The downsampling isn't for fun (Destiny)

by uberfoop , Seattle-ish, Monday, July 31, 2017, 18:26 (2717 days ago) @ Cody Miller
edited by uberfoop, Monday, July 31, 2017, 18:35

Correct. Supersampling the whole image is not really used due to the huge overhead.

When they talk about higher resolutions and downsampling, yes it is. But, supersampling usually only happens on console when a developer is targeting multiple platforms, and the more capable platforms have an excess of processing power.

Usually only edges of polygons are super sampled.

As far as the terms are used in gaming, I think you're confusing supersampling with multisampling. And even multisampling technically adds extra samples everywhere in the image; it just doesn't functionally do anything on non-edges, because only geometry rasterization (not texturing, lighting, etc) is at a higher sample rate.

Supersampling has benefits besides geometric aliasing, notably:
1-It implicitly boosts the quality of texture filtering.
2-It can combat aliasing introduced in lighting/reflections.

When it comes to aliasing, "what screen size you need" arguments based on the resolution of human vision aren't entirely relevant. An incorrect shimmer in an image can be visible even if the source of it is spatially very tiny. Consider thin lines on normal maps; you can see shimmer in lighting highlights in, say, Halo 3, even if you're standing fifty feet from a 40" screen and the distance is making it hard to play the game.
As such, it's wrong to argue that rendering at 4K has no benefits for home viewing, even without sitting right up against the screen. Rendering at 4K has benefits even on a 1080p screen; the reconstruction at the output is only 1080p, but it's spatially and temporally cleaner.
The question is whether the benefits of higher resolution outweigh what else you could be doing with the power.