Those pesky lazy devs
Digital Foundry Article Technical Discussion Archive [2015]
- Thread starter Deleted member 11852
- Start date
-
- Tags
- digital foundry
- Status
Maybe it's suffering from that core parking issue thing? Not that it'd be a good permanent fix, but maybe you could try disabling hyper-threading in the bios and see if frame rates stabilise. Can't remember what OS it was, but before buying a 4790K I found various reports of some games suffering frame drops on hyperthread enabled Intel quad cores. There were even some youtubeses.
Or maybe the game is using a draw call per blade of grass, or something.
Does Resolution Really Matter?
As I've stated before, I think IQ is too complex to be quantified by a single metric. This article supports that. I think it should be presented as one qualitative measure of the overall presentation, not THE qualitative measure. Also, resolution is only as important as it is apparent in the actual image (presence/absence of scaling artifacts, level of detail, aliasing) therefore I don't think the number itself, especially when comparing different material, is as meaningful as some make it out to be.
Now I'm curious to see the responses to this. Will there be an actual reasoned discussion or will it degenerate into "bias" or "clickbait" accusations?
As I've stated before, I think IQ is too complex to be quantified by a single metric. This article supports that. I think it should be presented as one qualitative measure of the overall presentation, not THE qualitative measure. Also, resolution is only as important as it is apparent in the actual image (presence/absence of scaling artifacts, level of detail, aliasing) therefore I don't think the number itself, especially when comparing different material, is as meaningful as some make it out to be.
Now I'm curious to see the responses to this. Will there be an actual reasoned discussion or will it degenerate into "bias" or "clickbait" accusations?
It is one metric but more than resolution I prefer speak of native resolution with a LCD TV it will always be better...
The problem manufacturers and developers have is that it's a lot simpler and to-the-point to market a checklist feature and an absolute number. So of course you'll hear about 1080p but not "less than 1080p but with better pixels!"
It's just the more natural way to show off something to consumers who don't have time or interest in investigating how a less-than-1080p picture might actually have equal or better IQ than a full 1080p, under the right circumstances.
It's just the more natural way to show off something to consumers who don't have time or interest in investigating how a less-than-1080p picture might actually have equal or better IQ than a full 1080p, under the right circumstances.
Yep. You need a number, or a buzzword. If marketeers can convince Joe Gamer that Beyond Realism graphics are better than 1080p graphics, maybe they can release sub 1080p games with fancy names. Otherwise, 1080p > 900p regardless what the pretties actually are.
Consumers have been trained to research purchases largely on specs. 1080p is an important spec for people who mostly illiterate about modern 3D graphics. That was always going to be the case this generation BC the majority the consumers in the space aren't familiar with the names of the techniques used and in some cases are not able to even notice them.
D
Deleted member 86764
Guest
I think digitalfoundry made a very good point, we don't know the possible answers to the questions. If "Resolution" was an option but "Power" wasn't, then those that would've picked it would choose the nearest possible option.
There should not be a reasoned discussion about the article, because the article itself is clearly biased and is a click-bait.
But regarding the resolution I always thought that resolution is not important at all, i.e. 720p blu-ray movie has a much better IQ that any current game. But each time I've tried to advocate for it it was met with familiar "where is my rolling eyes icon" and now suddenly people are enlightened.
Dunno why, really.
Resolution is one element of real time graphics, out of very many. It's also subject to diminishing returns like everything else. Quality of the upscaling also makes a difference to.
Not looking forward to janky assed 4K games getting dry humped as they stutter and shimmer and lod-pop across overscanning TVs in the next few years.
Not looking forward to janky assed 4K games getting dry humped as they stutter and shimmer and lod-pop across overscanning TVs in the next few years.
4k is enough for common TV room.
This is a problem, though. If developers are constrained by the need to hit a certain resolution or risk being outed as failing to check the 1080p checkbox then they are not always going to be able to maximize the visuals in their games. That sucks.
It's one thing to compare two different ports of the same game and point out one rendering at a higher resolution (all else being equal). It's quite another to say, "Yeah that game has impressive visuals, but it isn't internally rendering at 1920X1080 so it doesn't measure up."
There should not be a reasoned discussion about the article, because the article itself is clearly biased and is a click-bait.
But regarding the resolution I always thought that resolution is not important at all, i.e. 720p blu-ray movie has a much better IQ that any current game. But each time I've tried to advocate for it it was met with familiar "where is my rolling eyes icon" and now suddenly people are enlightened.
Dunno why, really.
Even in media though, we want 1080P Blu Ray etc. We dont want standard definition Blu Ray. Would you buy a standard def Blu Ray? Resolution is important in movies too.
We've hashed this topic to death but one thing I noticed on getting my X1 was I didn't notice so much difference between KI (720) and Forza 5 (1080). Both looked good, and better than 360 games. My brother used to claim to dislike consoles because of the low 720P res (he's a PC guy). He would play Final Fantasy's on PS3. But, I dont think it was so much the res as the assets, due to the KI example. But I dont want to overstate it. Halo 5 for example was not pristine due to being only 720P. I've also found since getting a X1 that youtube comparison videos dont do console differences justice. Any youtube last gen vs current gen comparison video you will think the differences are small. But since comparing the same games on X1 and X360 on my TV, the difference is much larger. I dont even necessarily think it's compression, a youtube you are watching in a real size, for me on my 27" monitor, non fullscreen, of what, a 12" box? So the pixel density should be much higher.
Anyways I would like to get a PS4 to really compare on my TV the differences in some 900 vs 1080 games. That would be very enlightening as to how much difference I think it makes. However I'm not going to buy a PS4 just to do that.
Judging by the top comments, people seem to agree with you.
The only thing that's shocking is that Digital Foundry is "surprised" that people actually wanted (purchased) the better hardware for their money. Who knew?!!
It's a problem caused by DF and its pixel counting. How ironic that they want to challenge that view.
forumaccount
Newcomer
Even the loudest "1080p is not worth shooting for" people at work could tell the difference side by side and admitted that 1080 looked significantly better. Even on 720p monitors 1080 wins over 900. It's kind of ridiculous that it's even an issue. Higher resolution is always an improvement, full stop.
Cool video, we did many blind tests like the Gamespot one back in the day and resolution was always at the bottom as far as being a recognizable metric to the average person. Anyone take the test at the end of the Gamespot video with Far Cry? The test is at the 9:50 mark. I didn't watch it in detail, I simply watched it once and made my guesses. My thoughts are that
#2 looks like PC to me because that test segment is clearly 60fps (#1 and #3 are 30fps) but I'll be damned if I can see any difference between #1 and #3. My only guess between #1 and #3 would be that #3 is the Xbox One version because it seems to have black crush which these capture cards sometimes introduce, and #1 is PS4.
Last edited:
They (as far as I've seen) always then comment on the effect that this has on the resulting visuals. Context. The issue I have isn't the information itself, but that the information is often presented as if, by itself, it is meaningful.
well, no
It is an improvement if the details are the same, yes. But if there is another compromise for getting from x to 1080p it maybe is not the best solution (missing AF, fps-hit, ...).
That's one of those funny facts
. But lets be fair, they do not only pixel count, they also check for other differences.But they should most time write in their verdict "does it matter, no", because it is not impacting the game at all (if there is only a minor resolution difference).
Well, for me personally, it is the movie that matters. For me, the visual difference between 720p and 1080p isn't that big (on my desktop, yes, in games/movies, no). Yes, you can see differences if you closely compare both, but most time, it just doesn't matter. The main thing for me is, that there are no artifacts. Still don't know why so many movies have those.
This isn't anything new though, its plagued game development for sometime. The reality is that once you get to titles that require large investment, certain genres are over represented most likely bc developers have to check enough of the boxes that bring capital in to support their next project. Same thing in Hollywood, I'm sure there are quite a few directors and writers who'd love to do something creative but once their idea gets in front of investors things get sacrificed to make the project attractive to investors.
- Status
Similar threads
