• 68 results
  • 1
  • 2
Posted by Seppli (10250 posts) 1 year, 9 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?

#51 Edited by OfficeGamer (1086 posts) -

@seppli said:

@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.

this guy needs to win some kind of literary award he's so poetic

#52 Posted by Winternet (8061 posts) -

Wait. Xbox8? That's what we're calling it now?

#53 Edited by Seppli (10250 posts) -

@sooty said:

@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")

Semantics. If blurry is or isn't the right word for it doesn't matter. The game loses roughly half its detail when it's rendered in 720p in comparison to 1080p. Like I said, to me it's akin to losing my eyesight, respectively taking off my glasses.

If the choice is rendering a game in Ultra settings in 720p @ 60 FPS or in Medium settings in 1080p @ 60 FPS - 1080p will look better always, simply because the detail that's there, comes in approximately double the fidelity. Texture clarity alone already stays much higher for much farther viewing distances, than otherwise - for example.

#54 Edited by TobbRobb (4853 posts) -

I don't give a shit about resolution on consoles because my TV is terrible and I sit far enough away that it doesn't matter. I only get consoles for the 4 exclusives I want every 10 years anyways.

Please do try to give me 60fps though. It just plain feels better. Or at least make it 30 stable somehow. I hate how modern console games chug the fuck out so regularily. Less than 21 frames just ain't cool.

#55 Posted by believer258 (12216 posts) -

Framerate is way more important than resolution to me, so if new consoles have to stick to either one I'd rather it be 60FPS.

#56 Posted by Zaccheus (1806 posts) -

Killzone: Shadow Fall is 1080p@30fps, I expect that to be the norm on the next generation with some games pushing for 60fps. I think all the flashy graphics make for better trailers and are going to remain the focus of most games.

#57 Edited by iam3green (14390 posts) -

well most games don't even have 720p as it is, it's all upscaled shit. i bought a new tv not too long ago, i hope they put 720p as an option.

#58 Edited by Zekhariah (695 posts) -

I'm going with 1080p or bust, but the thing that really bugs me at the moment is obvious aliasing. Even SSFIV:Arcade Edition looks a bit jank because of that on PS3. For a generic alien hallway corridor shooter its not as much of an issue as it would be in a game like say.... Uncharted.

#59 Edited by MordeaniisChaos (5730 posts) -

For such a large scale image that has to deal with things like Aliasing, 720p is essentially the uncanny valley, where as 1080p is right on the cusp of "not giving a fuck" especially with 4xAA. 4xAA at 720p still looks pretty bad. Screens today are 1080p, and that's what games should run at.

@sooty said:

@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")

Unless you have poor vision, 720p is miles away from 1080p on a 40-50" television. I've owned 1080p screens of all kinds since LCD TVs became reasonably accessible. Back when a 32" 1080i TV cost you $2000. 720p for video games is not enough. Even with AA, it looks downright bad. The thing about rendering shit out is that you have to deal with aliasing. Video takes care of that on it's own, but a game doesn't.

And if the game looks sharp enough to take advantage of 1080p, or has a big enough scope and scale to it, the difference is huge assuming you aren't 10 feet away from a 30 inch screen.

And average screen sizes outside of particular demos (basically college students) are pretty big.

Now, if they can pull off 60fps at 720p, I'm not as worried. Just as 1080p is, if you have working eyes, a significantly better image than 720p, ESPECIALLY with aliasing; 60fps is a massive improvement over 30fps. In fact, it's a much larger difference, and it also has a large impact on the way the game actually feels. Games are just more fun at 60fps, especially games that rely on precision and reaction time because they are so much more responsive.

At 6 feet, you can tell the difference. Especially when you're trying to spot something off in the distance.

I could never play ArmA in 720p, because it'd hinder my ability to spot threats in the distance. And hopefully the next generation of consoles will allow for more gameplay experiences that make that kind of distance meaningful.

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.

They can't because they haven't seen CoD running at 1080p. I know that for a fact because I know people who play on consoles, and seeing me run Black Ops 2 at 1920x1080 on the ol big screen TV made one or two wonder if something was wrong with their TV/360.

When you're used to dealing with compressed cable and youtube videos playing at whatever the default resolution youtube picks for you, you're used to blurry, undetailed images. But that doesn't mean 1080p isn't a noticeable difference to people.

TLDR: No, it's not a night or day difference. But it is noticeable and it is MUCH better. Acting like it's meaningless is just as stupid as acting like it's the only way to do things. Obviously a tradeoff is going to be needed to hit 60fps, and a bit of resolution is probably better than making everything look like shit.

I've heard people say that 5.1 isn't needed. I've heard people say they don't notice subwoofers. I've heard people say that AA doesn't do anything. There are always people with crummy eyes or who don't care about image quality that will come along and say "nahhh, what's the point?" but those people need new eyes or to at the very least admit that they don't care because they are lame, not because that's just the way the world is.

#60 Posted by onarum (2306 posts) -

1080p or bust, I mean come on... if the consoles can't do 1080p at 60 FPS like my 1 year old PC does just don't put them out at all...

#61 Edited by SathingtonWaltz (2053 posts) -

@mordeaniischaos: I play most of my games on PC at 1920x1080 resolution, so yes I understand the difference is there. But I was just saying that most people I know wouldn't notice anything higher than 720p, hell they obviously can't even tell that COD runs sub HD. I also didn't say anything about 1080p not being needed or anything, I definitely would prefer higher resolutions.

Ultimately though the COD games always look fantastic to me, even when I play the console versions with my friends they still manage to look really great.

#62 Edited by Dauthi693 (130 posts) -

@onarum said:

1080p or bust, I mean come on... if the consoles can't do 1080p at 60 FPS like my 1 year old PC does just don't put them out at all...

Thats how i feel if you have to compromise on 1080p or 60 fps before the things out. Then what am i spending £400 for? The next gen move and kinect.

I could understand if you had to ask this question 18 months after release not 6 months before its out because where does it leave us to go for the next ~7 years of the consoles life?

CoD 207 now in 540p 30FPS yes thats exactly what i want in the year 2020.

#63 Posted by MordeaniisChaos (5730 posts) -

@seppli: All things being said, if you want BF4 to blow you away, get a PC, otherwise it's just a console game, and you cannot expect them to be on the razor's edge. Also, try playing games at 60FPS for a week or two, and then go down to 30. The games feel completely different. Especially fast paced first person shooters. More frames means better image AND better input, which is extremely important. Less so on a controller, but still very important. Plus you get more detail in moving stuff because you see subtler changes.

@sooty: Also, while you're right that a high end plasma looks better than a mid range LCD screen, if you put that up against a high end, color accurate monitor you lose overall because of the resolution issue. Plus, most people have LCDs.

And that TV, plasma or not, will still have shitty scaling. I've done 720p and 1080p on a high end, moderately sized screen before. 720p is much, much worse, even at 6 feet. I absolutely notice the difference even in the middle of gameplay. Is it the same as 540p vs 1080p? No, obviously not. But it is still a very significant different, even if it doesn't seem that big to you. You seem to be going off of the assumption that everyone sees in this particular way (based on what "studies" show, which is total shit because I've asked all sorts of people in my life questions about image quality, and they never answered in line with those fuckin' studies), or care about the same things. Even my grandmother could tell when a game should look sharper, or could tell the difference between Netflix at 720p and a 1080p Bluray. I feel like we've been here before with you, so yeah, we get it, image quality is either not perceptible to you, or not important. You are not the only human alive. And judging by my experience, you're not the 99% either.

#64 Edited by paulwade1984 (479 posts) -

Honestly it needs to be 1080p30 at least for me.

But what I would really like to see is a choice for those who want it and can understand the implications of making such a choice.

1080p60 Normal Detail

1080p30 High Detail

720p60 High Detail.

Just imagine what a difference this could have made for DmC on the consoles if they coulda had their 60fps with low detail.

The idea is not entirely without precedent. The original bioshock had vsync options for those who found the controller unresponsive.

Also a lot of people in this country (England) have been conned into buying "HD ready" (720p or 768p) tv sets instead of "Full HD" (1080p) tv sets. So a lot of people in this country are still stuck at 720p. May as well give em 60fps with bells and whistles and smell o vision.

#65 Edited by Seppli (10250 posts) -

@mordeaniischaos said:

@seppli: All things being said, if you want BF4 to blow you away, get a PC, otherwise it's just a console game, and you cannot expect them to be on the razor's edge. Also, try playing games at 60FPS for a week or two, and then go down to 30. The games feel completely different. Especially fast paced first person shooters. More frames means better image AND better input, which is extremely important. Less so on a controller, but still very important. Plus you get more detail in moving stuff because you see subtler changes.

I am playing BF3 on PC @ 60 FPS depending on my settings. Usually go for slightly more quality @ 40-50 FPS. Anything stable between 40-60 FPS does the trick for me. 60 FPS doesn't add much to 45 FPS, it is however a huge step-up from the 20-30 FPS that the Battlefield games run on current consoles. The framerate needs to be stable and at around 30 FPS to be playable, beyond that anything above 40 FPS is golden in my book.

That said, there's a lot of stuff I'd tone down before reducing rendering resolution. I don't need ultra shadows, ultra ambient occlusion, ultra whatever SFX non-gameplay relevant gimmick, that adds little to the overall result... that stuff should be toned down before sacrificing on resolution, as far as I'm concerned. Rendering resolution instantly adds a crispness to the image, and instantly doubles all detail that's on screen, whilst reducing aliasing better than 4x MSAA does for a 720p rendered game.

As I said, BF3 in Ultra in 720p @ 60 FPS looks like a last generation game, and no amount of awesome can give a 720p rendering resolution the sheen of next gen. I expect 1080p from the next generation of consoles, and I think every developer should have that be a cornerstone mandate for their technical artdirection. Simple as that. You can work with that mandate in mind, and achieve excellence - and you should.

#66 Posted by BaneFireLord (2958 posts) -

Since the TV I own cannot display 1080p and I don't have any particular urge to replace it at this current juncture, I don't really care one way or the other.

#67 Posted by MordeaniisChaos (5730 posts) -

@seppli: I kind of think it depends on the game in question. I'm a big fan of excellent lighting though. And I think resolution is the best for a large audience, not for those who are picky about image quality like myself. Honestly, I would always pick resolution. I'd rather play a game at native resolution than medium settings, but I'm guessing most people would notice shitty shadows or something before they'd notice a lower resolution. Or at least, they'd care more about one vs the other in the heat of gameplay.

#68 Posted by PillClinton (3297 posts) -

@zaccheus said:

Killzone: Shadow Fall is 1080p@30fps, I expect that to be the norm on the next generation with some games pushing for 60fps. I think all the flashy graphics make for better trailers and are going to remain the focus of most games.

Yeah, not surprised, but kinda bummed they're already just sticking to 30. Jeff was totally right when he said they're always just gonna crank up the visuals to a point where 30fps is achievable. The new gen with better hardware doesn't change that at all. It's all about eye candy for the big mainstream market. And it's true, your average player probably doesn't even know about the difference between 30 and 60, let alone care. This is why PC is always gonna be the platform for people that care about stuff like frame rate and resolution. Sure, we'll have our few Wipeouts and games like that that push for both, but it's largely gonna be the same story as this gen.

Honestly it needs to be 1080p30 at least for me.

But what I would really like to see is a choice for those who want it and can understand the implications of making such a choice.

1080p60 Normal Detail

1080p30 High Detail

720p60 High Detail.

Just imagine what a difference this could have made for DmC on the consoles if they coulda had their 60fps with low detail.

The idea is not entirely without precedent. The original bioshock had vsync options for those who found the controller unresponsive.

Also a lot of people in this country (England) have been conned into buying "HD ready" (720p or 768p) tv sets instead of "Full HD" (1080p) tv sets. So a lot of people in this country are still stuck at 720p. May as well give em 60fps with bells and whistles and smell o vision.

This would be the best way to do it, to appease the technical people, but still maintain the eye candy. It seems like a no brainer--unless there's some sort of technical limitation, I don't see why these options aren't available. Also, wow, I completely forgot about Bioshock having that option. That's got to be one of the only games this gen to actually have any real settings.

#69 Edited by BlatantNinja23 (928 posts) -

if the over all product is better in 720p than I'd rather them go with that. I'd love to see 1080p finally be a standard, but if it isn't worth it than whatever.