Rage 2 won't have 4k on enhanced consoles, does that matter to you?

Avatar image for ntm
#1 Posted by NTM (11746 posts) -

It's only settling for 1080p for the Xbox One X and PS4 Pro; the difference comes in the form of frame rate, where the base consoles will only be 30fps, the X and Pro will target 60fps. I love 60fps, it'd be great if every game had that frame rate, but I can totally settle for 30fps if it targets 4k on the enhanced consoles. I get many people prefer frame rate over resolution, but to me, I'll often take a 4k resolution with a steady 30fps over a lower resolution with a 60fps. What do you guys think? I should be clearer though, base Xbox One is 900p, while base PS4 is 1080p for those interested in knowing. I'll probably be getting the game on the X. Even though 1080p doesn't necessarily mean I'll find the game ugly, I am still disappointed.

I guess this is a conversation that spans every game, but it's a discussion that's been brought up before, so what are your thoughts when it comes to this game specifically? Do you wish you had a choice to choose between 4k/30fps or 1080p/60fps? Does it even matter to you (some may not even be playing it on an enhanced console, while others may just get it on PC)? Oh, you know, I guess I just assumed I'd probably get it, but to be totally honest I don't even know if I am. The game is supposed to be fast-paced, so while 60fps makes total sense, I still would have loved to see the option for 4k/30fps, or even a dynamic resolution that targets 60fps like Doom and Wolfenstein.

Avatar image for darkvare
#2 Posted by darkvare (1027 posts) -

i always preffer fps to image quality honestly

Avatar image for hayt
#3 Edited by Hayt (1671 posts) -

This is definitely a snobbish thing to say but being picky about this sort of thing and playing a game on consoles has been incompatible forever.

Don't get me wrong. I own a ps4 pro and play plenty on it but I don't mind that Sekiro has an uneven framerate or any other deficiencies because that's just how it goes on consoles.

Avatar image for shivermetimbers
#4 Posted by shivermetimbers (1706 posts) -

1080p 60fps should've been what this console generation targeted all along, so this is great news. Making games work at 4k is okay I guess, I can see it sucking if you invested all that money into it, but a 400 buck machine isn't gonna be that great at outputting at 4k, especially an open world game.

Avatar image for glots
#5 Posted by glots (4292 posts) -

I’m okay with this, since like you said, the game seems fast-paced and probably benefits from 60FPS.

Avatar image for ntm
#6 Posted by NTM (11746 posts) -

@darkvare: I just need a steady 30fps. After that, make the game as pretty/clean as possible, taking into consideration the system it's on. While not always a game breaker, I generally just don't want unsteady frame rates where it jumps from 30 to 60fps, or the frame time being messed up. I do prefer a cleaner image. It's the same reason why I'd now rather buy a 4k Blu-ray over watching a VHS tape if you will or normal DVD.

It's not really about frame rate just as long as the frame rate is steady. Having a cleaner image can actually, in my experience, show you things you may have not even noticed was there originally. It has happened several times recently, with games like Splinter Cell: Double Agent that became enhanced, or The Last of Us Remastered in 4k.

@shivermetimbers: I don't know, I think RDR2 is one of the best looking games out there, and on the X it's 4k. I am not so sure that it's entirely about the fact I bought a 4k TV, but yes, if I still only had a 1080p TV, this wouldn't be an issue for me because I'd be getting a native resolution for that screen with the plus of a 60fps.

@hayt: I guess I just want to know whether they were able to put in a 4k mode because, to me, it's not clear. It feels like they chose one and, even if the console could do it, they didn't want to implement the other option because they decided that 60fps is all that's needed for everyone to enjoy the game. If it is the case that they just couldn't manage a 4k resolution, I am kind of curious how high the resolution could go if they had put in a 30fps cap. Many games do give the option.

I find 4k a standard now, and I think many games on current-gen enhanced consoles have done a pretty good job at being 4k, even if it means dynamic or checkerboard, or simply close but not quite 4k. Also, I get the sentiment about jumping to PC if what one cares about are high frame rates and resolutions, but still. And I totally understand that if you're playing on consoles you have to take what you can get, but that still doesn't speak to this game specifically, as I find it hard to believe that they couldn't manage something higher than 1080p for those wanting it.

Avatar image for arbitrarywater
#7 Posted by ArbitraryWater (15697 posts) -

If I'm forced to make any sort of trade-off between resolution and frame rate, I'm always going to go for the higher frame rate unless it's super inconsistent. I think frames per second tend to have a much more significant effect on my experience than higher fidelity, especially for a shooter like Rage 2.

I guess I'm also slightly surprised Rage 2 isn't doing any of the dynamic resolution scaling that Doom 2016 made use of. Then again, given that Rage has a bunch of big open environments instead of far more contained combat arenas, I wouldn't be surprised if that just wasn't viable on the base consoles.

Avatar image for savage
#8 Posted by Savage (782 posts) -

@arbitrarywater: Rage 2 is running on Avalanche's proprietary Apex engine, not idTech, so that's likely a major reason why it doesn't have Doom's resolution scaling.

Avatar image for fauxical
#9 Edited by fauxical (67 posts) -

Without being too harsh, I am sure that fans of the original who actually played it probably won't care and again I didn't think visuals would be a huge factor here. I remember the first promoting ID's new tech (it did look good) but I didn't like the game despite my best trying to like it.

Avatar image for ntm
#10 Edited by NTM (11746 posts) -

@fauxical: Well, Rage on 360 was fine for a 360 title (from what I understand, it had issues when it came to PC though). The game used a dynamic resolution up to 720p which is mainly what people used at the time, and the frame rate targetted 60fps. So, by comparison, Rage on the 360 would have to had been a locked 640 x 360 with a locked(?) 60fps to be similar to this. We still don't know how the 60fps will hold on the X and Pro.

Avatar image for soulcake
#11 Edited by soulcake (2749 posts) -

Nope most of the 4k on console is interlaced or up scaled anyway. As long as it's supports MEGA textures i am okay with it :p. Wait it's running on the Apex engine! (flips the table!).

Avatar image for reap3r160
#12 Edited by reap3r160 (240 posts) -

Considering I can barely tell the difference between 4k and 1080(played God of War on 60fps mode and it looked almost identical imo) I wouldn't have it any other way.

My hope for next gen is to target 1440 60 on all games over 4k, with an option for 4k 30. Basically moving the 1080 option to 1440.

Personally I think HDR does more for image than resolution could ever do, but maybe my eyes are just garbage hahaha.

Avatar image for justin258
#13 Edited by Justin258 (15643 posts) -

From gameplay footage I've seen of this game, 60FPS seems to be a thing that will improve the experience way more than 4K resolutions.

...but also, I have a pretty good PC and will not be playing this on console. If I were still primarily a console guy, I can tell you that I would be thrilled about this. High framerates are a primary reason for sticking with PC for me, and I went for a 1440p monitor over a 4k one partially for that reason.

Avatar image for quipido
#14 Posted by Quipido (1562 posts) -

I also do own a 4k TV but prefer the framerate (with HDR), so I’m good with this. I hope they’ll hit the steady 60fps! I think the developer should consider what is best for their game, even though more options is always better, ultimately it’s their project and their decision. I would not demand games running in 30fps/4k to run in 60fps/1080p, even though I would prefer this to be an option in every game, I trust each developer tests their game in variety of settings and decides what is best, to offer in the final product.

That said I’m ready for the new consoles.

Avatar image for nutter
#15 Posted by nutter (2110 posts) -

I have to see it to know. Every game is different. Frame rate maters more for some games, resolution for others.

I prefer a lush color palette and good sense of art above anything so technical, but I usually choose resolution and graphics effects over frame rate.

So yeah, reading this left me a little cooler on Rage 2. Maybe it’s the right choice for the game, though...

Avatar image for nutter
#16 Posted by nutter (2110 posts) -

@reap3r160: I had Lasik this year and I’m EASILY 20/15 (they didn’t have a 20/10 test, but I’m super curious to see how my eyes would do).

I’m with you on HDR. Color is WAY more important to me than frame-rate or resolution. Rich colors, minimal banding, inky blacks, and blinding whites do wonders for me. Resolution and frame-rate are nice, but HDR excites me more.

Avatar image for humanity
#17 Posted by Humanity (18716 posts) -

Really depends how good the framerate will turn out to actually be. Aiming for 60 is not the same thing as locked 60 FPS. From everything I've seen of Rage 2 it looks like you want as smooth an experience as possible considering how frantic the combat seems and how mobile you are.

As someone that recently purchased a nice 4K OLED tv I'm also 100% in the framerate camp. I play Horizon 4 in framerate mode and if Sekiro allowed it I would play that in a "performance" mode as well. HDR is ok but I can live without it to be honest. That said this might be one of those games I just buy on PC instead. 99% of the time I'm absolutely fine with shooters on a pad, but Doom was that one exception where I thought a mouse is the better option and after playing it it's also one of the few games where I think it does make a huge difference. Rage seems to be using a lot of the same gameplay tricks

Avatar image for someoneproud
#18 Posted by someoneproud (561 posts) -

Nah I don't give a shit, fuck 4k. I sit pretty close to a big TV when gaming and I can barely notice the difference. GIMME DEM FRAMES!1!

Avatar image for notnert427
#19 Posted by notnert427 (2203 posts) -

4K isn't that big of a deal. It's nice when it's there, but I'm way more impressed when a game has good HDR. I'd happily take 1440 or even 1080 if it meant well-optimized HDR. However, that's usually not the trade-off; it's usually 60ish frame rate or 4K. I'm not as sensitive to framerate as most seem to be. As long as it's 30+ and stable, I'm fine with it.

Just give me proper HDR.

Avatar image for pudge
#20 Posted by Pudge (1263 posts) -

I would take 720p 60FPS over 4K.

Avatar image for frytup
#21 Edited by frytup (1287 posts) -

I totally missed they're making a Rage 2. Didn't the first one flop hard?

In any case, I don't think you'll find many shooter fans who would want true 4K over 60fps. 1080p or checkerboarding works fine for that type of game.

Avatar image for cmblasko
#22 Posted by cmblasko (2931 posts) -

4k sucks, 1080p for life.

Avatar image for boozak
#23 Posted by BoOzak (2570 posts) -
@pudge said:

I would take 720p 60FPS over 4K.

Yeah, me too.

It would be nice to have the option though.

Avatar image for ntm
#24 Posted by NTM (11746 posts) -

If 1080p screens could do what 4k did (like HDR, deeper blacks, etc.) then I would not have gotten 4k. To me, it's not really about the 'prettiness' of a 4k, it's simply that I would like games to match the resolution of my screen. I'm not sure how Rage 2 will turn out, but I don't think blurriness is ideal. I like getting all the detail I can; frame rate is great, but again, a steady 30fps is just fine by me if that's the cost for clarity. Some games are definitely better at masking their lower resolution than others, so hopefully, Rage 2 does this well. It's not a huge issue that it makes me mad or anything, I'm just a little disappointed that there is no choice. That said, I'm also used to games that push 60fps and settle at 1080p to not actually hit 60fps all the time, so hopefully, Rage 2 will have a steady 60fps.

Avatar image for oursin_360
#25 Posted by OurSin_360 (6156 posts) -

That's what i would want! Especially for a twitch based type game, fps is king IMO. That said, putting in a 1400p or 4k checkerboard at 30fps would be cool for those who want it. But maybe they can't maintain 30 at those resolutions and keep graphical settings?

Avatar image for humanity
#26 Posted by Humanity (18716 posts) -

4K isn't that big of a deal. It's nice when it's there, but I'm way more impressed when a game has good HDR. I'd happily take 1440 or even 1080 if it meant well-optimized HDR. However, that's usually not the trade-off; it's usually 60ish frame rate or 4K. I'm not as sensitive to framerate as most seem to be. As long as it's 30+ and stable, I'm fine with it.

Just give me proper HDR.

I'm actually surprised to hear this. I think resolution is something very definite. The moment you see a game in 4K it's very evident that everything is much sharper. In contrast I think HDR is a lot more difficult to pull off. Since buying my new LG OLED TV I have been playing various games trying to see good HDR and I honestly haven't seen anything mind blowing yet. I DO see resolution differences though and can appreciate a sharp looking game much easier than trying to decipher if a games HDR is working or not.

Avatar image for reap3r160
#27 Posted by reap3r160 (240 posts) -

@humanity said:
@notnert427 said:

4K isn't that big of a deal. It's nice when it's there, but I'm way more impressed when a game has good HDR. I'd happily take 1440 or even 1080 if it meant well-optimized HDR. However, that's usually not the trade-off; it's usually 60ish frame rate or 4K. I'm not as sensitive to framerate as most seem to be. As long as it's 30+ and stable, I'm fine with it.

Just give me proper HDR.

I'm actually surprised to hear this. I think resolution is something very definite. The moment you see a game in 4K it's very evident that everything is much sharper. In contrast I think HDR is a lot more difficult to pull off. Since buying my new LG OLED TV I have been playing various games trying to see good HDR and I honestly haven't seen anything mind blowing yet. I DO see resolution differences though and can appreciate a sharp looking game much easier than trying to decipher if a games HDR is working or not.

I mentioned this earlier, but I have not great eyesight(no idea on ratios but I have fairly hefty perscription) and I can tell LITTLE difference between 4k and 1080. God of War looked virtually the same to me regardless of mode, so I naturally went for frame rate.

It's interesting to hear you haven't seen much HDR difference. I have a friend who is in the same boat. Honestly, I think it would do well for the tech industry as a whole to conduct some studies and see why there is such a discrepancy between what people can and can't see.

Avatar image for humanity
#28 Posted by Humanity (18716 posts) -

@reap3r160: The best way for me to see the difference has been taking screenshots and on XB1X you can then toggle between the SDR version of the screenshot and the HDR version. Honestly most of the time it has just been deeper, darker shadows, but nothing that I would say looked significantly "better" so to speak. In Sekiro for instance there have been some screens where I actually though the non-HDR shots looked better because they had more detail visible while the HDR version would have these entire areas very dark - more realistic I suppose, but artistically less interesting.

Then again maybe it is something to do with eyesight. I don't think I see 3D all that great because every time I've went to the cinema and watched 3D movies it has never looked all that great. Like IMAX made for 3D films such as Avatar. So maybe I'm just not seeing it correctly or something. Back in the day leaps in graphical fidelity have been substantial. When 3DFX cards came out for PC you could see a huge change, but in the early days it wasn't always for the better. Some things had more edge, more character, when you could see the pixels as compared to the smoothed out signature 3DFX look. So possibly HDR is in that phase right now, where at times it looks good but other times it's not being used to it's fullest potential and having it off will make things look better. Of course then there are games where the HDR just doesn't work right like apparently Red Dead 2.

Avatar image for reap3r160
#29 Posted by reap3r160 (240 posts) -

@humanity said:

I actually though the non-HDR shots looked better because they had more detail visible while the HDR version would have these entire areas very dark - more realistic I suppose, but artistically less interesting.

And that's sort of the division between HDR and SDR folks. HDR IS all about deeper contrasts and richer colors. Similar with OLED vs LED, in a game with HDR areas that should be "black" should basically look like dead pixels, like the TV is off. The love of this varies from person to person, for instance I wouldn't want this in something like counter-strike where being able to see is inherent to playing well, but in story driven games I love it.

And yes, as shown by RDR(though it seemed fine to me, but again, bad eyes lol) HDR isn't perfect just yet either. Honestly I think we are in the midst of a transition period in terms of tech, it's good but it's not really getting better.

Avatar image for humanity
#30 Posted by Humanity (18716 posts) -

@reap3r160: I have seen this effect once with Mass Effect Andromeda which has HDR. There was a cave and from a distance it was just this black void. When I drive up and into it and had my lights on it finally became easier to see inside. It was a neat effect I guess but as far as gameplay I dunno.. perhaps I would have preferred a faked bake in darkness instead of just not being able to see at all.

Avatar image for pappafost
#31 Edited by pappafost (228 posts) -

Sony's marketing (and perhaps Microsoft's too) always runs ahead of what it can pull off. Perhaps the TV division gently suggests it? PS3 claimed 1080p gaming. It was a 720p/30 box. PS4 Pro claims 4K gaming. It's almost a 4K/30 box. Hopefully the PS5 will be a solid 4K/60 box. In the PS5 interview, Cerny had the gall to drop the word "8K". Make sure you can actually do 4K before you utter the word "8K"! I don't care what you can render your menus at. What do the games output at? My 2011 Macbook can output a 4K desktop resolution. That doesn't mean it's a 4K gaming machine, LOL.

Avatar image for notnert427
#32 Edited by notnert427 (2203 posts) -

@humanity said:
@notnert427 said:

4K isn't that big of a deal. It's nice when it's there, but I'm way more impressed when a game has good HDR. I'd happily take 1440 or even 1080 if it meant well-optimized HDR. However, that's usually not the trade-off; it's usually 60ish frame rate or 4K. I'm not as sensitive to framerate as most seem to be. As long as it's 30+ and stable, I'm fine with it.

Just give me proper HDR.

I'm actually surprised to hear this. I think resolution is something very definite. The moment you see a game in 4K it's very evident that everything is much sharper. In contrast I think HDR is a lot more difficult to pull off. Since buying my new LG OLED TV I have been playing various games trying to see good HDR and I honestly haven't seen anything mind blowing yet. I DO see resolution differences though and can appreciate a sharp looking game much easier than trying to decipher if a games HDR is working or not.

4K is noticeable, but only on specific objects. I actually chose to run Forza Horizon 4 in 4K on the One X and am fine with the 30ish FPS (which I realize is not a choice most people make), largely because thin tree limbs and such do benefit from the higher resolution. Moreover, that game is a visual treat with excellent HDR, so I want it looking as good as it can. Other fine examples of 4K HDR are Battlefield V and the HITMAN games.

Some of the LG OLEDs like the B8 actually don't have great peak HDR brightness, so that could be a slight factor, but I think @reap3r160 is correct in pointing out that different people's eyes probably process things differently. FWIW, my vision is naturally kinda bad, though corrected down to 20/20 with contacts. I'd be interested to see studies done on this as well, because good/bad HDR is super-evident to me. I could absolutely buy that some people's eyes are more receptive to brightness/darkness and others are more attuned to fidelity/detail.

Avatar image for giantrobot24
#33 Posted by GiantRobot24 (74 posts) -

All about dem frames

Avatar image for pweidman
#34 Posted by pweidman (2851 posts) -

It should be an option for sure, so it does matter to me. I have games that run and look great at 4K already, and I love the visual upgrades on my 4K TV. It's a new standard and I expect it in games I'll buy on release at full price at least. Also not having a 4K option seems like a corner cut, and/or budget decision. Their prerogative obviously, but it definitely affects my buying decision for new full price releases.

Avatar image for ntm
#35 Posted by NTM (11746 posts) -

@humanity: That's what HDR is, darker darks, brighter brights, and more accurate colors. I think it's really up to your expectations of what HDR was supposed to be. I agree that it's not, in and of itself breathtaking, but it does make gorgeous looking games look slightly better and I much prefer HDR. You're right that not all games implement it well though (or at all even when it says it has it). Not only that but sometimes it's hard to properly set it up. As an example, I am currently playing Far Cry New Dawn and to get the more accurate image I find, you have to turn HDR off on the Xbox One X first, start the game and go into the options menu to calibrate the brightness image until you barely see it, quit the game and turn HDR back on by console, start the game again and then fiddle with the 'paper white'. It's not likely many people would even consider going through that process, and in some games, it's ideal not even to go through it.

This edit will also create new pages on Giant Bomb for:

Beware, you are proposing to add brand new pages to the wiki along with your edits. Make sure this is what you intended. This will likely increase the time it takes for your changes to go live.

Comment and Save

Until you earn 1000 points all your submissions need to be vetted by other Giant Bomb users. This process takes no more than a few hours and we'll send you an email once approved.