• 68 results
  • 1
  • 2
Posted by Seppli (10251 posts) 1 year, 6 months ago

Poll: 720p Versus 1080p Rendering Resultion - Is 720p a Viable Resulotion for PS4/Xbox8 Games? (211 votes)

Yes - 720p is fine. 23%
No - 1080p or bust! 58%
Meh - PC Elitists do not care. Just laugh. 14%
Fuck Games! I'm done. 5%

According to a GameInformer article leak about BF4, DICE is targeting 720p @ 60 FPS for it. I think that's the result of the worst possible technical artdirection they could have chosen. They shoot for 60 FPS, to shut up CoD fanboys - it's a marketing bulletpoint. However - regardless of how awesome a game is, if it's rendered in 720p it always will look like yesterday's news.

Just for shit and giggles, I set my PC version of BF3 to render in 720p and maxed out Ultra settings - up from medium/high setings in 1080p. All the bells and whistles don't matter. It just looks like a how a vision impaired man sees the world, after taking off his glasses.

Needless to say, this news kinda dampend my excitement for BF4, the next generation of console hardware, and gaming in general. 720p is unacceptable for me. Regardless of what's going to be rendered on screen, it will always feel like a current generation game - a generation I want to leave desperately in the past.

Good god - the technical art direction mandate has to be 1080p for all next generation games. It's simply a must. Less is unaccpetable, and any technical artdirector who sacrifices resolution for bells and whistles - hell, even framerate past 40-50 FPS - needs to revisit his idea of a next generation game, because 720p is never going to be it.

Agreed?

#1 Edited by SathingtonWaltz (2053 posts) -

Most people can't even tell that COD runs in sub hd resolution on consoles, so very few people will even notice. Hell I can't really notice myself, I think the console versions of COD look fantastic.

#2 Posted by tourgen (4504 posts) -

I'll give up resolution to have 60fps every time. But yeah I'd rather have both. 720p is kind of dirty looking even at sofa viewing distance.

#3 Posted by cmblasko (1239 posts) -

I'd prefer 1080p.

#4 Edited by Ares42 (2674 posts) -

The only way I can see them getting away with 720p is if there's way more post-processing than we see in todays games. I've said this before, but everytime I turn on my console these days it's just a staunch reminder of how outdated those machines are.

#5 Posted by Ubersmake (754 posts) -

I'll take framerate over resolution, but why compromise? If this is for the next generation of consoles, and not the current set, as a developer, it's in your best interests to showcase your technical talent.

#6 Edited by AlexW00d (6275 posts) -

At least 720p@60 will look better than CoD's current 560p@60...

#7 Edited by FunkasaurasRex (847 posts) -

Fuck games

#8 Posted by Nightriff (5086 posts) -

I'm fine with 720, as long as it looks good in my CURRENT setting I'll be fine

Online
#9 Posted by Jimbo (9815 posts) -

Frames > Res (within reason)

#10 Edited by Bourbon_Warrior (4523 posts) -

I'm more interested in the player count, a proper 64 player BF on consoles could be a real COD killer.

#11 Edited by big_jon (5732 posts) -

If they're not 1080p, fuck these systems.

Also fuck PC elitists.

Online
#12 Posted by Nodima (1203 posts) -

Since I don't play on PC, and my HDTV is my roommate's so I could be sent back to a 20" CRT at any time, 720p is fine by me.

#13 Posted by rebgav (1429 posts) -

1080p or 60 fps? HahahaHAAAA! Don't worry, we'll get neither!

No, seriously, it's a bummer. 1080p or more shit on the screen? You'll get more shit on the screen. 60fps or more shit on the screen? More shit. I would fully expect the majority of next-gen AAA titles (not launch games, or late-cycle releases) to go for intricately detailed, high-res textured, heavily populated, physics-laden environments being presented through a sub-1080 rendering resolution and shuddering along at sub-30 fps. I think that the only way we'll really see raw performance benefits in all games will be if budgets and schedules simply don't allow for filling your cinematic experience with pointless clutter.

Dev: We had a small team working purely on making the character's eyes emote as much as possible which comes down to making them as realistic as possible. In our previous game, the main character's model was comprised of 32,000 polygons - in this game each character model uses over 20,000 polygons for the eye region alone! In addition, our tech team worked hard on our lighting system and renderer to allow every eye to reflect up to 8 points of light simultaneously to enhance the vivid, realistic look that we feel we've achieved.

World: Okay. There sure is a lot of tearing though, the framerate is all over the place, the physics are crazytown, the enemy AI is laughable and everything looks kind of blurry.

Dev: But look at the eyes!

</scene>

#14 Posted by cloudnineboya (821 posts) -

720 with a fixed 60 frames then yes but if they can achieve it at 1080 then sweet but i doubt it.i am sure less demanding games will pull it of but we will just have to wait an see for the big AAA games. its a weird thing 720 on my tv looks nice and crisp but on my monitor its a blurry mess

#15 Edited by Seppli (10251 posts) -

@rebgav:

It's all about the technical art direction. It's the art of chosing the best way to spend the computing ressources for a great end result. Chosing one's battles carefully, going for the best feeling results, and not for the most technical sophistication.

Blizzard are the kings of technical art direction. For example - Kerrigan Raynor Tychus - they're prime examples of emotive computer generated characters. Few developers have created as alive feeling characters, and nobody has done it with such a low tech approach, without all the extremely budget hungry production methods others use.

If DICE would have a mandate for 1080p @ 60 FPS for BF4, and make the game as cohesive and good looking as they can keeping that mandate in mind, and consequently be willing to tone down the over-the-top technical tomfoolery for less demanding rendering techniques, and be more result driven - I think 60 FPS @ 1080p should be achievable.

Next generation games have to feel next gen, they don't necessarily have to employ all the next gen graphical bells and whistles. 1080p is a next gen mandate, as far as I'm concerned. Less just doesn't cut it. All the impressive SFX in the world won't change that fact - at least it's a fact for me.

#16 Edited by DonPixel (2585 posts) -

consoles, still kinda not worth it.

#17 Edited by Seppli (10251 posts) -

@donpixel said:

consoles, still kinda not worth it.

I just want to play my online games in a more controlled environment again. Rendered in 1080p.

#18 Edited by Sooty (8082 posts) -

720P looks fine on HDTVs, as they scale well. As long as you're not sitting 3 feet away, the difference betweem 720P and 1080P on a modestly sized HDTV (say 40") is quite small.

1280x720 on a 1920x1080 monitor will look like ass because monitors usually have poor scalers. 720P is a fine resolution, saying it makes any game look like yesterdays news is laughable, and I'm a PC gamer.

It's for this reason 720P seems laughable on PC. On a console, or a PC hooked up to a TV, 720P is quite fine. Framerate is far more important.

If I set 720P on my monitor it looks shit, if I view 720P on my 1080P TV, it still looks great. I played The Witcher 2 on PC with a 720P TV and it still looked amazing.

The difference is in the display, not the resolution. (at least in this case)

#19 Posted by PillClinton (3291 posts) -

Both would obviously be superior, but what I was really expecting for next gen was most games being locked at 30 with lots of FX and stuff at 1080. That said, I play a whole lot of games on my 26'' 720p TV, and with everything nearly always maxed, at 60, combined with the small screen size and distance I sit from it, it looks fine--far better than consoles.

#20 Edited by AuthenticM (3732 posts) -

They absolutely have to be in native 1080p. With the amount of detail and texture work the games will have, 720 simply won't be enough to fully appreciate what the visuals are offering us. Besides, with the power the next consoles are supposed to have, they don't have any excuse for not having 1080p as standard.

#21 Edited by Jay_Ray (1101 posts) -

Resolution matters only when you can discern pixels. Most people watching a 40" TV can't tell 720p from 1080p at normal sitting distances. So if 720p means we can have better frame rate, more objects on screen, etc. on screen then I'm okay with that resolution.

#22 Edited by Zelyre (1201 posts) -

PC Master race - I demand 1200p 60fps. 90 FOV.

In all seriousness though, what we'll get for the next gen of consoles will be like the start of the last console cycle. Games in the upcoming gen will start off at 1080p, 60fps, mostly as a bullet point for the back of the box. As the generation progresses, resolution drops in order to up the graphical fidelity while keeping a smooth frame rate. A narrower FOV puts less stuff on the screen at once. Keep shrinking resolution/FOV until you hit a point where you can easily tell, crank it up a few notches, and that's where you've capped out.

A HD TV is no where near the quality of a PC monitor. With upscalers and the increased viewing distance, you're not going to really notice the haze of not running at the display's native resolution.

I'd rather see next gen games come with a scalable/adjustable UI. There will be people in the next gen without 1080 displays. Or without HD TVs. They'll want their UI bigger. I want my UI smaller. Let us adjust the UI size and position vertical/horizontal position (It'll fix the overscan issues, too.) and make everyone happy.

I've often wondered why console games don't come with graphical settings. They don't have to be granular like on the PC. But, how about giving a "performance" mode that turns off shadows in games? Most of them look like crap and those extra few fps can mean the difference of smooth and choppy.

#23 Edited by Raven10 (1793 posts) -

I would really like all games to be 1080p next gen but I kind of doubt they will be. Look at Crysis 3 for example. Gamespot did a test and even running a hex-core i7 overclocked to above 4 Ghz, 32 GB of RAM, a SSD, and two Geforce Titans, they still couldn't achieve a solid 60 fps at 1080p on max settings. Now each Titan contains 6 GB of RAM so we are talking about 12 GB of VRAM plus 32 GB of system RAM, and a GPU and CPU significantly more powerful than what the PS4 has. If that computer can't do it with a game that isn't even fully next gen then I doubt we'll be seeing those numbers on an actual next gen game. It would be nice, but I honestly doubt it. Remember we had at least one 1080p 60 fps game this generation, Ridge Racer 7 on the PS3. It looked like complete shit even for a launch game, but it had the resolution and framerate. In the end it is a tradeoff. Killzone Shadow Fall is targeting 1080p at 60 fps which is why effects wise it doesn't look quite as impressive as some of the other games on display. It even still uses MLAA. Point is, the best games will probably have something between 1080p and 720p like most of today's games have something in between 480p and 720p but will back that up with great effects and a solid framerate.

#24 Posted by Cameron (600 posts) -

Hitting a consistent frame rate between 45-60 is way more important than that resolution difference. It's almost impossible to go back to 30FPS for any game that has fast motion. Still, I expected these new consoles to be able to do 1080p at 60FPS no problem, at least at the beginning of the generation.

#25 Posted by rebgav (1429 posts) -

@raven10 said:

I would really like all games to be 1080p next gen but I kind of doubt they will be. Look at Crysis 3 for example. Gamespot did a test and even running a hex-core i7 overclocked to above 4 Ghz, 32 GB of RAM, a SSD, and two Geforce Titans, they still couldn't achieve a solid 60 fps at 1080p on max settings. Now each Titan contains 6 GB of RAM so we are talking about 12 GB of VRAM plus 32 GB of system RAM, and a GPU and CPU significantly more powerful than what the PS4 has. If that computer can't do it with a game that isn't even fully next gen then I doubt we'll be seeing those numbers on an actual next gen game.

Has the current CryEngine been shown to be capable of 1080/60 at max settings? Given all that power, the failure to produce seems like a limitation of the engine rather than the hardware. 1080/60 is not exactly high-end performance, even with all the bells and whistles.

#26 Posted by Dauthi693 (130 posts) -

I find it a joke consoles have to do 1080p or 60 fps at launch what happens 4 years down the line when we are running 4k TVs. It will look a mess. It a joke devolopers have to choose at this sttage of the console life span. It isn't even out yet.

#27 Edited by DonPixel (2585 posts) -

@seppli said:

@donpixel said:

consoles, still kinda not worth it.

I just want to play my online games in a more controlled environment again. Rendered in 1080p.

I mostly play BF3 and Starcraft 2, I'm not sure what you mean with controlled environment, but assuming.. IMO it is more like a marketing created perception than actual infrastructure or enforcement. Battle.net and Battlelog have both better social features than PSN and Xbox live together.

#28 Posted by Tylea002 (2295 posts) -

I believe Jeff said something like the only number that matters if FPS.

And he's right.

#29 Posted by Pr1mus (3917 posts) -

720p looks really crummy on a 50 inch screen even when sitting far away.

#30 Edited by Seppli (10251 posts) -

@donpixel said:

@seppli said:

@donpixel said:

consoles, still kinda not worth it.

I just want to play my online games in a more controlled environment again. Rendered in 1080p.

I mostly play BF3 and Starcraft 2, I'm not sure what you mean with controlled environment, but assuming.. IMO it is more like a marketing created perception than actual infrastructure or enforcement. Battle.net and Battlelog have both better social features than PSN and Xbox live together.

There's just always that wiff of hack-user taint playing online games on PC.

I once raided with a guy whom has lost his WoW account for a 3% movement speed hack. I never suspected a thing. Pretty sure that 5-10% of all PC players of online games do use hacks, most more subtly than the few devil-may-care obvious hack-users.

Depending on what game we're talking about, I'd even dare say, that's a way too optimistic worldview I'm having. On consoles, especially games running on dedicated servers, such as the Battlefield games, cheaters are non-existant, or at the very least irrelevant - like .0001% of all users.

#31 Posted by cloudnineboya (821 posts) -

@sooty: nice info, that solves the question for me. so 720 for consoles at 60 frames would be totally fine.

#32 Posted by Hunkulese (2728 posts) -

I find it a joke consoles have to do 1080p or 60 fps at launch what happens 4 years down the line when we are running 4k TVs. It will look a mess. It a joke devolopers have to choose at this sttage of the console life span. It isn't even out yet.

Very few people will have 4k tvs in 4 years. Unless you have a home theater room and need a massive tv there's no real reason to upgrade to 4k over 1080p even if the 4k tv was reasonably priced.

#33 Posted by Karkarov (3109 posts) -

720p is fine, but at this point they really really really need to be looking at 1080p.

#34 Edited by BeachThunder (11953 posts) -

1080@120FPS

#35 Posted by Azteck (7449 posts) -

ITT: People who hate on PC gamers for no reason whatsoever.

Also obviously would be preferable, and honestly they should strive for that since people have been playing like that on PCs for years now. Though if I must choose 720p60 is preferrable, especially since most games run at ~21fps on current consoles.

#36 Posted by DonPixel (2585 posts) -

@seppli said:

@donpixel said:

@seppli said:

@donpixel said:

consoles, still kinda not worth it.

I just want to play my online games in a more controlled environment again. Rendered in 1080p.

I mostly play BF3 and Starcraft 2, I'm not sure what you mean with controlled environment, but assuming.. IMO it is more like a marketing created perception than actual infrastructure or enforcement. Battle.net and Battlelog have both better social features than PSN and Xbox live together.

There's just always that wiff of hack-user taint playing online games on PC.

I once raided with a guy whom has lost his WoW account for a 3% movement speed hack. I never suspected a thing. Pretty sure that 5-10% of all PC players of online games do use hacks, most more subtly than the few devil-may-care obvious hack-users.

Depending on what game we're talking about, I'd even dare say, that's a way too optimistic worldview I'm having. On consoles, especially games running on dedicated servers, such as the Battlefield games, cheaters are non-existant, or at the very least irrelevant - like .0001% of all users.

I have zero idea of percentages, I invest literary 0% of my time thinking on stuff like that.. My closest contact with the world of hacking is in BF3, I would occasionally read "xXXFreedomSoldierXXx is being ban due to aimbot", that doesn't really affect the enjoyment of my video game time.

In all honesty I can respect you caring so much about "controlled environment" for regular people thou, I think it matters zero.. personally: I rather spend my money in the best platform.

#37 Posted by Raven10 (1793 posts) -

@rebgav: The average was below 60. Something like a minimum in the 40's and maximum in the 80's or 90's and an average around 55. It was really close to a perfect 60 and it is possible that by adding a 3rd Titan they would have hit that so it definitely is possible. It just takes a monumental amount of power. Have you seen the game running on max settings? It looks pretty incredible. Like nothing else out there. It is essentially the next generation here now. Point is, even if it is poorly optimized, and I doubt that is the case speaking it runs on current gen consoles, albeit at like 20 fps, I doubt we'll be seeing games that are significantly better looking than that running at 1080p and 60 fps.

#38 Posted by Gamer_152 (14078 posts) -

From what I've seen people seem somewhat divided on the whole framerate vs. resolution thing, and I'd be very wary of dismissing everyone who wants a higher framerate over a 1080p resolution for the next Battlefield as a "CoD fanboy". Personally, if they want to stick with 720p in service of pushing the framerate to the best it can be, that's fine by me.

Moderator
#39 Posted by rebgav (1429 posts) -

@raven10 said:

@rebgav: The average was below 60. Something like a minimum in the 40's and maximum in the 80's or 90's and an average around 55. It was really close to a perfect 60 and it is possible that by adding a 3rd Titan they would have hit that so it definitely is possible. It just takes a monumental amount of power. Have you seen the game running on max settings? It looks pretty incredible. Like nothing else out there. It is essentially the next generation here now. Point is, even if it is poorly optimized, and I doubt that is the case speaking it runs on current gen consoles, albeit at like 20 fps, I doubt we'll be seeing games that are significantly better looking than that running at 1080p and 60 fps.

Yeah, as was said earlier, given the choice of rock solid performance or pretty pictures most games will lean towards pretty pictures regardless of how much it hampers the user experience.

In the example of Crytek, their current engine is designed to be a multiplatform engine aimed at current systems. I suspect that what the Gamespot staff can make the end-product do on high-end PC hardware is not necessarily representative of what it would be capable of if Crytek were to bang out a demo tweaked specifically for that hardware so it's just kind of a weird basis for comparison in my opinion.

#41 Posted by Mcfart (1626 posts) -

Most people who play games have a 1080p TV, especially since they're cheap now. Therefore, 60 FPS or not, if BF4 is in 720, it will end up being the black hellspawn of new consoles, panned by critics and ignored by users as it will fail to compete with 1080P competition. FYI, more console players don't give a shit about 60 FPS.

#42 Edited by Stonyman65 (2711 posts) -

1080p. Anything less is kind of ridiculous theses days. There is absolutely no reason why they can't do it with current hardware.

#43 Posted by Slaegar (711 posts) -

I'll take 60fps over 1080p, but honestly it should be both without issue at his point. Its just embarrassing to not have both.

Online
#44 Posted by zenmastah (916 posts) -

Surely the next gen is going to be 1080, i mean PC is 10k already so...

#45 Edited by VooDooPC (325 posts) -

1080p over 60fps. Playing PC games on my TV at 1080p compared to playing a 360 game at 720p, 720p looks like a blurry mess. If fps becomes priority you get into situations like Call of Duty's fake 720p or Gran Turismo 5's pixelated shadow hell.

#46 Posted by Caustic_Fox (112 posts) -

Why stop at 1080? We should slowly be moving onto 1440 resolution @ 120 FPS instead.

But to be more serious, I'd take a smoother frame-rate over top resolution anyday. Playing any game @ <30 FPS when your hardware lacks is very annoying to say at least.

#47 Posted by LiquidPrince (15950 posts) -

@raven10 said:

I would really like all games to be 1080p next gen but I kind of doubt they will be. Look at Crysis 3 for example. Gamespot did a test and even running a hex-core i7 overclocked to above 4 Ghz, 32 GB of RAM, a SSD, and two Geforce Titans, they still couldn't achieve a solid 60 fps at 1080p on max settings. Now each Titan contains 6 GB of RAM so we are talking about 12 GB of VRAM plus 32 GB of system RAM, and a GPU and CPU significantly more powerful than what the PS4 has. If that computer can't do it with a game that isn't even fully next gen then I doubt we'll be seeing those numbers on an actual next gen game. It would be nice, but I honestly doubt it. Remember we had at least one 1080p 60 fps game this generation, Ridge Racer 7 on the PS3. It looked like complete shit even for a launch game, but it had the resolution and framerate. In the end it is a tradeoff. Killzone Shadow Fall is targeting 1080p at 60 fps which is why effects wise it doesn't look quite as impressive as some of the other games on display. It even still uses MLAA. Point is, the best games will probably have something between 1080p and 720p like most of today's games have something in between 480p and 720p but will back that up with great effects and a solid framerate.

That is due to a lack of optimization on Crytek's part. The optimization for Crysis 3 is almost as bad as the original Crysis. Also consoles have the potential to pump out fantastic looking games on older hardware that you could never imagine being produced on a PC with similar specs. This is due to the fact that consoles are closed systems, and uniform across the board. Everyone who has a PS4 has the same PS4, meaning that a developer doesn't need to think about scalability, and instead focuses on tweaking and optimization. Look at the hardware in the current generation of consoles and look back at PC games that can run on comparable specs... they look like shit. You'll find no games that look on the level of Uncharted or God of War on PC games with hardware made around 2005. This current upcoming generation should be able to comfortably do either 1080p60 or 1080p30 depending on what the focus of the game in question will be, either graphics, or performance.

Also on a side note, according to Digital Foundry, Killzone is targeting 1080p30. Although that game started development when Guerrilla Games thought that the PS4 was going to have 2GB's of RAM as opposed to the 8GB's that it will have, so that may have some effect on visuals and such.

#48 Edited by Sooty (8082 posts) -
@voodoopc said:

1080p over 60fps. Playing PC games on my TV at 1080p compared to playing a 360 game at 720p, 720p looks like a blurry mess. If fps becomes priority you get into situations like Call of Duty's fake 720p or Gran Turismo 5's pixelated shadow hell.

No they don't, stop spreading hyperbole. If a game looks blurry at 720P, it's because of the game itself, not the resolution.

As I said, I've played many PC games at 720P on a 42" TV before moving to a 1080P display, and no, they were not blurry at 720P. Not at all, razor sharp, actually.

All these people praising 1080P will be hard pressed to actually tell the difference when sitting 5 or more feet away from their TV. I'm usually very sensitive about resolutions and framerates but even I can't see the difference between Band of Brothers at 720P (old TV) and 1080P (new tv). Aside from my new plasma having far superior black levels and colour. The difference only gets more and more apparent when you move past a 50" set, or you only sit 3 feet away from a pretty huge screen. (fairly unlikely)

As it stands right now, the quality of the display is far more important than 1080P. I bought a fairly cheap 1080P LCD a few years ago, replaced it with a 720P, more expensive TV - the 720P was far better even if it did mean dropping down from 1080P for controller friendly PC games. Although I would say if you buy a 720P screen in 2013 you'd be pretty silly, but yeah, 1080P isn't the be and end all. Don't get me wrong it looks fantastic, but the difference is far from night and day, only on the 55" screen downstairs did I think "Well damn, this needs replacing with a 1080P model" ...but the people that regularly use it sit like 10 feet away, so at that distance it's worthless.

In a few years people will be saying 4k shits all over 1080P, which is going to be laughable because the same people that say that will probably still be on 40-50" screens.

TL;DR - It's not so much a case of resolution, it's a case of screen size vs. distance away from screen. Yeah if you put your face to the TV a 720P image will look inferior to a 1080P one on a 40" screen, move about 3 feet away and the difference will be pretty much gone. 720P isn't incapable of delivering a sharp image, to suggest it is in the name of 'lol console gaming' is ridiculous. No changing to 720P on a 1080P PC monitor doesn't count - because PC monitors are horrible at scaling, especially when they are way below the native panel resolution. It will always look blurry, however this is not the case on HDTVs that support both resolutions, my plasma makes 720P look exceptional, of course my PC makes games look way better at 1080P, but that's mostly because it's a PC, it's not the resolution doing most of the work there. In contrast 720P looks a blurry mess on my PC monitor, 1080P or bust.

@slaegar said:

I'll take 60fps over 1080p, but honestly it should be both without issue at his point. Its just embarrassing to not have both.

I doubt it's an issue, it's that if developers can drop to 720P with little visual difference (which they can) then they probably will if it means noticeably fancier visuals / stuff on screen.

@zelyre said:

A HD TV is no where near the quality of a PC monitor.

What?

PC monitors are not even in the same league as the more premium HDTVs, especially the Panasonic Viera and Pioneer Kuro plasmas. The only advantage PC monitors have is resolution (well, at affordable prices - 4K TVs exist) in every other way - they can't touch the black levels or colours of a plasma. There's no such thing as a PC monitor capable of better image quality than a Pioneer Kuro. I'd argue much the same for any Panasonic released in the last few years, too. You're paying mostly for the resolution, not anything else. That's why the price differences between 1920x1080 and 2560x1600 screens is so large.

My PC monitor is a pretty expensive 24" BenQ, my plasma looks insanely better, it's not even a fair comparison and this plasma didn't cost that much more, they're both 1080P. I tend to prefer playing games on my TV because it has much better clarity and black levels. I stick to mouse and keyboard for a lot of games so desk play is a necessity a lot of the time though. (even from the same distance, the TV looks far superior, so it's not a case of me sitting further away from my TV)

It's kind of moot as you'd never use a plasma as a primary PC screen, however there's still really good LED TVs that'll offer comparable if not superior image quality to a PC monitor of similar tech type.

#49 Edited by Seppli (10251 posts) -

@sooty:

I'm sorry, but all you're doing is selling us your impression of the matter as fact, when it's clearly in the eye of the beholder. For me, it's a night and day difference - like taking off my glasses - everything gets blurry. Regardless of how well your screen of choice scales, the image loses roughly half its detail on everything - it's just never going to look crisp to me. Resolution is key to making a *Next Gen* impression, as far as I'm concerend - and that's a fact. A clear majority seems to share this opinion.

#50 Edited by Sooty (8082 posts) -

@seppli said:

@sooty:

A clear majority seems to share this opinion.

If the clear majority are saying 720P means blur then they're full of shit.

Game dependant. Not resolution only. 720P does not instantly mean it's blurry, you can prove this yourself by using a television to compare the resolutions, not a PC monitor which will look blurry due to horrible scaling.

Does 720P look as good as 1080P? No. Does it look blurry? No.

I can't tell if it's just hyperbole or you have bad displays. A PC monitor's handling of 720P doesn't count unless it's the native resolution of that screen, otherwise it's instantly going to look bad.

What makes this even more laughable is you're insinuating 1080P is a must for consoles when most people sit far back from their TVs to play such machines, making the difference virtually worthless. (unless you're talking about a very large television, well over 50")