Why do consoles and game producers on consoles worry about improving resolution, rather than say graphical fidelity?

It just seems all very odd to me. Shouldn't the next gen "upgrades" (PS4 pro and XB1X, that is) worry about improving stuff like texture rendering, Supersampling, dynamic lighting, and environmental particles over how high the resolution will be? Rendering the 3d models themselves at 4k would seem like it should take precedent over rendering the image at 4k.

For example, though it is far more demanding on my system (1060 6GB with a I7-7700HQ), playing Battlefield 4 at 200% Resolution scaling (which is another word for Supersampling, where the game's 3d models are rendered at essentially 4k, giving the environment a much, MUCH more crisper and detailed look) looks FAR better than simply rendering the game's image at 4k.

What's the point of playing at 4K if the graphics, in reality, look exactly the same, but simply clearer? "Wow, we get a clear image of our mediocre graphics". I'm not saying that graphics are not improving, but they have really stagnated over the last 2 years in the console world, and it doesn't seem to be much of an emphasis in their development.

It makes little sense but then again it's a marketing ploy to sell to gullible people and fanboys who like counting pixels more than playing games.

LOL, Xbox.

I dislike the 4K push.

Choice of developers of course, but they do it for marketing reasons

Because numbers sell

No it doesn't

@gamingpcgod: Case in point, console developers know console gamers don't care for stable framerates and prefer raw graphics, (4K push) just as Phil Spencer said, the majority of console gamers don't care about 60fps only because console gamers don't have a voice in saying the matter which is why this current-gen is kinda disappointing but not all is doom & gloom. I'm one of the few who is okay with this current-gen has to offer but that's only because I buy my multi games on PC and nowadays, I just play my current-gen consoles just for the exclusive games, even on 30fps, I'm cool with it just as long as the framerates stays locked.

Keep in mind, due to CPU holding back consoles, making games in 60fps is very hard to do on consoles alone and it's why developers rather just push graphics over stability. Another thing, developers know if gamers really want the best game version, they know anyone can go to PC anytime which is why no developer will waste time making there games better on consoles.

I prefer batter framerates to better graphics myself which is why I'll always game on PC.

They could have focused on improving 1080p tech. But numbers sell.

Because more dumb people know what resolution is.

It's harder to advertise your game with "now with better texture rendering!" than just "higher resolution".

People like us, though, know that there are other things more important for graphics than resolution. Well, most of us. I've seen quite a few people on this board praise Xbox One X for all the wrong reasons.

Because its way cheaper.

You have to have numbers you can market. Just like they did with 16 bit, 32 bit and it doesn't have to be accurate as NEC proved with their TurboGrafx 16. 4k, be it fake 4k or true 4k makes the sheep hand over their money just like any other brain washing tactic would.

Everyone knows that rendering 1024 resolution textures on 4k is the only way consoles can do it and made easier especially when so many gamers don't know what 4k textures rendered on a 4k TV even look like. Developers use so many cheats that many gamers don't realize why PC has so much more potential.

I've tried and tried to make my console say 'graphical fidelity', but all she does is sit there and look worried.

Because they've seen the online gaming community obsess over it for the last 4 years.

Funny, I've seen quite a few people on this board criticize Xbox One X for the same reasons

@FastRobby: You've seen people crticize it for being marketed with 4K instead of games? Yeah, that would be the non-dumb people.

Resolution became a pissing contest in console wars, so much so that we have come to ignore the importance of graphic fidelity.

Yes it does. If you're screen resolution is 1080p (1920x1080p) and you set resolution scaling (supersampling) at 200%, then it renders the 3d models at 3840x2160p, or in other words, 4k. It's basic math.

Still displaying only 1920x1080 pixels.

Pretty much 4k images look better on 4k panels.

Ugghhhhhh.

The ACTUAL GRAPHICS are more detailed!!!! What don't you get about that?!?!

Does Bad Company 2 at 1920x1080 look the same as Battlefield 1 at 1920x1080, just because they display the same pixels? Of course not, and to suggest so is utterly ridiculous.

3D models are rendered ENTIRELY SEPARATELY from the resolution of the screen. Increase the 3d rendering model resolution, increase the details of the models themselves. This is why certain games look better than others at the same display resolution.

Display resolution =/= render resolution.

You can't be this dense.

I don't even know what the hell this guy is talkin' about :D Rendering characters at 4k and ****...

The marketing studies favored it?

Maybe to match the TV market?

So you're playing games with a 1080p screen, but enable over-sampling so it's essentially running at 4k? Might as well as get a 4k screen and play the games at the screens native resolution.

I dunno, I don't enjoy realistic games so yeah don't care.

I would be interested by frame rate and stay at 1080

Mainly it's being praise just for 4K then it is for any games is what's really wrong with Xbox One X and yeah, like Litchie said, it's being praise for the wrong reasons.

I'm not against the actual hardware, I just don't like MS is only focusing on 4K and not many exclusive games to back it up.

There's a reason why Nintendo Switch is getting the praise here on this board, myself included.

lol

The ACTUAL GRAPHICS won't be more detailed on your 1080p screen than on your 4k screen

I'm going to try to explain you this one more time, since it seems it's difficult for you lemmings to understand.

DISPLAY resolution simply increases the clarity of your image, but DOES NOT actually improve the graphical fidelity of your game. In other words, you're still playing at the same shitty graphics, just with a clearer image. This is akin to having a 4k image of Family Guy. Yeah, it's clearer, but it still looks like shit.

Supersampling improves the resolution AND detail of the 3D MODELS IN THE GAME. Irregardless of your screen resolution (I have a 1080 15.6 laptop screen, and I can notice a big difference in the 100% and 200% resolution scaling), the game's image will appear more realistic and detailed if you raise resolution scaling. It's equivalent of a Mona Lisa painting. Irregardless if it's on a 1080p screen or a 4k screen, it looks realistic.

Getting a 4K TV WILL NOT improve the graphical fidelity of the game. Improving the rendering quality of the 3d models, on the other hand, will.

I knew console gamers didn't know much about hardware and specs, but gosh, this is egregious.

So you just reiterated what I've been saying? Uhhhh, okay.....

Also, I have a 4k tv but I don't use it for gaming, soooo.....

@gamingpcgod: But...but....it's moar pixels brah.

I play pong at 4K, it looks badass!

Sounds like a good idea. 4K gaming needs a lot of power. They should focus more on graphics than resolution.

No I've seen people saying lol it's not even 4k, it only has higher textures.

@gamingpcgod: I'm sorry, but supersampling is only a brute force AA method. Your 3D models don't get enhanced, nor more complicated. Downscaling from 4k to 1080p doesn't look better than playing a game in 4k on a 4k screen, period.

Wrong. Supersampling, unlike other AA methods like Multisampling, not only increase smoothness of the outlines of 3d models but also increases the INTERNAL resolution and smoothness of the 3d model themselves. Now, things differ from game to game (some use OGSSAA while others use SGSSAA), but generally this gives the 3d models a more detailed look. It increases the detail of 3d objects and then scales them down to the screen resolution.

Regular resolution only increases display resolution. It doesn't decrease the jaginness of 3d objects internally or on their edges, it simply displays the image as is at a higher resolution.

High display resolution won't fix jagged edges, low model resolution (For example, if you were to look at a rock in BF4 at 100% SS, you'd notice that it contains pixels, like a picture. However, increase it to 200% and the rock crevices actually look like rock crevices, not pixels), or poor model details. It simply makes what is already given to it by the GPU clearer.

Yeah man whatever, keep enjoying your 1080p laptop :)

Ahhh, the little console lem doesn't understand graphical settings.

Also, as I previously mentioned, I have a 60 inch 4K TV, but I rarely use it. And my "1080 laptop" has the capability to broadcast games at 4k onto 4k screens. So yeah, unlike the shitbox one x, I actually have options.

Also, unlike MS who's lying their asses off about the XB1X, I can actually play games at 4k 60fps

Ahhh, keep living in your fantasy world my friend and maybe go read about resolutions for a bit :) I have a 65" 4k TV BTW and play games at a higher resolution on my consoles than you play on your laptop :)

HAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHA.

Like I said, I don't give a rat's ass about display resolution. It's utterly irrelevant to me, since it doesn't even make the game look better unless you have a large tv screen. I COULD play it on my 60', but I CHOOSE not to.

But nonetheless, of course you have to play them at a higher res, YOU PLAY ON A BIGGER SCREEN (4 times bigger, to be exact). However, you actually play at a lower image quality, because if you haven't notice, you're increasing your screen size by 4 fold but only doubling the resolution.

And unless you play Forza at max settings at 4k resolution with 8x Supersampling at 60 fps, you don't, and you're not touching me. Even the shitbox one x will only be the equivalent of high PC settings, and still won't be able to run demanding AAA games at 60 fps at 4K.

For crying out loud, you don't even understand what Resolution Scaling is.

1. Supersampling is essentially the same exact thing as running 4K in DSR or VSR mode on a 1080p screen. OP makes no sense.

2. X1X has system-level supersampling.

3. High res textures often have the most visual impact, and X1X has 6-7GB VRAM. More than enough for any current game at 4k.

They do both. They always have. Resolution just gets talked about more because consumers are more aware of the resolution of their TV screen.

Rendering techniques aren't something you can just advanced by throwing more money at either. The people who are coming up with the new rendering algorithms and techniques are the elite tier of programmers in that field. They are people who are extremely talented at math and physics with a deep understanding about how our rendering hardware works and how to get the most out of it. GPUs also are a bottleneck there as they too have to improve to allow for different types of operations to be done on the data that can then be used for higher fidelity graphics. Basically you can't just throw more money at this and expect a quicker turnaround on these tech advances. These people can only work so much and are already some of the highest paid and most sought after people in the industry. Talented graphic programmers who are creating more advanced rendering techniques are the people with some of the most secure jobs in the industry.

There's also the labor bottleneck. Real-time graphics have gotten damn good but it's very expensive to build a full bodied, AAA level game to that fidelity. It's not just lighting, shading, and amount of polygons that can be render, these games also need to have amazing animations as so objects don't feel out of place. It takes a lot of time and effort to create that kind of fidelity on any sort of a scale, so developers aren't always pushing for the photorealistic fidelity levels simply because their game would never get released.

Things improve on this front each year as developers spend time developing new R&D tools that automate large processes for them, but that takes additional time and most developers have a strict budget and deadline to meet so they often rely on tried and true methods of developing content rather than delaying the project so that they can more easily put out volumes of higher fidelity content. Star Citizen is what you get when you basically let your developers tackle every single problem with new tech solutions. Sure the end result takes should look amazing, but the amount of time it takes to develop is unacceptable for your average project.

Because they are trying to deceive console plebs into thinking they are getting cutting edge tech when in reality they are getting outdated PC tech. A lot of my console pleb friends were thinking PS4 Pro and X1X were next-gen cutting edge tech until I explained to them the reality of the tech behind them and how trash their hardware was. Buzzwords like "True 4K" "highest quality pixels" and all that garbage sounds new and exciting to people that don't know anything about hardware. TFLOP numbers are also another way they use to deceive simpletons. You see it here on this forum even, silly console plebs talking about TFLOPS and comparing their shitty AMD GPUs to high-end Nvidia cards without realizing their architectures are different and that TFLOPS don't mean shit when you have a slow garbage architecture.

Our system is 8-bit.

Our system is 16-bit.

Our system is 64-bit.

Our system is 128-bit.

Our system is 720p 4xAA

Our system is 1080p.

Our system is 4K.

Our system uses blast processing.

Our system has super scaling.

Our system has emotion engine.

Our system uses Cell technology.

All of a sudden using technology as a marketing device is some new thing that only MSoft has done.

Idiocy and lack of understanding history at its finest.

Well **** me, I have no words. I bet you have seen your friend play Xbox One S games upscaled to 4k and mix things up right now. Go ahead, plug your laptop into your TV, choose the native res of that TV (which would be 4k). Pick your game and change the games rendering resolution to 4k and tell me that doesn't look better than playing games in 1080p. 4k screens have 8,294,400 pixels, 1080p screens have 2,073,600 pixels, the amount of pixels don't change with the screen size. Changing a games internal rendering resolution to 4k affects everything, downscaling it to 1080p doesn't improve textures, 3d models or anything.

Edit: Worded that one part weirdly, it doesn't affect texture resolution and some games have options to scale the effects resolution as well etc etc etc.

@gamecubepad:

1. I've explained on multiple occasions that the game does both improving the image resolution while improving rendering details. If you can't understand that, I don't know what to tell you

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LpajVt2fsog

Go to 1:31 (100%) and then go to 1:38 (200%). The crevices in the chair are more detailed and sharper, you can actually notice the fibers on the pillow, the player's skin is more realistic, you can actually notice the patterns in the cushions, and most of all, the models are clearer.

2. Proof, or I'm calling BS.

3. Proof, or I'm calling BS. In fact, from what I've seen they've said NOTHING of the amount of VRam, which means you most likely just made that up.

And anyways, the quality of the GPU is more important than how much VRam it has anyways. That's why a 1060 3gb can get you 20 more frames than a 1050ti.

You'd see all that from a 4k screen too...

@Epak_: Read my post.

Like I said, I don't give a rat's ass about display resolution. It's utterly irrelevant to me, since it doesn't even make the game look better unless you have a large tv screen. I COULD play it on my 60', but I CHOOSE not to.

It only improves quality IF YOU HAVE A LARGE ENOUGH SCREEN. You're damn right it looks clearer on a 60'+. However, on something like a 25' monitor - let alone a 15.6 inch - you won't notice ANY difference. Shoot, on my old 45 inch, I couldn't notice any different between 1440p and 4K. IIRC, most tvs are in between 37' and 47' inches. Most people aren't gaming on 60' tvs like us, so for them, they aren't going to notice much of a difference

Yes, I'm one of those weirdos who actually prefers gaming on his small monitor; it's easier to keep track of everything going on, especially when I'm playing a FPS or FIFA (I typically play Forza on my tv though).

However, like I've said for the 100th time, improving resolution DOESN'T MAKE THE GAME MORE DETAILED. Go watch a CoD 4 at 4k gameplay on youtube. Yeah, it sure does look sharper, but it still looks like shit (though they were pretty good for their time). It simply makes the shitty graphics simply clearer.

Are you going to really sit here and tell me that this game looks any damn better simply because it's in 4k? No, it still looks like crap. And that's my point, 4k actually won't make the game look realer, simply clearer (and even then it's pretty negligible).

Nonetheless, SS is only one of the many ways to increase graphic fidelity. Consoles are not making much strives in other areas to improve the look of their graphics, and instead are focusing on "4K". THAT'S my main point. They prioritize clarity over fidelity, despite the fact that a) they will only be able to run 4k games at about 30-45 fps and b) most people don't even have big enough tvs to really take advantage of it.

OMFG.

This is the very last time I'm going to explain this.

No, no you wouldn't, because if your GPU doesn't render the models at a greater detail - like it's doing in the BF4 video above - then it won't matter how high the damn resolution is. DISPLAY resolution simply DISPLAYS the video at a particular resolution. Supersampling, which is basically a more detailed version of multisampling, RENDERS the 3d models at a particular resolution.

Do you know what Anti-Aliasing is? It smooths out the jaggedness of edges on 3d objects. Do you know what Supersampling anti-aliasing does? It smooths out the jaggedness of edges on 3d objects WHILE rendering the INSIDE models at a higher resolution.

Do you know what display resolution is? It simply DISPLAYS THE VIDEO at a particular resolution. It, however, is incapable of fixing jagged edges and low 3d modeling details.

Display resolution =/= render resolution.

Tell me this: will rendering CoD 4 at 10k make the game look like BF1?

Lol when PS4 and X1 first released "lol xbox at 900p." "Lol 720p box."

Now that X1X can do native 4K

" Who cares about resolution!!" "Wahhh" "it's all marketing bs!!!" Lol I hate cows.

Because casuals don't understand that fps/smoothness > resolution.

@gamingpcgod: There are separate settings for texture detail, drawing distance, lod etc. They are there for a reason, if you put everything to the lowest possible value and bump up that resolution scaler to 200%, does it affect the texture work and other settings? If it does it does more than run the game at a higher internal resolution (supersampling).

Increased graphical fidelity comes from higher resolution textures, more complex lighting, more complex modeling of 3D objects etc etc. You're right in that part that a shitty game in 4k is still going to looks shitty, but it would look just as shitty if it was being played using a 1080p monitor and downscaling from 4k.

I remember one guy here who argued that we'd already be playing CGI level games if we only stayed at some ridiculously low resolution. There's no point in improving texture quality ect, if you can't see the improvements due to the shitty rendering resolution.

+1