Is 1080p really needed in games ?

lol at loosingENDS for trying to act like he knows what he is talking about :lol:

R4gn4r0k

I know. I feel like I probably wasted my time with my drawn out explanation a couple posts up. He's just clearly clueless about... literally everything. Doesn't even seem to comprehend the ideas of downsampling, upscaling, real time vs. pre rendering, display resolution vs render resolution, or even the absolute basics about what resolution is.

[QUOTE="call_of_duty_10"]

Is 720p really needed in games ?

I mean shouldnt every inch of power go to make games look closer to CGI in 240p, than have mediocre graphics in 720p ?

sanim02

This should've been where the thread ends lmao.

Seriously. It shows undeniably that loosey doesn't even know the very basics of what resolution is, and how it works.

Yay! Another idiotic LoosingENDS thread!

Just because your crappy hardware in your old console can't do 1080 and our PC hardware is capable of running games at much higher resolutions on three monitors and at the game's Ultra settings with DX11 effects not even avalable to the consoles and with things like AA running as well... doesn't mean we don't need lower resolution.

Those poor, poor console fanboys that actually believed the Avatar-like graphics line they were given... So sad...

[QUOTE="loosingENDS"]

[QUOTE="nameless12345"]

What's the point in having high-rez assets like 2048 x 2048 textures and then a 720p screen resolution?

At some point, you have to move the resolution upwards aswell, else the details get lost. (kinda like going back to SD screens where you can't notice the finer details you do see on HD screens)

clyde46

But we are not ready for 1080p, the polygons counts etc reveal the nature of the fake world more than some exra texture detail would help you get immersed in it

That is the point

Certainly when you do reach Avatar polygon smoothness and rendering, with all effects on, then there is a point to see more detail in them

Don't forget kuraimen. (I haven't seen that fella in a while)

Is this topic for real? LOL I guess we should all just go back to the days of 480p and standard definiton. Let's not push technology let's waste time with the inferior.

Yay! Another idiotic LoosingENDS thread!

Just because your crappy hardware in your old console can't do 1080 and our PC hardware is capable of running games at much higher resolutions on three monitors and at the game's Ultra settings with DX11 effects not even avalable to the consoles and with things like AA running as well... doesn't mean we don't need lower resolution.

Those poor, poor console fanboys that actually believed the Avatar-like graphics line they were given... So sad...

arto1223

Dont forget his pc's 5450 gpu!

or one of his famous quotes

"My PC is not a gaming PC in the sense that does not have a GPU that will run games in playable frame rates, other than that is a DX11 GPU that will run any game in any setting"

:o

[QUOTE="R4gn4r0k"]

lol at loosingENDS for trying to act like he knows what he is talking about :lol:

the_bi99man

I know. I feel like I probably wasted my time with my drawn out explanation a couple posts up. He's just clearly clueless about... literally everything. Doesn't even seem to comprehend the ideas of downsampling, upscaling, real time vs. pre rendering, display resolution vs render resolution, or even the absolute basics about what resolution is.

Yeah, I'm sorry man. But you wasted your time.:P

This is loosingENDS logic:

"I only have a 720p TV, therefor higher resolutions are not needed"

"Graphics on my laptop suck, therefor all PC graphcis must not be that much better than consoles"

He hasn't literally said it like that, but it's easy to connect the dots.

[QUOTE="the_bi99man"]

[QUOTE="R4gn4r0k"]

lol at loosingENDS for trying to act like he knows what he is talking about :lol:

R4gn4r0k

I know. I feel like I probably wasted my time with my drawn out explanation a couple posts up. He's just clearly clueless about... literally everything. Doesn't even seem to comprehend the ideas of downsampling, upscaling, real time vs. pre rendering, display resolution vs render resolution, or even the absolute basics about what resolution is.

Yeah, I'm sorry man. But you wasted your time.:P

This is loosingENDS logic:

"I only have a 720p TV, therefor higher resolutions are not needed"

"Graphics on my laptop suck, therefor all PC graphcis must not be that much better than consoles"

He hasn't literally said it like that, but it's easy to connect the dots.

I actually seem to remember him literally saying it like that.:P maybe I'm thinking of giovela.

I actually seem to remember him literally saying it like that.:P maybe I'm thinking of giovela.

the_bi99man

Yeah giovela has said that, haha :P

[QUOTE="the_bi99man"]

I actually seem to remember him literally saying it like that.:P maybe I'm thinking of giovela.

R4gn4r0k

Yeah giovela has said that, haha :P

Fantastic... fantastic.

Another golden thread from Loosing :lol:MonsieurX

[QUOTE="sanim02"]

[QUOTE="call_of_duty_10"]

Is 720p really needed in games ?

I mean shouldnt every inch of power go to make games look closer to CGI in 240p, than have mediocre graphics in 720p ?

the_bi99man

This should've been where the thread ends lmao.

Seriously. It shows undeniably that loosey doesn't even know the very basics of what resolution is, and how it works.

Anyone who takes this fanboy seriously, alongside that strong whatever and jimmy something, then you have a problem lol.

Current consoles and Wii U don't NEED it, but they could sure use it.

Next gen consoles will need it though.

sincerely to the OP

I mean shouldnt every inch of power go to make games look closer to CGI in 720p, than have mediocre graphics in 1080p ?

I dont see games anywhere close to 720p movie quality yet

loosingENDS

Lol you do realize that to have full details and awesome textures etc you do need a high resolution and good hardware.

This statement is so stupid that it reminds me of people saying... "Oh I hate how games focus on visuals, hardware and all the tech stuff instead of focusing on the gameplay and fun" Well in order to achieve the so called nice gameplay and deep game interaction within the world you do need powerful hardware and powerful engines and all these techie sh!t.
Also people that'll say "Yes but games in the '80s and early '90s were awesome and fun without having super graphics". This is so untrue, you were enjoying these games simply because back then you thought that it's state of the art. All you have left is memories of how awesome these games were, go and try play them now... trust me chances are you won't like them the way you did 20 years ago. There are people that are exception to the rule and they're called retro gamers, I don't take them seriously.

That's because CGI movies are rendered by farms of computers, taking hours at a time to render a single scene. In other words, NOT REAL TIME. And to answer your question, yes, 1080p is absolutely needed. The difference between 720p and 1080p is night and day, for anyone who's not blind and/or trolling system wars. That's why all those CGI movies also look better in 1080p than 720p. Just like... literally everything looks better in 1080p than 720p. It's over twice as many pixels. It's not hard to understand. If the next Playstation and Xbox have ANY games that aren't being rendered in 1080p native... well that will just be beyond pathetic.

the_bi99man

nah we should go to 1x1 res

[QUOTE="loosingENDS"]

I mean shouldnt every inch of power go to make games look closer to CGI in 720p, than have mediocre graphics in 1080p ?

I dont see games anywhere close to 720p movie quality yet

V3rciS

Lol you do realize that to have full details and awesome textures etc you do need a high resolution and good hardware.

This statement is so stupid that it reminds me of people saying... "Oh I hate how games focus on visuals, hardware and all the tech stuff instead of focusing on the gameplay and fun" Well in order to achieve the so called nice gameplay and deep game interaction within the world you do need powerful hardware and powerful engines and all these techie sh!t.

Yea I miss the gold ol days of having a 50" TV with 480i. :P

Srry, but with todays displays (60"+), 1080p is the minimum. Hell I have a 46" but always lived in smaller places, I'd take 1080 over 720 anyway. 90% of my time i spent on my PC tho with a 22" monitor 1680x1050.

[QUOTE="V3rciS"]

[QUOTE="loosingENDS"]

I mean shouldnt every inch of power go to make games look closer to CGI in 720p, than have mediocre graphics in 1080p ?

I dont see games anywhere close to 720p movie quality yet

Cranler

Lol you do realize that to have full details and awesome textures etc you do need a high resolution and good hardware.

This statement is so stupid that it reminds me of people saying... "Oh I hate how games focus on visuals, hardware and all the tech stuff instead of focusing on the gameplay and fun" Well in order to achieve the so called nice gameplay and deep game interaction within the world you do need powerful hardware and powerful engines and all these techie sh!t.

I do believe somewhere deeply in your brain you realized that posting such claims is stupid, still I don't know why you did that.

Good sir you do understand that when talking about resolution I was referring to the tech side of the games and that progression should be made all the time in all fields. High resolution is just one aspect of hardware you can get... important factors are also game engines, tv/monitors, and of course the computing and rendering units.

I actually agree slightly. My parents got me a 720p tv for Christmas and I've played some games on it and they look almost as good. Of course I also sit further away and it's 32" so that's why. But yeah if you're just gaming in the living room and the tv is decently far away from the couch, 1080p doesn't look that much better.

I'd take 1080 over 720 anyway. .

dxmcat

[QUOTE="dxmcat"]

I'd take 1080 over 720 anyway. .

Cranler

[QUOTE="Cranler"][QUOTE="V3rciS"]

Lol you do realize that to have full details and awesome textures etc you do need a high resolution and good hardware.

This statement is so stupid that it reminds me of people saying... "Oh I hate how games focus on visuals, hardware and all the tech stuff instead of focusing on the gameplay and fun" Well in order to achieve the so called nice gameplay and deep game interaction within the world you do need powerful hardware and powerful engines and all these techie sh!t.

V3rciS

I do believe somewhere deeply in your brain you realized that posting such claims is stupid, still I don't know why you did that.

Good sir you do understand that when talking about resolution I was referring to the tech side of the games and that progression should be made all the time in all fields. High resolution is just one aspect of hardware you can get... important factors are also game engines, tv/monitors, and of course the computing and rendering units.

I just realized loosingENDS is an idiot.:|

[QUOTE="V3rciS"]

[QUOTE="Cranler"] If that was true then how come PS 2 games look so much better than atari 2600 games? Theyre all the same res?Cranler

I do believe somewhere deeply in your brain you realized that posting such claims is stupid, still I don't know why you did that.

Good sir you do understand that when talking about resolution I was referring to the tech side of the games and that progression should be made all the time in all fields. High resolution is just one aspect of hardware you can get... important factors are also game engines, tv/monitors, and of course the computing and rendering units.

well I think I already answered to that resolution fact you provided...

[QUOTE="Cranler"][QUOTE="dxmcat"]

I'd take 1080 over 720 anyway. .

04dcarraher

[QUOTE="04dcarraher"][QUOTE="Cranler"] If it were only that simple. Most people would take Cod 4 at 600p over Cod 2 at 720p. Cranler

All technological advancements in video gaming that are the best become standard over time and are necessary. Technoilogical advancements are what drive the gaming business to make their next consoles. Bluray, built in HDD, HDMI, Hi Def gaming, online gaming, wireless controllers, faster CPUs, better GPUs, PSN-XBL etc. all have become needed and necessary as they become the standard.

I actually agree slightly. My parents got me a 720p tv for Christmas and I've played some games on it and they look almost as good. Of course I also sit further away and it's 32" so that's why. But yeah if you're just gaming in the living room and the tv is decently far away from the couch, 1080p doesn't look that much better.

cain006

that's because the vast majority of console games are rendered at 720p or under. Moving up to a 1080p display won't make them look any better because it's not changing the render resolution. Only the display.

[QUOTE="the_bi99man"]

That's because CGI movies are rendered by farms of computers, taking hours at a time to render a single scene. In other words, NOT REAL TIME. And to answer your question, yes, 1080p is absolutely needed. The difference between 720p and 1080p is night and day, for anyone who's not blind and/or trolling system wars. That's why all those CGI movies also look better in 1080p than 720p. Just like... literally everything looks better in 1080p than 720p. It's over twice as many pixels. It's not hard to understand. If the next Playstation and Xbox have ANY games that aren't being rendered in 1080p native... well that will just be beyond pathetic.

Cranler

I don't think he has a good point... I mean, @ 1080p things are obviously more clear/detailed.

Unless the game looks like crap no matter the resolution or your HDTV/monitor can't support such resolution.

[QUOTE="the_bi99man"]

That's because CGI movies are rendered by farms of computers, taking hours at a time to render a single scene. In other words, NOT REAL TIME. And to answer your question, yes, 1080p is absolutely needed. The difference between 720p and 1080p is night and day, for anyone who's not blind and/or trolling system wars. That's why all those CGI movies also look better in 1080p than 720p. Just like... literally everything looks better in 1080p than 720p. It's over twice as many pixels. It's not hard to understand. If the next Playstation and Xbox have ANY games that aren't being rendered in 1080p native... well that will just be beyond pathetic.

Cranler

We're not talking about performance. Yes, COD 4 has enough enhancements to the engine itself, that it looks better at 600p than CoD2 does at 720p, but that doesn't mean that COD4 wouldn't look even better if it had all those same enhancements, PLUS 720p (or more). That's what loosey is claiming here. That higher resolution wouldn't make a difference, even if it was the only change, and nothing was sacrificed for it. Also, the difference from 600p to 720p is nowhere near the size of the difference from 720p to 1080p. Loosey actually even said (not in the OP, but later in this thread), that a bad looking game will look even worse at higher resolution. Which is simply not true, and reveals the fact that he doesn't know the difference between render resolution and display resolution. He thinks that plugging something into a 1080p TV will make it render at 1080p, because he's utterly clueless. I tried to explain it to him, citing the fact that an old console, like an N64, looks worse plugged into and HDTV than it does plugged into an SDTV, because the tiny render resolution is being massively stretched to a larger display, but it probably went right over his head.

Potential performance issues aside, assuming that performance is not a problem, increasing render resolution can only make things look better. No matter what.

[QUOTE="cain006"]

I actually agree slightly. My parents got me a 720p tv for Christmas and I've played some games on it and they look almost as good. Of course I also sit further away and it's 32" so that's why. But yeah if you're just gaming in the living room and the tv is decently far away from the couch, 1080p doesn't look that much better.

the_bi99man

that's because the vast majority of console games are rendered at 720p or under. Moving up to a 1080p display won't make them look any better because it's not changing the render resolution. Only the display.

Pre-emptive damage control for nextbox 720p games

El_Garbanzo

[QUOTE="the_bi99man"]

[QUOTE="cain006"]

I actually agree slightly. My parents got me a 720p tv for Christmas and I've played some games on it and they look almost as good. Of course I also sit further away and it's 32" so that's why. But yeah if you're just gaming in the living room and the tv is decently far away from the couch, 1080p doesn't look that much better.

cain006

that's because the vast majority of console games are rendered at 720p or under. Moving up to a 1080p display won't make them look any better because it's not changing the render resolution. Only the display.

Well, that can probably be mostly chocked up to viewing distance. Either way, the point I've been trying to make throughout this thread (that loosey can't wrap his head around), is that even if you're on a big TV, and sitting far away, so 720p doesn't necessarily look bad, it would still look even better if it was 1080p. Loosey doesn't seem to understand this. He's one of those types that loves to use the "farther away from the screen makes it look better" argument, to claim lower resolutions look fine, but he doesn't realize that the same thing applies to ALL resolutions. Sitting 8 feet away from the screen makes 720p look better, but it will also make 1080p look even better, as well. The whole scale just shifts up.

He's also claimed throughout this thread that games should just keep piling on more detail, at an engine level, without increasing resolution, while completely ignoring the fact that engine level details get rapidly dimishing returns when they don't have a render resolution capable of displaying them properly, as was illustrated marvelously by the Dark Souls resolution comparison GIF someone posted a few pages back.

Edit: Here it is again. The only difference here is a jump from the console/vanilla PC standard sub-720p res, to the full 1080p allowed by DSfix. No assets, textures, or anything like that are changed. All the detail you can see in the 1080p shot is actually there in the other shot, just buried and blurred because the lower resolution simply doesn't have enough pixels to display it. And Dark Souls doesn't even have anywhere near the highest quality assets and textures that are available in games these days.

[QUOTE="V3rciS"]

[QUOTE="loosingENDS"]

I mean shouldnt every inch of power go to make games look closer to CGI in 720p, than have mediocre graphics in 1080p ?

I dont see games anywhere close to 720p movie quality yet

Cranler

Lol you do realize that to have full details and awesome textures etc you do need a high resolution and good hardware.

This statement is so stupid that it reminds me of people saying... "Oh I hate how games focus on visuals, hardware and all the tech stuff instead of focusing on the gameplay and fun" Well in order to achieve the so called nice gameplay and deep game interaction within the world you do need powerful hardware and powerful engines and all these techie sh!t.

I thought the Atari 2600 had a native res of something like 160x190 or something like that. Even the old Microsoft Arcade for Windows, which consisted of Atari 2600 games had a low max res.

[QUOTE="Cranler"][QUOTE="V3rciS"]

Lol you do realize that to have full details and awesome textures etc you do need a high resolution and good hardware.

This statement is so stupid that it reminds me of people saying... "Oh I hate how games focus on visuals, hardware and all the tech stuff instead of focusing on the gameplay and fun" Well in order to achieve the so called nice gameplay and deep game interaction within the world you do need powerful hardware and powerful engines and all these techie sh!t.

jun_aka_pekto

I thought the Atari 2600 had a native res of something like 160x190 or something like that. Even the old Microsoft Arcade for Windows, which consisted of Atari 2600 games had a low max res.

I suppose the current-gen consoles could've just stayed at SDTV resolutions based on my screen captures (with the PS3 on composite mode). They wouldn't look very good all blown up fullscreen though.

[QUOTE="jun_aka_pekto"]

[QUOTE="Cranler"] If that was true then how come PS 2 games look so much better than atari 2600 games? Theyre all the same res?APiranhaAteMyVa

I thought the Atari 2600 had a native res of something like 160x190 or something like that. Even the old Microsoft Arcade for Windows, which consisted of Atari 2600 games had a low max res.

Yup. And that's why if you plug them into an HDTV they look so terrible you can't even see what's going on, or read anything, but they still look... right, at least, plugged into an old SDTV. Try telling that to loosey, though, and he'll say that it proves higher resolution makes games look worse. Because he doesn't know what resolution is.

[QUOTE="jun_aka_pekto"]

[QUOTE="Cranler"] If that was true then how come PS 2 games look so much better than atari 2600 games? Theyre all the same res?APiranhaAteMyVa

I thought the Atari 2600 had a native res of something like 160x190 or something like that. Even the old Microsoft Arcade for Windows, which consisted of Atari 2600 games had a low max res.

Yup and look how blurry most of their games are. I had FIFA 96 on both PSX and the PC. The PC version mostly had SVGA and it looked great compared to the PSX version on TV. Same thing with Tomb Raider on SVGA and the PSX. You had to contend not only with the blurriness of the console versions, but you also had to deal with the flicker of most CRT TVs.

[QUOTE="jun_aka_pekto"]

[QUOTE="Cranler"] If that was true then how come PS 2 games look so much better than atari 2600 games? Theyre all the same res?APiranhaAteMyVa

I thought the Atari 2600 had a native res of something like 160x190 or something like that. Even the old Microsoft Arcade for Windows, which consisted of Atari 2600 games had a low max res.

The N64 had plenty of SD games, esp. with the expansion pack.

I know that at least Paper Mario was 640x480 which didn't even need the expansion pack.

I just realized loosingENDS is an idiot.:|

faizan_faizan

Took you a while. He's been doing this for a loooooooooooooong time

[QUOTE="faizan_faizan"]

I just realized loosingENDS is an idiot.:|

wis3boi

Took you a while. He's been doing this for a loooooooooooooong time

[QUOTE="wis3boi"]

[QUOTE="faizan_faizan"]

I just realized loosingENDS is an idiot.:|

faizan_faizan

Took you a while. He's been doing this for a loooooooooooooong time

yeah, he's kind of got a reputation around here.:P