I saw you playing this. How did you like it? Clearly enough to see it through, but otherwiwse?
Will next gen consoles focus on improving IQ at current HD resolutions?
- Thread starter blip
- Start date
I saw you playing this. How did you like it? Clearly enough to see it through, but otherwiwse?
I would prefer 1080p with FXAA over all options
My point was and is, that the bump to HD was the easiest perceived quality bump for graphics in this generation. It´s true that there is 1080p to aim for and i would personally like that. But i doubt it will be everyone on this board that would see any advantage in 1080p, considering the "true hd" discussions that this board had when Sony claimed they had the only "true hd" Console
Another resolution bump would imho make less difference than the jump to 720p, first of all, it requires a big screen to see the advantage, and second of all it may suck resources from other important graphic elements.
Considering how close the 360 and the PS3 is today in graphics, at least for the "ordinary" user, i expect any advantages to be even harder to spot in the next gen. Unless Sony of Microsoft really screws up on something, for example storage.
Kameradschaft
Regular
My point was and is, that the bump to HD was the easiest perceived quality bump for graphics in this generation. It´s true that there is 1080p to aim for and i would personally like that. But i doubt it will be everyone on this board that would see any advantage in 1080p, considering the "true hd" discussions that this board had when Sony claimed they had the only "true hd" Console
Another resolution bump would imho make less difference than the jump to 720p, first of all, it requires a big screen to see the advantage, and second of all it may suck resources from other important graphic elements.
Considering how close the 360 and the PS3 is today in graphics, at least for the "ordinary" user, i expect any advantages to be even harder to spot in the next gen. Unless Sony of Microsoft really screws up on something, for example storage.
I don't get all this "1080p may suck resources from other graphics elements" argument, isn't the clarity that a higher resolution brings a graphical element and improvement? with this logic we could have way better graphics with higher AA/AF this gen if the consoles focused on 480p resolution...and it could have being less noticeable than next gen continuing at 720p since the HDTV adaptation in 2005-2006 was really lacking when compared to today that a lot of people have 40" 1080p native res panels since the prices are really low for such a device.
Casual gamers can't tell if a game is 1080p or 720p but they can definitely notice that a game looks "dirty" if it's running at lower res...I have a few examples myself mainly with Alan Wake & Call of Duty with people that are totally clueless about resolutions & AA - clarity is not rocket science and I will say again that 1080p res especially in a native 1080p panel does make a big difference.
I'm on the side that thinks that 1080p is the logical next step, I don't know if MS & Sony agree with me on this one (at least I hope they will) but I think that staying for another gen at 720p resolutions is a step backwards for the industry.
Of course it's an improvement, the argument is about whether that improvement is worth the huge performance cost it brings. I think that the trick is going to be finding the sweet spot where you have enough raw pixels to represent the level of detail you're going for, while using more efficient means to solve aliasing problems.
I play on a screen that is about 3 meter wide, i prefer 1080, i love GT5 and Wipeout
But the smaller the screen gets and the further away you sit from the tv the smaller the gains are from 1080. I am sure that there is a difference, but compared to going from SD to HD i just think that the difference is less noticeable.
steampoweredgod
Banned
I play on a screen that is about 3 meter wide, i prefer 1080, i love GT5 and Wipeout
But the smaller the screen gets and the further away you sit from the tv the smaller the gains are from 1080. I am sure that there is a difference, but compared to going from SD to HD i just think that the difference is less noticeable.
JUST WAIT UNTIL YOU SEE QUAD HD IN MOTION, the newer algos behind the prototypes, it's unbelievable what's been achieved.
Rendering at 1080p only affects model edges, which when a game is in motion, can fade away. What I am far more concerned about is texture quality, which looks horrible in console games when you're playing on a 60" HDTV. I am desperately wanting higher resolution textures in games, and am hoping that next gen consoles have oodles of VRAM to make that dream a reality.
Or proper megatexturing solutions so oodles of RAM isn't needed.
Certainly not flash cards, which won't have the sotrage capacity for high-res textures.
Seems to me you either go lots of RAM or faster persistant store. But my point in this thread was just that the soltuion to texture res isn't only more RAM, but there is another option.
Oodles of RAM can resolve texture resolution issues (cost of load time of course). I implied MT with slow storage doesn't necessarily address the issue. So option #3 is much faster persistent storage. So we are down to 2 options again. So what was #3 again? Because it is starting to sound like there is no winning strategy, every direction is major trade offs (money, performance/IQ, time).
Sounds like I have a new middleware product to pitch to solve these issues on the software side
Sounds like I have a new middleware product to pitch to solve these issues on the software side
There is *so much* room for improvement.
Just play a game like what are the prettiest 360 games? Like Forza or Project Gotham or Dead or Alive or something?
And then play an open world game like Fallout 3 or GTA IV. Imagine if those games had the graphic fidelity of Forza (a game that has to draw a very limited environment, and can thus maximized detail on viewable objects)
yes... there is a ton of room for improvement. I consider xbox 360 and Ps3 as "barely able to do modern HD gaming" ... next gen should be the true HD era, with textures that dont fall apart, draw distances that are huge and avoid pop-in, full anti aliasing.... these should be achieveable, even if the consoles came out in 2010....
Imagine a GTA V or Fallout 4 with truly infinite draw distances where they aren't using tricks and minimizing world objects and bad LOD... it will look amazing
I agree, lots of room for graphical improvement, in almost every area (including going from 720p@30fps to 1080p@60fps).
The most scary amount of improvement still left is in bringing the world alive. Even the best looking games currently still have mostly dead environments, with extremely limited options for interaction and an immense lack of physicality. A simple difference for me is between Motorstorm 2 and Gran Turismo 5, where I thought some of the tracks in Motorstorm looked much more alive than those in GT5, even if some stuff in GT5 looks very realistic. Also, compare some of the photomode shots to the actual game and see how much better those still look.
We are quite a few generations away from truly realistic graphics. But better/faster ways for creating content will help immensely too, and removing technical constraints will make that easier. Those constraints won't be gone yet for a while though as long as storage remains an issue.
The most scary amount of improvement still left is in bringing the world alive. Even the best looking games currently still have mostly dead environments, with extremely limited options for interaction and an immense lack of physicality. A simple difference for me is between Motorstorm 2 and Gran Turismo 5, where I thought some of the tracks in Motorstorm looked much more alive than those in GT5, even if some stuff in GT5 looks very realistic. Also, compare some of the photomode shots to the actual game and see how much better those still look.
We are quite a few generations away from truly realistic graphics. But better/faster ways for creating content will help immensely too, and removing technical constraints will make that easier. Those constraints won't be gone yet for a while though as long as storage remains an issue.
When i see the replays in GT5 i get the old fashioned feeling "how are they going to improve this", but of course they will. I got some ideas that would be extremely cool, i need a private mail address to polyphony so i can share them
Anyway, this: http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-tech-analysis-metal-gear-remastered is a good example of a pure resolution bump improving visuals almost for free,
Anyway, this: http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-tech-analysis-metal-gear-remastered is a good example of a pure resolution bump improving visuals almost for free,
DoctorFouad
Newcomer
I totally agree, people assume that when a game is running at 720p or 1080p than everything in the buffer (geometry, textures, particle effects, lighting, shadows...etc) is also rendered at 720 or 1080p. Unfortunately that is not true.
A jump in texture resolution rendering is far more important for graphical fidelity and more noticeable for the human eye than a jump in geometry resolution.
I would take anytime a 1024*1024 textured game running at 720p than a 512*512 textured game running at 1080p or even quad HD or anything above that....
For free? It takes twice the processing requirements to render twice the pixels. There's no free whatsoever with increasing resolution. This gen could have rendered last gen graphics at 1080p high AA 60 fps (although amybe not even then, looking at some HD remakes), but would you really take that over what's being rendered now?
DoctorFouad
Newcomer
good point ! xbox360 and ps3 are really struggling to run properly HD remastered ps2 games at 1080p, consistent 60 fps with AA. and they didnt even succeed in that ! lol