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

Forums - Gaming - Watch Dogs & The Witcher 3: Resolutions On Xbox One vs PS4 Leaked: "900p vs 1080p & 720p vs 900p (Confident on 1080p PS4)

Xenostar on 18 February 2014
Mr Puggsly said:
Xenostar said:

Still better than having last gen res and last gen frame rate.

"These games don't run as smooth as I wanted, but its sharp!"

Yeah, I'd rather we see much less 1080p and more 60 fps. Since both machines are disappointing me technically, I'm just setting with enjoying the games.


Yep surely something is better than nothing. 

But i dont believe all games need to be 60fps, just fast paced ones. i was amazed Hideo went with 60 frames on XOne rather than 1080p, its a stealth game not a twitch shooter. Think it would of benefited alot more from a higher detail and emmersive game world than the fast frame rate. That said i havent played it so maybe it is a twitch shooter, its what everything else seems to turn into these days. 



Around the Network
globalisateur on 18 February 2014
SvennoJ said:
Kyuu said:
curl-6 said:
Kyuu said:
curl-6 said:
So, if this guy can be trusted, (I'm taking it with a huge grain of salt) Witcher 3 will join Battlefield in the "sub-1080p PS4 games" club?


I wish all PS4 games will be sub-1080p. Because the console doesn't have enough horsepower to impress me at this resolution.

I'd take better materials and effects at 900p over worse ones at 1080p any day of the week.


Exactly. Unfortunately the resolution hype will encourage developers taking the wrong approach. It's a win-win situation for them. Easier to develop yet its what the ignorant average gamer wants. An average gamer will brag about his game running at higher res/framerate yet little does he know that as a result, the actual material is largely unchanged from last gen games.

Last gen the story was that graphics were good enough already, new gen wasnt really needed but stable framerate, better resolution, improved draw distance, lighting and shadows were welcome.

Sub 1080p games don't impress anymore, you can add all the materials and effects you want, but what's the point if you compromise all of it afterwards with upscaling blur. Sure it looks better in downsized screenshots and you tube videos, not so great on a large 1080p display. There's plenty power to run 1080p and improved geometry and materials. Or do you honestly think Infamous SS doesn't look impressive? And it's still a launch window title.

I rather have they stick to 30fps and remove worthless effects like dof and motion blur than compromise native display resolution. If you build a highly detailed world, then first priority should be to make it possible to see it clearly.


Exactly. What's the point of a few polygon, effects or shaders when those are completely blurred (along with 100% of the assets) by the upscaling?

It would be great if we had 900p monitors and if the console could output 900p. Maybe devkits can output 900p so the devs themselves play the game in great conditions?

BF4 on PC looks better at native 1080p with less effects than at 900p upscaled.

Native 1080p resolution >> uselessly blurry shaders/polygon/effects.

Ask PC gamers what they prefer, most will tell you that they begin to set their games at a native resolution then remove/add details/aa/effects. Never the contrary.



mutantsushi on 18 February 2014
Kyuu said:
curl-6 said:

I'd take better materials and effects at 900p over worse ones at 1080p any day of the week.


Exactly. Unfortunately the resolution hype will encourage developers taking the wrong approach. It's a win-win situation for them. Easier to develop yet its what the ignorant average gamer wants. An average gamer will brag about his game running at higher res/framerate yet little does he know that as a result, the actual material is largely unchanged from last gen games.

It's also the cross platform reality, the same basic game architecture needs to run on several platforms, and turning up resolution or final FX like AA is the most realistic option compared to gutting the renderer to really bring out the best for one platform.  And the same goes for PC, look at average video cards, PC games have to run on those minimum specs as well, so it's silly to devote dev resources to render paths than 5% will actually benefit from. 



osed125 on 18 February 2014

Rule #53 on VGC: every thread that has "Resolution" in tittle gets at least 100 posts.



Nintendo and PC gamer

Teriol on 18 February 2014

well 60 fps is dying faster, all the crap about my system can do 1080p 60 fps while your only 900p 30 fps is going to die faster, neither of the 3 systems can match 1080p 60 fps with the upcoming games, you want to have 1080p 60 fps get a middle/high end PC.



34 years playing games.