It's important when they can use it as a selling point and it's not important when they can't pull it off. Devs be so funny.
No One Really Cares About 1080p, Says Far Cry 4 Dev
- Thread starter Steven Bogos
- Start date
Recommended Videos
well if it quacks like a duck, swims like a duck and flies like a duck its very likely a duck.pilar said:
The mere fact that they locked FPS on a PC and then though that would be an actual test proves that they clearly are not fit to conduct tests.
You ask for games when you already gave an example - shadow of Mordor.
Heres some more.
Black Flag (AC4)
Battlefield 4
Titanfall
The Crew
As far as the case of The Evil Within goes. you can actually unlock the framerate and resolution on PC. ITs horribly optimized though.
Yes, i know how pathetic for a console it is to think it can work like a 760 when a 750 beats it easily.
Incorrect. Focal point is important, but so is everything else. This assumes that we see WHOLE SCREEN in our focal point, when that, as i said, is wrong. in fact if you take whole eye into perspective we can see over 500 megapixels in terms of resolution. taking 2% of our vision and assuming we see whole screen in those 2% is unfair. In reality our focal point shifts multiple times per second to different parts of the screen. It is actually medically unhealthy to use the computer in such a way that our focal point does not shift, because that strains your eye muscles beyond their normal use.Lightknight said:
1420p? thats an odd resolution. most are 1440p. where did you get that?Res Plus said:
I agree with him at least, I may be in a minority here, but as long as it runs at a consistent framerate, I honestly do not know how to emphasis how little I care about anything else outside the actual gameplay. If Far Cry 4 went back to the graphics level of the original Far Cry, I wouldn't care as long as it was still as fun as Far Cry.
Ugh. I wish console industry would just back the fuck off developers. Not anyone's fault they make sub-par systems. If anything, maybe they should pour more money into R&D and try to design cards that can actually run games at 60 fps and 1080p... Or maybe they shouldn't have gone with ATI graphics in the first place and just gone with nvidia.
I think it's more a problem with optimization than with the manufacturer of the Graphics, just look at games that came out at the beginning of last gen's iteration and games that came out at the end like GTA Vprpshrt said:
Either they can't figure out how to code for these new consoles or would rather not bother and just make maximum profit and terribly optimized games; I think we know the answer here.
In other news, I had a couple of friends over a month or two back, 2 console gamer's were among them. When I showed them BF4 and Titanfall running on my PC they both openly exclaimed how amazing the graphics looked.
When I first finished building this PC and ran warthunder at 120fps I could visually see the responsiveness, smoothness and other benefits. When tanks came out, still unoptimized, the game ran at 30fps and I struggled to drive the tanks due to the unresponsiveness provided by the fps benchmark, now that it's running at 60fps I'm able to properly play.
On resolution, the fact that its a struggle to see text and huds in games running at 720p on a 1080p 50" TV is one of the reasons why games NEED to run at 1080p; we're nearly a decade into having this resolution massively available and its been standard for quite some time.
Resolution only matters to focal point because it's your focal point that is able to resolve the pixels the best. If you can't resolve pixels with your focal point then you absolutely wouldn't be able to do so outside of your focal range whereas if you can't resolve pixles outside of your focal point you may still be able to do so with your focal point. Right now while you're looking at the screen, keep your focus on the screen but pay attention to the objects you see outside of the screen. Note that they're likely blurry or certainly not as a clear as where your eyes are focused on.Strazdas said:
So, focal point is the only relevant component to evaluate when addressing resolution. If your focal point is catered to, then everything else will work too. Again, as far as resolution is concerned.
I think some people in here got the right idea. It's not so much the fact that it is 720p/30frames that is the issue. It is more a problem of setting expectations. It's like telling a girl you got a 55 inch TV and then taking her home and all you got is a 32. Still more then big enough for a pleasant viewing experience, but that expectation is broken and will sour any experience with said device, game, etc.
I "kinda" agree with the guy on a very particular point, which I outlined in my original post. so I'll say it again here, because it's what's important to my opinion on the "issue".Bombiz said:
"is something fun/interesting/new/etc, ie enjoyable to play, mysterious to explore, or exhilarating to blow stuff up......if so, count me in and screw the resolution and the frame rate."
To summarize things further, I don't care about resolution and framerate. and I don't care about peoples opinions on the matter because it's their opinion. the argument of objectiveness vs subjectivness and whether people care or not can be shouted from the rooftops, but until it becomes something that actually affects me, my opinion and expectations will always ride on if the game is FUN. and you don't need pretty pictures to have fun.
While exact resolutions and FPS don't concern me so long as I have a consistent, smooth game play experience with a nice aesthetic, I see no real excuse for Next-Gen systems not doing 1080p. The Wii U does it happily, so why shouldn't XB1 and PS4?
Didn't think anyone would ever mention Black Flag and PC in a positive context as frame rate is the only real advantage over the consoles because you've still got to use Ubisoft's much beloved launch software Origin to play it.Strazdas said:
That's why most PC users will avoid that hassle altogether just to slip the disk into a console and play = +1 consoles
Battlefield 4 is indistinguishable between the Playstation & the $400 780 = +1 consoles
A 750 TI is more power than the Playstation; that is, if it ever gets optimized, or you'll have to lower the textures considerably to double the frame rate. Same for the 760; but you never even glanced at the article linked in the last post, so I wouldn't expect you to know this.
Reading = Knowledge
Thing is I don't think that the whole 1080p-60fps thing really is the important thing in gaming tech nowadays, I mean realistically speaking, aside from pixel density and image smoothing, that isn't what makes a game look good is it?
I mean in Halo CE:A, you can switch between the halo 4 graphics and the halo CE graphics at will... and they are both running at 1080-60, I mean that hasn't changed, but the quality of the graphics is markedly better in the halo 4 engine, no?
I think the 1080-60 thing has become a bit of a major buzzword in modern gaming, and I don't think it is good for gaming really, I mean Id rather games have the depth of Deus Ex (installing again) than the hd prettiness of BF4, and the idea that modern hardware can push THAT quality up, so we can get gaming of that depth with the fidelity of modern games, then I would be happy as can be, 1080-60 be damned
I mean in Halo CE:A, you can switch between the halo 4 graphics and the halo CE graphics at will... and they are both running at 1080-60, I mean that hasn't changed, but the quality of the graphics is markedly better in the halo 4 engine, no?
I think the 1080-60 thing has become a bit of a major buzzword in modern gaming, and I don't think it is good for gaming really, I mean Id rather games have the depth of Deus Ex (installing again) than the hd prettiness of BF4, and the idea that modern hardware can push THAT quality up, so we can get gaming of that depth with the fidelity of modern games, then I would be happy as can be, 1080-60 be damned
No.wildstyle96 said:
The difference here is that last generation consoles used unique hardware that was much different to code for. Now they use standard 86x architecture that has been around for over 2 decades. somone as multiplayform as Ubisoft definatelly knows the architecture. i can understand some small indie PS3 only dev knowing only cell architecture, but not Ubisoft.
Another fact is that they simply dont have raw power. You can optimize all you want, weak hardware is still weak. and tests show that Xbox GPU component is weaker than a 480GTX - a over 4 year old PC GPU.
Resolution would only matter in the focal point if focal point was covering whole screen at the same time. It is not unless you are VERY far away from the screen. when it is covering only part of the screen, resolution of that part of the screen is what matters. since focal point is less than 2% of all vision, and this chart was drawn based on assuming focal point is whole vision, this chart is wrong.Lightknight said:
The "blurry" effect outside of focal point often comes from our depth of field vision (we see in 3D) and not so much because of our eyes being blurry. since we are focused on a dot on a screen, other parts are unfocused and thus we cannot correctly have 2D vision. Its like if you look at a 3D movie without glasses - lack of eyes focus at these points. Now as i type that sentence my focal point is smaller than a single sentence on this screen. and yet it probably takes less than 5% of whole screen area. you see the problem with assuming focal point is on whole screen?
This is incorrect. Too often I hear people praise the Wii U by saying that it runs games at "1080p" while the other two consoles can't. This is NOT true. Nearly all games on the Wii U run at UPSCALED 1080p (fake 1080p). Do some research you'll see that only two AAA titles run at native 1080p (real 1080p). Those being WW HD and Rayman.WildFire15 said:
What resolutions are the games upscaled from? It's usually 720p, but can be as low as 600p. Fucking 600p!
You know what this means? There's more native 1080p games on the PS4 and Xbox One than there are on the Wii U. Much more, in fact.
Nintendo often distorting the truth about the technical aspects of their games. They like to lie about upscaled 1080p being the same as native 1080p.
Why is it whenever i see your post i want to laugh and leave it at that.pilar said:
You do not seem to even know the name of Ubisofts launch software - UPlay (Origin is from EA) and you claim to be knowledgable on thier games. While you may not have though of anyone mentioning Black Flag, it actually ran quite good on PC and was much more graphically impressive than console counterparts provided you had the hardwarare for better graphics.
then you go on to list FALSEHOODS as points for consoles.
A 750 TI is more powerful than PS4. You do not optimize hardware. they are as they are. you do not need to lower textures to get better performance. you may need to lower textures to get double performance than that of a console, but you are getting twice the performance of console so its not really something you want to dismiss. And yes, i did "glance" At the article, which is why i noticed their broken methodology that i pointed at.
Yes, reading is knowledge. Like, say, reading the name of distribution platform your criticizing....
Yes and no. No, pixel density does not make a game look good. it allows good looking game to look good. Resolution alone does not bring asthetics. but you cannot have same asthetics without the resolution. Its an enabler if you will.LGC Pominator said:
No, it doesn't. The areas outside of your focal point are blurry in real life too. The reason why there's a blur outside of the focal point is because we lose focus the further away we go from the focal point. That's literally why it's called the focal point. Because that's where you're focusing your sight and everything else is out of focus (aka, blurry).Strazdas said:
The focal point is the point that can resolve images the best. So... who gives a shit about everything outside of the focal point since if you succeed at catering to the focal point, everything else is as accommodated as it's going to get.
Again, here is how it goes:
1. If you can't resolve pixels with your focal point, you can't resolve pixels with non-focal vision.
2. If you can't resolve pixels with your non-focal vision, you may STILL be able to resolve pixels with your focal point.
So again, why do you think non-focal vision is relevant to this discussion? It's the only thing that matters when discussing the resolution of the screen. In what way do you think people would do anything differently to account for the parts of your vision that you're not focusing on?
Utter BS.Steven Bogos said:
I want to mention two things:
a) The average person isn't actually aware that a game runs at 1080p because the effectiveness of 1080p doesn't extend past GUI. Look at a 1080p JRPG or Visual Novel, where the 2D assets are 1080 pixels tall, and then go look at your average 3D game.
b) The average person doesn't get 1080p television broadcasts
So therefor the average person has unlikely experienced actual 1080p at all. When you play a game that is scaled to 1080p from some other resolution (eg a retro 320x240 pixel game) you are playing a scaled game with that aesthetic, not relying on the computer monitor to scale it with all the wonderfully awful fuzziness. The few people who have experienced 1080p on a console, are those who play 2D games, not 3D ones. PC players of course have been able to play 1080p versions of games that weren't 1080p on last generation consoles (and still aren't on todays consoles), but can you really say there is an improvement?
For the most part, there isn't, because the increased resolution doesn't come with any benefit to anything but the GUI without an increase in texture resolution, which is typically locked to 2Kx2K max (requiring 16MB of video memory per texture.) The average 3D model doesn't really improve with an increase in texture sizes without a corresponding increase in polygons. When you go from 240p to 480p to 720p to 1080p, there is no increase in polygons or texture sizes. In reverse it doesn't work either, you can't scale down a 1080p screen to 720, 480 or 240 and still have it playable as the GPU still had to render it at 1080p.
That is ultimately what I feel the developer is getting at, wrong headed as it is. The developers realize that most people have 1080p screens, but don't really see much difference beyond the 2D GUI elements. This is the fault of the developer developing the game's assets with that assumption. It would be SOO much more work to put realistic looking high-poly models in a game, but then you could only have 2 or 3 of them on screen, because as soon as that model is more than 10 virtual feet away, most of that detail isn't visible anyway and you have to switch to the low-poly model. Loading time is a problem for all games, so they just favor loading time and not have high poly models to begin with.
Your average game made in 2014 looks no different than a game made in 2006 because of this.
Exactly. It's not the consoles, it's the devs being inefficent as hell with their resources.devotedsniper said:
I think Ubisoft know exactly what they're doing here. By blurting out fucking retarded statements in rapid succession, it's easy clickbait on news sites and easy advertising for their upcoming games. Quite clever.
At least someone gets it!Darkbladex96 said:
No the consoles aren't groundbreaking technologically speaking but they do have tremendous amounts of power compared to the old consoles, it's just right now we're stuck in the usual phase of I'm going to chuck everything at this new beast and pray it copes when a new generation appears.
I'm just disappointed they can't even achieve 1080p at a playable 30+fps when me and other pc gamers are starting to consider 4k and 1440p resolutions as viable options.