Support NeoGAF

[JMPovoa]

We all know by now (or should) that one of the main obligatory requisites for any Xbox360 game is the "you have to develop games to work at least in 720p". Relating to this i've read an interview by Phantagram (if i'm not mistaken) on how at that resolution Xbox360 is 10 times the power of the present Xbox, but most importantly, if it were to run solely in a 480i/p resolution it would be roughly 20 times more powerful. That is a very significant figure!

I haven't seen any "minnimum requisites" communication on Sony's part related to games development on the PS3. If PS3's game developers are allowed to stick to only standard resolution games, we could actually see a huge gap in graphical detail between the two rival consoles. And lets not forget the gamecube. That one's just standard resolution at least from what Nintendo has told us so far and therefore can be huge weapon into getting mainstream attention, that's if they actually build a powerful console. HD is still sort of a "tabu" (besides stores piling more and more HDTVs in front of us) and its content isn't yet a standard in things not concerning consoles (DVD movies, TV broadcasts).

What're your thoughts on this? IMO, this could be a shot in the foot for Microsoft.

 

[FightyF]

Sony has a minimum of 1080i or 1080p, I forget.

 

[sly]

Sony has a minimum of 1080i or 1080p, I forget.

:lol

 

[MightyHedgehog]

If the graphic heavy hitters on the PS3 were to output at 480p native, it would be pretty sad considering all of its purported capability relative to X360...if you actually believe that there's a major difference between the two, visually. I don't. I'm glad MS is pushing for a baseline HDTV resolution and Sony should do the same, IMO. 480p isn't even technically an HDTV rez. Given the power of the new MS and Sony systems, I don't see how a minimum of 720p would be all that much of a drain on the total visual capability. Sure, it's like three times the pixels, but I would think that there are other, more directly limiting factors than just pure resolution that would be more carefully decided upon when pushing for a minimum spec in games.

 

[Fatghost]

I like that MS is setting 720p as a minimum floor for every game.

 

[JMPovoa]

I have as much knowledge as the next guy in terms of graphical intricacies, so i base my opinion on what developers say rather than anyone else's.
If someone who's developing an Xbox360 game says that were it to stay solely on standard resolution (480p) it would be double the power of what we're going to get visually (sans HD of course) i think it is quite significant to at least leave anyone curious as to what some of the top games could look like with that sort of unused power.

 

[Mrbob]

Run a PC game at 640 X 480. Then run the same game at 1280 X 960 (Which is the 4:3 equivalent to 16:9 720P). There is a substantial difference in clarity between the two pics. So I don't hope MS drops the barrier below 720P. If they do, I guess I'll accept it. What I really want is the aspect ratio to stay the same. I'll accept a 480P game....won't like it but accept it...as long as the game is native 16:9 support.

 

[JMPovoa]

Mrbob, there's no denying that higher resolution = much better picture. What i'm talking about is the possibility that by locking yourself to standard resolution would/could get you much higher detail crammed in the whole package.

I guess we'll have to wait for the Revolution to see if what i'm talking about makes any sense...

 

[JMPovoa]

Actually i did some digging up at IGN and found this:

"At E3 2005, Microsoft revealed that its forthcoming Xbox 360 console, scheduled to release this holiday in America, would ring in the "HD Era." The company believes so strongly in high-definition that it has regulated all games developed for 360 be required to run in 720p or 1080i high-definition and in 16x9 widescreen."

"At the same event, Sony revealed that PS3 would also require that every game run in -- a minimum -- of 720p or 1080i."

So it's the same for both Xbox360 and PS3.

Rev's the only one missing the HD wagon

 

[Mandoric]

A higher res will downscale automatically as, effectively, AA, so it's not like it has no effect on 480p or even 480i sets.

 

[gofreak]

Interesting you bring this up. Carmack complained about this in his Quakecon keynote, flatly saying he'd sacrifice resolution in order to maintain per-pixel detail, if need be. And he may need to. If he can't, he said cuts may need to be made.

I think MS and Sony are likely in the same boat, although I didn't know Sony had confirmed anything. Maybe Rev would be in a good position here

 

[Demigod Mac]

720p is purdy.

 

[dorio]

Good question. And it will probably play out more the longer we get in this next console cycle were people are trying to do more and more exotic stuff.

 

[xexex]

so Xbox2 games are HDTV 720p or 1080i - 16:9 widescreen

Xbox3 and Playstation4 games will probably be HDTV 1080p - 16:9 widescreen - and will not use proportionally as much power to hit HDTV resolution because the previous generation (Xbox360, PS3) already made that leap... only now we're going to 1080p.

Xbox4 and Playstation5 games will be UHDV (ultra high definition video)
with a single UHDV resolution of 4320p (7680 × 4320)

 

[Diablos]

with a single UHDV resolution of 4320p (7680 × 4320)

Jesus.

 

[Ponn]

so Xbox2 games are HDTV 720p or 1080i - 16:9 widescreen

Xbox3 and Playstation4 games will probably be HDTV 1080p - 16:9 widescreen - and will not use proportionally as much power to hit HDTV resolution because the previous generation (Xbox360, PS3) already made that leap... only now we're going to 1080p.

Xbox4 and Playstation5 games will be UHDV (ultra high definition video)
with a single UHDV resolution of 4320p (7680 × 4320)

Holographic display helmets!!!

 

[Fatghost]

7680 × 4320??


That's just about the limit the human eye is capable of resolving, right?

 

[God's Hand]

7680 × 4320??


That's just about the limit the human eye is capable of resolving, right?

Uh, no.

 

[Fatghost]

Uh, no.

I thought I had read somewhere that that was the upper limit. What is it then?

 

[dorio]

I thought I had read somewhere that that was the upper limit. What is it then?

I don't think there is a limit. That ultra high def won't look so hot if your screen size is really huge.

 

[TAJ]

>>>Interesting you bring this up. Carmack complained about this in his Quakecon keynote, flatly saying he'd sacrifice resolution in order to maintain per-pixel detail, if need be. And he may need to. If he can't, he said cuts may need to be made.

I think MS and Sony are likely in the same boat, although I didn't know Sony had confirmed anything. Maybe Rev would be in a good position here <<<

Yes, their gimped hardware might be able to almost keep up with 360 and PS3 scene complexity, just at a lower resolution >

 

[golem]

if the 360 cant handle good looking games at 720p it should get outta the game... tired of lookin at 480i/p

 

[FightyF]

Mrbob, there's no denying that higher resolution = much better picture. What i'm talking about is the possibility that by locking yourself to standard resolution would/could get you much higher detail crammed in the whole package.

I guess we'll have to wait for the Revolution to see if what i'm talking about makes any sense...

The 360 is able to do these high resolutions with little hit to the system. This is why MS was harping on HD again and again, because their console would be able to do it easily. ATi even said that going up to 1080i as the minimum standard wouldn't hit the GPU much at all either.

So if you are worried about detail and such, resolution isn't going to make a huge difference or a huge hit on the console.

 

[blackadde]

7680 × 4320??


That's just about the limit the human eye is capable of resolving, right?

Think about it this way; a single sheet of A4-sized paper @ 300DPI (photo printing) is 2480x3508 pixels. There is a limit to the average human's visual acuity (see: vision charts) but the cap is a good deal higher than 7600x4300.

 

[gofreak]

The 360 is able to do these high resolutions with little hit to the system. This is why MS was harping on HD again and again, because their console would be able to do it easily. ATi even said that going up to 1080i as the minimum standard wouldn't hit the GPU much at all either.

So if you are worried about detail and such, resolution isn't going to make a huge difference or a huge hit on the console.

It absolutely does. More resolution = much more pixel shading work. 720p is, what, about 3 times as many pixels as 640x480? That means 3 times as many pixels to shade. 3 times the pixel load. Or to look at it a different way - though this is somewhat simplistic - you could do 3x the work on each pixel at 640x480 vs 720p assuming an equal amount of shading power.

You certainly could be trying to do too much per pixel to sustain at high resolutions, at a good framerate. Carmack was warning here that this may happen with his next-gen engine on consoles.

This is what makes things interesting for Nintendo. Sticking to a lower resolution may allow them to "get away" with a lot less GPU power. You may be able to do as much work per pixel on Rev as X360/PS3 do at higher resolutions. Obviously you can't write off the higher resolution - at least as a HDTV owner I don't think you can - but SDTV owners may not notice the difference, especially if Nintendo have made good provision for AA etc.

 

[JMPovoa]

Interesting you bring this up. Carmack complained about this in his Quakecon keynote, flatly saying he'd sacrifice resolution in order to maintain per-pixel detail, if need be. And he may need to. If he can't, he said cuts may need to be made.

I was listening to John Carmack's thoughts on this whole "you have to have it render at 720p" and he said it's one of the main reasons why he hates developing on consoles, because some marketting guy just lets this sort of things out and basically prevents guys like him from extracting every extra bit of power out of the hardware. That's one of the main reasons why he says he expects Id's games to run averagely at 30fps on next gen consoles.
I'm hoping that developers give standard resolution TV owners a reason not to be so unhappy about it

 

[JayFro]

It would be nice to see what games would look like at standard resolution instead of 720p just in terms of the power. Many next gen games don't look so next gen yet and it seems this 720p requirement at this point plays a large role in it. Hopefully after 2nd gen titles hit the graphical leap will be much more substantial even with the 720p requirement.

 

[Pseudo judo]

Mrbob, there's no denying that higher resolution = much better picture. What i'm talking about is the possibility that by locking yourself to standard resolution would/could get you much higher detail crammed in the whole package.

I guess we'll have to wait for the Revolution to see if what i'm talking about makes any sense...

Detail is directly linked to resolution. Certainly in the case of extremely small objects/paticles like dust and fabrics like corduroy, felt, silk ect. Could you get more pollygons on screen and shaders? Sure, but without a high resolution having numerous pollygons on screen will just confuse the eye as one object seems to get lost and blend with others, this is directly linked to a lower resolution. Resolution is the key to detail. I don't see how you can have a next gen console and not support HD resolutions, personaly.

 

[gofreak]

Detail is directly linked to resolution. Certainly in the case of extremely small objects/paticles like dust and fabrics like corduroy, felt, silk ect. Could you get more pollygons on screen and shaders? Sure, but without a high resolution having numerous pollygons on screen will just confuse the eye as one object seems to get lost and blend with others, this is directly linked to a lower resolution. Resolution is the key to detail. I don't see how you can have a next gen console and not support HD resolutions, personaly.

This is true, this is one of the limits of lower resolution. A lot of small detail that is "super-pixel" in HD becomes sub-pixel at a standard resolution.

The thing is, most of the market is still at SD =/

It is a tough choice, but it's interesting that Carmack falls squarely on the "lower the resolution if needs be" side of the fence.

 

[Gunstar77]

It absolutely does. More resolution = much more pixel shading work. 720p is, what, about 3 times as many pixels as 640x480? That means 3 times as many pixels to shade. 3 times the pixel load. Or to look at it a different way - though this is somewhat simplistic - you could do 3x the work on each pixel at 640x480 vs 720p assuming an equal amount of shading power.

You certainly could be trying to do too much per pixel to sustain at high resolutions, at a good framerate. Carmack was warning here that this may happen with his next-gen engine on consoles.

This is what makes things interesting for Nintendo. Sticking to a lower resolution may allow them to "get away" with a lot less GPU power. You may be able to do as much work per pixel on Rev as X360/PS3 do at higher resolutions. Obviously you can't write off the higher resolution - at least as a HDTV owner I don't think you can - but SDTV owners may not notice the difference, especially if Nintendo have made good provision for AA etc.

This is why I think we don't need 1080p HDTVs right now because I doubt we will see many games on PS3 support that high of a display res.

 

[FightyF]

It absolutely does. More resolution = much more pixel shading work. 720p is, what, about 3 times as many pixels as 640x480? That means 3 times as many pixels to shade. 3 times the pixel load. Or to look at it a different way - though this is somewhat simplistic - you could do 3x the work on each pixel at 640x480 vs 720p assuming an equal amount of shading power.

Maybe on the PS3...it would take a big hit in that regard.

The 360's GPU has been designed so that the hit is insignificant. ATi did say that the hit will be noticable when going to 1080i, but they said they hoped most developers would make games at 1080i despite the small hit.

So no, it doesn't impact performance to the point where you'd have to sacrifice graphical detail. Not on the 360 at least. This is one area where the 360 could have an advantage over the PS3, and this is why MS was so keen to harp on about HD resolutions.

 

[JMPovoa]

Detail is directly linked to resolution. Certainly in the case of extremely small objects/paticles like dust and fabrics like corduroy, felt, silk ect. Could you get more pollygons on screen and shaders? Sure, but without a high resolution having numerous pollygons on screen will just confuse the eye as one object seems to get lost and blend with others, this is directly linked to a lower resolution. Resolution is the key to detail. I don't see how you can have a next gen console and not support HD resolutions, personaly.

Detail is directly linked to resolution, but not exclusively linked, and you did point that, but we are still ways off the kind of detail you're implying that may already not be noticeable or may be confusing. Standard resolution doesn't look that bad if you take a look at some of the best looking games out there. We've had very high resolutions on the PC for several years now and still a ton of people come out in forums and argue that console games are better looking. It's not as if we're still at 320x240 resolution Now that is ugly.

 

[JMPovoa]

The 360's GPU has been designed so that the hit is insignificant. ATi did say that the hit will be noticable when going to 1080i, but they said they hoped most developers would make games at 1080i despite the small hit.

That is not entirely true. As far as i know, that was related to the use of Anti-Aliasing (be it 2x or 4x AA) being free at 720p. The whole amount of pixels issue doesn't account for that.

 

[nightez]

Minimums set by the three companies
Sony - 1080p
Microsoft - 720p
Nintendo - 480p

 

[Pseudo judo]

That is not entirely true. As far as i know, that was related to the use of Anti-Aliasing (be it 2x or 4x AA) being free at 720p. The whole amount of pixels issue doesn't account for that.

It' 1080P for "free" as well, though you'll never see it at that res, imo.

 

[Pseudo judo]

Minimums set by the three companies
Sony - 1080p
Microsoft - 720p
Nintendo - 480p

If you're sony you can do 480P if you want it's just that 720P is strongly prefered.

 

[gofreak]

Maybe on the PS3...it would take a big hit in that regard.

The 360's GPU has been designed so that the hit is insignificant. ATi did say that the hit will be noticable when going to 1080i, but they said they hoped most developers would make games at 1080i despite the small hit.

So no, it doesn't impact performance to the point where you'd have to sacrifice graphical detail. Not on the 360 at least. This is one area where the 360 could have an advantage over the PS3, and this is why MS was so keen to harp on about HD resolutions.

This isn't a bandwidth issue, which is what the Xenos design is focussed on alleviating. This is about pure shading power. If you do x amount of pixel work at standard resolutions, you need to be able to do 3x at high def resolutions. This is a computational issue. Xenos certainly can't up the resolution without a hit on available per-pixel shading power. The hit certainly is pretty much linear (i.e. 2x the pixels, half the power per pixel etc). The "no hit"/"small hit" issue relates to things like AA etc.

There's an upper limit on the amount of shading you're going to be able to do per pixel on these next-gen systems, and that's really about pixel shading power, not bandwidth (and pixel shading is probably an advantage PS3 has, btw). If I switch to a lower resolution, I suddenly have 3x that power to use per pixel (in simplistic terms). What Carmack was saying was, he may be doing so much per pixel with his next engine, that doing so at high definition on the next-gen systems may not be desireable.

 

[JMPovoa]

Minimums set by the three companies
Sony - 1080p
Microsoft - 720p
Nintendo - 480p

Can you quote Sony on that?

 

[Gunstar77]

1080P on PS3 is a max. output not a minium output.

 

[Beer Monkey]

Minimums set by the three companies
Sony - 1080p
Microsoft - 720p
Nintendo - 480p

You might want to call PSM and report this, as their latest issue supposedly says something else about PS3.

No standard 1080i (or 1080p) support: Most games will apparently run at 720p; use of 1080i and 1080p is only at the developer's discretion. All games should have support for 480p and 480i for gamers without HDTVs.

 

[FightyF]

This isn't a bandwidth issue, which is what the Xenos design is focussed on alleviating. This is about pure shading power. If you do x amount of pixel work at standard resolutions, you need to be able to do 3x at high def resolutions. This is a computational issue.

There's an upper limit on the amount of shading you're going to be able to do per pixel on these next-gen systems, and that's really about pixel shading power, not bandwidth (and pixel shading is probably an advantage PS3 has, btw). If I switch to a lower resolution, I suddenly have 3x that power to use per pixel (in simplistic terms). What Carmack was saying was, he may be doing so much per pixel with his next engine, that doing so at high definition on the next-gen systems may not be desireable.

I could be wrong, I thought what ATi was talking about to begin with WAS shading processing power. As in, they've created something that didn't matter what res you were in, the shaders would be able to handle it with little hit to it's performance.

I swear that's what I read, but if Carmack is saying otherwise (and he's seen the hardware in detail) then I'm most likely wrong. Let me see if I can find the articles (it was posted on this forum) concerning it.

 

[gofreak]

I could be wrong, I thought what ATi was talking about to begin with WAS shading processing power. As in, they've created something that didn't matter what res you were in, the shaders would be able to handle it with little hit to it's performance.t.

If you have more pixels to deal with, you can't spend as much power on each. It's as simple as that. If ATi has invented a chip where no matter how many pixels you throw at it, it can do any amount of pixel shading (or the same amount even), then they pretty much should just stop there At one resolution, you'll be able to do a certain amount of pixel shading per pixel. At a higher resolution, you'll be able to do less, because you now have more pixels to handle. If you could keep doing the same amount no matter how many pixels where there, then effectively that would mean an infinite amount of power

Silly analogy time: bread on butter. If I have a finite amount of butter, and I spread it on a piece of bread 3x the size of another, it's going to be spread thinner

 

[FightyF]

If you have more pixels to deal with, you can't spend as much power on each. It's as simple as that. If ATi has invented a chip where no matter how many pixels you throw at it, it can do any amount of pixel shading (or the same amount even), then they pretty much should just stop there At one resolution, you'll be able to do a certain amount of pixel shading per pixel. At a higher resolution, you'll be able to do less, because you now have more pixels to handle. If you could keep doing the same amount no matter how many pixels where there, then effectively that would mean an infinite amount of power

Silly analogy time: bread on butter. If I have a finite amount of butter, and I spread it on a piece of bread 3x the size of another, it's going to be spread thinner

I was thinking that it was possible. I mean, volumetric lighting when it comes to computation is resolution independant. You could have a game run at any resolution and it's all good.

 

[xexex]

if the 360 cant handle good looking games at 720p it should get outta the game... tired of lookin at 480i/p

why would you say that when Xbox 360 has been designed specifically for 720p and 1080i ?

it is Dreamcast, PS2, Gamecube, Xbox1, and Revolution that have been made specifically for 480i/480p

 

[gofreak]

I was thinking that it was possible. I mean, volumetric lighting when it comes to computation is resolution independant. You could have a game run at any resolution and it's all good.

Per-pixel volumetric?

Anything that is per pixel - the demands scale linearly with resolution. And tonnes of stuff is per pixel, and the amount being done per pixel is getting bigger and bigger and bigger..

With next-gen games, pixel shaders will be long. And plentiful. You'll be doing a lot for each pixel. This has been the case in the PC space for a number of years now and it's just going to get heavier and heavier for the foreseeable future.

 

[C- Warrior]

Actually, I believe the most recent PSM article states that Sony has mandated NO minimum bar on native resolutions.

Game A wants to do 480p native? So be it.

Game B wants to do 1080p native? So be it.

In anycase, even if I read it wrong, Sony still has never ever said (even hinted) that 1080p would be a requirement. I think it goes without saying that majority PS3 games will be 720p native, a few 480 native, and a few 1080 native, --you know, a typical bell curve.

Now, to go with the topic creator. There are some Xbox games that can do 720p, and they look damn good no matter what the fuck TV you're using.

Now, somebody quote that for truth--hmkay thanks.

With Microsoft (and I'm sure this applies with Sony) concerning that HD is a big issue for them, they designed their hardware with HD in mind. Will there be a hit for making a game 720 native as opposed to something lower, yes--ofcourse. It's all about risk/reward.

If the risk to make a game in 720p was greater than the reward then nobody would do it in 720p --yes, somebody quote that for truth as well.

Is there a chance a few next-gen games that hark on 60fps like the holy bible will be 480p (like Ninja Gaiden 2, or Devil May Cry 4) yes--quite possibly. 60 FPS is a staple in the DMC series, as with other intense action titles.

Now, for the final "quoted for truth statement."

Go watch a trailer for Heavenly Sword, that is one of the few games listed to be under 1080p resolution real-time. That's 1080p, that's targeted at 60 fps, that's highly detailed, with strong animations and special effects, nothing to worry about.

PS: As that one GAFer said, creating games in higher native resolutions also benefits SDTV owners, it's a method of Anti-Aliasing I hear or something. I personally feel 720p is a nice sweet-spot (as MS stated), any developer making games in 1080p this early on PS3 is non-sensical...the amount of people with a 1080p set that is aimed at buying your game is next to null, and it will remain that way for a good few years. 720p is a good resolution, a good chunk of people have it (can convert from it) --and it's not that taxing on hardware simply because it's the good "middle-ground." But if games like Heavenly Sword want to do 1080p, more power to them. I personally think it's effort that won't fully get rewarded.

 

[MrSingh]

why can't we go back to the old days of 160 x 120 resolution? the pixel detail would be incredible.

 

[C- Warrior]

why can't we go back to the old days of 160 x 120 resolution? the pixel detail would be incredible.

Yeah, screw change and advancement!

I mean gawd--what was so wrong with black and white TV's --ugh, like totally harking a Space Revolution 2010 man.

 

[gofreak]

Go watch a trailer for Heavenly Sword, that is one of the few games listed to be under 1080p resolution real-time. That's 1080p, that's targeted at 60 fps, that's highly detailed, with strong animations and special effects, nothing to worry about.

The trailer was 1080p, but I don't think Ninja Theory has confirmed the resolution the game will be at. Also, I think they're aiming for a solid 30fps.

 

[C- Warrior]

Oh and uh...

Sony has a minimum of 1080i or 1080p, I forget.

:lol :lol :lol :lol :lol