Witcher 3 dev says resolution is 'more of a PR differentiation'
CD Projekt Red co-founder Marcin Iwinski says The Witcher 3 might have a slightly higher resolution on PlayStation 4, but that the difference is negligible for gamers and really only matters to Sony PR and console fans.
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt may have a higher resolution on PlayStation 4, but CD Projekt Red co-founder Marcin Iwinski says the difference is negligible. In comments about the possible disparity, he said that it's more of a PR tool for Sony and fan battles than anything meaningful.
"We are still working on squeezing the juice out of the consoles and Microsoft are supporting us in this respect," Iwinski told Eurogamer. "The final effect, whether it's 720p, 1080p--we had the debate in the studio about it and actually asked our tech guys to explain how it works, and they sent me some complicated graphs that 'if I have this size of the screen, and I sit one meter or two meters from it, then I might be able to see the difference.'
"It's more of a PR differentiation, which is very important for Sony right now--and they are using it, obviously--than something that is really meaningful to gamers.
He said the differences will be "tiny" if they exist at all. "It will be more like people talking 'hey, I have this and you have that and this is better'."
The PC version, of course, will be able to scale up beyond either console version.
-
Shacknews
replySteve Watts posted a new article, Witcher 3 dev says resolution is 'more of a PR differentiation'.
CD Projekt Red co-founder Marcin Iwinski says The Witcher 3 might have a slightly higher resolution on PlayStation 4, but that the difference is negligible for gamers and really only matters to Sony PR and console fans.-
I really dont understand people claiming resolution is not that noticeable. It is hugely noticeable.
I can load up 720p and then immediately switch to 1080p and the difference is very much there. To say otherwise is insane. In fact, I think you can go as far as to say resolution is almost the most important thing graphically.
Load up your PS2 right now, play a game, now take that same game, and play it on an emulator running at 1900x1200 or 1080p. The game will look like a brand new game, with the only difference being resolution.
Resolution matters.-
For a lot of us, the jump from 720p to 1080p (while noticeable) just isn't that big of a deal.
-
Depends how far your couch is from the tv, and how big your tv is.
-
Your comparison with emulators isn't really a true comparison. Of course going from 640x480 (or in some PS2 games' case sub 640x480) to 1080p is going to be noticeable. This is not the kind of jump anyone is evey talking about when it comes to the current-gen resolution nonsense.
Now try the jump from something like 900p -> 1080p. The difference is way, way less noticeable. Add that to the distance most people sit from their TV and yes, it's entirely plausible that many gamers will simply not notice. If you're sitting up super close and specifically looking for the aliasing, then yeah, you're likely to notice.
Otherwise, no, it's not a huge deal.-
Also I'd wager that for anyone who isn't a PC gamer, framerate is the most important aspect of rendered graphics. There's probably a whole bunch of other things like quality of animation and texture resolution that are (probably) more important than raw rendering resolution for a non-PC gamer.
-
Framerate should be king, as far as I am concerned (and I am a PC gamer). Solid 60 fps, or even 30 fps, is so much nicer than bouncing between 15 and 40 at higher res.
-
-
There is quite a difrerence .
720p pixel count 921,600
900p pixel count 1,440,000
1080p pixel count 2,073,600
So when they come out and try to tell you there isnt a difference between 720p and 1080p that twice the ammount of pixel displayed on the screen. They need to stop trying to downplay this.
It is a huge difference.
-
-
-
[?] what the? Well I did not expect CD Projekt Red out of anyone to make these comments :( , I am disappointed, you would think if your company pushes graphics you be the last guys to mention it.
No matter what anyone says comparing 1920x1080 pixels to 1280x720 is a massive difference which you can clearly see, I really dislike the "sitting from a couch argument".
Having said that 720p does not look like ass but not only does 1080p look sharper you get a larger game world when you play.
2 073 600 -> pixels 1080p
921 600 -> pixels 720p
These two are not =
No one ever mentions you actually get less of the game world in 720p in comparison to 1080p that is not something to wave off : http://snapsort.com/learn/movie-capability/images/movie-resolution-comparison-large.gif
Anyone who has been playing on a PC for a long time knows that such a big bump in resolution means you get a larger game world and a higher visual detail level.
In short it matters I don't know why you would wave it off as what ever 720p = 1080p? Sure.... and my Xbox 360 looks just as good as my computer rihgt.
Oh well, what ever I guess.-
they want to sell copies on all platforms
-
I get that, but anyone that has a Xbox One will get the game regardless and if 720p pisses them off they will get it on the PC or the PS4 instead.
It is a win win I would not even mention or try to say "720 is just as good as 1080p", just leave it alone and talk about how much your game will own show us new screens and gameplay vids running on the patforms.
That is just me, most gamers are not stupid it just makes them look bad and makes us go "huh?"-
It's not that most gamers are "stupid" its just that a lot of gamers don't give a shit. I think people forget that the shack is not the majority. I'd like 1080p games on my xbone across the bored but I've never been like "shit I should've got a PS4" when playing a game that has a 1080p version of PS4.
Like many have you'd be getting that triple A title for your PC if graphic fidelity meant that much to you.-
I have all three systems for this reason. Here is the stupid position I find myself in.
I am a real fiend for graphical fidelity, so I built a monster PC (for Watch Dogs a year ago).
There's still nothing like doing a midnight run somewhere and picking up a hard-copy of new release and shoving it into a console; Still, the graphics tend to be better on PS4 right now, so I got one of those, (about 3-1/2 months after my Xbox One)
However, I have always preferred the kind of games that Microsoft tends to attract over Sony, so I still picked up the Xbox when it launched.
Here's the thing, if all the games had been coming out 1080p from the start, I don't know that I would have even considered picking up the PS4. Though I don't regret that purchase at all, the resolution crap mattered enough for me to pick up BOTH new consoles at launch.
-
-
-
-
-
-
They might be speaking purely in the context of console gamers, most of whom probably have no idea that most console games run at sub-HD resolutions. They see 1080p on the TV when they hit the info button on the remote and that's that. In this case they would be right, native 1080p or 900p would make no difference to most console-only gamers.
-
I hear you, but in the end of the day, I would rather 720p at a playable framerate than 1080p at an unplayable one, even if it only affected small segments of the game. I think what he should've said is "Look. We made the best version of the game we could make for each console. This meant that for the framerate we are targeting, we could run at a higher resolution on the PS4 than that we could achieve on the Xbox One. You will have tons of fun playing either version."
-
[deleted]
-
I think you're making two mistakes here,
1. You're saying that the couch argument is valid, which states that at a certain distance, you CANNOT tell the difference. Then go on to conclude that "Sure, the couch argument is bullshit, because you actually can tell the difference. It doesn't matter to me though, so it shouldn't be a priority."
and
2. People complain about having a lower resolution on a game than what is honestly standard definition now because they are all just fanboys.
Or in other words, It doesn't detract from their fun at all that a game is lower rez than what it is everywhere else. You're saying their lying about their motivations for complaining about an inferior product. It makes it less fun for me, I know that.
-
-
-
"720p, 1080p--we had the debate in the studio about it and actually asked our tech guys to explain how it works"
I'm not sure you need an expert to ask you how a higher resolution works.
I'm sure this comment is kind of tacking our of context or just made to appease the partners on both sides, but it's still kind of lol-
Based on their answer, he was asking them to explain in detail how visual acuity, screen size and viewing distance interact, so it's not like he was asking what resolution was or something:
"...and they sent me some complicated graphs that 'if I have this size of the screen, and I sit one meter or two meters from it, then I might be able to see the difference.'"
-
-
[deleted]
-
Never thought we get news console that would be outputting sub 1080p games. How f***ing wrong i was.
Everything suffers when you drop from 1080p, textures look worse and the natural blurriness from running a non native res on a lcd is awful. Screw that. 1600x900 sucks, i was running higher resolution TEN years ago.-
[deleted]
-
You can buy a pre-built 4k ready pc (Crysis 3 at 50fps) for around only 8.5 grand too.
-
-
This is what happens when your "new" consoles have been purposefully designed to cut costs and keep the price down to make it easier for the mass market to afford one. If you wanted 1080p at 60 FPS for every game for the next 10 years, those console boxes would need to be a lot more expensive. They're good, but they're not that good.
-
Ya... I'm not paying over $1000 for a console.. You go ahead.
-
-
-
