No One Really Cares About 1080p, Says Far Cry 4 Dev

[junky66]

I don't know what he meant, but for a 15.6" screen size, 1080p resolution, given the screen is not rubbish (like in many cases), is noticeable
But it's not the only thing to look for, ofcourse and besides, all this graphics settings hype has really gone too far - what about the game itself? Digger is still better than many modern shooters.

 

[CrimsonBlack]

In his defense, I cannot tell the difference between 1080p and 720p. For whatever reason, I just cannot see it. Period.
There, Devil's Advocate played. Please resume your pointing out how this man is an idiot.

I agree. I also agree with the dev. I couldn't give two hoots if a game is HD or not. People are seriously getting their panties in a twist over (literally) technicalities.

 

[Vigormortis]

So let me get this straight:

The creative director for the current iteration of a game series whose primary selling point, since it's inception, has been it's graphical fidelity....is saying graphical fidelity isn't important?

Um...yeah. I have little faith in the "creativity" of a game if it's creative director is so monumentally and hypocritically stupid.

I'm loving that the crux of his argument is the demonstrably false claim, "Nobody cares about 1080p."

 

[OManoghue]

There was a time when all Devs talked about was how hardcore and sexy "NEXT GEN" was going to be, now that "NEXT GEN" is current gen, all they seem to talk about is how low rez low FPS games are the way we've wanted it the whole time.

1080p/60FPS was like, the coolest, most important shit on Earth to devs (especially Ubisoft) up until 6 months ago.

I think it matters a lot now that I have a 1080p screen for my PC, a couple months ago when my PC screen was 1680 x 1050 it was something I couldn't even understand, but running at 1920 x 1080 makes a huuuuge difference, textures and shadows and models all look way better and way more detailed with those extra pixels.

 

[SonofSpermcube]

5% care about 1080p, 5% just go and buy them or not buy them, and 90% don't understand why the edges of everything look so fuzzy on their new TV.

 

[loa]

Yes people clearly don't care about having media on their screens native resolution.
Why don't they just say they lower the resolution due to the platform they're working on instead of spewing this bullshit?
At least that would be honest, no one would rip their heads off due to the lower resolution and if anything they would garner some goodwill for not insulting their target audiences intelligence for once.
Or just shut up, don't say anything at all instead of this.

 

[gamegod25]

Yeah it does matter, because people like you for years kept telling us it did. And now you're saying it doesn't matter?

 

[Augustine]

I would say that I care very-very little about small refinements in visual fidelity (and I find them to be a rather lazy direction to progress the games in, mechanical, as opposed to creative work - instead give me amazing AI, interesting new genres, higher interactivity, depth, better plots etc.)

Having said that...
The statements is outright false, considering that "nobody cares" is a very grand and absolutist statement to make, and is easily disproved by polling first ten gamers you'd come across(remember, just having one who cares, makes the statement invalid).

 

[Elvis Starburst]

Maybe if you didn't make such a hardcore push for dem grephx this generation you might be able to say something smart for once. But, when your promise oversteps your capabilities, there's a bit of an issue. You all wanted this "new-gen" stuff now. You wanted it to happen and make us believe it could be done. But instead, you've made nothing but empty promises on capabilities (Watch Dogs anyone?) and you dun FUCKED IT UP. Now it's nothing but throwing things into reverse and backpedaling. Scared, Ubisoft? You should be.

If we didn't care, you'd think it wouldn't be so talked about. Throw those false statements all you like, Ubisoft. Can't wait to see what other crap you can come up with in 2015.

 

[bat32391]

Goddamn! How many more times is Ubisoft gonna keep digging selves deeper with stupid comments.

 

[Shingeki no Gingerbeard]

Optimization costs money, but the thing is its very much a logarythmic scale. most of optimization is relatively cheap to the rest of it. if they at least did the "fast and cheap part" and then stopped spouting bullshit every week they would be fine. oh and yeah im sure a game with 400 million budget cant spare that half a million for basic graphics optimization in ports.

Ubisoft is really not a company that has any right to claim they cant afford something. they cosntantly make many of most expensive games around. and do it worse than companies that make ghames for tenfold lower budgets.

Unless you work for the industry, or have access to financial data, you don't know how much anything costs. This includes both basic optimization and that ludicrous $400 million budget you pulled from some mule's rectum.

It does sound like, however, that you're of the mind a company should just spend money without any thought to cost-effectiveness. Businesses, under normal economic conditions, behave rationally. If it costs more money to optimize a port, then the port should cost more than the original. Imagine paying $60 for Sunset Overdrive on XBO, and $70 for a PS4 or PC port in another year or so.

What you, and most people here, are ignoring is it's perfectly legitimate for a company to want to standardize their game's experience across multiple platforms; especially if they rely on cross-platform sales and don't lock themselves into exclusivity deals. There's no sense in burning bridges by showing who's inferior to the competition. It's just bad business.

 

[Shingeki no Gingerbeard]

But both of these arguments/rebuttals pale in comparison to the underlying issue here: that you all are complaining about X developer not making games capable of running at Y resolution (and sometimes Z frame rate.)

In case you all forgot, developers don't make games for television sets or monitors; they make them for consoles. Perhaps your ire should be directed not at the hobby makers who find themselves forced to choose the "best" way to communicate their artistic vision, but at the console makers for not constructing hardware which can keep up with demands of the hobbyists who have been spoiled by a rapidly-progressing television industry driven moreso by film than video gaming.

They also make games for PC. Doesn't matter what their "intended audience" is. If they make a product that doesn't work as well as it should, especially since it's 60 bucks, I'm going to criticize them for it.

Whether or not a product works as well as it should is somewhat subjective. Like I've stated previously, it boils down to technical expectations vs the limitations of the creator's vision. The big reason why Assassin's Creed: Unity is running on only 30fps is because Ubisoft decided to recreate Paris in a 1:1 scale, as opposed to the more common 1:4 or 1:3. They're rendering hundreds, if not thousands of NPCs on screen at a time. The bulk of processing power is going towards generating atmosphere, and not how fast the game refreshes.

Is it going to result in a better game? Maybe, maybe not, but it's their artistic decision. If you're going to criticize a game, then it's all or nothing. Don't limit yourself to some technical aspects while ignoring others, or aesthetics.

 

[blackrave]

while uber-resolution and 60fps aren't THAT important on my list
(imo animations and detailed aesthetics are slightly more important)
Saying that no one cares about these things is exaggeration
At least I would like to play game at these settings if possible

 

[Mangue Surfer]

Seeing some developer's declaration lately, I'm 100% sure they think we are stupid kids or full retards. I'm mean, can't do it (for any reason), fine! But is really necessary give these idiotic explanations?

 

[Middle_Index]

Pixel games £15,£10,£5 £2.50 even 99p

AAA games £40,£50,£60 even £70 not to even talk about DLCs and season passes!!

i want Jim to do an emergency vid right now!!


they will eat their hats over 1080p to stay in the game they need every tool in the box. do they think they could get away with releasing games with old gen textures and saying "hey no ones sits that close to the screen to be able to make out every hi res pixel with the naked eye"

 

[Shamanic Rhythm]

What's this? A Far Cry dev saying HD resolution is not important?

I thought you were supposed to make a beeping noise when you back up.

 

[Silk_Sk]

People like pixel games so they don't care about 1080p? That's like saying people who enjoy black and white films don't care about color.

 

[devotedsniper]

the mistake in this is that you assume Ubisoft wants to write optimized code. they have demonstrated multiple times they have no intention in having thie games optimized. after all according to them you should just buy a better graphic card for badly optimized ports [http://www.videogamer.com/pc/assassins_creed_4_black_flag/news/ubisoft_provides_statement_on_ac4_pc_optimisation_proud_of_pc_version.html]

By that definition I need Titans in SLi as up until recently a 780 was one of the top dogs... which is probably true because Watch Dogs still ran terrible even after upgrading from my 660TI. Saying that though it's not just ubisoft, none of the big names seem capable of a simple 1080p standard which us pc gamers have taken for granted for years.

 

[Slegiar Dryke]

Again, I agree with you up to a point, but this obsession with graphics is something devs/publishers have pushed themselves. They've used uber-graphical dick waving as a selling point, and stoked up the faction who obsess about this kind of thing... and now are trying to backpedal when their not keeping up with the expectations they've created.

agreed as well on that clarification. It really is a problem of expectations built up over the years. Similar to how people expect increasingly huge gains in computer power from upgrading hardware, there's a growing disconnect between what systems "Should" be capable of, and what they manage to present, as a result I feel not just because of overblown dreams of the creators, but lack of quality of the underlying systems created to support that dream appearance.

An, er, less convoluted explanation of an example would be, you can have a semi-poorly coded website, that still manages to work and get the job done. but there will be a point throwing hardware at it won't help fix that it's poorly coded. Game companies have their heads too stuck into numbers and check-boxes to worry if everything fits together properly. although now I'm getting off topic, into why I think online updates ruined quality of code, so that's a topic for a different discussion.

suffice to summarize: Selling points, buzz words, overblown expectations, ending in angry customers. I may not care about the battle of resolutiongate/fpsgate/qualitygate/etc....but I do recognize the issues that led to all of them.

 

[NuclearKangaroo]

why must they keep trying to find excuses for their games not looking all that good on consoles?