Truth about the Alan Wake resolution issue!

Myths busted:

Myth: All the images that were tested came from a compressed video!

Truth: Not true. Many of the images cannot be found in any known video that has been released. Also, many of the videos that were released had a logo on the screen. The images tested did not. It would seem that the website in question has a copy of the game and that the images are raw feed. You can try and find the exact same shot in the video, but you can't because it's not from there.

Myth: The video (see above) was already compressed so you cannot count pixels!

Truth: It doesn't work like this- it's based on a ratio inherent to the native resolution. Also, the HUD in the images was found to be 1:1, so this is literally what the game looks like! The HUD being rendered at 1:1 720p pretty much proves it's a legit 1280x720 screen shot and that the other graphics are not true HD.

That's nice to know, this shall surely affect the game in some way that I will not ever be purchasing it and I shall not buy that 360 for it either.

Cows for life

My life for the beef

my beef for Aiur.

That's nice to know, this shall surely affect the game in some way that I will not ever be purchasing it and I shall not buy that 360 for it either.

Cows for life

My life for the beef

my beef for Aiur.

Espada12

So it's not graphics king. Big deal. AW is still going to be an amazing game. One of my most anticipated titles yet.

Can you guys get any more insecure?

Alan Wake will be the best looking game on 360 without a doubt, maybe even the best on consoles, who knows? Just accept that it looks stunning.

That's nice to know, this shall surely affect the game in some way that I will not ever be purchasing it and I shall not buy that 360 for it either.

Cows for life

My life for the beef

my beef for Aiur.

Espada12

There is no cow level.

[QUOTE="Espada12"]

That's nice to know, this shall surely affect the game in some way that I will not ever be purchasing it and I shall not buy that 360 for it either.

Cows for life

My life for the beef

my beef for Aiur.

thetruespin

Who would utter such blashemy?????!!!! Let me strike them down in the name of beef!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! NOTHING WILL EVER BE GRAPHICS KING UNLESS IT'S ON PS3 ONLY!!!!

Can you guys get any more insecure?

Alan Wake will be the best looking game on 360 without a doubt, maybe even the best on consoles, who knows? Just accept that it looks stunning.

Franky-the-bat

Can you guys get any more insecure?

Alan Wake will be the best looking game on 360 without a doubt, maybe even the best on consoles, who knows? Just accept that it looks stunning.

Franky-the-bat

What's even more insecure is when cows and lems go crazy when their supposed Graphics King contenders is under HD quality. Not saying graphics matter, since I am a Sheep that branches out, but even I find it hilarious that hypocrisy of it "being a good game regardless of how it is sub HD" is used for the HD consoles and not held the same way when bashed on the Wii.

[QUOTE="Franky-the-bat"]

Can you guys get any more insecure?

Alan Wake will be the best looking game on 360 without a doubt, maybe even the best on consoles, who knows? Just accept that it looks stunning.

thetruespin

Besides, these are minute. You're not going to notice a difference between 540p and 720p unless you're glued to the screen with a magnifying glass.

Another Alan Wake thread that focuses on its least important aspect: graphics.R3FURBISHED

&quo[QUOTE=t;Franky-the-bat"]

Can you guys get any more insecure?

Alan Wake will be the best looking game on 360 without a doubt, maybe even the best on consoles, who knows? Just accept that it looks stunning.

Zanoh

What's even more insecure is when cows and lems go crazy when their supposed Graphics King contenders is under HD quality. Not saying graphics matter, since I am a Sheep that branches out, but even I find it hilarious that hypocrisy of it "being a good game regardless of how it is sub HD" is used for the HD consoles and not held the same way when bashed on the Wii.

[QUOTE="Franky-the-bat"]

Can you guys get any more insecure?

Alan Wake will be the best looking game on 360 without a doubt, maybe even the best on consoles, who knows? Just accept that it looks stunning.

thetruespin

Translation: "This game is not on my console of choice, so I have to spite it and blow every single small flaw out of proportion in an effort to convince myself that it won't be good."

[QUOTE="thetruespin"][QUOTE="Franky-the-bat"]

Can you guys get any more insecure?

Alan Wake will be the best looking game on 360 without a doubt, maybe even the best on consoles, who knows? Just accept that it looks stunning.

SpinoRaptor24

Translation: "This game is not on my console of choice, so I have to spite it and blow every single small flaw out of proportion in an effort to convince myself that it won't be good."

Cows act like no one has ever seen the game in motion. There are lots of gameplay vids and the game does look amazing

[QUOTE="R3FURBISHED"]Another Alan Wake thread that focuses on its least important aspect: graphics.sayonara89

Don't generalize it, graphics are the most important thing in the world to System Wars fanboys.

The fanboys here would probably accept two games that blow away any other graphically and score an 8 than have two dozen AAAs that same year for their system of choice.

[QUOTE="Zanoh"]

What's even more insecure is when cows and lems go crazy when their supposed Graphics King contenders is under HD quality. Not saying graphics matter, since I am a Sheep that branches out, but even I find it hilarious that hypocrisy of it "being a good game regardless of how it is sub HD" is used for the HD consoles and not held the same way when bashed on the Wii.

thetruespin

Well the big question is did the devs themselves declare it the graphics king contender? No. Fanboys did....In the end they are the only ones going to be hurting once their expectations are hurt and a potential good game to keep for anything aside from the supposed graphics is hindered.

[QUOTE="R3FURBISHED"]Another Alan Wake thread that focuses on its least important aspect: graphics.sayonara89

i have no doubt AW will be a amazing game.

Myths busted:

Myth: All the images that were tested came from a compressed video!

Truth: Not true. Many of the images cannot be found in any known video that has been released. Also, many of the videos that were released had a logo on the screen. The images tested did not. It would seem that the website in question has a copy of the game and that the images are raw feed. You can try and find the exact same shot in the video, but you can't because it's not from there.

Myth: The video (see above) was already compressed so you cannot count pixels!

Truth: It doesn't work like this- it's based on a ratio inherent to the native resolution. Also, the HUD in the images was found to be 1:1, so this is literally what the game looks like! The HUD being rendered at 1:1 720p pretty much proves it's a legit 1280x720 screen shot and that the other graphics are not true HD.

A dev from Remedy has replied to this pixel fiasco:

"Alan Wake's renderer on the Xbox360 uses about 50 different intermediate render targets in different resolutions, color depths and anti-alias settings for different purposes. These are used for example for cascaded shadow maps from sun & moon, shadow maps from flashlights, flares and street lights, z-prepass, tiled color buffers, light buffers for deferred rendering, vector blur, screen-space ambient occlusion, auto-exposure, HUD, video buffers, menus and so on. In the end all are combined to form one 720p image, with all intermediate buffer sizes selected to optimize image quality and GPU performance. All together the render targets take about 80 MB of memory, equivalent in size to over twenty 720p buffers."

In short, it's 720p.

Link.

A dev from Remedy has replied to this pixel fiasco:

"Alan Wake's renderer on the Xbox360 uses about 50 different intermediate render targets in different resolutions, color depths and anti-alias settings for different purposes. These are used for example for cascaded shadow maps from sun & moon, shadow maps from flashlights, flares and street lights, z-prepass, tiled color buffers, light buffers for deferred rendering, vector blur, screen-space ambient occlusion, auto-exposure, HUD, video buffers, menus and so on. In the end all are combined to form one 720p image, with all intermediate buffer sizes selected to optimize image quality and GPU performance. All together the render targets take about 80 MB of memory, equivalent in size to over twenty 720p buffers."

In short, it's 720p.

Link.

SpinoRaptor24

MY BEEF FOR AIUR.

Another Alan Wake thread that focuses on its least important aspect: graphics.R3FURBISHED

Keep telling yourself that. The entire gaming industry for the past 20 years have been pushing forward in terms of hardware. Hardware = graphics. Graphics are about the only difference between current games and past games. Your statement, despite being in line with a vast portion of the gaming community, basically contradicts the fundamental impetus for the entire gaming industry.

And if graphics were the least important aspect of gaming, how do you justify ATI and NVIDIA being what they are today? And if that alone wasn't enough, the fact that ATI/AMD, Intel and IBM all began working on a CPU-GPU fusion processor to facilitate a less daunting combination of GPUs and CPUs for customers proves that there is demand for GPU functions in the market, albeit by people who are less knowledgeable about hardware.

So, despite what you, and many here would claim, graphics are IMPORTANT ENOUGH to motivate AMD, ATI, Intel and IBM to all work on a new processor where customers can just buy a PC without worrying about what their GPU can run or cannot run. That fundamental motivation for all those companies alone contradicts your statement, and point to one fact, that there is an increasing demand for graphics quality.

So, I gotta say, you and many others are flat out wrong! Either that, or AMD, ATI, NVIDIA, Intel and IBM are fools for persuing a market with no demand.

[QUOTE="thetruespin"]

Myths busted:

Myth: All the images that were tested came from a compressed video!

Truth: Not true. Many of the images cannot be found in any known video that has been released. Also, many of the videos that were released had a logo on the screen. The images tested did not. It would seem that the website in question has a copy of the game and that the images are raw feed. You can try and find the exact same shot in the video, but you can't because it's not from there.

Myth: The video (see above) was already compressed so you cannot count pixels!

Truth: It doesn't work like this- it's based on a ratio inherent to the native resolution. Also, the HUD in the images was found to be 1:1, so this is literally what the game looks like! The HUD being rendered at 1:1 720p pretty much proves it's a legit 1280x720 screen shot and that the other graphics are not true HD.

Supabul

Because lemmings go out of their way to prove otherwise? And vice versa?

[QUOTE="thetruespin"]

Myths busted:

Myth: All the images that were tested came from a compressed video!

Truth: Not true. Many of the images cannot be found in any known video that has been released. Also, many of the videos that were released had a logo on the screen. The images tested did not. It would seem that the website in question has a copy of the game and that the images are raw feed. You can try and find the exact same shot in the video, but you can't because it's not from there.

Myth: The video (see above) was already compressed so you cannot count pixels!

Truth: It doesn't work like this- it's based on a ratio inherent to the native resolution. Also, the HUD in the images was found to be 1:1, so this is literally what the game looks like! The HUD being rendered at 1:1 720p pretty much proves it's a legit 1280x720 screen shot and that the other graphics are not true HD.

Supabul

Can you tell me why, you have made 4 topic's about it already.

Here is the real truth not from a fanboy.

After looking through the images, reading what other people have posted, and seeing exactly what is going on....

The framebuffer is 720p natively. The HUD is 720p natively. The post processing effects are 720p natively(motion blur, noise filter, depth of field, SSAO, etc.) The game rasterized image itself is 540p, software scaled up to 720p when it is added to the framebuffer.

Technically, Remedy never lied when they said 720p native. They just didn't tell the entire truth. The actual framebuffer really is 720p, which is what you would typically speak about when you discuss what the native resolution is, the only difference is that the 720p framebuffer is built off of the 540p geometry raster.

So, here we go, straight from Remedy:

Modern renderers don't work by rendering everything to a certain final on-screen resolution, but use a combination of techniques and buffers to compose the final detail-rich frames, optimizing to improve the visual experience and game performance.

Alan Wake's renderer on the Xbox360 uses about 50 different intermediate render targets in different resolutions, color depths and anti-alias settings for different purposes. These are used for example for cascaded shadow maps from sun & moon, shadow maps from flashlights, flares and street lights, z-prepass, tiled color buffers, light buffers for deferred rendering, vector blur, screen-space ambient occlusion, auto-exposure, HUD, video buffers, menus and so on. In the end all are combined to form one 720p image, with all intermediate buffer sizes selected to optimize image quality and GPU performance. All together the render targets take about 80 MB of memory, equivalent in size to over twenty 720p buffers.

Remedy

He is absolutely correct when he says this. It is an odd and rather unique case for Alan Wake, and that is why it caused so much confusion, but Remedy was not lying when they said 720p, end of story.

So, the some Alan Wake Forum Manager didn't know what he was talking about, big surprise.

I guess it's lower res, but at the hud and effects are 720p, so that's cool.

It may not be what a huge, large portion of SW thought trusting that Manager of forums, but it should be a great game still.:P

So, the some Alan Wake Forum Manager didn't know what he was talking about, big surprise.

I guess it's lower res, but at the hud and effects are 720p, so that's cool.

It may not be what a huge, large portion of SW thought trusting that Manager of forums, but it should be a great game still.:P

SolidTy

I'm going to unlock all the AW achievements before you do.

[QUOTE="R3FURBISHED"]Another Alan Wake thread that focuses on its least important aspect: graphics.jhcho2

Keep telling yourself that. The entire gaming industry for the past 20 years have been pushing forward in terms of hardware. Hardware = graphics. Graphics are about the only difference between current games and past games. Your statement, despite being in line with a vast portion of the gaming community, basically contradicts the fundamental impetus for the entire gaming industry.

And if graphics were the least important aspect of gaming, how do you justify ATI and NVIDIA being what they are today? And if that alone wasn't enough, the fact that ATI/AMD, Intel and IBM all began working on a CPU-GPU fusion processor to facilitate a less daunting combination of GPUs and CPUs for customers proves that there is demand for GPU functions in the market, albeit by people who are less knowledgeable about hardware.

So, despite what you, and many here would claim, graphics are IMPORTANT ENOUGH to motivate AMD, ATI, Intel and IBM to all work on a new processor where customers can just buy a PC without worrying about what their GPU can run or cannot run. That fundamental motivation for all those companies alone contradicts your statement, and point to one fact, that there is an increasing demand for graphics quality.

So, I gotta say, you and many others are flat out wrong! Either that, or AMD, ATI, NVIDIA, Intel and IBM are fools for persuing a market with no demand.

I don't think graphics are the only difference, a.i and physics are also a lot better now, but we take them for granted. Imo graphics need to be good to a standard, but I don't need high end graphics to enjoy games.

The fusion chips seems to be directed at a specific market, AMD seem to term it an Application Processing Unit. It also doesn't seem like its going to be very high end, rather a capable low end all in one solution, I wonder if its even for desktops, sounds like a laptop thing, especially as it will be more power effective. I don't think they are being designed for graphics intensive jobs.

I can see the benefit for applications as it's supposed to offload the floating point calculations to the GPU. Just sounds like a cost effective way to get power/performance for something mobile. There's no way they would combine a high end GPU and CPU on one core, the power it would need and the heat it would create would be crazy.

But what does this have to do with gaming. Intel/AMD are always looking to create new methods and processors for different markets and applications.

So, the some Alan Wake Forum Manager didn't know what he was talking about, big surprise.

I guess it's lower res, but at the hud and effects are 720p, so that's cool.

It may not be what a huge, large portion of SW thought trusting that Manager of forums, but it should be a great game still.:P

SolidTy

HE WAS NOT LYING. It just wasn't everything. And the engine is a deferred engine, WAY MORE than just the HUD and "effects" are happening at 720p. The lighting is 720p, as well as the post processing. Infact, 90% of the engine is at 720p. It just uses a 540p geometry buffer. And to Remedy, considering all of the other things it is 720p natively. And I would argue that they are partially correct... It would be looking at it too simply just to blanket say "this is 540p" but it is too complicated to say "this is 720p."

[QUOTE="SolidTy"]

So, the some Alan Wake Forum Manager didn't know what he was talking about, big surprise.

I guess it's lower res, but at the hud and effects are 720p, so that's cool.

It may not be what a huge, large portion of SW thought trusting that Manager of forums, but it should be a great game still.:P

SpinoRaptor24

I'm going to unlock all the AW achievements before you do.

I don't think so! :P :twisted:

[QUOTE="SpinoRaptor24"]

[QUOTE="SolidTy"]

So, the some Alan Wake Forum Manager didn't know what he was talking about, big surprise.

I guess it's lower res, but at the hud and effects are 720p, so that's cool.

It may not be what a huge, large portion of SW thought trusting that Manager of forums, but it should be a great game still.:P

SolidTy

I'm going to unlock all the AW achievements before you do.

I don't think so! :P :twisted:

Of course not, you are the Achievement King after all :oops:

[QUOTE="SolidTy"]

[QUOTE="SpinoRaptor24"]

I'm going to unlock all the AW achievements before you do.

SpinoRaptor24

I don't think so! :P :twisted:

Of course not, you are the Achievement King after all :oops:

I predict most folks will top out at 300-500 Gamerscore, judging from my other competitions with Fable 2, GeoW 2, Soul Cali, and others. We'll see,

I've never seen how Remedy does achievements yet, since this is their first game this gen, it should be interesting how they interpret them. They may put some on there that will be very, very hard.

[QUOTE="Franky-the-bat"]

Can you guys get any more insecure?

Alan Wake will be the best looking game on 360 without a doubt, maybe even the best on consoles, who knows? Just accept that it looks stunning.

thetruespin

You wouldn't know it was sub 720p unless someone counting pixels told you.

If the developers decided what they currently settled on produces the highest IQ then it is what it is. Would you rather they sacrificed overall qulaity just to hit this arbitary number of pixels? You sound rediculously insecure by the way, at least try and bash it a bit more subtley.

[QUOTE="thetruespin"][QUOTE="Franky-the-bat"]

Can you guys get any more insecure?

Alan Wake will be the best looking game on 360 without a doubt, maybe even the best on consoles, who knows? Just accept that it looks stunning.

thecapsaicinkid

You wouldn't know it was sub 720p unless someone counting pixels told you.

If the developers decided what they currently settled on produces the highest IQ then it is what it is. Would you rather they sacrificed overall qulaity just to hit this arbitary number of pixels? You sound rediculously insecure by the way, at least try and bash it a bit more subtley.