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

Forums - Gaming - Killzone ShadowFall Multiplayer runs at only 960 x 1080 resolution

arcane_chaos on 05 March 2014

wow..has this thread really gone over 30+ pages?(using the 10 post per page)



Around the Network
Skeeuk on 05 March 2014

cant believe this thread is still here, i predict many more titanfall threads come next week



...not much time to post anymore, used to be awesome on here really good fond memories from VGchartz...

PSN: Skeeuk - XBL: SkeeUK - PC: Skeeuk

really miss the VGCHARTZ of 2008 - 2013...

Zekkyou on 05 March 2014
SvennoJ said:
^ Funny, At 1408x792 it's always a greasy blurred mess then by your definition. That's only 7% more pixels compared to KZ SF MP at it's worst when frame blending can't enhance the final output at all. Although KZ SF still matches native resolution on 1 axis at least.

Now ofcourse the style of the game makes it harder to see with rain, fog, bloom, lens flares and other effects.
And what resolution will be posted on Titanfall's box?

I'm not defending the cutbacks made for multiplayer (I don't even like multiplayer shooters) but I am interested in the technique. Same as I find it a smart solution to half the frame rate of reflections and mirrors in Forza 5 to save some resources. Basically what you get is 1080p30 visuals with the responsiveness of 60fps.

The overall result is more pleasing than GT6's 1440x1080 upscale, at least when you walk at normal speed. A shame it can never work for racing as you always move fast, yet why not update all the car models at 30 fps. They don't move around a lot relative to you and cost the most to render. I think that would be hardly noticeable and would free up a huge amount of processing power to add some much needed detail to the backgrounds.

Asynchronous updates are nothing new, lighting is one of the things that usually runs at lower frame rate. resolution for shadows, reflections and other effects usually run at half or quarter resolutions. This is the first time I see a full screen approach being used to make a compromise between 1080p30 and 720p60. I've been posting the worst case scenarios to figure out how they do it, but it actually looks quite nice while playing.

It's amusing he claims the criticism against Titanfall's visuals to be because it's a "MS exclusive", yet he himself only criticizes Killzone as being lathered in grease, but says Titanfall's visuals are "fine".

Hypocrisy is a beautiful thing :P



J_Allard on 05 March 2014
Zekkyou said:
SvennoJ said:
^ Funny, At 1408x792 it's always a greasy blurred mess then by your definition. That's only 7% more pixels compared to KZ SF MP at it's worst when frame blending can't enhance the final output at all. Although KZ SF still matches native resolution on 1 axis at least.

Now ofcourse the style of the game makes it harder to see with rain, fog, bloom, lens flares and other effects.
And what resolution will be posted on Titanfall's box?

I'm not defending the cutbacks made for multiplayer (I don't even like multiplayer shooters) but I am interested in the technique. Same as I find it a smart solution to half the frame rate of reflections and mirrors in Forza 5 to save some resources. Basically what you get is 1080p30 visuals with the responsiveness of 60fps.

The overall result is more pleasing than GT6's 1440x1080 upscale, at least when you walk at normal speed. A shame it can never work for racing as you always move fast, yet why not update all the car models at 30 fps. They don't move around a lot relative to you and cost the most to render. I think that would be hardly noticeable and would free up a huge amount of processing power to add some much needed detail to the backgrounds.

Asynchronous updates are nothing new, lighting is one of the things that usually runs at lower frame rate. resolution for shadows, reflections and other effects usually run at half or quarter resolutions. This is the first time I see a full screen approach being used to make a compromise between 1080p30 and 720p60. I've been posting the worst case scenarios to figure out how they do it, but it actually looks quite nice while playing.

It's amusing he claims the criticism against Titanfall's visuals to be because it's a "MS exclusive", yet he himself only criticizes Killzone as being lathered in grease, but says Titanfall's visuals are "fine".

Hypocrisy is a beautiful thing :P

You seem confused, not sure how. This entire thread is full of discussion about how the game achieves the 1080p illusion, and how it only works when you're standing still. Because when you move, things start getting very blurry. How you tie this to Titanfall is beyond me, it doesn't have that issue.



J_Allard on 05 March 2014
arcane_chaos said:
wow..has this thread really gone over 30+ pages?(using the 10 post per page)

The real news here is you using 10 posts per page. That would annoy the shit out of me.



Around the Network
trixiemafia86 on 05 March 2014

I see this technique becoming more common in future games to achieve 1080p. Which is brilliant considering the power of the consoles. A few people knew something was off in the MP but many did not really know it was not real 1920x1080p.



Smartest nam evila

Current Platforms: HighendPC[rip]/PS4/PS3[rip]/Vita[rip]

Jazz2K on 05 March 2014

^^ it's brilliant yes but if that means games will get blurry when moving then I prefer them to just reduce some effects or lower the resolution.



sales2099 on 05 March 2014

Id like to point and laugh, but I never cared about these talking points.

Call me old fashioned, but I think poly counts >>> frames per second



Xbox: Best hardware, Game Pass best value, best BC, more 1st party genres and multiplayer titles. 

 

DM235 on 05 March 2014
starcraft said:
ethomaz said:

Sevengen said:

No Ethomaz. It isn't the same. Lie to yourself all you like... 960 isn't 1080

I work with that and even 1x1080p is 1080p.

"1080p is a set of HDTV high-definition video modes characterized by 1080 horizontal lines of vertical resolution and progressive scan"

1080p is defined by the vertical resolution one... you can say 1920x1080p is a standard in 1080p but even 1x1080p is 1080p even in a odd way.

Wikipedia, which whilst not definitive tends to note the most generally accepted definition, states that: 

Any display device that advertises 1080p typically refers to the ability to accept 1080p signals in native resolution format, which means there are a true 1920 pixels in width and 1080 pixels in height, and the display is not overscanning, underscanning, or reinterpreting the signal to a lower resolution.

Which would pretty resoundingly indicate that no, this is no longer 1080p.  Particularly given that that in so many ways is more of a marketing definition than a technical one!


You are ignoring the fact that the signal from the PS4 to the TV (display device) is actually a 1920x1080p signal.  The native resolution of the game is also 1920x1080.  That is the technical truth.

How they arrive at that native 1920x1080 image is what is different.



existenz2 on 05 March 2014

My thoughts are

 

1. How can Eurogamer know the technique used to build up the frames internally unless Guerilla told them. There is no way you could work out the reason for a slightly blurry image in MP as solely caused by a technique like this.

 

2. Different point. Assuming they are delivering temporal vertical interlacing - thats a sophisticated technique that is worthy of recognition.

 

So in summary Guerilla are honest geniuses..