Anti-Aliasing - Will it be one of your much have features next generation?

  • 102 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3

This topic is locked from further discussion.

#1 Posted by mrfrosty151986 (526 posts) -

Less face it, image quality for the most part on consoles sucks.

You have some games with decent looking textures and effects but yet is completely let down by poor image quality ( Uncharted comes to mind )

Now personally with me being a Hermit image quality is my number 1 priority in my games and is the number 1 reason why I don't game on a console.

You console gamers don't seem to make such a fuss about the lake of decent image quality or is it just a case of you don't care because you're used to piss poor image quality?

Do you console guys expect anti-aliasing and anisotropic texture filtering next generation or are you have happy to leave it out?

#2 Posted by R4gn4r0k (16439 posts) -

If I have to turn down a setting on my PC, AA is always the first to go.

#3 Posted by Inconsistancy (8091 posts) -

AF, and some form of AA at least post process, is almost certain.

#4 Posted by LegatoSkyheart (25144 posts) -

Anti-Aliasing does mean a LOT.

You just don't know it till you have actually seen it.

#5 Posted by Chozofication (2810 posts) -
AA will have to grow with next gen hardware. MSAA will be dead thanks to deferred rendering and high cost, and post process AA has a lot to catch up to. Right now it's mostly made for dated current gen hardware in mind, but sharp post process filters will be made. And yeah, it's a must. That and MAX AF.
#6 Posted by R4gn4r0k (16439 posts) -

Anti-Aliasing does mean a LOT.

You just don't know it till you have actually seen it.

LegatoSkyheart

I have seen it but it's not the most important thing to me in video games graphics.

Even with AA on fullest there are still edges with aliasing. I tried ACIII with all AA settings and the sails of the boats at the harbor were still aliased. I couldn't see much difference between the settings tbh.

When I still had my old computer AA was always the first to go if I needed extra FPS. I can look past an aliased edge, but I can't look past a lower resolution, worse textures, worse models, etc..

#7 Posted by Fizzman (9872 posts) -

If consoles can't do a high level of AA at 1080p next gen, we will know for certain that both MS and Sony are selling us gimped hardware.

#8 Posted by MaskedPlayer (979 posts) -

What does Anti Allialsing do?

#9 Posted by mrfrosty151986 (526 posts) -

What does Anti Allialsing do?

MaskedPlayer
Removes the jaggies....
#10 Posted by Chozofication (2810 posts) -

[QUOTE="LegatoSkyheart"]

Anti-Aliasing does mean a LOT.

You just don't know it till you have actually seen it.

R4gn4r0k

I have seen it but it's not the most important thing to me in video games graphics.

Even with AA on fullest there are still edges with aliasing. I tried ACIII with all AA settings and the sails of the boats at the harbor were still aliased. I couldn't see much difference between the settings tbh.

When I still had my old computer AA was always the first to go if I needed extra FPS. I can look past an aliased edge, but I can't look past a lower resolution, worse textures, worse models, etc..

Odd because resolution and AA go hand in hand. In fact, 720p with high AA looks better than 1080p with no AA. Maybe at 4k we'll not need AA anymore.
#11 Posted by Inconsistancy (8091 posts) -

What does Anti Allialsing do?

MaskedPlayer
Attempts to prevent lines that run across the screen from appearing jagged.
#12 Posted by LegatoSkyheart (25144 posts) -

[QUOTE="LegatoSkyheart"]

Anti-Aliasing does mean a LOT.

You just don't know it till you have actually seen it.

R4gn4r0k

I have seen it but it's not the most important thing to me in video games graphics.

Even with AA on fullest there are still edges with aliasing. I tried ACIII with all AA settings and the sails of the boats at the harbor were still aliased. I couldn't see much difference between the settings tbh.

When I still had my old computer AA was always the first to go if I needed extra FPS. I can look past an aliased edge, but I can't look past a lower resolution, worse textures, worse models, etc..

Well I guess I should add that it helps in SOME games. The edges look smoother and everything doesn't look like it was made in Paint.

but sometimes the game is better without it.

What does Anti Allialsing do?

MaskedPlayer

gets rid of jagged edges and makes things smooth.

#13 Posted by MaskedPlayer (979 posts) -
[QUOTE="MaskedPlayer"]

What does Anti Allialsing do?

mrfrosty151986
Removes the jaggies....

Nice.
#14 Posted by tagyhag (15867 posts) -
No game should have aliasing next gen. Not with the progress we have made.
#15 Posted by PCgameruk (1425 posts) -

What does Anti Allialsing do?

MaskedPlayer

Smooths out the jaggie edges.

divinity2-anti-aliasing.jpg

#16 Posted by Articuno76 (18773 posts) -
AA will never be standard, just like 60FPS, simply because you are working with hardware where resources are at a premium. Some games will have them...just like some games had them back on the PS2, but many simply won't because the performance compromises aren't worth it, or because the same hardware grunt could be used elsewhere...well that is unless the console manufacturers include some kind of 'free' AA solution, reserved for precisely that (IIRC the GC had something like this).
#17 Posted by R4gn4r0k (16439 posts) -

Odd because resolution and AA go hand in hand. In fact, 720p with high AA looks better than 1080p with no AA. Maybe at 4k we'll not need AA anymore.Chozofication

For me its the exact opposite: native res of screen > lower resolution with no matter how much AA you put on it.

Well I guess I should add that it helps in SOME games. The edges look smoother and everything doesn't look like it was made in Paint.

but sometimes the game is better without it.

LegatoSkyheart

Yeah I can agree with that: it does help in some games. And for example in a lot of old games AA can help a lot. I was surprised by how good GOW looked, even in 2012, because of its higher resolution and AA in the GOW collection.

#18 Posted by LegatoSkyheart (25144 posts) -

[QUOTE="Chozofication"]Odd because resolution and AA go hand in hand. In fact, 720p with high AA looks better than 1080p with no AA. Maybe at 4k we'll not need AA anymore.R4gn4r0k

For me its the exact opposite: native res of screen > lower resolution with no matter how much AA you put on it.

Well I guess I should add that it helps in SOME games. The edges look smoother and everything doesn't look like it was made in Paint.

but sometimes the game is better without it.

LegatoSkyheart

Yeah I can agree with that: it does help in some games. And for example in a lot of old games AA can help a lot. I was surprised by how good GOW looked, even in 2012, because of its higher resolution and AA in the GOW collection.

It's why I kinda perfer to get the PS3 versions of PS2 titles, That and I can play the games on my PS3.

#19 Posted by Chozofication (2810 posts) -

[QUOTE="Chozofication"]Odd because resolution and AA go hand in hand. In fact, 720p with high AA looks better than 1080p with no AA. Maybe at 4k we'll not need AA anymore.R4gn4r0k

For me its the exact opposite: native res of screen > lower resolution with no matter how much AA you put on it.

It is a bit of a preference thing. Super smooth vs. Super crisp. I hate jaggies with a passion lol. But it depends on the AA technique. No AA is better than Quincunx or low quality FXAA.
#20 Posted by R4gn4r0k (16439 posts) -

It's why I kinda perfer to get the PS3 versions of PS2 titles, That and I can play the games on my PS3.

LegatoSkyheart

I hope Nintendo will do collections like that too. Rereleasing wii games in 1080p with AA.

#21 Posted by mariokart64fan (19441 posts) -

If consoles can't do a high level of AA at 1080p next gen, we will know for certain that both MS and Sony are selling us gimped hardware.

Fizzman
I think a not so big jump is expected. based on sony's financial situation and microsofts push for casual play . which is good because wii u will not suffer what wii did . later on . id rather have 3 good looking consoles yet cheap enough for the consumer then 1 power house that is left behind like ps3 .
#22 Posted by LegatoSkyheart (25144 posts) -

[QUOTE="LegatoSkyheart"]

It's why I kinda perfer to get the PS3 versions of PS2 titles, That and I can play the games on my PS3.

R4gn4r0k

I hope Nintendo will do collections like that too. Rereleasing wii games in 1080p with AA.

I'm more hoping Gamecube Games.

#23 Posted by Motokid6 (5424 posts) -

32x AA in Skyrim and Mass Effect looks amazing. Almost gives a 3d effect. Characters seem to pop out of the screen more. If you have a rig that can handle it it makes all the difference.

#24 Posted by Fizzman (9872 posts) -

[QUOTE="Fizzman"]

If consoles can't do a high level of AA at 1080p next gen, we will know for certain that both MS and Sony are selling us gimped hardware.

mariokart64fan

I think a not so big jump is expected. based on sony's financial situation and microsofts push for casual play . which is good because wii u will not suffer what wii did . later on . id rather have 3 good looking consoles yet cheap enough for the consumer then 1 power house that is left behind like ps3 .

The Wii U has awful graphics. This isnt even an exagguration, they are bad. If Sony and MS don't have significantly better graphics than the Wii U, console gaming is dead to me. I am not paying 400 bucks just for some garbage gimmick with hardware from 2004 powering my system. I am not a graphics whore, but you better charge 200 bucks for a 720/PS4 if you expect me to use ancient tech.

The Wii U is overpriced, but for some reason a horrible touch screen that has a 3/4 hour battery life makes it OK to pay 300/350 for a console from 2004.

#25 Posted by Chozofication (2810 posts) -
Part of the reason Sony has all these HD collections for Ps3 is because PS3's don't have BC, and Wii U has perfect BC with Wii games and they're putting gamecube games on the Wii U virtual console. That and Nintendo really isn't about the best bang for the buck... But it still could happen, it'd be fantastic.
#26 Posted by clyde46 (45962 posts) -
For a good number of years, I used to play with no AA. FPS is more important to me.
#27 Posted by LegatoSkyheart (25144 posts) -

[QUOTE="mariokart64fan"][QUOTE="Fizzman"]

If consoles can't do a high level of AA at 1080p next gen, we will know for certain that both MS and Sony are selling us gimped hardware.

Fizzman

I think a not so big jump is expected. based on sony's financial situation and microsofts push for casual play . which is good because wii u will not suffer what wii did . later on . id rather have 3 good looking consoles yet cheap enough for the consumer then 1 power house that is left behind like ps3 .

The Wii U has awful graphics. This isnt even an exagguration, they are bad. If Sony and MS don't have significantly better graphics than the Wii U, console gaming is dead to me. I am not paying 400 bucks just for some garbage gimmick with hardware from 2004 powering my system. I am not a graphics whore, but you better charge 200 bucks for a 720/PS4 if you expect me to use ancient tech.

Oh man.

Pikmin-3-Confirmed-for-Nintendo-Wii-U-Ge

Such AWWWWWWWFULLLL graphics.....

painful.

#28 Posted by KungfuKitten (20963 posts) -

anti-aliasing.jpg
For people who don't know what it is.

AA impact has increased throughout the last few years. AA was normally the first thing for me to go, but in some games like The Witcher 2, Planetside 2 and Guild Wars 2 the difference is incredible, to the point that it has already become a must have feature for me.

#29 Posted by Fizzman (9872 posts) -

[QUOTE="Fizzman"]

[QUOTE="mariokart64fan"] I think a not so big jump is expected. based on sony's financial situation and microsofts push for casual play . which is good because wii u will not suffer what wii did . later on . id rather have 3 good looking consoles yet cheap enough for the consumer then 1 power house that is left behind like ps3 . LegatoSkyheart

The Wii U has awful graphics. This isnt even an exagguration, they are bad. If Sony and MS don't have significantly better graphics than the Wii U, console gaming is dead to me. I am not paying 400 bucks just for some garbage gimmick with hardware from 2004 powering my system. I am not a graphics whore, but you better charge 200 bucks for a 720/PS4 if you expect me to use ancient tech.

Oh man.

Pikmin-3-Confirmed-for-Nintendo-Wii-U-Ge

Such AWWWWWWWFULLLL graphics.....

painful.

Loving those bullshots which dont even look good. I cant wait to see Pikmin 3 launch and the damage control from sheep will be hilarious. "Buhhhh buhhh we dont care about good graphics."

Sheep pretend not to care about graphics because they know Nintendo will never again give them a system that is capable of displaying average looking graphics.

#30 Posted by psymon100 (6138 posts) -

Loving those bullshots which dont even look good. I cant wait to see Pikmin 2 launch and the damage control from sheep will be hilarious. "Buhhhh buhhh we dont care about good graphics."

Sheep pretend not to care about graphics because they know Nintendo will never again give them a system that is capable of displaying average looking graphics.

Fizzman

Pikmin 2 launched in 2004.

#31 Posted by Chozofication (2810 posts) -

[QUOTE="Fizzman"]

[QUOTE="mariokart64fan"] I think a not so big jump is expected. based on sony's financial situation and microsofts push for casual play . which is good because wii u will not suffer what wii did . later on . id rather have 3 good looking consoles yet cheap enough for the consumer then 1 power house that is left behind like ps3 . LegatoSkyheart

The Wii U has awful graphics. This isnt even an exagguration, they are bad. If Sony and MS don't have significantly better graphics than the Wii U, console gaming is dead to me. I am not paying 400 bucks just for some garbage gimmick with hardware from 2004 powering my system. I am not a graphics whore, but you better charge 200 bucks for a 720/PS4 if you expect me to use ancient tech.

Oh man. Such AWWWWWWWFULLLL graphics.....

painful.

You can tell where this started as a Wii game. And it's gone crazy with the DOF like some early 360 games. But when the next 3d mario game is out we will see what Wii U can do.
#32 Posted by clyde46 (45962 posts) -

[QUOTE="Fizzman"]

[QUOTE="mariokart64fan"] I think a not so big jump is expected. based on sony's financial situation and microsofts push for casual play . which is good because wii u will not suffer what wii did . later on . id rather have 3 good looking consoles yet cheap enough for the consumer then 1 power house that is left behind like ps3 . LegatoSkyheart

The Wii U has awful graphics. This isnt even an exagguration, they are bad. If Sony and MS don't have significantly better graphics than the Wii U, console gaming is dead to me. I am not paying 400 bucks just for some garbage gimmick with hardware from 2004 powering my system. I am not a graphics whore, but you better charge 200 bucks for a 720/PS4 if you expect me to use ancient tech.

Oh man.

Pikmin-3-Confirmed-for-Nintendo-Wii-U-Ge

Such AWWWWWWWFULLLL graphics.....

painful.

Whats Pikman?
#33 Posted by Fizzman (9872 posts) -

[QUOTE="Fizzman"]

Loving those bullshots which dont even look good. I cant wait to see Pikmin 2 launch and the damage control from sheep will be hilarious. "Buhhhh buhhh we dont care about good graphics."

Sheep pretend not to care about graphics because they know Nintendo will never again give them a system that is capable of displaying average looking graphics.

psymon100

Pikmin 2 launched in 2004.

You clearly know what i am talking about, but you have to point out like you dont understand i am referring to Wii U Pikmin.

#34 Posted by ShadowDeathX (10608 posts) -
Not really. If next-gen consoles, other then the Wii U, can natively render their games at 1080p, then I don't see the need for any AA. Sure they can add a low cost post process solution but it's not really required. The Wii U needs AA since it will most likely render games at 720p. It can have current console graphics but with a touch of AA and AF, and I'll be happy. If the PS4 and New Xbox go 720p or maybe even 1600 x 900 (900p then upscale), then it should have a good quality AA method. 1080p? None needed.
#35 Posted by lowe0 (13692 posts) -
I'd be fine with post process AA.
#36 Posted by KungfuKitten (20963 posts) -
[QUOTE="ShadowDeathX"]Not really. If next-gen consoles, other then the Wii U, can natively render their games at 1080p, then I don't see the need for any AA. Sure they can add a low cost post process solution but it's not really required. The Wii U needs AA since it will most likely render games at 720p. It can have current console graphics but with a touch of AA and AF, and I'll be happy. If the PS4 and New Xbox go 720p or maybe even 1600 x 900 (900p then upscale), then it should have a good quality AA method. 1080p? None needed.

I play PC games at 1080p resolution, but it still seems to matter a lot whether I turn on AA or not.
#37 Posted by ShadowDeathX (10608 posts) -
[QUOTE="KungfuKitten"][QUOTE="ShadowDeathX"]Not really. If next-gen consoles, other then the Wii U, can natively render their games at 1080p, then I don't see the need for any AA. Sure they can add a low cost post process solution but it's not really required. The Wii U needs AA since it will most likely render games at 720p. It can have current console graphics but with a touch of AA and AF, and I'll be happy. If the PS4 and New Xbox go 720p or maybe even 1600 x 900 (900p then upscale), then it should have a good quality AA method. 1080p? None needed.

I play PC games at 1080p resolution, but it still seems to matter a lot whether I turn on AA or not.

That is because you most likely play on a monitor that is less than a meter away from you. Consoles games are designed for HDTVs and "living-room" like settings. If you move back a little to a normal HDTV viewing setting, you will realize that the cost of AA on the hardware is not really worth it. They can add post-process to make it slightly cleaner. TXAA or lower setting FXAA can do this, but a full blown AA method is a no no.
#38 Posted by crimsonman1245 (4253 posts) -

I really hope every game uses at least some form of AA, jaggies ruin graphics.

#39 Posted by enzyme36 (1511 posts) -

I just recently built my first PC rig... and I have to say that the AA setting makes such a big difference on the image. I dont really know what it is or what #x I should set it at... but man it makes every game look fantastic

I am blown away every time I see games I am used to seeing on consoles.... even old games like Half-Life

#40 Posted by nameless12345 (15125 posts) -

I game mainly on PC and I don't use any AA whatsoever.

I prefer a sharper picture and better framerate.

I have AF always set to max, tho. (cause blurry textures 2 meters away from the cam position annoy me)

I would agree that consoles have poor image quality but that's console hardware limitations for you.

#41 Posted by delta3074 (18096 posts) -
i am actually fine with Grpahics the way they are,Anti aliasing is Fine on consoles for me at the moment, what i want to see is more innovation in GamePlay.
#42 Posted by AdamPA1006 (6419 posts) -

I can barely play RDR and GTA4 on PS3 the AA(lack there of) is terrible.

#43 Posted by seanmcloughlin (38216 posts) -

Considering some of the progress and the AA methods available now, no game on consoles should be jagged next gen. It's insulting

#44 Posted by psymon100 (6138 posts) -

I was playing this in 1998. I remember Anti Aliasing options in the settings.

Grand_Prix_Legends_Coverart.jpg

Anti Aliasing, yeah it's a good feature. My preference is always for resolution first, then increasing world detail, then shadows, effects etc. If I can max out with all these turned on, then I'll go for AF or AA.

If I was playing on a console, I'd prefer 60FPS with no AA compared to 30FPS with some AA. On the PC, well I'm glad I can mess with the settings to find what I like.

#45 Posted by nameless12345 (15125 posts) -

I was playing this in 1998. I remember Anti Aliasing options in the settings.

Grand_Prix_Legends_Coverart.jpg

Anti Aliasing, yeah it's a good feature. My preference is always for resolution first, then increasing world detail, then shadows, effects etc. If I can max out with all these turned on, then I'll go for AF or AA.

If I was playing on a console, I'd prefer 60FPS with no AA compared to 30FPS with some AA. On the PC, well I'm glad I can mess with the settings to find what I like.

psymon100

It's texture detail > shaders > object/terrain details > draw distance > shadows. ;)

Resolution should always be native and you should have AF atleast on 4x.

#46 Posted by psymon100 (6138 posts) -

I said 'My preference' ...

#47 Posted by Rocker6 (13358 posts) -

I'd be fine with post process AA.lowe0

Me too, actually...

In most cases, I don't have any problems with a high-quality FXAA, despite it introducing some minor blur to the scene. Lately, though, been using SMAA + sharpening from that Shader Suite...

Some of those solutions would work good on consoles, improving the visual quality at a very minor performance impact...

#48 Posted by BPoole96 (22788 posts) -

I've been having to substitute MSAA for FXAA or SMAA because of the performance hit I get when I apply MSAA to demanding games. Post processing AA gives me minimal jaggies without the performance hit. The only downside is that is makes the IQ a little more blurry (especially FXAA).

#49 Posted by the_bi99man (11047 posts) -

Resolution is more important. AA can come next, if there's power for it. The most important thing, which will have the biggest impact on image quality compared to current gen consoles, is having them display ACTUAL HD. People complain about the aliasing in current console games, but AA isn't what they need. Just about anything will look like sh!t when it's 960x540, upscaled onto your giant 1080p TV.

I find it funny that that's not being talked about more. Especially considering the PS3 and 360 are so often referred to as "the HD twins". That name doesn't really make any sense, considering that the VAST majority of games on those systems aren't even rendered at 720p, much less 1080p. The majority are closer to 960x540, which is basically a widescreen version of 800x600, which was a standard resolution for PC monitors in the late nineties.

Higher resolution just makes everything look better. Which makes sense. More pixels = greater level of detail, and less jagged edges, naturally, even without AA. Higher resolution makes textures look better, even if the textures are exactly the same, just because there's more detail available with more pixels. Perfect example of that is the PC version of Dark Souls, with the DSfix, to allow proper resolutions. That game already had surprisingly detailed textures, which were hidden under that crappy resolution. Use dsfix to make the game actually render at 1920x1080, rather than the not-even-720p it was at to begin with, and it's like you just cleaned a layer of filth of your screen.

That's why I think putting out real HD resolutions should be the top priority for the next gen consoles. Especially if the PS4/nextbox aren't coming out til late 2013/possibly even 2014, there is NO excuse for them to not have every single game rendering a native 1920x1080. Any less will be absolutely laughable.

#50 Posted by santoron (7717 posts) -
Meh. High resolution textures, native resolution, and stable frame rates are more "must have" to methan AA. AA is nice and all, but it makes less of an impact than the others.