Was wondering where the trade off was. I played the multiplayer for a good hour or so and sensed something wasn't right, but I couldn't figure it out. Must have been very well implemented.

If Sony did actually claim the multiplayer was 1080p, then that is a pretty dick move.

Anyway, what an awful thread. So much hypocrisy and frustration.

because they didn't, See joe's explanation. 

Isn't that a joke?

whats the native resolution for ghosts?

This is no laughing matter.

Next-Gen is so bad, that even PC's are failing to render 3/4 of the games on that chart.

Silly me i can not even understand that pix. What is that WiiU game?

It's 1920 x 1080 on the PS4 (2,073,600 pixels), 1280 x 720 on the X1 (921,600) and 880 x 720 on the WiiU (633,600). 

I believe the PS3/360 versions are also about the same the WiiU version, but i vaguely recall the 360 version being sightly higher than the other two. Can't remember where i read that so may have just been dreaming it :P

LOL @ "well its only technically sub HD".

Upscaled 1080p is apparently unacceptable. That's what we have been hammered with since the consoles launched. And haha @ relatively little impact on visuals. I guess, if you like MP that looks like it's been lathered in grease. I agree the SP looks great, but this thread isn't about the SP. What you are doing is making excuses for the developers having to cut corners to achieve sub HD performance and even doing that, they still could not hit the 60fps they told us the game ran at.

The Titanfall beta pushes more pixels than Killzone 6 MP, and people have been harsh as hell on the visuals and performance of it. Even have basically convinced themselves the 360 version will be identical. Again, it just goes to show all this petty bickering about superior resolution and a slightly high frame rate is a waste of time. Had someone not brought this to life, every Killzone 6 owner would still be living in ignorance, believing their game was full HD at 60fps when that's far from reality. Makes it funny when these same people then talk about how much smoother this 1080p version of Game A is over the 900p competition or oh man those extra 15 frames per second just really make it next gen LOL. All I will say on the matter.

You would almost hope this petty shit would stop. The fake war must rage on in some peoples minds though.

You laughing at my original statement shows your lack of understanding. 960 x 1080 is the number of pixels being rendered per frame, 1920 x 1080 is the number of pixels being shown to you on your TV (without up-scaling) by interlacing the current and previous frame. So it's both Sub HD and Full HD at the same time, hence i said technically. Without being told people wouldn't have noticed the difference since the game is still showing them 1920 x 1080 pixels. All they would notice is an odd motion blur (which has been mentioned numerous times in the past).

I've never seen anyone say up-scaled 1080p is unacceptable, only that it's not as good as "proper" 1080p (which is true). Gorilla have said since before SF's launch the MP ran at 60fps "a lot of the time" which it does. 

"relatively little impact on visuals". Notice the use of a particular word there? :P I said it RELATIVE to if the game had gone with traditional MP trade-offs. I assumed that was obvious.

Titanfall gets the shit is does because the game looks like ass. When something looks like ass you expect it to be able to run well, not to have difficulty hitting a locked 60fps at 792p. People saying it will be identical to the 360 version are talking rubbish, but it doesn't change the fact TF is incredibly underwhelming both visually and in performance. It's like they made some visual trade offs but then forgot to do anything with what they gained :P