electroshockwave
Member
BTW is there an article on Okami PS3 and how/why they ended up at 2160p anywhere? Hexadrive are amazing.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Resolution gate infintyward responds eurogamer
- Thread starter madmackem
- Start date
BTW is there an article on Okami PS3 and how/why they ended up at 2160p anywhere? Hexadrive are amazing.
They wrote an article on their site. I can read Japanese well enough to get through it so if you want to give it shot search on their blog.
Angelus Errare
Banned
PS3 had Ridge Racer 7 @ 1080p60...why weren't all games 1080p60?
Interesting content, low on waffle, and managed to walk through a minefield while admitting he's walking through a minefield without blowing himself up - good job that man and thank goodness the right questions being asked too.
Mind you no matter how tactfully he put it and how much he tried to leave a ray of hope shining on the future it's pretty telling they couldn't - with lots of effort and help from MS to boot - get if 60fps on XB1 for launch at 1080p native when they could on PS4 and without having to go to unreasonable cost/effort to do so to boot.
That speaks to both the PS4 definitely being easier to develop for and to its specs too.
Mind you no matter how tactfully he put it and how much he tried to leave a ray of hope shining on the future it's pretty telling they couldn't - with lots of effort and help from MS to boot - get if 60fps on XB1 for launch at 1080p native when they could on PS4 and without having to go to unreasonable cost/effort to do so to boot.
That speaks to both the PS4 definitely being easier to develop for and to its specs too.
BurnOutBrighter
Banned
This is kind of a big deal. How many other games could this potentially hold back?
Good thing that the ps4 has both covered!
Ardenyal
Member
Wouldn't the OS be able to run off the DDR3? unless of course the display planes for Lara croft nudes on the sidebar need ESRAM.
serversurfer
Member
Dat balance.
Dat hope.
I don't think that's what he was saying at all. He was saying the OS is gonna do what the OS is gonna do, and of MS suddenly decide they want a resource you were using, tough shit. Chat was given as an example of something going on at the OS level which could snatch resources out from under you from build to build.
To me, the most interesting implication of that little exchange was that any of this was news to us. DF asked what it was like the day the news came down about the resolution differences, and his response was basically, "Umm, we've known this all along. Duh."
I don't think the two are mutually exclusive. A game may need to implement its own party chat, but the OS may still have chat-related things going on in the background. What he's basically saying is that rolling your own chat is almost easier, in the sense that you don't have resources being taken away from you willy nilly.
Of course, as MS finalize their OS, these resource allocations will become more fixed and less of a headache. What he's describing is mostly a pre-launch issue.
All of them.
Eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeh.... good times when ps3 games were bad porting.
disastermouse
Banned
But then they'd have to cut out fantasy football integration and that's just a bridge too far, man.
A. Bridge. Too. Far!
The only reason why any of this has been such a big deal is because of what the PS4 hardware is. If the PS4 had cheaped out and slapped a DDR3+SRAM machine out there, it would still be a marked improvement over the PS3 like the XBO is over the 360. It's the fact that Sony gave MS an uppercut of hardware design and superior RAM of equal quantity that has made all this controversy possible.
XBO taken on its own is an upgrade from 360. Unfortunately for MS, Sony's machine is flat out superior in power and design.
And honestly, who among us could have predicted this prior to 2013? Sony has NEVER had the most powerful machine. PS1 didn't do 2D as well as Saturn and 3DO and didn't do 3D as well as N64. PS2 didn't have 480p available on all titles like Dreamcast and was completely outshined spec-wise by Gamecube and Xbox. PS3 was supremely difficult architecture that "could" outshine 360 on certain types of games, but overall was inferior to 360 on the majority of games. This is really a first for them to now be the most powerful from day 1.
On the flip side, Microsoft has never NOT had the most powerful machine. Day 1 of Xbox's release, it was obvious that it was by far the most powerful console of the generation. When the 360 released, it continued to demonstrate an obvious hardware advantage over everyone else unless you really dedicated yourself to those Cell SPU's to squeeze out some sort of advantage. XBO is the first time they're coming to the party without the heaviest graphical guns of the generation.
Seriously, the Xbox brand has never been synonymous with "compromise" or "inferiority" before now, and it's just been interesting to see all these articles and threads of genuine disbelief from both gamers and the press that the company that pushed console graphics and features to the bleeding edge has fallen so far.
XBO taken on its own is an upgrade from 360. Unfortunately for MS, Sony's machine is flat out superior in power and design.
And honestly, who among us could have predicted this prior to 2013? Sony has NEVER had the most powerful machine. PS1 didn't do 2D as well as Saturn and 3DO and didn't do 3D as well as N64. PS2 didn't have 480p available on all titles like Dreamcast and was completely outshined spec-wise by Gamecube and Xbox. PS3 was supremely difficult architecture that "could" outshine 360 on certain types of games, but overall was inferior to 360 on the majority of games. This is really a first for them to now be the most powerful from day 1.
On the flip side, Microsoft has never NOT had the most powerful machine. Day 1 of Xbox's release, it was obvious that it was by far the most powerful console of the generation. When the 360 released, it continued to demonstrate an obvious hardware advantage over everyone else unless you really dedicated yourself to those Cell SPU's to squeeze out some sort of advantage. XBO is the first time they're coming to the party without the heaviest graphical guns of the generation.
Seriously, the Xbox brand has never been synonymous with "compromise" or "inferiority" before now, and it's just been interesting to see all these articles and threads of genuine disbelief from both gamers and the press that the company that pushed console graphics and features to the bleeding edge has fallen so far.
Not that it's relevant, but the 3DO was a terrible 2D machine. PSX had a massive advantage over 3DO in both 2D and 3D.
First of all, 3DO could only output in 480i even though it was internally rendering at 320x240. It should have been delivered to the TV at 240p but instead you got ugly, flickering visuals that lacked the clarity you saw with other systems. More importantly, it was just slow. Look at something like Gex, which operated at sub-30 fps most of the time on 3DO despite very simple parallax scrolling. The PSX version was 60 fps. Street Fighter II was often cited as a good looking 2D game on 3DO but, in reality, it wasn't doing anything the PSX could not have done much better as it was based on SFII. The Alpha series was more demanding than SFII ever was and ran on newer Capcom hardware.
3DO's 3D framerates were also abysmal. It was a poorly conceived piece of hardware that wasn't strong enough to handle the techniques you were required to use.
You're reading the quote wrong. He's not saying the VO held the game back from being 1080p. He's saying they can't point to one specific thing, and then used that as an example of what they can't say.
Well either way, Road Rash was superior on 3DO. Also Wing Commander 3's sprite-based gameplay on 3DO shit all over the attempt at 3D polygon-based gameplay on PS1. (I owned both games on PS1 and my best friend owned both games on 3DO, so I've played all 4 and there was no contest.)
But I believe you that 3DO may have been weaker, but the ported games to PS1 a lot of times were inferior.
SHADES
Member
I don't think it does, but sounds like a standard API that's applied from the games end rather than the OS which is what Famous,CBOAT & Thuway said.
Ah yes, thanks for bringing this up.
I still don't understand where these myths about Road Rash and Need for Speed came from. I own these games on both PSX and 3DO right now and have played them back to back this past year, even. The 3DO versions are much worse all around.
They both run at higher framerates on PSX with better image quality. There's nothing about the 3DO versions that are superior.
Also, the WC3 comparison isn't exactly fair as the PSX version was actually attempting to duplicate the PC version with proper 3D polygons while the 3DO version was the clone. Naturally the PC version was more demanding and, really, it ran better on PSX than it did on most PCs of that era albeit at 240p.
This is based on adding a 3DO to my collection last year and picking up a whole slew of games. Seeing them for myself and comparing them against the PSX versions demonstrates how much faster PSX was. PSX was delivering faster framerates across the board.
Ok fine. But we are getting off track from my point by miring ourselves in 3DO hardware analysis. My point is that Sony has never had THE most powerful game system in a generation until now and Microsoft has never NOT had arguably the most powerful game console in a generation until now.
Ha ha, I know. I always love some good 3DO talk, though.
eddfromtheriver
Banned
Yep, they want to mislead people... in typical MS fashion. (as of late at least)
This doesn't bode well for a system that still hasn't even launched.
No doubt. And clone or not, 3DO Wing Commander 3 was very impressive compared to the PS1 attempt at doing it with polygons. Colony Wars is where PS1 started to shine in space combat games for me.
Yep. Got my long box right here and everything. It's amazing at how much they managed to cram onto the 3DO controller, though. So many crazy combinations. You really DO need the little control insert to figure it out.
I could never find the Kilrathi Ship Behemoth? That one mission near, what I presume, was the end of the game. Never finished that fucking game. Fuck the 3do.
eddfromtheriver
Banned
This is big. So not even with MS tech crew assistance...
Are you using an older DLP then? That's about the only way that could actually be true.
Seriously, I know what you're trying to argue, but it's incorrect. You cannot make a blanket statement about something that your product doesn't actually produce. The fact is, not all displays actually WOULD upscale, if you want to be accurate so their statement would not have worked.
It was on a DLP. But, now you have me questioning the term "scaling". If I plug a Wii into an LCD, is it not "scaling" when it converts the 480p signal to a 1024 × 768 (or whatever it is) resolution? Because the output resolution is higher, is this not "upscaling"? Your post seems to indicate this is not the case and I am wondering which of my assumptions is wrong.
eddfromtheriver
Banned
It's simple... framerate would've suffered.
Good interview. The whole "we should be able to run future cod games in 1080p" does not sound good. Obviously the ps4 is easier to program for.
I would assume that once the developers get more experience they will be able to do 1080p for every game. It remains to be seen if the xbox gets the lesser version of all third party games this gen.
I would assume that once the developers get more experience they will be able to do 1080p for every game. It remains to be seen if the xbox gets the lesser version of all third party games this gen.
Just_myles
Member
I'm going to go out on a limb and say that since it's basically a 1st gen game on a new console it will probably not be the best it can be. Let us see in a few years when they release the next COD game or even next years COD game if treyarch is working on it.
He is saying the TV/LCD is doing the scaling not the wii.
Your post assumes that all displays are fixed pixel.
How a TV displays the image depend on the type of display in use and the type of circuitry handling the image input. There are HD displays out there which do not process the image in the way you describe.
I'm simply noting that Nintendo could never have made any sort of statement suggesting what you're saying as there would be cases where their statement would be wrong and they could be held to that. You can't make a claim about your devices performance based on the performance of another product. Think of all the other products where such practices could result in serious legal issues.
Now, TV manufacturers absolutely could list upscaling of low resolution sources as a feature alongside any other device that offers similar functions.
Microsoft is only able to make these claims because their product actually has the ability to handle this process on its own.
Why would you need to replace the HDD? Is something wrong with it? The PSU could be fine as well depending on which one you purchased. The DVD drive should be fine as well. Doing the upgrade in 2 stages wouldn't be that big of a deal either (relatively speaking). CPU with motherboard and RAM and later do the GPU. A 8800 nividia or comparable card will run games decently without all the bells and whistles still, but it is due for an upgrade (dated for when you got your computer). The CPU migration will give you the most noticable change though given the era of purhcase. Moving from a dual core to a 6-12 threaded CPU will have more advantages than only gaming. If you are still rocking XP, then moving to win7 at a minimum will help out too.
Regardless of what you decide to do with your PC in the long term, any decent upgrade will still set you back 300-600+ initially, depending on how "high end" you are aiming for. Buying unlocked multiplier chips though I am not sure is worth the extra markup for in general, unless you are really into overclocking. Yeah, the frequency bumps help and are easier to change, but QPI adjustments aren't so bad and allow similar flexability.
If he is saying that, then his earlier statement that the Wii is not capable of being scaled makes no sense.
Your post assumes that all displays are fixed pixel.
How a TV displays the image depend on the type of display in use and the type of circuitry handling the image input. There are HD displays out there which do not process the image in the way you describe.
I'm simply noting that Nintendo could never have made any sort of statement suggesting what you're saying as there would be cases where their statement would be wrong and they could be held to that. You can't make a claim about your devices performance based on the performance of another product. Think of all the other products where such practices could result in serious legal issues.
Now, TV manufacturers absolutely could list upscaling of low resolution sources as a feature alongside any other device that offers similar functions.
Microsoft is only able to make these claims because their product actually has the ability to handle this process on its own.
True of false, the Wii signal is capable of being scaled by multiple display devices? If this is true, then claiming that the "wii signal is capable of being scaled" would never result in legal issues.
Your post assumes that all displays are fixed pixel.
...
Now, TV manufacturers absolutely could list upscaling of low resolution sources as a feature alongside any other device that offers similar functions.
Microsoft is only able to make these claims because their product actually has the ability to handle this process on its own.
A number of higher end receivers actually do tout their scaling processors, as they tend to be the middle device that scales everything.
No point in getting a gaming PC in 2013 without also getting an SSD. My HD is loud and slow and only 300 GB, and I wouldn't be surprised if it gave out entirely sometime soon.
I think I will get a new gaming PC at some point in the future, it's just that right now it doesn't make sense for me to go down that road.
Read what I said above.
Also, I never said that the Wii wasn't capable of being scaled, rather, that the Wii itself was incapable of scaling the image. If a device is incapable of a function you cannot list that function as a feature. The Wii cannot output anything higher than 480p so Nintendo could never have made any claims regarding HD scaling.
Plus, like I said, you're stuck thinking only about fixed pixel displays. When the Wii launched there were still plenty of HD CRTs in use, among other things, which don't simply scale the image.
The PS1 was strictly more powerful because pushing 3D is harder than 2D. The Saturn did 2D very well but the PS1 was very impressive for it's time. The 3DO was nearly more than double the price. Mostly due to low install base nothing as impressive as MGS or vagrant story ever appeared on the 3DO.
PS2 vs DC is more of a tradeoff but once it got going some of the late PS2 games were far more impressive than anything the DC ever got. 480p PS2 titles existed but were just uncommon. Compare MGS3 to anything on the DC. They did have different strengths though and the DC died young.
The wii can only output 480p, It doesn't have a scaler. Of course external devices can do whatever to the signal.
The thing about 480p on the PS2 is that more games were capable of this than you'd think. You could force a great number of PS2 titles to output 480p using the "Xploder" disc. Basically, any game that used a full framebuffer could be forced into 480p mode. Games which used field rendering were incapable of being displayed in 480p. This disc works for MGS2, 3, and ZOE2 as an example.
I still think field rendering wasn't such a bad thing. Image quality took a hit but it guaranteed 60 fps as the penalty for NOT hitting that framerate was a drop in resolution and slow motion gameplay. It was an interesting idea.
eddfromtheriver
Banned
MS is in dire need of their very own ICE team.
Glorified G
Member
You could have asked the same question seven years ago. "If Ridge Racer 7 and NBA 07 can do it why can't it be possible after launch titles?"
It's not a question whether it's possible. Every ps360 game could have been 1080p and 60fps. But there is tradeoffs in order to achieve that. With game engines getting more advanced in the future just like this generation I wouldn't count on it.
eddfromtheriver
Banned
People always ask the same question... Forza isn't doing anything next gen worthy. It basically looks like an HD remaster of a current gen game.
SmoothRunningGun
Member
It's pretty simple: ps4 has a better gpu than xbone. All the rest of that is just noise.
They are not necessarily the same people. Also the people who quibble over it may not actually give too much of a fuck it was all just epenis waving anyway.#
I, myself, could not give two fucks if a game is in 720p or 1080p. My PC monitor only does 720p anyway. Each to their own. Some people notice it and other just don't.
Saying all that I've never owned an xbox and probably never will, but if I was interested in it 720p wouldn't put me off.
I agree with this 100% but your earlier post led to confusion
I read your post as "Suggesting it as capable [of being scaled] would still be incorrect."
Is it good pr to say we tried our best but couldn't get similar performance out of the Xbone?
SwiftDeath
Member
Perhaps not but saying it's not any specific problem seems a bit disingenuous if it truly is the ESram (3mb vs 2mb causing problems) and/or the Party Chat/Chat API hooks causing OS problems
I highly doubt the problem IW had with the XB1 hardware is the only instance of the same problem