Is 1080p really needed in games ?

This topic is locked from further discussion.

Avatar image for Cranler
#551 Posted by Cranler (8809 posts) -

Direct feed of Dark Souls.

PS3_003.bmp.jpg

mitu123
That looks way better than the pre ds fix screens posted here.
Avatar image for Cranler
#552 Posted by Cranler (8809 posts) -
[QUOTE="Cranler"][QUOTE="04dcarraher"]

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

04dcarraher
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 to a degree, why dont go away

Your comparing pc maxed to consoles which are medium settings at best. Thats the opposite of what this thread is about.
Avatar image for mitu123
#553 Posted by mitu123 (155184 posts) -

[QUOTE="mitu123"]

Direct feed of Dark Souls.

PS3_003.bmp.jpg

Cranler

That looks way better than the pre ds fix screens posted here.

Yeah it was taken from Digital Foundry, who do these kind of things with their capture devices.

Avatar image for jun_aka_pekto
#554 Posted by jun_aka_pekto (22270 posts) -

From experimenting with different resolutions and detail levels in this thread.....

At equal detail levels, I'd definitely take 1080p over 720p

With 1080p/Low vs 720p/High, it's a crap shoot. Some games like Alan Wake still looked better at 1080p/Low. But, then, I was playing Hard Reset earlier. I think I prefer Hard Reset at 720p/High than 1080p/Low. I like the shiny stuff in Hard Reset and the shine is gone when using Low detail.

Avatar image for arto1223
#555 Posted by arto1223 (4412 posts) -

[QUOTE="arto1223"]

I always turn shadows off. Even in PlanetSide 2 and BF3 where I have everything on max and still get over 60fps, I turn off shadows. HDR lighting is fine. It doesn't hit hard and it looks fine. I get over 100fps in BF3 when recording on max at 1080. PC hardware is fine, we get great graphics and crazy high resolutions in which people have three 1080 monitors for one game.

Cranler

Another person who doesnt understand my point or doesnt read whats being replied to. I call bs on you getting over 100fps in BF 3. Even with sli gtx 680's you would wouldnt be able to stay above 100 consistently. Reason pc gamers run at such high res is because graphics have barely evolved in the last 5 years.

Okay, think whatever you want to think, but I get over 100fps in BF3 at my settings which are for the most part on max. It really isn't that difficult.

Avatar image for theSADmafioso
#556 Posted by theSADmafioso (482 posts) -

[QUOTE="Cranler"][QUOTE="mitu123"]

Direct feed of Dark Souls.

PS3_003.bmp.jpg

mitu123

That looks way better than the pre ds fix screens posted here.

Yeah it was taken from Digital Foundry, who do these kind of things with their capture devices.

Nope. My screen was taking 720p upscaled through my GPU not monitor (Cramer) but showing what happens with that resolution when it has to cover a surface bigger than say 720p TV 3 meters away. I took that precious screen and ran it in fullscreen on my montitor so challanged people can understand the concept. Crude and not accurate but gets the basic point across of what happens. The bump into 1080p is getting more and more important by the day because 32 inch TVs are thing of the past and I personally will buy a new TV at 50-55 inches and 1080p resolution. Now imagine how that tiny image will look if streched through that real estate?

17378561.png

Avatar image for Wiimotefan
#557 Posted by Wiimotefan (4150 posts) -

Absolutely

[spoiler] not [/spoiler]

[spoiler] sure [/spoiler]

[spoiler] if [/spoiler]

[spoiler] serious [/spoiler]

Avatar image for Cranler
#558 Posted by Cranler (8809 posts) -

[QUOTE="Cranler"][QUOTE="arto1223"]

I always turn shadows off. Even in PlanetSide 2 and BF3 where I have everything on max and still get over 60fps, I turn off shadows. HDR lighting is fine. It doesn't hit hard and it looks fine. I get over 100fps in BF3 when recording on max at 1080. PC hardware is fine, we get great graphics and crazy high resolutions in which people have three 1080 monitors for one game.

arto1223

Another person who doesnt understand my point or doesnt read whats being replied to. I call bs on you getting over 100fps in BF 3. Even with sli gtx 680's you would wouldnt be able to stay above 100 consistently. Reason pc gamers run at such high res is because graphics have barely evolved in the last 5 years.

Okay, think whatever you want to think, but I get over 100fps in BF3 at my settings which are for the most part on max. It really isn't that difficult.

First you say max setting then you say maxed for the most part. Hmm...Every benchmark shows neither the 7970 or gtx 680 averaging anywhere close to 100 fps at 1080p.
Avatar image for Cranler
#559 Posted by Cranler (8809 posts) -

[QUOTE="mitu123"]

[QUOTE="Cranler"] That looks way better than the pre ds fix screens posted here. theSADmafioso

Yeah it was taken from Digital Foundry, who do these kind of things with their capture devices.

Nope. My screen was taking 720p upscaled through my GPU not monitor (Cramer) but showing what happens with that resolution when it has to cover a surface bigger than say 720p TV 3 meters away. I took that precious screen and ran it in fullscreen on my montitor so challanged people can understand the concept. Crude and not accurate but gets the basic point across of what happens. The bump into 1080p is getting more and more important by the day because 32 inch TVs are thing of the past and I personally will buy a new TV at 50-55 inches and 1080p resolution. Now imagine how that tiny image will look if streched through that real estate?

17378561.png

Why are we still talking about what is possibly the worst looking console game of the gen? I decided to take a look at Demons Souls which I hadnt played in a long time on ps 3 today and the graphics are simply atrocious, God of War collection which is the ps2 games at 720p look better. Have you seen Halo 4 or God of War 3 on a big screen tv? They look great. Gpu and monitor scaling both suck and they really dont need to be good since most people use native res most of the time while 1080p tv owner rarely use 1080p content for the most part. 1080p tv's have to have good scaling otherwise very few people would want one.

Avatar image for Cranler
#560 Posted by Cranler (8809 posts) -

From experimenting with different resolutions and detail levels in this thread.....

At equal detail levels, I'd definitely take 1080p over 720p

With 1080p/Low vs 720p/High, it's a crap shoot. Some games like Alan Wake still looked better at 1080p/Low. But, then, I was playing Hard Reset earlier. I think I prefer Hard Reset at 720p/High than 1080p/Low. I like the shiny stuff in Hard Reset and the shine is gone when using Low detail.

jun_aka_pekto
I'm waiting for Alan Wake to go on sale for $5 but I would imagine there isnt a huge difference in the graphics settings which seems to be the case for most multiplats.
Avatar image for theSADmafioso
#561 Posted by theSADmafioso (482 posts) -

Why are we still talking about what is possibly the worst looking console game of the gen? I decided to take a look at Demons Souls which I hadnt played in a long time on ps 3 today and the graphics are simply atrocious, God of War collection which is the ps2 games at 720p look better. Have you seen Halo 4 or God of War 3 on a big screen tv? They look great.

Cranler

We're not here to discuss graphics king but how resolution works. Dark Souls works because we can isolate resolution pretty well since the whole game with assets and everything has been designed for the console 720p and it still looks alot better with a res boost.

The reason we're not talking about Halo or God of War is simple, we have no reference to what it would look like with a resolution increase. I think you'd be blown away by Halo 4 if we could double the amount of pixels being rendered. Now I don't want to appear anti-console since I still play console games and some of them still look amazing despite resolution but I don't still want to run a 720p resolution when the next gen comes and I have a flat screen above 50 inches. I know that would look far blurrier than my 32 inch TV running the same resolution.

Avatar image for Cranler
#562 Posted by Cranler (8809 posts) -

[QUOTE="Cranler"]

Why are we still talking about what is possibly the worst looking console game of the gen? I decided to take a look at Demons Souls which I hadnt played in a long time on ps 3 today and the graphics are simply atrocious, God of War collection which is the ps2 games at 720p look better. Have you seen Halo 4 or God of War 3 on a big screen tv? They look great.

theSADmafioso

We're not here to discuss graphics king but how resolution works. Dark Souls works because we can isolate resolution pretty well since the whole game with assets and everything has been designed for the console 720p and it still looks alot better with a res boost.

The reason we're not talking about Halo or God of War is simple, we have no reference to what it would look like with a resolution increase. I think you'd be blown away by Halo 4 if we could double the amount of pixels being rendered. Now I don't want to appear anti-console since I still play console games and some of them still look amazing despite resolution but I don't still want to run a 720p resolution when the next gen comes and I have a flat screen above 50 inches. I know that would look far blurrier than my 32 inch TV running the same resolution.

You were speaking as if every console game looked as blurry as Dark Souls which isnt the case. I have a feeling devs will find a balance between effects and res like they did this gen and well see many games with res in between 720p and 1080p.
Avatar image for MK-Professor
#563 Posted by MK-Professor (4137 posts) -

[QUOTE="jun_aka_pekto"]

From experimenting with different resolutions and detail levels in this thread.....

At equal detail levels, I'd definitely take 1080p over 720p

With 1080p/Low vs 720p/High, it's a crap shoot. Some games like Alan Wake still looked better at 1080p/Low. But, then, I was playing Hard Reset earlier. I think I prefer Hard Reset at 720p/High than 1080p/Low. I like the shiny stuff in Hard Reset and the shine is gone when using Low detail.

Cranler

I'm waiting for Alan Wake to go on sale for $5 but I would imagine there isnt a huge difference in the graphics settings which seems to be the case for most multiplats.

  • Resolution - mix of 960x544, and some things like fog particles were rendered in half resolution that are rendered in full on PC.
  • Antialiasing and FXAA - We had 4xAA on Xbox. FXAA was added to American Nightmare.
  • Anisotropic Filtering - trilinear filtered AF off
  • Shadow Quality - somewhere around the medium setting.
  • SSAO Quality - Xbox360 build had lowest settings.
  • Backdrop Quality - Xbox360 Alan Wake used Medium.
  • GodRay Quality - Xbox360 build had this turned to off except for some specific scenes where we had the performance to turn it on and had most visual impact. The quality was less than "High".
  • Volumetric Light Quality - Xbox used the "Low" setting.
  • Draw Distance - Xbox build had this at Full.
  • LOD Distance - Xbox build had this around the middle mark.
  • FOV - Middle / default is the one Xbox360 version used too.

If you set the above settings on the pcversionessentially you will get the same graphicslike he xboxversion.

personally I play Alan Wake with 2560x1440, 60fps, and MAX settings,and i can tell you that the xbox version literally look like a vomit.

Avatar image for Bebi_vegeta
#564 Posted by Bebi_vegeta (13558 posts) -

[QUOTE="Bebi_vegeta"]

[QUOTE="Cranler"] The difference here is much greater. The Crysis 2 pics were exactly the same detail settings just at different res. Are you saying that console Cod's have the same graphics setting as pc and the only difference here is resolution? Again, this is not what the thread is about. Would you like to talk about high res/low settings vs low res/high settings?Cranler

Well my point and what most people here is, resolution does matter... just like any other graphic setting you can find out there. So it's all about compromise, either it be resolution or other things. Forget CGI graphics, the hardware is not that yet.

Resolution can play a small or big role, it depends on source and the output.

I never said res didnt matter, just that its not everything and Cod 4 proves a game can look better at lower res. Never said cgi graphics were possible. i was using that to make a point. Sheesh, like talking to wall with you

A wall, you just said you agreed with the OP, so seriously whos the wall ?

Just the fact that you can't and won't talk about why we should use 720p in the first place makes you look like you lost the argument, but yet you keep saying games look better in 600p then in 720p and it's your perfect example.

Also resolution and other graphical effect are all part of the same package... they all enhance the graphics so saying one is more important then the other, prove it.

Avatar image for kraken2109
#565 Posted by kraken2109 (13271 posts) -

1080p low settings often looks better than 720p high settings because there aren't enough pixels to actually display the details like higher res textures.

Avatar image for arto1223
#566 Posted by arto1223 (4412 posts) -

[QUOTE="arto1223"]

[QUOTE="Cranler"] Another person who doesnt understand my point or doesnt read whats being replied to. I call bs on you getting over 100fps in BF 3. Even with sli gtx 680's you would wouldnt be able to stay above 100 consistently. Reason pc gamers run at such high res is because graphics have barely evolved in the last 5 years.Cranler

Okay, think whatever you want to think, but I get over 100fps in BF3 at my settings which are for the most part on max. It really isn't that difficult.

First you say max setting then you say maxed for the most part. Hmm...Every benchmark shows neither the 7970 or gtx 680 averaging anywhere close to 100 fps at 1080p.

Well, I already said earlier in that one post that I have certain settings always turned off despite how high my frame-rate would be with them on. Things like HBAO and SSAO will always be off for me, V-Sync is always off, shadows is always off, bloom is always off, and others. Again, it might not have to do with the performance, but because those things make the game look worse in my opinion (like bloom) or can be distracting/make it harder for me to see people in shooters (like shadows). When did I ever say that my system was limited to a single GPU?

Avatar image for ActicEdge
#567 Posted by ActicEdge (24492 posts) -

I always wondered how clean games would look if they worked to keep effects to a minimum and utilize styles that allowed for high resolution display. Seeing SSBB rendered at 1080p shows a lot of detail missing at 480p and makes it look a lot more impressive still using the same assets.

Avatar image for RyviusARC
#568 Posted by RyviusARC (5653 posts) -

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

From experimenting with different resolutions and detail levels in this thread.....

At equal detail levels, I'd definitely take 1080p over 720p

With 1080p/Low vs 720p/High, it's a crap shoot. Some games like Alan Wake still looked better at 1080p/Low. But, then, I was playing Hard Reset earlier. I think I prefer Hard Reset at 720p/High than 1080p/Low. I like the shiny stuff in Hard Reset and the shine is gone when using Low detail.

MK-Professor

I'm waiting for Alan Wake to go on sale for $5 but I would imagine there isnt a huge difference in the graphics settings which seems to be the case for most multiplats.

  • Resolution - mix of 960x544, and some things like fog particles were rendered in half resolution that are rendered in full on PC.
  • Antialiasing and FXAA - We had 4xAA on Xbox. FXAA was added to American Nightmare.
  • Anisotropic Filtering - trilinear filtered AF off
  • Shadow Quality - somewhere around the medium setting.
  • SSAO Quality - Xbox360 build had lowest settings.
  • Backdrop Quality - Xbox360 Alan Wake used Medium.
  • GodRay Quality - Xbox360 build had this turned to off except for some specific scenes where we had the performance to turn it on and had most visual impact. The quality was less than "High".
  • Volumetric Light Quality - Xbox used the "Low" setting.
  • Draw Distance - Xbox build had this at Full.
  • LOD Distance - Xbox build had this around the middle mark.
  • FOV - Middle / default is the one Xbox360 version used too.

If you set the above settings on the pcversionessentially you will get the same graphicslike he xboxversion.

personally I play Alan Wake with 2560x1440, 60fps, and MAX settings,and i can tell you that the xbox version literally look like a vomit.

Was the Xbox version really running draw distance on max?

Avatar image for Cranler
#570 Posted by Cranler (8809 posts) -

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

From experimenting with different resolutions and detail levels in this thread.....

At equal detail levels, I'd definitely take 1080p over 720p

With 1080p/Low vs 720p/High, it's a crap shoot. Some games like Alan Wake still looked better at 1080p/Low. But, then, I was playing Hard Reset earlier. I think I prefer Hard Reset at 720p/High than 1080p/Low. I like the shiny stuff in Hard Reset and the shine is gone when using Low detail.

MK-Professor

I'm waiting for Alan Wake to go on sale for $5 but I would imagine there isnt a huge difference in the graphics settings which seems to be the case for most multiplats.

  • Resolution - mix of 960x544, and some things like fog particles were rendered in half resolution that are rendered in full on PC.
  • Antialiasing and FXAA - We had 4xAA on Xbox. FXAA was added to American Nightmare.
  • Anisotropic Filtering - trilinear filtered AF off
  • Shadow Quality - somewhere around the medium setting.
  • SSAO Quality - Xbox360 build had lowest settings.
  • Backdrop Quality - Xbox360 Alan Wake used Medium.
  • GodRay Quality - Xbox360 build had this turned to off except for some specific scenes where we had the performance to turn it on and had most visual impact. The quality was less than "High".
  • Volumetric Light Quality - Xbox used the "Low" setting.
  • Draw Distance - Xbox build had this at Full.
  • LOD Distance - Xbox build had this around the middle mark.
  • FOV - Middle / default is the one Xbox360 version used too.

If you set the above settings on the pcversionessentially you will get the same graphicslike he xboxversion.

personally I play Alan Wake with 2560x1440, 60fps, and MAX settings,and i can tell you that the xbox version literally look like a vomit.

Jun posted pics of the pc version on low settings and it didnt look much different.

Avatar image for Cranler
#571 Posted by Cranler (8809 posts) -

[QUOTE="Cranler"]

[QUOTE="Bebi_vegeta"]

Well my point and what most people here is, resolution does matter... just like any other graphic setting you can find out there. So it's all about compromise, either it be resolution or other things. Forget CGI graphics, the hardware is not that yet.

Resolution can play a small or big role, it depends on source and the output.

Bebi_vegeta

I never said res didnt matter, just that its not everything and Cod 4 proves a game can look better at lower res. Never said cgi graphics were possible. i was using that to make a point. Sheesh, like talking to wall with you

A wall, you just said you agreed with the OP, so seriously whos the wall ?

Just the fact that you can't and won't talk about why we should use 720p in the first place makes you look like you lost the argument, but yet you keep saying games look better in 600p then in 720p and it's your perfect example.

Also resolution and other graphical effect are all part of the same package... they all enhance the graphics so saying one is more important then the other, prove it.

The op said CLOSER to cgi. Using 1080p could cause other aspects of the graphics to be sacrificed. I said this earlier in the thread, but since you didnt even read the op properly I'm not surprised you missed it or didnt understand what you were reading. sheesh again lol
Avatar image for Cranler
#572 Posted by Cranler (8809 posts) -

I always wondered how clean games would look if they worked to keep effects to a minimum and utilize styles that allowed for high resolution display. Seeing SSBB rendered at 1080p shows a lot of detail missing at 480p and makes it look a lot more impressive still using the same assets.

ActicEdge
Worked to keep effects at a minimum? There is no work in that. Increasing res is the only shorcut to better graphics. Any style of graphics look better at higher res.
Avatar image for Cranler
#573 Posted by Cranler (8809 posts) -

1080p low settings often looks better than 720p high settings because there aren't enough pixels to actually display the details like higher res textures.

kraken2109
That could also be because the differences between low and high in many games these days is very small.
Avatar image for zeta
#575 Posted by zeta (1189 posts) -
I love Loosey threads.. it's a mix of the unaware who humor him with educated replies... then there are the ones who know of Loosey's notoriety of making rather dumb trolling thread (because, people aren't THAT dumb... right? lol). This is always entertaining
Avatar image for MK-Professor
#576 Posted by MK-Professor (4137 posts) -

Was the Xbox version really running draw distance on max?

RyviusARC

yes, why not? as you can see the 2 most demanding settings SSAO and Volumetric are on lowest settings.

Avatar image for zeta
#577 Posted by zeta (1189 posts) -
And for the record, this isn't the first time Loosey defended 720p or used a random, outlandish number such as "10,000,000." Remember TW2? lolz Anyway, stick with the REAL subject, please:
Avatar image for Cranler
#578 Posted by Cranler (8809 posts) -

[QUOTE="Cranler"][QUOTE="arto1223"]

Okay, think whatever you want to think, but I get over 100fps in BF3 at my settings which are for the most part on max. It really isn't that difficult.

arto1223

First you say max setting then you say maxed for the most part. Hmm...Every benchmark shows neither the 7970 or gtx 680 averaging anywhere close to 100 fps at 1080p.

Well, I already said earlier in that one post that I have certain settings always turned off despite how high my frame-rate would be with them on. Things like HBAO and SSAO will always be off for me, V-Sync is always off, shadows is always off, bloom is always off, and others. Again, it might not have to do with the performance, but because those things make the game look worse in my opinion (like bloom) or can be distracting/make it harder for me to see people in shooters (like shadows). When did I ever say that my system was limited to a single GPU?

So fist yoiu said maxed the you say for the most part and now you turf off all the good stuff that makes the game look realistic. Remember when I said that even with 680 sli you cant always stay below 100? On this page you replied to me where I said that, sheesh lol http://www.gamespot.com/forums/topic/29342445/is-1080p-really-needed-in-games-?page=55
Avatar image for MK-Professor
#579 Posted by MK-Professor (4137 posts) -

Did you even read what I was responding to? jun was talking about the difference between high and low settings on the pc version. Put my response in that context and you'll realise what I meant which is pc low settings probably dont look all that different from pc high settings. This has become a common occurence mainly with multiplats, Crysis 2 is a great example where low settings dont look much worse than max. Used to be low settings would look awful. Do you understand me now? Gotta paint a picture for some peeps who cant take 10 sec's to read whats being replied to.

Cranler

low settings look the same like max settings to you?:?:lol:

Avatar image for cfstar
#580 Posted by cfstar (1979 posts) -
Lmao Oh loosy.
Avatar image for Cranler
#581 Posted by Cranler (8809 posts) -

[QUOTE="Cranler"]Did you even read what I was responding to? jun was talking about the difference between high and low settings on the pc version. Put my response in that context and you'll realise what I meant which is pc low settings probably dont look all that different from pc high settings. This has become a common occurence mainly with multiplats, Crysis 2 is a great example where low settings dont look much worse than max. Used to be low settings would look awful. Do you understand me now? Gotta paint a picture for some peeps who cant take 10 sec's to read whats being replied to.

MK-Professor

low settings look the same like max settings to you?:?:lol:

This may look like a big difference to you but I've been pc gaming for a long time, I remember when low setting looked like an entirely different game. Check the pics in this link, it proves what an extreme exaggerator you are http://www.gamespot.com/forums/topic/29342445/is-1080p-really-needed-in-games-?page=50

Avatar image for rjdofu
#582 Posted by rjdofu (9171 posts) -
[QUOTE="cfstar"]Lmao Oh loosy.

He doesn't even have to try anymore.
Avatar image for RyviusARC
#583 Posted by RyviusARC (5653 posts) -

The op said CLOSER to cgi. Using 1080p could cause other aspects of the graphics to be sacrificed. I said this earlier in the thread, but since you didnt even read the op properly I'm not surprised you missed it or didnt understand what you were reading. sheesh again lolCranler

The problem is that without higher resolutions you won't attain that CGI look.

Actual CGI is rendered differently than games.

The only other alternative I can see if you want to play at lower resolutions is to have something like 4xSGSSAA and that is very demanding.

Avatar image for MK-Professor
#584 Posted by MK-Professor (4137 posts) -

[QUOTE="MK-Professor"]

[QUOTE="Cranler"]Did you even read what I was responding to? jun was talking about the difference between high and low settings on the pc version. Put my response in that context and you'll realise what I meant which is pc low settings probably dont look all that different from pc high settings. This has become a common occurence mainly with multiplats, Crysis 2 is a great example where low settings dont look much worse than max. Used to be low settings would look awful. Do you understand me now? Gotta paint a picture for some peeps who cant take 10 sec's to read whats being replied to.

Cranler

low settings look the same like max settings to you?:?:lol:

This may look like a big difference to you but I've been pc gaming for a long time, I remember when low setting looked like an entirely different game. Check the pics in this link, it proves what an extreme exaggerator you are http://www.gamespot.com/forums/topic/29342445/is-1080p-really-needed-in-games-?page=50

your link opens to an empty GS page, post again

Avatar image for RyviusARC
#585 Posted by RyviusARC (5653 posts) -

[QUOTE="Cranler"]

[QUOTE="MK-Professor"]

low settings look the same like max settings to you?:?:lol:

MK-Professor

This may look like a big difference to you but I've been pc gaming for a long time, I remember when low setting looked like an entirely different game. Check the pics in this link, it proves what an extreme exaggerator you are http://www.gamespot.com/forums/topic/29342445/is-1080p-really-needed-in-games-?page=50

your link opens to an empty GS page, post again

I think he is separating pages by every 10 posts when on defualt it is every 20 posts.

So try looking at page 25 of this thread.

Avatar image for Cranler
#586 Posted by Cranler (8809 posts) -

[QUOTE="Cranler"]

[QUOTE="MK-Professor"]

low settings look the same like max settings to you?:?:lol:

MK-Professor

This may look like a big difference to you but I've been pc gaming for a long time, I remember when low setting looked like an entirely different game. Check the pics in this link, it proves what an extreme exaggerator you are http://www.gamespot.com/forums/topic/29342445/is-1080p-really-needed-in-games-?page=50

your link opens to an empty GS page, post again

Works fine for me with MS IE. I test all links I post. See how the link says page 50?....
Avatar image for Cranler
#587 Posted by Cranler (8809 posts) -

[QUOTE="MK-Professor"]

[QUOTE="Cranler"]This may look like a big difference to you but I've been pc gaming for a long time, I remember when low setting looked like an entirely different game. Check the pics in this link, it proves what an extreme exaggerator you are http://www.gamespot.com/forums/topic/29342445/is-1080p-really-needed-in-games-?page=50

RyviusARC

your link opens to an empty GS page, post again

I think he is separating pages by every 10 posts when on defualt it is every 20 posts.

So try looking at page 25 of this thread.

I'm thinking next gen console games might be best suited to res's in between 720p and 1080p. Like many current gen games are in between 720p and 480p. Lower the res are for console gamers the better it is for pc gamers. Means more effects. Who knows, the latest Cod's could still look as bad as Cod 2 if IW hadnt dropped res on console to add hdr and better shadows.
Avatar image for MK-Professor
#588 Posted by MK-Professor (4137 posts) -

[QUOTE="MK-Professor"]

[QUOTE="Cranler"]This may look like a big difference to you but I've been pc gaming for a long time, I remember when low setting looked like an entirely different game. Check the pics in this link, it proves what an extreme exaggerator you are http://www.gamespot.com/forums/topic/29342445/is-1080p-really-needed-in-games-?page=50

Cranler

your link opens to an empty GS page, post again

Works fine for me with MS IE. I test all links I post. See how the link says page 50?....

and to me say page 20(as last page), anyway

so you implying that the AW on low settings look similar to max settings?

Avatar image for Kingpin0114
#589 Posted by Kingpin0114 (2607 posts) -

So I am guessing this thread was just early damage control from Loosey?

I don't feel like reading through all of this.

Avatar image for Bebi_vegeta
#590 Posted by Bebi_vegeta (13558 posts) -

[QUOTE="Bebi_vegeta"]

[QUOTE="Cranler"] I never said res didnt matter, just that its not everything and Cod 4 proves a game can look better at lower res. Never said cgi graphics were possible. i was using that to make a point. Sheesh, like talking to wall with you

Cranler

A wall, you just said you agreed with the OP, so seriously whos the wall ?

Just the fact that you can't and won't talk about why we should use 720p in the first place makes you look like you lost the argument, but yet you keep saying games look better in 600p then in 720p and it's your perfect example.

Also resolution and other graphical effect are all part of the same package... they all enhance the graphics so saying one is more important then the other, prove it.

The op said CLOSER to cgi. Using 1080p could cause other aspects of the graphics to be sacrificed. I said this earlier in the thread, but since you didnt even read the op properly I'm not surprised you missed it or didnt understand what you were reading. sheesh again lol

Yes and using other aspects in graphics could cause losing resolution details of advancement in graphics.

But you're becoming a real joke by not answering why we need 720p in the first place. Just admit it, you don't know.

Avatar image for arto1223
#591 Posted by arto1223 (4412 posts) -

[QUOTE="arto1223"]

[QUOTE="Cranler"] First you say max setting then you say maxed for the most part. Hmm...Every benchmark shows neither the 7970 or gtx 680 averaging anywhere close to 100 fps at 1080p. Cranler

Well, I already said earlier in that one post that I have certain settings always turned off despite how high my frame-rate would be with them on. Things like HBAO and SSAO will always be off for me, V-Sync is always off, shadows is always off, bloom is always off, and others. Again, it might not have to do with the performance, but because those things make the game look worse in my opinion (like bloom) or can be distracting/make it harder for me to see people in shooters (like shadows). When did I ever say that my system was limited to a single GPU?

So fist yoiu said maxed the you say for the most part and now you turf off all the good stuff that makes the game look realistic. Remember when I said that even with 680 sli you cant always stay below 100? On this page you replied to me where I said that, sheesh lol http://www.gamespot.com/forums/topic/29342445/is-1080p-really-needed-in-games-?page=55

Bloom and V-Sync don't do squat to make it look realistic. Bloom makes things glow unrealistically, V-Sync adds nothing to the graphics and only adds in a delay to mouse aiming, HBSO/SSAO deal with shadows so it's pointless to have on if I remove shadows, and I remove shadows as it makes character's silhouette stand out more. Again, nothing to do with perfomance.

You said, "7970 or gtx 680" and never mentioned SLI, 2, two, couple, many, multiple, or anything of that sort. I have it quoted in an un-edited post earlier if you want to check.

Avatar image for faizan_faizan
#592 Posted by faizan_faizan (7869 posts) -

This thing still on? LOL.

Avatar image for glez13
#593 Posted by glez13 (9749 posts) -

[QUOTE="RyviusARC"]

[QUOTE="MK-Professor"]

your link opens to an empty GS page, post again

Cranler

I think he is separating pages by every 10 posts when on defualt it is every 20 posts.

So try looking at page 25 of this thread.

I'm thinking next gen console games might be best suited to res's in between 720p and 1080p. Like many current gen games are in between 720p and 480p. Lower the res are for console gamers the better it is for pc gamers. Means more effects. Who knows, the latest Cod's could still look as bad as Cod 2 if IW hadnt dropped res on console to add hdr and better shadows.

Well in between 720p and 1080p you still have the standard resolutions HD(1366x768) and HD+(1600x900). Or they could use weird custom ones like many games this gen.

Avatar image for mitu123
#594 Posted by mitu123 (155184 posts) -

This thing still on? LOL.

faizan_faizan
Well it's quite a read indeed.
Avatar image for Cranler
#595 Posted by Cranler (8809 posts) -

[QUOTE="Cranler"][QUOTE="arto1223"]

I always turn shadows off. Even in PlanetSide 2 and BF3 where I have everything on max and still get over 60fps, I turn off shadows. HDR lighting is fine. It doesn't hit hard and it looks fine. I get over 100fps in BF3 when recording on max at 1080. PC hardware is fine, we get great graphics and crazy high resolutions in which people have three 1080 monitors for one game.

arto1223

Another person who doesnt understand my point or doesnt read whats being replied to. I call bs on you getting over 100fps in BF 3. Even with sli gtx 680's you would wouldnt be able to stay above 100 consistently. Reason pc gamers run at such high res is because graphics have barely evolved in the last 5 years.

Okay, think whatever you want to think, but I get over 100fps in BF3 at my settings which are for the most part on max. It really isn't that difficult.

Read what youre replying to once more, maybe it will sink in this time.
Avatar image for Cranler
#596 Posted by Cranler (8809 posts) -

[QUOTE="Cranler"][QUOTE="arto1223"]

Well, I already said earlier in that one post that I have certain settings always turned off despite how high my frame-rate would be with them on. Things like HBAO and SSAO will always be off for me, V-Sync is always off, shadows is always off, bloom is always off, and others. Again, it might not have to do with the performance, but because those things make the game look worse in my opinion (like bloom) or can be distracting/make it harder for me to see people in shooters (like shadows). When did I ever say that my system was limited to a single GPU?

arto1223

So fist yoiu said maxed the you say for the most part and now you turf off all the good stuff that makes the game look realistic. Remember when I said that even with 680 sli you cant always stay below 100? On this page you replied to me where I said that, sheesh lol http://www.gamespot.com/forums/topic/29342445/is-1080p-really-needed-in-games-?page=55

Bloom and V-Sync don't do squat to make it look realistic. Bloom makes things glow unrealistically, V-Sync adds nothing to the graphics and only adds in a delay to mouse aiming, HBSO/SSAO deal with shadows so it's pointless to have on if I remove shadows, and I remove shadows as it makes character's silhouette stand out more. Again, nothing to do with perfomance.

You said, "7970 or gtx 680" and never mentioned SLI, 2, two, couple, many, multiple, or anything of that sort. I have it quoted in an un-edited post earlier if you want to check.

Why would you think I meant vsync when I said all the good stuff? Then again tearing isnt realistic now is it? Shadows are one of the biggest factors in adding realism to graphics, not sure why you have trouble seeing people with shadows enabled. You know why many people wear sunglasses? Because sunny days are freakin bright!
Avatar image for Cranler
#597 Posted by Cranler (8809 posts) -

[QUOTE="Cranler"][QUOTE="RyviusARC"]

I think he is separating pages by every 10 posts when on defualt it is every 20 posts.

So try looking at page 25 of this thread.

glez13

I'm thinking next gen console games might be best suited to res's in between 720p and 1080p. Like many current gen games are in between 720p and 480p. Lower the res are for console gamers the better it is for pc gamers. Means more effects. Who knows, the latest Cod's could still look as bad as Cod 2 if IW hadnt dropped res on console to add hdr and better shadows.

Well in between 720p and 1080p you still have the standard resolutions HD(1366x768) and HD+(1600x900). Or they could use weird custom ones like many games this gen.

I dont want watered down pc ports because the devs had to sacrifice a ton of effects to get the game running at 1080p.
Avatar image for mitu123
#598 Posted by mitu123 (155184 posts) -

[QUOTE="Cranler"][QUOTE="arto1223"]

Well, I already said earlier in that one post that I have certain settings always turned off despite how high my frame-rate would be with them on. Things like HBAO and SSAO will always be off for me, V-Sync is always off, shadows is always off, bloom is always off, and others. Again, it might not have to do with the performance, but because those things make the game look worse in my opinion (like bloom) or can be distracting/make it harder for me to see people in shooters (like shadows). When did I ever say that my system was limited to a single GPU?

arto1223

So fist yoiu said maxed the you say for the most part and now you turf off all the good stuff that makes the game look realistic. Remember when I said that even with 680 sli you cant always stay below 100? On this page you replied to me where I said that, sheesh lol http://www.gamespot.com/forums/topic/29342445/is-1080p-really-needed-in-games-?page=55

Bloom and V-Sync don't do squat to make it look realistic. Bloom makes things glow unrealistically, V-Sync adds nothing to the graphics and only adds in a delay to mouse aiming, HBSO/SSAO deal with shadows so it's pointless to have on if I remove shadows, and I remove shadows as it makes character's silhouette stand out more. Again, nothing to do with perfomance.

You said, "7970 or gtx 680" and never mentioned SLI, 2, two, couple, many, multiple, or anything of that sort. I have it quoted in an un-edited post earlier if you want to check.

Use Triple Buffering to make up for it.

Avatar image for faizan_faizan
#599 Posted by faizan_faizan (7869 posts) -
[QUOTE="faizan_faizan"]

This thing still on? LOL.

mitu123
Well it's quite a read indeed.

I thought the discussion ended, Well our new OP is still holding the thread i see.
Avatar image for Bebi_vegeta
#600 Posted by Bebi_vegeta (13558 posts) -

[QUOTE="glez13"]

[QUOTE="Cranler"] I'm thinking next gen console games might be best suited to res's in between 720p and 1080p. Like many current gen games are in between 720p and 480p. Lower the res are for console gamers the better it is for pc gamers. Means more effects. Who knows, the latest Cod's could still look as bad as Cod 2 if IW hadnt dropped res on console to add hdr and better shadows.Cranler

Well in between 720p and 1080p you still have the standard resolutions HD(1366x768) and HD+(1600x900). Or they could use weird custom ones like many games this gen.

I dont want watered down pc ports because the devs had to sacrifice a ton of effects to get the game running at 1080p.

No you rather have CGI like graphics @ 480.