Billy Idol
Legend
R&C: TOD had an extremely good IQ, even on the beamer setup, but R&C: CiT had some noticable aliasing issues (especially the Clank sections!)...I think that they have changed something for the new R&C?!
The technology of Alan Wake *spawn
- Thread starter nightshade
- Start date
R&C: TOD had an extremely good IQ, even on the beamer setup, but R&C: CiT had some noticable aliasing issues (especially the Clank sections!)...I think that they have changed something for the new R&C?!
Kameradschaft
Regular
Yeah having played the demo for CiT recently I was thinking the same thing - what happened to the IQ of the game? assuming it's running at the same engine as the ToD it's really weird that CiT's IQ is definitely blurrier and there are a lot of jaggies...it looks like a sub-HD (which it is) but with a blur effect on top of it.
As you said maybe they changed something in the CiT version of the engine.
Software compositing. 540p geometry meets 720p HUD.
It appears there's an assumption going around that all scaling on the Xbox 360 has to be performed by "the" scaling logic in Xenos. This is not the case. And why would it be? There's nothing that prevents you from rolling your own software scaling on the CPU.
The blurry look was gone in the final game but the game still aliased a bit more than TOD, so perhaps they used 2X MSAA instead of QAA in the final game?
Given the dark nature of AW, much like Siren, I don't think the low res will necessarily harm the overall look considering what they're doing with the game overall. Siren's IQ was actually pretty good despite the low resolution and most importantly, it ran extremely well without any hitches. I'd take that over 720p with a finicky frame rate.
i nerini del buio
Newcomer
AFAIK halo3 does that, i could be wrong though
No. They mean any framebuffers lower than 720p are upscaled to 720p, and 720p buffers applied over the top (UI), prior to XB360's output chip getting its hands on them. There will be no video scaling by Xenos on a 720p display, but it will upscale to 1080 on such displays.
the 720p input gets elaborated in a way to guarantee the best performance and visuals. so if there's too much to handle, graphical compromises come into play.
Personally, saying this game runs at 540p is not a fully correct statement.
It's all very confusing. I find it hard to understand without developers of the game telling us what they have done especifically, and clearing up any doubts people may have. There's an article in a russian web page that tries to deal with the subject of resolution. They point out that the only component of the engine running at 540p is the opaque geometry:
Why not ? In normal words that IS the game's native resolution & it's the primary "thing". Whenever you talk of native resolution of a game you are directly referring to the opaque geometry resolution, like for eg. when you change the resolution in a PC game you are changing the opaque geometry resolution...you don't refer to the resolution of effects or post process, those are secondary things.
I find it strange that its only now that people are showing concerns over the resolution of effects & post process being different from the native resolution of a game, its even more strange when you see people think that its something confusing & new. Frankly speaking when has there been a game that uses synonymous resolution for everything ?
Last edited by a moderator:
that's a bit reductive of an argument. the geometry buffer suggests that it's 540p, okay, but you can't deliberately just exclude the other aspects such as effects like lightings or post processing that may actually display at a higher resolution. It's like looking at the Gioconda and say that the figure is smiling, while the other person tells you that it is not. Who's right? both are right and wrong, imo.
They really just need to leave the subject alone if they think Alan Wake is a unique case. Scene rendering is how things are currently defined and is the only component of relevance when determining resolution.
But shadowmap, PP etc res wont change how many pixels exist onscreen. If framebuffer is 960x540 then that is the amount of pixels available, the main resolution. If shadowmap res is higher or lower wont change amount of pixels nor image sharpness, just shadow detail and/or quality radius.
About shadowmaps, PP etc having different resolution goes for almost all other games. This is nothing new. Shadows is one thing that tends to be higher (more pixels) than 1280x720. IIRC FC2 on consoles has 1024x1024 shadowmap res, 512x512 reflection map res etc.
Last edited by a moderator:
Well native resolution in general term is none other than opaque geometry resolution, its the prime resolution of the rendered image..every other effect is directly affected by this resolution & which is why its consider as the main resolution. A lot of games do shadow & reflection mapping at resolution like 1024*1024 while pulling off 2048*2048 textures at some places & doing a quarter resolution post processing...while the actual native resolution of "opaque geometry" is 720p.
What would you consider when someone asks you about the native resolution of a game that fulfills all the conditions mentioned above ?
EDIT: I honestly running out of words to explain/debate any further because I don't have much technical knowledge, so I'll like to rest the case for now until experts show their view over this.
Last edited by a moderator:
yes, of course. but we have an "if" there.
once ascertained, it'll be set down in black and white. now, would you go so far as to state that this game has to be considered 540p? hmm..
Which is what we're talking about when we talk about render resolutions.
Yes, because every game we've counted resolution on has been treated this way. It is the standard measure. The only thorough alternative is to list 50 different rendertarget resolutions for every game, which is absurbed and and doesn't give any useful comparison. This isn't about applying a number to how good a game looks - "It's only 540p so it looks worse than a 720p game". How good a game looks is subjective and dependent on many factors. It's about comparing engines. Take two similar games and compare the opaque geometry complexity and rendering quality, and you'll have a reasonable comparison of what rendering performance the developers have extracted from the hardware.
Furthermore, the opaque geometry makes up by far the glut of a player's visual experience. There'd be no point rendering particles, UI, smoke etc. at 2160p if the opaque geometry is being rendered at SD resolutions no AA. The game overall will have poor IQ and look rough. If there are cutbacks to be made in buffer resolutions, it'll be made in particles, shadows and so forth that don't have as prominent an appearance in the final image. Aiming for high opaque geometry resolution and high AA is a smart target if you want your game to look good on an HD set. There's a good argument to be made for lower resolutions as long as you crank up the AA (real-life SDTV looks better than computer games), but achieving that high AA is as much a challenge as rendering to a high resolution.
