Killzone Shadow Fall Will Play At 60 Frames Per Second At A 1080p Resolution

I remember seeing Killzone Shadow Fall running for the first time when Sony announced the PlayStation 4. There was a sense of... is this it? Is this the grand generational leap? But as third parties struggle to harness for the power of new consoles, Sony's flagship shooter — more and more — is beginning to seem like quite the technological achievement.

In a post over at the PlayStation Blog, Sony confirmed that Killzone Shadow Fall would be running at 1080p resolution at a consistent 60 frames per second. Normally this might not qualify as news, but considering the kerfuffle surrounding Call of Duty: Ghosts and Battlefield 4, it seems that technological figures like this are actually relevant again. Call of Duty: Ghosts will not be running at full HD resolution on the Xbox One, but will on the PS4. The story is similar with regards to Battlefield 4, with the Xbox One version running at a lower res and the PS4 version running at 900p.

These sort of number waving console wars are common at the beginning of each new generation, but I suspect it will become increasingly irrelevant as time passes, especially when people get consoles into their homes and see that a game running at 720p can still look absolutely incredible. In fact, some reports state that certain games look better at the sub 1080p resolution on Xbox One.

But still, it's great to see that Guerrilla are pushing things forward with Killzone Shadow Fall. There's still a novelty for me in seeing new consoles release with grand leaps in tech. I'll never forget playing Mario 64 for the first time, or Gran Turismo 3. The new consoles might not 'wow' me in the same way, but I'm still hoping to see something startling for the PS4 and Xbox One at launch.


    It's still going to be a Killzone game though right?

      Which is a good thing. The Killzone games are great fun.

        It's Killzone... They haven't been good since 2 and Liberation came out...
        Also I don't see craptaku posting Forza 5 runs at 1080p 60fps Constant whereas Killzone is confirmed as variable frame rate a huge rookie mistake kotaku

          No one gives a fuck about Forza 5.. There are much better racing sims like Gran Turismo out there

    You just don't get that generational leap "WOW" factor anymore, especially if you are playing games on the PC right now and also are playing on consoles. As beautiful as Killzone looks on the PS4, its already been done on the PC, quite a while ago. Granted it is really only been the last few years that we have seen development for the PC pick up from EVERY game simply being console ports and developers generally putting in some extra effort for the PC version but still, that WOW factor just isn't there for me. I am glad that there is a new generation out though since that means at least for PC players there is going to generally be a new graphical benchmark for ports since they have more hardware to work with on consoles although i am sure this will diminish over time just like last time.

      Agreed, not many games have got my attention this next generation

        Yeah, but in the same way that now days if you upgrade your CPU it isn't as big a jump as it was. 7 years ago when you upgraded it was like you were going at light speed. Now if you upgrade anything other than your GPU you have to check your FPS etc to make sure it did anything. (Not always, but my point is that there has been a depreciation in the impact of new hardware over the years.)

          Yep, I have a huge bottle neck on my pc with the GPU, everything else is capable of maxing any game with the right gpu. Yet despite my card being a veritable dinosaur (6850) I still need to drop more than an equivalent cost of a new console (about $5-600) to get all games running at max.

          Everything computer related seems to have stagnated thanks to silicon reaching its limits, once we have a commercially viable alternative (the graphene stuff looks good) we will see massive jumps again.

          With that said i have been VERY pleased with the next gen leaps, I played the Last of Us f, I played GTA V, I played Mass Effect 3 and I've seen bf3 and COD. All of these are great looking games, but every single one of them has been the same for the last 3 odd years and while some were technological marvels (GTA V) on current gen tech, they weren't impressive outside of this.

          But When I look at Titanfall or Killzone or I see the INSANE weather effects in AC 4, I'm genuinely excited. The leaps are there, the things they have improved are significant. Outside of those who have seen the games first hand, none of the youtube videos or other material does them justice and I think a lot of people will be surprised when they see just how gorgeous these next gen games look, especially if you compared them to their current gen equivalents.

      Which is a good thing. It means an ending to the graphics arms race and developers starting to concentrate on gameplay, features, AI etc etc.

      It's going to be a good time for gaming. Mostly.

      Dude who cares! Us console players DO NOT CARE! Why do you PC fanboys insist on trying to persuade us console players to get a PC?! We dont care about PC, we do care about graphics but to an extent, we care about the GAMES. PC this PC that god you PC players are the most immature gamers on the planet! Grow the hell up and glue this into your mind, US CONSOLE PLAYERS SON'T CARE ABOUT PC THAT IS WHY WE HAVE A CONSOLE AND NOT A DAMN PC!!!

    I don't get the reports that say having less resolution makes it look better.

    It seems like a hell of a lot of spin.

      I'm not saying I agree, but some places are saying Ryse is the best looking day1 game so far from both xb & PS and its only 900p

        That could well be - it looks like a very pretty game!

        I'm more talking about the handful of game media reports that say "This exact same game is in a lower res on console X - but it looks so much better because it's a lower res!".

        Bad analogy time: these identical twin models, the one with splotchy skin and acne looks just as pretty - in fact, they look even prettier!

          I think what the reports are trying to say is, that even though it is at a lower resolution, it allows for more details to be put into things like texture, ambient occlusion etc..


      Its like saying movies look better on VHS than DVD

        Or that music sounds better on vinyl?

          Well, that actually does sound better.

            only if it's mastered for vinyl. heaps of shit is getting released with the same master as the cd because of the perceived collect-ability of vinyl and sounds like arse.

      I think those reports were about the Xbone upscaling 720p better than the PS4 could upscale 900p, which may hold some truth but native 1080p will of course look better than either.

        I guess that's down to the programmers and how much time they want to spend on not too worried about graphics but I would have thought native 1080 would be better than upscaling unless heaps of time was spent polishing it

      It's a trade off. If you are targeting 60 fps, you've got 16.6 milliseconds to render each frame. If the GPU takes less time to render the scene into a lower resolution framebuffer, you might be able to fit an extra post-processing stage into the budget.

      It depends on how the game is doing its scaling and graphics manipulation. If you take an image, and increase its size, the result will be things like artifacts, blurring, pixellation and other distortions being introduced because there was only enough data for the smaller size, the rest is extrapolated. Similarly, if you take a slightly blurry and pixellated picture and shrink it, it can actually improve the image because there is essentially more detail to choose from when determining what colour a pixel should be.

      The speed of the engine will also come in to play. Play a game at full resolution, then play it again at the lowest resolution and you will find that the performance improves due to the fact that frames can be rendered faster due to the lack of detail. Of course, most of this comes down to the implementation of the graphics engine.

      Yeah that is easily explainable.

      Basically getting a game to run at 1080 might take 100% of the consoles power and then you have all the textures and stuff at a 8/10 level. By downgrading to 900 you only use 85% of the consoles power with those same texture levels and as such you can boost it to have 10/10 level textures.

      In this regard by lowering the resolution slightly they are able to get higher resolution textures, better lighting and physics and everything else looking better as a result.

      Now while this wont be true of ALL games, at the start of the generation where optimisation is very low getting the machine to run at full HD is more of a brute force thing like PC graphics are atm. But once that gets optimised it will be both at 1080 and using the best textures.

    Wow, didn't see that coming. They originally said they were targeting 30. Must have been some insane optimisation going on telhe meantime!

    "In fact, some reports state that certain games look better at the sub 1080p resolution on Xbox One."

    - care to share, Mark?

      A lot of places is saying Ryse is best day1 thus far

        But Ryse isnt on the PS4, so its a moot comparison (you need to compare an apple with an apple - like CoD or BF4, not an apple to an orange) Anything other than that is pure spin

        Its just an opinion based on a preference, thats all

          Well the BF4 comparison has been made and the verdict looked like a draw....otherwise here's some spin

          Last edited 04/11/13 9:33 pm

        I thought that by saying the games looked "better", it implied a comparison between two different resolutions. If Mark had said "great" instead of "better", I would have assumed he meant Ryse ^_^

        EDIT: Ninja'd by dansdans!

        Last edited 04/11/13 11:17 am

        You know I find this really hard to believe, every single video or picture even at HD has looked awful on this game, all very choppy blurry and low res. (about ryse)

        Now maybe this is a result of dodgey vid captures and having somehow missed all the good looking ones, or that it simply looks astoundingly better in real life. The best I've seen is easily AC 4 on the seas or those grassy areas with those weather effects its outright insane.

        Last edited 04/11/13 4:48 pm

      The closest I have seen to reports like that is the Eurogamer article that talked about why MS is letting developers pick the res they want, instead of forcing 1080p:

      "We've chosen to let title developers make the trade-off of resolution vs. per-pixel quality in whatever way is most appropriate to their game content. A lower resolution generally means that there can be more quality per pixel. With a high quality scaler and anti-aliasing and render resolutions such as 720p or '900p', some games look better with more GPU processing going to each pixel than to the number of pixels; others look better at 1080p with less GPU processing per pixel,"

      If that's not the reports Mark is talking about, not sure what else he could be referring to?

        To be fair - that's a lame excuse.

        If the game can run natively at 1080P 60FPS - the company will make sure it does with the limitiation of deadlines and hardware.

        read it again... DEADLINE OR HARDWARE LIMITATION

        All their saying in your statement above was exactly that - they were limited to chose between a choppy 1080 P version or to scale it down so they could render it all smoothly.

        PS4 doesn't hit that limitation from what we've seen so far :P

          its maybe a lame excuse when comparing against the same game on the PS4 that has the same quality per pixel but a higher resolution.
          But for the most part i would rather turn the resolution down and the level of detail up when playing on PC, so this is really the same thing.

          i think an interesting point however is that these consoles don't have a chance in hell of running 4k games. which i find quite disappointing with such a huge number of years separating their predecessors.

            IF they were to be future proofed to run 4k games they would need to be running $500+ gpu's alone and people wouldn't like to pay $1000 US for a console, that was never going to happen.

            However im sure they can upscale the image to 4k and beyond easily enough, like last gen games did with 1080.

    Man everyone these days must have jaded eyes. I'm constantly amazed by the graphics of all consoles and PC, current and next-gen.

    i thought it was 60fps for multiplayer and 30fps for the single player?

      I think that was for the rumored Doom 4, not sure about Killzone

      Yeah that's right. 60fps for multiplayer but only 30fps for the single player.


      Playstation 4
      Battlefield 4 = 1600x900 (60fps)
      The Order: 1886 = 1920x800
      KillZone: Shadow Fall = 1920x1080 (MP=60fps, SP=30fps)
      Infamous: Second Son = 1920x1080
      DriveClub = 1920x1080 (Targeting 60fps)
      Resogun = 1920x1080 (60fps)
      Knack = 1920x1080 (Variable - 30-60fps)
      Assassin's Creed 4: Black Flag = 1920x1080
      Thief = 1920x1080
      Blacklight: Retribution = 1920x1080
      Warframe = 1920x1080
      Call of Duty: GHOSTS = 1920x1080 (60fps)
      Flower = 1920x1080 (60fps)
      FIFA = 1920x1080
      DC: Universe Online = 1920x1080 (60fps)
      NBA 2K14 = 1920x1080 (60fps)

      Xbox One
      Killer Instinct = 1280x720 (60fps)
      Battlefield 4 = 1280x720 (60fps)
      Ryse: Son of Rome = 1600x900 (30fps)
      Call of Duty: GHOSTS = 1280x720 (60fps)
      Titanfall = 1280x720 (to be confirmed)
      Forza 5 = 1920x1080 (60fps)
      FIFA = 1920x1080
      NBA 2K14 = 1920x1080 (60fps)
      Dead Rising 3 = "Dynamic" Resolution (30fps)

        Those Xbox One resolutions aren't sounding good. No word on AC4's res on Xbox One?

    Just to clarify I'm pretty sure that it's only the multi player targeting 60fps. I think the single player is 1080p @ 30fps

    I'm actually kind of pumped for the game. I've never played a Killzone game before but I watched a few playthrough videos of Shadow Fall and it looks like it'll be fun.

    Or maybe that's just the "There's nothing else at launch I remotely want after Watch Dogs was delayed" delusion talking.

      I loved KZ3 on the PS3, so I had this pre-ordered the same day as my console. My "Watch Dogs delayed" reaction was to order FIFA14 and Skylanders. My poor wallet.

      I really liked KZ2, one of the few FPS i actually like, minaly due to the art direction.

      KZ3 was ok, but it felt like a step away from what made 2 so good, and more in a COD style direction. Hopefully KZ:SF is better, it definitely looks good.

    The elephant in the room is that this is news in 2014 (close enough) when many PCs have been running 120fps++ at 1080p on most games for many years already.

    Last edited 04/11/13 2:01 pm

      Except this is about consoles and not PC, so your point is irrelephant.

        It isn't irrelevant, both play games do they not? Completely relevant as one performs at 2014 speeds and the other performs at 2009 speeds and yet it's acceptable

          Completely irrelevant because the the entire article is about the comparison of the graphic output of the next gen consoles, specifically xbone and ps4, nothing to do with PCs at all. When talking about cars you don't just suddenly talk about planes and how much better they are, besides you might come across like a smug know-it-all. Apples and oranges my friend.

          Also there was a pun in there...

      Yeah but it's apples and oranges. These are con-soooles not peeee ceeees.

      So totally different.

        Why is it totally different? Both play games no? Oh I get it because it's a console it's ok to accept corporate marketing spin and accept 5 year old technology because it's not a pee cee

          What is different about PCs and consoles? How about pretty much everything?

          Wow, what were the specs of your PC 5 years ago

          Hahaha. Ok. A pc can be custom made and will ususally cost a minimum of 400% what the console will cost. So you'd better hope that it's a better experience, you're paying a big premium for the priviledge.

          Consoles are cheap, and are sold by the millions.

          So you are comparing apples to incredibly expensive oranges. It's funny that you seem incredulous that people are impressed that the new consoles have graphics similar to machines that cost so much more. When in real life, it's actually impressive that they even get close.

            The PS4 costs less than a GTX780 graphics card *alone*.
            Sure you can figure up a PC to do better, but you get a complete console, controller, Bluray Player etc. etc. for $549. That is is comparable with current PC gaming at all is pretty spectacular, and look at PS3 launch games vs current PS3 games, in a year or so the games are going to look awesome, in 5 years they will look much much better than now.
            And I won't have had to upgrade a thing in all that time, I'll be busy playing games, not faffing around with hardware.

              In that same time, for my PC i'll have upgraded at least the gfx card, probably twice. So 600 for a new card, minus the 200 I'll get for the old one x 2 = $800.

              And that's assuming I don't buy a new cpu, or mobo, or HDD, or blu-ray player for my pc.

              Consoles are becoming a pretty good purchase these days. I've gotten ridiculous usage out of my PS3 in the last 6 years or so. Even just as a blu-ray player.

    Why is it always about graphics? what happened to the time when games were bought because they looked fun, not pretty. Killzone looks beautiful, and in a few years I'm sure games will look at least twice as good on the PS4.

    I'm too young to have owned a decent PC at the beginning of the 360/ps3 generation, but this time around I'm running an SLI GTX760 rig that runs games like far cry 3 and tomb raider with all the bells and whistles at 60fps+. Now, I can tell you, those games (even some PC games as far back as 2011) look extremely 'next gen' when compared to current console versions. So with this Killzone thing, I feel as if what we are getting is actually a console FPS that looks and feels like a current PC game. Is that common at console launch? Because if so, in just a few years we'll be back to the same old - pcs running console games twice as well, while the console games once again hold back how far the PC as a platform could truly be pushed.

      And the cycle continues. I remember when the original xbox came out and I was mad impressed. Then I upgraded my PC and a year later, saw the xbox again and could not believe how primitive it looked.

      Same when PS3 came out. It was really nice, very competitive with PC gfx. Within 2 years, PC surged ahead and never looked back.

      Now the next gen is coming out and they've caught up again. I give it 6 months at best. If you're already on PC, and all you care about is the gaming experience, then you have the best platform.

      Me? I'm a PC man from way back, but I'm actually going over to consoles. I tend to work on the PC now and prefer games where I'm sitting on the couch interacting with other people, rather than hunched over a monitor by myself.

      Never thought it would happen, but it has. Getting older definitely changes you.

      Yeah, and your pair of GTX760 cards cost over $600 *just for the cards*. Then add your power supply, case, motherboard, RAM, Operating system, mouse and keyboard.
      Oh yeah, and in 'just a few years' you will probably shell out another $600 to upgrade your graphics again.
      It is a different thing altogether. I will buy my PS4 (for less than you sepnt on just the GFX cards) and not spend anything on upgrading it and enjoy my gaming, in my loungeroom, with my friends and do it with great looking graphics for the next 5 years at least.
      Your PC might look better in a couple of years, it doesn't matter, they are different markets, with different costs and different pros and cons.

      Last edited 07/11/13 12:31 pm

    Wow factor my arse. Go back and look at Resistance.... Go on, it looks like a turd. This gen is a huge leap, you have a look at the games that get made in just one year... One. The division looks amazing, give that game 12-18 more months and it'll be even better. Watch dogs has 6 more months in the oven and it'll blow minds.

    Nice plug for the Xbone "looking great at 720p" in an article about a PS4 game being 1080p/60FPS.

    I've never played Killzone before and watching this video was that first time actually seeing gameplay. Is this what I've been missing out on? Looks like a bit of a cross between Halo and Crysis.

Join the discussion!

Trending Stories Right Now