Is 1080p really needed in games ?

This topic is locked from further discussion.

Avatar image for the_bi99man
#101 Posted by the_bi99man (11242 posts) -

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.

Avatar image for the_bi99man
#102 Posted by the_bi99man (11242 posts) -

[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.

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

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...

Avatar image for Primordialous
#104 Posted by Primordialous (1313 posts) -

[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

Umm PC has been doing 1080p for years. You and ShadowMoses are two of the dumbest people I've ever had the displeasure to converse with.

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

Avatar image for blackgamer1213
#105 Posted by blackgamer1213 (413 posts) -

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.

Avatar image for Zeviander
#106 Posted by Zeviander (9503 posts) -
1080p is a very good pixel density for most home setups and available sets. 720p, I'm finding, even at the proper viewing distance, isn't enough. Then again, I did get new glasses over the summer, so now I can actually see all the details on the screen and not have natural anti-aliasing.
Avatar image for 04dcarraher
#107 Posted by 04dcarraher (22775 posts) -

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


Avatar image for R4gn4r0k
#108 Posted by R4gn4r0k (26943 posts) -

[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.

Avatar image for the_bi99man
#109 Posted by the_bi99man (11242 posts) -

[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.

Avatar image for Heil68
#110 Posted by Heil68 (57720 posts) -
Not for consolites
Avatar image for R4gn4r0k
#111 Posted by R4gn4r0k (26943 posts) -

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

Avatar image for MonsieurX
#112 Posted by MonsieurX (36765 posts) -
Another golden thread from Loosing :lol:
Avatar image for the_bi99man
#113 Posted by the_bi99man (11242 posts) -

[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.

Avatar image for freedomfreak
#114 Posted by freedomfreak (49811 posts) -
Uhm no. Especially considering how subHD resolutions keep their cinematic charm.
Avatar image for lowe0
#115 Posted by lowe0 (13692 posts) -
Another golden thread from Loosing :lol:MonsieurX
Address the argument, not the poster.
Avatar image for 205212669269561485377169522720
#116 Posted by 205212669269561485377169522720 (14458 posts) -

[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.

Avatar image for deactivated-57d8401f17c55
#117 Posted by deactivated-57d8401f17c55 (7221 posts) -

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

Next gen consoles will need it though.

Avatar image for AcidThunder
#118 Posted by AcidThunder (2332 posts) -

sincerely to the OP

020.gif

Avatar image for V3rciS
#119 Posted by V3rciS (2236 posts) -

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.

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

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
You speak as if a game can be switched to 1080p without any sacrifice. Compare COD 2 to Cod 4 on consoles. Cod 2 is 720p while Cod 4 is 600p. All the graphical enhancements in Cod 4 allow it to look better at 600p than Cod2 at 720p. This is one time where Loosey has a good point.
Avatar image for osirisx3
#121 Posted by osirisx3 (2113 posts) -

nah we should go to 1x1 res

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

[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.

If that was true then how come PS 2 games look so much better than atari 2600 games? Theyre all the same res?
Avatar image for dxmcat
#123 Posted by dxmcat (1869 posts) -

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.

Avatar image for V3rciS
#124 Posted by V3rciS (2236 posts) -

[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.

If that was true then how come PS 2 games look so much better than atari 2600 games? Theyre all the same res?

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.

Avatar image for cain006
#125 Posted by cain006 (8625 posts) -

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.

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

I'd take 1080 over 720 anyway. .

dxmcat
If it were only that simple. Most people would take Cod 4 at 600p over Cod 2 at 720p.
Avatar image for 04dcarraher
#127 Posted by 04dcarraher (22775 posts) -
[QUOTE="dxmcat"]

I'd take 1080 over 720 anyway. .

Cranler
If it were only that simple. Most people would take Cod 4 at 600p over Cod 2 at 720p.

Nope I take 120 fps 1680x1050 4xAA max settings over 600p or 720p
Avatar image for Cranler
#128 Posted by Cranler (8809 posts) -

[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

If that was true then how come PS 2 games look so much better than atari 2600 games? Theyre all the same res?

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.

What claims? I provided a fact. Or do you want to argue that Space Invaders looks as good as God of War? Or would you like to argue against the fact that any film at 480p graphically destroys any pc game at 1600p? Consoles were at 480i for many gens, nothing wrong with 2 gens at 720p. It would actually be better for pc gamers if consoles stayed at 720 because pc gamers would get better looking multiplats.

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

I just realized loosingENDS is an idiot.:|

Avatar image for V3rciS
#130 Posted by V3rciS (2236 posts) -

[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.

What claims? I provided a fact. Or do you want to argue that Space Invaders looks as good as God of War? Or would you like to argue against the fact that any film at 480p graphically destroys any pc game at 1600p? Consoles were at 480i for many gens, nothing wrong with 2 gens at 720p. It would actually be better for pc gamers if consoles stayed at 720 because pc gamers would get better looking multiplats.

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

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

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

I'd take 1080 over 720 anyway. .

04dcarraher

If it were only that simple. Most people would take Cod 4 at 600p over Cod 2 at 720p.

Nope I take 120 fps 1680x1050 4xAA max settings over 600p or 720p

This is about fixed hardware silly boy. A console game even on the next box at those setting would have ps2 level graphics.

Avatar image for 04dcarraher
#132 Posted by 04dcarraher (22775 posts) -

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

Nope I take 120 fps 1680x1050 4xAA max settings over 600p or 720p

This is about fixed hardware silly boy. A console game even on the next box at those setting would have ps2 level graphics.

There's always an option. but cod 4 looked like a pixelated mess compared to Cod 2 on my 52" 1080 plasma.
Avatar image for clr84651
#133 Posted by clr84651 (5634 posts) -

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.

Avatar image for Jebus213
#134 Posted by Jebus213 (10010 posts) -
Best thread evar!
Avatar image for the_bi99man
#135 Posted by the_bi99man (11242 posts) -

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.

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

[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

You speak as if a game can be switched to 1080p without any sacrifice. Compare COD 2 to Cod 4 on consoles. Cod 2 is 720p while Cod 4 is 600p. All the graphical enhancements in Cod 4 allow it to look better at 600p than Cod2 at 720p. This is one time where Loosey has a good point.

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.

Avatar image for the_bi99man
#137 Posted by the_bi99man (11242 posts) -

[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

You speak as if a game can be switched to 1080p without any sacrifice. Compare COD 2 to Cod 4 on consoles. Cod 2 is 720p while Cod 4 is 600p. All the graphical enhancements in Cod 4 allow it to look better at 600p than Cod2 at 720p. This is one time where Loosey has a good point.

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.

Avatar image for cain006
#138 Posted by cain006 (8625 posts) -

[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.

...I know. I'm talking about games on my pc. I've played Shift 2, Driver San Francisco, and Mass Effect 2/3 so far. I know they're not the best games to judge this by but they look almost as good as they did in 1080p on my monitor.

Avatar image for nini200
#139 Posted by nini200 (11484 posts) -

Pre-emptive damage control for nextbox 720p games

El_Garbanzo
Damage control for most current PS3 and 360 games as well as what you stated
Avatar image for the_bi99man
#140 Posted by the_bi99man (11242 posts) -

[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.

...I know. I'm talking about games on my pc. I've played Shift 2, Driver San Francisco, and Mass Effect 2/3 so far. I know they're not the best games to judge this by but they look almost as good as they did in 1080p on my monitor.

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.

tumblr_mcxjq9w8RK1r34jygo1_1280.gif

Avatar image for jun_aka_pekto
#141 Posted by jun_aka_pekto (22293 posts) -

[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.

If that was true then how come PS 2 games look so much better than atari 2600 games? Theyre all the same res?

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.

Avatar image for APiranhaAteMyVa
#142 Posted by APiranhaAteMyVa (3749 posts) -

[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

If that was true then how come PS 2 games look so much better than atari 2600 games? Theyre all the same res?

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.

Even the N64 and PS1 was 320x240 for the most part.
Avatar image for jun_aka_pekto
#143 Posted by jun_aka_pekto (22293 posts) -

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.

KZ3-Cap-8_zps8c1abb3d.jpg

PS3_GT5P_Cap_3_zps39cfe662.jpg

UC2Cap-15_zps6e4bcf5e.jpg

UC3Cap-7_zpscea420dc.jpg

Avatar image for the_bi99man
#144 Posted by the_bi99man (11242 posts) -

[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.

Even the N64 and PS1 was 320x240 for the most part.

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.

Avatar image for Jebus213
#145 Posted by Jebus213 (10010 posts) -
720p:  1080p:
Avatar image for jun_aka_pekto
#146 Posted by jun_aka_pekto (22293 posts) -

[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.

Even the N64 and PS1 was 320x240 for the most part.

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.

Avatar image for deactivated-57d8401f17c55
#147 Posted by deactivated-57d8401f17c55 (7221 posts) -

[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.

Even the N64 and PS1 was 320x240 for the most part.

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.

Avatar image for wis3boi
#148 Posted by wis3boi (32507 posts) -

I just realized loosingENDS is an idiot.:|

faizan_faizan

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

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

[QUOTE="faizan_faizan"]

I just realized loosingENDS is an idiot.:|

wis3boi

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

Probably because i'm new here, Taking things and people into consideration does take a while, Thanks for the reply.
Avatar image for the_bi99man
#150 Posted by the_bi99man (11242 posts) -

[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

Probably because i'm new here, Taking things and people into consideration does take a while, Thanks for the reply.

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