Digital Foundry Article Technical Discussion Archive [2011]

[ultragpu]

It appears to me like Insomniac is trying to imitate kz2's look and feel, they're half way there but failed badly at the resolution not to mention the lack of a fully deferred renderer. I think they were hoping people wont notice the sharp drop in resolution by masking it with all sorts of post processing or what's so called graphics improvements but clearly they were wrong. A very bad design decision to be honest.

 

[Prophecy2k]

Having been in the beta for R3 for a bit, i actually think the IQ looks pretty fine. Better than alot of 720 no AA games i've played this gen.

I think if you have a larger 1080p screen (mine's a 37" native 720p max) then it might look a bit fugly if you're sat too close. For me though it looks really nice.

 

[nightshade]

Aliasing isn't really that big of an issue with subHD games, blur on the other hand, is an issue.

 

[N_B]

Aliasing isn't really that big of an issue with subHD games, blur on the other hand, is an issue.

Depends on your tv, your own sensitivities, and the art style.

 

[assurdum]

So you suspect that R3 is the resolution it is due to Insomniac moving to multi-platform development? I really don't see that being the case.

Also, it probably wouldn't be best to compare R3 to C2 or any other game really since we're not aware of all the workings behind the R3 engine. It's easy to assume things when looking from the outside, but I'm sure there are logical reasons for the resolution reduction.

As Joker pointed out, it seems like there is a lot of overdraw in the game. One of the first gameplay videos I ever saw for the game indicated this with all kind of dust, fog, and smoke. Back then I was questioning how they were able to pull it off, well the lower resolution may be the answer.



It would be great if they replaced QAA to FXAA, but do you think it's likely this late in development?

Honestly, I don't think is the first game with a lot of overdraw on the ps3...by the way even in this case, my doubts rise even more over about this choice... why push ps3 where completely can't ? It's just how to try to do fly a car....however where in game, for example, red faction the subhd seem pretty obligated, I'm doubtful about the mix of art & tech combined in resistance 3, only that.

 

[nightshade]

Well Killzone has a lot of overdraw, granted they are quarter res but they are still great to look at. Beside its not like the overdraw in R3 are going to have much higher res than that.

 

[joker454]

Well Killzone has a lot of overdraw, granted they are quarter res but they are still great to look at. Beside its not like the overdraw in R3 are going to have overdraw with much higher res than that.

One particular level in R3 that I saw at E3 had more overdraw than any PS3 game I have seen to date (more than K2, K3, etc...), they went nuts with it. That particular level also ran at a somewhat lower framerate than anything else being shown. Hence why I figured it was a factor.

 

[N_B]

What level?

 

[forumaccount]

It would be great if they replaced QAA to FXAA, but do you think it's likely this late in development?

I suspect it's not likely. Just the way the timings worked out, I expect they knew about and evaluated FXAA against their current solution a while ago and chose against it for whatever reason at that point.

At a guess the performance of their current solution is slightly better and they were already having trouble hitting performance targets. (This is likely the reason for the low-ish resolution relative to the other games in the series.) No sense adding fixed costs to your frametime when you're already struggling, even if they're small.

They would have gone through a similar process with MLAA though the culprit there was more likely memory than framerate.

 

[kagemaru]

Honestly, I don't think is the first game with a lot of overdraw on the ps3...by the way even in this case, my doubts rise even more over about this choice... why push ps3 where completely can't ? It's just how to try to do fly a car....however where in game, for example, red faction the subhd seem pretty obligated, I'm doubtful about the mix of art & tech combined in resistance 3, only that.

The second half of this video is worse than any other ps3 exclusive I've seen or played. Resolution is just one number in a whole list of effects and aspects that go into a game engine. I'm sure most people probably couldn't even tell it was sub-HD before the pixel counters said something. In the R3 thread here, people were going all ga-ga over the graphics, so why not now? R3 is probably the most visually appealing Resistance so far in my opinion, so they must be doing something right.

Also, why do you think Red Faction is sub-HD? Seems silly to accept a sub-hd resolution in one game, but not another. Especially if this other game looks better visually. Unless the sub-hd resolution is only a big deal because R3 is an exclusive title. Which is still silly IMO.

I suspect it's not likely. Just the way the timings worked out, I expect they knew about and evaluated FXAA against their current solution a while ago and chose against it for whatever reason at that point.

At a guess the performance of their current solution is slightly better and they were already having trouble hitting performance targets. (This is likely the reason for the low-ish resolution relative to the other games in the series.) No sense adding fixed costs to your frametime when you're already struggling, even if they're small.

They would have gone through a similar process with MLAA though the culprit there was more likely memory than framerate.

True. Maybe they can patch it in like Ghostbusters patched in a slightly higher resolution and swapped out the QAA for MSAA.

 

[2real4tv]

The second half of this video is worse than any other ps3 exclusive I've seen or played. Resolution is just one number in a whole list of effects and aspects that go into a game engine. I'm sure most people probably couldn't even tell it was sub-HD before the pixel counters said something. In the R3 thread here, people were going all ga-ga over the graphics, so why not now? R3 is probably the most visually appealing Resistance so far in my opinion, so they must be doing something right.

Also, why do you think Red Faction is sub-HD? Seems silly to accept a sub-hd resolution in one game, but not another. Especially if this other game looks better visually. Unless the sub-hd resolution is only a big deal because R3 is an exclusive title. Which is still silly IMO.



True. Maybe they can patch it in like Ghostbusters patched in a slightly higher resolution and swapped out the QAA for MSAA.

I am not a pixel counter and I noticed this when they released the first proper footage of it:

http://forum.beyond3d.com/showpost.php?p=1520174&postcount=309

Now if you were to ask this question in 06 then you would have a point, especially since everyone including me thought RnC was 720p

 

[Prophecy2k]

Also, why do you think Red Faction is sub-HD? Seems silly to accept a sub-hd resolution in one game, but not another. Especially if this other game looks better visually. Unless the sub-hd resolution is only a big deal because R3 is an exclusive title. Which is still silly IMO.

I think there's this fallacy that if a game is exclusive to one platform, then the devs only have one single archetecture to target and so should generally get better results than a multiplatform developer. It's a fairly rational point, but where it fails is in recognising that different games, engines, tech are doing different things and the devs themselves have different priorities in what they want to do with their games tech-wise.

In my opinion R3 screens don't actually do the game justice. The game looks much better in motion and with all the motion blur and post-processing going on the IQ is really isn't that much of an issue at all. To me it looks cleaner than alot of games that are 720p. So it's one of those things i guess.

 

[kagemaru]

I am not a pixel counter and I noticed this when they released the first proper footage of it:

http://forum.beyond3d.com/showpost.php?p=1520174&postcount=309

Now if you were to ask this question in 06 then you would have a point, especially since everyone including me thought RnC was 720p

Well I did say "most" people.

I'm no pixel counter either, but I thought the game was sub-HD as well when I first saw direct feed screenshots. Before that all I saw were youtube streams which really aren't the best source to judge IQ.

I just find it odd how, to some, a game can look great one second then not so great the next based on one simple set of numbers.

I think there's this fallacy that if a game is exclusive to one platform, then the devs only have one single archetecture to target and so should generally get better results than a multiplatform developer. It's a fairly rational point, but where it fails is in recognising that different games, engines, tech are doing different things and the devs themselves have different priorities in what they want to do with their games tech-wise.

Exactly, which explains why I asked that question. Granted, sure in the beginning of a generation 1st party studios are sure to have the advantage. However this late in the game, do they still hold a big advantage over multi-plat developers? I'm not so sure on this when so much R&D has been done and shared for both consoles.

I also agree 100% on how different games have different requirements and should not be directly compared with each other, regardless if they are exclusive or multi-plat titles. What Insonmiac has planned and designed for R3 can be different than what GG did with Killzone 3 for example. The only time I find comparisons valid and interesting is when we look at a set of games within a series (Resistance 1-3, KZ 1-2, Gears 1-3, etc.).

 

[ERP]

However this late in the game, do they still hold a big advantage over multi-plat developers?

Yes they do.
Being able to focus on the strengths of a single platform is an enormous advantage.
You design assets optimized for the platform, and you spend time optimizing aspects of the engine you simply wouldn't on a multiplatform title.
I personally always hated X platform development, too many compromises for my tastes.

 

[kagemaru]

Yes they do.
Being able to focus on the strengths of a single platform is an enormous advantage.
You design assets optimized for the platform, and you spend time optimizing aspects of the engine you simply wouldn't on a multiplatform title.
I personally always hated X platform development, too many compromises for my tastes.

Aren't there also advantages to multiplatform development though such as bigger budgets and being pushed to "think outside the box" in regards to ideas you normally wouldn't try when keeping inside the comfort zone of single platform development? The latter point was basically expressed to me by a multi-plat developer a couple years ago.

 

[ERP]

Aren't there also advantages to multiplatform development though such as bigger budgets and being pushed to "think outside the box" in regards to ideas you normally wouldn't try when keeping inside the comfort zone of single platform development? The latter point was basically expressed to me by a multi-plat developer a couple years ago.

The comfort zone thing is complete bollocks, and I'd argue with the budget thing do you really think Sony spend significantly less on a first party title than say EA spends on a cross platform title?

I don't see how any multi-platform developer is forced to think anymore outside the box any more than a single platform developer.
As a multiplatform developer, you are forced to compromise.
There is a whole level of optimization you just don't do on multiplatform titles, the tendency is to build the software first and measure and optimize later, on single platform, at least the way we always worked we were far more conscious of platform shortcoming all the way through development, often making major technical and very occasionally design changes to accomodate them.
Multiplatform development is in some ways similar to PC development (although they are still worlds apart), where solutions tend to be optimized for generalities than specifics.

Bear in mind I'm not comparing developers here, I don't think single platform developers are better in any way. I'm comparing how at least IME the process differs.

 

[assurdum]

The second half of this video is worse than any other ps3 exclusive I've seen or played. Resolution is just one number in a whole list of effects and aspects that go into a game engine. I'm sure most people probably couldn't even tell it was sub-HD before the pixel counters said something. In the R3 thread here, people were going all ga-ga over the graphics, so why not now? R3 is probably the most visually appealing Resistance so far in my opinion, so they must be doing something right.

Also, why do you think Red Faction is sub-HD? Seems silly to accept a sub-hd resolution in one game, but not another. Especially if this other game looks better visually. Unless the sub-hd resolution is only a big deal because R3 is an exclusive title. Which is still silly IMO.



True. Maybe they can patch it in like Ghostbusters patched in a slightly higher resolution and swapped out the QAA for MSAA.

The last Red faction chapter is worse than the previous, talking only of a gameplay perspective but tech wise, is really remarkable the amount of physics, interactivity, buffer, both mixed on the screen... maybe the 60 fps target aren't so steady, but the tecnology behind this game imho deserve more credits even if is it 'only' 960x540p. Talking of resistance 3, honestly, really ps3 can hit only that at 960x704P ? I'm a bit surprise & counfonded. I see monochromatic colours, mediocre texture, fire effect really opinable (consider the plot fantascientic of the game); the mixed bug not appear surely the worse thing ever, probably the use of the overdraws is remarkable, but the cost for something so subtle it's too much,imho, which could be realized with more cheaper, artigianal 'alternatives' ways & to dedicate more sources in others areas more evident .

 

[kagemaru]

The comfort zone thing is complete bollocks, and I'd argue with the budget thing do you really think Sony spend significantly less on a first party title than say EA spends on a cross platform title?

I don't see how any multi-platform developer is forced to think anymore outside the box any more than a single platform developer.
As a multiplatform developer, you are forced to compromise.
There is a whole level of optimization you just don't do on multiplatform titles, the tendency is to build the software first and measure and optimize later, on single platform, at least the way we always worked we were far more conscious of platform shortcoming all the way through development, often making major technical and very occasionally design changes to accomodate them.
Multiplatform development is in some ways similar to PC development (although they are still worlds apart), where solutions tend to be optimized for generalities than specifics.

Bear in mind I'm not comparing developers here, I don't think single platform developers are better in any way. I'm comparing how at least IME the process differs.

I see and thanks for the insight. To be fair, he was referring to the development last gen when he mentioned how multi-plat development had some advantages and maybe if he had any point, it's lost this gen. Then again maybe this was never the case. IIRC he used splinter cell as an example saying the team probably wouldn't have tried some effects on the ps2 if it were a ps2 exclusive from the start. At the time it made sense lol.

So I guess it just comes down to good design when multi-plat games look better than some exclusives? (especially on the 360)

 

[ERP]

The quality of visuals always represent the set of tradeoffs you choose to make, coupled with artistic decisions.
I wouldn't judge the technical merits of a product based off its visuals at this point.
It's not like PS1/N64 where getting 50% more polygons allowed artists to make things look a lot better.
For example trading of polygon count for more complex shaders or better shadows or whatever, could result in better or worse looking product depending on how the art department utilizes them.

Good looking has as much or more to do with art direction than technology at this point.

 

[assurdum]

The quality of visuals always represent the set of tradeoffs you choose to make, coupled with artistic decisions.
I wouldn't judge the technical merits of a product based off its visuals at this point.
It's not like PS1/N64 where getting 50% more polygons allowed artists to make things look a lot better.
For example trading of polygon count for more complex shaders or better shadows or whatever, could result in better or worse looking product depending on how the art department utilizes them.

Good looking has as much or more to do with art direction than technology at this point.

I concur in part, but I think it's more a mixed of both than the prevalence of only one of this, at least judging the console department imho. Frankly don't like the choice on both in Resistance 3, but I just tries to motivate the reason more from the tech perspective to not go too much OT.