1080, but it can mean anything x 1080. Most last gen console games followed the same principle.

Also, it's likely being upscaled from 960x1080 to 1920x1080.

At the end of the day, people like it when things look nice and run well. I want all of my games to run at 60fps, regardless of resolution.

#11 Posted by Tennmuerti (8174 posts) -
#12 Posted by StarFoxA (5165 posts) -

960x1080? That's extremely odd. I'm seeing some speculation on NeoGaf that the game is compositing by interlacing at 1920x1080, which still creates some blur and blend.

#13 Edited by SpaceInsomniac (3906 posts) -

@syed117:

Nobody cares. Nobody cares about 1080p, or 720p, or whatever. And if they do care, they shouldn't care. UNLESS we're talking about the same game.

Unless we're talking about one version of a game running at 720p, and another version on another platform running the exact same game at 1080p.

And if the 1080p version happens to be running on a console that costs $400, and the 720p version happens to be running on a console that costs $500, then people care. And they SHOULD care.

#14 Posted by Hippie_Genocide (736 posts) -

Set all those strawmen in your head ablaze, bro.

#15 Posted by TruthTellah (9481 posts) -

@joshwent said:

@syed117 said:

All the rabid Sony fans on these forums and others. Losing their minds about how 1080p is what makes a game.

I could be wrong, but I've NEVER seen a thread on here about people refusing to play a game entirely because of its pixel count, or even trying to argue that 1080p is what makes a game. And these supposed "rabid Sony fans" just don't exist here.

What we do have for whatever reason, is people who start completely unprovoked defensive rage threads about why everyone else is wrong. You're fighting an imaginary fight. If you think Titanfall looks awesome, just enjoy it (like I'm sure millions of other folks will regardless of "p"s), and stop flame-baiting the angry voices in your head.

Agreed. I don't think there are a lot of rabid Sony fans here at all. There are a few rabid anti-Microsoft and anti-Nintendo folks that are here and there, but I certainly wouldn't characterize them as rabid Sony fans. Passionately disliking things is far more common than being a devoted evangelist for them.

And you're quite right about defensive rage threads. We see a decent number of them, whether someone's angry that others don't like a game they like, angry that anyone might be bothered about how women are portrayed in games, etc. Enjoy what you enjoy and let others feel as they will.

#16 Posted by awesomeusername (4220 posts) -

All you ever do is fan the flames. Jesus. Drop this shit.

#17 Posted by Mirado (1057 posts) -

@truthtellah: I find it strange that we have so many people launching preemptive strikes on anyone and everyone, in an attempt to convince the masses of their point of view, rather than your typical reactionary thread. Both you and @joshwent mention this, but what the hell actually provokes those threads? Some have been surprisingly elaborate and resourceful, but still as unhinged as usual, if not even more dedicated to their particular brand of delusions.

Why, though? I'm not sure that any GB staff can really incite that kind of anger in people (I could be wrong, but I thought that the vast majority of people view them as super jaded?), and we don't have roving bands of fanboys, so what is it? Do they just need an outlet? They seem to spring up after a critical news post pops up somewhere, but why do they vent it all here, when the vast majority of people won't engage, and the ones that do are usually smart enough to tear them apart?

Seems far more suited to Gamefaqs, GAF, Gamespot, or IGN. I just don't know.

#18 Edited by Korwin (3039 posts) -

@syed117 said:

@captain_clayman: there you go. Digital foundry should be credible enough for you.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2014-in-theory-1080p30-or-720p60

"In the single-player mode, the game runs at full 1080p with an unlocked frame-rate (though a 30fps cap has been introduced as an option in a recent patch), but it's a different story altogether with multiplayer. Here Guerrilla Games has opted for a 960x1080 framebuffer, in pursuit of a 60fps refresh. Across a range of clips, we see the game handing in a 50fps average on multiplayer. It makes a palpable difference, but it's probably not the sort of boost you might expect from halving fill-rate."

The point isn't that it's running at a random resolution. The point is that it is not running at 1920x1080. That's the the magical number. It's not hitting that. It's being scaled and we all know when you a game is scaled, it automatically becomes terrible.

That's such a bizarre resolution...it's definitely not 16:9 and it's not even 4:3. That's some bullshit, because multiplayer still couldn't even keep a solid 60fps, and it looks blurry as fuck. It was definitely noticeable to me, but I thought maybe it was due to a weird AA solution. There are plenty of people who talked about how the multiplayer looks significantly worse from the beginning. I think you're arguing against a strawman/the GAF hivemind that's such a small yet vocal minority of internet fanboys. For the record though, to me it's still very noticeable when a game isn't hitting 1080p. I won't write off a game entirely because of the resolution, but given the choice between 1080p and something lower, I'll choose 1080p.

Gran Turismo 5 used a similar off beat rendering resolution, they essentially render the game "squished" then stretch it out to the proper aspect ratio using either a post process or the scaler.

#19 Edited by Sergio (2259 posts) -

I didn't know Killzone was on the Xbox One? Wait, it isn't? Well then, clearly Titanfall is on the PS4. Nope.

The comparisons people make regarding resolutions is regarding games that are on both consoles. Rabid Sony fans make more sense talking about the resolution of games (you know, on a console meant to play games) than rabid Microsoft fans playing up talking to their TV to change the channel.

#20 Posted by SSully (4334 posts) -

@syed117: Want to know how to best deal with this bullshit? Ignore it. Play the games you are interested in on the console that you prefer and just have fun. All this resolution/system war stuff has always been bullshit and always will be bullshit. It literally adds nothing to your experience of a video game, if anything it takes away from it.

#21 Posted by geirr (2716 posts) -

I just think it's sad that they didn't aim for, and provide, games in the resolution TVs incorporated 8 years ago. In the end though I don't care since I have a PC for fancy 1080p-and-beyond games and I'll probably get a PS4 eventually when it has enough appealing exclusives.

#22 Edited by pause422 (6249 posts) -

If anything it seems like you, the OP, are the one who seemed to come on here to "prove" something with a fanboy agenda. If that isn't the case then thats fine, but stating that isn't what you're doing and saying all "sony fanboys think 1080p wins everything on these forums" I don't think I've seen one other thread in particular where there was any group of people agreeing to such a thing.

Also stating such a thing is silly, everyone that knew so, knew KZ ran at 30 fps in SP and was gonna run in 60 in mp. They weren't gonna do that by changing virtually nothing, of course they had to make a sacrifice, its common sense.

#23 Posted by MOAB (429 posts) -

1440p erryday

#24 Posted by joshwent (2353 posts) -

@mirado said:

They seem to spring up after a critical news post pops up somewhere, but why do they vent it all here, when the vast majority of people won't engage, and the ones that do are usually smart enough to tear them apart?

When the only tool you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

(when you're fearfully defensive about something, even rational arguments are the enemy)

#25 Edited by SpaceInsomniac (3906 posts) -

@joshwent said:

@mirado said:

They seem to spring up after a critical news post pops up somewhere, but why do they vent it all here, when the vast majority of people won't engage, and the ones that do are usually smart enough to tear them apart?

When the only tool you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

(when you're fearfully defensive about something, even rational arguments are the enemy)

The really crazy thing is that this really is kind of big news, when presented properly. Sony either LIED or MISLEAD their customers--depending on how generous you want to be with the situation--by saying that their multiplayer is in 1080p. The truth is something like the game is running at 1080p, but with only half the pixels being drawn during each frame, and alternating which pixels while faking the rest of the image. The NeoGAF thread does a much better job of explaining the situation.

Bottom line, who cares if an exclusive game is 720p or 1080p? Sony misleading everyone precisely BECAUSE everyone is making such a big deal out of resolution is the interesting takeaway here.

#26 Edited by Jackentrote (43 posts) -

As much as I know about game settings and technology (not THAT much, but a lot), I don't think I'll ever have the patience or interest to understand this pixel bullshit.

#27 Posted by Darji (5293 posts) -

Normally people are talking about Multiplatform games which are different on one of these platforms. Like Metal Gear Solid Grouhnd Zeroes for example. For me the problem here would not be that it is not 1080P native but more the fact that Sony or Guerilla Games lied and advertised it with native 1080P

#28 Edited by MonkeyKing1969 (3050 posts) -

I read you title and though I knew where you were going, but this is really about Titanfall isn't it? Not about Sony or Shadow Fall or the resolution of that game; you just want Titanfall to get its due...well slow clap for you. Clap Clap Clap.

#29 Edited by Sooty (8082 posts) -

Shadow Fall looked pretty nice because of some good art direction and lighting, it did not have great texture work or anything and the lower resolution in multiplayer certainly didn't help that.

And the PC version of BF4 at 1920x1080 looks dramatically better than the PS4 version at 1600x900, the difference is massively noticeable as someone that has both versions.

Resolution counts, if I can tell the difference 6 feet away from a 42", it matters. Objects in the distance, particularly trees and foliage look a lot worse on the PS4 version of BF4 and there's an obvious lower resolution feel to it, for me. (obviously this isn't entirely fair, as the PC version has better visuals even if you take away the resolution difference)

#30 Posted by Seppli (10250 posts) -

You sound bitter.

#31 Posted by Video_Game_King (36272 posts) -

@cmblasko said:

I just really want them to shoot for 60 FPS.

It had to be a pun.

#32 Posted by LackingSaint (1856 posts) -

@syed117 said:

Turns out that people don't really care about games. They just care about what resolutions the games run at.

These two sentences let you know we're in for a clear-minded, fair argument.

#33 Posted by benspyda (2051 posts) -

A consistent framerate is the number 1 most important thing. Even constant 30fps is better than a 60fps that dips below 30fps. Resolution isn't that important but having played PC games at 1080p for a while, it is noticeable.

#34 Posted by cmblasko (1354 posts) -

@cmblasko said:

I just really want them to shoot for 60 FPS.

It had to be a pun.

...

Well, of course it was...

You don't just unintentionally string a sentence like that together... no, sir...

#35 Posted by iam3green (14390 posts) -

yep, just tell people how the game is going to be like. usually the games frame rate drops when there is a lot of things going on.

#36 Edited by Vladd (53 posts) -

@syed117:

You sound like someone who haven't experienced beyond 1080p or beyond 60FPS very much, For me 1080p has been a standard since around 2006 (not only in games).

I don't think it's only sony fanboys, I'm mainly a PC guy and this is the second generation during the HD generation where console gamers don't get 1080p on most games which I find ridiculous.

We are supposed to evolve technology, we are not supposed to hang on things like VHS and DVD quality.

The reason they don't go full 1080p on ex. Killzone is to fill it with other technical marvels, so it still looks new and HD, which people expect from a new console generation.

What you are talking about is idiots posting on the internet, and sites that feed these idiots with stupid articles to get more hits on their site, none of which will disappear anytime soon.
I suggest that you stay off the comment section of most gaming news sites and stay off most gaming news sites =).


PS: Killzone is a launch game, Titanfall is not.
Your post was not very objective thus hard to take your points very seriously.

#37 Posted by JasonR86 (9729 posts) -

Dumbing this all down to 'people don't care about games just resolutions' is silly. I don't even know what 'caring about games' entails. Isn't a part if caring about a gane enjoying the presentation and wouldn't resolution play a role in that?

#38 Posted by Demoskinos (15176 posts) -

This thread is funny.

Online
#39 Posted by Veektarius (5031 posts) -

From what I see, neither new console can handle high resolutions with a consistent framerate at this stage in the game.

#40 Edited by wewantsthering (1594 posts) -

Resolution isn't everything, but why would you pick a console that didn't when the other one does?... Resolution is still important. I'm as sick of people complaining about people complaining about resolution as you are about people complaining about resolution. lol

#41 Edited by HerbieBug (4208 posts) -

this your first new generation of console launches, threadstarter?

#42 Posted by big_jon (5789 posts) -

People are dumb! It's true!

#43 Posted by CABBAGES (541 posts) -

Killzone looks pants no matter what resolution.

But bf4 on ps4 supposedly runs at a higher res than xbox one but for me it runs terribly on the ps4 but great on the xbox one.

Is that because of the resolution ?

#44 Edited by TrafalgarLaw (1399 posts) -

Oh it's Syed again. No offense dude, but the sooner you accept the technical superiority of Playstation 4 over the unfortunate Xbox One that has met with a terrible 720p fate, the better. I'm not into System Wars as I used to, but I can tell this generation it's all about The Playstation™ Family. The XB1 is a nifty tertiary console to own, right after the Wii U, so you shouldn't have buyers remorse. I mean, you have seen Titanfall right?

I'm just poking fun. Syed, if it bothers you that much that others are bothered by XB1's performance/graphical fidelity, it means you let the internet get to you.

#45 Edited by kpaadet (413 posts) -

Actually many noticed that Killzone's MP looked blurrier than the SP, but most thought it was bad AA and didn't bother pixel counting because they were told by Sony it was 1080p. But hey keep fighting the good fight Syed, one day, they will all see the truth, and you can claim victorious.

#46 Posted by TrafalgarLaw (1399 posts) -

@kpaadet said:

Actually many noticed that Killzone's MP looked blurrier than the SP, but most thought it was bad AA and didn't bother pixel counting because they were told by Sony is was 1080p. But hey keep fighting the good fight Syed, one day, they will all see the truth, and you can claim victorious.

But really...does it matter? It's still Killzone...no amount of pixels can change that...

#47 Posted by EXTomar (4951 posts) -

I can't believe someone is so obsessed they've convinced themselves people are praising how Killzone looks while shunning TitanFall (a game that isn't even out yet!). No one is holding up Killzone as a tech paragon except in someone's mind who feels persecuted. :-/

#48 Posted by kpaadet (413 posts) -

@trafalgarlaw: I kinda care about Sony lying about the resolution, do I care about KZ? Nah, hopefully it gets a very long break now.

#49 Posted by TrafalgarLaw (1399 posts) -

@kpaadet said:

@trafalgarlaw: I kinda care about Sony lying about the resolution, do I care about KZ? Nah, hopefully it gets a very long break now.

Did you buy KZ on the promise of 1080p in MP?

#50 Posted by McShank (1630 posts) -

I play games on the 3ds.. what resolution is that? If its not fucking 1080 I am going to shit a brick..... Who cares if my ps2 has games with an awesome story and gameplay but looks like some 5year old drew everything.. Why does my ps3 play ps1 games in their native resolution of 1080 x Mud rubbed across screen with finger people drawn on it. I buy games for the awesome story and sometimes looks.. I could care less if all my games for the next year or 2 were only 720.. I have a PC for HD Porn for my HD needs.. who cares about HD games -.-

Online