By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Microsoft - DF: Alan Wake: the sub-HD debate

BioDomePoo said:
selnor said:
JaggedSac said:

The plot thickens guys.  Some people are seeing geometry at 640p and now 720p.  And they are claiming this isn't a bullshot:

 

Maybe because Alan Wake is the only Console game ever to have 4XMSAA it's confusing people with uber smooth edges. LOL.

This is just sick when people have to magnify things that we would never see with our eyes so much to prove a point that doesnt matter.When i look at alan wake it looks better to man than uncharted 2.Now if uncharted 2 was 1080p or whatever it wouldnt change its the graphics not just the resolution its everything thats going with the game.

I agree, I'm loving the way this game is looking.  Can't wait to get it.



Around the Network

Once upon a time, looking good was good enough.



d21lewis said:
Once upon a time, looking good was good enough.


I completely agree.  What's even worse, most of the people leaving negative comments about it not running at 720p wouldn't even know they were a  playing a game in a lesser resolution.  Thank you digital foundry for adding more fuel to the fanboy war.



Seece said:

I don't understand why it matters when the game looks amazing?

Because this is HD: strict adherence to specific arbitrary numbers means more than any actual perceivable difference.



Complexity is not depth. Machismo is not maturity. Obsession is not dedication. Tedium is not challenge. Support gaming: support the Wii.

Be the ultimate ninja! Play Billy Vs. SNAKEMAN today! Poisson Village welcomes new players.

What do I hate about modern gaming? I hate tedium replacing challenge, complexity replacing depth, and domination replacing entertainment. I hate the outsourcing of mechanics to physics textbooks, art direction to photocopiers, and story to cheap Hollywood screenwriters. I hate the confusion of obsession with dedication, style with substance, new with gimmicky, old with obsolete, new with evolutionary, and old with time-tested.
There is much to hate about modern gaming. That is why I support the Wii.

Technology improve and everything will gradually improve, good just isn't good enough. Either way, the game looks fine unless you're straining your eyes to see every small details.



Around the Network
d21lewis said:
Once upon a time, looking good was good enough.

Not anymore.  We have to figure out who's e-penis is bigger.

About 720p vs 540p vs 640p:  The 640p was for Halo 3.  Not sure how it got mixed up into the conversation at Beyond3D (I didn't check the whole thread).  I am quite certain that the original pixelcounters were right, and the game is rendering at 540p.

About 960x540 with 4xMSAA being equivalent to 3480x2160:  Just plain wrong.  Wrong in so many ways.  First off, assuming that it were supersampling, not multisampling, it would still just be the equivalent of 1920x1080, no AA.  And supersampling is considerably more taxing than multisampling.

For the people who think the graphics suck because it's low resolution:  There are tons of games with lower than HD resolutions, including every Call of Duty game, Ratchet and Clank, and GTA4 on the PS3.  I hope you weren't one of the ones who defended one of these games.  I will concede that 960x540 is one of the lowest, if not the lowest resolution "HD" game yet though (I think Star Ocean might have a lower resolution during battles).  Let's be honest, most of these people are probably PS3 fans.

For the ones who think that the graphics are great despite it's low resolution:  I hope you thought the same thing about GTA4 on the PS3.  Or any PS3 game that might come in the future with great post processing effects, but lower rendering resolutions.  Or Quincunx AA (prevalent on the PS3) which many people complain blurs an image (and I agree).  Because again, let's be honest, most of these people are probably XBox360 fans.

My final thoughts:  The game still looks great, but I'm disappointed by the lower resolution, and I'm 90% sure that I would have noticed.  It annoys me that so many PS3 games use QAA because it blurs the overall picture, and I'm pretty sure I would have noticed such a low resolution, no matter how much AA it uses (AA is never going to add detail to a texture rendered at low resolution).  I'm also 90% certain that Uncharted 2 will continue to be the best looking console game after Alan Wake releases, even if reviewers say otherwise.  I'll be very interested to see what Digital Foundry has to say about Alan Wake from a technical perspective after they get some time with the game.



selnor said:
Uh This thread needs locking.

Remedy have answered the debate head on with a clear answer now.

"The game is 720p. Those screenshots are based off footage captured at 960x540 like cocorenut pointed out, of course there will be some downsampling involved."




LOCK THREAD PLEASE!

So...just because Remedy gave a "clear" answer, it's all over now?

Ok...I guess since Santa Monica said it a while ago, GoW3 is 1080P and and locked at 60FPS

#sarcasm



Rendering at 960x540p + AAx4 means that the game is actually rendered at 3840x2160.

[With my Xbox360 developer's cap on]
Please Selnor, dont discuss things you know nothing about, Ive just listed a few games that render with 4xMSAA, even though you alan wake is the only game that does it.
And now the above incorrect statement.

1. What you're implying is bruteforce supersampling, where the whole image is rendered at a larger resolution and downsampled
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supersampling
alan wake uses MSAA, like most games
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multisample_anti-aliasing
The reason games use this instead of true supersampling is, its quicker it does look worse though

2. AAx4 equals 4x the samples for each final pixel.
960x540=518400 samples
3480x2160 =7516800 samples

That is 3480x2160 = 16x the number of samples that 960x540 has
[/With my Xbox360 developer's cap on]

Oh yes alan wake does look very good, one of the best looking games this generation



All bow to me the VGChartz current reigning 3DS prediction champion 

 Bet with tbone51: Pokeon X & pokemon Y will not sell more than 8 million in 2013

 jarrod said:The Xbox360 or ps3 will not sell more than 75million units

July 2009 daveJ saidTrue the wii has a large lead now but by 2017 the most likely result will be 1. ps3 2. xbox360 3. wii <-- wii's successor launched in 2011 effectively killing sales of the wii

 2009 daveJ said: The wii will not break the 50% marketshare barrier it will go below the 40% marketshare barrier though in the future. VGChartz members: Impossible, youre an idiot that knows nothing about sales

tjallern said:
disolitude said:
This is the best marketting strategy I've ever seen. Every nerd on the net is talking about it and Alan Wake is being discussed left right and center.

So... basically what you're saying is that when nearly ALL games (at least big releases) this gen has had this discussion, you haven't noticed. But now, when it's happening with Alan Wake it's the best marketing strategy you've ever seen? All right, I guess most publishers today are marketing geniuses then.

Yes. That is what im saying. Cause this is the first game ever where people can't seem to agree what resolution its running at...

Step 1: Remedy leaks out a downscaled video through a site

Step 2: Nerds at some site find out its 540p and report it

Step 3: Remedy states its 720p with a very confusing reply

Step 4: Nerds who don't understand REmedy's reply argue all over the internetz about its resolution

Step 5: Profit!



bobobologna said:
d21lewis said:
Once upon a time, looking good was good enough.

Not anymore.  We have to figure out who's e-penis is bigger.

About 720p vs 540p vs 640p:  The 640p was for Halo 3.  Not sure how it got mixed up into the conversation at Beyond3D (I didn't check the whole thread).  I am quite certain that the original pixelcounters were right, and the game is rendering at 540p.

About 960x540 with 4xMSAA being equivalent to 3480x2160:  Just plain wrong.  Wrong in so many ways.  First off, assuming that it were supersampling, not multisampling, it would still just be the equivalent of 1920x1080, no AA.  And supersampling is considerably more taxing than multisampling.

For the people who think the graphics suck because it's low resolution:  There are tons of games with lower than HD resolutions, including every Call of Duty game, Ratchet and Clank, and GTA4 on the PS3.  I hope you weren't one of the ones who defended one of these games.  I will concede that 960x540 is one of the lowest, if not the lowest resolution "HD" game yet though (I think Star Ocean might have a lower resolution during battles).  Let's be honest, most of these people are probably PS3 fans.

For the ones who think that the graphics are great despite it's low resolution:  I hope you thought the same thing about GTA4 on the PS3.  Or any PS3 game that might come in the future with great post processing effects, but lower rendering resolutions.  Or Quincunx AA (prevalent on the PS3) which many people complain blurs an image (and I agree).  Because again, let's be honest, most of these people are probably XBox360 fans.

My final thoughts:  The game still looks great, but I'm disappointed by the lower resolution, and I'm 90% sure that I would have noticed.  It annoys me that so many PS3 games use QAA because it blurs the overall picture, and I'm pretty sure I would have noticed such a low resolution, no matter how much AA it uses (AA is never going to add detail to a texture rendered at low resolution).  I'm also 90% certain that Uncharted 2 will continue to be the best looking console game after Alan Wake releases, even if reviewers say otherwise.  I'll be very interested to see what Digital Foundry has to say about Alan Wake from a technical perspective after they get some time with the game.

As we know from Remedy. Geometric resolution does not determine the resolution of textures. In fact there is 50+ parts of an image which all have varying resolutions in their native states.