Is 1080p really needed in games ?

This topic is locked from further discussion.

#501 Posted by mitu123 (154589 posts) -
Lol, this topic is just so entertaining :Pabuabed
This as well.
#502 Posted by glez13 (9012 posts) -

Here's another couple of screenshots. Alan Wake this time. One is 1080p Low, the other is 720p High....enjoy. Oh. Right-Click, View Image to see both at 1080p.

Edit:

Maybe it's just me. But, the 1080p Low looks clearer even resized at 800x450.

alanwakesample1080plowd.jpg

alanwakesample720phighu.jpg

jun_aka_pekto

The 1080 one looks more crisp in all the details but it loses the lighting. Everything is illuminated. But the 720 one is scaled to 1080.

#503 Posted by jun_aka_pekto (17273 posts) -

The 1080 one looks more crisp in all the details but it loses the lighting. Everything is illuminated. But the 720 one is scaled to 1080.

glez13

As it should be if we're going to play on a1080p display.

In this case, I'll take the clarity of the 1080p Low over the lighting of the 720p.

Edit:

I didn't realize Alan Wake still looked good on Low. I'll probably leave it on Low and keep the 20fps gain.

#504 Posted by theSADmafioso (482 posts) -

I never said 1080p is useless. I have a 27" 1080p monitor and all those details in the Witcher screens were still there at 720p, and this monitor is nowhere near as good at scaling as a hdtv is. If you really think console games are as blurry as that Dark Souls screen youre insane. Are you saying that my 2nd screen isnt 720p? calling me a liar?

Cranler

I'm not sure if you're a liar or just thick. I've played Dark Souls on my PS3 for about 200 hours, if I get around 1 meter of my HD-Ready (720p native) 32 inch TV it becomes apparant just how blurry this console game is at 720p. Console games get away with lower res because the TV improves IQ plus sitting farther away makes the image look better. The screens I took of default PC settings are the direct unaltered 720p images from the PC version which is a straigh port from console version. You can call me out on using SweetFX or whatever else on the 1080p images but the 720p image is the default game running upscaled to 1080p on a 24 inch monitor and IT LOOKS THAT BLURRY!

#505 Posted by Cranler (8809 posts) -

[QUOTE="Cranler"]Naysayers are saying that the better the graphics are the higher res you need to display the improvements yet here we have The Witcher 2 which is way beyond Dark Souls pathetic graphics and the advanced graphics look great at 720p.jun_aka_pekto

Those shots aren't entirely accurate. You need to have both shots at 1080p. Photobucket limits image size to 1024x576. Try imageshack with the no image resize option.

Edit:

That plus Photobucket sometimes have AA enabled that softens the look of images.

Imageshack doesnt allow uploads over 5mb for free.

#506 Posted by mitu123 (154589 posts) -

[QUOTE="jun_aka_pekto"]

[QUOTE="Cranler"]Naysayers are saying that the better the graphics are the higher res you need to display the improvements yet here we have The Witcher 2 which is way beyond Dark Souls pathetic graphics and the advanced graphics look great at 720p.Cranler

Those shots aren't entirely accurate. You need to have both shots at 1080p. Photobucket limits image size to 1024x576. Try imageshack with the no image resize option.

Edit:

That plus Photobucket sometimes have AA enabled that softens the look of images.

Imageshack doesnt allow uploads over 5mb for free.

But Minus does as I got 11mb files on there.

#507 Posted by jun_aka_pekto (17273 posts) -

[QUOTE="jun_aka_pekto"]

[QUOTE="Cranler"]Naysayers are saying that the better the graphics are the higher res you need to display the improvements yet here we have The Witcher 2 which is way beyond Dark Souls pathetic graphics and the advanced graphics look great at 720p.Cranler

Those shots aren't entirely accurate. You need to have both shots at 1080p. Photobucket limits image size to 1024x576. Try imageshack with the no image resize option.

Edit:

That plus Photobucket sometimes have AA enabled that softens the look of images.

Imageshack doesnt allow uploads over 5mb for free.

I keep no more than 42 images at all times and they're all jpegs to keep the file size small. I delete some images before uploading some more. In a week or so, I'll erase the images I'm showing here. This thread will be far back by then.

#508 Posted by Cranler (8809 posts) -

[QUOTE="Cranler"]

I never said 1080p is useless. I have a 27" 1080p monitor and all those details in the Witcher screens were still there at 720p, and this monitor is nowhere near as good at scaling as a hdtv is. If you really think console games are as blurry as that Dark Souls screen youre insane. Are you saying that my 2nd screen isnt 720p? calling me a liar?

theSADmafioso

I'm not sure if you're a liar or just thick. I've played Dark Souls on my PS3 for about 200 hours, if I get around 1 meter of my HD-Ready (720p native) 32 inch TV it becomes apparant just how blurry this console game is at 720p. Console games get away with lower res because the TV improves IQ plus sitting farther away makes the image look better. The screens I took of default PC settings are the direct unaltered 720p images from the PC version which is a straigh port from console version. You can call me out on using SweetFX or whatever else on the 1080p images but the 720p image is the default game running upscaled to 1080p on a 24 inch monitor and IT LOOKS THAT BLURRY!

Youre using one of the ugliest games this gen as an example. Halo 4 isnt blurry close up. I could stand 2 ft from my 46 inch and no blurryness. Monitors are notorious for having bad upscaling. Like you said tvs can improve iq and this thread is about playing on a tv
#509 Posted by Cranler (8809 posts) -

[QUOTE="Cranler"]

[QUOTE="jun_aka_pekto"]

Those shots aren't entirely accurate. You need to have both shots at 1080p. Photobucket limits image size to 1024x576. Try imageshack with the no image resize option.

Edit:

That plus Photobucket sometimes have AA enabled that softens the look of images.

jun_aka_pekto

Imageshack doesnt allow uploads over 5mb for free.

I keep no more than 42 images at all times and they're all jpegs to keep the file size small. I delete some images before uploading some more. In a week or so, I'll erase the images I'm showing here. This thread will be far back by then.

I'm talking about upload size not storage limit. Fraps only allows bmp for free users.
#510 Posted by jun_aka_pekto (17273 posts) -

[QUOTE="jun_aka_pekto"]

[QUOTE="Cranler"]Imageshack doesnt allow uploads over 5mb for free.

Cranler

I keep no more than 42 images at all times and they're all jpegs to keep the file size small. I delete some images before uploading some more. In a week or so, I'll erase the images I'm showing here. This thread will be far back by then.

I'm talking about upload size not storage limit. Fraps only allows bmp for free users.

Can't you convert .bmp files to.jpg at 100% (lowest compression factor)? There's still a huge decrease in file size. I do a batch convert with my graphics app. It doesn't take that long to convert a folder-ful of them.

Edit:

That or pony up $37 for the full version.

#511 Posted by faizan_faizan (7868 posts) -
[QUOTE="Cranler"][QUOTE="kraken2109"][QUOTE="Cranler"] The definition option is a blur toggle to reduce jaggies.

GTA4 has such bad aliasing, applying FXAA made it look so much better. Still a bit of blur but removed most aliasing and far less blurry than with definition turned off.

Nvidia didnt have the FXAA option until spring of last year.

Who the HECK is talking about Nvidia any way? GTA IV had no aa option so the community did it instead http://www.pcgameshardware.com/aid,696084/GTA-4-test-Supersampling-Anti-aliasing-with-ENB-Series-Mod-plus-graphics-cards-benchmarks/Reviews/ 2009.
#512 Posted by Cranler (8809 posts) -

[QUOTE="Cranler"][QUOTE="jun_aka_pekto"]

I keep no more than 42 images at all times and they're all jpegs to keep the file size small. I delete some images before uploading some more. In a week or so, I'll erase the images I'm showing here. This thread will be far back by then.

jun_aka_pekto

I'm talking about upload size not storage limit. Fraps only allows bmp for free users.

Can't you convert .bmp files to.jpg at 100% (lowest compression factor)? There's still a huge decrease in file size. I do a batch convert with my graphics app. It doesn't take that long to convert a folder-ful of them.

Edit:

That or pony up $37 for the full version.

Never had a need to bother with converting images. $37 to prove that 720p gaming is nowhere near as blurry as those Dark Souls images? lol
#513 Posted by Cranler (8809 posts) -
[QUOTE="faizan_faizan"][QUOTE="Cranler"][QUOTE="kraken2109"] GTA4 has such bad aliasing, applying FXAA made it look so much better. Still a bit of blur but removed most aliasing and far less blurry than with definition turned off.

Nvidia didnt have the FXAA option until spring of last year.

Who the HECK is talking about Nvidia any way? GTA IV had no aa option so the community did it instead http://www.pcgameshardware.com/aid,696084/GTA-4-test-Supersampling-Anti-aliasing-with-ENB-Series-Mod-plus-graphics-cards-benchmarks/Reviews/ 2009.

I care more about performance plus Ive heard about people frying their cards with that mod. Nvidia fxaa has zero performance hit and removes jaggies in GTA 4 and the Episodes without losing the sharpness.
#514 Posted by Mrmedia01 (1917 posts) -

Hope someday we get near CG and 1080P. Next generation will add much better lighting, framerate and effects. Sadly I am think most PS4 and Xbox 720 games will still be in 720P.

#515 Posted by faizan_faizan (7868 posts) -
[QUOTE="Cranler"][QUOTE="faizan_faizan"][QUOTE="Cranler"] Nvidia didnt have the FXAA option until spring of last year.

Who the HECK is talking about Nvidia any way? GTA IV had no aa option so the community did it instead http://www.pcgameshardware.com/aid,696084/GTA-4-test-Supersampling-Anti-aliasing-with-ENB-Series-Mod-plus-graphics-cards-benchmarks/Reviews/ 2009.

I care more about performance plus Ive heard about people frying their cards with that mod. Nvidia fxaa has zero performance hit and removes jaggies in GTA 4 and the Episodes without losing the sharpness.

Da hell? What are you on? Seriously man go outside. Frying their cards? With that little mod?
#516 Posted by amaneuvering (4016 posts) -

I hear ya OP.

I don't have a problem with 1080p but I personally think 720p is fine too and if it meant we could get games at solid 60fps all the time I'd be happy to stick with 720p.

#517 Posted by Cranler (8809 posts) -

[QUOTE="Cranler"][QUOTE="faizan_faizan"] Who the HECK is talking about Nvidia any way? GTA IV had no aa option so the community did it instead http://www.pcgameshardware.com/aid,696084/GTA-4-test-Supersampling-Anti-aliasing-with-ENB-Series-Mod-plus-graphics-cards-benchmarks/Reviews/ 2009.faizan_faizan
I care more about performance plus Ive heard about people frying their cards with that mod. Nvidia fxaa has zero performance hit and removes jaggies in GTA 4 and the Episodes without losing the sharpness.

Da hell? What are you on? Seriously man go outside. Frying their cards? With that little mod?

Thats what I hear plus all the videos I've seen have bad performance.

#518 Posted by the_bi99man (11058 posts) -

still harping about the slight color change while ignoring the vast quantities of revealed detail from a simple resolution change. Oi vey

wis3boi

grasping-at-straws.jpg

#519 Posted by ferret-gamer (17364 posts) -
[QUOTE="Cranler"][QUOTE="faizan_faizan"][QUOTE="Cranler"] I care more about performance plus Ive heard about people frying their cards with that mod. Nvidia fxaa has zero performance hit and removes jaggies in GTA 4 and the Episodes without losing the sharpness.

Da hell? What are you on? Seriously man go outside. Frying their cards? With that little mod?

Thats what I hear plus all the videos I've seen have low fps.

You seriously think a mod like that would fry cards? If anyone cards were fried while playing that it is just because they didn't have their cards cooled correctly and the demand from the game made them overheat.
#520 Posted by the_bi99man (11058 posts) -

[QUOTE="jun_aka_pekto"]

[QUOTE="Cranler"]Imageshack doesnt allow uploads over 5mb for free.

Cranler

I keep no more than 42 images at all times and they're all jpegs to keep the file size small. I delete some images before uploading some more. In a week or so, I'll erase the images I'm showing here. This thread will be far back by then.

I'm talking about upload size not storage limit. Fraps only allows bmp for free users.

Use minus for image hosting. Mitu told me about it, and I use it almost exclusively now, at least for game screenshots. It's totally free (didn't even have to give them an email, actually), and there's no upload size limit (or if there is, it's extremely large). I've got loads of 1080p lossless PNG images on there now, like 10-15 mb each. Plus the layout of the site is way better than photobucket or imageshack.

#521 Posted by the_bi99man (11058 posts) -

[QUOTE="magicalclick"] graphics >>> resolution.chunkowookie

What's with all the people in this thread not understanding that increasing resolution is a huge part of enhancing graphics? They're not exclusive of each other. Advancing graphical assets without increasing resolution has made games look better up to this point, but it's seeing diminishing returns extremely quickly. Resolution has to be increased ALONG WITH enhancing assets, or else the assets are just going to waste. This is undeniably proven by the plethora of current gen games that already have assets with detail that is completely invisible at 720p, and becomes visible at 1080p or more. Why don't people get that? Why pile more detail into assets without increasing resolution, when assets are already too detailed to be seen at less than 1080p, and have been for years?

Willful ignorance runs rampant on the internet. That's just the way it is.

#522 Posted by Cranler (8809 posts) -

[QUOTE="wis3boi"]

still harping about the slight color change while ignoring the vast quantities of revealed detail from a simple resolution change. Oi vey

the_bi99man

grasping-at-straws.jpg

When I read your screen name the "bi "and "man" really stand out. grasping at straws? 720p does not take away that much detail, I tested in a few games earlier today.
#523 Posted by Cranler (8809 posts) -

[QUOTE="chunkowookie"]

[QUOTE="magicalclick"] graphics >>> resolution.the_bi99man

What's with all the people in this thread not understanding that increasing resolution is a huge part of enhancing graphics? They're not exclusive of each other. Advancing graphical assets without increasing resolution has made games look better up to this point, but it's seeing diminishing returns extremely quickly. Resolution has to be increased ALONG WITH enhancing assets, or else the assets are just going to waste. This is undeniably proven by the plethora of current gen games that already have assets with detail that is completely invisible at 720p, and becomes visible at 1080p or more. Why don't people get that? Why pile more detail into assets without increasing resolution, when assets are already too detailed to be seen at less than 1080p, and have been for years?

Willful ignorance runs rampant on the internet. That's just the way it is.

Stop making assumptions biman and go play some games in 720p.
#524 Posted by jun_aka_pekto (17273 posts) -

[QUOTE="jun_aka_pekto"]

[QUOTE="Cranler"] I'm talking about upload size not storage limit. Fraps only allows bmp for free users. Cranler

Can't you convert .bmp files to.jpg at 100% (lowest compression factor)? There's still a huge decrease in file size. I do a batch convert with my graphics app. It doesn't take that long to convert a folder-ful of them.

Edit:

That or pony up $37 for the full version.

Never had a need to bother with converting images. $37 to prove that 720p gaming is nowhere near as blurry as those Dark Souls images? lol

Well, the $37 also removes the 30-second limit for capturing videos which is why I bought it in the first place. The ability to capture in jpg format is merely the frosting on the cake. In any case, Converting isn't a problem and like that guy said, Minus is a better option than either Phtobucket or Imageshack.

Edit: The full version also removes the watermark when capturing video.

#525 Posted by Cranler (8809 posts) -
[QUOTE="ferret-gamer"][QUOTE="Cranler"][QUOTE="faizan_faizan"] Da hell? What are you on? Seriously man go outside. Frying their cards? With that little mod?

Thats what I hear plus all the videos I've seen have low fps.

You seriously think a mod like that would fry cards? If anyone cards were fried while playing that it is just because they didn't have their cards cooled correctly and the demand from the game made them overheat.

My card was oc'd when I was thinking about trying it and never got around to it later, plus the performance looks abysmal on even the best rigs. Check the programmer warning here about ocd cards http://enbdev.com/enbseries/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=325
#526 Posted by the_bi99man (11058 posts) -

When I read your screen name the "bi "and "man" really stand out. grasping at straws? 720p does not take away that much detail, I tested in a few games earlier today. Cranler

Immature sexual preference jokes? Nice. Good to know you admit that you're grasping at straws. 720p does not take away that much detail?

1024x720xozqm5fpte.gif

screenshot2122.png

screenshot2122b.png

Yes it does. This is undeniable fact. Your ignoring it doesn't change that. If you're okay with less detail, that's fine. No one is trying to tell you not to enjoy your games. But resolution is much much more important than the anti-PC fanboys and trolls in this thread claim. That is fact.

Oh and by the way, I do play the majority of my games in 720p. I'm currently gaming on a 4 year old laptop, while I save up to get a new desktop. I still enjoy the games. Doesn't mean I don't see the absolutely massive difference in image quality when I bump them up to 1080p. It's just that currently, with the hardware I'm using, it's not worth the loss in framerate.

#528 Posted by the_bi99man (11058 posts) -

Your the one who uses a name that implies bisexuality. I tried Witcher 2, Crysis and BF 3 and none of them come anywhere close to losing that much detail. And thats on a monitor which doesnt scale well at all.

Cranler

Yeah, the 9's couldn't possibly be meant to represent G's. You're the one reading far too much into it, and resorting to elementary school status insults, since you've fallen flat on your face with every possible "argument". Oh yeah, and I've also tried those same games, testing resolutions. And they lose a bunch of detail. Just because you claim not to see it, doesn't make it not true. Dropping resolution drops detail. This is a fact of how game rendering and displays work. It's the entire reason that HDTVs exist in the first place. Enjoy your fantasy. I'm done with you.

#529 Posted by 04dcarraher (20392 posts) -

[QUOTE="the_bi99man"]

[QUOTE="Cranler"]When I read your screen name the "bi "and "man" really stand out. grasping at straws? 720p does not take away that much detail, I tested in a few games earlier today. Cranler

Immature sexual preference jokes? Nice. Good to know you admit that you're grasping at straws. 720p does not take away that much detail?

1024x720xozqm5fpte.gif

screenshot2122.png

screenshot2122b.png

Yes it does. This is undeniable fact. Your ignoring it doesn't change that. If you're okay with less detail, that's fine. No one is trying to tell you not to enjoy your games. But resolution is much much more important than the anti-PC fanboys and trolls in this thread claim. That is fact.

Oh and by the way, I do play the majority of my games in 720p. I'm currently gaming on a 4 year old laptop, while I save up to get a new desktop. I still enjoy the games. Doesn't mean I don't see the absolutely massive difference in image quality when I bump them up to 1080p. It's just that currently, with the hardware I'm using, it's not worth the loss in framerate.

Your the one who uses a name that implies bisexuality. I tried Witcher 2, Crysis and BF 3 and none of them come anywhere close to losing that much detail. And thats on a monitor which doesnt scale well at all.

And you did it wrong , Console games do not always render at 1280x720, look at CoD at 1024x600 or even dark souls at 1024x720, then upscale it to 1080 you will see the problem with it. taking a native 1280x720 image to a 1080 screen isnt as bad. Thats your problem.
#530 Posted by lowe0 (13692 posts) -

Your the one who uses a name that implies bisexuality.

Cranler
Attack the argument, not the poster.
#531 Posted by the_bi99man (11058 posts) -

[QUOTE="Cranler"]

Your the one who uses a name that implies bisexuality.

lowe0

Attack the argument, not the poster.

That's an open admittance that the argument is lost. He's a fvcking idiot, plain and simple, and I'm done responding to his trolling.

#532 Posted by Cranler (8809 posts) -

[QUOTE="lowe0"][QUOTE="Cranler"]

Your the one who uses a name that implies bisexuality.

the_bi99man

Attack the argument, not the poster.

That's an open admittance that the argument is lost. He's a fvcking idiot, plain and simple, and I'm done responding to his trolling.

You called me ignorant before I made fun of your name.
#533 Posted by Cranler (8809 posts) -
[QUOTE="Cranler"]

[QUOTE="the_bi99man"]

Immature sexual preference jokes? Nice. Good to know you admit that you're grasping at straws. 720p does not take away that much detail?

1024x720xozqm5fpte.gif

screenshot2122.png

screenshot2122b.png

Yes it does. This is undeniable fact. Your ignoring it doesn't change that. If you're okay with less detail, that's fine. No one is trying to tell you not to enjoy your games. But resolution is much much more important than the anti-PC fanboys and trolls in this thread claim. That is fact.

Oh and by the way, I do play the majority of my games in 720p. I'm currently gaming on a 4 year old laptop, while I save up to get a new desktop. I still enjoy the games. Doesn't mean I don't see the absolutely massive difference in image quality when I bump them up to 1080p. It's just that currently, with the hardware I'm using, it's not worth the loss in framerate.

04dcarraher

Your the one who uses a name that implies bisexuality. I tried Witcher 2, Crysis and BF 3 and none of them come anywhere close to losing that much detail. And thats on a monitor which doesnt scale well at all.

And you did it wrong , Console games do not always render at 1280x720, look at CoD at 1024x600 or even dark souls at 1024x720, then upscale it to 1080 you will see the problem with it. taking a native 1280x720 image to a 1080 screen isnt as bad. Thats your problem.

If you think Cod is that blurry on console then youve obviously never played any Cod's on console. Youre the one whos doing it wrong, this thread is about next gen and 720p vs 1080p not sub 720p res anyway. 53 pages and some people still dont understand what the thread is about.
#534 Posted by chunkowookie (270 posts) -

[QUOTE="the_bi99man"]

[QUOTE="lowe0"] Attack the argument, not the poster.Cranler

That's an open admittance that the argument is lost. He's a fvcking idiot, plain and simple, and I'm done responding to his trolling.

You called me ignorant before I made fun of your name.

Might have been because you were displaying ignorance. Either way, resorting to childish sexual preference insults (unfounded or otherwise), as you did with him, is universally known to be an admittance of defeat in any debate. It's like, dude A says, "you're wrong, for these reasons... yada yada yada...", and dude B says, "yeah, well you're g@y". The debate moderator is gonna call that a victory for Dude A, every time.

#535 Posted by chunkowookie (270 posts) -

If you think Cod is that blurry on console then youve obviously never played any Cod's on console. Youre the one whos doing it wrong, this thread is about next gen and 720p vs 1080p not sub 720p res anyway. 53 pages and some people still dont understand what the thread is about. Cranler

Whether it's next gen or not, the point of this thread has been, since the very beginning, that some people are claiming resolution doesn't matter as much as increasing asset detail. This has been disproven, so many times, and to such great effect, it's not even funny anymore.

#536 Posted by Cranler (8809 posts) -

[QUOTE="Cranler"][QUOTE="the_bi99man"]

That's an open admittance that the argument is lost. He's a fvcking idiot, plain and simple, and I'm done responding to his trolling.

chunkowookie

You called me ignorant before I made fun of your name.

Might have been because you were displaying ignorance. Either way, resorting to childish sexual preference insults (unfounded or otherwise), as you did with him, is universally known to be an admittance of defeat in any debate. It's like, dude A says, "you're wrong, for these reasons... yada yada yada...", and dude B says, "yeah, well you're g@y". The debate moderator is gonna call that a victory for Dude A, every time.

In the same post I made excellent point and biman doesnt even understand what the thread is about. People who think all consoles games are blurry like that Dark Souls gif are the ignorant ones.
#537 Posted by Cranler (8809 posts) -

[QUOTE="Cranler"]If you think Cod is that blurry on console then youve obviously never played any Cod's on console. Youre the one whos doing it wrong, this thread is about next gen and 720p vs 1080p not sub 720p res anyway. 53 pages and some people still dont understand what the thread is about. chunkowookie

Whether it's next gen or not, the point of this thread has been, since the very beginning, that some people are claiming resolution doesn't matter as much as increasing asset detail. This has been disproven, so many times, and to such great effect, it's not even funny anymore.

Where has it been disproven? The Dark Souls gif has color correction added so its the opposite of what the thread is about. If res is so much more important then why are devs dropping res to improve other aspects of the graphics?
#538 Posted by chunkowookie (270 posts) -

[QUOTE="chunkowookie"]

[QUOTE="Cranler"]If you think Cod is that blurry on console then youve obviously never played any Cod's on console. Youre the one whos doing it wrong, this thread is about next gen and 720p vs 1080p not sub 720p res anyway. 53 pages and some people still dont understand what the thread is about. Cranler

Whether it's next gen or not, the point of this thread has been, since the very beginning, that some people are claiming resolution doesn't matter as much as increasing asset detail. This has been disproven, so many times, and to such great effect, it's not even funny anymore.

Where has it been disproven? The Dark Souls gif has color correction added so its the opposite of what the thread is about. If res is so much more important then why are devs dropping res to improve other aspects of the graphics?

1: There have been several other comparisons shown in this thread (even others using Dark Souls) besides the one with the color correction, which also show the improvement of detail.

2: Color correction doesn't add detail, so that one gif is still a valid comparison. The detail revealed is coming from the resolution increase, not the color.

3: I'm not saying resolution is all that matters. It has to go hand in hand with other improvements. Devs drop resolution in favor of other improvements, particularly in console games, for a couple reasons. One: Aside from increased detail, the next biggest improvement of increasing resolution is the softening of jagged edges, and jagged edges are admittedly less noticeable when viewed from farther away, like on a couch across the room from a tv. Two: considering that the jagged edges are less noticeable in this context, many devs feel that gamers would prefer to have more particles and other effects, rather than smoother edges and more detail, if forced to choose one over the other.

The key phrase there is, "if forced to choose one over the other". If the hardware allowed for it (like with PCs and, hopefully, the next round of consoles), they wouldn't have to choose. You can have both, and it does wonders for making games look better.

#539 Posted by 04dcarraher (20392 posts) -

[QUOTE="04dcarraher"][QUOTE="Cranler"] Your the one who uses a name that implies bisexuality. I tried Witcher 2, Crysis and BF 3 and none of them come anywhere close to losing that much detail. And thats on a monitor which doesnt scale well at all.Cranler
And you did it wrong , Console games do not always render at 1280x720, look at CoD at 1024x600 or even dark souls at 1024x720, then upscale it to 1080 you will see the problem with it. taking a native 1280x720 image to a 1080 screen isnt as bad. Thats your problem.

If you think Cod is that blurry on console then youve obviously never played any Cod's on console. Youre the one whos doing it wrong, this thread is about next gen and 720p vs 1080p not sub 720p res anyway. 53 pages and some people still dont understand what the thread is about.

:lol: your such a tool, 720 upscaled to 1080 you lose quality no if ands or buts.

#540 Posted by Cranler (8809 posts) -
[QUOTE="04dcarraher"][QUOTE="Cranler"][QUOTE="04dcarraher"] And you did it wrong , Console games do not always render at 1280x720, look at CoD at 1024x600 or even dark souls at 1024x720, then upscale it to 1080 you will see the problem with it. taking a native 1280x720 image to a 1080 screen isnt as bad. Thats your problem.

If you think Cod is that blurry on console then youve obviously never played any Cod's on console. Youre the one whos doing it wrong, this thread is about next gen and 720p vs 1080p not sub 720p res anyway. 53 pages and some people still dont understand what the thread is about.

:lol: your such a tool

Quite a generic insult from someone whom Ive never given cause to call me names. Dont want to address why IW dropped res on Cod or the fact that most posters in this thread have no clue what the thread is even about?
#541 Posted by 04dcarraher (20392 posts) -

[QUOTE="04dcarraher"][QUOTE="Cranler"] If you think Cod is that blurry on console then youve obviously never played any Cod's on console. Youre the one whos doing it wrong, this thread is about next gen and 720p vs 1080p not sub 720p res anyway. 53 pages and some people still dont understand what the thread is about. Cranler
:lol: your such a tool

Quite a generic insult from someone whom Ive never given cause to call me names. Dont want to address why IW dropped res on Cod or the fact that most posters in this thread have no clue what the thread is even about?

Trolls dont deserve mercy!

The reason IW dropped resolution is because they had to sacrifice something to achieve the 60 FPS goal. Because if they kept the resolution at 720 the texture quality and other effects would have been toned down to save resources. Fact is that the more detail and effects you put into the assets you need the resolution to go higher to allow those assets to be displayed correctly. Which is why games being render below 720 and being upscaled to 1080 look awful. When you render something at 720 and upscale to 1080 the effect isnt as detrimental to ruining the image being displayed. However you still lose detail and clarity. and when 4k becomes a new standard a 720 native resolution on a 4k screen will look as bad a a 1024x600 as it does on a 1080 screen.

#542 Posted by Cranler (8809 posts) -

[QUOTE="Cranler"][QUOTE="04dcarraher"] And you did it wrong , Console games do not always render at 1280x720, look at CoD at 1024x600 or even dark souls at 1024x720, then upscale it to 1080 you will see the problem with it. taking a native 1280x720 image to a 1080 screen isnt as bad. Thats your problem.04dcarraher

If you think Cod is that blurry on console then youve obviously never played any Cod's on console. Youre the one whos doing it wrong, this thread is about next gen and 720p vs 1080p not sub 720p res anyway. 53 pages and some people still dont understand what the thread is about.

:lol: your such a tool, 720 upscaled to 1080 you lose quality no if ands or buts.

Where did I say you dont lose quality, although 1080p tv's upscale much better than monitors.
#543 Posted by Cranler (8809 posts) -

[QUOTE="Cranler"][QUOTE="04dcarraher"] :lol: your such a tool 04dcarraher

Quite a generic insult from someone whom Ive never given cause to call me names. Dont want to address why IW dropped res on Cod or the fact that most posters in this thread have no clue what the thread is even about?

Trolls dont deserve mercy!

The reason IW dropped resolution is because they had to sacrifice something to achieve the 60 FPS goal. Because if they kept the resolution at 720 the texture quality and other effects would have been toned down to save resources. Fact is that the more detail and effects you put into the assets you need the resolution to go higher to allow those assets to be displayed correctly. Which is why games being render below 720 and being upscaled to 1080 look awful. When you render something at 720 and upscale to 1080 the effect isnt as detrimental to ruining the image being displayed. However you still lose detail and clarity. and when 4k becomes a new standard a 720 native resolution on a 4k screen will look as bad a a 1024x600 as it does on a 1080 screen.

Nope, Cod 2 was 60fps and 720p. They dropped res to improve the shadows and lighting among other things in Cod 4. You pbviously have never played Cod on console because while it doesnt look great it doesnt look awful either and theres no blurrines like Dark Souls

#544 Posted by Cranler (8809 posts) -

[QUOTE="Cranler"][QUOTE="chunkowookie"]

Whether it's next gen or not, the point of this thread has been, since the very beginning, that some people are claiming resolution doesn't matter as much as increasing asset detail. This has been disproven, so many times, and to such great effect, it's not even funny anymore.

chunkowookie

Where has it been disproven? The Dark Souls gif has color correction added so its the opposite of what the thread is about. If res is so much more important then why are devs dropping res to improve other aspects of the graphics?

1: There have been several other comparisons shown in this thread (even others using Dark Souls) besides the one with the color correction, which also show the improvement of detail.

2: Color correction doesn't add detail, so that one gif is still a valid comparison. The detail revealed is coming from the resolution increase, not the color.

3: I'm not saying resolution is all that matters. It has to go hand in hand with other improvements. Devs drop resolution in favor of other improvements, particularly in console games, for a couple reasons. One: Aside from increased detail, the next biggest improvement of increasing resolution is the softening of jagged edges, and jagged edges are admittedly less noticeable when viewed from farther away, like on a couch across the room from a tv. Two: considering that the jagged edges are less noticeable in this context, many devs feel that gamers would prefer to have more particles and other effects, rather than smoother edges and more detail, if forced to choose one over the other.

The key phrase there is, "if forced to choose one over the other". If the hardware allowed for it (like with PCs and, hopefully, the next round of consoles), they wouldn't have to choose. You can have both, and it does wonders for making games look better.

Another one who doesnt know what the thread is about. The thread isnt about 720p 0r 600p vs 1080p. Its about high res with low settings vs low res high settings.
#546 Posted by 04dcarraher (20392 posts) -

[QUOTE="04dcarraher"]

[QUOTE="Cranler"] Quite a generic insult from someone whom Ive never given cause to call me names. Dont want to address why IW dropped res on Cod or the fact that most posters in this thread have no clue what the thread is even about?Cranler

Trolls dont deserve mercy!

The reason IW dropped resolution is because they had to sacrifice something to achieve the 60 FPS goal. Because if they kept the resolution at 720 the texture quality and other effects would have been toned down to save resources. Fact is that the more detail and effects you put into the assets you need the resolution to go higher to allow those assets to be displayed correctly. Which is why games being render below 720 and being upscaled to 1080 look awful. When you render something at 720 and upscale to 1080 the effect isnt as detrimental to ruining the image being displayed. However you still lose detail and clarity. and when 4k becomes a new standard a 720 native resolution on a 4k screen will look as bad a a 1024x600 as it does on a 1080 screen.

Nope, Cod 2 was 60fps and 720p. They dropped res to improve the shadows and lighting among other things in Cod 4. You pbviously have never played Cod on console because while it doesnt look great it doesnt look awful either and theres no blurrines like Dark Souls

Please.... stop posting nonsense, you obviously have no idea whats going on. Dropping resolution is meant to speed up the framereate after adding effects. For example with dante's inferno the developer had two options keep resolution at 720 use better graphics but only be at 30 fps or lower the graphics quality to keep the 60 fps standard at 720. IW did it differently they sacrificed resolution to keep the both aspects as best as they could keep it. however taking a hit with detail and clarity.

Image

#547 Posted by Master_ShakeXXX (13361 posts) -

screenshot2122.png

I played the PS3 version. It doesn't look anywhere near that atrocious. You did something wrong.

#548 Posted by Cranler (8809 posts) -

[QUOTE="Cranler"]

[QUOTE="04dcarraher"] Trolls dont deserve mercy!

The reason IW dropped resolution is because they had to sacrifice something to achieve the 60 FPS goal. Because if they kept the resolution at 720 the texture quality and other effects would have been toned down to save resources. Fact is that the more detail and effects you put into the assets you need the resolution to go higher to allow those assets to be displayed correctly. Which is why games being render below 720 and being upscaled to 1080 look awful. When you render something at 720 and upscale to 1080 the effect isnt as detrimental to ruining the image being displayed. However you still lose detail and clarity. and when 4k becomes a new standard a 720 native resolution on a 4k screen will look as bad a a 1024x600 as it does on a 1080 screen.

04dcarraher

Nope, Cod 2 was 60fps and 720p. They dropped res to improve the shadows and lighting among other things in Cod 4. You pbviously have never played Cod on console because while it doesnt look great it doesnt look awful either and theres no blurrines like Dark Souls

Please.... stop posting nonsense, you obviously have no idea whats going on. Dropping resolution is meant to speed up the framereate after adding effects. For example with dante's inferno the developer had two options keep resolution at 720 use better graphics but only be at 30 fps or lower the graphics quality to keep the 60 fps standard at 720. IW did it differently they sacrificed resolution to keep the both aspects as best as they could keep it. however taking a hit with detail and clarity.

Image

As usual with this thread someone posts irrelavent pics. This isnt about pc vs console. Geez! lol! I said exactly what you said I didnt say. I said they dropped res to improve shadows and lighting. Those are effects, are they not? COD 4 got hdr and much better shadows than the series previously had. To implement these new effects they sacrificed the resolution. What do those pics have to do with this topic? A releavent screen comparison would be comparing 360 version of Cod 2 which was 720p against 360 version of Cod 4 which had superior graphics despite having a lower res.
#549 Posted by mitu123 (154589 posts) -

Direct feed of Dark Souls.

PS3_003.bmp.jpg

#550 Posted by 04dcarraher (20392 posts) -

[QUOTE="04dcarraher"]

[QUOTE="Cranler"] Nope, Cod 2 was 60fps and 720p. They dropped res to improve the shadows and lighting among other things in Cod 4. You pbviously have never played Cod on console because while it doesnt look great it doesnt look awful either and theres no blurrines like Dark Souls

Cranler

Please.... stop posting nonsense, you obviously have no idea whats going on. Dropping resolution is meant to speed up the framereate after adding effects. For example with dante's inferno the developer had two options keep resolution at 720 use better graphics but only be at 30 fps or lower the graphics quality to keep the 60 fps standard at 720. IW did it differently they sacrificed resolution to keep the both aspects as best as they could keep it. however taking a hit with detail and clarity.

As usual with this thread someone posts irrelavent pics. This isnt about pc vs console. Geez! lol! I said exactly what you said I didnt say. I said they dropped res to improve shadows and lighting. Those are effects, are they not? COD 4 got hdr and much better shadows than the series previously had. To implement these new effects they sacrificed the resolution. What do those pics have to do with this topic? A releavent screen comparison would be comparing 360 version of Cod 2 which was 720p against 360 version of Cod 4 which had superior graphics despite having a lower res.

The whole point of this thread is 1080 isnt need and pc vs console proves its needed, why dont you go away