The resolution of games doesn’t really matter to me as much as frame rate issues. As long as a game runs consistently smoothly and doesn’t get that laggy effect, I’m not sure that I can always pinpoint exactly what resolution I’m watching. It’s a big debate in gaming, mainly as part of the console war, and Far Cry 4’s creative director doesn’t care about it.
Speaking to OXM, Far Cry 4 creative director Alex Hutchinson explained that he thinks it’s weird that people are happy to play a cool retro pixel game, but still rage on the internet about resolution. He believes that people have already secretly stopped obsessing over fidelity, that it’s not so much about the graphics but about comparing consoles now:
It’s a rare question for you to ask now about resolution or something. It’s [only brought up] because of the disparity, the idea that one version is being held back. I don’t think that has sold consoles for a while now.
Instead of focusing on gadgets and technology, Hutchinson believes that game makers need to keep their attention on the experience that they’re offering:
If our thing is ‘woo, the same exact thing you had before, at twice the resolution, instead of a new thing’… A new spin or an evolution, I think is much more interesting.
I have to say that I agree with Hutchinson on this. The early games in the generation were all focused on showing off just how pretty the new consoles are. Now we’re finally getting the point where developers can make use of the higher specs to change up gameplay and offer new experiences. That is what we should be focused on with the new consoles, but it’s way easier to compare graphics across consoles. Oh, and by the way, Far Cry 4 will be 1080p on both consoles at 30 fps.
Last Updated: October 28, 2014
Cadis Etrama Di Umar
October 28, 2014 at 09:08
Oh bull shit man……These companies made it about resolution. They made it about graphic fidelity, now that there’s all this parity arguments and backlashes, they want to take step back and divert the attention. As much I despise parity arguments and all this gate crap amongst gamers, they are the ones that pushed this front as well, especially at the start of this new generation….Are they not nauseous ? From all the spinning they do on the truth
Johan du Preez
October 28, 2014 at 10:57
YEs the entire marketing campaign around the next gen consoles ie Xbone and PS4 is that its “next gen” 1080p. Now that everyone realizes that they cant do 1080p on “next gen” consoles now it doesnt matter anymore.
And you still have the console scrubs thinking its as powerfull as a mid range pc. No its not a mid range pc, a mid range pc can run games at 1080p at high settings and this has been common place for the last 5 years.
The “next gen” consoles are as powerfull as computers that came out in 2011.
Ryanza
October 28, 2014 at 09:09
DRM doesn’t sell games yeah Ubisoft.
Travi the Batman
October 28, 2014 at 09:09
Well the huge AAA part of the industry was the reason we now crave for graphics. Remember those marketing terms in E3 like “a truly immersive graphical experience” and those Naughty Dog slides showing the amounts of polygons the previous generations had? You brought this on yourself, assholes.
Mark Treloar
October 28, 2014 at 09:36
You forgot to mention that Ubisoft themselves used a Superior Graphic representation to market Watch dogs.
OVG
October 28, 2014 at 10:11
Their marketing team must come from Apple. They know we have a memory span of Goldfish but are rather surprised that gamers have an extra 3 seconds.
OVG
October 28, 2014 at 10:13
CLEVER, Get the Pre-Orders from lies 2 years prior.
Remember, only gamers pay for shit that does not exist let alone broken products.
Hammersteyn
October 28, 2014 at 09:17
Just shut your mouth Ubisoft. Seriously shut the hell up before I cancel my preorder.
CAE9872
October 28, 2014 at 09:17
LOL I must admit they could just shut up about it now…let it be yesterdays news!
OVG
October 28, 2014 at 09:31
Do they not see the negative spin that they have been creating every time they make a statement the last month. Did these marketing car salesmen leave Microsoft only to work at U-no play soft?
Hammersteyn
October 28, 2014 at 09:36
They are already picking up shit for forcing their own game client on PC gamers, now that they alienated them it’s time to focus on console gamers it seems.
OVG
October 28, 2014 at 09:47
Ya, I just read the hateful thread on N4G under Watchdogs gets PC visual upgrade lol.
Copying what the Mods managed to do but the thread is more about the game being fcking BORING.
CAE9872
October 28, 2014 at 09:17
I agree – 1080p doesn’t sell consoles! Very nice to have I am sure, but to say “I desperately want to play X but it isn’t 1080p so no go” seems daft to me.
Hammersteyn
October 28, 2014 at 09:19
I don’t care about how many peas I get served. But if they keep on talking about it then I can’t really ignore it can I?
Skoobaz
October 28, 2014 at 09:30
This!
OVG
October 28, 2014 at 09:37
I played some Last of Us Last night. BOY does it make the rest of the library look like SHIT PANCAKES.
Even after 40hours of Shadow of Mordor that runs at around 40fps. I could not believe HOW FCKING SICK 60FPS really is.
Mordor looks fantastic at 1080p and the new GTAV will make every gamer never ever want to go back to 720p.
The Bar has been set. They either follow when all casual gamers finally become aware of by simple sight or they drop behind.
Its 2014 people. These games should be in fcuking 4K.
1080P/60fps is so 2007.
CAE9872
October 28, 2014 at 09:40
I agree that developers should stretch themselves – we all like pretty pictures. BUT to say you won’t play x because it doesn’t have 1080p doesn’t make sense either. Not if it is something you want to play. PC guys obviously dont have that issue much.
OVG
October 28, 2014 at 09:42
I payed lots of money for NEXT GEN, so I expect 1080p/60fps as the minimal standard.
I will not buy 720p/30fps games even if it is GOTY. Unless I dust off my 360.
Admiral Chief 0
October 28, 2014 at 09:46
I can see you have some average to strong feelings about this
OVG
October 28, 2014 at 09:52
VERY. After the lies about the 7th gen being HD NATIVE 60fps/1080p on your BRAND SPANKING NEW SONY BRAVIA only to see the dumb gamer allow the industry to take 2 steps back because they do not know the difference yet they all bought WIDE SCREEN TVs in 2008 and let the industry stagnate thanks to getting away with half the production costs.
The same will happen this gen if we allow Ubisoft to sprout that bollocks.
Admiral Chief 0
October 28, 2014 at 10:08
Dude, when I get a snotload of moolah (soon!) I will send you a gaming PC so that you can experience 4k glory!
Sentient Slug
October 28, 2014 at 22:12
Salute admiral!
CAE9872
October 28, 2014 at 09:51
Fair enough – not for me to say what you should be comfortable with. Obviously I think about it differently – I agree that 1080 should be the minimum goal, but for whatever reason, developers are struggling to attain that consistently across both platforms for whatever reason.
I am no developer so not sure if you taketh from here it implciates something over there e.g. if I put resources into say AI does that compromise my power in graphics (I would think so but I am clueless on stuff like this).
OVG
October 28, 2014 at 09:58
THE WITCHER 3 BABY!!!!!
As I have been sprouting about for the last 2 years will mark the start of the next gen. That game should sell 5million and every gamer will expect that quality 1080p from now on.
A small studio in Poland can do it so Im sure Ubisoft can do it for Assassins Creed. They just want to save money.
Ryanza
October 28, 2014 at 10:08
The Witcher 3 is not going to be 1080p on consoles. But that’s not finial word yet. Last I heard it was 900p PS4 and 720p Xbox One. But they still optimizing. So maybe. But open world games tends not to be 1080p on consoles.
But with The Witcher 3 we will find out what these consoles are purely made of.
OVG
October 28, 2014 at 10:18
After GTAV they are going to be hard pushed to present 1080p. But alas they dont have the budget like ROCKSTAR or KONAMI.
Besides, it was the Master Race that placed CD Projekt Red on the map so they deserve NEXT GEN quality more than the Fisher Price Consoles 🙂
Ryanza
October 28, 2014 at 10:27
GTA 5 was built for last gen consoles. That’s the only reason why it can do 1080p. I bet the next GTA game won’t hit 1080p on current gen consoles.
OVG
October 28, 2014 at 10:32
Makes sense. That’s the reason why all the remakes and remasters like METRO REDUX, TOMB RAIDER, DIABLLO 3, TLOU, Rayman, are 1080p/60fps.
I think the remakes have shot the start of the 8th gen in the foot.
BUT KONAMI will prove otherwise.
CAE9872
October 28, 2014 at 10:20
You’re Ryanza in disguise aren’t you :).
I hope you right and this becomes (should become) a non-issue down the line. Rather tiring to have it brought up all the time when should be a non-issue i.e. your standard BEING the standard!
OVG
October 28, 2014 at 10:23
The game will replace my Viagra subscription.
Ryanza
October 28, 2014 at 10:25
I wonder if Triss is going to do another Playboy cover shoot.
http://s2.n4g.com/media/11/news/755000/757750_0.jpg
OVG
October 28, 2014 at 10:27
You just cast Aard on my crotch.
Admiral Chief 0
October 28, 2014 at 10:35
XD
Basiclife1
September 23, 2015 at 21:54
“but for whatever reason, developers are struggling to attain that consistently”
In a word, hardware.
There are some really talented game devs doing everything possible to squeeze the last ounce of performance from the consoles, but at the end of the day, it’s budget hardware from a couple of years ago.
I can understand why they do it (keeping prices reasonable, easier to source, etc…) but it’s still a hard limitation.
Sentient Slug
October 28, 2014 at 22:16
Stop squinting at your TV. Play the games, enjoy the games, peace be with you young one.
Sean Carbutt
October 28, 2014 at 10:09
You’re right but also wrong. I’m guessing that you have never nor will never play that other shitty game, Borderlands? That puppy aint running on 1080, yet it is arguably, one of the best, dodgy graphics games ever made. Personally, I will gladly have lower graphics provided that the games story and or gameplay is good. It’s pointless having awesome graphics but a shit story or gameplay.
Admiral Chief 0
October 28, 2014 at 10:21
Why, pray tell, do you refer to BL as shitty?
OVG
October 28, 2014 at 10:21
What do you mean. Borderlands is one of the best games that I own on current gen consoles (the 360 is current gen as games are still being made for it)
Its just not a next gen game. I did not pay R7000 to play 30fps/720p on the PS4. Thats for my 360.
Unwittingnemesis
October 31, 2014 at 20:07
You should see it at 4K…it literally looks like animation. Still, beyond its impressive art and style, it isn’t graphically impressive. See Crysis 3 or even Battlefield 4 as competitors.
Sentient Slug
October 28, 2014 at 22:10
Please stop telling people you can see the difference between 40 and 60 frames a sec. Please. You are starting to sound like a Muppet. Please.
OVG
October 29, 2014 at 08:48
OK. Feel the difference? because the settings in The Last of Us remastered that allow you to flip between 30 and 60 is a perfect experiment. CHALK AND FCKING CHEESE.
Alien Emperor Trevor
October 28, 2014 at 09:18
I haven’t forgotten how the new consoles were marketed and how they built the hype around games hitting that magical mark all the time – it was a major selling point. Now you’ve had to scale back from those earlier statements & suddenly it doesn’t matter anymore and it’s “silly”. Sigh. I don’t really care all that much, but don’t tell people it wasn’t a big thing anyway after the fact. It was all you could talk about. Corporate BS FTW!
Again Ubisoft, just… shut up. You’re not helping.
Ryanza
October 28, 2014 at 09:22
Since Xbox 360 and PS3, Microsoft and Sony has been using 1080p to sell consoles. Is it so hard to see that people are actually expecting those 1080p games.
Alien Emperor Trevor
October 28, 2014 at 09:24
Yes. You’re being a whiny, unreasonable, entitled gamer. Apparently.
Ryanza
October 28, 2014 at 10:01
I used to be a gamer who bought games to try them out. Now that I game on the PC and can’t sell the games I buy. I wait for publishers and developers to get it right. Like CD Projekt RED. They learnt from their DRM mistake with The Witcher 2 and now we getting the perfect PC launch with The Witcher 3.
So fuck these publishers and developers who feel we owe it to them to buy their shitty games. I’ll for The Witcher 3 and Cyberpunk 2077 and be happy.
If the goal is to get more people buying games then they doing a bad job at it.
Unwittingnemesis
October 31, 2014 at 20:05
…don’t buy games at full price. Wait a month or two and snag them at $30 or lower.
OVG
October 28, 2014 at 09:26
What they mean is, 1080p does not sell well to the Financial Managers.
They should give Monolith Productions a ring.
OVG
October 28, 2014 at 09:29
This is coming from a company who said gamers do not know what they want and that U-Play is the future.
Mark Treloar
October 28, 2014 at 09:34
So here’s the thing. Play Destiny on PS3 the switch to PS4 and if you can tell me you would still keep the PS3 version you started with over the PS4 I will consider your argument valid.
James Anderton
October 28, 2014 at 09:39
Please stop Ubi, you’re making my brain hurt.
It’s like they treat us as if we have the memories of goldfish or something.
Rags
October 28, 2014 at 09:42
30fps is more of an issue. That’s unplayable as a fps.
OVG
October 28, 2014 at 10:02
Metal Gear Solid V will set the bar for open worlds.
Unwittingnemesis
October 31, 2014 at 20:05
Tell that to the year 2000…(they’ve been cheating console gamers since then, if not sooner).
Sir Rants A Lot Llew
October 28, 2014 at 09:54
Ok, let’s be fair here, on a console an upscaled 900p or whatever image is pretty close to 1080 and you would battle to see the difference. However, with 4k quickly becoming a standard I doubt a 900p image upscaled to 1080 then displayed on a 4k screen is going to look amazing.
Now while resolution is not everything in a game and you can make a game look amazing even on 720p and still have the best fun you’ve ever had, stating that resolution absolutely doesn’t affect sales is a very bad move.
If that is your marketing strat then you are going to battle. Resolution means a lot to people if they want to move over to next gen.
That being said many gamers will still take a 720p game at 60FPS over a 1080p game at 30FPS for smoothness reasons.
Stating that you are more invested in a smooth gameplay at a constant framerate and that resolution means nothing while having FC4 at 1080p at 30FPS is rather hypocritical don’t you think? Seriously. If you are going to spew things then at least follow through with it. Let’s see FC4 at 720p and 60FPS or I am going to call BS and still believe you think resolution is everything because that’s what you are releasing
Also I have no idea where I am going with this rant
OVG
October 28, 2014 at 10:08
Hear hear.
Give it 8 years before 4K becomes standard.
As you say. Frame Rate should always be before resolution. Especially FPS games. But Im sure the Destiny fans will tell you otherwise. The Developers are laughing to the bank as nobody has noticed that COD has a fantastic 60fps the last 7 years while a 500million gazilliion budget FPS is running at 30fps.
If we dont speak up then expect the shortcuts to start happening more and more.
Unwittingnemesis
October 31, 2014 at 20:04
…no. Well, and yes (I agree with your frame rate statements).
You won’t have 4K rendering on consoles for another decade, if not two (more likely). PC gamers are now rendering nearly all games at (at least) 4K, thanks to DSR (4K panel or not, the difference above “standard” 1080p is jaw-dropping).
Admiral Chief 0
October 28, 2014 at 10:09
tl;dfr
Unwittingnemesis
October 31, 2014 at 20:02
Perfectly stated.
Johan du Preez
October 28, 2014 at 11:08
1080p have 23% more pixels. There is no way it looks “pretty close”, its cool if you trying to justify it to yourself but anyone looking at 900p next to 1080p will see a huge difference.
You sound like ubisoft now.
Sir Rants A Lot Llew
October 28, 2014 at 14:04
As I said, once upscaled you don’t recognise the difference straight away as the image “looks like” it’s native to the screen. On a console you don’t get that telltale “fuzz” you get when you take, for example a 720p resolution on PC and display it on a 1080p monitor. That “fuzz” is less prevalent.
Yes you will instantly see the difference when putting a lower res image next to a high res one in regards to amount of info displayed on screen. My point is that an upscaled image on a console specifically isn’t so bad as the same thing on a PC.
Unwittingnemesis
October 31, 2014 at 20:02
The difference between 900p and 1080p isn’t substantial. 720p to 1080p, yes. 1080p to 2160p? Life-changing. 🙂 Too bad console gamers won’t have 2160p rendering for at least another decade, if not two.
Rock789
October 28, 2014 at 10:26
To this I simply say “Oh dear”…
Seriously, can’t they move on from ‘resoultiongate’ already?! If the game looks good, plays great and you enjoy it, who cares if it’s 1080p or not? Just enjoy the game.
But 1 thing – developers, don’t lie about your game! Seriously – showing us an amazing looking E3 presentation of ‘gameplay footage’ only for the actual game to be dumbed down is WAY below the belt (looking at you, Ubisoft!) – that sh%t is not on!!
Unwittingnemesis
October 31, 2014 at 20:01
Everyone cares. That’s why resolution and frame rate are always the main two points of discussion with practically every game hitting the market this “generation.”
house_hero
October 28, 2014 at 11:30
1080p isn’t a deal maker / breaker for me, but after playing 720p games the whole of last gen, I would prefer my titles to be full HD. (even though there is some compromise on titles with 900p)… Basically what I’m trying to say is I would prefer 1080p titles but not at the expense of performance problems.
Unwittingnemesis
October 31, 2014 at 20:01
Make sure you never expose yourself to 4K rendering; you’ll never want to see “Full HD” again.
house_hero
November 4, 2014 at 09:54
the beauty and splendor of 4K rendering cannot be unseen…
Galbedir
October 28, 2014 at 14:12
Personally, I just don’t buy Ubisoft games because of Uplay, stop trying to force it on people, Steam beat you to it. Just let me use Steam and ill start buying Ubisoft games again
HisDivineOrder
October 28, 2014 at 15:13
Remember last year when Ubisoft was bragging about resolution? About framerate? This year, they ran into the wall of these consoles and suddenly they’ve decided those things don’t matter? Not because they actually matter less but because they HAVE NO CHOICE.
The consoles and their netbook CPU with 7790-esque GPU cannot do more. What do you want from them? Microsoft and Sony led the first new series of consoles with modern 3d graphics hardware that were worse than the equivalent gaming PC at the same time as launch. Usually, “modern” consoles launch, are about six months more advanced than the latest GPU from nVidia or AMD, then PC gaming catches up and eventually beats them in six months to a year.
Not this time. This time, PC gaming was way ahead of consoles even before they launched and are so far ahead now it’s practically a joke. It’s not because PC gaming graphics were just launching fast and furious, either. The PC graphics market has mostly stagnated due to AMD’s reluctance to release actual new product or even, in fact, R&D new architectures for CPU or GPU. I suppose when you fire most of your engineers, a lot of your marketing department, sell all your buildings, and focus on rebrands and cheap bundles, you don’t have a lot of room for R&D, which is born out in their financials, too.
As a result, PC graphics are stagnating, yet worlds ahead of the consoles that launched. So who’s to blame? AMD for supplying the netbook-class CPU and 7790-esque graphics? Or Microsoft and Sony for wanting to cheap out on the hardware to ensure they didn’t lose money out the gate this gen so much so that they released hardware simply incapable of giving people 1080p 60fps gaming reliably unless you downgrade all the effects to the same level as last gen?
I think a little blame has to go around to everyone. Microsoft, Sony, AMD, and the early adopters who lapped it all up. You all contributed to perpetuating the crapfest that are these underpowered consoles.
You can make it up to the gaming world as a whole by selling your consoles on ebay, using the money to build a gaming PC, and joining the growing number of gamers weary of sub-720p, sub-30fps gaming who enjoy 1080p+ 60fps+ gaming on a regular basis.
PC gaming is waiting for you if you can acknowledge your mistake and eat humble pie while putting a few things on ebay. Before you think you’re ripping THEM off, know that you will be essentially teaching THEM the same lesson you’ve already learned at a somewhat reduced price and taking a sale away from Sony and/or Microsoft to help THEM too realize the truth about how inadequate their current consoles are.
Win-win-win.
Unwittingnemesis
October 31, 2014 at 19:59
My priority as this moment is a CPU substantially faster than a 2500K (within the same price range). We still don’t have it. 🙂
Unwittingnemesis
October 31, 2014 at 19:54
You know, this sellout (excuse me…Hutchinson) may be on to something, here…given that 1080p has been standard in PCLand since around 2007 (if not sooner), I personally don’t care about a game rendered at 1080p. I haven’t for some time, given that I’ve been rendering games at 2160p and downscaling to 1080p for around two years, and with DSR now making it an option for virtually every game on the market, it couldn’t be easier.
This sellout (eh hemm…Hutchinson) is absolutely right. I don’t care about 1080p-rendered graphics, nor would I buy a game simply for 1080p-rendered graphics.
Sellout.
Unwittingnemesis
October 31, 2014 at 19:56
Um…didn’t they already confirm that they’re 900p/30 or lower on consoles (at “PC ultra-high,” of course)?
Unwittingnemesis
October 31, 2014 at 19:59
By the way, how much VRAM will this game require on “ultra-high” (a.k.a. “medium-low,” as it used to be known) at 2160p? 32 GB, give or take?
Mike J Pitts
November 14, 2014 at 02:14
I call BS espically when it comes to their Montreal studio (they do AC and FarCry) these games are frame rate nightmares. While pics of them look good, in motion they can look bad. Yea a lot of it has to de with gamers wanting over done detail for no reason. Things can still look great on the new system’s without having to add every tiny detail they can squeeze in, despite not being a big deal. Instead they need to lay off and run these at 60 to 40 fps (NOTHING UNDER) FRAME RATE, makes decent detailed games look fantastic! Uncharted 2 not that detailed as some would think, looks fantastic! Same with older MWs not vary detailed, just seems so clear though in motion.
Ryan
November 15, 2014 at 21:26
Yet this game is 1080p 30 and not 720p 60 like it should be…
Good thing my Gtx 970 came with Far Cry 4. Not interested in playing a 30fps shooter on the Peasant Station 4.
Jeremy Freeman
November 18, 2014 at 16:05
Well gee that’s funny if resolutions doesn’t matter lets just keep playing on our old PS3/360. And not read all the forums about game resolution, scattered ALL OVER the internet. Lets just get rid of our great new full HD LED TV’s as well. Technology is about advancement. And resolutions, with nice shiny graphics is a part of that. Why have 4K!!? I love how these companies talk about how it doesn’t matter, yet reviewers all go on about how the game is gorgeous, especially if it runs great. And they no longer review last gen games. These guys are morons and they know it. AC Unity looks amazing, and you think people don’t care that it does??? Then why didn’t they make it for last gen. Oh wait they got rogue, which still looks and plays great. But how does it stack up against Unity? It doesn’t, graphically speaking.