QLOC devs who made Dark Souls Remastered reveal that the game actually uses checkerboard rendering.. fooling both DF and VGTech

[Remij 4,670]

 

Both DF and VGTech said the game was rendering native 1800p on both PRO and X1X, but it's in fact using a custom 1800p checkerboard solution.

 

Quote

I would also like to add that while the difference in quality is pretty obvious in the slides when they get pointed out, Digital Foundry's in depth tech review didn't notice the checkerboard rendering and went on to say that the game ran in native 1800p on the pro consoles. Something I am quite proud of. :)

 

That's really quite impressive.  And it just goes to show that given next gen games, with more post processing effects, and new and improved CB/temporal injection solutions, it will be extremely hard to tell the difference between something rendered natively and checkerboard.

 

Interesting times ahead.

[DynamiteCop 2,085]

But why...

[Remij 4,670]

5 minutes ago, DynamiteCop! said:

But why...

They're rendering 1/2 the pixels of 1800p and getting an image that looks native.

 

What do you mean why? 

[jehurey 3,227]

How many other XBX games aren't actual "native" 4K.

 

Oh man, that ended up being a complete nothingburger.

[DynamiteCop 2,085]

7 minutes ago, Remij_ said:

They're rendering 1/2 the pixels of 1800p and getting an image that looks native.

 

What do you mean why? 

Why checkerboard when there's no actual need to, it's weird.

[Remij 4,670]

Just now, jehurey said:

How many other XBX games aren't actual "native" 4K.

 

Oh man, that ended up being a complete nothingburger.

To be fair, if you can't tell the difference, what does it matter?

[Remij 4,670]

2 minutes ago, DynamiteCop! said:

Why checkerboard when there's no actual need to, it's weird.

There was though.  At native 1800p the consoles would drop fps.  They couldn't hit a steady 60fps target and it got worse when dealing with more effects on screen.  1800cb allowed them to easily hit that target no matter what was happening on the screen.

 

They said they could have used native 1440p.. but thought that they could get more out of the consoles than that.

[jehurey 3,227]

2 minutes ago, Remij_ said:

To be fair, if you can't tell the difference, what does it matter?

It shouldn't. All logical signs pointed to a 1440p-1800p resolution for those consoles. I called that way back in 2016.

[Remij 4,670]

Just now, jehurey said:

It shouldn't. All logical signs pointed to a 1440p-1800p resolution for those consoles. I called that way back in 2016.

This is a port of a notoriously unoptimized game.  Using it as some kind of confirmation that the other 4K games on Xbox are also probably "fooling" people is reaching harrrrrd.

 

A lot of Xbox One X games have been called to be running at native 4K.  If we can't be sure.. then we have to assume it is.  And that's certainly more than what you thought it would.  I remember you saying shit like only indie games would run at 4K and shit like that.

 

Give the machine it's props dude...  I told you way back when that 6TF was enough to hit native 4K in a lot of games.  You were adamant that it wasn't and said settings would be dropped to medium or low..

 

If we're at the point where we can render half the pixels and it looks native and doesn't have any of the artifacts associated with upscaling technologies... then we're past the point of arguing stupid shit like "bubuut it's not native.. told ya!" 

 

For all intents and purposes... it's native.

[jehurey 3,227]

3 minutes ago, Remij_ said:

This is a port of a notoriously unoptimized game.  Using it as some kind of confirmation that the other 4K games on Xbox are also probably "fooling" people is reaching harrrrrd.

 

A lot of Xbox One X games have been called to be running at native 4K.  If we can't be sure.. then we have to assume it is.  And that's certainly more than what you thought it would.  I remember you saying shit like only indie games would run at 4K and shit like that.

 

Give the machine it's props dude...  I told you way back when that 6TF was enough to hit native 4K in a lot of games.  You were adamant that it wasn't and said settings would be dropped to medium or low..

 

If we're at the point where we can render half the pixels and it looks native and doesn't have any of the artifacts associated with upscaling technologies... then we're past the point of arguing stupid shit like "bubuut it's not native.. told ya!" 

 

For all intents and purposes... it's native.

Except we know that they had graphical settings set to medium. The Forza game that launched with the XBX in 2017 made that clear versus the PC version.

 

And secondly, the very people who you RELY on measuring resolutions are now subject to doubt.

 

We're not even talking about a high-quality development studio..........this is porting team that just fooled Digital Foundry.  For marketing reasons, a development studio is not going to tell you that the game isn't as graphically amazing as you think it is.  This porting studio doesn't care because they already got paid for their job.

[Remij 4,670]

5 minutes ago, jehurey said:

Except we know that they had graphical settings set to medium. The Forza game that launched with the XBX in 2017 made that clear versus the PC version.

 

And secondly, the very people who you RELY on measuring resolutions are now subject to doubt.

 

We're not even talking about a high-quality development studio..........this is porting team that just fooled Digital Foundry.  For marketing reasons, a development studio is not going to tell you that the game isn't as graphically amazing as you think it is.  This porting studio doesn't care because they already got paid for their job.

Nah.. we literally have 4K Forza 7 and Forza Horizon 4 which look identical to Ultra on PC.

 

I even told you at the time you'd use one single setting being lowered a notch as some proof that "see native 4K isn't possible"...  4K is clearly possible, and is hit even more than I was anticipating in all honesty.

 

The people that people rely on measuring resolutions can now be fooled.... meaning.. nobody gives a fuck if it's native or not.  Like I said in the post above... you're running the "buubutt it's not native, told ya!" shit.

 

Your argument ONLY had meaning... if native resolution was appreciably superior to the non-native solution... and if that goes away... so does your argument.  

[jehurey 3,227]

2 minutes ago, Remij_ said:

The people that people rely on measuring resolutions can now be fooled.... meaning.. nobody gives a fuck if it's native or not. 

That's the meaning YOU want to take from it.

 

That's not what the average person would take from that revelation. And you know that.

[Teh_Diplomat 2,054]

Tupac said he could count frames per second, so there's that.

[Remij 4,670]

10 minutes ago, jehurey said:

That's the meaning YOU want to take from it.

 

That's not what the average person would take from that revelation. And you know that.

The average person doesn't give a fuck.. who are you trying to kid?  The average person doesn't check Digital Foundry  

 

The ONLY people who give a fuck, are the people who test, and people like you and me.  If we can be fooled... then it doesn't fucking matter.

[Goukosan 2,249]

54 minutes ago, Remij_ said:

They're rendering 1/2 the pixels of 1800p and getting an image that looks native.

 

What do you mean why? 

in his mind the stats mean more than the actual results... lol

[jehurey 3,227]

5 minutes ago, Remij_ said:

The average person doesn't give a fuck.. who are you trying to kid?  The average person doesn't check Digital Foundry  

 

The ONLY people who give a fuck, are the people who test, and people like you and me.  If we can be fooled... then it doesn't fucking matter.

that still doesn't take away from the fact that what you THOUGHT you knew....is now subject to doubt.

 

And how could you argue against that doubt? Two different groups got fooled. That means that it wasn't the people that got fooled, but it was probably their tools used to analysis may not be capable of properly analyzing game resolution based on certain rendering methods.

 

Their tools may not be reliable. That's possibly a worse scenario.

[Remij 4,670]

10 minutes ago, jehurey said:

that still doesn't take away from the fact that what you THOUGHT you knew....is now subject to doubt.

 

And how could you argue against that doubt? Two different groups got fooled. That means that it wasn't the people that got fooled, but it was probably their tools used to analysis may not be capable of properly analyzing game resolution based on certain rendering methods.

 

Their tools may not be reliable. That's possibly a worse scenario.

lmao.. no.  DF isn't some proof that X game has Y resolution...  DF makes educated guesses.. and as people who are more observant for quality and accuracy than most others.. regular people take their words as accurate... but informed people know that they are just that... guesses.

 

They make mistakes... but the point isn't that they are right... it's that they are satisfied.. and if they are satisfied, than most everyone else will be as well.

 

This doesn't call into question any accuracy of their tools... their tools don't analyze the resolution... they count the pixels themselves.  Their tools, only evaluate capture resolution and framerate/frametimes.

 

So no.. what I thought I knew remains the same. 

[jehurey 3,227]

1 minute ago, Remij_ said:

So no.. what I thought I knew remains the same. 

That they can't ever possibly be 100% accurate?

 

I understand the positive outlook, because I'm getting to the point where I don't care about that stuff anymore AND I said a long time ago that the GPU power needs to be spent on something else other than pure resolution rendering.

 

But Digital Foundry is responsible for the video game forum tradition of "nitpicking". They go hand-in-hand with that gaming fanboy pastime.

[Remij 4,670]

19 minutes ago, jehurey said:

That they can't ever possibly be 100% accurate?

 

I understand the positive outlook, because I'm getting to the point where I don't care about that stuff anymore AND I said a long time ago that the GPU power needs to be spent on something else other than pure resolution rendering.

 

But Digital Foundry is responsible for the video game forum tradition of "nitpicking". They go hand-in-hand with that gaming fanboy pastime.

That they are guesses.  They weren't ever proof.  Which is actually why I call into question their results a lot of the time.. especially when other sources get different results and I can compare resolution and framerate to comparable PC results.  Kind of like what I did with FarCry 5.  I don't believe that game runs native 4K on X1X.. at least not all the time.  My reasoning is because when comparing to a comparable spec PC, the only thing that makes sense with the numbers is that it drops res but goes largely unnoticed because of the excellent TAA implementation.  But I can't PROVE it.  I could only use another source which actually said that it does have a dynamic resolution.

 

So I choose to believe that source instead.

 

So while I argued that with Dynamite.. there's no convincing him that FC5 isn't native 4K on X1X.  The developers would have to actually come out and say that.. but like you said.. they wouldn't comment or would simply say, it's 100% native all the time.. so that's what we're left with.  If you can't tell the difference... devs aren't going to rush out and say that it's actually not native ect ect.. they're going to leave it at that.

 

So it is what it is.  Until you can get the actual devs to comment, then it's all guesses.  And if these nitpickers are convinced than the general public will be as well.  So this one example isn't an excuse that all their results are now called into question.  Their results were never gospel to begin with.

[Playstation Tablet 1,725]

It's getting sad that people that do this for a living can't even pixel count shit correctly