Anti-Aliasing - Will it be one of your much have features next generation?

Less face it, image quality for the most part on consoles sucks.

You have some games with decent looking textures and effects but yet is completely let down by poor image quality ( Uncharted comes to mind )

Now personally with me being a Hermit image quality is my number 1 priority in my games and is the number 1 reason why I don't game on a console.

You console gamers don't seem to make such a fuss about the lake of decent image quality or is it just a case of you don't care because you're used to piss poor image quality?

Do you console guys expect anti-aliasing and anisotropic texture filtering next generation or are you have happy to leave it out?

If I have to turn down a setting on my PC, AA is always the first to go.

AF, and some form of AA at least post process, is almost certain.

Anti-Aliasing does mean a LOT.

You just don't know it till you have actually seen it.

Anti-Aliasing does mean a LOT.

You just don't know it till you have actually seen it.

LegatoSkyheart

I have seen it but it's not the most important thing to me in video games graphics.

Even with AA on fullest there are still edges with aliasing. I tried ACIII with all AA settings and the sails of the boats at the harbor were still aliased. I couldn't see much difference between the settings tbh.

When I still had my old computer AA was always the first to go if I needed extra FPS. I can look past an aliased edge, but I can't look past a lower resolution, worse textures, worse models, etc..

If consoles can't do a high level of AA at 1080p next gen, we will know for certain that both MS and Sony are selling us gimped hardware.

What does Anti Allialsing do?

What does Anti Allialsing do?

MaskedPlayer

[QUOTE="LegatoSkyheart"]

Anti-Aliasing does mean a LOT.

You just don't know it till you have actually seen it.

R4gn4r0k

I have seen it but it's not the most important thing to me in video games graphics.

Even with AA on fullest there are still edges with aliasing. I tried ACIII with all AA settings and the sails of the boats at the harbor were still aliased. I couldn't see much difference between the settings tbh.

When I still had my old computer AA was always the first to go if I needed extra FPS. I can look past an aliased edge, but I can't look past a lower resolution, worse textures, worse models, etc..

What does Anti Allialsing do?

MaskedPlayer

[QUOTE="LegatoSkyheart"]

Anti-Aliasing does mean a LOT.

You just don't know it till you have actually seen it.

R4gn4r0k

I have seen it but it's not the most important thing to me in video games graphics.

Even with AA on fullest there are still edges with aliasing. I tried ACIII with all AA settings and the sails of the boats at the harbor were still aliased. I couldn't see much difference between the settings tbh.

When I still had my old computer AA was always the first to go if I needed extra FPS. I can look past an aliased edge, but I can't look past a lower resolution, worse textures, worse models, etc..

Well I guess I should add that it helps in SOME games. The edges look smoother and everything doesn't look like it was made in Paint.

but sometimes the game is better without it.

What does Anti Allialsing do?

MaskedPlayer

gets rid of jagged edges and makes things smooth.

[QUOTE="MaskedPlayer"]

What does Anti Allialsing do?

mrfrosty151986

What does Anti Allialsing do?

MaskedPlayer

Smooths out the jaggie edges.

Odd because resolution and AA go hand in hand. In fact, 720p with high AA looks better than 1080p with no AA. Maybe at 4k we'll not need AA anymore.Chozofication

For me its the exact opposite: native res of screen > lower resolution with no matter how much AA you put on it.

Well I guess I should add that it helps in SOME games. The edges look smoother and everything doesn't look like it was made in Paint.

but sometimes the game is better without it.

LegatoSkyheart

Yeah I can agree with that: it does help in some games. And for example in a lot of old games AA can help a lot. I was surprised by how good GOW looked, even in 2012, because of its higher resolution and AA in the GOW collection.

[QUOTE="Chozofication"]Odd because resolution and AA go hand in hand. In fact, 720p with high AA looks better than 1080p with no AA. Maybe at 4k we'll not need AA anymore.R4gn4r0k

For me its the exact opposite: native res of screen > lower resolution with no matter how much AA you put on it.

Well I guess I should add that it helps in SOME games. The edges look smoother and everything doesn't look like it was made in Paint.

but sometimes the game is better without it.

LegatoSkyheart

Yeah I can agree with that: it does help in some games. And for example in a lot of old games AA can help a lot. I was surprised by how good GOW looked, even in 2012, because of its higher resolution and AA in the GOW collection.

It's why I kinda perfer to get the PS3 versions of PS2 titles, That and I can play the games on my PS3.

[QUOTE="Chozofication"]Odd because resolution and AA go hand in hand. In fact, 720p with high AA looks better than 1080p with no AA. Maybe at 4k we'll not need AA anymore.R4gn4r0k

For me its the exact opposite: native res of screen > lower resolution with no matter how much AA you put on it.

It's why I kinda perfer to get the PS3 versions of PS2 titles, That and I can play the games on my PS3.

LegatoSkyheart

I hope Nintendo will do collections like that too. Rereleasing wii games in 1080p with AA.

If consoles can't do a high level of AA at 1080p next gen, we will know for certain that both MS and Sony are selling us gimped hardware.

Fizzman

[QUOTE="LegatoSkyheart"]

It's why I kinda perfer to get the PS3 versions of PS2 titles, That and I can play the games on my PS3.

R4gn4r0k

I hope Nintendo will do collections like that too. Rereleasing wii games in 1080p with AA.

I'm more hoping Gamecube Games.

[QUOTE="Fizzman"]

If consoles can't do a high level of AA at 1080p next gen, we will know for certain that both MS and Sony are selling us gimped hardware.

mariokart64fan

The Wii U has awful graphics. This isnt even an exagguration, they are bad. If Sony and MS don't have significantly better graphics than the Wii U, console gaming is dead to me. I am not paying 400 bucks just for some garbage gimmick with hardware from 2004 powering my system. I am not a graphics whore, but you better charge 200 bucks for a 720/PS4 if you expect me to use ancient tech.

The Wii U is overpriced, but for some reason a horrible touch screen that has a 3/4 hour battery life makes it OK to pay 300/350 for a console from 2004.

[QUOTE="mariokart64fan"][QUOTE="Fizzman"]

If consoles can't do a high level of AA at 1080p next gen, we will know for certain that both MS and Sony are selling us gimped hardware.

Fizzman

The Wii U has awful graphics. This isnt even an exagguration, they are bad. If Sony and MS don't have significantly better graphics than the Wii U, console gaming is dead to me. I am not paying 400 bucks just for some garbage gimmick with hardware from 2004 powering my system. I am not a graphics whore, but you better charge 200 bucks for a 720/PS4 if you expect me to use ancient tech.

Oh man.

Such AWWWWWWWFULLLL graphics.....

painful.

For people who don't know what it is.

AA impact has increased throughout the last few years. AA was normally the first thing for me to go, but in some games like The Witcher 2, Planetside 2 and Guild Wars 2 the difference is incredible, to the point that it has already become a must have feature for me.

[QUOTE="Fizzman"]

[QUOTE="mariokart64fan"] I think a not so big jump is expected. based on sony's financial situation and microsofts push for casual play . which is good because wii u will not suffer what wii did . later on . id rather have 3 good looking consoles yet cheap enough for the consumer then 1 power house that is left behind like ps3 . LegatoSkyheart

The Wii U has awful graphics. This isnt even an exagguration, they are bad. If Sony and MS don't have significantly better graphics than the Wii U, console gaming is dead to me. I am not paying 400 bucks just for some garbage gimmick with hardware from 2004 powering my system. I am not a graphics whore, but you better charge 200 bucks for a 720/PS4 if you expect me to use ancient tech.

Oh man.

Such AWWWWWWWFULLLL graphics.....

painful.

Loving those bullshots which dont even look good. I cant wait to see Pikmin 3 launch and the damage control from sheep will be hilarious. "Buhhhh buhhh we dont care about good graphics."

Sheep pretend not to care about graphics because they know Nintendo will never again give them a system that is capable of displaying average looking graphics.

Loving those bullshots which dont even look good. I cant wait to see Pikmin 2 launch and the damage control from sheep will be hilarious. "Buhhhh buhhh we dont care about good graphics."

Sheep pretend not to care about graphics because they know Nintendo will never again give them a system that is capable of displaying average looking graphics.

Fizzman

Pikmin 2 launched in 2004.

[QUOTE="Fizzman"]

[QUOTE="mariokart64fan"] I think a not so big jump is expected. based on sony's financial situation and microsofts push for casual play . which is good because wii u will not suffer what wii did . later on . id rather have 3 good looking consoles yet cheap enough for the consumer then 1 power house that is left behind like ps3 . LegatoSkyheart

The Wii U has awful graphics. This isnt even an exagguration, they are bad. If Sony and MS don't have significantly better graphics than the Wii U, console gaming is dead to me. I am not paying 400 bucks just for some garbage gimmick with hardware from 2004 powering my system. I am not a graphics whore, but you better charge 200 bucks for a 720/PS4 if you expect me to use ancient tech.

Oh man. Such AWWWWWWWFULLLL graphics.....

painful.

[QUOTE="Fizzman"]

[QUOTE="mariokart64fan"] I think a not so big jump is expected. based on sony's financial situation and microsofts push for casual play . which is good because wii u will not suffer what wii did . later on . id rather have 3 good looking consoles yet cheap enough for the consumer then 1 power house that is left behind like ps3 . LegatoSkyheart

The Wii U has awful graphics. This isnt even an exagguration, they are bad. If Sony and MS don't have significantly better graphics than the Wii U, console gaming is dead to me. I am not paying 400 bucks just for some garbage gimmick with hardware from 2004 powering my system. I am not a graphics whore, but you better charge 200 bucks for a 720/PS4 if you expect me to use ancient tech.

Oh man.

Such AWWWWWWWFULLLL graphics.....

painful.

[QUOTE="Fizzman"]

Loving those bullshots which dont even look good. I cant wait to see Pikmin 2 launch and the damage control from sheep will be hilarious. "Buhhhh buhhh we dont care about good graphics."

Sheep pretend not to care about graphics because they know Nintendo will never again give them a system that is capable of displaying average looking graphics.

psymon100

Pikmin 2 launched in 2004.

You clearly know what i am talking about, but you have to point out like you dont understand i am referring to Wii U Pikmin.

I really hope every game uses at least some form of AA, jaggies ruin graphics.

I just recently built my first PC rig... and I have to say that the AA setting makes such a big difference on the image. I dont really know what it is or what #x I should set it at... but man it makes every game look fantastic

I am blown away every time I see games I am used to seeing on consoles.... even old games like Half-Life

I game mainly on PC and I don't use any AA whatsoever.

I prefer a sharper picture and better framerate.

I have AF always set to max, tho. (cause blurry textures 2 meters away from the cam position annoy me)

I would agree that consoles have poor image quality but that's console hardware limitations for you.

I can barely play RDR and GTA4 on PS3 the AA(lack there of) is terrible.

Considering some of the progress and the AA methods available now, no game on consoles should be jagged next gen. It's insulting

I was playing this in 1998. I remember Anti Aliasing options in the settings.

Anti Aliasing, yeah it's a good feature. My preference is always for resolution first, then increasing world detail, then shadows, effects etc. If I can max out with all these turned on, then I'll go for AF or AA.

If I was playing on a console, I'd prefer 60FPS with no AA compared to 30FPS with some AA. On the PC, well I'm glad I can mess with the settings to find what I like.

I was playing this in 1998. I remember Anti Aliasing options in the settings.

Anti Aliasing, yeah it's a good feature. My preference is always for resolution first, then increasing world detail, then shadows, effects etc. If I can max out with all these turned on, then I'll go for AF or AA.

If I was playing on a console, I'd prefer 60FPS with no AA compared to 30FPS with some AA. On the PC, well I'm glad I can mess with the settings to find what I like.

psymon100

It's texture detail > shaders > object/terrain details > draw distance > shadows. ;)

Resolution should always be native and you should have AF atleast on 4x.

I said 'My preference' ...

I'd be fine with post process AA.lowe0

Me too, actually...

In most cases, I don't have any problems with a high-quality FXAA, despite it introducing some minor blur to the scene. Lately, though, been using SMAA + sharpening from that Shader Suite...

Some of those solutions would work good on consoles, improving the visual quality at a very minor performance impact...

I've been having to substitute MSAA for FXAA or SMAA because of the performance hit I get when I apply MSAA to demanding games. Post processing AA gives me minimal jaggies without the performance hit. The only downside is that is makes the IQ a little more blurry (especially FXAA).

Resolution is more important. AA can come next, if there's power for it. The most important thing, which will have the biggest impact on image quality compared to current gen consoles, is having them display ACTUAL HD. People complain about the aliasing in current console games, but AA isn't what they need. Just about anything will look like sh!t when it's 960x540, upscaled onto your giant 1080p TV.

I find it funny that that's not being talked about more. Especially considering the PS3 and 360 are so often referred to as "the HD twins". That name doesn't really make any sense, considering that the VAST majority of games on those systems aren't even rendered at 720p, much less 1080p. The majority are closer to 960x540, which is basically a widescreen version of 800x600, which was a standard resolution for PC monitors in the late nineties.

Higher resolution just makes everything look better. Which makes sense. More pixels = greater level of detail, and less jagged edges, naturally, even without AA. Higher resolution makes textures look better, even if the textures are exactly the same, just because there's more detail available with more pixels. Perfect example of that is the PC version of Dark Souls, with the DSfix, to allow proper resolutions. That game already had surprisingly detailed textures, which were hidden under that crappy resolution. Use dsfix to make the game actually render at 1920x1080, rather than the not-even-720p it was at to begin with, and it's like you just cleaned a layer of filth of your screen.

That's why I think putting out real HD resolutions should be the top priority for the next gen consoles. Especially if the PS4/nextbox aren't coming out til late 2013/possibly even 2014, there is NO excuse for them to not have every single game rendering a native 1920x1080. Any less will be absolutely laughable.