Digital Foundry Article Technical Discussion Archive [2014]

[iroboto]

Agreed. They shouldn't be - but if MS stepped in themselves and helped optimize a bunch of items, this isn't necessarily terrible either I guess. Just terrible that in the end the developer doesn't get to choose how they want to release their own product.

 

[Deleted member 11852]

It comes down to product image. there's negative image in the media due to lower numbers.

I read a fair few gaming websites regularly and listen to a number of gaming podcasts and I'm not seeing media pressure on the product but I am seeing media reporting something that Microsoft just did or said that wasn't handled well. It's really only DigitalFoundry that's maintaining any kind of focus on the technical side - and forums, but users discussing stuff isn't media pressure.

Mainstream websites sometimes carry resolutions along with other specs but reviews rarely mention differences unless they are considerable or the gameplay experience is affected. Maybe there's pressure from
sites I don't read?

Most of the negative coverage of late has mostly been self-inflicted. I.e if Microsoft had not done <insert dumbass thing of the week> the buzz would be better. Take a leaf from Sony's PS3 playback, particularly 2007-2009. More complicated CPU, a generation older GPU architecture, less RAM, slower disc access left the console with all sorts of number deficit on games compared to 360. Ignore that, look at this new exclusive!

Sent from my iPhone using Forum Runner.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Sorry, I meant social...media, not media. Negative public vibes.

 

[Deleted member 11852]

Sorry, I meant social...media, not media. Negative public vibes.

Thanks for making me type that on a bloody iphone! Grr!

Sent from my iPhone using Forum Runner.

 

[function]

I don't think that MS forced Blizzard to run the game at 1080p. They certainly wouldn't have blocked the game. I don't think he was meaning to be taken literally. It sounds like a good natured conversation and not a developer airing dirty laundry.

I think what MS did is use technical assistance to help them increase performance, and asked them to use 1080p if they possibly could. MS clearly want higher resolutions, but I'm calling bullshit on Blizzard being forced to do it.

That said, my preference would have been for keeping at 60 as often as possible instead of dropping to 50, which they could have managed easily with a smaller resolution increase to, say, '990p'.

Lots of people won't be bothered by these smallish dips, as widely lauded games such as Killzone, Infamous and Titanfall have shown with their far lower and more erratic frame rates, but it's sad to see a developer make the decision at the very last minute to put resolution before their gameplay objectives even if it's only a small tradeoff.

 

[Deleted member 11852]

I don't think that MS forced Blizzard to run the game at 1080p. They certainly wouldn't have blocked the game. I don't think he was meaning to be taken literally. It sounds like a good natured conversation and not a developer airing dirty laundry.

You may be right but we had a solid 60fps game at 900p, Blizzard previously stating categorically that framerate was king, that quote, now 1080p and am framerate dipping into the low 50s.

So Blizzard just changed their mind? Hmmm.

Sent from my iPhone using Forum Runner.

 

[Globalisateur]

I don't think that MS forced Blizzard to run the game at 1080p. They certainly wouldn't have blocked the game. I don't think he was meaning to be taken literally. It sounds like a good natured conversation and not a developer airing dirty laundry.

I think what MS did is use technical assistance to help them increase performance, and asked them to use 1080p if they possibly could. MS clearly want higher resolutions, but I'm calling bullshit on Blizzard being forced to do it.

That said, my preference would have been for keeping at 60 as often as possible instead of dropping to 50, which they could have managed easily with a smaller resolution increase to, say, '990p'.

Lots of people won't be bothered by these smallish dips, as widely lauded games such as Killzone, Infamous and Titanfall have shown with their far lower and more erratic frame rates, but it's sad to see a developer make the decision at the very last minute to put resolution before their gameplay objectives even if it's only a small tradeoff.

Not this again. Ugh.

Killzone SP, Infamous and Titanfall are solid 30fps games, even if some people prefer those games uncapped, it's their choice, well except of the XB1 version of Titanfall that still doesn't have the 30fps cap but that's another story.

So in fact those 3 games are solid 30fps games that may or not run uncapped so you can't compare them with normally solid 60fps game like Diablo 3.

 

[function]

You may be right but we had a solid 60fps game at 900p, Blizzard previously stating categorically that framerate was king, that quote, now 1080p and am framerate dipping into the low 50s.

So Blizzard just changed their mind? Hmmm.

Sent from my iPhone using Forum Runner.

A number of things have happened.

The Kinect reserve was released, MS were in contact with them on some level to improve performance further, and there probably was some attempt to persuade them to push for 1080p. But that's not the same thing as being forced or threatened with not being able to release.

For a start, it's not part of TRCs and it wouldn't be part of any existing agreement. Secondly, attempting to blackmail Activision Blizzard would be the most stupidly suicidal decision MS could make. Third ... it's in direct contrast to the fact that we *know* MS allow lower than 1080p resolutions and that they'll continue to do so.

So whatever did happen, they weren't forced and if they actually were the producer wouldn't come out and actually say that.

The choice at this time wasn't the same as at E3. 1080p at E3 was undoubtedly falling well below where it is now. Possibly well below. Releasing the reserve and assisting them in other ways put 1080p within striking distance, and MS wanted them to do it. The resolution was always likely to increase by some amount. The desire to tick the 1080p box just meant they went a little too far, IMO.

I expect this is what's happened with Destiny too. I hope they haven't gone into frame rate dip territory for Destiny. That would be disappointing.

 

[Deleted member 11852]

So whatever did happen, they weren't forced and if they actually were the producer wouldn't come out and actually say that.

You don't seem entirely subscribed to the core sentiment of your post. So they definite weren't forced. But if they were, they wouldn't have admitted it

I don't think anybody was suggesting blackmail but nonetheless Microsoft's 'intervention' (for want of a better word) resulted in Blizzard abandoning a technical goal they considered paramount for gameplay reasons.

Sent from my iPhone using Forum Runner.

 

[function]

Not this again. Ugh.

Killzone SP, Infamous and Titanfall are solid 30fps games, even if some people prefer those games uncapped, it's their choice, well except of the XB1 version of Titanfall that still doesn't have the 30fps cap but that's another story.

So in fact those 3 games are solid 30fps games that may or not run uncapped so you can't compare them with normally solid 60fps game like Diablo 3.

So damn arbitrary. If your frame rate is bad enough, then it ceases to be a "60 fps game" and becomes a great running 30 fps game that just happens to drop from its 60 fps cap into the 30s and 40s.

Horseshit. If you're going to get tunnel vision and obsess over a set of metrics then at least be consistent and let the metrics do the talking instead of making up a new category of 60~30 fps "solid 30 fps" games. No-one should take this kind of thinking seriously.

And Killzone MP isn't capped at 30 fps and *was* talked up by the developers as being 60 fps, and Titanfall isn't a "solid 30 fps game" and *was* talked up as being 60 fps by the developers, and capping Infamous is an option and not the default.

But this is besides the point. A game's frame rate is its frame rate, regardless of your bizarre, arbitrary classification which you seem to use to allow you to moderate how you feel about a game's actual frame rate.

Lets stick to the actual frame rate figures from DF.

 

[Cyan]

I don't think that MS forced Blizzard to run the game at 1080p. They certainly wouldn't have blocked the game. I don't think he was meaning to be taken literally. It sounds like a good natured conversation and not a developer airing dirty laundry.

I think what MS did is use technical assistance to help them increase performance, and asked them to use 1080p if they possibly could. MS clearly want higher resolutions, but I'm calling bullshit on Blizzard being forced to do it.

That said, my preference would have been for keeping at 60 as often as possible instead of dropping to 50, which they could have managed easily with a smaller resolution increase to, say, '990p'.

Lots of people won't be bothered by these smallish dips, as widely lauded games such as Killzone, Infamous and Titanfall have shown with their far lower and more erratic frame rates, but it's sad to see a developer make the decision at the very last minute to put resolution before their gameplay objectives even if it's only a small tradeoff.

I wonder why developers don't go with a dynamic resolution design, since it worked amazingly well in Rage and Doom, and also in the PS3 game, Wipeout.

Nobody is going to notice the drop in resolution from 1080p to 900p when things get busy. Is only Carmack the one who can achieve that?

 

[function]

You don't seem entirely subscribed to the core sentiment of your post. So they definite weren't forced. But if they were, they wouldn't have admitted it

The core sentiment is that there's a difference between being "encouraged" and being "forced".

And I don't think it was just MS. Once they could get close enough to 1080p 60fps I'm sure the idea of pandering to Xbots and giving them 1080p was quite appealing and probably a bonus for Xbone sales.

I don't think anybody was suggesting blackmail but nonetheless Microsoft's 'intervention' (for want of a better word) resulted in Blizzard abandoning a technical goal they considered paramount for gameplay reasons.

I'm sure MS's intervention was involved, in both technical and none technical ways. I think they should have butted out of resolution, and simply helped them to get the most from the system that they could.

 

[function]

Shamelessly stolen from NeoGaf.

Conspiracy over?

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Shamelessly stolen from NeoGaf.
Conspiracy over?

It's never that easy. It's perfectly reasonable, but once again we have a choice of words that doesn't match that story.

And Microsoft was just like, 'This is unacceptable. You need to figure out a way to get a better resolution.'

It's hard to even interpret that with an invisible smiley to make it a jokey remark.

I dare say we're veering off topic here though. It really shouldn't bother us in a DF article thread. Whether MS forced it or not, D3 has a resolution <> FR change on XB1.

 

[Globalisateur]

Lets stick to the actual frame rate figures from DF.

The problem is that what is shown in any perf video might not be an objective representation of the whole game as they can choose to show whatever they want on their videos (notably for only one game perf video).

 

[Billy Idol]

The internet happened! Forums like this I dont blame. It is the constant barrage of Resolution gate click bate articles on the web. The internet gaming media has shifted the focus from great gameplay and beautiful graphics to 1080P 60fps or bust. If it doesnt hit that target a game is considered to have inferior graphics.

But wouldn't this be the right strategy: all games released should hit 1080p@60Hz.

In this case, we would never talk about resolution an framerate. We would only talk about the quality of the image we get...I would like that.

 

[nightshade]

I think a framerate hovering North of 55 (mostly near 60) with few dips to low 50s is an acceptable sacrifice for the resolution boost. A resolution of 900P would be far more noticeable than a framerate seen in the current version of the game. It's perceptual 60FPS, more so than any COD and this game does not requires a lot of input.

You might say that the game is dark and the art style is painted with no sharp assets making the difference between 900P to 1080P less noticeable but the second area of the game is bright and the reduced resolution would be quite easy to notice here.

 

[joker454]

For a start, it's not part of TRCs and it wouldn't be part of any existing agreement. Secondly, attempting to blackmail Activision Blizzard would be the most stupidly suicidal decision MS could make. Third ... it's in direct contrast to the fact that we *know* MS allow lower than 1080p resolutions and that they'll continue to do so.

Yeah I doubt MS forced Blizzard. I mean can anyone force Blizzard to do anything? I figure for one Diablo is such a high profile title that they wanted that particular game to hit the 1080p bullet point to appease those that worship that useless metric, and also from glancing at typical Diablo screenshots it doesn't look like the type of game that taxes hardware and hence 1080p should be a no brainer. I know that's not necessarily true, but looking at a GTA type of game one can understand why 1080p could be hard to hit whereas Diablo looks like it should be far easier to render.

Conspiracy over?

No way, his wording was unclear. What does he mean when he said if they thought it wasn't right? Is he implying Blizzard is wrong? Why does he think Blizzard is wrong? I can't believe MS are going to force Blizzard to make the wrong choice. I'm outraged!

 

[NRP]

Well, I have Diablo III on the Bone. From what I've seen so far, I don't think it would have made any practical difference if it was 900p vs 1080p. Total "check box" feature to appease the morons who obsess about such things.

Ryse looks a million times better, even at <1080p.

 

[djskribbles]

And Ryse would look better at 1080p, so what's your point? People are moronic to care about 1080p?

And just to be clear, I'm not saying the decision to up it to 1080p was justified. Small dips in framerate vs marginal difference in sharpness/pixel crawl is up for debate and is a matter of opinion.