Pushing for 4K is "useless," says the creator of Limbo and Inside

@blueinheaven: Lol, each post you just get a little bit dumber, its ok it happens when you've lost touch with what you originally started to argue about.

So just because a game can be "both" a graphical power house and have good gameplay that means it renders all other games invalid? Lol, a good looking game doesn't need to be some triple A title, lots of smaller games look fantastic as well, again something you just can't seem to grasp. Limbo might not have pushed any graphical limits yet it was still a great looking game because of its art style and lack of color. Are you lost yet, I'm guessing you still are sadly. Sorry, but the only thing invalid here are your post.

@BassMan: ROFL. AJ got lost on his way to trollville. This thread has nothing to do with PC lol.

The vast majority of gamers don't care and the ones that do are trying to justify their purchase due to buyers remorse. Most PC gamers couldn't care less about spending money on expensive video cards or CPUs but the few that do perpetually try to justify their buyers remorse by overcompensating.😂🤣

I feel like there's a lot of the opposite too. Non-4K owners going out of their way to downplay a resolution they've barely played at because they're too stingy or tight on money. I'm not planning to play at 4K anytime soon, because it's practically impossible at a good framerate right now (unless it's some simple game) and my PC gaming is done at a desk, but I'm not gonna deny how nice it would be to have 4K picture and the performance.

I would say 4K isn't needed, not "useless". His games, sure. Games in general, 4K has things to benefit. Some people appreciate sharper graphics, even if they don't enhance them that much. I've always been of the opinion that better graphics makes great games better, so if if there's a way to improve the resolution, why not do it?

Generally, though, I'm sick of the "graphics don't matter" debate. Graphics matter. They've always mattered. That's what moves the next generation ahead. We want better graphics, even if we don't admit it, and with the demand comes more powerful consoles. With more powerful consoles comes more power that developers have to make bigger, deeper, more innovative games. Everything in this industry is driven by graphics, and you physically cannot play a game without graphics, so yes, graphics simply matter.

Seems like some weird gripe to have. 4K is basically about to become standard and he's whining like its like 5 years ago.

There was some dingleberry that used to post here who's eyesight literally decayed alongside the advancements in resolution. He called Wii games "teh blurry mess" demanding 720p from Nintendo's next console and later that year anything under 1080p was "blurry mess" LMAO He'd be losing his crap right now.

Jesus what is this gibberish? Now you're repeating my points and claiming them as your own? I'll go ahead and assume English isn't your native language.

It's not rocket science kiddo, if there are games out there with amazing graphics and amazing gameplay you don't need to settle 'just' for good gameplay. Also there are no prizes for championing games that look like shit outside of your indie hipster gang. To everyone else you're an idiot.

I'm guessing there must be an adult in your house to read this post and explain it to you. Good luck with that.

3840X2160 just seems to be a very tough hurdle for GPU designers to get over. Even with next gen consoles i suspect it'll be 4K with a big fat * for many titles since devs will be pushing the other tech and putting more of a demand on the GPU.

even with the mighty 2080TI Nvidia seem to be recommending using a combination of DLSS and a lower res and other temporal reconstruction, especially if you want 4K* and a solid framerate and high end RTX. cheating basically

AMD seem more focused on cheating too using image sharpening and a lower res instead of pushing for "honest" 4K.

So on next gen consoles (especially with early talk of the GPU side possibly being a bit disappointing in terms of the leap from a PS4 pro or X1X) i suspect devs will lie, cheat, steal and pillage every single drop of performance they can for new tech and if that means its 4K** instead of "honest" 4K then so be it. Not necessarily a bad thing in and of itself but some of the cheats used leave me wince (not a fan of temporal reconstruction for example. in any game i have seen that used it i preferred to turn it off and just use a lower res). Sony and MS may even talk 8K but i think that will be more the HDMI port can support 8K and maybe they can do 8K video playback or something.

it just seems to be a very tough wall to push through for gaming.

I only got on the 4K bandwagon this year. My old 1080P TV died so i got a new 4K Monitor. For reference its a 43" 4K monitor and i sit around 5 feet away from it while playing games.

In the few games i have tried:

Shadow of Mordor: i can barely notice any difference between 4K and 1440P. 1080P does look fuzzier but in the middle of playing it wouldn't bother me. I do use the high res texture pack.

Rise of the tomb raider: Initially i didnt notice much difference going from 1080P to 4K but as i moved around i began to notice a lot more small details in the scenery. The only thing is i tried this on my old 4GB RX580 and tried 4K only for a short period since the game was unplayable due to a very low framerate (though higher than i thought: around 20-22 while walking around in the valley hub area). It's not an earth shattering game changer..just a cleaner image with smaller details becoming more apparent.

Shadow of the tomb raider (playing this using a Vega 64 at the highest settings preset): I have only played this at 4K so far and man does it look perty. Lots of small details really stand out. I must play with the resolution a bit more. I do only get around 30FPS so i wonder would switching the res down a notch or 2 make much of a difference to the visuals.

Pillars of eternity 2: this actually surprised me. This was the clearest difference to me when jumping from 1080P to 4K (also can be played just fine at 4K with an RX 580 4GB....just a side note). the backgrounds looked the same but the little details on the character models really became clearer at 4K. on chain mail armour all the little rings are more apparent for example.

Doom 2016: I actually really struggled to notice any difference here. Maybe i was also using some sort of AA that was messing it up but it looked a little sharper....that's about it. I don't think i would be missing out playing it at 1080P on a 4K screen. Still looked great of course...it's doom 2016 after all.

But yeah...is it worth it? should devs prioritise pushing "honest" 4K or instead focus on 4K* and delivering better visuals in other areas (ray tracing, physical simulation etc.) and/or better performance. So far i would say cheat away Devs. Honest 4K is generally not worth the trade off.

But some of those cheats.....they can be a cure that is worse than the disease. Hopefully thats something that improves next gen.

No idea who that was, but it sounds like someone being used to a certain quality and being annoyed Nintendo is constantly behind the latest standard and being overdramatic about it.

Understandable, I'd say. Nintendo's inability to make a working online service is more annoying to me than their usage of old hardware, though.

My vision is so bad that I pretty much don't notice a difference past 1080p. Now, framerate I'll notice a difference between 35 and 40 fps.

My laptop can output at 3200x1800 (QHD+), and will run older games pretty reliably at that framerate (GTA: SA for instance) but I literally cannot discern a difference in the detail once it goes up past 1920x1080 despite QHD+ being almost 200% more pixels.

I understand others can see a difference, but I agree, the push on resolution, rather than actual graphical design techniques (like certain things to make rendering more efficient) is odd. But then again, video gaming has been at the forefront of the "numbers war" for decades. It's literally a hardware power pissing contest between the manufacturers.

PC Master Race is all about attitude and playing games on a PC, you are on the wrong side of the coin with those points and if you think the only way to be a PC master race, you have to have only the top of the line hardware is a fool. Any Hermits here can tell you this much.

Who needs 1080p when we have 720p?

Who needs 720p when we have 480p?

Guy is an idiot who should glue his mouth shut.

lol yeah, a game needs some actual detail for 4k to be worth it xD While I agree that 4k isn't a huge leap (not as big as 720p to 1080p or HDR), it does make a noticeable difference.

Dude is right 4k is a waste of resources anybody knows this.

Not as big a leap as 720 to 1080? 1080 is just slightly more than double of 720, so how is four times 1080 less of a leap?

because eyes don't work linearly? You need a pretty big TV or sit pretty close to have the same noticeable difference from 1080p to 4k that you had from 720p to 1080p.

I cant remember his name either. He was such a turdbath.

Char said it best years back, "Nintendo still thinks the internet is a series of pipes and tubes". There simply is no excuse at this point for their online being so crap. As for their graphics levels It doesn't seem to be holding them back.

I would rather play at 1440p with high detail and frames over 4k any day of the week for the next few years

I can easily see the difference between 4K and 1080p. Not sure why you wouldn't go with a big TV when you're upgrading to 4K.

Are you trolling me? Yes, I agree, I literally said "it does make a noticeable difference.". Why would you argue that you can see a difference? oO

That goes double for me. 1440p is the gold standard among PC gaming and 144Hz is well good enough. I don't see myself gaming in 4K anytime soon.

CRT have no blur or input lag. Digital Foundry tested a good CRT monitor from 2003 and it destroys any modern day monitor by a mile. CRT was better tech, wish someone bought back a new gen of CRT monitors.

4K is just no big deal. I play on 24 inch IPS monitor at 1080p and its good enough. 4K can be noticeable on small monitor... just a little.. people with good eye sight lol

Up until a couple of years ago, I was gaming on a 24" CRT monitor on PC and a 42" Panasonic plasma TV (closest thing to CRT on a 42" flat panel) for consoles. They both eventually broke down a couple of years ago, and then I "upgraded" to LCD.

To my surprise, LCD made retro games look like trash. Anything up until the PS2 era looks rubbish on LCD, with everything looking bland, pixelated, and jagged, not to mention the lack of smooth motion. However, I have been able to somewhat compensate for it with the use of software CRT filters, which do a fairly decent job of emulating a CRT look and feel on LCD displays.

It's unlikely we'll ever see CRT make a comeback. It would be too bulky, heavy, expensive and power-hungry to manufacture a large CRT with a quality comparable to the 24" Sony Trinitron FW900 tested in that video. In comparison, LCD and OLED displays are flat, much more lightweight, cheaper, and low-power, making them more suitable for larger display sizes and higher resolutions.

It's worth noting that CRT has been around for almost a century, whereas LCD has only been around for several decades and OLED displays for just over a decade. As the TFT transistors used by LCD and OLED get smaller and faster (as per Moore's law), and CRT filters become more accurate, it will only be a matter of time before either LCD or OLED eventually make CRT redundant. But that time hasn't come yet.