Time to get a new TV....
On a serious note, 55-60" are so cheap these days, its hardly breaking the bank. Unless you wanted to go bigger or 4K.
"1080P Zealots Are Ruining Gaming" YT Vid
- Thread starter Intellivision
- Start date
On a serious note, 55-60" are so cheap these days, its hardly breaking the bank. Unless you wanted to go bigger or 4K.
Time to get a new TV....
On a serious note, 55-60" are so cheap these days, its hardly breaking the bank. Unless you wanted to go bigger or 4K.
It's a 37 inch that only just fits where it is, plus its a plasma and I like how motion looks on it.
I only have a 360 so my gaming is no more than 720p anyway.
I will upgrade when I get a new console in a couple of years time. Hopefully those sexy OLED sets will be more affordable and *gasp* smaller by then.
Wow, people are still butthurt that consumers largely and vocally voted for a more powerful console?
And to PS4 fans with tvs of all makes and sizes, regardless of performance hit.
Ya, and people are getting bigger TV due to price dropping, & over 50" TV will be common very soon, if its not already.
I have 40" & looks to upgrade to 60" also.
Consoles that design for 5-7 years cycle must be future proof. last gen, when MS introduce 360, with HD & broadband only, they were future proofing (as standard TV was still widespread & Broadband less common in 2006). In just a few years, both broadband & HD TV became norm.
Now we have a console gen, that have issues displaying native resolution of current standard when launched.
I still bought eventually (this monday) the slight more powerful of the next gen console, so I am not completely butthurt for sure. But I will be lying if I said I am not dissapointed that games struggle at 1080p.
I have 40" & looks to upgrade to 60" also.
Consoles that design for 5-7 years cycle must be future proof. last gen, when MS introduce 360, with HD & broadband only, they were future proofing (as standard TV was still widespread & Broadband less common in 2006). In just a few years, both broadband & HD TV became norm.
Now we have a console gen, that have issues displaying native resolution of current standard when launched.
I still bought eventually (this monday) the slight more powerful of the next gen console, so I am not completely butthurt for sure. But I will be lying if I said I am not dissapointed that games struggle at 1080p.
TVs are so cheap now it's insane. I got a 60" Panasonic plasma 3 years ago for around $1,400. Aside from an ethernet port for direct streaming of Netflix or internet, it doesn't have 3D or some other new features TVs have, but good enough for me. By now, you can probably get good 60" LEDs for around $1,000. And 50-55" ones for maybe around $800.
TVs have changed in that way back prices would come down as flashier TVs release, but the size of the screen didn't change much. Now, pricing comes down as new TVs get released, but the trend in sizing is also going up to. So for people waiting years for pricing to come down, they are still getting a size boost too. Who knows what sizes will top out at but I thought 60" tvs would be a potential max (at the time 65" were out). But there's now 70" and 80" tvs sold to consumers!
As for consoles gaming wise, both system are basically on par. It looks like X1 games have propped up performance over the past year, while PS4 games some reason haven't really improved. The key differentiator are exclusives, online performance and OS features, and the whole (if you care) Kinect vs PS Eye add-ons.
Last edited:
This video has NOTHING to do with the console wars, no matter how hard people try to push it that way. This is about game devs feeling pressure to hit a magic resolution at the expense of smoothness and framerate.
They announce full 1080p only to have the game st-st-st-st-stutter. That's a bad decision. The point is people don't really understand what they are asking for (or actually what that means giving up)
They announce full 1080p only to have the game st-st-st-st-stutter. That's a bad decision. The point is people don't really understand what they are asking for (or actually what that means giving up)
Exactly.
It would be like PC gamers bickering amongst themselves. One guy can run the game at 4k, while another has a lower res monitor. Sounds like the 4k guy wins..... except both PCs are close in power and the guy at 4k is running a game at a slideshow, while the guy at half the res is running it smooth.
However, a numerical metric is an easy thing to use and market. Marketing managers love easy to communicate benefits. While things like smooth gameplay is not.
It's like two cars. One is 200hp, the other 180hp. On paper, the 200hp should be more powerful, faster and better acceleration. That would be right if both cars had the same specs, weight and dimensions. Turns out the 200hp car has a concrete exterior making it weigh twice as much. Have fun driving that car.
Last edited:
The way I see it, 1080p isn't the thing that's causing the stuttering frame rate. It's the fact that they want to push graphics in general that is causing the terrible frame rates. Devs can do 1080p is their games, devs can do crowds of 10,000 in their games, devs can do lots of post process and effects in their games, but the problem is these developers don't understand the word "compromise" and proceed to shove every last bit of all of this into a game knowing full well these consoles can't handle it. And thus you have disasterful games with terrible frame rates. And even games like Assassin's Creed Unity that run at s sub-1080p resolution still suffer because AC Unity being only 900p just meant Ubisoft got dumb enough to think they could bump it up to crowds of 20,000 instead of 10,000. Hence reinforcing the problem is more the developers' inability to compromise and meet the target frame rate over all else.
I agree, but the devs themselves probably realize shoving all this stuff into the game is a bad idea while they're doing it. The problem most likely is they don't have a choice because requirements are telling them they need to get all this stuff into the game. That leads to the question, why are all these things so important to the requirements people at these studios? Because gamers are so vocal about it?
These platform wars are just stupid as all hell. So many people on this forum alone get the bent the f*** out about some of the lamest s*** I've ever seen.
I don't think gamers are very vocal about the prettiness. I personally think it's less about gamers being vocal and more about the fact that we get hyped when we see pretty graphics. Whenever a game is revealed, gamers will either say "this game looks meh" or say "OMG IT'S BEAUTIFUL!" and that is the extent of the vocal-ness. And if you look at it, gamers have been far, far more vocal about framerates than they ever have been about graphics. I've never heard a AAA studio having complaints about their games not being pretty enough. I just think that it's that pretty graphics gets gamers hyped, and that is why Ubisoft is so eager to boast "crowds of 10,000." It's not that gamers demanded crowds of 10,000. It's not because gamers would throw a fit if it were crowds of 2,000. It's just that it makes a great advertising bulletin point to hype us up.
Totally agree.
That's also why bullshots are so prominently advertised a year before the game comes out. Certain studios like EA and UBI are notorious for it. But as long as gamers keep buying their software by the millions, their highly paid marketing managers will keep churning out BS preview shots and videos.
On the other hand, some studios like Bethesda never do that. Their previews and even TV ads show actual game engine gameplay. And I'm pretty sure people appreciate that.
It's so much easier to release snapshots and renders and promote them because it's always easier to prove something when someone sees it with their own eyes. Although, a year later when the game comes out, they sneakily dumbed the game down. With only so much time and money and patience, it's easier to upload some images and quick preview vids.
On the other hand, trying to prove a point about quality physics and cpu AI is harder to do, takes longer and is less snazzy. And depending how good the dev team is, the physics and AI might be lousy anyway so there's nothing great to promote.
In some of those old NHL 09/10 preview vids, the devs strived for videos showing some improved physics and AI. Great videos. They were literally amateur style cell phone videos. Low budget looking but got the point across. Good stuff.
On the other hand, they'll still do the usual bullshots and PR about improved crowds, jersey waving like the wind and some gamers will yell at the top of their lungs when sock colours are wrong, or the scoreboard isn't shaped like the real one. Or player xxx's stick is using the wrong brand and the tape colour should be white instead of black. Wow. To me, who cares. But every gamer has their own set of priorities.
People are just dissapointed in what this current generation is offering and are placing the blame on the devs. Some of it is completely justified in my opinion but most of it is not. It will be awhile before we see any games that actually began production on the hardware we currently have, but even then, there won't be many outside of 1st parties that will bother fully optimizing code for it.
Agreed.
But whether it's a gimped console or a mega spec PC, gaming isn't really advancing as fast as I thought. Maybe it's still a limitation of top end PC specs or devs dumbing down games, but when are going to get near-photo realistic games at high frame rates? I'm not expecting Avatar or Jurassic Park renders, but at least "something kind of getting there". Of course it's still up to the dev whether to go cartoony or all out realism, but even the games that strive for grit still look too video-gamey.
And I'm not even including realistic physics, animations etc..... Just textures.
The whole big graphics push has slowed way down. I remember back in the day, your PC video card would be completely useless after 18 months. Your card got "old" and you were done with new games until you upgrade. Games made huge leaps visually. Now, everything seems to have slowed way down. We still get progress, but at a much slower pace. My 4+ year old PC still hangs on and runs a decent amount of games. Not the latest and greatest, but still quite a few.
1. Comparing what your PCs can do on multiplatform games that were made in the launch year of these consoles proves nothing. Doesn't matter what resolution you're getting with BF4. The start of a console life is less about power and more about ease of development/porting. No launch title is pushing a console to the brink. Compare what sort of PC you'll need to run the games that'll be pushing these consoles in two years and you'll be looking at a much heftier price tag.
2. Resolution doesn't equal graphics. Graphics matter...but resolution is a small piece to most people...especially as we get into diminishing returns. Sacrificing animations, AI, # of things on the screen...to go from 900P to 1080P just doesn't make sense. Fact that most sites and gamers are measuring how next gen a game is by it's resolution is bothersome...and will continue to make games worse if publishers are so intent on checking that box that they force developers to cut corners elsewhere.
2. Resolution doesn't equal graphics. Graphics matter...but resolution is a small piece to most people...especially as we get into diminishing returns. Sacrificing animations, AI, # of things on the screen...to go from 900P to 1080P just doesn't make sense. Fact that most sites and gamers are measuring how next gen a game is by it's resolution is bothersome...and will continue to make games worse if publishers are so intent on checking that box that they force developers to cut corners elsewhere.
Point 2 is mostly agreeable, but as for point 1, not so much.
Yes, hardware advancement have slowed, but at 8 years since the last one, we do expect a significant boost do we.
Also, PS4 was regarded a a lower-mid gaming PC when it launch, & X1 pretty much a higher-low end gaming PC. It also the first gen that have issue with current HD standard, let alone future proofing.
In previous gens, the consoles usually have an equivalent of a high end PC or more. When PS2 was launched I read it would take 2 years for PC to catch up. 360 was launch with what people regarded a a very high end gaming PC for its day. It was also future proof with Broadband & HD as standard, when they ain't widespread yet). I had a standard def TV when I got my first 360 in 2007.
Yes, hardware advancement have slowed, but at 8 years since the last one, we do expect a significant boost do we.
Also, PS4 was regarded a a lower-mid gaming PC when it launch, & X1 pretty much a higher-low end gaming PC. It also the first gen that have issue with current HD standard, let alone future proofing.
In previous gens, the consoles usually have an equivalent of a high end PC or more. When PS2 was launched I read it would take 2 years for PC to catch up. 360 was launch with what people regarded a a very high end gaming PC for its day. It was also future proof with Broadband & HD as standard, when they ain't widespread yet). I had a standard def TV when I got my first 360 in 2007.
My problem with the Wresolution Warriors is that they usually have failed arguments. Usually the PC Zealots that brag the most are the same people that are never playing games at their highest graphical setting. I don't care about "good enough", if you're going to make such a big deal about graphics then every game you play should be maxed out. Because if it's not, it's not the "best gaming experience" that people constantly brag about. If you're gonna play on medium setting, then a console is no different.
Tack on the fact that most games that are heavily demanding, aren't even PC prominent games, makes the argument even weaker.
Tack on the fact that most games that are heavily demanding, aren't even PC prominent games, makes the argument even weaker.
Closest one I've seen in a game.
Is that the new Silent Hill? All i want is a new SH game with the atmosphere of the first few games in the franchise and it could be in 480p for all i care. Gameplay, story, atmosphere. Graphics don't make a good game. A good game makes the graphics worthwhile.
Not any time soon. The technology on a mass market product just is not there. If you think about what it takes to render things like Avatar then you easily see how far away we really are. Generating true photo realistic graphics in real time needs huge CPU power, memory capacity, and bandwidth. Even then, you still need a tremendous amount of time just to render a small piece.
If I recall correctly, the power behind rendering the Avatar movie was something like 30-40,000 processors. The memory was in 3 digit terabyte range. To render just one frame(The movie has 24 frames ever second) could take hours.
Things like ray-tracing will really boost the visuals of gaming. Not to sure how far we are off that, but maybe in the next 5 years or so it may come to fruition. We see games, like Ryse, use bits of ray-tracing/or a dumbed down variation. MS has also talked about playing with ray-tracing via the cloud and having positive findings. So right now it is a waiting game.
We also must remember that while things like Avatar need extreme power to generate, they also do not have things like AI & physics constantly needing resources.
To be perfectly honest, I see no point in reaching true photorealism if the AI is not life like. The AI of today is not really good enough for the visual prowess we have, and very often is the thing to break the immersion the graphics and sound created. AI, imo, is where we need the next great push, not graphics.
Last edited:
That's a great point. The lack of advances in AI is kind of pathetic. Sports games are a joke, and fps games have shown no improvement. I'm playing Halo 1 and 2 and the AI in those games is better than most games today (and that AI was never anything special). That's why most single player FPS games are boring, no matter what resolution they run at.
Closest one I've seen in a game.
that is the most realistic, dimly lit, narrow hallway I've ever seen in a game. Bravo...
that is the most realistic, dimly lit, narrow hallway I've ever seen in a game. Bravo...
I take it you've never played it before. You only have a X1 right?