Support NeoGAF

[EightBitNate]

So just a question: if all games from now on are boasted as full, native 1080p for the sake of extra effects or performance, you guys would be okay with it? Why wouldn't all developers just do that then?

This is coming from someone who was angry with the 1080pr thing Xbone games were doing.

 

[twobear]

For one, this game outputs 1920x1080 new pixels every frame, making it 1080p, and does not scale the image, making it native. Yet forum warriors have redefined the terms native and progressive to mean something completely different every time they talk about this game. This has been going on since this novel and unique rendering technique was uncovered. I hate that someone's idiocy has resulted in a message to developers that explicitly states "shut up about your rendering pipeline otherwise I'll sue you".

If this game wasn't console exclusive then there would be virtually nobody trying to insist that a temporally reprojected 960x1080 is the same as what anybody has called 1080p in the past and they certainly wouldn't be using terms like 'novel and unique' to describe it.

In fact we can already see the difference where some games are using an anamorphic 1080p image that a lot of people are deriding it and calling it '1080pr'; when really, what's the difference?

 

[walnuts]

Shouldn't people do the same with Ass Creed Unity?

 

[mrklaw]

So just a question: if all games from now on are boasted as full, native 1080p for the sake of extra effects or performance, you guys would be okay with it? Why wouldn't all developers just do that then?

This is coming from someone who was angry with the 1080pr thing Xbone games were doing.

but 1080pr isn't native 1080p, its 1280x1080 (or whatever) then upscaled to 1080p. No different to 1600x900 upscaled. The game is not generating 1920x1080 pixels. Killzone is.

 

[benny_a]

If this game wasn't console exclusive then there would be virtually nobody trying to insist that a temporally reprojected 960x1080 is the same as what anybody has called 1080p in the past and they certainly wouldn't be using terms like 'novel and unique' to describe it.

They would: See the Lucas Arts thread on GAF which inspired this technique.

 

[twobear]

Shouldn't people do the same with Ass Creed Unity?

I don't see how they could do 'the same' about Unity, because to the best of my knowledge, Ubisoft never sold the game as being 'full 1080p'. I don't know if there are laws about knowingly selling a shoddy product, though.

They would: See the Lucas Arts thread on GAF which inspired this technique.

Do you have a link?

 

[Lemondish]

If this game wasn't console exclusive then there would be virtually nobody trying to insist that a temporally reprojected 960x1080 is the same as what anybody has called 1080p in the past and they certainly wouldn't be using terms like 'novel and unique' to describe it.

In fact we can already see the difference where some games are using an anamorphic 1080p image that some people are deriding at and calling it '1080pr'; when really, what's the difference?

It's novel and unique because very few games, if any, used it before that. I mean, you can go ahead and redefine the words novel and unique if you want since we seem to have redefined a bunch of other terms already. Send me the memo once you've finalised it, eh?

I'm of the belief that if this weren't a console exclusive, nobody would be suing anybody and we'd all have agreed that a game that outputs 1920x1080 unique pixels every frame, regardless of how they're drawn or where their data is derived, is native 1080p. We'd agree on that because that's what progressive and native have always meant. We'd also all agree that anybody trying to suggest otherwise was a bloody moron. Instead we're in some bizarro land where all of a sudden a game's entire pipeline must be 1080p to be considered native, which by the way, no game really does or needs to.

I completely understand if people want more in the way of qualifiers and specific terms to describe how an engine renders its image. But seeing as how such discussions always appeal to and include the technically proficient, redefining already established industry terms isn't the way to go about it. Doing it because of console wars is also a fucking tragedy. Don't act like you weren't using that as an important factor in the discussion since you were the one to bring up the fact that it's exclusive.

 

[thebloo]

Wolfenstein is openly known to run on the same engine as Rage, which has been openly advertised to drop resolution to keep framerate, hell it is one of the features carmack advertised. Guerrilla only said about "temporal retroprojection" once people had the game in their hands and started to notice something off.

http://www.techradar.com/news/gamin...loser-than-ps3-and-xbox-360-ever-were-1249521

No mention of dynamic scaling. "Openly known" doesn't mean much.

 

[ElFly]

As a fun example to consider how silly the idea of native meaning every part of the pipeline, let's look at the idTech 5 engine. idTech 5 can use textures up to 128000×128000 pixels in size for pretty much everything in the game. If native meant every part of the rendering pipeline is 1080p, then it would preclude a game running on idTech 5 from advertising itself as native 1080p. The upcoming Doom 4 could output at 1080p with 1920x1080 unique pixels each frame yet still not be called native using that definition, even though part of the pipeline is actually much higher than that. Kind of similar to your Okami example.

In both cases, it sounds silly. It's silly because native has never meant every part of the pipeline is X resolution. I'm not sure the motivations or intentions of people who continuously spout this nonsense even after being corrected. It's getting out of hand.

But that's the thing, it doesn't produce 1920x1080 new pixels every frame.



Yes it does. It updates every pixel. It simply uses the data from previous pixels to draw a whole new pixel completely unique to that frame. It isn't interlaced. It isn't anything but a novel and unique way to render at native 1080p.

It interpolates these new pixels from old data; scaling isn't the only way to cheat and average into higher resolution.

Hell, don't discuss with me, here's Guerrilla acknowledging their game is not 1920x1080.

In Multiplayer mode, however, we use a technique called “temporal reprojection,” which combines pixels and motion vectors from multiple lower-resolution frames to reconstruct a full 1080p image. If native means that every part of the pipeline is 1080p then this technique is not native.

They themselves say they are scaling up from 960x1080 to 1920x1080 by interpolating with past frames.

Up-scaling is a spatial interpolation filter. When up-scaling an image from one resolution to another, new pixels are added by stretching the image in X/Y dimension. The values of the new pixels are picked to lie in between the current values of the pixels. This gives a bigger, but slightly blurrier picture.

Temporal reprojection is a technique that tracks the position of pixels over time and predicts where they will be in future. These “history pixels” are combined with freshly rendered pixels to form a higher-resolution new frame. This is what KILLZONE SHADOW FALL uses in multiplayer.

Emphasis on Higher. Which means the original was lower.

Guerrilla themselves acknowledges the issue. The only question is whether or not this is worth winning a class action lawsuit.

 

[jryi]

If this game wasn't console exclusive then there would be virtually nobody trying to insist that a temporally reprojected 960x1080 is the same as what anybody has called 1080p in the past

So 1920x1080 newly calculated pixels for every new image is not 1080p in your opinion?

 

[Maedre]

A Resolution of 1x1080p is still 1080p. so is 1440x1080p or any other Resolution with 1080 Vertical lines. This lawsuit is nuts. This guy should get a fine for blocking the system for more important lawsuits.

 

[ElFly]

http://www.techradar.com/news/gamin...loser-than-ps3-and-xbox-360-ever-were-1249521

No mention of dynamic scaling. "Openly known" doesn't mean much.

That link says the engine is Id Tech 5. If you followed Id Tech 5, you know it drops res in exchange for solid framerate; now this is not a guarantee -I hear the evil within, which iirc uses id5, does away with this feature-, but it is not a secret or anything; the developer of the engine openly boasts about it.

This is different to Guerrilla who said "native 1080p at all times" and when the game was already out they had to be cornered to confess they interpolated from previous frames.

 

[Lemondish]

http://www.techradar.com/news/gamin...loser-than-ps3-and-xbox-360-ever-were-1249521

No mention of dynamic scaling. "Openly known" doesn't mean much.

For those who might actually bother following this stuff: http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2014-wolfenstein-the-new-order-face-off

Dynamic resolution.

Not to mention the fact that idTech 5 uses megatextures that go way beyond 1920x1080. Like up to 128000x128000. Wolfenstein runs at 1080p every frame on PS4. Does that mean it isn't native because part of the pipeline isn't 1920x1080?

 

[Arthr2ShdsJcksn]

You gotta have no life to a)decide to do this, b)to support this.

I have a life and I support this. Come at me.

A product should be accurately described on packaging and promotional materials. Hopefully the result in the lawsuit is not a few extra dollars in our pockets, but rather provide the impetus for all game makers to be more honest about the technical specs of their games.

 

[Nothavingit]

How is this a class action suit but nobody has sued the makers of cod yet?

 

[twobear]

It's novel and unique because very few games, if any, used it before that. I mean, you can go ahead and redefine the words novel and unique if you want since we seem to have redefined a bunch of other terms already. Send me the memo once you've finalised it, eh?

I'm of the belief that if this weren't a console exclusive, nobody would be suing anybody and we'd all have agreed that a game that outputs 1920x1080 unique pixels every frame, regardless of how they're drawn or where their data is derived, is native 1080p. We'd also all agree that anybody trying to suggest otherwise was a bloody moron.

I completely understand if people want more in the way of qualifiers and specific terms to describe how an engine renders its image. But seeing as how such discussions always appeal to and include the technically proficient, redefining already established industry terms isn't the way to go about it.

So, you'd be happy for all developers to start using temporal reprojection and sell their games as being native 1080p? Or when more of them start doing it does it stop being 'novel and unique' and start being disappointing and worthy of criticism?

And I find the idea that someone would go to the lengths of initiating a lawsuit over console wars to be kind of absurd, frankly.

 

[mrklaw]

It interpolates these new pixels from old data; scaling isn't the only way to cheat and average into higher resolution.

Hell, don't discuss with me, here's Guerrilla acknowledging their game is not 1920x1080.



They themselves say they are scaling up from 960x1080 to 1920x1080 by interpolating with past frames.

It is completely different than simply using neighbouring pixel colours to scale up from a lower resolution to a higher one. They are using additional data that is stored in various buffers such as pixel velocity from several previous frames.

That is getting into the same sort of area as the general processing that goes into creating brand new pixels normally.

 

[ElFly]

For those who might actually bother following this stuff: http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2014-wolfenstein-the-new-order-face-off

Dynamic resolution.

Not to mention the fact that idTech 5 uses megatextures that go way beyond 1920x1080. Like up to 128000x128000. Wolfenstein runs at 1080p every frame on PS4. Does that mean it isn't native because part of the pipeline isn't 1920x1080?

Point is KSF MP is not 1080p because it renders at 960x1080 and then interpolates to the full 1080p.

It is completely different than simply using neighbouring pixel colours to scale up from a lower resolution to a higher one. They are using additional data that is stored in various buffers such as pixel velocity from several previous frames.

That is getting into the same sort of area as the general processing that goes into creating brand new pixels normally.

I agree that it is not exactly the same as upscaling; the temporal prediction feature is p neat. Keep in mind that Guerrilla themselves recognizes the algorithm will check how good is the "predictability" of a given pixel from the previous frames it is trying to extract data from, and that if it considers it too unpredictable, it falls back to plain old upscaling. So it is not true that all the pixels are "new", and that half the new pixel are just rendered with a different trick. From time to time there's up scaling and people noticed it.

*Most pixels are very predictable, so we use reconstruction from a past frame to serve as the odd pixel

*If the pixel is not very predictable, we pick the best value from neighbors in the current frame

On occasion the prediction fails and locally pixels become blurry, or thin vertical lines appear. However, most of the time the prediction works well and the image is identical to a normal 1080p image. We then increase sub-pixel anti-aliasing using our 1080p “previous frame” and motion vectors, further improving the image quality.

Emphasis mine, it indicates something that is probably plain old upscaling, or p close to it.

Which prolly happens more when there's quick movement.

The problem is not the definition of words, but that Guerrilla tried to say the game was 1080p when it was interpolating frames or upscaling in multi. Which is silly, they should have just recognized multi was a little degraded.

 

[thelastword]

So what about Wolfenstein? "Wolfenstein: The New Order runs at 1080p, 60fps on both the Xbox One and PS4", but on X1 it dynamically changes that. Isn't that deceiving too?

That was known pretty early on though. Look at how the order devs came fourth and said that their game will be using black bars so far from release. If any body tries to sue them they don't have a chance. Guerilla did things differently here, at least RAD's game is native within those black bars.


To those saying that more devs will withhold information now could not be more wrong. gamers from this gen have been the most vocal on the technical aspects of games I have ever seen. That in itself have caused many devs to be upfront about their engines and render methods. You have so many devs now coming out the woodwork and saying that their game is native 1080p or it's 60fps, talking about their G.I implementation, we have more discussion and information being disseminated now because devs realize that gamers are versed and are speaking that language, we know what we want in a product technically.

There are devs more deserving to be made an example of, but if Guerilla is the lamb to the slaughter towards the betterment of how a game is marketed or portrayed, then I'm all up for it, I believe in the right of the consumer.

I will also say that withholding information about a product is a bad thing, it won't be good for you either way, the backlash can and will destroy you or said product. In an age where the pixel counting is done by regular forum goers or when devs move features in games via patches (godrays), gamers still pick it up and post it on the internet, bad press won't do better for your product as opposed to you being upfront to a bunch of prying and eagle eyed gamers.

Few things elude the gamer's gaze now-a-days, Guerilla was smart enough to circumvent the precision of pixel counters by padding information in alternate lines, but even pixel counters are more aware of this new method and will adjust their own methods accordingly. Still, a number of gamers realize something was wrong with the MP's resolution from first boot, it's too bad I did not boot the MP sooner than when I did, I waited till I finished the campaign. When I did the disparity was immediate. I know one thing is for sure, I do not want this type of 1080p in my games, I want to know when it's there so I can avoid it.

As I said, please give us better distinctions on the technical quality of gaming products. If you're doing 960*1080p reprojection, I want to know. If the game is TRUE-HD 1080p native I want to know, if the game is upscaled in traditional fashion, I want to know, it's my right to know and with-holding that information form me is a NO-NO.

 

[Ranger X]

I wonder if this will announce the end of the non-native résolutions marketing?
Its an interesting lawsuit for sure.

 

[Lemondish]

It interpolates these new pixels from old data; scaling isn't the only way to cheat and average into higher resolution.

Hell, don't discuss with me, here's Guerrilla acknowledging their game is not 1920x1080.



They themselves say they are scaling up from 960x1080 to 1920x1080 by interpolating with past frames.



Emphasis on Higher. Which means the original was lower.

Guerrilla themselves acknowledges the issue. The only question is whether or not this is worth winning a class action lawsuit.

Guerrilla is only acknowledging that people are effectively redefining what native means and qualifying it as such. Nice cherry picking. Here's the part of the quote you left out for anybody interested in a non-biased reference.

In both SP and MP, KILLZONE SHADOW FALL outputs a full, unscaled 1080p image at up to 60 FPS. Native is often used to indicate images that are not scaled; it is native by that definition.

Since this is EXACTLY how native has always been used, then Killzone Shadowfall is native 1080. I continue to contend that the source of the pixel data is irrelevant if every pixel drawn is unique. They aren't copying pixels. They aren't dropping lines. The engine absolutely is rendering 1920x1080 unique pixels every frame. Adding these ridiculous qualifiers on the term doesn't change the definition. That's the discussion here. You can't deny this. Cut it out with the 'but, but, but...' bullshit.

There's absolutely grounds to discuss it's qualitative qualities when compared to other rendering methods. But that isn't what this law suit alleges. It alleges that the game isn't native 1080p. Except it is, in every way that matters. We've already highlighted how native can't mean that every part of the pipeline is 1080p. That would exclude nearly every game currently running at 1920x1080 regardless of how they derive that pixel data.

 

[Lemondish]

Point is KSF MP is not 1080p because it renders at 960x1080 and then interpolates to the full 1080p.



I agree that it is not exactly the same as upscaling; the temporal prediction feature is p neat. Keep in mind that Guerrilla themselves recognizes the algorithm will check how good is the "predictability" of a given pixel from the previous frames it is trying to extract data from, and that if it considers it too unpredictable, it falls back to plain old upscaling.



Emphasis mine, it indicates something that is probably plain old upscaling, or p close to it.

Which prolly happens more when there's quick movement.

The problem is not the definition of words, but that Guerrilla tried to say the game was 1080p when it was interpolating frames or upscaling in multi. Which is silly, they should have just recognized multi was a little degraded.

No it doesn't. Every frame is a progressive 1920x1080 image.

 

[DirtyLarry]

Anyone who is capable of looking at things objectively know that companies are always going to do whatever they can to make their products look better than they actually are. I mean seriously, do you watch the trailers for the upcoming Assassin's Creed games and think that is what it is going to look like on either the PS4 or XBox One? Or do you have enough sense to know they are showing it on the highest end PC with everything maxed out and then touched up after the fact to look as good as it possibly can look?

This is literally no different than seeing an advertisement for a Big Mac, or hell even the picture on the menu as you are standing in line, and wanting to sue McDonalds as the real life Big Mac looks nothing like the one in the commercials.

This whole lawsuit is an absolute joke. Let's pretend for a second it actually does somehow win. What exactly does that gain the consumer? Trailers and screenshots that are an actual representation of the final product? Some text on the box that claims it is actually running at 900p but is upscaled to 1080p instead? Like none of that information is widely available as soon as the game is released, if not weeks before it is released?

Every single industry does "false advertising," every single one. If you are somehow gullible enough to fall for it, who exactly is to blame again? The company that is doing the same as every other company out there? Or the people that somehow think any marketing they see is going to be an actual representation of the final product.

 

[Ramenman]

Internet forum bullshit complaining evolved, wow.

I hope he at least doesn't win....

 

[ElFly]

No it doesn't. Every frame is a progressive 1920x1080 image.

Because it interpolated it from 960x1080 to 1920x1080. Some times the interpolation is from previous frames, some times the interpolation is up-scaling.

Since this is EXACTLY how native has always been used, then Killzone Shadowfall is native 1080. I continue to contend that the source of the pixel data is irrelevant if every pixel drawn is unique. They aren't copying pixels. They aren't dropping lines. The engine absolutely is rendering 1920x1080 unique pixels every frame. Adding these ridiculous qualifiers on the term doesn't change the definition. That's the discussion here. You can't deny this. Cut it out with the 'but, but, but...' bullshit.

There's absolutely grounds to discuss it's qualitative qualities when compared to other rendering methods. But that isn't what this law suit alleges. It alleges that the game isn't native 1080p. Except it is, in every way that matters. We've already highlighted how native can't mean that every part of the pipeline is 1080p. That would exclude nearly every game currently running at 1920x1080 regardless of how they derive that pixel data.

They are contradicting themselves, and yes, I am going to cherry pick the contradiction. When temporal projection fails, they up-scale.

Not every pixel is "new". Some are interpolated.

 

[Lemondish]

So, you'd be happy for all developers to start using temporal reprojection and sell their games as being native 1080p? Or when more of them start doing it does it stop being 'novel and unique' and start being disappointing and worthy of criticism?

And I find the idea that someone would go to the lengths of initiating a lawsuit over console wars to be kind of absurd, frankly.

I never said it wasn't worthy of criticism. Criticize it all you want.

Just stop spouting bullshit about how it isn't native (it is) or progressive (it is). It renders 1920x1080 unique pixels every frame. How they are derived is fucking irrelevant to the discussion at hand. This lawsuit alleges that it doesn't do those things, yet we know it does, we see that it does, and no amount of moving goalposts is going to change that.

Sure, you can compare it to other rendering methods on qualitative grounds and declare it wanting. That isn't what the lawsuit is doing. It's specifically stating that it does not meet the definition of native and progressive. The only way that could be the case is if native and progressive all of a sudden have new meanings that nobody can seem to nail down.

 

[bomblord1]

So products arent allowed to change before release, even if they let the consumer know beforehand?

The point is simply they showed it as one thing and then it was another they didn't come out and say it was a downgrade they showed new footage and then insisted there wasn't a downgrade. Yes, they did show it in a different form before release but they said it was the same.

I don't actually think Ubisoft should be sued over it (in fact I think some of the downgrade claims are a little ridiculous and hyperbolic) I'm just saying a suit like that would hold more water than this one.

 

[Cth]

The court system has not been kind to Sony at all.

Didn't they lose another lawsuit about deceitful advertising?
Then Sony pictures is also getting sued for not protecting employee info

It was when they sued Bleem and that overseas online store.

 

[jryi]

Point is KSF MP is not 1080p because it renders at 960x1080 and then interpolates to the full 1080p.

Where do you get this information? And it does not interpolate from the rendered image but from earlier buffers.

As I said, please give us better distinctions on the technical quality of gaming products. If you're doing 960*1080p reprojection, I want to know.

How detailed an explanation would you want to have in the box cover? Do you also want to know the resolution of texture assets and rendering resolution of shadows? What about occlusion culling, do you also want to know how the unseen surfaces are handled? What, to you, is an acceptable level of precision? What would you have wanted to see said in Killzone box?

 

[Lemondish]

Because it interpolated it from 960x1080 to 1920x1080. Some times the interpolation is from previous frames, some times the interpolation is up-scaling.

Source on the upscaling part, because Guerrilla's own explanation mentions absolutely nothing about upscaling. It uses data from the current frame, the past frame, the past-past frame, each frames colour and motion vector, and a full 1080p previous frame for anti-aliasing purposes. The resulting new pixel may be derived from past pixels, but it's unique to that frame. The process can and does create an image that is identical to a 'normal' 1080p image.

Because it interpolated it from 960x1080 to 1920x1080. Some times the interpolation is from previous frames, some times the interpolation is up-scaling.



They are contradicting themselves, and yes, I am going to cherry pick the contradiction. When temporal projection fails, they up-scale.

Not every pixel is "new". Some are interpolated.

Yes. From past data. Making it new because, after all, it isn't a copy. It is a newly generated pixel unique to that frame.

Look, in the context of discussing the qualitative aspects of the rendering technique, you might actually have a valid perspective here. There is something to be said about it's performance and the resulting picture when compared to the traditional rendering method. That's certain. It just isn't related to the use of the terms native or progressive.

 

[thebloo]

That was known pretty early on though. .

The game came out in May 20th. I can't find any article before the launch stating the dynamical resolution. All of the articles say that the game runs 1080p60fps.

 

[ElFly]

Where do you get this information? And it does not interpolate from the rendered image but from earlier buffers.


How detailed an explanation would you want to have in the box cover? Do you also want to know the resolution of texture assets and rendering resolution of shadows? What about occlusion culling, do you also want to know how the unseen surfaces are handled? What, to you, is an acceptable level of precision? What would you have wanted to see said in Killzone box?

http://www.killzone.com/en_GB/blog/news/2014-03-06_regarding-killzone-shadow-fall-and-1080p.html

Again

So, in a bit more detail, this is what we need for this technique:


We keep track of three images of “history pixels” sized 960x1080

The current frame

The past frame

And the past-past frame

For each pixel we store its color and its motion vector – i.e. the direction of the pixel on-screen

We also store a full 1080p, “previous frame” which we use to improve anti-aliasing


Then we have to reconstruct every odd pixel in the frame:


We track every pixel back to the previous frame and two frames ago, by using its motion vectors

By looking at how this pixel moved in the past, we determine its “predictability”

Most pixels are very predictable, so we use reconstruction from a past frame to serve as the odd pixel

If the pixel is not very predictable, we pick the best value from neighbors in the current frame


On occasion the prediction fails and locally pixels become blurry, or thin vertical lines appear. However, most of the time the prediction works well and the image is identical to a normal 1080p image. We then increase sub-pixel anti-aliasing using our 1080p “previous frame” and motion vectors, further improving the image quality.

Note that they themselves say that from time to time, temporal reprojection fails and it plain old average from only one source, the current, lower res frame. And that they themselves say that sometimes noticeable artifacts appear.

Yes. From past data. Making it new because, after all, it isn't a copy. It is a newly generated pixel unique to that frame.

Not always. Sometimes, they decide the past data is not good enough and then they interpolate from the current frame only.

Which must happen most often when fast movement is occurring on screen, when predictability fails. I sourced killzone.com so...um....that's p damn authoritative.

The game came out in May 20th. I can't find any article before the launch stating the dynamical resolution. All of the articles say that the game runs 1080p60fps.

They said they were using id tech 5 early on, though.

 

[theignoramus]

Bad game to make a point like this over. Should have filed a class action lawsuit over Sony's PS3 CG trailers back in 05.

 

[Lemondish]

http://www.killzone.com/en_GB/blog/news/2014-03-06_regarding-killzone-shadow-fall-and-1080p.html

Again



Note that they themselves say that from time to time, temporal reprojection fails and it plain old average from only one source, the current, lower res frame. And that they themselves say that sometimes noticeable artifacts appear.



Not always. Sometimes, they decide the past data is not good enough and then they interpolate from the current frame only.

Which happens most often when fast movement is occurring on screen, when predictability fails.



They said they were using id tech 5 early on, though.

Interpolation is the creation of new data points within the range of a discrete set of known data points. It is a new data point unique to that frame. The engine is not inserting copies. It is always using old data to create a new, unique pixel, it just sometimes doesn't use the whole set of available data points to do so. None of this means it isn't native 1080p.

 

[Jotaka]

Free money!!!

 

[angrygnat]

So if Sony and Guerrilla Games are held responsible for this, what the hell is going to happen to the developers that released games that really ARE busted. We just going to lie them up and shoot them? Take their first born? Shadowfalls graphics are amazing. In campaign and MP. Their defense should be just letting video if the game play. They speak for themselves. Unplayable? Really? They needed computers to tell them it wasn't full 1080p. No one "saw" it.

 

[jryi]

http://www.killzone.com/en_GB/blog/news/2014-03-06_regarding-killzone-shadow-fall-and-1080p.html

Nowhere in there does it say that the image is rendered at 960x1080.

 

[DocSeuss]

Really people? This deserves a fucking class action lawsuit?

If we can get devs to stop lying about the stuff their games do, that might be good for the industry. I know I'm pretty tired of bullshots and stuff.

 

[Lemondish]

So if Sony and Guerrilla Games are held responsible for this, what the hell is going to happen to the developers that released games that really ARE busted. We just going to lie them up and shoot them? Take their first born? Shadowfalls graphics are amazing. In campaign and MP. Their defense should be just letting video if the game play. They speak for themselves. Unplayable? Really? They needed computers to tell them it wasn't full 1080p. No one "saw" it.

Actually, in the interest of objectivity, tons of people saw the impact of this rendering method, they just didn't know what it was they were actually seeing. Most chalked it up to intense motion blur, an already accepted method of smoothing the motion of the image to create a more realistic depiction of motion. Nobody freaks out about motion blur, though, so nobody cared.

If we can get devs to stop lying about the stuff their games do, that might be good for the industry. I know I'm pretty tired of bullshots and stuff.

Replace bullshot with 'target render' and the situation returns. If you really want to reduce the impact of bullshots on the industry, stop using them as tools to determine your purchasing decisions.

 

[ElFly]

Nowhere in there does it say that the image is rendered at 960x1080.

We keep track of three images of “history pixels” sized 960x1080

The current frame

Does so.

Interpolation is the creation of new data points within the range of a discrete set of known data points. It is a new data point unique to that frame. The engine is not inserting copies. It is always using old data to create a new, unique pixel, it just sometimes doesn't use the whole set of available data points to do so. None of this means it isn't native 1080p.

Well, when the algorithm fails it only has the current frame to create those "new" pixels. The game is then in the same situation as other games with a less-than-1080p frame that needs to output a full frame.

That means it used some kind of interpolation/scaling/whatever to expand to the full frame. Because there is no other data to pick from, only the current frame, it has to interpolate somehow. Which means that, partially, some of the pixels are not "new" but up-scaled.

ElFly, the point is that the final rendered image is at 1920x1080, and that's the native resolution.

Then every game where by any kind of stretching outputs at 1920x1080 is also native 1080p, even if scaling happened.

 

[Scoot2005]

Is this guy the proclaimed King of the Neckbeards or something? This is just too ridiculous to believe that a normal, well adjusted human being would be this fucking angry over something like this. Especially if it was a launch game. My word.

 

[mao2]

Does so.

ElFly, the point is that the final rendered image is at 1920x1080, and that's the native resolution.

 

[Lemondish]

Does so.



Well, when the algorithm fails it only has the current frame to create those "new" pixels. The game is then in the same situation as other games with a less-than-1080p frame that needs to output a full frame.

That means it used some kind of interpolation/scaling/whatever to expand to the full frame. Because there is no other data to pick from, only the current frame, it has to interpolate somehow. Which means that, partially, some of the pixels are not "new" but up-scaled.



Then every game where by any kind of stretching outputs at 1920x1080 is also native 1080p, even if scaling happened.

Guerrilla themselves state that:

> If the pixel is not very predictable, we pick the best value from neighbors in the current frame

That sounds less like scaling and more like deriving the data of a new pixel from other data points in exactly the same way it does for predictable pixels. Those neighbour pixels are simply sharing the interpolation data they used to achieve their current state with the neighbour pixel. The new pixel is still using multiple data points to determine it's own makeup, it just sometimes uses the data points form neighbouring pixels past selves rather than its past self. The final image isn't upscaled. The renderer always outputs a 1920x1080p frame buffer. The resulting image is mostly indistinguishable from a 'normal' 1080p image.

I'm curious as to what you think should happen if the lawsuit succeeds. How should developers and publishers label their products? Do you actually believe that every part of a rendering pipeline needs to be 1920x1080 pixels for it to be considered native and progressive? Based on the way you're carrying on, I think that's exactly what you believe. Which is absolutely ridiculous.

 

[SMOK3Y]

America, baby

Lol ya 'only in America'

 

[Elandyll]

I don't even see how the lawsuit could continue, but I cannot imagine it even winning .. anything.

It is well known and documented that the framebuffer (where the final picture is composed) is a 1920x1080 full HD in KZ:SF.
The only reason this is even discussed is about how the elements are being created for the frame buffer, which indeed has some elements being "time interpolated".

If (I can't imagine how) the lawsuit would win, it would create a HUGE precedent for any videogame out there that is not a pure -for every element in the pipeline- 1080p, but has "1080p" on their box.

And I recon there is a ton of them (the most deceptive kind being the upscaled 1080p, which I believe was almost every single game on 360 which had that on the box, and many PS3 ones as well).

Also a potential nasty side effect would be that devs will get a gag order from their publishers about the technicalities behind their games, which in the end will just mean less informations for us consumers.

 

[Man]

R.I.P 1080pr

 

[thelastword]

Anyone who is capable of looking at things objectively know that companies are always going to do whatever they can to make their products look better than they actually are. I mean seriously, do you watch the trailers for the upcoming Assassin's Creed games and think that is what it is going to look like on either the PS4 or XBox One? Or do you have enough sense to know they are showing it on the highest end PC with everything maxed out and then touched up after the fact to look as good as it possibly can look?

This is literally no different than seeing an advertisement for a Big Mac, or hell even the picture on the menu as you are standing in line, and wanting to sue McDonalds as the real life Big Mac looks nothing like the one in the commercials.

This whole lawsuit is an absolute joke. Let's pretend for a second it actually does somehow win. What exactly does that gain the consumer? Trailers and screenshots that are an actual representation of the final product? Some text on the box that claims it is actually running at 900p but is upscaled to 1080p instead? Like none of that information is widely available as soon as the game is released, if not weeks before it is released?

Every single industry does "false advertising," every single one. If you are somehow gullible enough to fall for it, who exactly is to blame again? The company that is doing the same as every other company out there? Or the people that somehow think any marketing they see is going to be an actual representation of the final product.

Every single industry is doing false advertising, so by all means it should continue in the games industry, is that the logic? Come on....

So if I go to Ferrari to purchase a car, should I question that I'm going to purchase a Ferrari...uhhhhh....a real one? How long should these semantics persist? If it is that I bought a ferrarri 458 italia, but whilst driving on a day to day, I find it's not as smooth or venomous an engine as I'm used to in Ferrari. I mean I've bough many Ferrari cars before so I know the feel and quality inherent with a Ferrari product.

I then take this car back to Ferrari, I ask them to give me a breakdown, I ask them to strip it down, let me see the engine, it just doesn't feel right. The engineer comes in and reluctantly says to me "Sir", we've been trying to save cost, so we've uhhhh...reprojected
........uhhh..I mean uhh..retrofitted an engine of a Nissan almera only that we used the shell of a Ferrari 458. I mean technically it's still a car, is it a Ferrari? I mean it has the shell of one, I'll let you answer that one......NO, it's a façade.

As to your point, should I just accept that car and beat myself that I should have known better, that all businesses are shady, should I just accept this car and accept my fate. Clearly I was too stupid that I was sold on a nice Ferrari shell.

How detailed an explanation would you want to have in the box cover? Do you also want to know the resolution of texture assets and rendering resolution of shadows? What about occlusion culling, do you also want to know how the unseen surfaces are handled? What, to you, is an acceptable level of precision? What would you have wanted to see said in Killzone box?

Textures, shadows, effects (translucent et al.) and all other internal buffers I'll find on my own. All I want to know is if the traditional 1920*1080 native is in or not, I'm not interested in Guerilla's new method, Apparently many devs are not interested in Guerilla's method on the PS4 either.

The game came out in May 20th. I can't find any article before the launch stating the dynamical resolution. All of the articles say that the game runs 1080p60fps.

If you would have frequented beyond 3D you would have known, it's id tech 5, this happens to be a feature of that engine on consoles from last gen, the game never drops frames, it's built into the engine.

In any case, the analysis was published on eurogamer in quick order in a matter of days. The information was out there. Guerilla did not come clean about the quirks of it's engine till (5 months later) when more persons complained about mp's quality, which is the internet nowadays for what it's worth. A customer now have a medium in which to be heard, sadly some folk would prefer that the customer sew his tongue and stay his type as to not upset Guerilla Or Sony, sad times really.

 

[thebloo]

If you would have frequented beyond 3D you would have known, it's id tech 5, this happens to be a feature of that engine on consoles from last gen, the game never drops frames, it's built into the engine.

In any case, the analysis was published on eurogamer in quick order in a matter of days. The information was out there. Guerilla did not come clean about the quirks of it's engine till (5 months later) when more persons complained about mp's quality, which is the internet nowadays for what it's worth. A customer now have a medium in which to be heard, sadly some folk would prefer that the customer sew his tongue and stay his type as to not upset Guerilla Or Sony, sad times really.

So, it wasn't "known" before release. Also, I couldn't find anything about idtech5 dynamic output resolution before Wolfenstein. Just dynamic texture resolution, which is really another story.

I'm not trying to attack or defend anyone here, it's just that things are more complex than "1080p or not" and these things have been going on for a long long time.

 

[DarkoMaledictus]

Lol, so is he going to claim psychological damage? Did he have a breakdown that caused him irreparable harm... wow this is ridiculous. People are so lame...

 

[test_account]

I thought I was pretty clear: class actions are predicated on contingency fees. Attorneys' fees are pulled from the pot.

Per your second question, the answer is: No. This is a class action, not a suit in an individual capacity.

If it was clear, at least to me, i wouldnt have asked Maybe i worded it wrong earlier, but what i ment to say is that it would depened on how much money that potentially could be gotten out from this lawsuit compared to how much lawyers fees there are. Unless that scales somehow, but i dont think thats the case. That means that it could be little money left after all the fees are payed off (as in taken from the pot), couldnt it?