Support NeoGAF

[Skittzo0413]

They need to work on the blurry looking ps4 version.

It annoys how casual John is about the sub 900p resolution on the ps4, as if it's just acceptable. It's a little indie game, and the resolution is embarrassing.

I wish John would have called the developers out on this. It's a technical analysis, so call out the bullshit resolution. All the great AA in the world doesn't make up for the lack of proper optimization and native 1080p resolution.

Question, did you watch any footage of the game before this analysis was done? Almost everybody in the previous locked thread was sure the resolution for the PS4 version was 1080p, some even assuming the Switch footage was also 1080p.

What is the most noticeable IQ improvement you get when you bump up resolution? Less aliasing, since you have more pixels with which to render edges. So in a way, AA can potentially be a substitute for higher resolutions, which is similar to what John says in the video.

But the main point is, he's not criticizing this because everyone who sees it assumes at first that it's a much higher resolution than it is, which is an impressive feat. Now that an in-depth analysis has been done we know the actual resolution, but how does that affect your enjoyment of the game when it still looks like 1080p to everyone?

 

[Prithee Be Careful]

Haven't they gotten better visuals on a handheld yet still have the possibility to use it docked? No console can do this, of course not everyone needs it. Switch delivers far more progress in certain areas/ niches that MS and Sony currently can't and won't. I for one am slightly dissappointed in what I received until now on PS4 Pro (especially the noise level is disappointing but that is another story) and if MS is just releasing their usual new Forza and Crackdown stuff I won't spend a penny for another XBox iteration (especially since I can get a much better visual performance on PC)... that would really be disappointing but I don't expect much regarding interesting new game concepts or IPs from them.
To summarize, people don't want just better visuals, they want new experiences and visuals can be a part of that.

Honestly, Nintendo's last big hardware innovation - Wii motion controls - lead the entire industry off a wild goose chase for most of the last generation.

The Switch is a tablet with a TV out and bolt-on controllers at either side. Nintendo's defiant interest in pursuing quirky gimmicks over hardware specs means that first 3D Zelda in nearly a decade (a project five years in development) has consistently patchy perfomance not only on it's three year old hardware predecessor, but on the newly released 9th(?) gen console.

 

[flozuki]

i am not discussing the point of switch hybrid nature (yet not the first one to being able to being able to play on the go and connect to a tv). Not sure what you mean by delivering more progress in certain areas, but this discussion belongs to another thread.
And sorry if you feel disappointed with pro (noise levels is a hw issue, hope you aren't disappointed with many issues switch has had too ), but i think the main selling point of the pro was basically better visuals/iq and that is what seems to deliver so far for supported games. Kinda what you would expect for docked Switch i suppose.

Until now I had no problems with Switch. Noise levels are important to me and it would be horrible if I had that on Switch. Still since the visual progress was important to you you have that regarding the handheld landscape. And regarding PS4 Pro I expected not just an upgrade in terms of IQ and resolution. I expected a steady framerate and when the game isn't able to deliver on that front I would like an option like we have in Nioh.

Honestly, Nintendo's last big hardware innovation - Wii motion controls - lead the entire industry off a wild goose chase for most of the last generation.

The Switch is a tablet with a TV out and bolt-on controllers at either side. Nintendo's defiant interest in pursuing quirky gimmicks over hardware specs means that first 3D Zelda in nearly a decade (a project five years in development) has consistently patchy perfomance not only on it's three year old hardware predecessor, but on the newly released 9th(?) gen console.

If that is your opinion that is fine. Sounds to me like you don't like or need the flexibility regarding control schemes and switching between screen and handheld ;-)
I am still waiting for a rock solid performance for Rocket League on PS4 Pro, one of my favorite games of all time on my few months old PS4 Pro with all the fine hardware in it.

 

[th3sicknness]

I thought the consensus was that Nintendo targeted a 720p screen for the handheld because of battery life concerns?

 

[Cmerrill]

Question, did you watch any footage of the game before this analysis was done? Almost everybody in the previous locked thread was sure the resolution for the PS4 version was 1080p, some even assuming the Switch footage was also 1080p.

What is the most noticeable IQ improvement you get when you bump up resolution? Less aliasing, since you have more pixels with which to render edges. So in a way, AA can potentially be a substitute for higher resolutions, which is similar to what John says in the video.

But the main point is, he's not criticizing this because everyone who sees it assumes at first that it's a much higher resolution than it is, which is an impressive feat. Now that an in-depth analysis has been done we know the actual resolution, but how does that affect your enjoyment of the game when it still looks like 1080p to everyone?

Sub 900p doesn't look 1080p. I'm sorry. I'm glad the AA is good at eliminating jaggies, but it doesn't improve image resolution.

It doesn't affect my enjoyment, but like others have pointed out, this is a technical analysis thread.

And when we have games like battlefield 1 running 1080p 60fps, Horizon 1080p 30fps - games like this need be called out on their lazy optimization/programming. Stop shoving games out when they're not ready to be released.

1536x864 is unacceptable and quite frankly they should be ashamed and embarrassed of it.

 

[terrier]

Question, did you watch any footage of the game before this analysis was done? Almost everybody in the previous locked thread was sure the resolution for the PS4 version was 1080p, some even assuming the Switch footage was also 1080p.

What is the most noticeable IQ improvement you get when you bump up resolution? Less aliasing, since you have more pixels with which to render edges. So in a way, AA can potentially be a substitute for higher resolutions, which is similar to what John says in the video.

But the main point is, he's not criticizing this because everyone who sees it assumes at first that it's a much higher resolution than it is, which is an impressive feat. Now that an in-depth analysis has been done we know the actual resolution, but how does that affect your enjoyment of the game when it still looks like 1080p to everyone?

we are discussing the technical aspects of the game, to discuss the enjoyment there's the OT. We can agree that the AA is cleverly used in this game (despite not being able to check myself and Youtube compression not being the ideal way to check it) , but the game is very low resolution on ps4, and that is not a good thing.
And for switch, it is a nice port compared to the ps4 version, but unless the game is not optimized (and it seems that is the case considering how it is on ps4), does not bode well for future games if we are already using resloutions under 720p for a game that doesn't seem very demanding at all.

Until now I had no problems with Switch. Noise levels are important to me and it would be horrible if I had that on Switch. Still since the visual progress was important to you you have that regarding the handheld landscape. And regarding PS4 Pro I expected not just an upgrade in terms of IQ and resolution. I expected a steady framerate and when the game isn't able to deliver on that front I would like an option like we have in Nioh.

I'm not expert at all, but noise in a small box is probably an issue we will have to deal with, even swtich uses its fans every now and then. As for better framerate, well, the pro hasn't updated the CPU very much(yet now there's the famous boost mode so something is better than nothing isn't it?), but the GPU, so it was also a given that most games wouldn't improve in that area very much. We have to see yet what does scorpio offer regarding that. If you consider the switch a progress but accept its limitations, you should do the same regarding the pro as an 399€ box.

 

[Liabe Brave]

But the main point is, he's not criticizing this because everyone who sees it assumes at first that it's a much higher resolution than it is....

You need to quit saying this, it's simply untrue. Some people didn't notice the resolution, because they can't tell or don't care. This has always been the case, and nothing special is happening with Snake Pass. On the other hand, some people have always been able to tell the difference no matter the AA, and they could tell with this game too.

 

[th3sicknness]

Sub 900p doesn't look 1080p. I'm sorry. I'm glad the AA is good at eliminating jaggies, but it doesn't improve image resolution.

It doesn't affect my enjoyment, but like others have pointed out, this is a technical analysis thread.

And when we have games like battlefield 1 running 1080p 60fps, Horizon 1080p 30fps - games like this need be called out on their lazy optimization/programming. Stop shoving games out when they're not ready to be released.

1536x864 is unacceptable and quite frankly they should be ashamed and embarrassed of it.

Sometimes you have to meet a deadline provided by a publisher and you gotta get it out the door. I think it is funny that most people assumed the ps4 version was 1080 at 60fps at first glance until the DF video provided the details that it wasnt.

Yacht games just upgraded shovel knight with a patch to have the game output at 1080p in docked mode. I dont see any issue with a game coming out and getting a resolution bump post launch to be honest. Both games are enjoyable in their current state.

 

[Skittzo0413]

Honestly, Nintendo's last big hardware innovation - Wii motion controls - lead the entire industry off a wild goose chase for most of the last generation.

The Switch is a tablet with a TV out and bolt-on controllers at either side. Nintendo's defiant interest in pursuing quirky gimmicks over hardware specs means that first 3D Zelda in nearly a decade (a project five years in development) has consistently patchy perfomance not only on it's three year old hardware predecessor, but on the newly released 9th(?) gen console.

The "gimmick" with the Switch is its convenience, which is not quirky whatsoever, and honestly is probably the best thing to ever happen to gaming for me. It's a device which lets you play your full console games precisely when, where and how you want to, and doesn't stick you in front of your TV or at your PC.

Also the Wii U is over 4 years old, not 3 years old.

Sub 900p doesn't look 1080p. I'm sorry. I'm glad the AA is good at eliminating jaggies, but it doesn't improve image resolution.

It doesn't affect my enjoyment, but like others have pointed out, this is a technical analysis thread.

And when we have games like battlefield 1 running 1080p 60fps, Horizon 1080p 30fps - games like this need be called out on their lazy optimization/programming. Stop shoving games out when they're not ready to be released.

1536x864 is unacceptable and quite frankly they should be ashamed and embarrassed of it.

You're completely missing my point. Before this analysis was done there was absolutely no one who was playing this game on PS4 who thought it was sub-900p.

Doesn't that prove quite definitively that the actual number of the resolution (1536x864) doesn't matter at all compared to how the image is presented? If you're looking at a video with no reason to assume it's not 1080p, why all of a sudden when someone tells you it's sub 900p does it look worse?

Another poster earlier put it best, it's like you're eating a dish and finding it delicious, and all of a sudden your mom says "there's squash in that dish" and you, remembering you're supposed to hate squash, immediately push the dish away and spit our your food. All because of these preconceived notions which should logically have zero effect on your enjoyment of a product.

You need to quit saying this, it's simply untrue. Some people didn't notice the resolution, because they can't tell or don't care. This has always been the case, and nothing special is happening with Snake Pass. On the other hand, some people have always been able to tell the difference no matter the AA, and they could tell with this game too.

There were several threads about this game after it came out yet before this DF analysis. Can you find a single example of a person playing it who thought it might be sub 900p? Hell, even sub 1080p?

we are discussing the technical aspects of the game, to discuss the enjoyment there's the OT. We can agree that the AA is cleverly used in this game (despite not being able to check myself and Youtube compression not being the ideal way to check it) , but the game is very low resolution on ps4, and that is not a good thing.
And for switch, it is a nice port compared to the ps4 version, but unless the game is not optimized (and it seems that is the case considering how it is on ps4), does not bode well for future games if we are already using resloutions under 720p for a game that doesn't seem very demanding at all.

Yes, we are in a thread about a Digital Foundry video where the creator of the video (and someone who clearly is more technically minded than most of us) has explicitly said that the AA/upscaling used could be presenting a better image quality than there would be if the resolution was higher and no AA was used. So to put out a blanket statement about lower resolution automatically being bad is literally ignoring the video that we're discussing in this thread. Obviously higher resolution in general is more desirable, as is higher AA, higher AF, etc. But apparently, for whatever reason, Sumo chose to run this at a lower resolution on PS4 with aggressive and effective TAA, and the result appeared just as good as 1080p to anyone playing the game before watching this analysis.

 

[terrier]

Before this analysis was done there was absolutely no one who was playing this game on PS4 who thought it was sub-900p.

Doesn't that prove quite definitively that the actual number of the resolution (1536x864) doesn't matter at all compared to how the image is presented? If you're looking at a video with no reason to assume it's not 1080p, why all of a sudden when someone tells you it's sub 900p does it look worse?

Another poster earlier put it best, it's like you're eating a dish and finding it delicious, and all of a sudden your mom says "there's squash in that dish" and you, remembering you're supposed to hate squash, immediately push the dish away and spit our your food. All because of these preconceived notions which should logically have zero effect on your enjoyment of a product.



There were several threads about this game after it came out yet before this DF analysis. Can you find a single example of a person playing it who thought it might be sub 900p? Hell, even sub 1080p?

Killzone's MP for ps4 wasn't technically 1080p and the thread was quite entertainin g to say the least. And was discovered after the game was released to.

Yes, we are in a thread about a Digital Foundry video where the creator of the video (and someone who clearly is more technically minded than most of us) has explicitly said that the AA/upscaling used could be presenting a better image quality than there would be if the resolution was higher and no AA was used. So to put out a blanket statement about lower resolution automatically being bad is literally ignoring the video that we're discussing in this thread.

well, that is fair, but unproven, since we do not have the game running at 1080 without AA (maybe someone with pc version can try it and tell us if it looks better or worse) , and maybe if AA is relatively low taxing we could have AA on top of 1080p (as many other games do) so it would look even better. So while i agree with his statement it doesn't mean that it cannot be achieved, in the end, again, facts are resolution is lower, and each of us has different tolerance for IQ/framerate so while some will not notice, others will.

 

[nycgamer4ever]

Wonder how much CPU the snake physics ends up using? It looks really good in that regard. Seems like they did a solid job for the Switch ver too, def getting this when I can get a Switch

1200 x 675 [docked] ~844x475 [undocked] is solid? I have a Switch but it's not even native screen resolution?! At least it runs smooth I guess. But those resolutions in 2007 for a game that is not graphically intense is pretty bad. Ps4 is sub-native also!

 

[Garrett Hawke]

They need to work on the blurry looking ps4 version.

It annoys how casual John is about the sub 900p resolution on the ps4, as if it's just acceptable. It's a little indie game, and the resolution is embarrassing.

I wish John would have called the developers out on this. It's a technical analysis, so call out the bullshit resolution. All the great AA in the world doesn't make up for the lack of proper optimization and native 1080p resolution.

The TAA does make it look higher than you would expect for what it is. He's not handwaving it, he's being honest.

 

[THEaaron]

Sub 900p doesn't look 1080p. I'm sorry. I'm glad the AA is good at eliminating jaggies, but it doesn't improve image resolution.

It doesn't affect my enjoyment, but like others have pointed out, this is a technical analysis thread.

And when we have games like battlefield 1 running 1080p 60fps, Horizon 1080p 30fps - games like this need be called out on their lazy optimization/programming. Stop shoving games out when they're not ready to be released.

1536x864 is unacceptable and quite frankly they should be ashamed and embarrassed of it.

Get your pitchfork out and walk with the peasants.

Technical discussion are important but this game is surely not in a broken state, unplayable or looks super dated. There is no need to have every game being a technical marvel. There is no need to call out someone or make unqualified statements like "lazy" just because something doesn't meet your personal expectations.

Games are made with a set budget and what you are trying to imply is, that every developer should be called out for being lazy or uncompetent because it doesn't run with 1080p30? And you are even comparing an AAA exclusive franchise with this game? Are you nuts?

Your behaviour is utterly disgusting. There is absolutely no need set an artificial bar that rules out every developer that doesn't meet your personal view of the world.

 

[flozuki]

Have they commented on patching resolutions on all systems? Can't find it on their Twitter but someone mentioned that earlier?

 

[Cmerrill]

The "gimmick" with the Switch is its convenience, which is not quirky whatsoever, and honestly is probably the best thing to ever happen to gaming for me. It's a device which lets you play your full console games precisely when, where and how you want to, and doesn't stick you in front of your TV or at your PC.

Also the Wii U is over 4 years old, not 3 years old.



You're completely missing my point. Before this analysis was done there was absolutely no one who was playing this game on PS4 who thought it was sub-900p.

Doesn't that prove quite definitively that the actual number of the resolution (1536x864) doesn't matter at all compared to how the image is presented? If you're looking at a video with no reason to assume it's not 1080p, why all of a sudden when someone tells you it's sub 900p does it look worse?

Another poster earlier put it best, it's like you're eating a dish and finding it delicious, and all of a sudden your mom says "there's squash in that dish" and you, remembering you're supposed to hate squash, immediately push the dish away and spit our your food. All because of these preconceived notions which should logically have zero effect on your enjoyment of a product.



There were several threads about this game after it came out yet before this DF analysis. Can you find a single example of a person playing it who thought it might be sub 900p? Hell, even sub 1080p?



Yes, we are in a thread about a Digital Foundry video where the creator of the video (and someone who clearly is more technically minded than most of us) has explicitly said that the AA/upscaling used could be presenting a better image quality than there would be if the resolution was higher and no AA was used. So to put out a blanket statement about lower resolution automatically being bad is literally ignoring the video that we're discussing in this thread.

I feel like we're arguing with a developer/marketing employee of the game at this point.

1536x864 is bad, it's as simple as that. This isn't a high end, demanding AAA game - pushing the envelope with what's possible on the current generation machines.

It's a simple indie game, with shit resolution. It seems perfectly playable and fun, but from a technical stand point... the resolution is embarrassing.

 

[Zedark]

we are discussing the technical aspects of the game, to discuss the enjoyment there's the OT. We can agree that the AA is cleverly used in this game (despite not being able to check myself and Youtube compression not being the ideal way to check it) , but the game is very low resolution on ps4, and that is not a good thing.

You can't divorce the two things completely like some are trying in this thread. A lower resolution is absolutely not ideal, of course, but the additional graphical effects and post-processing cannot be discarded in favour of calling out "lazy devs", since these take significant resources as well. As Skittzo0413 said, a lot of people were convinced the game was 1080p when seeing footage for it before this analysis, and that should get you to think why. Making that comment is not, as people here are framing it, a way of saying "who cares, it looks good to me" but is an observation (backed by the sheer multitude of people who said it in the other thread) that should encourage people to look further than resolution numbers and consider the effect of graphical effects and post-processing on the final image. Sadly, few seem to want to consider the IQ beyond the number attached to resolution in favour of calling out Sumo Digital (for which, imo, there is some ground as I don't see this game with all its effects landing much further down the line of graphically demanding games that many indie - mid-tier games) for being "lazy".

And for switch, it is a nice port compared to the ps4 version, but unless the game is not optimized (and it seems that is the case considering how it is on ps4), does not bode well for future games if we are already using resloutions under 720p for a game that doesn't seem very demanding at all.

If the PS4 version does not run well either, then you cannot state this doesn't bode well for Switch without evidence that more optimisation has been put towards the Switch version (it is likely the other way around), or you must also state that this doesn't bode well for the PS4, both of which are imo nonsense in the context of a poorly optimised game like we are discussing here (which, incidentally, does feature some interesting and demanding graphical effects as John laid out in the video). You either postulate the game is demanding, either due to being poorly optimised or due to being demanding from a graphical standpoint, and from there you can compare the two versions. The bolded part, in summary. answers your concern sufficiently already. So, there is no reason to worry about Switch performance from this example imo: the game is overall poorly optimised for its different platforms.

 

[Garrett Hawke]

I feel like we're arguing with a developer/marketing employee of the game at this point.

1536x864 is bad, it's as simple as that. This isn't a high end, demanding AAA game - pushing the envelope with what's possible on the current generation machines.

It's a simple indie game, with shit resolution. It seems perfectly playable and fun, but from a technical stand point... the resolution is embarrassing.

We have absolutely no idea what they are using to calculate the very detailed Snake collision and physics. If they're using the GPU for it since most of the consoles are disproportionately more GPU powerful than CPU powerful that could explain why they are using lower resolutions.

 

[Cmerrill]

Get your pitchfork out and walk with the peasants.

Technical discussion are important but this game is surely not in a broken state, unplayable or looks super dated. There is no need to have every game being a technical marvel. There is no need to call out someone or make unqualified statements like "lazy" just because something doesn't meet your personal expectations.

Games are made with a set budget and what you are trying to imply is, that every developer should be called out for being lazy or uncompetent because it doesn't run with 1080p30? And you are even comparing an AAA exclusive franchise with this game? Are you nuts?

Your behaviour is utterly disgusting. There is absolutely no need set an artificial bar that rules out every developer that doesn't meet your personal view of the world.

Lol what am I reading?

You don't need to be AAA developer to render your game at higher resolutions than 1536x864, lol.

I guess I'm just disgusting with my high 1080p expectations. Shame on me.

 

[th3sicknness]

I dont know if this even matters but doesn't Unreal Engine tend to favor Nvidia hardware over AMD?

 

[Zedark]

I dont know if this even matters but doesn't Unreal Engine tend to favor Nvidia hardware over AMD?

I wouldn't know about that, but UE4 does accommodate fp16 computation very well. As a result, an UE4 game on Switch and on Pro should do better relatively than PS4 compared to other engines that accommodate this method less.

 

[BSpot]

I definitely get frame hitching on the pro.

 

[nycgamer4ever]

Get your pitchfork out and walk with the peasants.

Technical discussion are important but this game is surely not in a broken state, unplayable or looks super dated. There is no need to have every game being a technical marvel. There is no need to call out someone or make unqualified statements like "lazy" just because something doesn't meet your personal expectations.

Games are made with a set budget and what you are trying to imply is, that every developer should be called out for being lazy or uncompetent because it doesn't run with 1080p30? And you are even comparing an AAA exclusive franchise with this game? Are you nuts?

Your behaviour is utterly disgusting. There is absolutely no need set an artificial bar that rules out every developer that doesn't meet your personal view of the world.

It doesn't even run at 720p, the switch's native resolution. Although it runs smoothly, for a game which does not look like it should tax the hardware, the resolutions are pretty low.

 

[Skittzo0413]

I feel like we're arguing with a developer/marketing employee of the game at this point.

1536x864 is bad, it's as simple as that. This isn't a high end, demanding AAA game - pushing the envelope with what's possible on the current generation machines.

It's a simple indie game, with shit resolution. It seems perfectly playable and fun, but from a technical stand point... the resolution is embarrassing.

Believe me, I wish I was a professional game developer but I am not.

1536x864 is bad if that's how it actually appears to your eyes. If it looks more like 1920x1080 (which this game does, by all accounts) then why is 1536x864 bad? Doesn't the actual image quality matter more than the settings under the hood?

Killzone's MP for ps4 wasn't technically 1080p and the thread was quite entertainin g to say the least. And was discovered after the game was released to.

well, that is fair, but unproven, since we do not have the game running at 1080 without AA (maybe someone with pc version can try it and tell us if it looks better or worse) , and maybe if AA is relatively low taxing we could have AA on top of 1080p (as many other games do) so it would look even better. So while i agree with his statement it doesn't mean that it cannot be achieved, in the end, again, facts are resolution is lower, and each of us has different tolerance for IQ/framerate so while some will not notice, others will.

I think the point here is that the AA/upscaling used is actually fairly taxing compared to other types of AA. Which would make it hard to imagine they'd be able to use as much AA if they render it at 1920x1080. Honestly, none of us know for sure how technically demanding this game is, or how much better optimized it can be, but I mainly just want to figure out why people have had this massive 180 about the visuals when they were perfectly fine for most people before finding out the actual rendering resolutions. Again, talking about the PS4 version. The Switch handheld version has apparently been disappointing to most people even before this analysis.

 

[TLZ]

475 resolution..... Ugh...

And the switch isn't solid 30 too.

 

[nycgamer4ever]

You can't divorce the two things completely like some are trying in this thread. A lower resolution is absolutely not ideal, of course, but the additional graphical effects and post-processing cannot be discarded in favour of calling out "lazy devs", since these take significant resources as well. As Skittzo0413 said, a lot of people were convinced the game was 1080p when seeing footage for it before this analysis, and that should get you to think why. Making that comment is not, as people here are framing it, a way of saying "who cares, it looks good to me" but is an observation (backed by the sheer multitude of people who said it in the other thread) that should encourage people to look further than resolution numbers and consider the effect of graphical effects and post-processing on the final image. Sadly, few seem to want to consider the IQ beyond the number attached to resolution in favour of calling out Sumo Digital (for which, imo, there is some ground as I don't see this game with all its effects landing much further down the line of graphically demanding games that many indie - mid-tier games) for being "lazy".

If the PS4 version does not run well either, then you cannot state this doesn't bode well for Switch without evidence that more optimisation has been put towards the Switch version (it is likely the other way around), or you must also state that this doesn't bode well for the PS4, both of which are imo nonsense in the context of a poorly optimised game like we are discussing here (which, incidentally, does feature some interesting and demanding graphical effects as John laid out in the video). You either postulate the game is demanding, either due to being poorly optimised or due to being demanding from a graphical standpoint, and from there you can compare the two versions. The bolded part, in summary. answers your concern sufficiently already. So, there is no reason to worry about Switch performance from this example imo: the game is overall poorly optimised for its different platforms.

The fact that this is the case in the OG ps4 clear shows that this game is not optimize. It's not a big deal as this is clearly not a AAA game but there are many many indie games that are doing more and running better at higher resolutions. I don't know how anyone can defend these resolution on the hardware we have.

 

[terrier]

You can't divorce the two things completely like some are trying in this thread. A lower resolution is absolutely not ideal, of course, but the additional graphical effects and post-processing cannot be discarded in favour of calling out "lazy devs", since these take significant resources as well. As Skittzo0413 said, a lot of people were convinced the game was 1080p when seeing footage for it before this analysis, and that should get you to think why. Making that comment is not, as people here are framing it, a way of saying "who cares, it looks good to me" but is an observation (backed by the sheer multitude of people who said it in the other thread) that should encourage people to look further than resolution numbers and consider the effect of graphical effects and post-processing on the final image. Sadly, few seem to want to consider the IQ beyond the number attached to resolution in favour of calling out Sumo Digital (for which, imo, there is some ground as I don't see this game with all its effects landing much further down the line of graphically demanding games that many indie - mid-tier games) for being "lazy".

What i am divorcing here?
I've never said lazy devs so ... not sure if you are quoting me or another gaffer...., and despite visual effects and other post-processing, sorry, but this game doesn't look demanding at all. If one thing was to blame would be deadline to launch asap to get those switch extra sales because there's nothing more to buy right now.

If the PS4 version does not run well either, then you cannot state this doesn't bode well for Switch without evidence that more optimisation has been put towards the Switch version (it is likely the other way around), or you must also state that this doesn't bode well for the PS4, both of which are imo nonsense in the context of a poorly optimised game like we are discussing here (which, incidentally, does feature some interesting and demanding graphical effects as John laid out in the video). You either postulate the game is demanding, either due to being poorly optimised or due to being demanding from a graphical standpoint, and from there you can compare the two versions. The bolded part, in summary. answers your concern sufficiently already. So, there is no reason to worry about Switch performance from this example imo: the game is overall poorly optimised for its different platforms.

Maybe not being native english didn't make me clear enoug. We have two scenarios:
game is optimized or it is not.
I personally believe it is not. Because if it is, well, what can you expect from the switch if this relatively low demanding game can't reach 720p?
as for ps4, the reasoning would be the same, but we already have much more demanding games running at 1080p so...

I think the point here is that the AA/upscaling used is actually fairly taxing compared to other types of AA. Which would make it hard to imagine they'd be able to use as much AA if they render it at 1920x1080. .

I could agree with that. Maybe we will know more about UE4's AA in the future when more games use it.

 

[The Futurist]

844x475 undocked?

1200 x 675 docked?

People are defending this in 2017?

This is what we've come to?

 

[Cmerrill]

844x475 undocked?

1200 x 675 docked?

People are defending this in 2017?

This is what we've come to?

Not only are they defending this and the sub 900p on ps4, you're "utterly disgusting" for expecting anything more from an indie developer.

I don't understand people.

 

[KingSnake]

If it looks more like 1920x1080 (which this game does, by all accounts) then why is 1536x864 bad?

You just need to stay far enough from your screen and it will "look" 1080p.

This thread is going places. Places where this forum has been last time after the Xbone launch.

Forget the native resolution, the look of 1080p/720p is what matters.

 

[Zedark]

What i am divorcing here?
I've never said lazy devs so ... not sure if you are quoting me or another gaffer...., and despite visual effects and other post-processing, sorry, but this game doesn't look demanding at all. If one thing was to blame would be deadline to launch asap to get those switch extra sales because there's nothing more to buy right now.

Maybe not being native english didn't make me clear enoug. We have two scenarios:
game is optimized or it is not.
I personally believe it is not. Because if it is, well, what can you expect from the switch if this relatively low demanding game can't reach 720p?
as for ps4, the reasoning would be the same, but we already have much more demanding games running at 1080p so...


I could agree with that. Maybe we will know more about UE4's AA in the future when more games use it.

You are divorcing resolution and AA solutions in your original post. You said:

We can agree that the AA is cleverly used in this game (despite not being able to check myself and Youtube compression not being the ideal way to check it) , but the game is very low resolution on ps4, and that is not a good thing.

I am arguing that you cannot turn one way and say that the AA is used in a clever way and then around and say the resolution being low is not a good thing: rather, I would say, the combination of the two, and how they combine into the image quality of the game, is important, and (as Skittzo0341 has been arguing) a lower resolution with good AA is not necessarily worse than a higher resolution with less/no AA. I did have someone else in mind when typing that comment about "lazy devs", and it wasn't aimed at you. Sorry about that!

I see now that your comment about the resolution and what it means for the Switch was more hypothetical than I interpreted it as. I was attacking the very idea that this result was indicative of something worrying for the Switch, but you already seem convinced that this is indeed a hypothetical that is not indicative of the Switch' actual capabilities.

You just need to stay far enough from your screen and it will "look" 1080p.

This thread is going places. Places where this forum has been last time after the Xbone launch.

Forget the native resolution, the look of 1080p/720p is what matters.

I would hardly think that the people in the other thread who en masse thought it was 1080p were doing so while looking at it on a TV 15 feet away, instead of with their noses close to a pc screen.

 

[EDarkness]

What I want to know is why do people keep the default brightness on the NS version? It says that the logo should be barely seen on the screen, yet the default is being able to see the logo in all of it's glory. I adjusted mine down to where the logo is barely seen and it doesn't have that washed out look to it. It's really annoying to see screens and video of the game with the brightness up so high.

 

[Easy_D]

What I want to know is why do people keep the default brightness on the NS version? It says that the logo should be barely seen on the screen, yet the default is being able to see the logo in all of it's glory. I adjusted mine down to where the logo is barely seen and it doesn't have that washed out look to it. It's really annoying to see screens and video of the game with the brightness up so high.

If you lower it to that point you get a ton of black crush, it ain't pretty. At least from what I've seen, could've been because it was a stream of it.

 

[EDarkness]

If you lower it to that point you get a ton of black crush, it ain't pretty. At least from what I've seen, could've been because it was a stream of it.

You're right, but it doesn't have to go down that low. Just lower than what the default is. Looks so damned washed out and it's really not flattering at all. Lowering it down makes the game look much better.

 

[franklyshankly]

I would hardly think that the people in the other thread who en masse thought it was 1080p were doing so while looking at it on a TV 15 feet away, instead of with their noses close to a pc screen.

They were doing so looking at a compressed YouTube video in a small window on a computer screen. That is impossible to determine an actual resolution from.

 

[shiyrley]

Let's compare the PPI of 844x475 on a 6.2 screen to the PPI of your average 1920x1080 24" PC monitor.

844x475 at 6.2" is 156 PPI

24" 1080p PC monitor is 91 PPI

Wow! how could this be? I was under the impression that such a resolution could never look good!
But wait! There are upscaling artifacts because the screen is 720p!
Yep, of course there are. The AA masks them. It doesn't completely remove them, of course, but it masks them quite nicely. So it doesn't look perfect but it does look fine.

And just for laughs let's see the PPI of the Switch's screen at its native 720p resolution:

Switch's screen at 720p is 236 PPI

And, just for fun again, let's add a 50" 4k screen into the equation:

50" 4k screen is 88 PPI

W-what? But I thought a 720p screen was unacceptable in 2017! What's this? How can the size of a screen possibly affect the resolution needed for it to look good? Impossible! Unacceptable! The screen should be 1080p! My phone is 1440p!

Spoiler

I am aware you sit much farther back when using a 50" 4k screen, but it doesn't remove the fact that the PPI on the Switch screen is perfectly good for its particular viewing distance

 

[franklyshankly]

Snip

720p screen is one thing, but upscaling makes any screen look significantly worse.

This game isn't running at native res on any display, it is upscaled on all of them, with the corresponding artifacts and blur. It really doesn't matter how high the DPI of the screen is if you are stretching a smaller image across it.

 

[shiyrley]

720p screen is one thing, but upscaling makes any screen look significantly worse.

This game isn't running at native res on any display, it is upscaled on all of them, with the corresponding artifacts and blur. It really doesn't matter how high the DPI of the screen is if you are stretching a smaller image across it.

Read my post again

 

[Skittzo0413]

You just need to stay far enough from your screen and it will "look" 1080p.

This thread is going places. Places where this forum has been last time after the Xbone launch.

Forget the native resolution, the look of 1080p/720p is what matters.

Again, show me a single person playing this on PS4 (many people were before this DF analysis came out) who seriously thought this was sub 900p.

I would hardly think that the people in the other thread who en masse thought it was 1080p were doing so while looking at it on a TV 15 feet away, instead of with their noses close to a pc screen.

Exactly, these arguments are so weird. If there were any people who had claimed it was sub 1080p on PS4 in any of the threads before this one, then I'd understand the complaints here. But since the visuals of this game apparently do a great job of convincing you it's 1080p when it's really not, then why does it actually matter what the native rendering res is? It still looks like 1080p, and we only care about resolution for looks.

They were doing so looking at a compressed YouTube video in a small window on a computer screen. That is impossible to determine an actual resolution from.

People were actually playing it on their consoles too! And no one could have expected sub 1080p, let alone sub 900p based on their experiences playing it on their consoles on their TVs.

720p screen is one thing, but upscaling makes any screen look significantly worse.

This game isn't running at native res on any display, it is upscaled on all of them, with the corresponding artifacts and blur. It really doesn't matter how high the DPI of the screen is if you are stretching a smaller image across it.

If this upscaling makes this game look significantly worse on any screen, then why did nobody comment that it might have been <900p before this thread existed?

 

[Liabe Brave]

Killzone's MP for ps4 wasn't technically 1080p and the thread was quite entertaining to say the least. And was discovered after the game was released to.

Nevertheless, some people instantly noticed that MP wasn't as sharp as SP, before the reconstruction info ever came out. And the method used by Shadow Fall gives much sharper results than Snake Pass.

We have absolutely no idea what they are using to calculate the very detailed Snake collision and physics. If they're using the GPU for it since most of the consoles are disproportionately more GPU powerful than CPU powerful that could explain why they are using lower resolutions.

The problem with such an argument is that this game runs at a lower resolution than almost every other title on PS4. And we know some of them are running even more elaborate physics.

I wouldn't know about that, but UE4 does accommodate fp16 computation very well. As a result, an UE4 game on Switch and on Pro should do better relatively than PS4 compared to other engines that accommodate this method less.

But why would they be using FP16 if almost no hardware ran it faster? We know almost the entire development of this game took place without Switch in mind. How plausible is it that the dev was targeting the unreleased PS4 Pro alone, and treating the 40m installed base of the standard machine as an afterthought?

If it looks more like 1920x1080 (which this game does, by all accounts) then why is 1536x864 bad?

For what will almost certainly not be the last time, this game does not look like 1920x1080 to everyone. Just because you and other individuals can't tell the difference doesn’t mean no one can tell the difference.

I think the point here is that the AA/upscaling used is actually fairly taxing compared to other types of AA.

This isn't really true. Part of the reason TAA techniques have risen in use is because they're fairly cheap considering the quality of the results. They certainly aren't the cheapest AA available, but neither are they anywhere near the most taxing.

 

[nycgamer4ever]

Haven't they gotten better visuals on a handheld yet still have the possibility to use it docked? No console can do this, of course not everyone needs it. Switch delivers far more progress in certain areas/ niches that MS and Sony currently can't and won't. I for one am slightly dissappointed in what I received until now on PS4 Pro (especially the noise level is disappointing but that is another story) and if MS is just releasing their usual new Forza and Crackdown stuff I won't spend a penny for another XBox iteration (especially since I can get a much better visual performance on PC)... that would really be disappointing but I don't expect much regarding interesting new game concepts or IPs from them.
To summarize, people don't want just better visuals, they want new experiences and visuals can be a part of that.

I don't know about all this. It's a little exaggerated. It's just a handheld that outputs to your tv with controllers that feel like a sum of the different technologies that Nintendo has used in their last couple of consoles. It's true that people want new experiences. that is why we have VR, AR, etc but the Switch really isn't doing anything that hasn't been done before. Motion controllers, connecting to TVs, etc. I have one and I love the potential but right now it's just a Zelda machine. The MOST important thing to me as a gamer is games! And right now the only console I own that is delivering is my Ps4. When they games start coming on the Switch maybe I'll change my opinion.

Snipperclips is the quiet MVP though that feels like a new experience. Although it could be done on the other consoles it pretty cool to use be away from the tv and use the two joycons to play with my wife.

 

[KingSnake]

snip

Totally ignoring that those are not the native resolutions of the screens and the viewing distance. Congrats, you beat the most absurd theories from this thread.

 

[THEaaron]

Not only are they defending this and the sub 900p on ps4, you're "utterly disgusting" for expecting anything more from an indie developer.

I don't understand people.

You didnt even understand that this was pointed to the behaviour in starting witch hunts or calling out devs for that.

 

[shiyrley]

Totally ignoring that those are not the native resolutions of the screens and the viewing distance. Congrats, you beat the most absurd theories from this thread.

Please read my post again

 

[The Futurist]

Please read my post again

You might need to take some advice from your profile picture.

 

[shiyrley]

You might need to take some advice from your profile picture.

Why?
He said I didn't mention thing. I did. I asked him to read my post again, because he clearly missed that part.

 

[KingSnake]

Please read my post again

I read it the first time. You tried. Not convincing enough. AA will never compensate for the upscale from 475p to 720p.

 

[Skittzo0413]

But why would they be using FP16 if almost no hardware ran it faster? We know almost the entire development of this game took place without Switch in mind. How plausible is it that the dev was targeting the unreleased PS4 Pro alone, and treating the 40m installed base of the standard machine as an afterthought?

From what we've heard of UE4, it apparently supports FP16 for all pixel shaders by default. So it's not something the developers would have had to knowingly change. EDIT: This may be incorrect, I remember Thraktor saying it supports FP16 for all pixel shaders but that may not be by default. It would likely be trivial to enable that though.

For what will almost certainly not be the last time, this game does not look like 1920x1080 to everyone. Just because you and other individuals can't tell the difference doesn't mean no one can tell the difference.

I understand that in the general sense. I'm one of the people who can't tell the difference. What I'm saying here, is that in this particular case, based on what John said in the video we're discussing, whatever UE4 upscaling solution Sumo used has gone a long way to convincing people the native rendering resolution is higher than it is. This is evidenced by the lack of anyone at all claiming the game was sub native resolution before this analysis.

It would be amazing to me if DF conducted a social experiment where they claimed a game was rendering at a <900p resolution but it still looks great, and then a week later reveal that it actually is rendering at 1080p. It would be hilarious to see people's reactions upon being told a number.

This isn't really true. Part of the reason TAA techniques have risen in use is because they're fairly cheap considering the quality of the results. They certainly aren't the cheapest AA available, but neither are they anywhere near the most taxing.

I recall hearing that TAA is fairly cheap, yeah. I'm really just musing about their reasoning for using such a low rendering resolution, and it could be that they weren't able to pull off a higher resolution with as good a TAA solution for whatever reason. Maybe due to optimization issues.

 

[Prithee Be Careful]

The "gimmick" with the Switch is its convenience, which is not quirky whatsoever, and honestly is probably the best thing to ever happen to gaming for me. It's a device which lets you play your full console games precisely when, where and how you want to, and doesn't stick you in front of your TV or at your PC.

I've been gaming since the very early nineties and have yet to be convinced of how moving the experinece to a smaller, lower resolution screen, whilst limiting playtime to battery life and sitting hunched over your lap in a less private and more distraction-laden environment is a benefit.

That's just me though...

 

[Donnie]

Why no details about Snake Pass on XBox One?, its out on all systems now isn't it?

 

[shiyrley]

I read it the first time. You tried. Not convincing enough. AA will never compensate for the upscale from 475p to 720p.

If with "compensate" you mean "look the same as native 720p", of course not. I acknowledged that. I'm not that dumb, or naive. I said it looks fine, as in, it doesn't look straight up bad, it's just fine, thanks to the antialiasing. The point I'm addressing is that people are acting as if it looked like garbage, and it doesn't.

I haven't touched a Vita in quite some time, but from what I remember, I'd say it looks, IQ wise, sightly better than a non-native Vita game. And that's with a bigger screen.