#1 Posted by AlexGlass (688 posts) -

First of all I want to say that I am a HUGE fan of graphics techniques, envelope pushing engines, power, and everything that makes a game look gorgeous. I research it on a regular basis. I look at the latest techniques, the latest advancements in GPU tech, and the latest up and coming engines. From polygon to point cloud data to voxels to ray tracing engines. I LOVE all of this stuff. Absolutely love it.

Having said that, there is something that has been driving me crazy for years and that is this obsession with resolution, partly driven by the PC crowd and manufacturers desires to sell high end GPUs without major upgrades. I really feel this has made the gaming world a stupid or ignorant place or BOTH when judging graphics and power.

It's beyond ignorant, so ignorant that gamers have forgot what actually make up your graphics. I don't even know if you could place it in the top 5 categories. Nobody ever freaking talks about anything else anymore.

How about polygon count or geometry in general? Is a 1080p game running 10 million triangles per scene more technically impressive than a 720p game running 2 million triangles per scene(with everything else being the same)? What do you get if you look at that 2 million triangle game when you see it at 1080p? A more CLEAR view of a lower polygon game. Characters will look less rounded. Less objects. Less detail in every other aspect of your game. The only thing you get is a more clear picture. Does that aspect alone, represent a better looking game? You have a more clear view of a shittier looking game.

Have gamers forgot about this?

How about lighting engine? Is a 1080p game running a shadow map driven lighting engine a better looking or more impressive game than a 720p game running a fully dynamic global illumination engine? I would argue a real time path traced game at 720p which will soon start popping up is going to wipe the floor with a rasterized game even at 4k resolution! I would take a game running an engine like Brigade at 720p without noise any day of the week before I would take a rasterized game at 4k. No doubt that Brigade game is likely going to be more impressive in every single aspect than that 4k game and will look better overall.

How about physics?

How about simultaneous enemies on screen?

How about draw distance?

What about animations?

Oh and here's a thought. How about actual texture asset resolution? Do you guys ever pay attention to this? You know, the actual textures that gets UV mapped and pasted on your character or object in the game. What is the resolution of THAT texture? Are all at the minimum necessary res in order to even support the game's main resolution? That matters just as much when it comes to resolution. If your game is running at native 4k but your assets are 1080p textures and you are looking at it through a 4k resolution do you think you truly actually have a "native 4k game?"

What about things that actually -you know - make up your graphics? Not just the screen filter through which you see your graphics, because that's all resolution is. A clarity measurement. Not the actual objects, or 3D geometry, or effects or any of the graphical components that are far more important. It's driving me nuts to see the dominating topic of graphics, or power, be resolution.

And here's a interesting idea for those that are actually interested in the future of graphics. The best looking games in the future, will be those that don't actually rely on traditional image textures at all. At any resolution. Textures are static. They will never scale properly to higher resolutions. They don't actually display true 3D data that can be manipulated or played with in a video game. The clear and definitive way, when you have actually reached the holy grail in graphics, is when you can actually dump textures as you know them out the window and begin adding that detail in through actual 3D geometry or 100% procedural textures. Then it can actually scale properly. If sculpted out of geometry, that geometry can actually cast shadows properly within a dynamic global illumination engine, or reflect things, or be taken into consideration by a physics engine. If you plan on buying that 4k TV and buying a stout GPU that can actually pull it off, but the game is covered in textures meant to be displayed at 1080p, then when you scale it up, all you will most likely see is just the additional flaws you couldn't really notice before.

For the love of god, stop this shit internet! Just stop it! Resolution is not the be all end all of graphics or what makes graphics look good or technically impressive. It really isn't and you are missing the forest from the damn trees if you begin using it as the measuring stick for graphics or power. There's so many more exciting and more important aspects of graphics that should be discussed and are not. There are devs pushing gaming tech and graphics in really important areas, that actually matter much more and everyone is just busy counting freaking pixels.

#3 Edited by FengShuiGod (1478 posts) -

1080p looks better.

#4 Edited by casper_ (901 posts) -

rumor comes out that ghosts runs at 720 on xb1- write thread about how resolutions aren't that important.

#5 Edited by MB (11891 posts) -

Are you absolutely sure you don't work for Microsoft or one of it's agents in some capacity?

Moderator
#6 Posted by SpaceInsomniac (3533 posts) -

Why don't you wait to see if this is actually true before trying to downplay it? Do you honestly feel the need to get ahead of this?

#7 Posted by PeasantAbuse (5137 posts) -

We get it, man. You like Xbox.

#8 Edited by AlexGlass (688 posts) -

@trafalgarlaw said:

Damage controlling the fact that xbox one games are going to be 720p or 900p already? Melting down are we?

No damage controlling. Just frustrated. No doubt this prompted me to write this, but it's been festering for a long time and it's a general disease, not just in relation to next-gen consoles.

The fact that a topic such as that can send the internet in flames, and everyone losing their shit and giving resolution so much importance, not just now, but for years.

Then here's me posting about something like Brigade, which is doing real time path tracing....which will actually have A MAJOR impact on graphics and games and the general response is people scratching their head...going...."duh, I don't get it."

It's just plain ignorant. It's absolutely mind boggling to me.

#9 Edited by Tennmuerti (7956 posts) -

I sure as hell don't consider resolution to be the be all end all parameter or the prime metric.

I simply consider 1080p a baseline. Below which (new) games don't look so good to me. It's really that simple.

#10 Edited by TrafalgarLaw (1026 posts) -

@alexglass said:

@trafalgarlaw said:

Damage controlling the fact that xbox one games are going to be 720p or 900p already? Melting down are we?

No damage controlling. Just frustrated. No doubt this prompted me to write this, but it's been festering for a long time and it's a general disease, not just in relation to next-gen consoles.

The fact that a topic such as that can send the internet in flames, and everyone losing their shit and giving resolution so much importance, not just now, but for years.

Then here's me posting about something like Brigade, which is doing real time path tracing....which will actually have A MAJOR impart on graphics and games and the general response is people scratching their head...going...."duh", I don't get it.

It's just plain ignorant. It's absolutely mind boggling to me.

Calm down. Forza 5, albeit in 1080p, has prebaked light sources and no real-time day-night cycles. That's when you know Xbox One is in trouble, not even impressing in ways other than resolution. I'm always down for tech talk but resolution always plays an important role.

#11 Posted by AMonkey (116 posts) -

I'm not sure I follow you logic. 1080p should really be industry standard by now, since it is somewhat of a bottle neck for a nice looking games. On PC I feel that 1920 is as high as it needs to go though.

#12 Edited by TruthTellah (8409 posts) -

Of course many are ignorant of resolutions. Just like they're ignorant about TV and PC stats. But I'd hardly call it a "disease" or even something growing.

It's not really anything you need to freak out over. People do eventually notice meaningful differences, and people get accustomed to what visuals they like. Don't let all the discussion before the consoles come out drive you nuts. There's going to be a lot of speculation, confusion, rumors, and silliness before and initially after the consoles come out.

If you let it get to you, we're going to see a new unhappy thread from you every single day for the next few months. Just take all of this on stride and try not to obsess over all the rumors and speculation that bubbles up every day about the new consoles.

#13 Posted by Ares42 (2556 posts) -

I think you need to take a deep breath and realize not everyone is as into graphics as you are =) Resolution is an easy to understand general rule of thumb that in the past has shown to be fairly accurate as far as describing how impressive games look. For the average console gamer most of it probably comes from the fact that resolution has been marketed heavily during the current generation due to the HD upgrade.

#14 Edited by AlexGlass (688 posts) -

@amonkey said:

I'm not sure I follow you logic. 1080p should really be industry standard by now, since it is somewhat of a bottle neck for a nice looking games. On PC I feel that 1920 is as high as it needs to go though.

My logic is nobody talks about anything else anymore. It's as if gamers are completely freaking ignorant to all the things what makes a game look good.

It's ONE aspect. Geometry count, lighting, animation, physics, particle effects, are no less important than final resolution. But nobody talks about it anymore. Nobody.

#15 Edited by AlexGlass (688 posts) -

@trafalgarlaw said:

@alexglass said:

@trafalgarlaw said:

Damage controlling the fact that xbox one games are going to be 720p or 900p already? Melting down are we?

No damage controlling. Just frustrated. No doubt this prompted me to write this, but it's been festering for a long time and it's a general disease, not just in relation to next-gen consoles.

The fact that a topic such as that can send the internet in flames, and everyone losing their shit and giving resolution so much importance, not just now, but for years.

Then here's me posting about something like Brigade, which is doing real time path tracing....which will actually have A MAJOR impart on graphics and games and the general response is people scratching their head...going...."duh", I don't get it.

It's just plain ignorant. It's absolutely mind boggling to me.

Calm down. Forza 5, albeit in 1080p, has prebaked light sources and no real-time day-night cycles. That's when you know Xbox One is in trouble, not even impressing in ways other than resolution. I'm always down for tech talk but resolution always plays an important role.

Oh it does does it? Fantastic.

Now answer me this question. Is a game running at 30fps with a global dynamic illumination engine at 1080p more impressive than a game running a shadow map driven light engine running at 60fps? Is that game more power hungry? More technically demanding? What if it's pushing less triangles? How about if it's weak on physics?

Care to tell me how many triangles per frame it's pushing? How about Call of Duty? How many objects? How about BF4? How about Assasin's Creed?

You just proved the ignorance I'm talking about. You took ONE aspect and came to that EXTREMELY FLAWED conclusion. This is exactly the kind of stupid, ignorant comparisons that are taking place everywhere. And they truly are ignorant, meaningless and wrong in every possible way.

#16 Posted by tourgen (4426 posts) -

well resolution is a quick metric of the processing power of a box these days. programmable shader pipelines & GPGPU and all that. So if it doesn't have the power to do 1080p reliably it won't have the power to do any of those other things you seem to think are more important than resolution.

#17 Posted by Korwin (2813 posts) -

I like my clean 1080p lines, not to mention that it's an absolute cake walk of a resolution to run on PC (bought my first 1920x1200 screen in what... 2006 I think?).

#18 Posted by TooWalrus (13128 posts) -

Good looking games look good.

#19 Posted by TowerSixteen (542 posts) -

@trafalgarlaw said:

@alexglass said:

@trafalgarlaw said:

Damage controlling the fact that xbox one games are going to be 720p or 900p already? Melting down are we?

No damage controlling. Just frustrated. No doubt this prompted me to write this, but it's been festering for a long time and it's a general disease, not just in relation to next-gen consoles.

The fact that a topic such as that can send the internet in flames, and everyone losing their shit and giving resolution so much importance, not just now, but for years.

Then here's me posting about something like Brigade, which is doing real time path tracing....which will actually have A MAJOR impart on graphics and games and the general response is people scratching their head...going...."duh", I don't get it.

It's just plain ignorant. It's absolutely mind boggling to me.

Calm down. Forza 5, albeit in 1080p, has prebaked light sources and no real-time day-night cycles. That's when you know Xbox One is in trouble, not even impressing in ways other than resolution. I'm always down for tech talk but resolution always plays an important role.

Oh it does does it? Fantastic.

Now answer me this question. Is a game running at 30fps with a global dynamic illumination engine at 1080p more impressive than a game running a shadow map driven light engine running at 60fps? Is that game more power hungry? More technically demanding? What if it's pushing less triangles? How about if it's weak on physics?

Care to tell me how many triangles per frame it's pushing? How about Call of Duty? How many objects? How about BF4? How about Assasin's Creed?

You just proved the ignorance I'm talking about. You took ONE aspect and came to that EXTREMELY FLAWED conclusion. This is exactly the kind of stupid, ignorant comparisons that are taking place everywhere. And they truly are ignorant, meaningless and wrong in every possible way.

Know what? I don't know a thing about graphics tech, but that kind of rhetoric is a good way to make sure no one takes you seriously, unless their already 100 percent behind you. It's needlessly vitriolic and hyperbolic, and in no way promotes useful discussion.

#20 Edited by AlexGlass (688 posts) -

@tourgen said:

well resolution is a quick metric of the processing power of a box these days. programmable shader pipelines & GPGPU and all that. So if it doesn't have the power to do 1080p reliably it won't have the power to do any of those other things you seem to think are more important than resolution.

It depends on which area of your GPUs are used for which effects. Resolution targets a specific area.

It's not at all unusual for the same power to be used to develop a lower polygon game running a weaker physics engine at 30fps but with a dynamic global illumination engine at 1080p, as you would need to develop a game running at 60fps, but without a dynamic global illumination engine and far more polygons at 720p. In this case you just can't draw a direct comparison at all. Resolution means absolutely nothing. Even if it was the same, the frame rate, polygon count and physics are not. So you still can not draw a direct comparison. Means absolutely nothing.

There is really no way to tell if for example Drive Club with a GI engine for lighting at 30fps is more technically demanding than Forza 5 at 60fps, with shadow maps. You can't draw a direct comparison from that. And you're missing a whole bunch of other areas. Polygon count. Physics. Particle effects.

Or you can have a game running at 720p at the same frame rate as a 1080p game but the 720p game will allow for improvements in other areas of your graphics.

If I double my polygon count, or objects on screen, then your dynamic global illumination engine is going to put a massive hit on your frame rate. Because now those lights and shadows have to be calculate for twice the geometry.

It's ALL relative. So to take one aspect and use it as that metric, it means you better be sure the game is exactly the same in every OTHER area. And resolution is just a clarity aspect of graphics.

#21 Posted by believer258 (11563 posts) -

I WANT ALL THE UGLY IN CRYSTAL-CLEAR 1080P.

Only on Playstation 4!

Seriously, though, you've quite clearly twisted an argument to support the XBone. You're throwing around words that you only seem to half-understand. And no one cares.

Online
#22 Edited by TrafalgarLaw (1026 posts) -

@trafalgarlaw said:

@alexglass said:

@trafalgarlaw said:

Damage controlling the fact that xbox one games are going to be 720p or 900p already? Melting down are we?

No damage controlling. Just frustrated. No doubt this prompted me to write this, but it's been festering for a long time and it's a general disease, not just in relation to next-gen consoles.

The fact that a topic such as that can send the internet in flames, and everyone losing their shit and giving resolution so much importance, not just now, but for years.

Then here's me posting about something like Brigade, which is doing real time path tracing....which will actually have A MAJOR impart on graphics and games and the general response is people scratching their head...going...."duh", I don't get it.

It's just plain ignorant. It's absolutely mind boggling to me.

Calm down. Forza 5, albeit in 1080p, has prebaked light sources and no real-time day-night cycles. That's when you know Xbox One is in trouble, not even impressing in ways other than resolution. I'm always down for tech talk but resolution always plays an important role.

Oh it does does it? Fantastic.

Now answer me this question. Is a game running at 30fps with a global dynamic illumination engine at 1080p more impressive than a game running a shadow map driven light engine running at 60fps? Is that game more power hungry? More technically demanding? What if it's pushing less triangles? How about if it's weak on physics?

Care to tell me how many triangles per frame it's pushing? How about Call of Duty? How many objects? How about BF4? How about Assasin's Creed?

You just proved the ignorance I'm talking about. You took ONE aspect and came to that EXTREMELY FLAWED conclusion. This is exactly the kind of stupid, ignorant comparisons that are taking place everywhere. And they truly are ignorant, meaningless and wrong in every possible way.

Do you really want to defend the rumored Call of Duty running in 720p...with artstyle, physics and animations? Do you really want to do this, defend a game running on IdTech 3 (2004) not being able to hit 1080p? Go on...

#24 Edited by TruthTellah (8409 posts) -

@alexglass said:

@trafalgarlaw said:

@alexglass said:

@trafalgarlaw said:

Damage controlling the fact that xbox one games are going to be 720p or 900p already? Melting down are we?

No damage controlling. Just frustrated. No doubt this prompted me to write this, but it's been festering for a long time and it's a general disease, not just in relation to next-gen consoles.

The fact that a topic such as that can send the internet in flames, and everyone losing their shit and giving resolution so much importance, not just now, but for years.

Then here's me posting about something like Brigade, which is doing real time path tracing....which will actually have A MAJOR impart on graphics and games and the general response is people scratching their head...going...."duh", I don't get it.

It's just plain ignorant. It's absolutely mind boggling to me.

Calm down. Forza 5, albeit in 1080p, has prebaked light sources and no real-time day-night cycles. That's when you know Xbox One is in trouble, not even impressing in ways other than resolution. I'm always down for tech talk but resolution always plays an important role.

Oh it does does it? Fantastic.

Now answer me this question. Is a game running at 30fps with a global dynamic illumination engine at 1080p more impressive than a game running a shadow map driven light engine running at 60fps? Is that game more power hungry? More technically demanding? What if it's pushing less triangles? How about if it's weak on physics?

Care to tell me how many triangles per frame it's pushing? How about Call of Duty? How many objects? How about BF4? How about Assasin's Creed?

You just proved the ignorance I'm talking about. You took ONE aspect and came to that EXTREMELY FLAWED conclusion. This is exactly the kind of stupid, ignorant comparisons that are taking place everywhere. And they truly are ignorant, meaningless and wrong in every possible way.

Know what? I don't know a thing about graphics tech, but that kind of rhetoric is a good way to make sure no one takes you seriously, unless their already 100 percent behind you. It's needlessly vitriolic and hyperbolic, and in no way promotes useful discussion.

I kind of feel the same way. I'm not sure why you(Alex) need to be so dang abrasive all of the time. I know some people have thought you're a Microsoft employee, but I realized there's no way that you are, as they would likely try to leave people with a good impression. I don't always disagree with you in instances like this, but the way you lash out at everyone on an almost daily basis and get hyperbolic with little provocation makes you someone I wouldn't want to agree with.

I don't think you mean to antagonize and make things worse; so, I genuinely hope you'll think about just how worked up you get about these things and how you come off when talking about them.

#25 Edited by Zacagawea (1577 posts) -

There is no way you're a real person

#26 Edited by Beaudacious (925 posts) -

Hey guyz, I made a game with amazing gfx that can only be played at 360p. Cause the gfx are too amazing for your eyes to handle.

#27 Posted by TheManWithNoPlan (5135 posts) -

Ok, I'll just be over here.

#28 Posted by chrissedoff (2075 posts) -

I am definitely one of those people who knows absolutely nothing about the technical details of graphics. But I sure as hell am not going to assume that less p is better than more p, that's for sure.

#29 Posted by CornBREDX (4754 posts) -

The real problem is that anyone thinks any of that matters.

Stuff looks good at the resolution it's designed to be played at. Games made when CRT 480 was standard look fine on a standard definiton crt. Movies filmed when VHS was standard look fine on VHS.

Making things look better may make it crisp but it may not actually have been filmed with the intent for it to be crisp.

Sorry... I went on an unnecessary tangent there.

#30 Posted by Warfare (1632 posts) -
#31 Posted by RenegadeDoppelganger (406 posts) -

98% of people couldn't give a shit about what kind of lighting engine a game uses or how many triangles per frame it's pushing.

You are scolding people for ostensibly not taking graphics technology as DEADLY SERIOUS as you apparently do. Comparing every semi-meaningless bullet point about a games graphics seems like more a dick-waving contest than all these 'ignorant' people talking about a resolution.

#32 Posted by AlexGlass (688 posts) -

I WANT ALL THE UGLY IN CRYSTAL-CLEAR 1080P.

Only on Playstation 4!

Seriously, though, you've quite clearly twisted an argument to support the XBone. You're throwing around words that you only seem to half-understand. And no one cares.

Ok this isn't an argument to support the Xbox. This is an argument to support REAL GRAPHICS and devs who actually care about them and work their asses off to actually push them. This is an argument to support real next gen tech, like Brigade. Or advancements in lighting engines. Or in voxel engines. You can apply this to any console, on the same console, or any platform. This is a general issue, that I see in video game graphics whether you are talking about PC games, console games, comparisons or anything else.

People have stopped paying attention to just about anything other than freaking resolution. I don't mean to be abbrasive to anyone, but it's truly become unnerving to see this day in and day out everywhere.

When was the last time devs actually talked about geometry in their games? You know, the building blocks of graphics. The number of triangles. The objects that need to be draw in order to make it all possible. They tell us the number of triangles in one character, as if that's supposed to be meaningful? The parts that actually allow for animations to exist. For physics. For real 3D detail.

Does ANYONE here even know what we should expect in terms of geometry from next-generation? The actual freaking 3D objects themselves. Where is THAT bar? Hell no. The last time I heard devs and manufacturers talk about it was early 2002. Why? Because everything has absolutely been nothing more than an evolution of the same techniques and the same effects and the same shader concepts that have been spun around for generations. And the few guys who are actually trying to push graphics and techniques, get buried and drowned under under all this talk of resolution and 1080p and 4k gaming.

It's nonsense.

#33 Posted by joshwent (2051 posts) -

How about polygon count or geometry in general? Is a 1080p game running 10 million triangles per scene more technically impressive than a 720p game running 2 million triangles per scene(with everything else being the same)? What do you get if you look at that 2 million triangle game when you see it at 1080p? A more CLEAR view of a lower polygon game. Characters will look less rounded. Less objects. Less detail in every other aspect of your game. The only thing you get is a more clear picture. Does that aspect alone, represent a better looking game? You have a more clear view of a shittier looking game.

Are you sure you want to make this argument when Ryse, the XOne's best example of next-gen graphics, had to cut their per-character triangle count in half?

To be fair, I still think Ryse still looks great (visually), and it's a developer decision to reduce the models so no real knock on the console, but all of these things you listed, resolutions included are considerations that have to be balanced in every individual game. The only "ignorance" is trying to defend graphics of games that don't exist yet. Wait and see, and then we can all decide for ourselves how important resolution may be.

And just to mention, I really do like your big technical posts, but sometimes (like now) it seems like your fighting a one person console war with no opposing side.

#34 Edited by Hayt (251 posts) -

@alexglass said:

Oh it does does it? Fantastic.

Now answer me this question. Is a game running at 30fps with a global dynamic illumination engine at 1080p more impressive than a game running a shadow map driven light engine running at 60fps? Is that game more power hungry? More technically demanding? What if it's pushing less triangles? How about if it's weak on physics?

Care to tell me how many triangles per frame it's pushing? How about Call of Duty? How many objects? How about BF4? How about Assasin's Creed?

You just proved the ignorance I'm talking about. You took ONE aspect and came to that EXTREMELY FLAWED conclusion. This is exactly the kind of stupid, ignorant comparisons that are taking place everywhere. And they truly are ignorant, meaningless and wrong in every possible way.

Can YOU tell me how many triangles per frame BF4 has? How about how many objects on screen in AC4?

The point I'm making here is of course resolution isn't the be all and end all, but it's also a readily available piece of information unlike pretty much everything else you listed. We talk about what we can know at the time, it's that simple, after release and we get much more detail the conversation will change.

#35 Posted by Silver-Streak (1328 posts) -

Any resolution can look fine if the content being displayed was designed for it. I think the people getting hyperbolic and saying that something running 720p is going to automatically look bad are generally incorrect in their assumptions.

However, with all things being equal on a game, other than resolution(meaning same particles/texture resolution/etc), non-upscaled higher resolution will always look better than lower resolution. This is because it basically gives its own native antialiasing and texture filtering.

#36 Edited by AlexGlass (688 posts) -

@hayt said:

@alexglass said:

@trafalgarlaw said:

@alexglass said:

@trafalgarlaw said:

Damage controlling the fact that xbox one games are going to be 720p or 900p already? Melting down are we?

No damage controlling. Just frustrated. No doubt this prompted me to write this, but it's been festering for a long time and it's a general disease, not just in relation to next-gen consoles.

The fact that a topic such as that can send the internet in flames, and everyone losing their shit and giving resolution so much importance, not just now, but for years.

Then here's me posting about something like Brigade, which is doing real time path tracing....which will actually have A MAJOR impart on graphics and games and the general response is people scratching their head...going...."duh", I don't get it.

It's just plain ignorant. It's absolutely mind boggling to me.

Calm down. Forza 5, albeit in 1080p, has prebaked light sources and no real-time day-night cycles. That's when you know Xbox One is in trouble, not even impressing in ways other than resolution. I'm always down for tech talk but resolution always plays an important role.

Oh it does does it? Fantastic.

Now answer me this question. Is a game running at 30fps with a global dynamic illumination engine at 1080p more impressive than a game running a shadow map driven light engine running at 60fps? Is that game more power hungry? More technically demanding? What if it's pushing less triangles? How about if it's weak on physics?

Care to tell me how many triangles per frame it's pushing? How about Call of Duty? How many objects? How about BF4? How about Assasin's Creed?

You just proved the ignorance I'm talking about. You took ONE aspect and came to that EXTREMELY FLAWED conclusion. This is exactly the kind of stupid, ignorant comparisons that are taking place everywhere. And they truly are ignorant, meaningless and wrong in every possible way.

Can YOU tell me how many triangles per frame BF4 has? How about how many objects on screen in AC4?

Thank you! Nobody can! So how can anyone ever draw any conclusion without even knowing the # 1 starting point? You can't. It's totally meaningless.

You wanna compare technical power based on stats and actually have an intelligent and meaningful discussion about it, well then here's what we need to know to even get close:

-the number of non shaded, non textured, triangle count(the building blocks)

-Number of textured polygons.

-dynamic global illumination or shadow maps?

-screen spaced reflections or cube maps

-texture resolution assets

-animation keyframes, and number of dynamic triangles vs static triangles

-length and complexity of A.I. strings and instructions for NPCs

-tessellation employed? Displacement mapping? Plain textures?

-particle effects

-post processing effects

-frame rate

-and finally, resolution.

How do they actually affect power? If you don't even have these down, or most of them, then you're better off putting two images side by side and use your own eyes.

Simply taking resolution, and focusing on that, at the expense of everything else that's listed on there as if that's the be all end all metric, is absolutely ignorant. And totally meaningless.

#37 Posted by FluxWaveZ (19305 posts) -

Thank you! Nobody can! So how can anyone ever draw any conclusion without even knowing the # 1 starting point? You can't. It's totally meaningless.

What conclusion are you talking about? If the only information available is that a game on one system will be displayed at a 720p resolution while the same game on another system will be displayed at a 1080p resolution, absolutely nothing you listed is relevant to that point.

#38 Posted by joshwent (2051 posts) -

@alexglass: You're not writing in all caps, but I can't shake the feeling that you're screaming what you're typing out loud while plastic shrapnel flies off your keyboard and a bit of foam slides off the corner of your mouth.

We all agree with you. Resolution might not be the most important part of a game's graphics. Okay. Not really a point that had to be aggressively argued in the first place.

Sooo... maybe just chill out and go find some interesting footage and charts from some obscure graphics seminar. Use your powers for good!

#39 Edited by Andorski (5173 posts) -

#41 Posted by ll_Exile_ll (1409 posts) -

I don't know, I think good gameplay is pretty cool.

Online
#42 Posted by chrissedoff (2075 posts) -

@joshwent: I think he's got a point that there are people out there going, "lol Xbone got no p!" But those people aren't really on this site in particular so he's ranting at the wrong people.

#43 Posted by AlexGlass (688 posts) -

@fluxwavez said:
@alexglass said:

Thank you! Nobody can! So how can anyone ever draw any conclusion without even knowing the # 1 starting point? You can't. It's totally meaningless.

What conclusion are you talking about? If the only information available is that a game on one system will be displayed at a 720p resolution while the same game on another system will be displayed at a 1080p resolution, absolutely nothing you listed is relevant to that point.

Ok and what does that have to do with what I am talking about? Forget COD. If the PS4 can do COD at 1080p and it's the same game then that is OBVIOUSLY and clearly better. There is no argument there from me. That's not the topic at hand though.

This is the topic at hand and maybe it's better explained through an example.

Crysis 3 at 4k resolution.

http://4kfilme.de/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Crysis-3-2.jpg

Do those trees really impress you? The cardboard cut outs?

What about that trunk that looks as polygonal today as it did for objects during the PS2/Xbox era?

How about that ground and those rocks that look like utter ass?

What about that grass and that overhanging foliage that is completely pasted over the wall?

Oh but it's 4k so it must be impressive right? All I see when I look at something like this, is how shitty the true graphics really are. CLEARLY! I see the low polygon objects, clearly. I see glass that looks nothing like glass. Leaves that look nothing like leaves, Transparency effects that look bad. And a whole lot of other things that should be there and are missing.

Personally I'll take this ray traced environment any day of the week at 900p. And I guarantee you any dev in the industry will tell you this is more technically impressive, and requires a lot more horsepower to pull off. In fact, we can't even do it yet.

That is both more technically and visually impressive despite its resolution being sub 900p. Objects are fully detailed using actual geometry. Lighting is realistic. Water, looks like water, and has correct transparency and refraction. Every object casts shadows as it should, and there's no ugly low polygon shadows anywhere.

What is allowing for all this? A high polygon count and a path traced lighting engine that allows for realistic material shaders. I'm not talking about COD at 720p on X1 or it being at 1080p on PS4. This is a general problem in graphics talk. And it comes at the expense of everything else that truly make up our graphics.

#44 Posted by SpaceInsomniac (3533 posts) -

@alexglass:

NeoGAF post directed towards a Microsoft employee arguing that there's no noticeable difference between native 1080p and up-scaled 1080p:

hey Albert ,

If native 1080p is non noticeable , why make FORZA 1080p native?

Tell those poor souls at turn 10 they are wasting time and resources.

#45 Edited by CrazyBagMan (834 posts) -

Would I like to have the resolution match that of my tv? Why yes I would, thanks for asking

EDIT: also why do I feel like comparing a resolution that is impractical to technology so advanced that it isn't even being used in games is a bad analogy for this whole discussion?

#46 Edited by LiquidPrince (15833 posts) -

Saying that resolution isn't important is idiotic. I used to play the Witcher 2 on my PC at 720P max settings before I upgraded my GPU and it looked very nice. Then I upgraded my GPU and ran it in 1080P and it was a whole other game. The clarity that 1080P resolution affords games is beyond just an insignificant difference. Look at the comparison of Crysis 3 running at 1080P and then in 4K. Look at the dudes face in those comparison shots. That is a significant increase in perceivable and resolved texture information. Sure, getting a higher poly count is nice, but along with that improvement must come with an increase in resolution. Lower resolutions mean more noticeable aliasing, means we need more anti-aliasing solutions, meaning that more of the systems power needs to be occupied when that power could be diverted and used elsewhere.Just by running in 1080P a great deal of your aliasing issue begin to go away. 1080P should be the baseline of this coming generation.

#47 Posted by Istealdreams (148 posts) -

I'm glad I lived to see the day that Alexglass lost his shit over a rumor about resolution.

I find that knowing what I can expect game resolutions to be vastly more important that all the drum beating you do about the potential, hypothetical, and impractical uses of Microsoft's "cloud".

#48 Edited by Korwin (2813 posts) -

Resolution is important to avoid upscaling, there isn't anything wrong with a 720p image provided the display itself is native 1280x720 and has a small enough dot pitch to minimalise visible aliasing. 4K displays are coming and will be the new consumer normal within 5 years, a 720p image being up-scaled 800% is going to look pretty damn rubbish.

#49 Posted by Ravenlight (8040 posts) -

Remember those 90s-ass Tiger Electronics handheld games? Those had a bangin' resolution!

#50 Edited by AlexGlass (688 posts) -

@istealdreams said:

I'm glad I lived to see the day that Alexglass lost his shit over a rumor about resolution.

I find that knowing what I can expect game resolutions to be vastly more important that all the drum beating you do about the potential, hypothetical, and impractical uses of Microsoft's "cloud".

I'm sad I lived to see the day when mods believe that as well. Not once did I mention anything about COD or consoles in my OP and very few even actually addressed the topic discussed. It's pretty funny actually how everyone but me actually turned the conversation to that.

When you all take a real step back, and look at the big picture, outside of this console war bullshit, you'll see what I'm talking about is pretty freaking true.