PS4 and Xbox One resolution / frame rate discussion

[DrunknMunky Veteran]

Here's some screenshots of the "outrage" over MGS:

 

The sign in this scene:

 

 

Looks like this when zoomed in and compared!

 

 

OMG!!!

 

:huh:   and this is a game, like you pointed out, that has a "huge" difference.  Now it's between 900p and 1080p.

 

The differences are bigger than minor background props. We went through all this when the game came out at the start of this topic. You've either carefully chosen those examples or unaware of how big exactly the differences actually are.

 

360 and X1 side by side. Almost identical. That's how bad the port is...I doubt many could actually tell you which is which.

 

[Showan]

The differences are bigger than minor background props. We went through all this when the game came out at the start of this topic. You've either carefully chosen those examples or unaware of how big exactly the differences actually are.

The differences are there no doubt about it.

But once again, I'm noticing this from mostly 3rd party studios.

Yes the PS4 is the more powerful hardware, and should be able to consistently run more 1080p/60fps games than the One.

What's under the hood of the 4 is more powerful than the One.

But, Microsoft is showing that it can be done on the One, if some effort is put into it.

Halo 2 anniversary looks amazing, and they are running to different engines simultaneously .... That in itself is a major feat to do.

How much better would that look if the legacy graphics engine were removed.

Yes the PS4 is the more powerful console, without a doubt. But the One can achieve this too in the bigger titles if a little more TLC is put into it.

[theyarecomingforyou]

I understand that some people want this thread open to keep the "truth" out there so they can compare numbers but for pretty much everyone else but the pixel-counters this thread is useless.

 

I can understand if people were discussing this in the last generation:

 

But now we're at this:

 

 

 

 

If a game start hiccuping, then that's news, but all of this x amount of pixels vs y amount of pixels when the games compare so closely is stupid.

Are you being serious? Most of the comparisons you're using are heavily compressed and/or downsized, masking the differences. If you had been following the matter at all you would realise there are substantial differences in many games, with MGS being the best example. DR3 was running at 30fps @ 720p on the XB1, which is simply unacceptable for a supposedly 'next-gen' console.

 

Last generation the difference between the two consoles was very small, with some games exhibiting a small difference in resolution or slightly variations in graphics - the X360 had the slight edge. This generation the PS4 is hands down the more powerful console, with some games running at twice the resolution or framerate. Given that the 'next-gen' consoles are all about graphics and resolution it really isn't surprising to see people favour the PS4.

[theyarecomingforyou]

But, Microsoft is showing that it can be done on the One, if some effort is put into it.

Halo 2 anniversary looks amazing, and they are running to different engines simultaneously .... That in itself is a major feat to do.

How much better would that look if the legacy graphics engine were removed.

It really doesn't look very good, certainly not by modern standards. I can understand why fans of the original would be happy but graphically it's rather dated.

 

 

The lighting it flat, the animations rigid and repetitive, the geometry detail lacking, etc. It looks like what I'd expect from an indie developer. It's not even running at 1080p (only 1328x1080).

[GotBored]

The differences are there no doubt about it.

But once again, I'm noticing this from mostly 3rd party studios.

Yes the PS4 is the more powerful hardware, and should be able to consistently run more 1080p/60fps games than the One.

What's under the hood of the 4 is more powerful than the One.

But, Microsoft is showing that it can be done on the One, if some effort is put into it.

Halo 2 anniversary looks amazing, and they are running to different engines simultaneously .... That in itself is a major feat to do.

How much better would that look if the legacy graphics engine were removed.

Yes the PS4 is the more powerful console, without a doubt. But the One can achieve this too in the bigger titles if a little more TLC is put into it.

 

You can't really compare exclusives (1st party studios) because they aren't on both consoles, but I'm sure Halo 2 Anniversary will be a huge improvement over the original on Xbox. (I used to own halo 2 on xbox and you'd hope it looks better on current-gen consoles lol).

 

The PS4 has the edge in hardware and therefore graphics but both have lots of good looking games and both are a big improvement over the previous-gen consoles.

 

 

It really doesn't look very good, certainly not by modern standards. I can understand why fans of the original would be happy but graphically it's rather dated.

 

 

The lighting it flat, the animations rigid and repetitive, the geometry detail lacking, etc. It looks like what I'd expect from an indie developer. It's not even running at 1080p (only 1328x1080).

 

Yes it does look fairly dated but its still a big improvement over the original. I think the nostalgia effect will wear off pretty quickly on this game but I'm sure it will sell a fair amount of copies and even sell systems

[+Audioboxer Subscriber²]

Here's some screenshots of the "outrage" over MGS:

The sign in this scene:

Looks like this when zoomed in and compared!

OMG!!!

:huh: and this is a game, like you pointed out, that has a "huge" difference. Now it's between 900p and 1080p.

If you want better comparisons than what you're digging up visit the early pages of this topic. Besides the resolution difference the XB1 version is completely missing the dynamic clouds of the PS4 version.

Just by throwing the word "outrage" in there as well doesn't do anything to downplay the differences.

The only folks seemingly getting outraged around here are those who come into this topic to tell others to stop caring or stop making a deal out of differences.

[BajiRav]

It really doesn't look very good, certainly not by modern standards. I can understand why fans of the original would be happy but graphically it's rather dated.

The lighting it flat, the animations rigid and repetitive, the geometry detail lacking, etc. It looks like what I'd expect from an indie developer. It's not even running at 1080p (only 1328x1080).

And do you know why is it not 1080p/60fps in single player but is 1080p/60fps in multi?

[BajiRav]

Are you being serious? Most of the comparisons you're using are heavily compressed and/or downsized, masking the differences. If you had been following the matter at all you would realise there are substantial differences in many games, with MGS being the best example. DR3 was running at 30fps @ 720p on the XB1, which is simply unacceptable for a supposedly 'next-gen' console.

Last generation the difference between the two consoles was very small, with some games exhibiting a small difference in resolution or slightly variations in graphics - the X360 had the slight edge. This generation the PS4 is hands down the more powerful console, with some games running at twice the resolution or framerate. Given that the 'next-gen' consoles are all about graphics and resolution it really isn't surprising to see people favour the PS4.

What's a DR3 equivalent in PS4 with as many NPCs on screen at once? There is none as far as I know and it was a launch game with half-baked dev tools and apparently a bankrupt dev.

[Showan]

Are you being serious? Most of the comparisons you're using are heavily compressed and/or downsized, masking the differences. If you had been following the matter at all you would realise there are substantial differences in many games, with MGS being the best example. DR3 was running at 30fps @ 720p on the XB1, which is simply unacceptable for a supposedly 'next-gen' console.

 

Last generation the difference between the two consoles was very small, with some games exhibiting a small difference in resolution or slightly variations in graphics - the X360 had the slight edge. This generation the PS4 is hands down the more powerful console, with some games running at twice the resolution or framerate. Given that the 'next-gen' consoles are all about graphics and resolution it really isn't surprising to see people favour the PS4.

You call Halo 2 dated and flat.. And then u give an excuse about compression here... Can't have it both ways...

Play fair

[theyarecomingforyou]

And do you know why is it not 1080p/60fps in single player but is 1080p/60fps in multi?

Because the XB1 isn't powerful enough for what the developer is trying to do.

 

What's a DR3 equivalent in PS4 with as many NPCs on screen at once? There is none as far as I know and it was a launch game with half-baked dev tools and apparently a bankrupt dev.

Excuses, excuses. No PS4 game runs below 900p, whereas numerous XB1 games do (Call Of Duty: Ghosts, Battlefield 4, Dead Rising 3, Golf Club, Killer Instinct, Metal Gear Solid V: Ground Zeroes, Titanfall, Watch Dogs, etc). The XB1 simply has less power.

 

You call Halo 2 dated and flat.. And then u give an excuse about compression here... Can't have it both ways...

Play fair

They are two entirely different issues. Using highly compressed and/or downsized images masks the image quality differences, compromising or invalidating any comparison. That has nothing to do with Halo 2: Anniversary Edition looking dated by modern standards. I have no idea why you're conflating the two.  :huh:

[Showan]

Because the XB1 isn't powerful enough for what the developer is trying to do.

Excuses, excuses. No PS4 game runs below 900p, whereas numerous XB1 games do (Call Of Duty: Ghosts, Battlefield 4, Dead Rising 3, Golf Club, Killer Instinct, Metal Gear Solid V: Ground Zeroes, Titanfall, Watch Dogs, etc). The XB1 simply has less power.

They are two entirely different issues. Using highly compressed and/or downsized images masks the image quality differences, compromising or invalidating any comparison. That has nothing to do with Halo 2: Anniversary Edition looking dated by modern standards. I have no idea why you're conflating the two. :huh:

Halo 2 anny has both the legacy graphics engine and the new engine that Halo 5 will be using.

Something we haven't seen yet in person.

[George P Global Moderator]

Because the XB1 isn't powerful enough for what the developer is trying to do.

 

 

I guess you missed his 2nd comment saying the MP is running at 1080p@60fps?   SP is a bit lower because, as the developer said last week, they're running two game engines at the same time, not one, that's why you can switch between old and new graphics on the fly.   Taking a small hit on the res, and yes it's small,  doesn't mean as much as you want to make it sound like. 

 

These arguments over all, on both sides, are getting silly.  the PS4 is this magical powerhouse yet when it's games don't hit that holy grail 1080p@60fps it's either not that big of on issue, when it's first party games, because heck they still look good so it's ok, or if it's multiplayer games then it's evil MS paying developers to keep the two versions of the game the same at 900p!    I love the double standard and hypocrisy, not to mention conspiracy theories being tossed around in this thread.   

 

If you guys were buying the stuff your actually saying, and care so much about resolution and framerates then NONE of you would even bother with console gaming and I'd see you only in the PC master race section of GH.

[Luc2k]

If you guys were buying the stuff your actually saying, and care so much about resolution and framerates then NONE of you would even bother with console gaming and I'd see you only in the PC master race section of GH.

That is not the case at all. I'm a PC only gamer, yet I look around here because the console world is bound to taint The Glorious Race. Games limited to 30 FPS don't make sense on PC, yet there are plenty of them. Not to mention gems like that NFS game where game speed was tied to FPS.

[George P Global Moderator]

That is not the case at all. I'm a PC only gamer, yet I look around here because the console world is bound to taint The Glorious Race. Games limited to 30 FPS don't make sense on PC, yet there are plenty of them. Not to mention gems like that NFS game where game speed was tied to FPS.

 

Well, sure, there's going to be crap ports but I think that's going to be less of an issue going forward.  Generally speaking though,  my point stands, if you care about these numbers as much as some seem to in this thread then you're in the wrong section, PC is where it's at.

 

Anyways, the consoles at this point are for any exclusives you won't see on the PC, but so far there's only a few and not enough to warrant me rushing out and buying either (though money wise right now I can get a better deal on a XB1 compared to a PS4 at retail).   For the first time since the original PSX I don't have this need to rush out and buy a console, and I don't have that great of a PC either but it's more to do with game selection and the fact that more things are now also coming to the PC, like the new MGS, one less reason to get a console for me right there.

[Luc2k]

Generally speaking though,  my point stands, if you care about these numbers as much as some seem to in this thread then you're in the wrong section, PC is where it's at.

I don't really care about the numbers, unlike other PC gamers, but when it comes to multi-platform games, they're more discussed in console topics here. These discussions also offer hints of what state the game might reach PC. Also, what outsider doesn't enjoy seeing people bash each other by coming to the defense of corporations no less.

[theyarecomingforyou]

I guess you missed his 2nd comment saying the MP is running at 1080p@60fps?   SP is a bit lower because, as the developer said last week, they're running two game engines at the same time, not one, that's why you can switch between old and new graphics on the fly.   Taking a small hit on the res, and yes it's small,  doesn't mean as much as you want to make it sound like. 

I didn't miss it but the point remains that if the XB1 was powerful enough it would be running at 1080p @ 60fps. The developer is trying to do too much with the limited performance available. As I said before, the graphics really aren't anything special and therefore I don't consider it an acceptable trade-off to drop the resolution to allow for the legacy mode unless there is an option to disable it and run at 1080p.

 

These arguments over all, on both sides, are getting silly.  the PS4 is this magical powerhouse yet when it's games don't hit that holy grail 1080p@60fps it's either not that big of on issue, when it's first party games, because heck they still look good so it's ok, or if it's multiplayer games then it's evil MS paying developers to keep the two versions of the game the same at 900p!    I love the double standard and hypocrisy, not to mention conspiracy theories being tossed around in this thread.   

The PS4 is underpowered and struggles to hit 1080p @ 60fps in many games. There are numerous titles that run at less than 1080p: Battlefield 4, EA Sports UFC, Watch_Dogs, The Order: 1886, Killzone: Shadow Fall (multiplayer), etc. There are also countless that only run at 30fps. However, when a developer makes presentations showing the PS4 to be significantly more powerful and yet the game runs at the same settings after they have specifically mentioned parity one has to consider there to be something suspicious about that. We know that Microsoft has policies in place to prevent indie games launching later on XB1 and has paid for Rise Of The Tomb Raider not to be released on PS4 and PC at the same time. Microsoft has a history of anti-consumer practices and it would be naive to dismiss that as a possibility here, though without evidence one also should not claim it as fact. It is only a theory but a credible one.

 

If you guys were buying the stuff your actually saying, and care so much about resolution and framerates then NONE of you would even bother with console gaming and I'd see you only in the PC master race section of GH.

I only game on PC but that doesn't mean I don't have an interest in consoles, especially as they relate to what happens to PC versions of multiplatform games. For instance, Rise Of The Tomb Raider is a great example over how consoles can screw over PC gamers.

[Showan]

I didn't miss it but the point remains that if the XB1 was powerful enough it would be running at 1080p @ 60fps. The developer is trying to do too much with the limited performance available. As I said before, the graphics really aren't anything special and therefore I don't consider it an acceptable trade-off to drop the resolution to allow for the legacy mode unless there is an option to disable it and run at 1080p.

 

 

The PS4 is underpowered and struggles to hit 1080p @ 60fps in many games. There are numerous titles that run at less than 1080p: Battlefield 4, EA Sports UFC, Watch_Dogs, The Order: 1886, Killzone: Shadow Fall (multiplayer), etc. There are also countless that only run at 30fps. However, when a developer makes presentations showing the PS4 to be significantly more powerful and yet the game runs at the same settings after they have specifically mentioned parity one has to consider there to be something suspicious about that. We know that Microsoft has policies in place to prevent indie games launching later on XB1 and has paid for Rise Of The Tomb Raider not to be released on PS4 and PC at the same time. Microsoft has a history of anti-consumer practices and it would be naive to dismiss that as a possibility here, though without evidence one also should not claim it as fact. It is only a theory but a credible one.

 

 

I only game on PC but that doesn't mean I don't have an interest in consoles, especially as they relate to what happens to PC versions of multiplatform games. For instance, Rise Of The Tomb Raider is a great example over how consoles can screw over PC gamers.

 

 

So you have seen the Halo 5 engine in person?  

[theyarecomingforyou]

So you have seen the Halo 5 engine in person?  

What does that have to do with anything? :huh: I was commenting on the video of Halo 2: Anniversary Edition, which is graphically weak (even allowing for YouTube's video compression) and runs at 1328x1080 (which is less than 900p). Considering it doesn't push the graphical envelope that's pretty poor.

[Emn1ty]

The PS4 is underpowered and struggles to hit 1080p @ 60fps in many games. There are numerous titles that run at less than 1080p: Battlefield 4, EA Sports UFC, Watch_Dogs, The Order: 1886, Killzone: Shadow Fall (multiplayer), etc. There are also countless that only run at 30fps. However, when a developer makes presentations showing the PS4 to be significantly more powerful and yet the game runs at the same settings after they have specifically mentioned parity one has to consider there to be something suspicious about that. We know that Microsoft has policies in place to prevent indie games launching later on XB1 and has paid for Rise Of The Tomb Raider not to be released on PS4 and PC at the same time. Microsoft has a history of anti-consumer practices and it would be naive to dismiss that as a possibility here, though without evidence one also should not claim it as fact. It is only a theory but a credible one.

 

Well... perhaps but that doesn't mean we are to jump to conclusions about whatever "suspicions" we may have. You can't just start pointing fingers. Also, in regards to paying for timed exclusives and the like. Sony has done the same. Why does it seem that Microsoft is the only one who has a "history" of this practice when it's common with both of the companies?

[theyarecomingforyou]

Well... perhaps but that doesn't mean we are to jump to conclusions about whatever "suspicions" we may have. You can't just start pointing fingers. Also, in regards to paying for timed exclusives and the like. Sony has done the same. Why does it seem that Microsoft is the only one who has a "history" of this practice when it's common with both of the companies?

If the situation were reversed then it would be Sony under the spotlight. The reality is that the PS4 is more powerful and for it to end up at sub-1080p after the developer has talked about parity seems rather suspicious. There might be nothing to it?the developer could be entirely to blame or it could, as hypothesised, be because of CPU limitations?but it's certainly an angle worth considering. Nobody is asserting that Microsoft did this for a fact, just that it wouldn't be surprising if Microsoft had.

[DrunknMunky Veteran]

Topic cleaned

 

This is a technical discussion, not a history lesson on marketing stunts, money swapping hands or other derailments.

[trooper11]

What does that have to do with anything? :huh: I was commenting on the video of Halo 2: Anniversary Edition, which is graphically weak (even allowing for YouTube's video compression) and runs at 1328x1080 (which is less than 900p). Considering it doesn't push the graphical envelope that's pretty poor.

I'm not sure how this proves anything about what the X1 is capable of though. So a game from years ago is remade for a new console with an entirely new engine, and it cannot hit 1080p/60 like the other games in the same bundle will be hitting. There are other options besides the X1 cannot handle it.

People will assume what they want to of course based on how they feel about the platform or company, but I don't think its unfair to say that soemtimes we are not willing to look at the entire technical picture. This thread is about resolution and frame rate, but I would hope that everyone here has also learned that there are few black and white answers. Not all ps4 or x1 games hit 1080p and not all hit 60 fps. That is evidence enough to show that any sharing of ONLY resolution and framerate data must also come with the data on why certain levels were hit or not hit.

When I say data on why, I'm not talking about pr bs or any biased assumptions. I'm talking about real technical explanations. We have to at least be willing to consider that or we just look like raving maniacs. I dont look at The Order, for example, and then say the ps4 is not capable of hitting 1080p, that would be silly. Every game developer is different and that leads to differences in method and goals when it comes to hitting levels. Some developers clearly do not care about hitting 1080p or 60 fps. They are going to make the game as they want and hitting certain numbers is not the end of the world.

This thread could be changed to 'PS4 and Xbox One developer (or game development) discussion' and suddenly be a much more complete look at the process. Whether your a pc only, console only, or pc/console gamer, its nice to hear the developers side of it technically speaking.

That would encompass not only res and framerate but also the specific methods (the why) by developers that got them to that level.

[theyarecomingforyou]

I'm not sure how this proves anything about what the X1 is capable of though. So a game from years ago is remade for a new console with an entirely new engine, and it cannot hit 1080p/60 like the other games in the same bundle will be hitting. There are other options besides the X1 cannot handle it.

All I'm pointing out is that the XB1 wasn't powerful enough for what the developers were trying to achieve. Given that all the other games in the bundle work at 60fps it's clear that the legacy mode is responsible. However, the decision to lower the resolution was for performance reasons - it wasn't lower for artistic reasons.

 

I don't think its unfair to say that soemtimes we are not willing to look at the entire technical picture. This thread is about resolution and frame rate, but I would hope that everyone here has also learned that there are few black and white answers. Not all ps4 or x1 games hit 1080p and not all hit 60 fps. That is evidence enough to show that any sharing of ONLY resolution and framerate data must also come with the data on why certain levels were hit or not hit.

I completely agree. Sure Halo: The Master Chief Collection runs at 1080p @ 60fps but graphically it isn't up to the standards of modern games. Graphical fidelity is important and hitting 1080p @ 60fps doesn't mean a game has to have good graphics. Personally I think it's extremely disappointing that 1080p @ 60fps isn't a required standard for both consoles - it should have been easily possible. Both Microsoft and Sony skimped on hardware this generation in comparison to last, with woefully inadequate processors and GPUs. There was an interesting video highlighting how underpowered the GPUs are:

 

 

Basically, a five year old PC graphics card has more power than the XB1. The CPU is also seriously underpowered. It used to be that consoles had cutting edges specs and were heavily subsidised over the lifecycle of the console - this generation they're basically budget PCs. It's shocking that Watch_Dogs only runs at 792p on XB1, as that's simply not 'next-gen'.

[trooper11]

All I'm pointing out is that the XB1 wasn't powerful enough for what the developers were trying to achieve. Given that all the other games in the bundle work at 60fps it's clear that the legacy mode is responsible. However, the decision to lower the resolution was for performance reasons - it wasn't lower for artistic reasons.

Your right, so the question has to be asked: should the halo developers have ditched the legacy mode option instead of cutting the resolution? During every game development cycle, these kinds of questions get asked internally I'm sure. From the outside, what would we, as fans of a game, rather have? Even on the pc, you can't have it all and a sacrifice is made.

I completely agree. Sure Halo: The Master Chief Collection runs at 1080p @ 60fps but graphically it isn't up to the standards of modern games. Graphical fidelity is important and hitting 1080p @ 60fps doesn't mean a game has to have good graphics.

Well the same can be said for all releases of older games on newer hardware. They won't hold up to games made for the new system from scratch. However, even among games made for the new systems, not everything is created equal.

Personally I think it's extremely disappointing that 1080p @ 60fps isn't a required standard for both consoles - it should have been easily possible. Both Microsoft and Sony skimped on hardware this generation in comparison to last, with woefully inadequate processors and GPUs. There was an interesting video highlighting how underpowered the GPUs are:

Developers would be up in arms if any such requirement was made. That is why there was no such requirement last gen either.

As far as skimping on hardware, well the reality is that the market simply can't support the old methods of selling expensive hardware for a loss. Nintendo never played that game, Sony and MS just decided to do the same. Let's face it, if you wanted to build a console that matched say a high end pc system today, you would have to be able to eat big losses for a while. I wouldn't be shocked if those losses would be bigger then last gen. The reason I think that is becuase pc hardware advancement has been on a steep improvement curve over the course of last gen and it has become impossible for consoles to keep up at the same price points people are willing to buy.

[theyarecomingforyou]

Your right, so the question has to be asked: should the halo developers have ditched the legacy mode option instead of cutting the resolution?

It should be optional, as that eliminates the problem.

 

Well the same can be said for all releases of older games on newer hardware. They won't hold up to games made for the new system from scratch. However, even among games made for the new systems, not everything is created equal.

It depends how much work is put into them. Clearly a lot of work has been put into Halo 2: Anniversary Edition?it's a massive improvement from the original?but it's not up to AAA standards.

 

Developers would be up in arms if any such requirement was made. That is why there was no such requirement last gen either.

Last generation developers were required to target 720p, with some exceptions being allowed. This generation has been much less strict and that has led to a lot of problems for Microsoft, which has been the worst affected. It's a balance between developer freedom and consumer expectations. Microsoft's brand has been damaged by allowing low resolution releases.

 

As far as skimping on hardware, well the reality is that the market simply can't support the old methods of selling expensive hardware for a loss.

I don't disagree but the end result for consumers is 'next-gen' consoles that aren't enough of an improvement over the last generation, especially when we're talking about games running at 720p / 792p. The visual fidelity is increased but it's not enough of a jump. I would much rather see the console manufacturers move to a Steam Machines model, whereby you have an open platform or at least multiple models to choose from. That's what was originally intended for the Xbox. That way if someone is happy with 720p they can buy they budget model, whereas those that want 4K can buy the premium model. All the settings would be optimised automatically, so it wouldn't be like PC gaming where you have to manually configure everything.

 

The idea of fixed spec consoles that last seven years is incredibly outdated and I don't see a future in it, not at the rate that mobile phones and tablets are improving. Already you're starting to see Android machines moving into the living room and Steam Machines is around the corner. Microsoft and Sony have a lot more competition from all directions this generation. They're struggling to hit 1080p while 4K gaming is starting to take off on PC.