NowGamer: Quake, Rage and Doom developer wants pixel-perfect visuals on next-gen hardware
Agreed. Anything less than that just wuldn't be good enough. Even though PS3 promised 1080p as standard when it launched...
They overestimated the cell
No, I don't think they overestimated anything. There are a number of games that run 1080p. It all depends on the developer. See, developers have to make a choice: more physics, AI, lens effects, etc, or more resolution and FPS? Frankly, I'd rather have a game like Uncharted than a bunch of stripped down UE3 crap.
No, they reported "potential" like any other company. It's deceitful and wrong, but everyone does it. Microsoft started off saying that all games would be 720p with 2xAA on the 360, but when so many developers couldn't make it happen, even Bungie, they changed their rules (Oh, and I'm sure they would have said "Xbox 360 supports 1080p" also if it had actually LAUNCHED with HDMI support). Nintendo has also said WiiU will "support 1080p" but refused to confirm "NATIVE 1080p" to Geoff when pressed to. Oh, and thanks for another "groundbreaking" thought, Carmack. Next-gen consoles at 1080p.....wow. /s All this guy has to do is state obvious stuff and the article hits a thousand degrees. No one even talks about his latest game anymore. Who cares?
@SilentNegotiator U Mad. Don't get so defensive champ, you're not taking a comment about false marketing on your console of choice as a personal attack.....are you?
I think it goes without saying that Games will, for the most part, support 1080p standard on the next PlayStation & Xbox. I look at it simply from the point of view of natural processing power increases. My gaming PC is about five times more powerful - in layman's terms - than my Xbox 360. It runs most new games in 1080p (and higher) at 30 (or more) FPS without much difficulty. Considering the next xbox will likely be about five to 10 times more powerful than the current Xbox, it should easily hit 1080p at 30 frames per second, even with advanced physics and effects. Just my two cents.
@Animals_as_Leaders By stating that EVERYONE takes part in it and that it's deceitful/wrong? Sure, nice try, "champ" but I think someone doesn't know the difference between a "defense" and someone adding perspective.
I wouldn't say that. I think it was just a dumb thing to say. Sony really had no way of knowing how developers would utilize that power. I'm sure any game could run in 1080p, but sacrifices need to be made elsewhere. There really is no way of guaranteeing 1080p in all games unless it's a mandatory requirement, like trophies. Unless Sony does that next gen, I'm sure there would be plenty of games that won't do it, because they opt to use that power for something else.
@MrBeatdown, Sony is just trying to sell their console, that's all. Estimated data is not always 100% right. Beside, PS3 can do 1080p depending on what are the game's demands so the prediction wasn't that far off. Is just that devs prefer to sacrifice a bit of resolution for better shaders and stuff. This could even happen to next-gen. They start off showing 1080p and then by the end of the gen devs are gonna want to make better looking games and drop the resolution a bit. This is the reason of why we never have 60frames games either. PS1 was supposed to be always 60frames, and the the PS2 and then the PS3 yet 98% of their games are all running at 30 because devs want to achieve better looking graphics.
They overestimated RSX. Cell is a good performer, but it shouldn't have been made to make up for RSX's shortcomings. It should have been calculating cloth physics, thousands of particles, pathfinding etc etc. But RSX simply doesn't have power to translate everything onto the screen. Unfortunately CELL is used to make up for the RSX's relatively poor performance.
@hesido During the development of PS3 there were 2-3 different ideas for the GPU. Among them where a second Cell processor used as GPU and a custom GPU made by Sony that failed to materialize in 2005 which caused Sony to run to Nvidia for the chip. Because of the time frame, there were no time to create a custom chip for the PS3. That is why the Cell has to make up for the shortcomings of RSX, it wasn't designed for the PS3. In contrast, the Xbox 360 had the GPU custom tailored to the Xbox 360 architecture. It's a case of balanced versus unbalanced system. The PS3 would have be an extremely powerful machine if it was just more balanced. It doesn't matter if you have a gazillion computing power, if you can't get the processor busy working on the data. @MrBeatdown I agree, forcing a specific resolution is a dumb proposition. Different games utilize the resources differently, and I would take lower resolution for better game play any day. Heck, I enjoy Angry Bird and Fruit Ninja despite it's primitive graphics by today's standards.
Well, it outputs at 1080p for everything but games, so I'd say that that's a good feat.
the only issues I have with both the 360 and ps3 is no games run at 60fps at 1080p.. If they do they dont run very well. Hopefully they can get above 60fps and like 4K (1080 x 4)
Some games do like Wipeout, but yea it's not too many of them.
if you guys want 60FPS and 1080p you need to get a PC, I doubt even next gen consoles will run most games at 60FPS let alone native 1080p
@ZombieAssassin Problem with 1080p games, they are all for the most part Xbox Live Arcade type quality games i.e. not very demanding. You want full 1080p AAA games? PC is the only place to get that right now, if the game even hits the PC.
actually sony said the ps3 would support 1080p, not that every game would run at 1080p
Besides , i dont even see why it resurface constantly in some people's argument . "Sony lies to us!!" Every PR for every console embelish and exagerate each machine's perf . And it will be the same for every next console . When full hd and beyond will be an easy standards , any of the big 3 , or upcoming competitors , will pretend they can run smoothly 4k HD or whatever Ultra HD new norm .
Good to see someone with facts.
@IRetrouk Agreed @Baka-akaB Agreed and you beat me too it with your last comment. Given that Sony are producing (albeit R&D) 4k televisions, I fully expect their new console will 'support' resolutions up to 4k which will no doubt then be re-digested by Fan-boys some months/years later as "Sony said the PSXX would play all games at 4k" at launch! Ooo.. PS4k :O Does that get around the 'bad luck' sounding PS4... lol Actually I think the new console will be a complete PS re-braiding and will be named, as with the Vita, PlayStation Ludus maybe!
I think they should just call it the playstation and leave it at that, as long as they market it right then the less informed people will know its a new product, then again i dont mind what its called as long as sony supports it, which they will, then i will be happy
I think the issue is that Sony was very bold in their statements. Wasn't there supposed to be 2 HDMI ports on the PS3? It was supposed to be sooo good you wouldn't mind getting a second job to pay for it! Came straight from an execs mouth aka father of Playstation, Ken Kutaragi! I think embellishment is fine, and in some cases it is being delivered like KZ2. However, if the embellishment is so narrow and you miss it, well don't blame me for calling you a f'in liar!
Actually, Ken Kutaragi famously said every PS3 games would be native 1080p at 120 frames per seccond.
it was later very explicitely explained that with the high cost , the specs of the ps3 were downgraded Of course did stop them from PRing the heck of it still
If the machines are designed as a leap over the current then 1080p will be standard. If they are a smaller step or like Wii U they will probably stick to 720p. To get a base graphics leap alongside doubling the resolution you'll need modern hardware. Otherwise you'll just end up with games that look like they do now just in 1080p. I'm not saying thats a bad thing, its still pretty good, but that way means more people might not be bothered about upgrading especially if they watch ads and see screenshots.
What? No. We need 1600p. WTF Carmack. lol, jk. If we can get MAXED OUT BF3 graphics IN 3D to run at 60FPS at 1920x1080p on next gen consoles at a slightly affordable price ($400-500), that's all I think people will need. Right now that's a dream but a year from now it won't be. Then four years from now when games look amazing at 30FPS, we can complain about how much better PC graphics are, and wait three to four more years for a new console, only to have Elder Scrolls 7 to run at 24FPS and have bugs up the ying yang on consoles right near the end of their cycle. ...I just want games to look amazing dammit! Upgradeable console GPU cartridges anyone? /trollface
It will ALWAYS come down to resolution vs. fps vs. detail and objects. Forcing all games to only be 1080p takes flexibility from a dev. If a dev decides they can make the game look BETTER at 720p, because it allows them to put the processing bandwidth towards other things, they should have that right. For example, if, say, Battlefield 4 could EITHER support 64 players at 720P or 32 players at 1080P (due to object rendering bandwidth), I'd want the former. Or 60fps at 720P vs. 30fps at 1080p. You get the idea. @Lazy_Sunday: "Amazing" is all relative. What looks amazing today will look mundane in 5 years. :-)
Agreed. Resolution is only a small part of what makes a game presentable - that said its used to brag in marketing. These days If i play a PC game I'd much prefer 720 or 1080p with 60 FPS with some decent AA than a stupidly high resolution without the mentioned. Aditionally 30fsp is playable but not very nice. 1080p is going to be the benchmark for the consoles anyway as that is the standard for HD TVs. Next gen consoles need big memory GPU's well above what's available now if they are to be future proof.
There's no way the next gen won't be all 1080p graphics. The PS3 could easily handle that now just by doubling the graphics RAM. That was the only thing holding HD back.
Keep dreaming buddy!
Keep dreaming about what? The PS3 could handle 1080p graphics? If that's what you mean GT5 already did that. Other games could do it if the PS3 just had more RAM. That's all the current generation, meaning PS3 and 360, need. RAM is the only thing that held both consoles back from 1080p graphics. Higher resolution graphics means more RAM.
No higher resolution doesn't mean more RAM. RAM is only one factor, and even then, not that big of a factor when it comes to resolution. GT5 also isn't in 'full' 1080p.
I'd like games that work on release first. Once they can do that, then give me the prettier graphics.
It's not about prettier graphics, just games consoles that work with current TV standards. It would be a start.
I hope so.
Don't expect updates to games to give you prettier graphics. That has to be done early in the game. I agree games need to be less buggy though. Skyrim is full of bugs. That's what happens when they set a release date and stick to it. To fix that they'll have to forget about being on time. Release games when the bugs are fixed. Will gamers be happy though?
Yea, this guy needs to figure out how to make his games look good this generation before he starts looking at the next generation.
Also, regarding Skyrim I haven't run into any bugs yet. I am playing on PC though, which is rare for me. I've heard the PS3 had some issues. Otherwise, with a game like Skyrim I think there's a lot more potential for bugs because of how massive it is. There's so much that can't be tested fully without delaying the game by a lot. That's my opinion anyway. Think of the hundreds of hours a normal player puts into that game, and how many more hundreds of hours a developer would have to put into testing every little aspect of the game.
Art direction is the key here, not just more polygons/fx/textures. Rayman Origins looks lovely at 1080p
What about gameplay, ID ?
whats this gameplay you speak of is it a new effect
graphics dont matter, i dont care if we went back to 480p, if they could make the game bigger and better...do it.
thats my thought i just hope games bigger and better.. when i see star hawk trailer and i see a battle on a global scale i think to my self i really really hope next gen offer something like this
we were meant to get that this gen!!
We did have a taste of it but to be honest I've been enjoying a lot of PS3 games that I forget that they're not at 1080p. If the games are crap, even having a resolution at 1080p and 60 fps won't save them.
Meh while it's likely , i'd rather have the focus on 60fps for EVERY games and some solid AA tech . Unless of course all 3 are doable and checked
Yes, I'd choose 720p 60fps over 1080p 30fps anytime of the day. I hope they are going for 1080p 60fps, tho!
I prefer great visuals with great gameplay, which is why I now play on the PC more than anything.
not sure how anyone could disagree with that. regardless of library of games or exclusives, the PC visuals (from a tech standpoint) and gameplay are always going to blow their console counterparts out of the water. case in point--i'm playing The Witcher 2 on PC right now with max settings and probably 50-60fps. and then when it comes out on the 360, it will probably look like shit in comparison and run at 30fps.
It is undisputed that PC has the visual edge, but gameplay edge is up to debate.
@jidery when i say the gameplay blows it out of the water, i'm pretty much talking about PC games almost always being able to run at 60fps with the right hardware.
@jthamind The right hardware? LoL almost always getting 60fps. Firstly the right hardware would need a kick ass video card. Even then there some games that cant reach 60fps some even capped. But i see were you comming from ;) Next gen will have full 1080p support if devs decide to go that route if they do frame rate is a major factor. But i dont think you get 60fps. Frame rate differs on all games it wouldnt supprise me if some have you played many games on a console and you played threw parts of a game running at 17-25 fps not even noticed.
Thing is, he could have done 1080p this gen if he'd been willing to lower his graphical fidelity. But hopefully next gen has enough horsepower to get some 1920x1080 closer to 60 fps - but as always, lust of visuals will have a hit on res and fps.
Exactly. It will ALWAYS be a balancing act. People seem to think that there will be a magic point where 1080P is possible no matter what the graphical detail. It just doesn't work that way.
It does when you have a GTX 590.
I think Carmack focuses on tech too much rather than good game play. There are games for the ps2 like Shadow of the Colossus that are significantly better than most games this generation despite lower resolutions. I think game developers need to stop pixel counting and start look at improving game play so that new types of games can be created. I'm personally getting bored with generic shooters, and zombie games.
Counterstrike is more testament to this. Ten years later and its more widely played than cod on pc
History lesson time... ID Software made their name based on the direction of TWO main guys: John Carmack and John Romero. Romero hired Carmack. Both are programmers, but Carmack was more of the coding-whiz, and Romero was by far the more creative one. Romero was there for Wolfenstein, Doom and Quake, but left the company after those. Pretty much everything they've released since then has been fun, but derivative, yet ID (and Carmack) somehow still lives off of that initial fame. Obviously it's been a slow decline though, even slower due to the fact that they take so long to create new games. Romero was their mojo.
that was interesting, i didn't know that. have a bubble.
hardly entirely true . Without Romero , ID went and produce 3 classic fps instead of being on the decline : Quake 2-3 , doom 3 . While Doom might be debatable , Quake2-3 were absolute kings of multiplayer . Even current fps usually can't touch it yet , and the current browser Quake live is quite popular . The problem started when they gave their quake and Wolfenstein babies to meh studios live Raven and others , who sh*t stuff like Quake 4 . Or basically when they dropped out of the 3d engine licensing race to epic's favor . Romero was an important and integral part of early games , and whatever horrible stuff he produced later , his credit is due ... but i doubt ID was in any kind of slump from his departure
6 yrears later (for xbox360 ) they should be able to do full 1080p and 60fps if not whats the point of a new console when they could just keep tapping the current consoles.
i favour 4k for next-gen because in 5 years TVs will probably have native 4k support. technology is developing at a rapid pace. but i think 60fps is more important. so [email protected] or [email protected] i can only dream of 4k @60fps lol
You can only dream of 4k at any FPS. 4k is next to impossible even with monster graphics on market now. 1080p Is perfectly possible and is highly likely to be standard next gen. You only need to go back to say 4 series ati cards and you've got cards with ability to play most games at good FPS at 1080p. So say Xbox next gen and ps4 have something on par with 5 series and N's 4xx cards and some optimization 60fps 1080p will very easy to pull off.
4k support will probably takes longer . Bare newer movies , there will be trouble as it is providing video content at 4k . Many bluray remasters of 80s and older movies are already mediocre , let alone in 4k . Even when 35mm film has been estimated to range anywhere from 4k to 6k.35mm . Anyway enough rambling , my point is , i dont see 4k gaming before we truly see regular movies and at least a few tv and sports stations running at 4k
Ah true true, not many people realise the old film reels came in at those sort of sizes but the cameras were limited so fidelity wasn't great. I don't expect next gen PS to play 4k games but whether it'll support 4k film will depend on cost of same and Sony's intentions on other fronts (TV, Video Cameras, Cameras Etc).. ...Sony have always used the PS to push their intentions elsewhere i.e. CD / CD players, DVD / DVD Players, Blu-Ray / HDTV's, DD music, DD films etc etc.. I have no doubt they will do the same next gen in some way!
4K?? I always say, resolution is overrated. At about 3 meters, it is very hard to distinguish between 720p and 1080p on a 40inch screen. You need a 50inch TV to begin to appreciate the difference, at 3 meters. It is because human eye can resolve 1/60th of a degree for people with 20/20 vision. Some people are beyond it, but I don't think they will see twice better.. Just look at this chart: http://carltonbale.com/1080... To begin to see benefits (not fully benefit) of 4K at 3 meters distance, you need a screen size of about 80inches.
all games should be native 1080p , 60 fps and 4x msaa at next gen. currently i am playing games like with these setting on pc , connected to my hdtv with a xbox gamepad. i brought myself next gen a bit early:)
While developers would eventually reach the high point in graphics and realizes..... they have no more power to do 1080p. And laughter would ensure..
And 60 FPS too. 30 FPS is just horrid especially for sandbox games and RPGs