Here we go again: Lords of the Fallen to be 1080p on PS4, 900p on Xbox One.

[maxspeed3006]

[IMG]http://i.imgur.com/Yd4JVRO.jpg[/IMG]

[QUOTE][B]Lords of the Fallen will run at 900p on Xbox One and 1080p on PlayStation 4[/B], creative director Tomasz Gop has confirmed to VideoGamer.com.Gop discussed the differences between the two versions in a new gameplay walkthrough, explaining that the two games were "pretty much similar," but "probably the resolution [on Xbox One] is like 900p instead of 1080p on PlayStation 4. But apart from that there's nothing different I would say."
Earlier this year, Gop revealed that developer City Interactive had been striving to achieve 1080p on both consoles, but [B]the resolution was proving [/B][B][URL="http://www.videogamer.com/ps4/lords_of_the_fallen/news/lords_of_the_fallen_likely_to_hit_1080p_on_ps4_but_tougher_to_confirm_resolution_on_xbox_one.html"]"slightly tougher" to hit on Xbox One[/URL].[/B][/QUOTE]

[URL="http://www.videogamer.com/xboxone/lords_of_the_fallen/news/lords_of_the_fallen_is_900p_on_xbox_one_1080p_on_ps4.html"]Source.[/URL]

[Tools]

This is like the bitwars way back in time. "Oh mine's 16 bits, yours is only 8 bits!!"

[draugur]

Get rekt Xbax.

[Kardia]

I guess we all know who the winner is here.

PC.

[gman003-main]

Makes sense. The PS4 is literally 50% faster than the Xb1 at graphics - they're basically the same damn architecture, but the PS4 has 18 compute units while the Xb1 has only 12. 1080p is 44% more intensive than 900p. Similar story on memory bandwidth - Xb1 is ~70GB/s while the PS4 is ~180GB/s, but with the ESRAM cache on the Xb1 you can get a maximum real-world bandwidth of ~130GB/s, so again about 66% of the PS4.

Since they're so close to identical in architecture, any optimizations you do on the Xb1 are also going to speed up your PS4 version, so basically your only options are either a) don't push the PS4 version as hard as it can, or b) cut the Xb1 version down, either in resolution or in some other way. Cutting the resolution is a quick and effective way to do it. Blurs your graphics a bit on the upscale, but your FXAA was going to do that anyways.

[BackSapper]

[QUOTE=Tools;46053007]This is like the bitwars way back in time. "Oh mine's 16 bits, yours is only 8 bits!!"[/QUOTE]

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nxuna944dls[/media]

oh god this comes to mind

[SaberVS7]

[QUOTE=BackSapper;46053054][media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nxuna944dls[/media]

oh god this comes to mind[/QUOTE]

Bit-wars DID matter though. Why do you think people today are so annoyed at people holding out back in 32-bit despite the fact 64-bit has been around for over a decade?

(Though the Jaguar just takes the piss - Two 32-bit processors does =/= 64 bit)

[editline]23rd September 2014[/editline]

Also, oh god DOOM Jaguar in that commercial.

Hilarious considering as far as console builds of DOOM went, the SNES version was the best.

[caseytube]

[QUOTE=BackSapper;46053054][media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nxuna944dls[/media]

oh god this comes to mind[/QUOTE]

man that is straight up the worst commercial ever. it calls anyone who is a fan of the other systems over jaguar is a dumb old man-baby. like how the fuck do you expect to win over the competition by calling them dumb shits right to their face.

[Durrsly]

[QUOTE=certified;46053075]
Also, oh god DOOM Jaguar in that commercial.

Hilarious considering as far as console builds of DOOM went, the SNES version was the best.[/QUOTE]

That's a funny way to spell PlayStation 1.
Seriously though, the SNES version was worse in every way to the other ports other than music and level geometry.

[Makol]

but do they run at 60 fps

[Egevened]

[QUOTE=Makol;46053147]but do they run at 60 fps[/QUOTE]

it's a precise action rpg like dark souls so most likely hard capped at constant 60 or 30

[Warship]

[QUOTE=Egevened;46053244]it's a precise action rpg like dark souls so most likely hard capped at constant 60 or 30[/QUOTE]

Those are literally the only framerates current console games will ever be targeted to run at, so it's pretty pointless mentioning.

[Robber]

I'd much rather play at 720p/60 than 1080/20-30. No wait, I'd rather play at 1080p/60 than anything else.

[QUOTE=Warship;46055244]Those are literally the only framerates current console games will ever be targeted to run at, so it's pretty pointless mentioning.[/QUOTE]
I think the PS4 version of Tomb Raider is running at 30-60.

[Psyke89]

[QUOTE=certified;46053075]Hilarious considering as far as console builds of DOOM went, the SNES version was the best.[/QUOTE]

The SNES version is borderline unplayable.

[Pyroknight]

[QUOTE=Warship;46055244]Those are literally the only framerates current console games will ever be targeted to run at, so it's pretty pointless mentioning.[/QUOTE]

moar leik 15 fps

[Dermock]

[QUOTE=Tools;46053007]This is like the bitwars way back in time. "Oh mine's 16 bits, yours is only 8 bits!!"[/QUOTE]

The difference being that resolution is a tangible difference and bits really didn't matter if everything else sucked dick (see: Atari)

[Big D Duchovny]

How many "The Xbone will run at a lower resolution compared to PS4" articles do we need before it stops being news?

[Windy]

There was a time where we didn't care about what graphics resolution a game played. At least with console games anyway.

I'm more fussed about frame rate than graphics. As long as it's stable 30 or higher i don't mind a hit on graphics, also depends on he art direction.

[pr00ch]

[QUOTE=BackSapper;46053054][media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nxuna944dls[/media]

oh god this comes to mind[/QUOTE]

Oh shit

cloud processing

i swear to god

[video=youtube;zlulSyBI2aY]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zlulSyBI2aY[/video]

So what does Blast processing do? WROOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOM

[TheAdmiester]

Playability and fluidity > resolution.

If the 900p was somehow for a more steady framerate, I'd pick that in a heartbeat over the 1080p version, there's negligible difference.

[Impact1986]

[QUOTE=draugur;46053016]Get rekt Xbax.[/QUOTE]

[video=youtube;YkWetpdODs8]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YkWetpdODs8[/video]

[Genericenemy]

[QUOTE=TheAdmiester;46056155]Playability and fluidity > resolution.

If the 900p was somehow for a more steady framerate, I'd pick that in a heartbeat over the 1080p version, there's negligible difference.[/QUOTE]

I think the fact is though when there is hardware available that can do both and possibly playing at higher frame rates and resolution particularly with regards to 60fps is really a weakness. The manufacturers of these machines want us to believe that they are absolutely fantastic when it comes to specs but what we are seeing is them struggling to hit 60fps barely even a year after they came out and is really quite appalling in my opinion.

[Hamsteronfire]

Only £10.80 on PS4 and £9 on Xbox?!?!?!

[Silikone]

I am a big fan of pixel perfection. I hate the artifacts of upscaling. As good as upscalers are these days, it cannot compensate for the loss of sharpness. I'd rather sacrifice visual effects.

[The Baconator]

[QUOTE=Highwind017;46055847][B]There was a time where we didn't care about what graphics resolution a game played. At least with console games anyway.[/B]

I'm more fussed about frame rate than graphics. As long as it's stable 30 or higher i don't mind a hit on graphics, also depends on he art direction.[/QUOTE]

that's not true if you ever lived in the SNES/Genesis era

[Warship]

[QUOTE=Hamsteronfire;46056287]Only £10.80 on PS4 and £9 on Xbox?!?!?![/QUOTE]

Pixel tax? :v:

[Awesomecaek]

[QUOTE=TheAdmiester;46056155]Playability and fluidity > resolution.

If the 900p was somehow for a more steady framerate, I'd pick that in a heartbeat over the 1080p version, there's negligible difference.[/QUOTE]

Well PS4 manages to run it just as fluid without compromising the resolution.

[editline]23rd September 2014[/editline]

And maybe it's me but

[IMG]http://i.imgur.com/Ltv3UfF.png[/IMG]

Can be a pretty big difference.

[Crest]

[QUOTE=Awesomecaek;46057356]Well PS4 manages to run it just as fluid without compromising the resolution.

[editline]23rd September 2014[/editline]

And maybe it's me but

[IMG]http://i.imgur.com/Ltv3UfF.png[/IMG]

Can be a pretty big difference.[/QUOTE]

Oh god. I think I need to kill myself. I thought the one on the right looked better.

What the fuck is wrong with me. I'm a peasant.

[LittleDog]

[QUOTE=Awesomecaek;46057356]Well PS4 manages to run it just as fluid without compromising the resolution.

[editline]23rd September 2014[/editline]

And maybe it's me but

[IMG]http://i.imgur.com/Ltv3UfF.png[/IMG]

Can be a pretty big difference.[/QUOTE]

I almost prefer the upscale in this case because the jaggies (aliasing) kind of looks like crap on the 1080p picture, but maybe this was just a poor choice of comparison screenshots.

[editline]23rd September 2014[/editline]

Like the rest of it looks good/better, but those edges are just getting to me for some reason. I guess it just looks so wrong because of the lack of anti-aliasing.

[Awesomecaek]

[QUOTE=LittleDogX;46057421]I almost prefer the upscale in this case because the jaggies (aliasing) kind of looks like crap on the 1080p picture, but maybe this was just a poor choice of comparison screenshots.

[editline]23rd September 2014[/editline]

Like the rest of it looks good/better, but those edges are just getting to me for some reason. I guess it just looks so wrong because of the lack of anti-aliasing.[/QUOTE]

Jaggedness looks far better when the image is in motion, blur stays blurry.

[editline]23rd September 2014[/editline]

I heavily prefer the fidelity of the picture on the left, but I am the kind of person who always disables all blur, motion blur, DoF and everything so I guess it's matter of personal preference.

[editline]23rd September 2014[/editline]

Like, I guess the helmet is debatable but on the left, in the background, the windows and the tribune visible against the sky, that rubs me the wrong way real bad in the 900p picture.