Caayn
Member
The PS3 scaler was gimped to only horizontal scaling.
Killzone: Shadow Fall Multiplayer Runs at 960x1080 vertically interlaced
- Thread starter RoboPlato
- Start date
maneil99
Member
What game has...
How do you feel about the Xbox One resolution threads? Good or bad news?
A few days ago, without this new news, wouldn't this game still have been a testament to "what can be with closed hardware" or "console optimization"? At least in MP, is it now "rushed" or "unoptimized"?
Nah go see the FEB reveal moment and demo played in Jimmy Fallon, I was waiting to experience that and I bet you it was "toned down" in the final code.
Well, I mean, obviously not rendering at 1080p and complaints about blurriness for months now isn't a good thing.
I don't think anybody calls KZ's multiplayer a testament to what can be done with closed hardware. Single player, sure, and that still stands today.
Well, if really people believe ps4 can handle online the Kz engine at 1080p with 60 fps, they need to wake up.
FritoBandito
Banned
Uh, what? 1080p = progressive. If the image is interlaced, it's no longer 1080p.
The SP does hit 60 in some rare situations. It probably could get pretty close eventually, just not in a launch title.
So you knew it was rendering under 1080p before this news?
No, it wouldn't.
I think you're confusing KZ3 with some other game, it had really bad performance issues. SF is miles better.
I'm not surprise, I don't know for sure but I suspected there was some 'trick' behind.
fallingdove
Member
It's all of the above. Killzone SF, IMO, is still the best looking next gen game on any platform, so it is a testament to what can be done with closed hardward by an exclusive developer. That said, GG did not have 8gb DDR5 throughout the entirety of the development cycle so it is unoptimized for what the final hardware is capable of.
To be fair, the idea for this thread came up in another discussion where someone was using a MP screen from Shadowfall as an example of impressive-looking 1080p visuals.
maneil99
Member
Its exactly the same bar level lay out, instead of ending in 5 minutes it ends in 35. Graphically its superior to the reveal, models are higher poly and framerate is higher....
Quadraphonic
Member
There's a reason interlacing is horizontal lines moving vertically. Less lines to update the full screen.
It's very curious that they chose vertical lines since by any measure that has twice the computational overhead.
It's very curious that they chose vertical lines since by any measure that has twice the computational overhead.
One amusing thing about this thread is it pretty much has killed the (nonsensical) resolutions doesn't matter argument.
People were long complaining about the blurriness in MP due to the now known resolution interlacing tricks. If resolutions don't matter, it wouldn't have been perceivable to the vast majority of people, yet it was.
Still sad that even more launch games had their corners cut. We all know thats the state of launches, but we can always dream for better.
People were long complaining about the blurriness in MP due to the now known resolution interlacing tricks. If resolutions don't matter, it wouldn't have been perceivable to the vast majority of people, yet it was.
Still sad that even more launch games had their corners cut. We all know thats the state of launches, but we can always dream for better.
FritoBandito
Banned
Not really. People have bemoaning the fact that the game's frame rate has been incredibly unstable in both multiplayer and singleplayer. So much so that they issued a patch that locks the frame rate to 30FPS in singleplayer. I've seen a lot of people remark on how pretty the visuals are but never that it's well optimized.
sono
Member
Yes the campaign (when you set 30fps locked) looks stupendous.
However not sure how that helps with the 1080p/60fps or death debate.
I'd always assumed it was known. I played a few rounds in MP when it came out and it looked like vaseline was all over the screen. People tried to pass it off as rubbish AA, but no matter how bad the AA was, it would never have that effect on a 1080p screen.
BackBackPunch
Member
Reveal footage:
http://youtu.be/PkAk1GPOuhs
Gameplay footage:
http://youtu.be/Kwm6cJdOx-M
How exactly isn't it the same? Looks pretty much identical to me.
itsnervedamage
Member
You clearly haven't played any of the KZ games in multi.
Shadow Falls framerate is leagues better than the predecessors.
Would it have been better to drop effects to hit 1080p instead of the interlacing? I dunno, I usually turn off extra bling to keep fps and res. on PC but I've never had a chance to side by side vertical interlacing.
The resolution is just a proxy argument though, the real point here is that with GG's KZ:SF engine, PS4 only has the power to push the equivalent of 1080p@30hz when rendering geometry and effects as we currently see. They did something clever to get better responsiveness for the MP part of the game, but the number of pixels rendered per second from geometry is the same as SP.
sono
Member
Ok thanks.
I dont think I saw an answer to this q yet
.. how can you reliably tell they build up the frame in two vertical passes by just looking at the final result - e.g why could not the bluring be due other reasons ?
dark_prinny
Banned
Looks good to me.
But KZ has impressive things about it. That does not mean that the game was not rushed or properly optimized.
EL CUCO
Member
You're not the only one. It looks good, but there is noticeable blur when in motion, especially when sprinting.
It's not like it's horrible looking or anything. But I've always thought it was annoyingly blurry with even the slightest bit of motion. It all makes sense now.
It's close, but you can tell it was downgraded. The final has pop-in, and the black tarp that was moving from the wind turned into a blue tarp that doesn't move. You can see trees are missing too in the final version when the ship nears the landing area.
maneil99
Member
Character models were upped and so was the framerate.
FritoBandito
Banned
I think it looks really good in MP, too. I think this reaction is just a combination of console wars going on and people's reaction to how an exclusive game performs on a new generation's console. Considering the many compromises that had to be made for this game: narrow FOV, unstable frame rate, interlaced resolution--maintaining 1080p for a high-fidelity action game is incredible difficult, or even impossible if you're a narcissist.
As was the character animation.
You really think that reducing the pixel count by ~12% would have made it possible to lock the framerate at 60fps?
Some people on this board seem to think that 720p is some magic resolution that enables you to run any game at 60fps.
The reflections on the buildings were downgraded also. And the frame-rate is best locked at 30 so the micro-stutter from the frame-rate jumping up and down goes away. Character models look pretty much the same. The guy leading you down the stairs animates a little better in the final. I'm impressed with what they achieved in SP, though, and can't wait to see their next game.
I realllllly have to disagree with you there.
It's virtually identical. Changes made are minimal and have little impact on the end result.
It's a lot easier to pick apart when viewing the game directly on your screen as opposed to watching a live streamed event, however, and I feel that it is the only thing possibly coloring these strange opinions.
At the very beginning? I'm not sure I would call that a downgrade. Them were made more subtle in the final game. The reveal reflections appeared stronger than they should have.
I think a lot of artistic adjustments are being mistaken as technical downgrades.
People don't seem to understand that bottlenecks can lie elsewhere.
DemonCleaner
Member
what?
BF4 does basically everthing worse:
materials/textures
lighting (!!!)
geometry
in some regards its really a generations leap.
LiquidMetal14
hide your water-based mammals
It doesn't matter in the long run no matter what. I find the technique they used interesting. Not losing sleep over it.
And then you remember that one has gigantic maps, vehicles, destructible environments and 64 players. BF4 is way more impressive.
The entire fly-over. Especially the main building you're flying to. Maybe the devs thought that looked better, but it really looks like a downgrade to me. And this is glass and Windex from the future, buddy!
Ha. There's great and poor textures in both games. And what's wrong with BF4's lighting?
lol, and this
That don't load/stream properly
That take damage incorrectly, and don't function properly in laggy servers
That are pre-canned / scripted. Even the small stuff if pre-canned with gibs.
That doesn't work, rubber bands, and/or crashes.
BF is fun as a different beast, but it's a technical mess. It's only a looker on a high end PCs that can brute force it's inelegant design while hoping it doesn't crash. IOW, it;s got its own serious issues.
By this logic WoW is more impressive.
The more you want to put inside of occlusion culling, the less detailed each individual game object has to be. 1 500k poly character becomes 5 100k poly characters. One 3m poly building becomes an entire MP map.
Scale doesn't mean its doing more, its just reducing object complexity to fit everything in a rendered field of view. That's before we even dive into effects such as lighting, shadows, shading, particles, etc.
I dunno, I thought the reflection map itself looked basically the same but they basically toned down that property in the final game to allow for more of the material itself to stand out. I think it was just an artistic adjustment. It's not as if the reveal was actually reflecting the world around it properly (which the raytraced water reflections do in the final game).
I really can't agree with this. Ignoring the other circumstances of what the games are doing in multiplayer and resolution/framerate, even just visually, if you're describing the difference in those terms I don't know where you're coming from.
And the lighting. Seriously, the bloom in the reveal is disgusting.
VisceralBowl
Member
Something that bothers me was the placement of the gun in both. The reveal gameplay looked much better in that regard. The final placement looks weird to me. I noticed it on my playthrough at my buddy's house as well.
Zatoichi's Cane
Member
What are you smoking?
THANK YOU
I thought it was just me. I probably seemed crazy with all of my complaints about it. Reveal placement was excellent but it's awkward in the final game.