Resolution question

Flynn said:
Do you think gamers will get serious about caring about games? I'm starting to wonder if all they care about is who's GPU-dick is bigger.
Click to expand...
I care but todays displays and AVR's demand great display showcasing visuals and high fidelity surround sound.
We get the latter....its the visuals that need work.

It seems these days People are serious about games/great gameplay that's why you know who is the leader.
 
VaLLiancE said:
I care but todays displays and AVR's demand great display showcasing visuals and high fidelity surround sound.
We get the latter....its the visuals that need work.

It seems these days People are serious about games/great gameplay that's why you know who is the leader.
Click to expand...


Did you just try to push the whole "more sales = better quality" spiel. I surely hope not.
 
VaLLiancE said:
In response to him saying people need to worry more about games/gameplay?
Yes
Click to expand...

Doesn't matter what you responded to. That sort illogical thinking remains silly.

Also, Flynn has a point. Going by what we see on hourly basis on forums far and wide, it does give the impression that gamers these days tend to care more about graphics, or more specifically, resolution & FPS, than they do about the actual games. It may be a some what skewed impression generated by the overbearing continuity of the subject in most sections and most threads, but it is pretty easy to see why somebody might suggest said impression. Still, I see no reason for your illogical "Sales = quality" reply.
 
Its all relative to:

1) The size of the screen
2) The distance you are seated at
3) Your eyes (yes some are more sensitive than others)

I've got a 42" TV and sit about 6 feet away. For me 720p, 900p and 1080p makes no difference, but if you sit closely and look there are subtle differences between 900p and 1080p and more pronounced between 720p and 1080p. For me frame rate is more important, because this is something that actually impacts gameplay.

But all said, I am annoyed that both consoles cant produce 1080p @60FPS out of the gate. This should have been a given from day one.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Viktor
TheGeneral said:
Its all relative to:

1) The size of the screen
2) The distance you are seated at
3) Your eyes (yes some are more sensitive than others)

I've got a 42" TV and sit about 6 feet away. For me 720p, 900p and 1080p makes no difference, but if you sit closely and look there are subtle differences between 900p and 1080p and more pronounced between 720p and 1080p. For me frame rate is more important, because this is something that actually impacts gameplay.

But all said, I am annoyed that both consoles cant produce 1080p @60FPS out of the gate. This should have been a given from day one.
Click to expand...

You are disappointed because you had illogical expectations. Even if these consoles packed a Titan X and 16GB ram and an 8 core i7 @4ghz, you would still have plenty of games that do not meet your expectation. Technically, last-gen could do 1080P @60FPS if that is what the developers chose to have. But like always, they chose lower resolutions and lower Frames for higher visual prowess .
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mcmasters
menace-uk- said:
You are disappointed because you had illogical expectations. Even if these consoles packed a Titan X and 16GB ram and an 8 core i7 @4ghz, you would still have plenty of games that do not meet your expectation. Technically, last-gen could do 1080P @60FPS if that is what the developers chose to have. But like always, they chose lower resolutions and lower Frames for higher visual prowess .
Click to expand...

I disagree with this.
Hardware is weak no matter how you spin it.
They could of stepped it up and made 1080p/60fps more common.
 
VaLLiancE said:
I disagree with this.
Hardware is weak no matter how you spin it.
They could of stepped it up and made 1080p/60fps more common.
Click to expand...

menace-uk- said:
Obviously you missed the point.
Click to expand...

Yep. It's a balance for not making games look ugly. All games this gen could be 1080p/60 FPS but it would mean that these games would lose a lot of visual detail/effects in other areas to make that possible.

TheGeneral said:
However you dice it, both consoles are weak compared pound for pound in the generation leaps from PS2 -> P3 and Xbox -> Xbox 360.
Click to expand...

This is true but this is due to costs. The consoles would have been $600 (or more) at launch if they continued on following that path.
 
TheGeneral said:
However you dice it, both consoles are weak compared pound for pound in the generation leaps from PS2 -> P3 and Xbox -> Xbox 360.
Click to expand...

Absolutely, I have said the same thing many times. but like I said, where the resolution and FPS end up is ultimately a developer decision. These things could be 10 times more powerful and you still wouldn't see 1080P@60FPS across the board.
Also, we have to remeber that sometimes the fault lies with the developer software and not the hardware. Some game engines are better than others.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Frozpot
menace-uk- said:
You are disappointed because you had illogical expectations. Even if these consoles packed a Titan X and 16GB ram and an 8 core i7 @4ghz, you would still have plenty of games that do not meet your expectation. Technically, last-gen could do 1080P @60FPS if that is what the developers chose to have. But like always, they chose lower resolutions and lower Frames for higher visual prowess .
Click to expand...


It's not an illogical expectation to have expected next gen consoles to run games at the standard resolution of the times.
The 360 came out running games at the standard resolution of back then, which was 720p. Standard is now 1080p, and when this gen started, we've already been seeing higher resolution screens than even that.

I don't see how expecting to run games at current standard would be an illogical expectation.
 
Qbert said:
It's not an illogical expectation to have expected next gen consoles to run games at the standard resolution of the times.
The 360 came out running games at the standard resolution of back then, which was 720p. Standard is now 1080p, and when this gen started, we've already been seeing higher resolution screens than even that.

I don't see how expecting to run games at current standard would be an illogical expectation.
Click to expand...

The expectation was 1080P @ 60FPS. That is illogical. If the expectation was just 1080P then I would have simply agreed.
 
We were already discussing how both consoles were going to likely be underpowered even before the official specs came out. I wanted 1080p/60fps too (the latter being more important to me) but we all knew we weren't getting that long before either console hit the shelf.
 
What shocks me is how these consoles are considered weak because of resolutions and FPS, when as a whole we are definitely seeing much more elaborate, bigger and detailed games, far better than any generation before it. I have to agree with Menace on this one; many people had unrealistic expectations from the gate. I couldnt be happier with what we have on tap right now.
 
Yeah, there is a noticeable difference but if you only own the X1 , no biggie since you won't have anything to compare it to anyways.
 
Its apparent that these consoles can do 1080p @ 60fps. That much is a given. But what isnt so certain are the numerous dev capabilities. You can give an artist every tool in the book to create amazing products, but if they lack in experience, knowledge or even talent, all the tools in the world wont make a difference. Not to mention some devs (many this gen) are more concerned with creating great looking games graphically speaking than to push resolutions or frames over visual aesthetics.
 
menace-uk- said:
The expectation was 1080P @ 60FPS. That is illogical. If the expectation was just 1080P then I would have simply agreed.
Click to expand...


Why is it illogical? I do think that it's illogical to expect "all" games to be 1080p/60 fps, but it's not illogical to expect a lot games to be so.

Illogical would be to expect games to run at 1080p, 60 fps AND everything totally maxed out as compared to what PC gamers get.
 
Kerosene31 said:
We were already discussing how both consoles were going to likely be underpowered even before the official specs came out. I wanted 1080p/60fps too (the latter being more important to me) but we all knew we weren't getting that long before either console hit the shelf.
Click to expand...


Indeed...even though there was that odd poster or 2 that clung to this idea that next gen consoles would be so powerful, that it would take 2-3 years before PC could even catch up.
 
Qbert said:
Why is it illogical? I do think that it's illogical to expect "all" games to be 1080p/60 fps, but it's not illogical to expect a lot games to be so.

Illogical would be to expect games to run at 1080p, 60 fps AND everything totally maxed out as compared to what PC gamers get.
Click to expand...

For reasons already stated. Main one is that it is dev choice on how they allocate the finite resources the hardware offers. It always has been, always will be.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back