PS4 Killzone SP not 1080p/60, Multiplayer not even 900p

V

VladDracule

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Feb 5, 2007
Messages
2,043
Normally I wouldnt even bother posting something like this on here, but given a select few of Sony fans who do absolutely nothing but bash the X1 in resolution and performance threads here it is. (I can't link the source yet because work filter blocks the sites)

In single player the game is 1080p resolution however it is an unlocked frame-rate. A frame-rate locking option has recently been added but it is at 30 FPS instead of 60.

Multiplayer is far worse in that it is rendered at 960x1080 at the frame buffer. It still does not hold at 60fps but is more commonly seen at 50fps. Not only that, it is rendered using horizontal interlacing, not progressive scanning.

This completely completely destroys Sonys claims of it being 1080p 60 fps in both single and multiplayer,
 
Usually I'd say this isn't that big of a deal (and being a launch title, I'm not too surprised), but Sony was really pushing the 1080p/60fps for this title.

I'm also kinda surprised it took this long for this to be confirmed, haven't been able to read the full articles (work filter for me too), so not sure if there is a reason for that delay.
 
That game is a prime example of one that looked great in stills but doesn't run that well. Even the commercial makes it look choppy and they barely even show the real game.
It was the first gext-gen game I saw and my friend who owned it even had to preface it with "I'll warn you - the framerate sucks."
That said, it's the exception, not the rule. CoD and BF4 look and run better than Killzone on both platforms.
 
uh GG ( dev for killzones) confirmed back in last october that it will be 1080p/30fps for sp...
 
Here's the article you were probably referring to: Click Here. Personally I don't care, but I think it's funny some people are going on the defensive, in the comments. SDF Assemble!

PeeWeePee said:
uh GG ( dev for killzones) confirmed back in last october that it will be 1080p/30fps for sp...
Click to expand...

This is referring to the multiplayer. They said the multiplayer would be 1080p/60FPS, and this article states it's not the case.
 
PeeWeePee said:
uh GG ( dev for killzones) confirmed back in last october that it will be 1080p/30fps for sp...
Click to expand...

This. It was always said to be 1080/30p in sp.

That said, they did also claim 1080/60p in mp, which it seems they have not delivered.
 
The developer stated in September that multiplayer was "up to" 60 fps.
http://www.ign.com/articles/2013/09...lls-framerate-isnt-locked-at-60-and-heres-why
Guerrilla decided to forgo the constant 60 FPS framerate in order to ensure the graphics looked as good as possible; it wasn't willing to sacrifice resolution or certain visual effects to lock the framerate at 60. The result, in Boltjes' mind, is that Shadow Fall "looks a lot more detailed and vibrant than a lot of the other games we are in direct competition with."

The single-player in Shadow Fall runs at a noticeably lower framerate -- 30 frames per second -- as a result of the visuals being taken up another notch, complete with additional levels of destructibility, as compared with multiplayer. Guerrilla decided having a higher framerate, thereby allowing for faster reaction times, was not as critical to single-player.
Click to expand...

Sony later stated in a blog post that multiplayer was 1080p.
http://blog.us.playstation.com/2013...ll-campaign-hands-on-new-multiplayer-footage/
Then there’s the competitive multiplayer mode which runs at native 1080p and 60 fps.
Click to expand...

The significant news items here are
1. They are running at a funny resolution.
2. Don't believe Sony over the developer.
 
ocellaris said:
It still looks better than Titanfall on a XBox One.
Click to expand...

TItanfall is higher resolution than KZ:SF MP. One is using a highly modified Source engine, the other clearly using an engine with more modern effects, albeit injected into 8:9 aspect ratio image then upscaled to 16:9.

In the end, not even Sony PS4 games are running 1080/60 and its worth being called out, due to the entire fiasco that was bashing the XB1 for sub HD gaming. In the case of KZ:SF, Sony was on record stating publically that MP was 1080/60, when clearly it was not.. and in fact lied to consumers. How important is that? Meh.. not really in the big scheme of things.

But ... regardless of how the games look, the numbers do not lie. Sony is subject to just as much hate and criticism that Microsoft garnered for the same.
 
Who knows if they lied intentionally, it might've been more of an issue where there was a miscommunication/overeagerness between the developer and Sony. Still, I do agree it's a bit of a misstep on Sony's part, but not a huge issue.

ie:
Dev: "We're aiming for 1080p/60fps, but..."
Sony: "1080p/60fps confirmed!"
 
I don't think anyone cares. The game is shit anyway. There would be more fuss if this was cod or bf4
 
Rash said:
I don't think anyone cares. The game is shit anyway. There would be more fuss if this was cod or bf4
Click to expand...

But all seven people playing Killzone Multiplayer will be disappointed now :p

Side note: I think Killzone MP is fantastic, but no one plays it so I traded it in :(
 
Unless there's some hidden potential in the ps4 that developers have yet to unlock, I think we'll be seeing more and more of 1080p/30fps and 720p/60fps as graphic engines get more complex. You'll need a pc to enjoy consistent 1080p/60fps.
 
960x1080 isn't the whole story. The interlacing that switches back and forth and doing some frame blending and guess work techniques to fill in the holes does takes some extra processing power to rendering the rest of the 960x1080 to complete the frame. It creates a 1080p image with minimal motion but more blurring and artifacts at high motion.

Can't put full blame on the sony PR guys though as this technique is hard to notice and impossible to detect against pixel counting. Outside of GG developers i think sony's pr guys would have a difficult time understanding it or explaining it.
 
I was going to post this last night but wanted to set the correct tone as not to get all the fan boys in a frenzy. Reading Gaf and even the ps4 subreddit it seems more people are waking up to the fact that these review sites don't always have the gamers best interest in mind. Revealing this information 4 months after the games release is crazy who knows how many sales they would have lost if all these people (that supposedly care about stats and specs) didn't buy killzone?

It's refreshing to see people realizing they were lied to and start looking more at the gameplay rather than a few hundred million pixels here or there. :)
 
It could be worse. Look at all the 360 games that list 1080p on the box as an available resolution yet only render the game at 720p. :p
 
Domingo said:
That game is a prime example of one that looked great in stills but doesn't run that well. Even the commercial makes it look choppy and they barely even show the real game.
It was the first gext-gen game I saw and my friend who owned it even had to preface it with "I'll warn you - the framerate sucks."
That said, it's the exception, not the rule. CoD and BF4 look and run better than Killzone on both platforms.
Click to expand...

This seems endemic to Killzone games. Even Killzone: Mercenary on the Vita. The adverts looked great with graphical effects and contrasting color punched all about every frame (even downloaded the trailer to my Vita). The actual game? One syllable: meh.
 
elzeus said:
I was going to post this last night but wanted to set the correct tone as not to get all the fan boys in a frenzy. Reading Gaf and even the ps4 subreddit it seems more people are waking up to the fact that these review sites don't always have the gamers best interest in mind. Revealing this information 4 months after the games release is crazy who knows how many sales they would have lost if all these people (that supposedly care about stats and specs) didn't buy killzone?

It's refreshing to see people realizing they were lied to and start looking more at the gameplay rather than a few hundred million pixels here or there. :)
Click to expand...

I dont know if its a matter of review sites being misleading, its the fact that review sites just look at the overall finished product, they dont pixel count. They should be talking about how it looks overall, in motion, if there is blurring etc not necessarily what the culprit of said blurring is.
 
Personally, I think Titanfall looks better in motion. Killzone looks borderline PC quality in stills, but in motion it's 30fps, clunky, slow, and overuses blur effects.
I will nearly always favor 720p/60 over 1080p/30 even to the point of preferring "last gen" games. RPG's and slower paced (non-shooter) games like Fallout would be the only exceptions.
If you can't deliver 1080p/60 - I'd rather see them drop the resolution than the framerate.
 
ocellaris said:
But all seven people playing Killzone Multiplayer will be disappointed now :p

Side note: I think Killzone MP is fantastic, but no one plays it so I traded it in :(
Click to expand...

I still play! Plenty of people on from what I can see.

yourgrandma said:
960x1080 isn't the whole story. The interlacing that switches back and forth and doing some frame blending and guess work techniques to fill in the holes does takes some extra processing power to rendering the rest of the 960x1080 to complete the frame. It creates a 1080p image with minimal motion but more blurring and artifacts at high motion.

Can't put full blame on the sony PR guys though as this technique is hard to notice and impossible to detect against pixel counting. Outside of GG developers i think sony's pr guys would have a difficult time understanding it or explaining it.
Click to expand...

This. Although I do not agree with Sony's misinterpretation of the tech behind the game, it could be worse. Both camps have some baggage, but I welcome still welcome Sony's with open arms. It all comes down to preference.
 
You started a thread to blatantly bash PS4 fanboys and didn't even bother to cover up your intention to do so. You sir, are either 12 or a really sore Xbox fanboy...or both. Instead of creating a thread to discuss the matter, you stooped down to their level of pointing fingers and laughing.

Back on topic: The game still looks fantastic and, I have to say, has some of the best graphics I've seen on any platform (including PC) regardless of its native resolution...but the gameplay sucks. I was bored almost the entire time I played it and was hoping it'd pick up at some point, but it didn't. I'm hoping Infamous Second Son will be the first true graphical and gameplay showcase exclusive to the PS4.
 
Consensus is that this game is somewhere between meh and sucks. Who gives a shit about resolution/framerate if it the game isn't fun? Given the fact that neither the PS4 or the XB1 has anything worth playing on it yet, I guess the fanboys have plenty of time to bellow nonsense at each other.
 
Eradan said:
Given the fact that neither the PS4 or the XB1 has anything worth playing on it yet
Click to expand...

Oh it's a fact? Guess I've been imaging playing all those games over the last few months. Silly me, I thought I actually had a controller in hand.
 
Yep I saw this last night at work, most people were surprised over on GAF and made some fairly harsh comments. As has already been pointed out the SP portion was never going to be 60FPS, the confusion here is on the multiplayer side of the house. Even the framerate is not the main point of the matter, its the resolution and miscommunication on Sony's part.

I personally just thought it was the crap AA being used in MP. I never really play MP games on consoles (I suck at competitive games with sticks) but while I played I noticed the shimmering and it got annoying. I would have rather they just toned down the effects and stuck with the 1080p/60 goal but it is what it is I guess.

So I guess after this news we can all confirm the Xbone has that dGPU in the cloud and both platforms share parity? :eek:
 
Last edited:
And Xbox fan on here complaining about low PS4 resolutions?

Now I've heard everything... :D
 
demingo said:
Oh it's a fact? Guess I've been imaging playing all those games over the last few months. Silly me, I thought I actually had a controller in hand.
Click to expand...

I have no idea what you had in your hand. But good for you if you're having fun. :cool:

I guess this explains the uninspired reaction to Killzone. Needs more framerate.
 
Vlad you and Jin need to rent an apartment together and film it for Youtube.

You could call it "The Odd next gen console gamer fanboys".

:rolleyes:

Microsoft did shit like this for Halo , it ran at sub 720p resolution. Activision did it for COD again running at sub 720p. Why is it surprising Sony would do the same to sell more consoles? Microsoft used rendering tricks to get Forza to hit 1080p/60.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top