Try our new beta!Click here
Submitted by Abriael 727d ago | video

The Order: 1886 16:9 1080p vs 2.40:1 1920×800 Video and Screenshot Comparison: Pixel Count vs Art

The reveal that The Order: 1886 will most probably be rendered in 1920x800 resolution at a 2.40:1 aspect ratio seem to have bunched quite a few sets of underwear, with people rioting because the game is unlikely to touch the "magical" 1080p, and because of the black bands that many see as a waste of screen estate.

This video and screenshot comparison aims to highlight the pro and cons of Ready at Dawn's artistic choice. (PS4, The Order: 1886)

Attached Video
« 1 2 3 »
TomShoe  +   727d ago
Before anyone gets carried away crying "800p!" Read the story and take a look at the the number of pixels each resolution is rendering.

1920 x 800 = 1,536,000 pixels

1440×900 = 1.296,000 pixels

So cinematic 800p > normal 900p. Weird, right?

OT: I like it, it really feels like you're actually watching a movie as while you're playing an awesome game. The cinematic feel really adds to the dramatic and suspenseful tone Ready at Dawn was aiming for.
#1 (Edited 727d ago ) | Agree(108) | Disagree(26) | Report | Reply
pedrof93  +   727d ago

I've learned a few things.
abzdine  +   726d ago
The Order has it ALL!
This is the first game of R@D on PS4! Future looks bright.
I really like the envelope style, brings back the nostalgia from the past.
#1.1.1 (Edited 726d ago ) | Agree(34) | Disagree(14) | Report
ZodTheRipper  +   726d ago
This will end this discussion once and for all :P

I think RaD should just do what they think is right for their game.
Saigon  +   726d ago
Man...some are not going to happy to read this; either way RD itself proved why this was the right choice. There is a better aspect ratio when playing the game in this format. Good choice RD.
Boody-Bandit  +   726d ago
I'm looking forward to trying this game using this format. It will be different and that's what I'm looking for in this new generation. Usually I play my games on a 46 or 55" displays. I will just take this game into my theater and play it on my 120" screen since they are using a cinematic view.

Either way I can't wait to play this game. It looks incredible.
#1.1.4 (Edited 726d ago ) | Agree(22) | Disagree(6) | Report
ManyFishToFry  +   726d ago
I'm not sure why they want to go this route for a videogame. A director for a movie will use various formats because they want a wide panoramic view which does create an art form on screen. But you have to remember that directors are thinking of the audience in the theater where the screen is naturally wide. On home screens I don't think that transfers very well for videogames. People want all the real estate they can get to create that immersion. I fear the black bars will take away from that.
UltimateMaster  +   726d ago
It would be cool if we had options from which to choose from.
Bu 1080p would probably be the best option.
alexkoepp  +   726d ago
Whomever made these comparisons chose to chop of the sides of 1920x800, rather than draw in the 280p worth of pixels to make a full 1080p frame. You can tell because there character model gets bigger, instead of remaining the same size. Make the game fullscreen. Movies are already stupid with black bars on top and bottom, the gaming industry should not follow suit. I'm sorry, id play the game fullscreen but if you are going to put in some stupid aspect ratio gimmick, I'm not interested in playing your game.
scott182  +   726d ago
I thought they were gonna show gameplay of this soon?!?
thejigisup  +   726d ago
@alexkoepp no one choose to chop anything. If you have a tv or a pc try this experiment on you monitor and just change the aspect ratio a few times and answer me this, who is chopping anything? You don't know what you're talking about. Please educate yourself before commenting.
#1.1.9 (Edited 726d ago ) | Agree(17) | Disagree(1) | Report
sobekflakmonkey  +   726d ago
resolution scale (basically lowest to greatest):


Just for your guys' info; 1920x800 is impressive considering how good The Order is looking.
vulcanproject  +   726d ago
Not sure about your maths there sobekflakmonkey...

1600 x 1200 and 1680 x 1050

They are both higher resolutions with more pixels than 1920 x 800 BTW.

1600 x 1200 is actually not far off 1920 x 1080 in terms of size. It is just a different screen ratio.


1280 x 1024 is also larger than a couple of the resolutions you posted above it.
yellowgerbil  +   726d ago
You have no idea what you are talking about.
Movie aspect Ratios and "bars" are there because TV's have chosen to make a aspect ratio the STANDARD, there is no standard though. Certain movies are greatly enhanced by being in a very wide aspect ratio. It allows for great cinematic shots that a square just can't do justice. If you are old enough to remember pre HD tvs you will remember how boring the composition was due to the awful cropping. Though I highly doubt you're old enough based on you ignorant opinion
TheGreatAndPowerful  +   726d ago
Dat wide viewing angle.
#1.1.13 (Edited 726d ago ) | Agree(7) | Disagree(2) | Report
sonypsnow  +   726d ago
Playstation Now can do 4k resolution.
ShinMaster  +   726d ago
Wider viewing angle
And the game's resolution output is still 1080p.

Full screen looks cut up in comparison. I have a lot of Bluray movies that are wider than 16:9, just like The Order game.
EeJLP-  +   726d ago
A lot of you (above and below this comment) have no business talking about resolution and aspect ratios, because you clearly have no idea what you're talking about.

Lnds500 in the comments section of the dualshockers article is correct. Read Lnds500's comments.

Giuseppe Nelva (the article's author) is not showing the difference between 1920x800 and 1920x1080, he has shown a comparison of 1920x800 and 1422x800 (upscaled to 1920x1080).

Giuseppe Nelva cut the sides (498 horizontal pixels) off of the original 1920x800 pictures, resulting in a 1422x800 image that he then upscaled to 1920x800.

A correct comparison would not have cut the sides and stretched the resulting image. The correct comparison would be to show the extra viewable space within the black bars, above and below the original 1920x800 image.. to show the extra 280 vertical pixels.

Meaning you would still have the wider viewing angle of the original, because you can clearly see that exists as the original image. The point is, what is being essentially 'blocked' by the black bars.

You are not gaining a wider viewing angle with 1920x800, you are losing vertical data.

Another point, to people saying this is still 1080p or to ziggurcat below claiming it's "2592 x 1080". This is not 1080p and this is not 2592 x 1080; period. This is 800p (assuming it's progressively scanned) in a 2.4-1 aspect ratio.

1080p (2592x1080) in a 2.4-1 aspect ratio is 2799360 pixels.

This 800p in a 2.4-1 aspect ratio game is 1536000 pixels.

Falsely claiming it is 1080p or 2592 x 1080p is saying that Ready at Dawn is rendering 82.25% more pixels and then downscaling it to fit to 1920x800. I highly doubt this game is being made for 4k tvs and being downscaled to full/standard hdtvs.

Lastly, for disclosure, for people that like to cry when you say something they presume to be 'bad' about Sony.. I only have PS products. PS3/PS4, and a PS Vita (which I never use). Proof for those that still want to disagree instead of learn some facts about aspect ratios, etc.

I just want a good game if I decide to pick this up. If they feel 1920x800 with a more cinematic feel makes the game better, then great.. just don't around claiming 1.2 million extra pixels that don't exist.
#1.1.16 (Edited 725d ago ) | Agree(2) | Disagree(1) | Report
Blaze929  +   727d ago
out of curiosity @TomShoe, lol, why did you choose 900p as your comparison comment? Why not 1920 x 1080? You know...what the actual article is comparing?

As for the aspect ratio, it's honestly not bad at 2.40:1 - but I've never played a game like that so it's hard to say how it'll "feel"
#1.2 (Edited 726d ago ) | Agree(26) | Disagree(4) | Report | Reply
hkgamer  +   726d ago
I think he is trying to say that 800p doesnt mean less pixels then 900p.

But I guess that's not the argument at all. the argument should be, what is the better aspect ratio?

I'm not a big fan of having this super wide aspect ratio, 16:9 is good enough for me and i prefer having my screen filled. I wonder how the screen would look if played on a 4:3 screen, screen must be filled with black borders XD
Dee_91  +   726d ago
Because Xbox one games got crap for being 900p
evs490  +   726d ago
Blaze929 if you read the article it clearly makes the same comparison TomShoe makes in regards to people thinking 900p is superior.
ziggurcat  +   726d ago
the common mistake people are making in all of this is they're not considering the *aspect ratio* of the image.

The Order is being rendered at 2.40:1 aspect ratio, and being placed into a standard 16:9 aspect ratio.

If you were to view The Order in full screen, without any black bars, its resolution would be 2592 x 1080 since the game's output resolution is actually 1080p. A quote from the RaD studio head:

"But for us, the cinematic experience is in the foreground [basically focus] – presented in full HD 1080p."

So instead of just cropping the sides off of the image to fit the 1920 horizontal pixel dimension, they're scaling the image to fit the so that they're not sacrificing any of the picture plane, which results in an image size of 1920 x 800.

It's the same thing as a blu-ray movie that's viewed in widescreen on your TV. It's still 1080p despite the black bars because its native aspect ratio is not the same as consumer TVs/monitors.

The other reason why The Order isn't "800p" is because that in order for it to be considered at that resolution, it's native horizontal pixel dimension would have to be smaller than 1920 (something close to 1422 x 800 if you were to maintain a 16:9 aspect ratio). It's why Ryse is 900p - its native pixel dimensions are 1600 x 900, and native 720p games have a native pixel dimension of 1280 x 720.

We know for a fact that the game isn't being upscaled to fit 1920 x 800 because it maintains a 1:1 pixel ratio of a full 1920 x 1080 image.
#1.2.4 (Edited 726d ago ) | Agree(4) | Disagree(3) | Report
assdan  +   726d ago
It's because a lot of xbox idiots are screaming "More powerful? That's a lower res than ryse!" because they don't understand how res works.
CERN  +   726d ago
Resident Evil 4 had black bars.
TomShoe  +   726d ago
@Blaze Hk nailed it pretty much spot on.
shivvy24  +   727d ago
Yeah, the game runs at native fullHD but instead of using 1080 it uses 800, not running at 800p
CERN  +   726d ago
You just don't get it. Doesn't matter if it's 1920*1080 or 1920*800. The part of the image you see is still rendered in full HD. It's not 1920*800 because it's lower resolution but because 140p from the top and 140p from the bottom is covered with black bars. That's what makes a full HD Blu-ray movie.

This is Ready at Dawns first console game, this is there vision, this is there art. They have said it many times, this is a story based linear action gameplay with a cinematic experience that feels like a movie. So I don't know why so many of you are surprised about the aspect ratio. It's what they want in this game, it's what many people want. If you don't like the idea of it, then don't play it. There are millions of other games out there without any black boarders you could chooses to play. Go play them. But leave us to actually enjoy the one game that's like a movie. There are going to be many fans for this game once it comes out.
Mikey32230  +   726d ago
I read an article where the Developers said that they could either do 1080p (Without a lot of Anti-Aliasing) OR they could do 1920x800 with (A ton of Anti-aliasing)

I much much rather have the smoother (no white line jaggies) 1920x800.
DigitalRaptor  +   726d ago
Yep. Ready At Dawn are using 4xMSAA, which would produce an incredibly clean looking game, with very very minimal visual artefacts.

@ sinspirit

Pardon my ignorance. my definition of artifacts must be different to the norm. I meant jaggies.
#1.4.1 (Edited 726d ago ) | Agree(13) | Disagree(2) | Report
sinspirit  +   726d ago
I would love to have the option to turn it off for traditional 1080p. If I don't like it then I'll change it back.

I wonder if they will change the black bars or aspect ratio for those running on below 1080p monitors/TV's.


Artifacts have nothing to do with anti-aliasing.
vulcanproject  +   726d ago
1440 x 900 is a 16:10 screen ratio.

I'll just point out 'normal' 900p is 1600 x 900 if by 'normal' you mean the screen ratio is 16:9.

I assume that is what you meant because 16:9 is the most common widescreen ratio for TVs. 1280 x 720 and 1920 x 1080 are both true 16:9 ratio resolutions.

Therefore 1600 x 900 = 1440000 pixels. Slightly less than 1920 x 800.

Personally I would always prefer the full resolution, because it's not a movie no matter how hard it tries. It's a game. So I prefer 1920 x 1080. The more resolution the better for games IMO.

I wouldn't be too upset either way though.
#1.5 (Edited 726d ago ) | Agree(9) | Disagree(16) | Report | Reply
zeuanimals  +   726d ago
I've played games at 21:9, that's similar to The Order's resolution.

It doesn't make it more like a movie, it actually makes it better IMO. The Order can't look like this because most TVs are 16:9 and it will create black bars on them but if you play it on a 21:9 monitor, no black bars.
vulcanproject  +   725d ago
My view is that The Order is not a movie, it's a game. Therefore the argument about cinematic quality and style thanks to black bars is not valid in my eyes.

Black bars were never welcome when old ports in the past console eras to PAL systems left some games with them (because of the different resolutions and refresh rates NTSC and PAL systems used.) Most of the time magazines and such decried them as lazy porting, inferior localisation.

Which they were.

Those days might be gone thanks to HDTV standards but a different reason for black bars on a game can't get a different reception i.e positive in my eyes, the result is still the same.
#1.5.2 (Edited 725d ago ) | Agree(0) | Disagree(0) | Report
Welshy  +   726d ago
I personally dislike "cinematic widescreen".

It was first introduced on square 4:3 TV's (which were the norm for younger readers) to bring a a cinema like experience, but when 16:9 widescreen TV's took over, the fact that they were BUILT widescreen removed the need for those black boxes.

It's so frustrating having a widescreen flattened even more by redundant "cinematic" black bars.

Are we going to go one step further and make TV's to THAT ratio, then have black bars on those and repeat the cycle till we have super skinny, super wide 30:0.5 TV's?

It's pointless and annoying, I have a cinematic widescreen TV, do I need widescreen on my widescreen? *insert xzibit meme*

I've been super excited for The Order ever since E3 but that's my 2 cents on this ratio stuff.
#1.6 (Edited 726d ago ) | Agree(22) | Disagree(13) | Report | Reply
hkgamer  +   726d ago
I feel the same way, if the devs really wanted us to have a cinematic feel with black borders than just have black borders packaged with he box so we can stick it over our Widescreen TV's to give it that feel. :P
ziggurcat  +   726d ago
"I have a cinematic widescreen TV, do I need widescreen on my widescreen?"

you have a widescreen TV, but you don't have a cinematic widescreen TV.

your TV is 16:9 (or 1.78:1), cinematic widescreen is 2.40:1. That's why you have widescreen on your widescreen - because the movie you're watching wasn't shot at a 1.78:1/16:9 aspect ratio.

And it's like that so that you can see everything that's intended to be on the screen.
morganfell  +   726d ago
I have to agree with Tom. You do not notice the effect watching the videos in the players. But the minute you expand the player and go full screen, especially on a large monitor (mine is 42) or a big screen TV you get the movie theater presentation.

As it is we have less that 2 days remaining until the embargo lifts on the 18th and the media explodes.
#1.7 (Edited 726d ago ) | Agree(3) | Disagree(6) | Report | Reply
mania568  +   726d ago
the problem is theres not much as games go with that resolution, people often jump to the conclusion less screen means worst, it is explained that it is better quality than 900p would be but in a smaller screen, maybe its too soon to render games with that quality knowing most people read 800p and start saying 800p is very low and the bars take the experience away.
christrules0041  +   726d ago
There is also things like they are using more Advanced anti aliasing because of the resolution they are choosing.
Ju  +   726d ago
I don't even know why this is worth a discussion. 1920x800 isn't a "design decision". R@D said, they would go 800p if they use 4xMSAA, else it will be full HD. Those "shots" are useless because they don't account for the difference in AA in either version. "Artistic comparisons" are a waste of time.
Crazyglues  +   726d ago
Wow what a mistake this game company is making...

Forget about Res for a second and just think about which one looks better to play... -Because that's all the gamer is going to care about, and when the picture is bigger it looks better because I can see the detail, when it's smaller in that wider aspect-ratio 2.40:1 it looks like a dam PS3 game..

Yes it has that amazing cinema look and you can see more but it does not matter because you can't see the detail.

This is a huge mistake - trust me, Most people are not playing on a 4k monitors and most gamers are not going to care about cinematic view it adds nothing to the game experience... 16:9 is fine... you don't need 2.40:1, it's a stupid waste.

The only thing that will matter in the end is that when I'm in the closer view I can see the detail on the character, when I'm further away it looks less impressive, that's all Gamers will see at the end of the day..

||.........___||............ ||
#1.11 (Edited 726d ago ) | Agree(7) | Disagree(26) | Report | Reply
thejigisup  +   726d ago
Sit closer to your tv. Problem solved?
Crazyglues  +   726d ago
Or Maybe I don't understand what we are comparing here, then?

||.........___||............ ||
#1.11.2 (Edited 726d ago ) | Agree(0) | Disagree(0) | Report
Jack_Reacher  +   726d ago
Nice to see another person who thinks he speaks for the rest of us.

Guess what. You dont
strifeblade  +   726d ago
He is right and I think the same thing. It's great if they can enhance quality of the image but when.they reduce screen size how are we going to notice a better or clearer image when screen size is reduced? Becomes difficult to notice. Ppl will now have to get a larger screen or sit closer to the TV to notice the quality upgrade. Those of us with small tvs are even more screwed.

I'm no development.but why don't they go 900p upscale 1080 with 4xmsaa
gigoran  +   726d ago
Just go enjoy your xbone and leave us to play our superior games.
mixelon  +   726d ago
Ok.. That doesn't make a lick of sense. How does having a black bar at the top/bottom decrease detail, exactly? They'll obviously frame things so you can see them fine.
rainslacker  +   726d ago
The letterboxing effect is hardly noticeable when playing, although I suppose now since everyone is making a big deal about it, people are going to notice.

Beyond: Two Souls had letterboxing(not sure the aspect, and it was done for cinematic effect. Everything in the game is made to fit in the chosen aspect ration. Someone above said one of the resident evil games had it, never recall anyone making a fuss about it and it's the first I've heard of it.

If you have a fairly small screen, say 42" or less, then I could maybe agree with you if you sit far away from it, but above that, the picture will be plenty big. There are many movies that come out in this ration and most people don't have a problem with it.
Kribwalker  +   726d ago
It's funny how there aren't flocks of xbox fanboys in here trashing the ps4 games lack of resolution. Maybe ps4 fanboys can learn a thing or two
morganfell  +   726d ago
You're here. All it takes is one look at your post history to realize the fact of who you are. What you posted is in reality a very poor attempt to stealth troll.
#1.12.1 (Edited 726d ago ) | Agree(28) | Disagree(11) | Report
Kribwalker  +   726d ago
I'm not here bashing the fact that it's 800p like you guys do on every Xbox one post, I'm not here bashing it at all, I'm here saying "it's pretty nice we aren't bashing on your games like you guys like to bash on ours" that's all. It's not like it's a positive titanfall post or anything
thejigisup  +   726d ago
When you say 'we' do you mean xbox fanboys or do you mean gamers? And why is it funny?
morganfell  +   726d ago
No you didn't directly attack Sony, you attacked it's supporters. Mainly because you feel hurt over the fact the X1 is nowhere near as capable a system and with every game it is being realized that Microsoft was quite deceptive in their promotion of it's capabilities.

So instead you aim your attempt at Sony supporters (instead of MS, the people with whom you should be upset) And you actually believe you are being quite sly in your methodology but it is a transparent as as glass. Everyone sees it for what it is. A poorly executed attempt to stealth troll.

All of this is machts nichts anyway as there are less than 48 hours before the NDA embargo lifts and people see The Order. All of these excuse arguments and apologist pieces over graphics not mattering will suddenly become the stuff of deserved ridicule.
#1.12.4 (Edited 726d ago ) | Agree(11) | Disagree(6) | Report
aerisbueller  +   726d ago
Game fanboys, and console fanboys have some knowledge of how graphics work. On my PC, I would personally sacrifice a little fps to get better effects, shadows, model and texture detail, etc. This is a compromise developers must do as well. Choosing what they care about more, more amazing graphics, or higher framerate. You'd have to be blind if you think that TitanFall has as much an excuse to not be higher res, and higher framerate as the Order does. Doesn't even look like the same console generation.

The power gap is big enough that it matters, period, graphically. Enough that every game journalist, gamer, reviewer, dev knows it and feels the need to mention it. It's also fun for people who enjoy this console war thing to pile on all the earned 'I told you so's built up from last year, when we pointed out that all those shaders, clock cycles, ram gigs, and Mhz would add up, and when we pointed out every step of the way what a farce MS was pulling over your eyes.

And while desperate xbox fans pretend ps4 fans are hypocrites for being excited about a game that looks this good and runs 'only' at 30fps, because it's worth it, the real hypocrisy is all the xboxers who suddenly feel like graphics don't matter. It seems they came to that realization at around the same time it became clear that ps4 was the winner in that category
#1.12.5 (Edited 726d ago ) | Agree(2) | Disagree(3) | Report
scott182  +   726d ago
Show me any exclusive X1 game using 4xMLAA at 1920x800... Ready at dawn could easily reduce the anti aliasing and make the game 1080p. You have no argument for the resolution debate here.

" there aren't flocks of xbox fanboys in here trashing the ps4 games lack of resolution"

Because they would get trashed on with all the examples of higher res on ps4 and lack of it on x1 and they know it, honestly PS4 fans have much more ammo in the argument. You think the usual xbox trolls are staying away out of the goodness of their heart?
#1.12.6 (Edited 726d ago ) | Agree(5) | Disagree(3) | Report
Kribwalker  +   726d ago
Or it's because we are all to busy playing the titanfall beta. And as much as you like to think otherwise, Ryse has (other then the same bad guys models over and over) the best looking graphics of all the launch title games. That point has been expressed by multiple game websites and developers, not just Xbox fans. And really don't care about who has better resolutions ect, I typically buy all consoles so I can play all the exclusives I want to play. My psn is the same as my xbox gamer tag which is the same as my username here. I'm just trying to point out how rediculous it is when every positive xbox article gets lambasted by sony fanboys and every positive playstation article isn't lambasted the same way. Just stick to ps4 articles if that's what you are interested in, don't try to be a troll on every positive xbox article
morganfell  +   726d ago
Do you even know the meaining of the word irony?
strifeblade  +   726d ago
He is right. Go to a titanfall article nothing but trolls. This article- seems the xbox community can care less- no intrest in trolling becausevwe have better things
mikel1015  +   726d ago
Why would you ever want a cinematic widescreen? It just cuts off your ability to see more of the game. It's not a movie, stop trying to make it one -__-
BlackCountryBob  +   726d ago
It's not trying to be a movie, it's just that it is in cinemas where it is used most. A 2.35 ratio will mean that the environment and the surroundings will be on more of the screen rather than the player, ultimately it will make the scale of the world grander and more awe inspiring by makings he character smaller and thus more vulnerable.

Think Lawrence of Arabia for the effect
Jack_Reacher  +   726d ago
but its not your game to tell them what to do or how to make it. So. . .

why don't you stop telling people who are not listening or don't care what to do.

you might not want cinematic widescreen, some of us do.

No one is making you buy the game on its release
mixelon  +   726d ago
Compositionally it doesn't - it can allow for a wider horizontal field of view, which makes sense for some games. Particularly third person shooters having extra sideways space sounds great.

It could get annoying if there's a lot of vertical motion though but im guessing they've that of that!
Zhipp  +   726d ago
Actually, true 16:9 900p is 1600x900(1,440,000 pixels). 1440x900 has a more narrow 16:10 aspect ratio, wish afaik is only used on pc monitors. So yeah, this so called "800p" has more pixels, but the disparity isn't as big as you suggest.
SharnOfTheDEAD  +   726d ago
Blending Gaming with true Cinematic feel is an interesting choice. I expect this game to provide a unique experience for sure.
Sayai jin  +   726d ago
Don't care...this games looks awesome. It seems like every game is scrutinized these days beyond belief.
BallsEye  +   726d ago
I personally hate black bars even in the movies. I bought that 50 inch TV for a reason. Want the whole real estate of my screen to be used.
asyouburn  +   726d ago
16:9 TVs have been bullshit from the start as far as movies are concerned. Movies have been shot in 235 for way longer than 16x9 TVs have been on the market. Blame tv manufacturers
SaturdayNightBeaver  +   726d ago
But, do you wanna watch a movie or play a game with your full control ?
icheerbothconsoles  +   726d ago
I'm sure glad I play games and not numbers like most of you.
Tzuno  +   726d ago
so this is the base excuse for any Sony fan-boy now when he faces the truth about the ps4? i thought it is almighty and does 1080p on everything and even Kojima told that has room to spare when it does 1080p. in your face fan-boys in your face, now wait until it does 30 fps and next time STFU. Enjoy you laptop.
gedapeleda  +   726d ago
I still have hopes that 16:10 becomes standart everywhere
Akuma07  +   726d ago
Anyone who gets carried away about 800p is a moron themselves. The game is being rendered at 1080p.
MrSwankSinatra  +   726d ago
i dont want to watch a movie, i want to play a game.
Elimin8  +   726d ago
Oh yeah.. 2.40:1 it is then... Can't wait for this.
nerdman67  +   726d ago
People just need to stop obsessing over everything being 1080p and 60fps. It is nice, but isnt always necessary.
showtimefolks  +   726d ago
i just want to play games man whether its 1920-1080 or 1920-800

most developers will try to do what they think is best for the game. Next gen all i hear is 1080P-60FPS, come on we play the games for fun. If a game is 1080P yet boring will it matter that's its 1080P

just enjoy games. As long as we can achieve 720P-30FPS i am happy
ITPython  +   726d ago
Yeah, too many just see the last part of the resolution and think, only 800p? But BOTH the horizontal resolution and vertical resolution is key in actual pixel counts.

Heck, even if it was 480p (1920x480) it would have the exact same pixel count as 720p (1280x720). But just looking at the last part, 480p, people would immediately think it was significantly less than 720p even though it would be identical in terms of pixel numbers.

IMO, it's probably best to only use terms like 720p or 1080p when the horizontal resolution is as we expect (meaning 1920x1080 or 1280x720). If it's not a standard resolution, the entire resolution should be indicated. Because just saying something is 900p or 800p means absolutely nothing without knowing the horizontal resolution.
GUTZnPAPERCUTZ  +   726d ago
900p on Ryse is 1600x900 BTW which is 1,440,000 , oh and I know I will get disagrees for being right, but just look it up if you are doubting :)
come_bom  +   726d ago
So much fuss... Why not give the option to the gamer. Let the player choose if he wants to play The Order: 1886 at 16:9 1080p or 2.40:1 1920×800... and everything is resolved.
JsonHenry  +   726d ago
Its coming out for a console. Why is anyone in 2014 surprised by news like this?

I will always happily embrace a higher native resolution. But if it comes at the cost of better lighting, post processing effects, texture resolution, or on screen details then I will be more than happy to take a cut to the native resolution.
Pon4  +   726d ago
Game looks horrible won't be buying this garbage
Bathyj  +   726d ago
Having the extra wide screen lets them pull the camera back further so you see more on the sides. It is not simply taking the picture and chopping the top and bottom off as some seem to think.

The best way to describe it would be if you were looking at a wall in 16:9 and you could see the wall 16 feet wide and 9 feet high, in 2.40:1 you would still see the wall 9 feet high still but you would see it about 22 feet (my best guess) wide.

Have a look at the picture with the chairs. In the wide one you can clearly see a lot of extra room to the right of the chair. In the narrow one the chair is right on the edge of the picture. Thats the difference and what it means in a shooter is youre going to have much wide peripheral vision, meaning you will see enemies appear earlier when coming from the side.
imt558  +   726d ago
Guys, buy a 2.40 : 1 or 21 : 9 aspect ratio and you will not have black bars!


Xboner's, 720p thread is here. Go there and stay there :
#1.33 (Edited 726d ago ) | Agree(0) | Disagree(1) | Report | Reply
Chapter11  +   726d ago
Why do game developers always feel the need to ape movies and why do gamers think video games should be movies? They're two separate mediums, I don't want my video games to be like movies, I want my video games to be like video games.
Edsword  +   726d ago
While I'm still very excited about this game, I'm not going to defend RaD decision. The game should render at the resolution that fills the screen. I feel really bad for people who game on anything less than a 32 in screen because the image is going to be so small. I game on 46 in TV. You are losing more than 25% of the screen area. It's not too bad on 46 in TV, but the smaller the screen the more annoying it will likely become. 16:9 is a compromise between the theatre and home and I feel it serves it's purpose really well. I do not feel I'm losing out when movies have 16:9 ratios. Still it is RaD's decision Nd while I'm skeptical, if they feel it is the best experience they should go with it.
djplonker  +   727d ago
I dont mind the resolution the ps4 has proved it is more powerful than its competitors and can easily handle 1080p but if the devs would prefer another resolution then all the power to them!
#2 (Edited 727d ago ) | Agree(31) | Disagree(10) | Report | Reply
alexkoepp  +   726d ago
Funny the Ryse developers said 900p was their preferred resolution, and a design decision - though I'm sure it only works when a ps4 game chooses a different resolution in your mind. PS4 has proven to be the more powerful console ill give you that. But the Xbox one has also proven it can graphically best its competition as it did with Ryse.

I do own both games and Ryse is the better looking game. Hard to compare since the games settings are so different, but go to similar scenes and Ryse definitely looks better.
#2.1 (Edited 726d ago ) | Agree(12) | Disagree(19) | Report | Reply
Zhipp  +   726d ago
Lol, I have to give you a thumbs up for actually posting proof that you own both consoles. I disagree with the content of your post, however. I think The Order looks a little better, and with all the crazy physics they have going on, I'm sure it's much more demanding.

Still, props to you. Haha
djplonker  +   726d ago
Yeah but ryse is a linear ex360 kinect game that has a 4 hour campaign so it is unfair to compare them!
#2.1.2 (Edited 726d ago ) | Agree(8) | Disagree(6) | Report
zebramocha  +   726d ago
@alex No,it's not funny because they could reach 1080p where ryse isn't even in the same ball park as the order.

@dj the order is linear too.
#2.1.3 (Edited 726d ago ) | Agree(6) | Disagree(3) | Report
Shakengandulf  +   726d ago
What game exactly are you comparing, because as far as i know.. The order hasn't even got a release date whether alone be released.. Ryse is also upscaled from 900p ( upscaling introduces a slightly blurry screen) unless they want an even lower frame rate..

"The order" wont be upscaled and they have the choice of 1080p.. I'm not seeing the same situation here.
Having said that, i'd pick black bars 1920x800 over 900p upscaled any day.
aerisbueller  +   726d ago
graphically best it's competition? I must've missed the release of Ryse for PS4. Also 900p upscaled is not the same as 1080p cropped. Lastly, I don't think Ryse was a big deal for being 900p, because it actually looks like it belongs in this gen. Tomb Raider and Titanfall...not so much.
#2.1.5 (Edited 726d ago ) | Agree(1) | Disagree(2) | Report
Rayansaki  +   726d ago
That makes no sense. A lower resolution is never a design option, it's a compromise. They felt that a lower resolution with more post processing was preferable to keeping the game 1080p and with inferior effects, because the hardware was not capable of having both. A different Aspect ratio CAN BE a design choice however.

There is no reason to believe in this case that it is a compromise. Ready at dawn have mentioned several times that 24:10 was their preferred aspect ratio for this title. It allows for higher FoV without weird effects on the corners, and it allows for more interesting shots that can be used for better story telling. And that means that the resolution will have to be lower vertically for it to be so. (Would make no sense for them to render at 1080p and then squeeze the image) Doesn't mean it doesn't afford them advantages in terms of performance, but it's obviously a design choice rather than a compromise.
KakashiHotake  +   727d ago
I like the 1920x800 look. It gives the game a more cinematic look and feel and actually matches the tone of the game. I say they should go for it.
Pekka  +   726d ago
Those bars only make screen smaller, it has absolutely nothing to do with cinematic feel. In fact, those bars make game look LESS cinematic and worse to play. Actually, the only reason they choose 1920x800 is because they can't do 1080p fluidly, that "cinematic" feel is an excuse. Yes, there is no other reason.
Pelmete  +   726d ago
True that. Can't believe fanboys believe that "cinematic experience" BS. 800p<1080p. Funny when PS4 gets the better resolution games than xbox one then all the fanboys say that it's better to have 1080p but when PS4 gets 800p instead of 1080p then it's all right because hurr durr cinematic... God, fanboys are stupid.
JackVagina  +   726d ago
Only make the screen smaller? it also makes the view wider. witch looks awesome imo, i prefer 2.40:1

People need to understand how aspect ratio works...

"the only reason they choose 1920x800 is because they can't do 1080p" Thats not true at all, the game has 4x AA, all they would need to do is lower the AA and 1080p will be easy to reach
#3.1.2 (Edited 726d ago ) | Agree(28) | Disagree(8) | Report
WickedLester  +   726d ago
Most TV's allow you to manually put a 2.40:1 movie in 16:9 mode. If it bothers you that much you can always manually "force" the game into 16:9 mode.
Bathyj  +   726d ago
Yes, because there are no fluid games on PS4 at 1080p.

Yes that was sarcasm.

I don't know what's worse, that you actually believe that or that people agreed with you.

Either way, I enjoyed reading your comment because it makes me feel smart.
LKHGFDSA  +   726d ago
WickedLester, last time I tried that with a movie alot of things got cut off on the sides. People would stand half off the screen in scenes.
Ju  +   726d ago
They can do 1080p - but not with 4xMSAA. FXAA or 2xMSAA should do just fine.
Rayansaki  +   726d ago
If that were true then why wouldn't they just make it 900p? It would be 16:9 and it would actually even be lower res, so they could get better performance out of it.

Fact is, their resolution allows for a wider field of view without any stretching or squeezing, which makes for more interesting shots. It's the same reason it's used in a lot of movies. Indians specifically are big fans of the format and bollywood's standard is actually 2.35:1
#3.1.7 (Edited 726d ago ) | Agree(1) | Disagree(1) | Report
thejigisup  +   726d ago
I agree the devs want you to see more on screen rather than up close.@wickedlester you are correct most tvs will allow you to change it if you don't like the aspect ratio it is in and @lkhgfdsa @bathyj you too are correct a Ton of stuff is going to get pushed off the screen. The developers want you to see and experience more, they could just zoom out but honestly that would look like crap.
Read the article people, play with the aspect ratio on you tvs or monitors and really see which one looks better or feels better. I'll definitely say that not every thing looks better in a 16:9 or 2.4:1 but some things do benefit from a different aspect ratio which is why directors, developers, photographers even bother with them in the first place. Leave it too the professionals, if you don't like their ratio you can change it on your tv but you will lose what they were trying to show you in the first place.
Omran  +   726d ago
looks interesting
18th of february can't
come closer !!!

can't wait
OrangePowerz  +   726d ago
It's the same picture quality as 1080p only difference is that the pixel count is lower because of the black bars, but the quality is the same. It's just taking a 1080p picture and adding borders on the top and bottom.

Not surr yet how I feel about this cinematic view since I prefer to have the full picture and no borders.
palaeomerus  +   726d ago
And those borders subtract about 25% of the pixels to render.

1920x 800 =1,536,000
1920x 1080 =2,073,600

800/1080 =.7407 -> 74.07% of the pixels being rendered compared to a 1080p image.

If you kept your FOV setting and rendered those pixels cut off by the bars you'd have more floor and ceiling in the shots and probably fewer effects and possibly a lower frame rate but you'd still see everything. They didn't make the picture wider in pixels to include more stuff, and they aren't filming a real thing. They are just not rendering the top and bottom strips. So it's not like they stretched anything, to include more horizontal space in the shot. They just limited the vertical by omitting the top and bottom strips. It's more like they laid a frame that obscures the top and bottom of the image so that it doesn't need to be rendered.
Shakengandulf  +   726d ago
Ok after watching those videos, I'm lost.
Both aspects are showing the same game vertically but in the 1080p shot, the game is actually rendering less horizontally. I thought the blacks bars meant that we should be seeing less on the top and bottom? But In fact we see the same amount.. With extra on the sides? Am i wrong or are these videos wrong?
Rayansaki  +   726d ago

Technically it isn't wrong, but it isn't right either. In this specific case, the author of the article did not have access to art rendered at full 1080p, so the only way to visually display the difference was to cut the sides of the 2.35:1 image. On the other hand, it isn't necessarily true to say that 2.35:1 displays less vertically. It all depends on how it's shot.

But generally, assuming it's shot from the same place and the number of pixels was the same, 2.35:1 would show more to the sides and less vertically compared to 16:9

In this particular case, the 16:9 resolution that would have the closest amount of pixels to The Order would be 1664*936.

So, assuming the game was rendered at 1664*936, with a lower FoV to compensate for the less wide ratio and it wasn't stretched, it would have about the same information as at 1920*800, but slightly more on top and bottom, and slightly less on the sides. And instead of 2 black bars, you would have 4, but all smaller than the ones The Order has.

The difference is that the 16:9 image can be stretched to hide the black bars, while keeping the same ratio, while the 2.35:1 can't.
#5.1.2 (Edited 726d ago ) | Agree(2) | Disagree(0) | Report
ape007  +   726d ago
screw resolution, pixels, gates and all that BS

the Order looks freakin phenomenal, fresh, atmospheric and nextgen

we need more epic SP games please, games like Resi 4, TLOU, half life 2, the old N64 turok games, the dooms, the quakes, the dukes, the time splitters, shadow mans, soul reavers, ninja gaidens, the old splinter cell games, the goldeneyes, perfect darks etc......

i absolutely love online shooters but for the love of god enough of the linear the self played, two weapons at hand only sp games

we only need halo, gears of war and uncharted for that type because they do them very very well and do them epically
#6 (Edited 726d ago ) | Agree(21) | Disagree(9) | Report | Reply
Omran  +   726d ago
can't agree more . .
Hellsvacancy  +   726d ago
I hate widescreen video, I don't want black bars on my screen, it was "one of" my biggest complaints with Beyond Two Souls

It won't stop me playing The Order, I am allowed to not like things
#7 (Edited 726d ago ) | Agree(7) | Disagree(5) | Report | Reply
WickedLester  +   726d ago
You do realize that you can manually put a 2.40:1 movie in 16:9 mode. Your TV should have a "fill screen" or "full" option in display settings. If it bothers you that much you can always manually "force" the game into 16:9 mode.
RexLex  +   726d ago
I love it wide,.. It also has a crazy FOV,..You can see so much more on the screen,.. so I think it is going to play better.
#8 (Edited 726d ago ) | Agree(8) | Disagree(4) | Report | Reply
Nine_Thousaaandd  +   726d ago
I just want the game! Take my money now...I welcome the 2.40:1 1920×800!
SmielmaN  +   726d ago
I agree buddy, I have 52" tv and am purchasing a 60"+ this year around Black Friday so a little lost screen space is not a issue for me.

WAIT! What's the trending xbone excuse for limitations of a game??? Oh yes, design choice right? So it's ok for certain games to make "design choices" like 6v6 MP only games, but a AAA game focused on story and SP gameplay can't make a "design choice" to present their game like a movie in widescreen? Yeah, ok.

Im buying this regardless as I love SP experiences and story. I'm just waiting to see if there's a special edition with a statue coming out in any region. :)
Bathyj  +   726d ago
Back in the day, when we all had fishbowl 4:3 tv's, I still like the odd VHS (google it kids) and then later DVD that came it widescreen with big black bars on the top and bottom.

I can understand that some hated it, they thought it was cutting the top and bottom off the picture. I had to explain many times that no, it was actually keeping the sides on the picture that you would see at the cinema but usually got cut off to fit on your TV.

Does anyone even remember that when DVD came out most of us had 4:3 still and black bars were the norm? Most PS2 era games were in 4:3, only a few had the 16:9 option.
Hicken  +   726d ago
I'm not sure if most of the people complaining are really old enough to remember.

And I'm certain the ones that ARE old enough never understood the difference, and why those black bars were actually a GOOD thing. They never realized that, particularly for movies, content had to be cut from what you could see in order for it to fit that 4:3 aspect ratio of your TV back in the day. They still don't know that those black bars meant you could see more of the movie.

So it's no surprise that they don't understand, now, that those same black bars on this game will give an improved field of vision over games that don't have them.

There's also the lack of understanding- a lot of it willfully, it seems- over what's being rendered: even the black bars are rendered, so that the game is still DISPLAYING at 1080p, since it's actively displaying those black bars as well.

But you can't save everyone.
Kennytaur  +   726d ago
I felt the need to play devil's advocate here.

A game that can adapt it's camera is not at all the same as a film. In a film, yes filling the screen would cut off the sides if it's filmed super-wide. But a game that's rendered in realtime can compensate by moving the camera and so not miss anything you were meant to see. This could move the camera further away and give you additional vertical picture, actually offering more.

It all depends on how close you want the camera and what's worth seeing, ex: enemies from the sides or coming in from above.

And it doesn't have to render the black bars, those can be handled by the scaler of either the console (most likely, for consistency) or TV (less likely).
mhunterjr  +   726d ago
This is a completely different scenario. We aren't talking about a prerecorded image being modified to fit a certain screen, we are talking about an image that is being generated on the fly...

Yes the we are being provided a wider field of view than normal. But the only reason we aren't having even more image being generated in place of the black bars is because of hardware constraints. With a movie, you had black bars because the entirety of the recorded image was on display, there was nothing else to show. unlike a game, they couldn't generate a larger image.

Artistically, there's probably little reason to generate more image. As there is probably nothing of interest going in in that part of the screen... but then again, movies like the dark knight found trains to periodically go for a bigger shot.
#10.1.2 (Edited 726d ago ) | Agree(1) | Disagree(3) | Report
Bathyj  +   726d ago
See, Hicken gets it. I think some people are being deliberately obtuse, or they just don't understand the argument.

You are actually seeing a bigger, wider picture. I'll give a great example. I saw Diehard in the cinema maybe 5 or 6 times. I saw it twice in one day once. I loved the shot where Hans was talking to Joe Takagi in the elevator and Karl was in the background, out of focus, blonde and menacing.

Snap forward about 8 months, die-hard has long finished it's theatrical release and a young Bathyj is pretty happy about getting to own his own copy on VHS. get to the elevator scene, and Karl is not there. He's totally off camera, and the scene has lost all of its power.

That's just one example of why I like widescreen. Try watching Vincent explain to Jules what a quarter pounder is called in France in 4:3. You can't see either of them properly. Try watching Holden tell Bankey someone's doing it on his car. They're both cut out.

No, in this case were actually getting to see more and people who are letting the 800 number confuse them need to do some reading and educate themselves. They need to realise the pixel density and picture quality is exactly the same. Actually it's better thanks to the higher AA that no one else is using. But the fact remains of you counted the pixels in an inch of screen it's the same as at 1080p
#10.2 (Edited 726d ago ) | Agree(13) | Disagree(3) | Report | Reply
KimoNoir  +   726d ago
This is not comparing two different hardware like ps4 vs xbone. This is an image that is a heavily compressed 1080p screenshot from video that has one cropped down to 1920x800 from the actual 1080p image which gives the image a smaller FOV ("field of view").
DarkLord1003  +   726d ago
All you guys saying you don't like black bars... That's so racist y'all
azshorty2003  +   726d ago
Maybe if they made them White bars?
G20WLY  +   726d ago
That's reverse-racism, they should be grey ;P
Naughty__Boy  +   726d ago
I don't like black bars,But I think its only fair to wait til Tuesday to watch some game play and then give a overall opinion on how the game looks.
Bolts-N-Rays1109  +   726d ago
Don't care as long as the game is good and fun.
bleedsoe9mm  +   726d ago
much more important than if a game is running at native 1080p and that goes for xb1 and ps4 games IMO
Bolts-N-Rays1109  +   726d ago
All I care about in video games is if they are good and fun. That's why I play video games. To have a good, fun time!
icheerbothconsoles  +   726d ago
Exactly Bolt. I was floored the first time I saw this game and am really looking forward to it. Numbers mean squat, my eyes tell me what looks good and this is a looker.
LKHGFDSA  +   726d ago
Is it extra on the sides, or less on the top & bottom?
they could just leave the camera zoomed out and have the top & bottom rendered on screen.
I'll leave it up to others to decide what's the best decision, but really no one has 2.40:1 screens and not all games support the resolution, so we'll be playing with %26 of the screen unused.

Maybe Bathyj is right, maybe 2.40:1 will be the new standard.
But really, we haven't made use of 16:9 1080p yet.
I bought a 55" 16:9 1080p Plasma TV in 2007 or 2008, and have STILL yet to make use of it with video games.
I think we deserve a period of 16:9 1080p to use our TVs as intended before getting new ultra-wide ones.

I don't know if I would get annoyed by the bars while playing The Order: 1886, but when I played Beyond: Two Souls I was quite annoyed that the black bars stayed there after the cutscene ended.
WickedLester  +   726d ago
No, there is absolutely no less picture on the top and bottom. It's exactly the same. 2.40:1 aspect ratio simply allows for wider, more cinematic viewing angle side to side. Those who are bitching about "black bars" need to realize what's going on in those images. You actually GAIN picture in 2.40:1. If you were to convert a 2.40:1 image in 16:9, all you're essentially doing is blowing the image up to fill the screen. In doing so, not only do you lose the amount of viewable picture, you lose resolution as well.
palaeomerus  +   726d ago
No, it's just less in the top and bottom. If you rendered it at full 1080P you would not have any zoom or stretching going on at all. You'd just have more ceiling and floor rendered in the shot and the FOV and horizontal pixels would be exactly the same in the 1920x800 area. They are not adding any width. The width is 1920. The height is being shortened from 1080 to 800 pixels by eliminating pixels instead of squashing the image vertically.

This is like ignoring the top and bottom of the screen and matting them over so you don't need to render the pixels.
Sadist3  +   726d ago
I'd rather have 1080p 60fps because that's what everyone said the PS4 is capable of. Don't want any weird ass excuses on why it can't produce a feature everyone bragged about
HappyWithOneBubble  +   726d ago
Agree. Before PS4 and XB1 came out I knew not all games was gonna be 1080p 60ps. It don't matter to me any more. PS4 is still the best console though.
DigitalRaptor  +   726d ago
The PS4 is capable of 1080p and 60fps, but it's not going to turn water into wine, or afford 4xMSAA and everything else that they are allowing this engine to produce as well as both of those standards.
#16.2 (Edited 726d ago ) | Agree(7) | Disagree(2) | Report | Reply
palaeomerus  +   726d ago
I don't care. It's an over the shoulder TPS so running at 30 FPS with maximum effects is fine. (It's not a fighting game or really fast FPS or racer where you are likely to miss the frames) If they had to shrink the vertical pixels to get all the effects looking nice at 30 FS then it was a good decision. If it chugged at 1080P or needed some smoothing or lighting turned down then cutting 25% of the vertical out and calling it letter boxed was a good solution. It feels cinematic to people who like letterboxing and it runs better.
#16.3 (Edited 726d ago ) | Agree(0) | Disagree(2) | Report | Reply
icheerbothconsoles  +   726d ago
And if you never knew the numbers would that stop you from enjoying the game. Yep, I can see it now....throws down controller and screams, f^%king 958p 48 fps piece of crap, was having so much fun until I remembered it isn't 1080!
Kayant  +   726d ago
From the get go I could already see they would have to redo the camera in the game because it doesn't work on a 16:9 ratio. I for one don't like black bars around the screen mainly when it's vertical along the sides of the screen rather than horizontal like in the order's case. That said looking forward to the gameplay vid on tuesday.
#17 (Edited 726d ago ) | Agree(1) | Disagree(0) | Report | Reply
WickedLester  +   726d ago
One very cool thing about my Panasonic plasma is that the black levels in the image are so dark, when you watch a movie in the dark you can't even see the black bars. It just looks like my TV is at that aspect ratio.
leogets  +   726d ago
Looks better on black bar mode.. See more of the picture. No brainer right there
jlo  +   726d ago
The damage control is strong in this one
WickedLester  +   726d ago
It's not damage control. It's a fact. 2.40:1 aspect ratio allows you to put MORE picture on the screen. Why is that so difficult to understand? Movies have been shown in this ratio for years and years. As the line between gaming and cinema story telling continues to blur, it's absolutely no surprise to me that we will be seeing more games done this way. Of course it won't be used to all gaming types but for something like this, yes it absolutely is appropriate.
palaeomerus  +   726d ago
It's difficult to understand because in this case it is untrue. They did not compress the vertical or expand the horizonatal pixles. They did not add any horizontal pixels. They truncated the top 140 and bottom 140 pixels and put a black letter box there instead of rendering them.

NOTHING got added. If you rendered those lost pixels it would be the same quality the same horizontal pixel count and more pixels on the top and bottom to show you want is not rendered on the top and bottom.
OsirisBlack  +   726d ago

You could not be more wrong, even the CONCEPT ART before production was in this aspect ratio. It was an artistic choice made at the BEGINNING of production so they could display a wider field of view and a more cinematic look and feel. That being said there is going to be as lot of crow eaten this Tuesday.... book it.
Tibbers  +   726d ago
"wider field of view" is complete bullshit. The horizontal FOV is the same in 16:9.
Tibbers  +   726d ago
Protip: You see more because they had to cut stuff from the video to make the comparison. What you fail to understand is that in the actual game you'll see LESS because of the black bars. Your comment is pretty much a "no brain"er.
Kennytaur  +   726d ago
I hate games that cut a few lines of the resolution like Far Cry 3 and old Wii games. But here it's far more prominent and could work although I prefer to use the full screen.

I say go for it and see how it turns out, then make changes for the sequel if it sucks. At least it's an interesting gimmick.
CharlesSwann  +   726d ago
People should have no say in what the ratio is. The game is made with a ratio in mind from day one. It serves for the composition of the shots.

Honestly, they should tell whichever ignoramus that is complaining to piss off.
CharlesSwann  +   726d ago
Was thinking the same thing. You nailed it.
Up_N_U  +   726d ago
Dame ps4 and xbox have some weak ass gpu. But if the gameplay is good you wont even notice unless you stop to look at water trees grass and ground no sony fan but I have my eye on this game.
leogets  +   726d ago
Weak? Ps4 runs battlefield really well which is graphically intensive and one of the best looking games out there on multiplayer. Go bk to ya nerdy PC you spent sooooo much money on just to get a few extra frame rates loool. Mug
Up_N_U  +   725d ago
well if you say so i only spent 500 bucks on it and i have a shit ton more features than your weak station 4 lets see.

blue ray
beats premium sound
blue tooth head set
ps4 and xbox 360 controller support!
all games run 60fps
oh lets not forget free to play most which are on ps4
1080p 60fps
need i say more. i may have spent more money than you did for a ps4 but at the end of the day my cheep ass computer run your ps4 into the fuckin ground when it comes to performance.
PrinceOfAllSaiyans  +   726d ago
It will be in 1080p, its confirmed. Besides what PS4 game isn't at 1080p besides Brokenfield 4 ?
Up_N_U  +   726d ago
I was suprised I even finished the campaign talk about broken. The game is only 5 hours it took me 3 days lol
Pinkdolphinyfg  +   726d ago
Anything below 1080p is unacceptable for a next gen machine remember n4g or did we forget all of a sudden or it ok because it makes the game look "cinematic"?
MrDead  +   726d ago
You do know the difference between field of view and pixel density don't you?
Destrania  +   726d ago
Apparently he doesn't.
Visiblemarc  +   726d ago
Get a clue. Sub-1080p usually means stretched. A 720p game is the same aspect ratio as a 1080p game...only way smaller. The solution? Stretch it to fit and apply all kinds of filters.

The problem is when you are not running at "native resolution" (pixel for pixel) the image quality is compromised.

This game IS running pixel for pixel.

The reduction in resolution accounts for the clipped off parts.

This isn't a bizarre or made up format, it's used in films routinely.

My guess is they thought it would be cool to take the cinematic style further and realized there was a huge rendering budget bonus. If this succeeds, it will be copied.

My take on it is the devs should proceed. The concept is intriguing and I never complain that films are wasting tv real estate when they are letterbox, in fact, I prefer it. So what's the big deal?
Vegrad415  +   726d ago
Thank you for talking some sense.

The truth is it's incorrect to even refer to this game as 800p. 900p is 1600x900 which fits the 16:9 ratio and is stretched uniformly to fill an HD TV. To call this game 800p would imply that it's resolution is Something like 1420x800(the math doesn't work out nicely on the horizontal) and it is then stretched to fit as 900p is.

This is not the case. THERE IS NO STRETCHING. This game makes use of the full horizontal 1920 pixels. The only stretching that will happen is if you use the zoom function on your TV to get rid of the black bars, in which case the game will look blurry and terrible.

The only thing worse than that is people who stretch full screen images to fill wide screen. Disgusting...
Destrania  +   726d ago
I love the widescreen aspect, it looks awesome. Really excited to see the new footage this week.
#24 (Edited 726d ago ) | Agree(4) | Disagree(1) | Report | Reply
Stoppokingme  +   726d ago
You know it's a slow news day when there is a graphics comparison for the same game on the same platform.

We already know it will look good despite the resolution, Why are we even talking about this???
palaeomerus  +   726d ago
It's the same reason people are laughing at Ryse and saying it doesn't look Next gen. It's a lot of trolling and BS based on pixel counting and wanting to attack or defend various consoles.
shotime97  +   726d ago
it looks good at 800p who gives a crap just like the's up to the dev team to pick the resolution that the game looks best in or run's best in.
jay2  +   726d ago
I just hope this game does hit 2014 got Thief, MGS, ISS, TEWI, this, W3 all coming to my PS4 this year. Maybe other stuff I've forgotten dont think so tough.
lonewolfjedi  +   726d ago
I like the black bars for cutscenes either one I will be satisfied with I just want to see some gameplay
killzone619  +   726d ago
i might have to go with the 1920x800 option. The screen may be a little restricted but atleast the 4xMSAA will make the game look realistic.
#29 (Edited 726d ago ) | Agree(3) | Disagree(2) | Report | Reply
kingduqc  +   726d ago
I'm preaty sure there won't be 4xmsaa or else they would of gone full hd. and 1920*800 is a fucking joke in 2014
parentsbasement  +   726d ago
I don't like the bars , but im still in .....don't care what resolution or native this or that as long as gameplay dosent suffer.....we're getting REALLY close to "playing movies" here , not sure if that's good or bad......
« 1 2 3 »

Add comment

You need to be registered to add comments. Register here or login
New stories

Kao the Kangaroo Jumps onto Sega Dreamcast – Today in History – February 13th, 2001

16m ago - Carl Williams writes, "Keep in mind, 15 plus years ago, 3D action adventure titles were all the r... | PC

Seven Mods That Make XCOM 2 Less Frustrating

16m ago - Kotaku: "XCOM 2 is great! Well, mostly. It has some performance issues and, more pertinently, it... | PC

Gran Turismo SPORT Beta Testing Begins early 2016

Now - Start tracking GTS with's release date alert service and be notified when the GTS beta launches. | Promoted post

Beatbuddy: ON Tour Review (Invision Community)

7h ago - Experience a fast paced action game set in the Beatbuddy universe! Help Beatbuddy to play aweso... | PC

Vertigo Void Review (Invision Community)

7h ago - Introducing Vertigo Void, a game by developers James de Silva and Matthew Sanders that takes the... | PC

#52Games52Weeks 5 – Nubla (AKA The Worst Game on PS4)

7h ago - Psgamer: Nubla turns this debate on its head asks the exact opposite question – Can art be made i... | PS4