Eurogamer has an updated article about about the resolution of Killzone Shadow Fall for the PlayStation 4. The article is about the game's lowered resolution in multiplayer to make up for the attempt at 60 frames per second, because obviously 60fps in multiplayer is a heck of a lot more important than 30fps in single-player.
The article states that the resolution for Killzone Shadow Fall in the multiplayer is not 1920 x 1080p, but rather 960 x 1080i. This sent shockwaves through the fanboy genitals, causing a rustling of Jimmies that only Lysol and lots of therapy will be able to clean up.
The original article is a technical rundown filled with all the nerdy jargon one would expect from Digital Foundry, about the differences in resolution, how downgrading from 1080p to 720p doesn't guarantee stable 60 frames per second (ala Dead Rising 3) and how choice in the matter could ultimately help everyone (but not really).
The above video is a perfect example of stable frame-rate versus higher resolution (or lower resolution). Is sacrificing 1080p for 60fps worth it? Is getting rid of jaggies for lesser aliasing a trade-off you're willing to deal with? Is better frame-rate more conducive for better competitive performance?
As far as Killzone is concerned, the game has concessions made to fill a performance void in the competitive online space. As noted by Richard Leadbetter...
“In the single-player mode, the game runs at full 1080p with an unlocked frame-rate (though a 30fps cap has been introduced as an option in a recent patch), but it's a different story altogether with multiplayer. Here Guerrilla Games has opted for a 960x1080 framebuffer, in pursuit of a 60fps refresh. Across a range of clips, we see the game handing in a 50fps average on multiplayer. It makes a palpable difference, but it's probably not the sort of boost you might expect from halving fill-rate.”
To break this down even more, a Neogaffer going by the handle of ArchedThunder broke down the technical breakdown of Leadbetter's assessment with a comparison to help further explain the discrepancy. You can click the link to the poster's name for the full explanation, if your fancy has been fondled enough for the payoff from the expository climax.
For those of you who didn't bother clicking through due to fanboy depression or what have you, the simple explanation is that the 1080 interlacing gives a slightly blurry look to the game in multiplayer. While Guerrilla managed to hit 60fps, the downgrade to 960 x 1080i hasn't been entirely aesthetically pleasing to everyone, as evidenced by the full image below, which is a snapshot of the game in motion.
So what does all of this mean? It means that the octo-core AMD Jaguar processors in both the Xbox One and PS4 are weak. Sacrifices will have to be made for both consoles in order to hit native 1080p at 60fps for any graphically taxing game.
So what does this info say about anything? It says that gamers need to lower their expectations. While the PS4 is stronger than the Xbox One by a good margin, it's still weaker than most mid to high range PCs. Sadly, neither the Xbox One or PS4 will scale throughout the years like the PS3 and Xbox 360 due to using x86 architecture. There's very little to unlock, power wise.
So most importantly, what do fanboys come away with? Well, Xbox fanboys get to gloat that Killzone Shadow Fall isn't true 1080p at 60fps in the multiplayer mode. PlayStation fanboys get to gloat that at least they have shooter games at 1080i at 60fps, since none of them can run at that resolution and frame rate on the Xbox One. And Wii U owners get to gloat that they more non-sports games at 1080p and 60fps. Wii U for the win.