GamingBolt recently had a long technical chat with Dan Baker, Tim Kipp and Brian Wade from the Nitrous Engine. Though both consoles have been better about it since launching, there are still a large number of games on both the Xbox One and PS4 that are yet to achieve 1080p resolution and 60 FPS. According to Oxide Games, who have created the Nitrous Engine and Ashes of the Singularity (one of the few games out there built for DirectX 12), it’s really just simple math at the end of the day.

Speaking to GamingBolt, the development team said that, “It’s simple math. Last generation consoles and this generation, I think the number I heard quoted was it was 6 times more powerful. That’s great, right? Then you do the math. You realize that if you’re running at 720p and going to 1080p you’ve doubled the number of pixels.

“If you were running 30 frames a second at 720 and you doubled your pixels and wanted to double your frame rate, you just used 4 more per and you have no more perf. Then you additionally want to increase the fidelity. You’ll see the same thing on 4K. It has 4 times the pixels as 1080. You need a GPU 4 times as powerful just to do the same thing you did before just at a higher resolution level with most engines. With Nitrous you actually don’t. That’s probably why you haven’t seen the big jump that some people were expecting.

“It also takes increased bandwidth, etc. etc. When you try to get a game down into the 16 milliseconds consistently, category, it’s amazing how those milliseconds add up. Going to 30 frames per second is like gaining those extra milliseconds really is huge in terms of flexibility you’ve got there. It’s very difficult. Every game generation you want to do something a little more ambitious.

“And to pack additional graphics plus additional AI, plus additional gameplay and everything else into 16 milliseconds can be really, really challenging. Especially when trying to do that consistently. The last thing you want to do is stutter between 60 frames per second and 30. You don’t want to jump back and forth there a whole lot. There’s a lot of people that will argue the development cost and the discipline it takes to make a game run consistently at 16 milliseconds is just very difficult to achieve.

“There are other things you can say too. As resolution increases the computational cost increases. I think we’re one of the only engines out there that have been re-investigating how you render a frame. To some extent, as the resolution increases, not only is there a cost of more pixels but those pixels are being faded in a very simple manner. As we scale up in resolution how can we change our rendering so it’s less expensive? Because were doing the object space lighting we actually would scale better as the resolution increases. If you run our games at 4k, a lot of engines are 3 or 4 times slower – we’re like less than half speed.”

What are your thoughts on this especially since we’re still in the early years of the Xbox One and PS4? Will it ultimately matter if both consoles are still capable of delivering amazing visual fidelity with their games? Let us know what you think in the comments.

343 Industries’ Halo 5: Guardians is one of the most anticipated titles of the year and will herald the first truly next gen Halo title for the Xbox One. It still has a ways to go in development though, especially when it comes to the resolution.

GamingBolt spoke to lead producer Chris Lee about the campaign and multiplayer. Will both modes run at 60 FPS? According to Lee, they indeed will.

However, when asked if the resolution would be at 1080p, Lee stated that, “So, we’re still optimizing the game as we haven’t launched so we haven’t locked in our final resolution yet. But we will talk more about that in the future.”

On whether the Xbox One’s eSRAM was causing problems with programming, especially since many developers have expressed their concerns with the memory, Lee said that, “It didn’t cause any issues for us.”

It’s obvious that there’s still a fair bit of optimization left before the release of Halo 5: Guardians in October so keep the hope alive. Also let us know what you think of the game’s resolution and frame rate in the comments.

Microsoft has faced plenty of criticism in the year past regarding 1080p resolutions for Xbox One games and while it’s getting better at achieving parity with the PS4, Xbox division head Phil Spencer believes that it’s not all about resolution.

In conversation with CVG, Spencer said that, “Reaching parity with our partners has been important. But in the end I don’t want it to be about a number, because 1080p isn’t some mythical, perfect resolution. Frame rate to me is significantly more important to gameplay than resolution and the mix of those two which brings the right art style and freedom, whether it’s on PlayStation or our platform.”

Spencer also believes that there isn’t a “one size fits all” resolution for every game (with The Order: 1886 cited as a good example). “Clearly some genres like with racing sims like Forza, hitting 1080p/60fps is important. So there are certain genres where there’s an expectation, but there are also other genres where I’d rather use the cycles to put more effects on screen or better lighting. I’ve got to put the tools in the hands of developers.”

Do you agree with Spencer? Let us know in the comments.

The Xbox 360 version of the game has been delayed till April 8th in North America and April 11th in Europe, but for all intents and purposes, it’s considered distinct from the Xbox One and PC versions. It will be interesting to see how Bluepoint Games is able to translate the manic experience of the next gen version onto the Xbox 360. Recent rumours peg the game as being at a sub-720p resolution and 30 FPS though, so the Xbox One and PC versions are the definitive releases at this point.

"Respawn’s v-sync feature is also a little iffy here – the developer decided to go with the adaptive approach the Xbox One. It attempts to keep the frame rate at 60 FPS but ultimately causes screen-tearing in some places."

Developed on the Source Engine, Respawn Entertainment made some very heavy modifications to Titanfall. Effects such as lens-flares and a strong draw distance are apparent and impressive– the game also features 2X MSAA (Multi-sample Anti-aliasing) on the Xbox One. This is a particularly amazing feat, especially when you consider the criticisms the console has faced regarding its performance. However, Respawn Entertainment opted for a 792p resolution on the Xbox One. This means a 1408×792 resolution overall. Odd right? It’s especially odder when you consider that there isn’t much difference between Titanfall’s 792p on the Xbox One and 720p on the PC.

Where the Xbox One version was seemingly meant to excel was in providing a consistent and steady 60 FPS throughout and it succeeds…for the most part. Even during general gameplay, there are a few frame drops here and there. But as soon as the screen is lit up with Titans, canvassing about, wrecking anything that moves, you’ll notice some strange stutters throughout. Respawn’s v-sync feature is also a little iffy here – the developer decided to go with the adaptive approach the Xbox One. It attempts to keep the frame rate at 60 FPS but ultimately causes screen-tearing in some places.

This doesn’t necessarily affect the PC version as much, considering that you can choose between different v-sync settings or disable it completely if controller input accuracy is more important than visuals. In terms of texture quality, the PC version is also significantly better than the Xbox One when pushed to the highest settings. For the Source Engine, Titanfall looks extremely good.

"It may not outright shock and awe you like Battlefield 4’s hyper-realistic texture and environment destruction despite the resources it demands."

While it can be a pretty big drain on resources at high settings, users with an NVidia GTX 660 with 2 GB DDR5 RAM can rest assured of their visual experience along with a rock solid frame rate at 1080p. It may not outright shock and awe you like Battlefield 4’s hyper-realistic texture and environment destruction – and in fact, the destructibility in Titanfall is fairly limited when it comes to buildings and structures – despite the resources it demands.

But for its visuals and the amount of effects going on – with AI soldiers rappelling in, Spectres leaping up floors, enemy pilots running around, Titans smashing the surroundings, drop ships flying through the skies and literal battlefields erupting in the back drop – Titanfall remains surprisingly robust even on older systems.

Playing it on an old AMD A8 mobile CPU with Radeon HD 7640G+7670M dual graphics card may not produce the best visuals at the highest resolution but the experience is fairly smooth and highly playable. While that 35 GB of uncompressed audio may not make much sense, it’s a given that the larger install size on the PC compared to the Xbox One’s 17 GB install does have a benefit for those using more dated hardware.

"This animation quality extends to the Grunts and Spectres as well – you’ll never mistaken one for the other at any point."

Even if you discount frame rate performance, it’s easy to see the benefits that the PC version holds over the Xbox One version. So if you’ve been caught admiring that sweet matted black hull on your Atlas on the PC, you’ll notice far less pronounced details on the Xbox One. It’s not annoying and it doesn’t affect the gameplay experience per say, but it is somewhat of an odd choice aesthetically.

We did admire the overall animation quality of Titanfall. Titans move like big lumbering mechanized tanks rather than giant robots, and the emission of steam and fire from the engines gives a more pronounced contemporary feel as compared to other sci-fi first person shooters. This animation quality extends to the Grunts and Spectres as well – you’ll never mistaken one for the other at any point.

"Titanfall as a graphical experience is extremely competent on the Xbox One. It promises action and doesn’t let up until the last drop ship has either departed or blown up."

The factions in the game are also distinguished by their tell-tale accessories – Militia Pilots employ a more barren colour code to blend in with desert surroundings, with an added scarf to protect against hostile winds, while the IMC is more clean-cut and futuristic in its appeal.

It’s to the credit of the developer that they’ve created character designs that are nuanced enough that you can immediately recognize the potential weapons a Pilot could be wielding by their outward appearance alone. Titanfall as a graphical experience is extremely competent on the Xbox One. It promises action and doesn’t let up until the last drop ship has either departed or blown up.

Respawn has promised improvements in performance down the line for the resolution and despite the frame rate and v-sync, it’s still one of the most visually distinguished shooters of this generation. And that in itself is a triumph. Just know that once you immerse yourself in the PC version, it’ll be very hard to settle for anything less.

"Whereas Lords of Shadow relied on a 1280x720 resolution, Lords of Shadow 2 employs a 1024x720 resolution while emphasizing on the same particle effects, texture blurring and other effects apparent in the previous game."

The most noticeable improvement Lords of Shadow 2 brings over its predecessor is the frame rate. The original game was criticized for its highly fluctuating 30 FPS frame rate which had a tendency to drop to sun 20 during some of the crazier sequences. Lords of Shadow 2 stays relatively rock-solid throughout – you may see 4 to 5 frames dropped in the worst circumstances.

The other big change is the downsized resolution. Lords of Shadow 2 employs a non-native 720p resolution while emphasizing on the same particle effects, texture blurring and other effects apparent in the previous game.

While good for sustaining a strong frame rate, it does hurt the overall edging on textures. There’s no anti-aliasing to speak of and you’ll spot more than your fair share of jaggy edges throughout. Does it affect gameplay in the least, especially considering the overall environmental effects (albeit low-res) employed to mask the same? It’s certainly less intrusive than the frame rate troubles of the previous game.

"Interestingly in terms of performance, the PS3 and Xbox 360 sequences are more or less evenly matched and neither can stake a claim to higher resolutions or superior anti-aliasing."

Interestingly in terms of performance, the PS3 and Xbox 360 sequences are more or less evenly matched. Since neither can stake a claim to higher resolutions or superior anti-aliasing, it falls to the frame rate performance to decide which is superior. Both versions experience their fair of dropped frames, and both maintain a strong 30 FPS frame rate throughout. You’ll be hard-pressed to find any real differences unless comparing them both side-by-side and even then it’s difficult.

What does that say about the PC version then, which is neither limited by its resolution or texture quality? PC users can expect a solid 1920×1080 resolution and 60 FPS with fairly generous system requirements. Mercury Steam also used post-process anti-aliasing on textures and though it doesn’t compare to the likes of, say, Ryse: Son of Rome or Assassin’s Creed IV: Black Flag (PC), it does the job more often than not.

Texture quality is thankfully higher grade with improved depth of field and higher resolution environmental effects. It’s easily the most visually impressive of all three versions, even if it’s not pushing any boundaries compared to the latest crop of PC titles like Thief or even Titanfall. Frame rate performance is also reliably solid with very few drops at 60 FPS even with high settings.

"That lower resolution and overall lack of anti-aliasing on the PS3 and Xbox 360 is noticeable and the frame rate does still see some drops."

In comparing Lords of Shadow 2 to the original, its obvious Mercury Steam wanted to make the overall gameplay fluid and hassle-free while still maintaining the same epic visuals and set-pieces as before. The aesthetics are honestly underwhelming at times, with Dracula’s castle rendered in resplendent detail while the modern cityscape bores more often than not, but when it comes to reliable performance and overall presentation, its leagues beyond its predecessor.

That being said, it comes at a price. That lower resolution and overall lack of anti-aliasing on the PS3 and Xbox 360 is noticeable and the frame rate does still see some drops. Despite the PC version delivering far more performance-wise, it’s not among the best looking games on the market by a long shot. If you’re a fan of Castlevania, Lords of Shadow 2 may be worth a look but for the casual gamer, the game represents nothing extraordinarily revolutionary in either the gameplay or graphics department.

While many developers are quick to announce the designated frame rate and resolution for a game – especially on the PS4 and Xbox One – there are those who like to remain a bit cagey on the subject, not even mentioning the targets in mind. That’s how The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt developer Michał Krzemiński felt as he spoke to GamesTM on the subject.

When asked about resolution differences in formats, Krzemiński stated that, “If you’re asking me to throw a rock in the PS4 vs. Xbox One resolution war, I won’t. The game is not finished and talking about resolutions [and framerates] is, I think, pointless.”

The topic has indeed been the subject of controversy since the release of both next gen consoles, especially with regards to the Xbox One’s inability to achieve 1080p resolution and 60 FPS for many first and third party titles. Do you agree with CD Projekt RED’s opinion, especially with regards to a project’s age? Let us know in the comments below.

The Xbox One hasn’t been having a good time as far as graphical prowess goes – several months after its release and it’s still faltering behind the PlayStation 4 in terms of high resolution textures, output resolution and frame rate. While we know that DirectX 12 will be heading to the console soon enough, there could be more to the API than just trying to help with the frame rate and resolution.

In fact, the API won’t have anything to do with increasing the resolution to whatever the standard is these days. However, what it can do is free up GPU resources through efficient hardware acceleration. So effects like ray tracing, superFog or whatever custom effects we may see down the line will be implemented and thus allow for an improved frame rate and resolution now that the GPU is free for those tasks.

It will also allow for better adoption on the PC, making the architecture even more similar and allowing developers to implement the same effects on the Xbox One without worrying about what to cut or add for the PC version and vice versa. But more than anything else, this indicates the Xbox One’s GPU is not as similar to the PS4’s initially revealed. Microsoft apparently has a deal with AMD but it means that the 7000 series Radeon isn’t what the Xbox One is packing.

Whatever be the case, Microsoft’s Xbox One obviously hasn’t revealed its full graphical potential by a long shot. While there may be problems now and limitations with the eSRAM, it’s easy to understand now why Microsoft isn’t all that worried. Another point to be noted that despite limitations due to eSRAM, it was designed in a manner to support tiled texture streaming in an extremely fast manner. The eSRAM was initially supposed to be using DX 11.2 but now with a newer version on the way it will be interesting to see whether developers will be willing to work around the bottlenecks and invest more time in it so that they can get the desired results.

What are your thoughts? Let us know below.

Reference: Reddit

So while both games seem geared up for the next generation, there are severe differences in how they actually perform. Even when measured against the PC version of Tomb Raider, the Definitive Edition shows several areas where it it’s actually weaker.

"Lara’s hair has seen a significant upgrade as well, with TressFX 2.0 being employed for dynamic movement and interaction with the elements. It’s not as detailed or fluid as the PC version but toes a fine line of grunge and shininess."

First the obvious: Lara Croft has a brand new look in the Definitive Edition. Her eyes are sharper and significantly larger, with the corners more visible than before. The bridge of the nose also seems less prominent and significantly more balanced. You’ll get the impression of change but the actual difference is very subtle. This allows for more expressive emotions and changes the overall character of Lara in many ways. Rather than looking like a constantly disparate individual trapped in unfortunate circumstances, her expressions are more hard-set and determined.

Lara’s hair has seen a significant upgrade as well, with TressFX 2.0 being employed for dynamic movement and interaction with the elements. It’s not as detailed or fluid as the PC version but toes a fine line of grunge and shininess.

When it comes to measuring the differences between the Xbox One and PS4, you would think it would extend beyond the resolution and frame rate. But that’s the key difference: Both versions have their own frame rate fluctuations, hindering the game in certain circumstances.

"The Xbox One version is stuck at 30 FPS but can fall very low as well, making for rather odd reactions while playing."

The PS4’s 1080p resolution stays consistent throughout and makes the game significantly sharper while the Xbox One alternates between 1080p resolution during gameplay and 900p resolution during cut scenes. It’s jarring, for sure, but that’s not even the biggest problem especially since it only happens with a few select cut scenes.

The PS4 version’s 60 FPS frame rate highly variable and will dip in strenuous circumstances. You will catch glimpses of 60 FPS when there’s less action going on but it does cause an odd shuttering effect at times, perhaps due to the overall refresh rate. The Xbox One version is stuck at 30 FPS but can fall very low as well, making for rather odd reactions while playing.

It isn’t just the frame rate where the PS4 version is one-up over the Xbox One. A quick comparison between the two versions reveal better bokeh depth of field, higher resolution textures and sharper weather effects on the PS4 version compared to the Xbox One. Even the finer details in wave simulation, foliage and environmental objects look better on the former. There hasn’t been a significant overhaul in terms of lighting but you will notice more realistic illumination on the PlayStation 4.

"Though both the PS4 and Xbox One versions are detailed enough, it feels like both development teams are still working the hardware kinks out, with the PS4 version excelling due to sheer power more than anything else."

It should be noted that compared to the PC version, both the Xbox One and PS4 excel in terms of implementing more weather effects and denser foliage. They stumble when it comes to the details though since the PC version comes across as more detailed and fleshed out overall. Lara herself appears more realistic in her skin tones on PC, since the PC version makes use of tessellation while the Definitive Edition does not.

Post process anti-aliasing is in effect with fast approximate anti-aliasing (FXAA) and the vegetation is more interactive than on the PC. Both console versions use motion blur as well though it’s not as prominent as you’d think. Though both the PS4 and Xbox One versions are detailed enough, it feels like both development teams are still working the hardware kinks out, with the PS4 version excelling due to sheer power more than anything else.

Overall, the PS4 version of Tomb Raider: Definitive Edition offers the most comprehensive next-gen introduction of Lara Croft, flawed as it may be. The higher resolution textures and superior draw distance, not to mention the frame rate, just feel better on the PS4. Both games are identical in terms of gameplay, save for varying effects the frame rate has while playing, so it’s not like one version is skipping out in terms of content.

Studio manager for Microsoft Mike Ybarra recently took to Twitter to quickly but quaintly dismiss claims of the Xbox One not being able to handle games at 1080p resolution and 60 frames per second.

In response to a user’s tweet, Ybarra said, “Forza is 1080p/60. Less troll, more gaming. “@gohardgohome07: @XboxQwik cool when will the xbone be able to hit 1080p.”

All of this comes in the wake of Tomb Raider: Definitive Edition, which recently released for both next gen consoles, being capped at 30 FPS on the Xbox One. Though both games feature the same assets and visual style, the Xbox One ended up getting the shorter end of the stick – even though the PS4 is by no means locked at 60 FPS.

What are your thoughts on this issue? Do more frames equal a better experience or is it all about the visuals? Let us know what you think in the comments.

Industry insider Pete Dodd revealed some interesting information via Twitter. After all the leaks and rumours regarding Xbox One exclusives like Halo 5 and Halo 2 Anniversary, Dodd said that we won’t be seeing games running at 60 FPS and 1080p resolution any time soon.

Dodd first talked about the UI and stated that, “I talked to so many devs who said the UI was a mess. They did a great job pulling it together.” This was the case even though, “It crashed a lot of debug units right up till launch. System launched…Stable UI.”

He also made sure to clarify that when it comes to graphics, “Cloud won’t help with rendering. Not for half a decade at minimum. As for 1080p/60fps – not anytime soon but tools will improve.” When asked if freeing up the GPU for more usage – as indicated by an 8 percent gain in usage for developers – helps, Dodd stated, “A little. Card is still weak. Worst decision they made making the box. Kinect is expensive so they went with a cheap gpu.”

Dodd did say that the problem isn’t the amount of RAM, as indicated by a user who believes the console should have had 12 GB DDR3 RAM to compete with the PS4’s 8 GB GDDR5 RAM. “The problem isn’t the amount, it’s the speed. Plenty of room to store 1080p textures, just not enough speed or power to output it.”

What are your thoughts on the same? Let us know in the comments below.