"We did have 1080p, but we were finding it challenging to keep our frame-rate. Because Diablo's so much of an action game, we wanted to have a responsive feel - especially with four players. When you get four witch doctors in a room full of demons, that's probably the worst case scenario for us because we have effects going off everywhere. We want to make sure that it still feels very glassy, very responsive, and that's why we dropped resolution down on it," he explained.
"We did find it challenging early on to get it to 1080p. That's why we made the decision to drop to 900. That's what we demoed and were showing around E3 time. And Microsoft was just like, 'This is unacceptable. You need to figure out a way to get a better resolution.' So we worked with them directly, they gave us a code update to let us get to full 1080p."
---
All of which opens up an interesting debate on frame-rate versus pixel-count. Hight's comments at Gamescom last week, along with reports that Microsoft sent engineers to Bungie to aid in pushing Destiny to 1080p, suggest that the platform holder is keen on reducing resolution differences in multi-platform games where possible. But if frame-rate takes a hit as a consequence, is this necessarily the best course of action?
As we reported last week, Diablo 3 running at 900p on Xbox One may not boast the same, granular level of sharpness as its PS4 counterpart, but the difference is very subtle. It's a difficult one to call given that the patched Xbox One frame-rate dips don't make Diablo 3 any less enjoyable either. But for a game of Diablo 3's action-focused design - and having played both iterations - we would probably take the locked 60fps at 900p over the less consistent 1080p, given the choice."
