• 74 results
  • 1
  • 2

This topic is locked from further discussion.

Avatar image for DeadParrot145
#1 Posted by DeadParrot145 (252 posts) -

After being in the Crysis Hardware guide forums, I've been put under the impression that 1024 x 768 is a horrificly poor quality resolution to the casual gamer. Well at least there but I wanted to get everyones take. My HD LG tv (1080i) actually is native around 1360 x 768, and well for the older games they look fantastic.

so 1024 x 768 Yay or Nay...?

Avatar image for deactivated-5d78b683675c5
#2 Posted by deactivated-5d78b683675c5 (3161 posts) -
I don't really mind playing at that resolution, butsome people will say that playing a game under the native resolution of a LCD monitor will make the game look crappy.
Avatar image for nutcrackr
#3 Posted by nutcrackr (13031 posts) -

1024x768 is fine for games, just people are getting pretty spoiled with insane resolutions like 2056 etc

fun fact of the day: 1024x768 is higher res than Halo 3, Cod 4 and a few other 360/PS3 titles.

Avatar image for raven_squad
#4 Posted by raven_squad (78438 posts) -

Thats whatI play all my games at. I find it perfectly acceptable.

Avatar image for chester706
#5 Posted by chester706 (3856 posts) -
Lol. Graphic hogs. Seriously its fine. I play my games at a higher resolution just because I can but if I had to play it at that res I wouldnt mind. Hell, on youtube some nut said that if you cant run Crysis max then it isnt worth playing. Lol.
Avatar image for Whiteblade999
#6 Posted by Whiteblade999 (5847 posts) -
Typically on games I keep it from second or third from lowest resolution then pump everything up to high. I never notice a difference in resolution to be honest..
Avatar image for Evz0rz
#7 Posted by Evz0rz (4624 posts) -
If i was using a CRT monitor i wouldnt care...but on my lcdmonitor it looks terribly stretched....but im also a graphics whore lol
Avatar image for MasterYevon
#8 Posted by MasterYevon (6703 posts) -

That's pretty much my default resolution for games, sometimes with AA x2 (especially when playing multiplayer with big maps). If the game's easy to run and I'll be getting minimal or no performance hits, I'd bump it up to 1200x1000, with no AA (since AA usually isn't needed for that res, if you ask me).

Anything above 1200x1000 (i.e. 1600x? or whatnot) is just stupid if you ask me. Bump other settings or just give your video card a rest - those resolutions are just ridiculous.

Avatar image for Adversary16
#9 Posted by Adversary16 (1705 posts) -
Let me put it that way... 1024x768 on a 15" is way better than say... 1440x900 on a 24". For me, as long as it's the native resolution, it'll be great!
Avatar image for artur79
#10 Posted by artur79 (4679 posts) -

That's pretty much my default resolution for games, sometimes with AA x2 (especially when playing multiplayer with big maps). If the game's easy to run and I'll be getting minimal or no performance hits, I'd bump it up to 1200x1000, with no AA (since AA usually isn't needed for that res, if you ask me).

Anything above 1200x1000 (i.e. 1600x? or whatnot) is just stupid if you ask me. Bump other settings or just give your video card a rest - those resolutions are just ridiculous.

MasterYevon

lol, trust me when I tell you that 1920x1200 looks a whole lot better than what you're using. Especially with 2xAA. You guys must have bad sight or something. The difference is there and it's huge.

Avatar image for Indestructible2
#11 Posted by Indestructible2 (5935 posts) -
IMHO 1280x720 >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1024x768,not to say 1024x768 is terrible though,hell i play IL-2 Sturmovik Forgotten Battles in windowed mode @ 1024x768.
Avatar image for Gammit10
#12 Posted by Gammit10 (2397 posts) -

You may not be able to tell, but I went from 800x600 to 1024x768 to 1280x1024 and finally to 1600x1200... and I can rarely enjoy a game that forces me to use anything but 1600x1200.

Granted, with games like Crysis, I am forced to lower the resolution... :(

Avatar image for IQT786
#13 Posted by IQT786 (2604 posts) -

1024x768 is fine for games, just people are getting pretty spoiled with insane resolutions like 2056 etc

fun fact of the day: 1024x768 is higher res than Halo 3, Cod 4 and a few other 360/PS3 titles.

nutcrackr

ps3 games are native 1280x720 or 1920x1080 ps3 does not upscale because it cant so the games are native unlike 360 which does upscale

Avatar image for dsgsdfgf
#14 Posted by dsgsdfgf (1004 posts) -
lol, I'm using 1280 x 768 on my 22inch lcd screen, I must be blind because I think it looks great.
Avatar image for MagnumPI
#15 Posted by MagnumPI (9617 posts) -

It depends on the size of your monitor. 1024x768 is a measurement. Besides that's what FSAA & AAF are for. To clean up lower resolution images and give them the same quality as a high resolution which in turn boosts performance because it's a lower resolution.

Avatar image for Roguetrp
#16 Posted by Roguetrp (219 posts) -

Thats whatI play all my games at. I find it perfectly acceptable.

raven_squad

Ditto

Avatar image for Adversary16
#17 Posted by Adversary16 (1705 posts) -

lol, I'm using 1280 x 768 on my 22inch lcd screen, I must be blind because I think it looks great.dsgsdfgf

I wonder why? I mean you have a good PC... Oh! I get it, you're talking about Crysis! ;)

Avatar image for Buffalo_Soulja
#18 Posted by Buffalo_Soulja (13151 posts) -
Yeah I use it on my CRT. It's more than enough. My LCD is 1600X1024 or something stupid that I can't run any game with anyway.
Avatar image for Baranga
#19 Posted by Baranga (14217 posts) -

Meh, I have no problem playing games at 640 all low. I'm happy I can play them:)

Maybe I'm so tolerant because I started gaming early, in the age of sprites.

Or because finishing Quake 2 and Half-Life at 12 frames was a traumatic experience and it changed my life...

Avatar image for Roguetrp
#20 Posted by Roguetrp (219 posts) -

Meh, I have no problem playing games at 640 all low. I'm happy I can play them:)

Maybe I'm so tolerant because I started gaming early, in the age of sprites.

Or because finishing Quake 2 and Half-Life at 12 frames was a traumatic experience and it changed my life...

Baranga

those where the days. its like a mp at 500 ping

you have to be good

Avatar image for RK-Mara
#21 Posted by RK-Mara (11489 posts) -
It completely depends on the screen size. 1024x768 is bad if you have a 22'' in screen with 1600x1200 native resolution, but good for 17'' screen with 1280x1024 native resolution. I always try to play at native resolution though, because I have a horrible old screen and it's really bad at scaling.
Avatar image for DriftRS
#22 Posted by DriftRS (3491 posts) -

It depends on the size of your monitor. 1024x768 is a measurement. Besides that's what FSAA & AAF are for. To clean up lower resolution images and give them the same quality as a high resolution which in turn boosts performance because it's a lower resolution.

MagnumPI

Ok, lets get something straight here as alot of you don't seem to realise a few things. Firstly, AA does NOT boost performance in any way. AA is MORE taxing then higher res. Infact, aside from Half Life 2 and other games using the Source engine, you may as well run at 1600*1200 then enable 2x-4x AA at 1280. This is especially true of Crysis.

I find that the only purpose of AA is so you can run a monitor at it's natural resolution, which is sometimes lower res then your PC can handle. For example, if I were to buy a monitor with a native res of 1280*1024, I'd be enabling a heap of AA to keep everything smooth. As it is I have a CRT at the moment so I can crank it up to 1920 without a problem, and thus often don't need AA. It's easier for the PC to run games at those higher resolutions then attempt to apply AA.

As for anyone being unable to tell the difference between say 1024*768 and 1600*1200, I'm betting you haven't acctually tried running a game at that res. There's a huge difference, mainly objects get very blurry in the distance, and all the edges of objects are jagged. Try it and see, and I'm serious here, if you can't tell the difference, you probably do have problems with your eyesight, only reason I can think that you wouldn't notice the jagged nature of the graphics.

Avatar image for NosmoKing1984
#23 Posted by NosmoKing1984 (115 posts) -

I currently play on a projector that has a native res of 1024x768, it's not a bad res even on a 7 foot screen. But if I could get another projector with a higher native res then I would, but currently they're a bit too expensive.

With any LCD screen you really should play at the native res regardless of what it is. I've noticed that a few people have mentioned they play at higher res than their native res. What this means is your graphics card is rendering the higher res and then the monitor is compressing the image to fit the number of pixels it has, that's what the native res is. So the graphics card is doing more work than is actually being displayed. This compression can also cause some artifacts that make certain parts of the screen look blury or just odd.

Have fun

Avatar image for Pessu
#24 Posted by Pessu (944 posts) -

I have two screens. One is analog 1024x768 and the other is digital 1650x1050. The only major difference I see between games is the major performance drop which the higher resolution brings. Not worth it.

Plus i can use alot more eyecandy on the lower res.

Avatar image for dsgsdfgf
#25 Posted by dsgsdfgf (1004 posts) -

[QUOTE="dsgsdfgf"]lol, I'm using 1280 x 768 on my 22inch lcd screen, I must be blind because I think it looks great.Adversary16

I wonder why? I mean you have a good PC... Oh! I get it, you're talking about Crysis! ;)

Oh! I forgot to write that, I'm trying to play all games possible except crysis on native res :)

Avatar image for DeathStar17
#26 Posted by DeathStar17 (4858 posts) -
Lol. Graphic hogs. Seriously its fine. I play my games at a higher resolution just because I can but if I had to play it at that res I wouldnt mind. Hell, on youtube some nut said that if you cant run Crysis max then it isnt worth playing. Lol.chester706
That guy might actuallly have a point...
Avatar image for zeus_gb
#27 Posted by zeus_gb (7793 posts) -
I've played games at 1024x768 and at my native 1280x1024 and sometimes small differences, sometimes large different but with most slightly older games there's no real different. I guess what i'm trying to say it that it depends on the game as to whether you'll get better quality visuals fro upping the resolution.
Avatar image for NamelessPlayer
#28 Posted by NamelessPlayer (7729 posts) -
1024x768 is fine for most purposes(it's the resolution I used most on my older PC, if only because the 17" LCD connected to it had a native resolution of XGA/1024x768), but it could be considered a bit lacking and loaded with jaggies when looking into the distance. That's when bumping up the resolution to 1280x1024 or especially 1600x1200 really helps. (I just read that someone plays IL-2 in a 1024x768 window. Don't you have a hard time making out bogeys at a distance, trying to scrutinize whether they're friend or foe-assuming that you play with icons off?)
Avatar image for smokeydabear076
#29 Posted by smokeydabear076 (22109 posts) -
I liked that resolution back when I was using a CRT monitor, but with my widescreen LCD it doesn't work very well for me.
Avatar image for foxhound_fox
#30 Posted by foxhound_fox (98037 posts) -
The average casual gamers are used to resolutions of 480i (640x480) for consoles and 800x600 for PC. 1024x768 on a 4:3 monitor is just as good 1280x720 on a 16:9. It may not have as many pixels but the amount of detail in the fov is about the same and most PC games are optimised for that resolution because that is what the average person will be playing with.
Avatar image for ShaDoW56
#31 Posted by ShaDoW56 (1639 posts) -
omg I can't believe this, I could NEVER play ANY game (except maybe crysis :P) below my monitors native res (1280x1024) it just looks horrible unless you have mega AA/AF which slows it down anyway
Avatar image for OoSuperMarioO
#32 Posted by OoSuperMarioO (6539 posts) -
I believe 1024x768 was a standard for plasma tv's. Honestly if you can go to higher resolution LCD's then I say go for it bud depending on if your system can really handle the requirement. 1024x768 is good depending on screen size but for tv's I'll go for a higher res.
Avatar image for fireandcloud
#33 Posted by fireandcloud (5118 posts) -
there's definitely a difference in higher resolutions; i've seen games on 16x12, and it is a lot nicer than my 12x10. however, i say that 12x10 is still pretty good; i'm happy with it.
Avatar image for lordlors
#34 Posted by lordlors (6128 posts) -

omg I can't believe this, I could NEVER play ANY game (except maybe crysis :P) below my monitors native res (1280x1024) it just looks horrible unless you have mega AA/AF which slows it down anywayShaDoW56

same here but in crysis i'm forced to lower my res to 1156x800 something. 1280x720 isn't right in my 19" LCD screen.

Avatar image for error11
#35 Posted by error11 (7163 posts) -
I love that resolution because I play all my games in windowed mode and its quite a nice sized rectangle;).
Avatar image for BeavermanA
#36 Posted by BeavermanA (2652 posts) -
I try to play games at 1600x1200 or more. When I'm forced to play at 1280x960, I know it's almost time for an upgrade or new pc. I refuse to do 1024x768, just looks horrific to me in new games, haven't used that res since the 90s.
Avatar image for icefox47
#37 Posted by icefox47 (199 posts) -

As said before in the thread, modern console games at HD resolutions (720p, 1080p) look excellent. This is because a) We are used to 480i/p on consoles and b) when playing console games, one sits farther away from the screen than one does from a pc monitor, making the aliasing less noticable.

On a monitor, resolutions matter much more. A higher resolution allows you to see more on the screen, and use much less AA since the edges are more defined.

On games like Crysis, which hog the GFX card, going to higher resolutions seems to slow the framerate less than using AA does, thus the argument for higher resolutions. (Crysis Benchmarks)

Once I started using monitors that supported 1600x1200 and higher I couldn't go back. Distant objects are much harder to aim at in lower resolutions. Example, there are almost 2.5 pixels on the 1600x1200 for every one pixel in 1024x768. Aiming at someone's head in the distance, which may be 3 pixels wide in a low res, will be 7-8 pixels wide in a higher res.

To the casual gamer, small jumps in resolution won't make much of a difference, as the size of the objects don't change, but a careful eye should be able to pick out and appreciate the detail.

Man, that was stiffly written. tl;dr I use higher resolutions because I like the detail compared to using AA on a lower one. That's what I'm trying to say.

Avatar image for gamerguy845
#38 Posted by gamerguy845 (2074 posts) -

I find that resoultion fine

Avatar image for DeltoidRecon
#39 Posted by DeltoidRecon (1163 posts) -

I don't know why, but when I play any pc title I can't play at any resolution below 1280x1024 on my 17in ViewSonic CRT. The only game that I don't mind playing in 1024x768 is COD4; since I add a few fps while playing online, which is more important when trying to rank up and of course win matches :D . Also playing games at 1024x768 isn't bad, but the ammount of detail and crispness that I get from high res is worth the drop in fps (singleplayer wise).

*What I meant to say is that when playing multiplayer, I like to play at the discussed resolution to save performance.

Avatar image for mrbojangles25
#40 Posted by mrbojangles25 (44412 posts) -

1024x768 was my old standard a few months ago before I had my 8800. Its not a bad rez, and if forced I would go back to it (or its widescreen equivelent).

Now its 1680x1050 lol.

Avatar image for KhanhAgE
#41 Posted by KhanhAgE (1345 posts) -

For LCD monitors it is always recommended to play at the native resolution. If you play at a non-native resolution the LCD monitor will interpolate the image, giving it a stretched pixelated look. CRT monitors don't have this problem.

I have a 17inch LCD with a native resolution of 1280x1042. The only time I'm forced to play at a resolution lower than 1280x1042 are games that don't support it, such as Diablo 2. Other than that I always play at my native resolution (1280x1042).

Avatar image for rolo107
#42 Posted by rolo107 (5470 posts) -
I don't mind that res at all, I'll play higher if I can, but otherwise that's fine.
Avatar image for BeavermanA
#43 Posted by BeavermanA (2652 posts) -


*What I meant to say is that when playing multiplayer, I like to play at the discussed resolution to save performance.

DeltoidRecon

This is what you do in MP games, same res:

SP cfg: http://img185.imageshack.us/img185/3315/shot0000wv5.jpg

MP cfg: http://img127.imageshack.us/img127/665/shot0001cq6.jpg

Kill > gfx.

Avatar image for Pablo_SL
#44 Posted by Pablo_SL (93 posts) -
1024x768 is my favourite res, I use it for everything except the deskpot, also 1024x768 is great on my 17" flat monitor.
Avatar image for okgenuine
#45 Posted by okgenuine (131 posts) -
1024 looks high def to me on a 19". I prefer my games with medium graphics. Especially games where you kill people. I don't really need it to look totally realistic, lol. I'm in it for the story and the gameplay. I can even handle 800 res if the distance rendered is really far away. Still looks cool and is fun to play.
Avatar image for DJGOON
#46 Posted by DJGOON (603 posts) -
I will only run the at the native resolution for an LCD, being 1280*1024 for my 19inch. Anything less looks terrible like some sorta glitch, and perhaps not the greatest thing forthe health of youreyes.
Avatar image for DeadParrot145
#47 Posted by DeadParrot145 (252 posts) -

I didn't understand that so many people were playing games on like 32" tvs and such where the resolution is required. ANd i guess for the rest of us where the native is all over the place, but not as high.

Avatar image for Lacrosseman1133
#48 Posted by Lacrosseman1133 (66 posts) -
Sorry to hijack this thread a bit, but I'm having some weird issues with my resolutions. Before I fixed the overscan issue on my HDTV, I was able to run Crysis on 1360 x 768. Now that I've rescaled my computer, my moniter is still running at that resolution, but Crysis (in-game) will only allow me a max resolution of 1024 x 768. It's annoying, really. Anyone know how to fix this?
Avatar image for -Unreal-
#49 Posted by -Unreal- (24650 posts) -
I don't really like playing in 1024x768. It used to be decent, but these days I try and play at 1280x960, then you don't get jaggies, or at least the jaggies are so small you won't notice them too much.
Avatar image for fsnightmare
#50 Posted by fsnightmare (605 posts) -
i run at 1920x1200. Let me tell you it looks amazing even without AA (i only use AA for some games, Crysis i keep it off). Although it comes at a price. That rez can bring your hardware to its knees. My Sli-8800GT's keep crysis over 30fps at high/veryhigh DX10 (only one or 2 things turned very high).