Fast Racing Neo. Dosent this have a thread!?!

BobSilencieux

Well-Known Member
Well, I finished with this game. I wasn't going to bother with Hypersonic, but I was tempted and it turned out to be easier than Supersonic, so go figure. Overall, I think it's a big steaming turd of a game, fundamentally broken and unbelievably stupid, and I'm so annoyed because Shin'en have clearly got an incredible level of technical expertise... it's just a massive shame that the gameplay is such fucking trash. It's stupid, it's not fun, it's borderline unplayable, it doesn't follow its own rules, it disproves its own design ethos, and it doesn't make any sense.

So, number one, it's too fast. Even on Subsonic, it only really works when you're on a straight. It's great eye candy and super-impressive on a technical level to see the world stretch as it zooms past you at unfathomable speeds, but you certainly can't control a vehicle on a circuit at those speeds, especially not one of these boats. [Number two, the controls are horrible.] I guess they were going for wipEout-style floatiness, but they missed that ambitious target by some distance, and ended up delivering horribly inconsistent and unintuitive "steering." The third cup, Titanium Cup, is where it really hit home for me. The second track is extremely narrow, and you soon learn that, actually, the fastest way to get around the track is just to boost and not bother trying to steer. Just bash off the barriers all the way through the last section of the lap, because there is a 0.001% chance that any human on the planet, at these speeds and with these boat-like controls, could do a better job by trying to actually stay away from the barriers. And then what do they follow that up with? Oh yeah, a track with no fucking barriers. Seriously, this is one of the stupidest game design decisions in recent memory. Prove to your players that it's near-impossible to get through a race without hitting the barriers, then with the next track, take away the friggin barriers. Holy shit.

Oh and by the way, why is the 3rd of 4 cups by far the hardest? And why is the 2nd of 3 speed settings also by far the hardest? And for that matter, why is the last track of a cup, the easiest track of the cup?? Difficulty.... progression? Is a thing?? Who knows?

The game seems to be designed for you to be able to win the cup without needing to win a single race - most of my gold trophies came at a price of about 30 to 35 out of a maximum 48 available points - but just very occasionally one of the AI racers will clock up 44 to your 40 points. Consistency in inconsistency, I guess?

Then there's the glitching. I have gone so fast that I fell through the track, and repeatedly crashed and exploded on nothing, in the middle of a clear track. It seems that it's not just the AI that can't handle the extreme speeds of the game, it's the damn game itself.

Oh well. Glad it's over. Normally I would only show the "highest difficulty" setting as proof of completion, but seeing as Supersonic was definitely actually harder than Hypersonic, here's all my golds from both:


 

Juegos

All mods go to heaven.
Moderator
Well, I finished with this game. I wasn't going to bother with Hypersonic, but I was tempted and it turned out to be easier than Supersonic, so go figure. Overall, I think it's a big steaming turd of a game, fundamentally broken and unbelievably stupid, and I'm so annoyed because Shin'en have clearly got an incredible level of technical expertise... it's just a massive shame that the gameplay is such fucking trash. It's stupid, it's not fun, it's borderline unplayable, it doesn't follow its own rules, it disproves its own design ethos, and it doesn't make any sense.

So, number one, it's too fast. Even on Subsonic, it only really works when you're on a straight. It's great eye candy and super-impressive on a technical level to see the world stretch as it zooms past you at unfathomable speeds, but you certainly can't control a vehicle on a circuit at those speeds, especially not one of these boats. [Number two, the controls are horrible.] I guess they were going for wipEout-style floatiness, but they missed that ambitious target by some distance, and ended up delivering horribly inconsistent and unintuitive "steering." The third cup, Titanium Cup, is where it really hit home for me. The second track is extremely narrow, and you soon learn that, actually, the fastest way to get around the track is just to boost and not bother trying to steer. Just bash off the barriers all the way through the last section of the lap, because there is a 0.001% chance that any human on the planet, at these speeds and with these boat-like controls, could do a better job by trying to actually stay away from the barriers. And then what do they follow that up with? Oh yeah, a track with no fucking barriers. Seriously, this is one of the stupidest game design decisions in recent memory. Prove to your players that it's near-impossible to get through a race without hitting the barriers, then with the next track, take away the friggin barriers. Holy shit.

Oh and by the way, why is the 3rd of 4 cups by far the hardest? And why is the 2nd of 3 speed settings also by far the hardest? And for that matter, why is the last track of a cup, the easiest track of the cup?? Difficulty.... progression? Is a thing?? Who knows?

The game seems to be designed for you to be able to win the cup without needing to win a single race - most of my gold trophies came at a price of about 30 to 35 out of a maximum 48 available points - but just very occasionally one of the AI racers will clock up 44 to your 40 points. Consistency in inconsistency, I guess?

Then there's the glitching. I have gone so fast that I fell through the track, and repeatedly crashed and exploded on nothing, in the middle of a clear track. It seems that it's not just the AI that can't handle the extreme speeds of the game, it's the damn game itself.

Oh well. Glad it's over. Normally I would only show the "highest difficulty" setting as proof of completion, but seeing as Supersonic was definitely actually harder than Hypersonic, here's all my golds from both:


Another game suffers the Wrath of Bob.
 

Goodtwin

Well-Known Member
Well, I finished with this game. I wasn't going to bother with Hypersonic, but I was tempted and it turned out to be easier than Supersonic, so go figure. Overall, I think it's a big steaming turd of a game, fundamentally broken and unbelievably stupid, and I'm so annoyed because Shin'en have clearly got an incredible level of technical expertise... it's just a massive shame that the gameplay is such fucking trash. It's stupid, it's not fun, it's borderline unplayable, it doesn't follow its own rules, it disproves its own design ethos, and it doesn't make any sense.

So, number one, it's too fast. Even on Subsonic, it only really works when you're on a straight. It's great eye candy and super-impressive on a technical level to see the world stretch as it zooms past you at unfathomable speeds, but you certainly can't control a vehicle on a circuit at those speeds, especially not one of these boats. [Number two, the controls are horrible.] I guess they were going for wipEout-style floatiness, but they missed that ambitious target by some distance, and ended up delivering horribly inconsistent and unintuitive "steering." The third cup, Titanium Cup, is where it really hit home for me. The second track is extremely narrow, and you soon learn that, actually, the fastest way to get around the track is just to boost and not bother trying to steer. Just bash off the barriers all the way through the last section of the lap, because there is a 0.001% chance that any human on the planet, at these speeds and with these boat-like controls, could do a better job by trying to actually stay away from the barriers. And then what do they follow that up with? Oh yeah, a track with no fucking barriers. Seriously, this is one of the stupidest game design decisions in recent memory. Prove to your players that it's near-impossible to get through a race without hitting the barriers, then with the next track, take away the friggin barriers. Holy shit.

Oh and by the way, why is the 3rd of 4 cups by far the hardest? And why is the 2nd of 3 speed settings also by far the hardest? And for that matter, why is the last track of a cup, the easiest track of the cup?? Difficulty.... progression? Is a thing?? Who knows?

The game seems to be designed for you to be able to win the cup without needing to win a single race - most of my gold trophies came at a price of about 30 to 35 out of a maximum 48 available points - but just very occasionally one of the AI racers will clock up 44 to your 40 points. Consistency in inconsistency, I guess?

Then there's the glitching. I have gone so fast that I fell through the track, and repeatedly crashed and exploded on nothing, in the middle of a clear track. It seems that it's not just the AI that can't handle the extreme speeds of the game, it's the damn game itself.

Oh well. Glad it's over. Normally I would only show the "highest difficulty" setting as proof of completion, but seeing as Supersonic was definitely actually harder than Hypersonic, here's all my golds from both:


I unfriend you....:p

Sent from my SM-G360V using Tapatalk
 
Well, I finished with this game. I wasn't going to bother with Hypersonic, but I was tempted and it turned out to be easier than Supersonic, so go figure. Overall, I think it's a big steaming turd of a game, fundamentally broken and unbelievably stupid, and I'm so annoyed because Shin'en have clearly got an incredible level of technical expertise... it's just a massive shame that the gameplay is such fucking trash. It's stupid, it's not fun, it's borderline unplayable, it doesn't follow its own rules, it disproves its own design ethos, and it doesn't make any sense.

So, number one, it's too fast. Even on Subsonic, it only really works when you're on a straight. It's great eye candy and super-impressive on a technical level to see the world stretch as it zooms past you at unfathomable speeds, but you certainly can't control a vehicle on a circuit at those speeds, especially not one of these boats. [Number two, the controls are horrible.] I guess they were going for wipEout-style floatiness, but they missed that ambitious target by some distance, and ended up delivering horribly inconsistent and unintuitive "steering." The third cup, Titanium Cup, is where it really hit home for me. The second track is extremely narrow, and you soon learn that, actually, the fastest way to get around the track is just to boost and not bother trying to steer. Just bash off the barriers all the way through the last section of the lap, because there is a 0.001% chance that any human on the planet, at these speeds and with these boat-like controls, could do a better job by trying to actually stay away from the barriers. And then what do they follow that up with? Oh yeah, a track with no fucking barriers. Seriously, this is one of the stupidest game design decisions in recent memory. Prove to your players that it's near-impossible to get through a race without hitting the barriers, then with the next track, take away the friggin barriers. Holy shit.

Oh and by the way, why is the 3rd of 4 cups by far the hardest? And why is the 2nd of 3 speed settings also by far the hardest? And for that matter, why is the last track of a cup, the easiest track of the cup?? Difficulty.... progression? Is a thing?? Who knows?

The game seems to be designed for you to be able to win the cup without needing to win a single race - most of my gold trophies came at a price of about 30 to 35 out of a maximum 48 available points - but just very occasionally one of the AI racers will clock up 44 to your 40 points. Consistency in inconsistency, I guess?

Then there's the glitching. I have gone so fast that I fell through the track, and repeatedly crashed and exploded on nothing, in the middle of a clear track. It seems that it's not just the AI that can't handle the extreme speeds of the game, it's the damn game itself.

Oh well. Glad it's over. Normally I would only show the "highest difficulty" setting as proof of completion, but seeing as Supersonic was definitely actually harder than Hypersonic, here's all my golds from both:


another voice of reason
 

EvilTw1n

Even my henchmen think I'm crazy.
Moderator
Well, I finished with this game. I wasn't going to bother with Hypersonic, but I was tempted and it turned out to be easier than Supersonic, so go figure. Overall, I think it's a big steaming turd of a game, fundamentally broken and unbelievably stupid, and I'm so annoyed because Shin'en have clearly got an incredible level of technical expertise... it's just a massive shame that the gameplay is such fucking trash. It's stupid, it's not fun, it's borderline unplayable, it doesn't follow its own rules, it disproves its own design ethos, and it doesn't make any sense.

So, number one, it's too fast. Even on Subsonic, it only really works when you're on a straight. It's great eye candy and super-impressive on a technical level to see the world stretch as it zooms past you at unfathomable speeds, but you certainly can't control a vehicle on a circuit at those speeds, especially not one of these boats. [Number two, the controls are horrible.] I guess they were going for wipEout-style floatiness, but they missed that ambitious target by some distance, and ended up delivering horribly inconsistent and unintuitive "steering." The third cup, Titanium Cup, is where it really hit home for me. The second track is extremely narrow, and you soon learn that, actually, the fastest way to get around the track is just to boost and not bother trying to steer. Just bash off the barriers all the way through the last section of the lap, because there is a 0.001% chance that any human on the planet, at these speeds and with these boat-like controls, could do a better job by trying to actually stay away from the barriers. And then what do they follow that up with? Oh yeah, a track with no fucking barriers. Seriously, this is one of the stupidest game design decisions in recent memory. Prove to your players that it's near-impossible to get through a race without hitting the barriers, then with the next track, take away the friggin barriers. Holy shit.

Oh and by the way, why is the 3rd of 4 cups by far the hardest? And why is the 2nd of 3 speed settings also by far the hardest? And for that matter, why is the last track of a cup, the easiest track of the cup?? Difficulty.... progression? Is a thing?? Who knows?

The game seems to be designed for you to be able to win the cup without needing to win a single race - most of my gold trophies came at a price of about 30 to 35 out of a maximum 48 available points - but just very occasionally one of the AI racers will clock up 44 to your 40 points. Consistency in inconsistency, I guess?

Then there's the glitching. I have gone so fast that I fell through the track, and repeatedly crashed and exploded on nothing, in the middle of a clear track. It seems that it's not just the AI that can't handle the extreme speeds of the game, it's the damn game itself.

Oh well. Glad it's over. Normally I would only show the "highest difficulty" setting as proof of completion, but seeing as Supersonic was definitely actually harder than Hypersonic, here's all my golds from both:


Hell, I like the game for what it is (haven't ever glitched through a track), and I still agree with you.

There's a reason that I've pretty well stuck to playing online with @Goodtwin and @CitizenOfVerona at Sub-Sonic speeds - 'cause the game just isn't that fun when you go faster. The faster speeds are impressive as hell on a purely technical level, and maddening as hell on the user experience level.

At Sub-Sonic, the game makes some sense. You switch phases here and there, use boost balls, and use boost...and that's your tradeoff for the track design being what it is (you're responsible for other things instead of perfect braking zones and kissing apexes). But you up the speed in the next cups, and it all goes sideways. As you said, you aren't rewarded for hitting guide rails, so hit them...until the next race, where there are no rails and you have to hit sections nigh-on perfect. If you fall behind, eff it, 'cause everyone in front of you will be getting boost balls, so you're pretty much just hoping that the AI runs off the track and gives you a chance to get back onto the podium. The vehicles simply don't have the handling characteristics to deal with the speed, either. I get it that this is supposed to be a difficult game, and I'm sure there's some mad scientist in Shin'en who can play this game perfectly, but they might be the only one who can.

I gave up on the offline portion awhile ago, but it's still fun to play online with a few friends, imo. And I still have a soft spot for Shin'en due to the tech:
I have been thinking about Shin'ens choices the last couple days, and even crunching a few numbers in the process. Fast Racing Neo has a 640x720 resolution, essentially giving vertical resolution a true 720p, but horizontal resolution is cut in half from the typical 1280. This makes pixels twice as wide as a true 720p resolution. Now if we compare resolution to a common choice for COD on PS3/360, we see a 1024x600. This puts Fast Racing Neo at 25% less pixel density than COD on PS3/360. Significant, but not ridiculous. Now if we compare to Mario Kart 8 with its 1280x720 resolution, we see MK8 has a 49% pixel density advantage, pretty significant. The last comparison is going back to a typical Wii rendering resolution of 640x456, and we see Fast Racing Neo has a 37% greater pixel density than games like Metroid Prime Corruption and Mario Galaxy.

Im guessing Shin'en decided on the resolution they did was based on the fact that doubling pixel width makes scaling the image much cleaner. If your like me, you didnt immediately think you were looking at a low resolution image, and it took DF pointing it out for us to notice. When Shin'en said they were using some clever tricks to get it all working, I think this was one of them. It frees up massive amounts of cycles on the GPU, and allowed them to implement techniques pretty foreign to Wii U. Quality motion blur for example is a resource demanding effect, but they implemented it perfecting. I actually think this is why the image had an odd look to it, I wasnt use to seeing games with motion blur.

This brings me around to ET's point, if a small Indie developer can implement numerous effects that arent exactly run of the mill even on PS4 and X1, then I have to believe if developer took similar action, ports to Wii U would have been very possible. Not to mention proof that GPGPU compute can be done on Wii U. For those that dont know, compute doesnt steal resources from the graphics processing ability. GPU's are high latency chips, so they ship out large amounts of work all at once. Basically with GPU's always have cycles of down time, and by feeding them some general purpose work inbetween graphics processing cycles, your taking advantage of what would otherwise be cycles where the GPU sits idle. Some will cry foul on the idea of dropping to a 640x720 resolution these days, but again, how many people were talking about the lower resolution before DF mentioned it? Nobody, everybody was focused on how good it looked. Yes, there are some jaggies, but when a game goes this fast, and with the motion blur, I really don't notice it. Its hardly the same as playing Zelda TP on Wii, that was a jaggie mess by comparison. So at the end of the day I am pretty impressed with Shin'ens technical prowess, and knowing where and how to go about cutting corners. Best bang for the buck, and I think they did just that.
Bumping this since we were talking GPU compute elsewhere. I had forgotten that it snuck into FRN.
 

Goodtwin

Well-Known Member
No question Fast Racing Neo is a better technical showcase than a game. I stand by my opinion of it being a good game at subsonic speeds, but after that I agree with Bob. The blur combined with insane speeds make the game more of a guessing game than it should be. I enjoy it for what it is, and when the DLC tracks come out, I will give them a shot.

Sent from my SM-G360V using Tapatalk
 

GaemzDood

Well-Known Member
Well, I finished with this game. I wasn't going to bother with Hypersonic, but I was tempted and it turned out to be easier than Supersonic, so go figure. Overall, I think it's a big steaming turd of a game, fundamentally broken and unbelievably stupid, and I'm so annoyed because Shin'en have clearly got an incredible level of technical expertise... it's just a massive shame that the gameplay is such fucking trash. It's stupid, it's not fun, it's borderline unplayable, it doesn't follow its own rules, it disproves its own design ethos, and it doesn't make any sense.

So, number one, it's too fast. Even on Subsonic, it only really works when you're on a straight. It's great eye candy and super-impressive on a technical level to see the world stretch as it zooms past you at unfathomable speeds, but you certainly can't control a vehicle on a circuit at those speeds, especially not one of these boats. [Number two, the controls are horrible.] I guess they were going for wipEout-style floatiness, but they missed that ambitious target by some distance, and ended up delivering horribly inconsistent and unintuitive "steering." The third cup, Titanium Cup, is where it really hit home for me. The second track is extremely narrow, and you soon learn that, actually, the fastest way to get around the track is just to boost and not bother trying to steer. Just bash off the barriers all the way through the last section of the lap, because there is a 0.001% chance that any human on the planet, at these speeds and with these boat-like controls, could do a better job by trying to actually stay away from the barriers. And then what do they follow that up with? Oh yeah, a track with no fucking barriers. Seriously, this is one of the stupidest game design decisions in recent memory. Prove to your players that it's near-impossible to get through a race without hitting the barriers, then with the next track, take away the friggin barriers. Holy shit.

Oh and by the way, why is the 3rd of 4 cups by far the hardest? And why is the 2nd of 3 speed settings also by far the hardest? And for that matter, why is the last track of a cup, the easiest track of the cup?? Difficulty.... progression? Is a thing?? Who knows?

The game seems to be designed for you to be able to win the cup without needing to win a single race - most of my gold trophies came at a price of about 30 to 35 out of a maximum 48 available points - but just very occasionally one of the AI racers will clock up 44 to your 40 points. Consistency in inconsistency, I guess?

Then there's the glitching. I have gone so fast that I fell through the track, and repeatedly crashed and exploded on nothing, in the middle of a clear track. It seems that it's not just the AI that can't handle the extreme speeds of the game, it's the damn game itself.

Oh well. Glad it's over. Normally I would only show the "highest difficulty" setting as proof of completion, but seeing as Supersonic was definitely actually harder than Hypersonic, here's all my golds from both:


Redout is way better honestly. The only thing this game really has going for it is the lack of competition when it came out and the fact that they're using modern rendering tech at 60 FPS on a console with a mobile phone tier amount of usable memory bandwidth.

However, their push for lighting, post effects, and materials normally reserved for current generation hardware shows. The game uses an awful reprojection technique from 640x720p (basically, the game appears to render at 1280x720p, but pixels lose information to a half resolution buffer when contrasted to the skybox) no AA whatsoever. That awful reprojection produces some of the worst interlacing, pixelation, and flickering ever. Combined with the post effect and motion blur passes running at an even lower resolution, the game's IQ is unbearable.

Look at this. If I played this on VR, I'm not kidding when I say I'd probably get sick.



The reason why similar techniques found in Rainbow Six: Siege [the image has the depth of 1920x1080p, unlike FRN, which has the image depth of 640x720p, but is presented in a box with half that resolution (960x540p), so it's not really reprojection] work is because of the AA. Temporal AA with tone mapping, proper motion vectors, viewport jittering, RGB neighborhood clamping, and reprojection pretty much eliminates all flickering in motion and can even make 720p games, let alone 640x720p games, look clean. Play The Vanishing of Ethan Carter with no AA or FXAA, and then turn on UE4 TAA. TAA makes it look like a CG movie, no joke. Uncharted 4's multiplayer runs at 1600x900p, but because of the basically perfect AA, it actually looks cleaner than Rise of the Tomb Raider at 1920x1080p.
 

EvilTw1n

Even my henchmen think I'm crazy.
Moderator
The flickering thing is probably legit; I hadn't really noticed it in FRN (and I can be a stickler on framerate issues), but there seems to be people that have. The pixelation in the skybox, though? That's silly. That's a frozen screen grab in mid-motion blur. You're moving far too quickly to be counting pixels. But that's assuming you're playing it on a TV. FRN was not created with a VR headset in mind.
 

Shoulder

Your Resident Beardy Bear
Sorry, but are those supposed to look good? I mean, the materials and textures are pretty decent, but the interlacing sticks out like a sore thumb, as do the jaggies.
One thing I will say is FRN is not the type of game you analyze by freeze framing it. Same would apply for F-Zero, Wipeout, Redout, etc. Those games are meant to be seen in motion. Does FRN have compromises to achieve a 60fps franerate? Absolutely, but in motion it looks quite good. That being said, it would be interesting if Shin'en were to remaster it on the NX (or PS4 even) like they did for Nano Assault Neo on PS4.
 

Goodtwin

Well-Known Member
Sorry, but are those supposed to look good? I mean, the materials and textures are pretty decent, but the interlacing sticks out like a sore thumb, as do the jaggies.
The pictures you posted were blured to death, not represenative of what the game looks like. It's a low res game that looks nice in motion. The direct capture pics I posted are far more represenative of what the player sees than the blurry pic you posted. Motion blur looks nice at 60fps, but completely ruins a still photo. You know better.

Sent from my SM-G360V using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:

GaemzDood

Well-Known Member
The pictures you posted were blured to death, not represenative of what the game looks like. It's a low res game that looks nice in motion. The direct capture pics I posted are far more represenative of what the player sees than the blurry pic you posted. Motion blur looks nice at 60fps, but completely ruins a still photo. You know better.

Sent from my SM-G360V using genital warts
I disagree. When the sample rate is high, it can look great in still shots.

DOOM's motion blur almost looks Pixar tier.
 

EvilTw1n

Even my henchmen think I'm crazy.
Moderator
I disagree. When the sample rate is high, it can look great in still shots.
And?

The point of using a blur effect is to, y'know, give the viewer the appearance of blurring (either for the impression of speed, a groggy effect in first-person, etc.). Taking a screen cap of a racing game in mid-speed-blur to find visual faults is just silly; creating a blur in motion is obviously the point, not creating a still.

(Also little sense in comparing a blur motion in a game constructed entirely differently because of grossly different onscreen speeds.)
 

GaemzDood

Well-Known Member
And?

The point of using a blur effect is to, y'know, give the viewer the appearance of blurring (either for the impression of speed, a groggy effect in first-person, etc.). Taking a screen cap of a racing game in mid-speed-blur to find visual faults is just silly; creating a blur in motion is obviously the point, not creating a still.

(Also little sense in comparing a blur motion in a game constructed entirely differently because of grossly different onscreen speeds.)
In the case of FRN, the fault is the blur itself. It's rendered at half resolution.
 

Goodtwin

Well-Known Member
Like ET said, the speed difference is crazy. Pixel movement per frame with FRN compared to Doom is 10x. It's not like motion blue makes those Doom stills look better, they look like Vaseline is smeared on the screen. Fast Racing Neo is low res, but in motion sitting 7 feet from my 42" LG tv, it looks nice.

Sent from my SM-G360V using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:

EvilTw1n

Even my henchmen think I'm crazy.
Moderator
In the case of FRN, the fault is the blur itself. It's rendered at half resolution.
...because the only point of allocating processing power to high texture resolution in a blurred image is if you are taking screen stills. It's a racing game. You're generally moving too quickly to stop and count pixels in a racing game. Or, more succinctly:
One thing I will say is FRN is not the type of game you analyze by freeze framing it. Same would apply for F-Zero, Wipeout, Redout, etc. Those games are meant to be seen in motion.
Precisely.
Pixel movement per frame with FRN compared to Doom is 10x. It's not like motion blue makes those Soon stills look better, they look like Vaseline is smeared on the screen. Fast Racing Neo is low res, but in motion sitting 7 feet from my 42" LG tv, it looks nice.
Yeah, intended movement counts here; the intended results are what you judge. Saying "but it looks more pixel-y when I screen cap this racing game" is a bit like saying "this spaghetti sauce doesn't taste good poured on ice cream."

[This made me go back and re-read the stuff here on page three about the rendering technique. It's interesting stuff; a final frame buffer of 1280x720, but with variable results depending on the depth buffer (better within the world because of the reprojection technique, more pixelated against the skybox). Gah. It's embarrassing how so few other third parties figured out what a team of probably a dozen managed. Also too bad the track design and ship speed weren't balanced better in this.]
 

Goodtwin

Well-Known Member
PS4 Pro is relying on temporal reprojection for 4k gaming. It doesn't have the guts to render 4k natively. I suspect these technique will be used extensively on consoles for the next decade.

Sent from my SM-G360V using Tapatalk
 

Shoulder

Your Resident Beardy Bear
PS4 Pro is relying on temporal reprojection for 4k gaming. It doesn't have the guts to render 4k natively. I suspect these technique will be used extensively on consoles for the next decade.

Sent from my SM-G360V using genital warts
Yeah, it's called checker boarding, which I've been trying to figure out, and here's a couple videos on what developers are likely to do to get a quasi-4K resolution:


Skip to the 2min mark for the relevant stuff.

And Temporal Aliasing is another method, but it almost sounds the same thing as checkerboard 4K.


So some trickery is definitely happening, and we'll likely see more of this in the coming years.
 

GaemzDood

Well-Known Member
Yeah, it's called checker boarding, which I've been trying to figure out, and here's a couple videos on what developers are likely to do to get a quasi-4K resolution:


Skip to the 2min mark for the relevant stuff.

And Temporal Aliasing is another method, but it almost sounds the same thing as checkerboard 4K.


So some trickery is definitely happening, and we'll likely see more of this in the coming years.
Temporal reprojection and temporal AA are different, though in the case of DOOM, they reproject an 8xSSAA'd through 8 frames, so I guess you can mend the two.
PS4 Pro is relying on temporal reprojection for 4k gaming. It doesn't have the guts to render 4k natively. I suspect these technique will be used extensively on consoles for the next decade.

Sent from my SM-G360V using genital warts
The Xbox One Scorpio might be able to pull off 4k in less demanding titles considering it only has .5 less TFLOPS than the GTX 1070, which can pull off 4k and 30 FPS pretty well...in less demanding titles. Stuff like The Witcher 3 and DOOM is off the tables though.
 

GaemzDood

Well-Known Member
...because the only point of allocating processing power to high texture resolution in a blurred image is if you are taking screen stills. It's a racing game. You're generally moving too quickly to stop and count pixels in a racing game. Or, more succinctly:

Precisely.

Yeah, intended movement counts here; the intended results are what you judge. Saying "but it looks more pixel-y when I screen cap this racing game" is a bit like saying "this spaghetti sauce doesn't taste good poured on ice cream."

[This made me go back and re-read the stuff here on page three about the rendering technique. It's interesting stuff; a final frame buffer of 1280x720, but with variable results depending on the depth buffer (better within the world because of the reprojection technique, more pixelated against the skybox). Gah. It's embarrassing how so few other third parties figured out what a team of probably a dozen managed. Also too bad the track design and ship speed weren't balanced better in this.]
Not saying I disagree. With how limited the Wii U's bandwidth is, some sacrifices had to be made. The blur looks good in motion, as does PS3 and 360 era motion blur used in games like Uncharted 2 and Halo: Reach. The reprojection technique works with the hardware, but it does cause interlacing artifacts, seen to a lesser extent in Killzone: Shadow Fall's multiplayer.



Side note: note the awful stippling artifacts in the bottom screenshot.
 

EvilTw1n

Even my henchmen think I'm crazy.
Moderator
Yeah, it's called checker boarding, which I've been trying to figure out, and here's a couple videos on what developers are likely to do to get a quasi-4K resolution:


Skip to the 2min mark for the relevant stuff.

And Temporal Aliasing is another method, but it almost sounds the same thing as checkerboard 4K.


So some trickery is definitely happening, and we'll likely see more of this in the coming years.
Some in-the-text info:

“Brute-force rendering techniques can of course be used to support [4K] displays,” PlayStation technical chief Mark Cerny said during the PlayStation presentation on Wednesday. “But they have unfortunate consequences for console cost and form factor.”

So if PS4 isn’t rendering native 4K images, then what is it doing? Magic!

“There’s a lot of magic sauce happening,” Guerrilla Games managing director Hermen Hulst said during a roundtable with reporters yesterday. “It’s not native 4K. But as you see for yourself, it’s perceptively so close that you wouldn’t be able to see the difference.”

For Sony, that is the key. It wants to use the special, baked-in features of the Pro to give players an experience that will looks indistinguishable from 4K to the naked eye. And since you probably only ever play console games with your naked eye, that perceived reality is all that will matter to you.

As for the specific sorcery that the PS4 Pro uses to accomplish that? Well, Cerny alluded to those during his on-stage talk.

“With PS4 Pro, our strategy has instead been to foster streamlined rendering techniques that can take advantage of custom hardware,” he said. “When coupled with best-in-breed temporal and spatial anti-aliasing algorithms, the results can be astonishing.”

When we decode Cerny’s high-elven language, we can break down some of what is happening (with some help from the smart folks over at Digital Foundry).

The “streamlined rendering techniques” likely refers to a special feature built into the AMD Radeon graphics processor of the Pro where games only have to render approximately half of the pixels of standard 4K. That’s still around 4 million individual pixels, which is twice what you get from a native 1080p image — hence the need for a more powerful CPU and GPU in the Pro.

Those 4 million pixels are arranged into a 4K checkerboard pattern where half the checkerboard squares contain image data and the empty half contain nothing. The Pro should then use an algorithm to rebuild the image and fill in the empty squares for a 4K screen. Now, this technique would typically generate jagged edges and ugly artifacts whenever objects are in motion, but that’s where the temporal antialiasing comes in. That technique should smooth out any roughness and give the final image that crisp, ultra-high-definition look.

...So instead of trying to quadruple the resolution, Sony is going to double or maybe triple it, and then it’s going to let algorithms and the shortcomings of 20/20 vision do the rest. And I hope that Microsoft, Nintendo, and even Nvidia and AMD are paying attention as they look for ways to give gamers better visual fidelity in the future.

http://venturebeat.com/2016/09/08/ps4-pro-isnt-4k-that-doesnt-matter/

I'm only posting this because I think it's kind of interesting to note the differences in the gaming media at large since the PS4 launch. Pre-launch, everyone was on the "we need POWER for true 1080p/60fps gaming!"-bandwagon. Now there's a much more realistic streak in gaming journalism: use what works. You can fake 4K with reprojection techniques (which are, essentially, half-predictive rendering). Who cares if it's "true"? If the eye doesn't notice in motion, how much does it really matter?

[This is all setting aside the fact that you're gonna need a gigantic TV that you're sitting very close to in order to notice 4K resolution at all, of course.]
 
Last edited:

Juegos

All mods go to heaven.
Moderator
I'm only posting this because I think it's kind of interesting to note the differences in the gaming media at large since the PS4 launch. Pre-launch, everyone was on the "we need POWER for true 1080p/60fps gaming!"-bandwagon. Now there's a much more realistic streak in gaming journalism: use what works. You can fake 4K with reprojection techniques (which are, essentially, half-predictive rendering). Who cares if it's "true"? If the eye doesn't notice in motion, how much does it really matter?
For further perspective, when they say that they will double the number of pixels from 1080p to half-4K, that's still not as big of an increase in pixel count as just going from 720p to 1080p.

720p = 1280 * 720 = 921,600
1080p = 1920 * 1080 = 2,073,600
1080p/720p = 2.25

And for people thinking of upgrading from 1080p to 1440p, keep in mind that is also a much less noticeable change (increase ratio of 1.78) compared to the upgrade from 720p to 1080p (increase ratio of 2.25).
 

Shoulder

Your Resident Beardy Bear
For further perspective, when they say that they will double the number of pixels from 1080p to half-4K, that's still not as big of an increase in pixel count as just going from 720p to 1080p.

720p = 1280 * 720 = 921,600
1080p = 1920 * 1080 = 2,073,600
1080p/720p = 2.25

And for people thinking of upgrading from 1080p to 1440p, keep in mind that is also a much less noticeable change (increase ratio of 1.78) compared to the upgrade from 720p to 1080p (increase ratio of 2.25).
Also, to add to all of this, developers have been using trickery, and other ways of faking things in video games for years, all in an effort for better performance. And you know what? 99.9% of people will not even tell the difference. Diminished returns, man. Diminished returns.
 

EvilTw1n

Even my henchmen think I'm crazy.
Moderator
For further perspective, when they say that they will double the number of pixels from 1080p to half-4K, that's still not as big of an increase in pixel count as just going from 720p to 1080p.

720p = 1280 * 720 = 921,600
1080p = 1920 * 1080 = 2,073,600
1080p/720p = 2.25

And for people thinking of upgrading from 1080p to 1440p, keep in mind that is also a much less noticeable change (increase ratio of 1.78) compared to the upgrade from 720p to 1080p (increase ratio of 2.25).
Very good point. And as you need a 50"-plus screen viewed at 7 feet or less to really see the 1080 vs. 720 difference, this is a lot of computing power being used to up the image quality from a resolution difference that is difficult to discern...to a resolution difference that is even harder to discern.
Also, to add to all of this, developers have been using trickery, and other ways of faking things in video games for years, all in an effort for better performance. And you know what? 99.9% of people will not even tell the difference. Diminished returns, man. Diminished returns.
Same point was made here in regards to predictive shadow mapping.

We're sort of in the Spinal Tap portion of the resolution wars. It's gotten to the point where it's mostly an academic exercise. Developers can either keep upping resolution for even more negligible results, or they can fake it and focus on other things. One hopes they don't just read GAF and the "it's gotta be native, bro!"-contingent.
 

Shoulder

Your Resident Beardy Bear
Very good point. And as you need a 50"-plus screen viewed at 7 feet or less to really see the 1080 vs. 720 difference, this is a lot of computing power being used to up the image quality from a resolution difference that is difficult to discern...to a resolution difference that is even harder to discern.

Same point was made here in regards to predictive shadow mapping.

We're sort of in the Spinal Tap portion of the resolution wars. It's gotten to the point where it's mostly an academic exercise. Developers can either keep upping resolution for even more negligible results, or they can fake it and focus on other things. One hopes they don't just read GAF and the "it's gotta be native, bro!"-contingent.
And when you factor in 4k resolutions, you really need a massive TV to reap the benefits of it because you're sitting so far away. Sitting 8-10 feet, you'll probably need at least an 85in or larger TV for 4k. Now, it is slightly a different story when compared to Computer monitors because of the viewing distance, but if you had a 21in monitor in 4k, that is essentially a Retina display. I have a 15" Retina display for my Mac, and that is only 2880x1800 resolution, which is higher than 1440p, but less than 4k. Apple also offers a Retina display for their 27in iMac, which is a 5k resolution display. This is all for Retina mind you, but it also means that any more pixels to render under those conditions would be unnecessary and overkill.

I did a little research, and what seemed to be the case was given how far away I sit (around 8ft), I could go up to a 65in TV or so, and still would not need to go up to 4k. 1080p would be perfectly suitable.

Now I just need to find a good enough 65in 1080p TV for a good price...
 

EvilTw1n

Even my henchmen think I'm crazy.
Moderator
I did a little research, and what seemed to be the case was given how far away I sit (around 8ft), I could go up to a 65in TV or so, and still would not need to go up to 4k. 1080p would be perfectly suitable.
Pretty much. I guess some of it also depends on just how much you want your TV to dominate your room, too. For my apartment, I don't think I could really go above like 46" and be comfortable. Some friends of mine won a raffle for an 80" TV, and it's too big for their room. The couch is so close that I can never see the entire picture.
For further perspective, when they say that they will double the number of pixels from 1080p to half-4K, that's still not as big of an increase in pixel count as just going from 720p to 1080p.

720p = 1280 * 720 = 921,600
1080p = 1920 * 1080 = 2,073,600
1080p/720p = 2.25

And for people thinking of upgrading from 1080p to 1440p, keep in mind that is also a much less noticeable change (increase ratio of 1.78) compared to the upgrade from 720p to 1080p (increase ratio of 2.25).
Y'know, thinking more on this...I wonder how ludicrous it's going to get with pixel counters now? People were trying to pretend there was a big difference between 900p and 1080p not that long ago. So is it gonna be: "This 800p upscaled checkerboarded faux 4K - faux-K? - image looks obviously worse than the native 1080p upscaled checkerboarded 4K image"? GAF is going to be an even more intolerable visit than usual.
 

Shoulder

Your Resident Beardy Bear
Pretty much. I guess some of it also depends on just how much you want your TV to dominate your room, too. For my apartment, I don't think I could really go above like 46" and be comfortable. Some friends of mine won a raffle for an 80" TV, and it's too big for their room. The couch is so close that I can never see the entire picture.

Y'know, thinking more on this...I wonder how ludicrous it's going to get with pixel counters now? People were trying to pretend there was a big difference between 900p and 1080p not that long ago. So is it gonna be: "This 800p upscaled checkerboarded faux 4K - faux-K? - image looks obviously worse than the native 1080p upscaled checkerboarded 4K image"? GAF is going to be an even more intolerable visit than usual.
I think it's the equivalent of people getting all up in arms about minor framerate dips. So what if it is not 100% locked at 60fps. Boo-fuckity-hooo. Sure, is it impressive when a game can hold a 100% rock solid framerate? Absolutely, but it's extremely difficult for any developer on a console platform, and as far as PC goes, it's of course dependent your hardware. I know for example when I play Just Cause 2 all maxed out at 1080p with v-sync, it is rock-solid at 60fps, which is very cool. But for a game like GTAV though, I'd be ok with a rock solid 30fps (using adaptive v-sync), than turning down the settings to an extent. But I also just installed the GTAV Redux mod, and have been fiddling with that, and it's definitely putting a strain on my rig with the improved visuals and other things. Capping it at 30fps at least presents a more consistent experience in my mind. I'm still fiddling with the settings though, as well as the Redux presets.
 

Juegos

All mods go to heaven.
Moderator
@Shoulder I agree with that stance about slighty hiccups in fps. I play Overwatch a lot, and my framerate is always ranging between 50-60 fps. The only times I notice it enough for it to bother me is during really tense ranked matches against evenly skilled opponents, where every single shot matters. The rest of the time, it feels smooth enough that my attention is always somewhere else.

That said, I do have a goal of getting a 120 hz monitor eventually and see what kind of difference it really makes for fast-paced action games like that.
 

Shoulder

Your Resident Beardy Bear
@Shoulder I agree with that stance about slighty hiccups in fps. I play Overwatch a lot, and my framerate is always ranging between 50-60 fps. The only times I notice it enough for it to bother me is during really tense ranked matches against evenly skilled opponents, where every single shot matters. The rest of the time, it feels smooth enough that my attention is always somewhere else.

That said, I do have a goal of getting a 120 hz monitor eventually and see what kind of difference it really makes for fast-paced action games like that.
I know some people rave about 120hz, or even 144hz (why specifically 144 I have no clue), but I'm curious if it really makes a big difference like 30fps to 60fps makes. I just cannot imagine what 120hz looks/feels like. Let's also not forget the amount of power needed to render that many frames at once...
 

Goodtwin

Well-Known Member
My impressions of the DLC is more of the same. If you liked the original content, you will enjoy the DLC. I personally do like this game. It's at its best in subsonic in my opinion. It's games like this though that give me great hope that Indies will create games of yesteryear, and will not be pigeonholed as simple platform Dr and puzzle game developers. If a 5 man team at Shin'en can create a game like this, a 25 man team at Nintendo should be capable of a new F-Zero, 1080, and Wave Race.

Sent from my SM-G360V using Tapatalk
 
Top