Obsession with gaming resolution reaching ignorant levels?

@alexglass: First you are getting way too heated.Unless your livelihood depends on the Xbox brand doing well, you need to chill. I know people who works in the game division at microsoft and even they are going "yea......we fucked up". People are gonna shit on this brand until they "redeem" themselves. Welcome to sony 2006.

Also I agree that being 1080p does not make everything instantly good looking but I sure as hell prefer to emulate skyward sword at 1080p on my computer than play it on the wii. What people are arguing about on the internet is that 1080p > 720, then people say it doesnt matter. Of cause 1080 is better, that is a fact! Whether you care or not? Well that's up to you. Artistic direction/choice are not up for debate here. Hell I still considered SOC to still be one of the best looking games ever because of how atmospheric it was.

I think you might be defining "gamers" too narrowly. Most of the people that buy video games aren't reading articles on enthusiasts websites or discussing the intricacies of various hardware platforms on forums. They're almost certainly going to lose market share to Sony, but it's far from hopeless.

Microsoft is also certainly going to go through some realignment, refocusing, and restructuring over the next few years as their leadership changes, but I don't expect them to entirely give up on the gaming market for at least another 5-10 years. If the Xbox One ends up being a billion dollar disaster like the Surface RT, then that might bring changes sooner, but I really just don't think that's going to happen.

People are hyped for next gen. Chill.

The problem is that the Xbox brand still has like 4 Billion minus to even get profitable overall and that is why investors are furious. If this new Xbox fails I think they are done for because Investors will not tolerate it any longer. Their strategy is also very US focused and while they may get US customers it is really looking bleak in Europe or Japan for such a set top box. But we will see how this all plays out in the end.

As for the gamer thing: These people who read all this stuff are the people that recommend consoles to friends and family, these are the ones who buy the most games a year and which can "manipulate" overall opinions on consoles and games. Look how Vinny was telling that he needs to recommend a console to his whole family and that he went with an PS4. This alone sold lets say 3-4 consoles with one recommendation. Getting these core gamers on board is very important in the beginning when you don't have something totally new that attracts other people like the Wii had.

THE REALEST GRAPHICS

Clarity > Detail. You can have all the detail in the world but if the resolution's not high enough for it to be clear, then you've just got a muddy picture. Would you like to go back to 480p?

Wait did I really read that correctly on neogaf? Killer instinct is also only in 720P? How the hell is this possible? It is a fighting game for god's sake....

I'd rather play a PS1 game in 1080p at 60fps than a PS3 game in 720p with 30fps. As long as it plays well, I'll always go with clarity over details and effects.

It wouldn't be enough to doom it if they had something else to show for it instead -a new USP like Wii had, or a lower price point- but they don't. All of that time and effort they wasted on flights of fancy is just gone now, with nothing to show for it. So we have Sony putting out the PS4 and Microsoft left holding what is effectively a PS~3.8, except with a higher price point. 'More expensive and worse' isn't usually a winning proposition.

It's possible Microsoft will get away with how badly they've fumbled this so far, but some other factor would have to go very right for Microsoft or very wrong for Sony, imo. They do still have some advantages to cling to: the US media (mainstream and enthusiast) is incredibly pro-Microsoft, many people are already invested enough in XBL to just stick with it regardless, and Sony's launch line-up is just as poor as their own. On the other hand their inferior product and higher price point gives Microsoft a massive hill to climb; if Sony have their act together and hit the ground running they could generate enough momentum in the first ~12 months to just run away with it again this gen.

@spaceinsomniac said:

@alexglass said:

Yeah, ok....except they're already doing just that.

Care to explain this?

Copy / paste?

Oh man if the final product runs like that .... ;_;

Joined the thread thinking we would be talking about 1440p+/4K gaming, and there is a guy defending 720p in 2013.

Man you are the worst kind of fanboy, stop lying to yourself.

I really don't think this is even debatable.

1080p:

1024x576

1199 x 633

If you can sit there and tell me with a straight face you'd rather have the 1080p real time shot, rather than the lower res pre-rendered detail, I feel sorry for the future of graphics and gaming. If you can't actually notice the massive difference in graphical quality despite the lower resolution, then there's little else for me to even say.

I will always take resolution over everything else, and I don't care that much about resolutions over 1080 at the moment. Just give me 1080.

They should standardize resolution and framerate across all the main platforms.

@alexglass: wait now you are comparing CG with ingame? Am I reading this correctly?

Of course since I'm being told clarity > detail. Because apparently people can't see the extra detail unless it's at high resolution. That's all that matters right? Resolution.

As if all that detail possible only mainly due to the MASSIVE increase in geometry and better quality graphics, as well as the MASSIVE increase in lighting from the fact they ray trace everything isn't clearly a better looking end product than a rasterized, low polygon game even at 4k.

Which one would you rather play? Honestly!

I know he's a fanboy and it's hilarious that they still exist. That however doesn't make his thought train completely invalid.

Although it says at the start it's PC gamers that harp on about resolution, I'm not so sure. We buy a monitor and the native resolution is what we run most our games at. Usually 1080, 1280. Whatever. Been like that for a long time, not much to talk about 1080 gets used as a default/benchmark.

We do still talk about graphical settings though, because we have a lot of them! Thats the difference between the console experience. I have read a bunch over the last gen about resolution from console gamers whining about games being 720 and not 1080. Uncharted 2 was a good example, that game looked amazing at 720. Would it look better in 1080? Sure, but It wouldn't because cuts would need to be made elsewhere.

Pumping out a sharper image of a lower resolution texture isn't doing anyone any favours. If rendering an image at lower resolution means it can put those resources into say, AA and AF, I'd personally take that over seeing those jaggies super sharp. No ones going to say 1080 isn't better than 720, but guess what if a card and assets were made for 4k, that would look better again. It's all about balance, theres only so many resources available and devs will get better at using them over the cycle.

My last card was a superclocked 460 with a ridiculous name (talon attack?) pretty old, but It ran BF3 maxed except for shadows I think and maybe not the highest end AA. My monitor at the time was a Samsung with a native of 1440-900, so it got away with it and looked great.

A higher resolution will always be preferred but it's far from a priority. I haven't followed any news but if people are in uproar about ghosts running at 720, 1080 isn't going to help. The old modified engine is the problem, you can't polish a turd.

imho resolution doesnt mean a damn if the framerate isnt rock solid.

How this turned into a console war argument is a shame, since he or she brings up valid points. The problem is resolution and frames per second have become the two biggest marketable terms for publishers / developers, that is why there is a huge focus on them. You never hear a press release about polygon count, or the multiple engines whose logos you see when you start the game up that they are using for lighting, textures, shading, etc. So I don't blame people for referring to them all the time.

Comparing games on each console before they are released is just a waste of time. Until the final products are out and in the masses hands we have no idea real idea of what they are running at. Plus, it doesn't matter, has the last generation of games told us nothing? The console generation lasted 8 years and the winner has the lowest performance of the three. So stop comparing console dick size.

Dude the only people even bringing up the Xbox One and PS4 in this thread are you guys. Not me. You wanna see it as defensive. Be my guest. But don't act as if I'm even beginning to make that argument.

In fact if you even use a little bit of common sense, then there is absolutely no reason to believe the PS4 isn't also more powerful in the aspects I'm talking about. It has more freaking compute power, therefore it's likely to be better at pushing geometry as well lighting. Use your heads!

I'm just sick of hearing about resolution, as the be all end all measurement, when it comes to judging the quality of graphics or the power of ANYTHING! It's just plain dumb.

I read this entire thread, and all I can come up with is...

Why not both?

edit: 1080p is better than anything below 1080p. Kinda goes without saying.

I can not play CG so the latter. I agree with you on cutscenes. Like Final fantasy does but that does not mean that game play looks always better in 1080P than 720P no matter what.

You shouldn't have to trade in resolution for any of those things you mentioned. It's about time 1080 is the new standard. The hardware certainly should be capable.

Hi everyone. I configure Quake 3 to look like this when I play on my 2013 computer. r_picmip 5 is so smooth. Hehe, bye bye.

.

I agree OP. Its reaching absurd heights.

@alexglass: This discussion is not primarily about the resolution of one particular game. Rather it's about the general difference in power between the next-gen consoles. All those other things are important as well (some even more important), and all those things are continually getting better as well, but they are the same on all platforms. The differentiating factors are aspects like resolution, fps, anti-aliasing etc., that's why we discuss them. It's just natural to want the most bang for your buck.

When it comes to presentation in a game I think resolution is very important. In games such as battlefield it can definitely play into a better experience for the end user. Clarity of objects can improve reaction time or spotting things from afar. If the developer can provide the game in native resolution to any monitor than that is the best for me. Striving for realism and sacrificing resolution and frame rate is not the answer. It is a step back for me personally.

OK but to me graphics aren't made out of resolution.

Can anyone tell me how many polygons per frame these consoles are capable of pushing? Because the #1 thing I need to know and any dev needs in order to create anything are triangles. And in a few examples, voxels.

Can anyone tell me how many triangles per frame can these consoles push with a dynamic GI light and shadow engine turned on? What SHOULD be the standard?

What about with 3 or 4 textures?

What about when they're dynamic, animated, or driven by a physics engine?

Anybody?

Not one person on the internet even knows anymore what the standard should be as far as lit triangles per frame for next-gen, but everyone knows 1080p is where we should be at.

Well that's just freaking fantastic. When devs can start making video games out of 2D pixels, and drive them around with physics engines, I'll start giving a damn, but in the mean time if I want a 3D virtual world, I first need to create it out of geometry, and then light them with a realistic lighting engine, and then rasterize them to a 2D resolution of my choice. At that point, I'll worry about how clear I want the final image to be.

It's like not giving a damn if you're cake is made out of shit, as long as it has a whole bunch of icing on top! So you can clearly see, it's a steaming pile of poop!

The people here blindly defending resolution over other graphical detail are just proving his point further.

I don't post here often, I havn't read OP's other posts... Obviously most of you seem to believe he is blindly defending the xbox due to his post history, but meanwhile you are being the prejudiced ones yourself. His points are valid and most of the gamers these days (who actually dont know anything) really are impressed by high numbers like 1080 or 4k, more than they should be.

This shouldn't be an argument about resolution/other stuff, this should be a discussion to enlighten people that resolution isn't everything.

Damnit, does everything have to be so black and white for you guys?

Yeah as I stated above, not one of them stopped to think the PS4 is actually more apt at pushing geometry and lighting....if that was my argument to defend the X1, it would be a pretty dumb one to make.

Normally I think you talk I lot of sense, but come on...

Every thread this guy posts is about how amazing MS and the Xbone are. Not only that but he has no idea how to talk to people without being patronising and superior. The only reason I think he can't possibly be working for MS is that he is doing such a terrible job of converting people to their cause because every thread he posts is full of hectoring, arrogant noise.

I'm guessing that you haven't ever seen one of his threads before if you don't think he is a fanboy. He is the biggest, most efficient, loudest fanboy I have ever met on the internet. Not only is he posting all this stuff here, he has other accounts on IGN where he is waging the same battles.

This sort of shit is what ruins forums. Sure he might have some good points to make, and maybe knows a lot about game development, but I can't separate that from the crazy obsession he seems to have with all things Microsoft. If he isn't working for MS I honestly think he is a little bit mental. I don't think it is healthy to be so devoted to one brand.

@alexglass: "OK but to me graphics aren't made out of resolution."

Of course not. But resolution is definitely part of it. Let's say it's the "outer layer" of the whole presentation. Just look at how many details the resolution increase of Dark Souls on PC brought to light, for example. Image quality is important.

Furthermore, it's understandable that people expect things to get better when they spend their money on new hardware. 720p has been a medium to low-end standard for a while now. People fork out a lot of money for a new console and they expect the image quality to become better. And I think they do appreciate the general increase of graphical fidelity apart from resolution, but in a more unconscious manner because those things are harder to grasp. They are marvelling at the plants and water in AC4, and they complained about the inferior vegetation in RDR on PS3, make no mistake.

@alexglass: I can sit here and tell you that I don't care.

1080p provides greater clarity. I'd rather have clarity. This might be mind-blowing to you.

@leebmx: Fair enough. At face value it all seemed pretty legit to me. There are some good points that I agreed with and then I saw everyone just completely mock it which made me think "man GB should be better than this."

Didn't know of the assorted posting history. I guess it's like if you didn't know Brighty you'd think his threads aren't actually just passive aggressive jabs at the new Devil May Cry game.

Okay, hopping back in this mess of pointless screaming to add another thought. Gamers are definitely not nearly as swayed by resolution as Alex here seems to think they are. When any big multiplatform game comes out, tons of sites do a side-by-side comparison and show you which one looks and plays better.

No one is ignorant enough to buy a game that's higher res if there's a lower res version that looks better. And that seems to be what the OP is railing against, going so far as to call it "a disease".

It's a situation that really just doesn't exist.

So, thread over! Right?

If games with equal polygon count (literally equal: different console versions of the same title) will run at a lower resolution on Xbox One than on PlayStation 4, then people criticizing the Xbox One's hardware and/or resource management seem well-justified. It may not be the most important thing, nor the end-all-be-all, but it makes for a very significant impact.

@leebmx: I'm not defending The OP but what you say about him: patronizing others, blatant fanboyism, MS mark, etc can be said about many people on the Sony side, Darji comes immediately to mind. I agree this shit kills forums. Honestly, in the grand scheme of things who gives a fuck which system is more powerful? If you prefer the more powerful console are you some how superior to those who prefer the weaker console? Each console has their advantages and disadvantages but regardless, games will be great on each.

No, no. We need to push resolutions so far it becomes unintelligible from "real life resolutions", THEN we catch up with the rest of the stuff. I prefer crisp over blurry, it's weird I know.

I see AlexGlass is still at it.

At least on Giant Bomb, people haven't been saying one platform has uglier graphics than another. There is some pontification on whether or not one platform is more or less capable at some specific feature than another but nothing that warrants this kind of reaction or vitriol.

For months now, you've been posting low quality content that is "copy pasta" laidened with images and videos (which notoriously have a history of being mislead in terms of actual in game quality) a few of your own nonsense words at the bottom that is summarily "Wow isn't the XBox One neat?" No one is saying the XBox One isn't neat. But having you challenge anyone who isn't "100% with the XBox One" makes people wary and cynical and worse suspecting you have another agenda.

Just chill. Just relax. Giant Bomb doesn't dislike the XBox One where all too often you mistake apathy for hatred. This obsession with XBox One is reaching ignorant levels.

@alexglass:

Low poly, hand animated leaves. I fail to see your point.

And don't use night scenes to illustrate your point. Dark places are where the greatest of graphics trickery occurs.

Good argument, but wrong time/audience, as you can clearly see with how this thread has been twisted.

Yeah. I think I'm done. People wanna read what they want. It's especially disappointing when mods start to threaten you in the same manners as posters calling you mental. I don't think I've ever had to deal with such baseless vitriol on a forum.

@marokai: I don't think he's arguing against that. That's pretty common knowledge for most. I think what he's saying is by only worrying about cranking resolutions up as high as possible, you might be using up more horsepower that could be potentially used for other graphical techniques that could make the game look even more realistic at a lower resolution. Also, a lot of the techniques begin to become a lot more costly at higher resolutions since the technique has to be applied to more pixels on screen. So basically it's a trade off. Do you want a crisper looking game at say 1080p with static lighting and physics or a game with more realistic lighting and physics effects at 720p? It's a valid point.

BF3 was only good looking when played at 640*480 anyway. All that time I played it at !920*1080 with the exact same settings I was obviously doing it wrong.

@alexw00d: You could turn that extreme argument around and say, "BF3 at 4k res in just wireframes without lighting & textures looks awesome."

@loafsmooch: ...No you couldn't. At all. The point I am making is you can have a higher resolution and still have all the bells and whistles turned on, which the OP seems to think are mutually exclusive.

You bring the vitriol and then are surprised when people say "please, stop"? What you really mean is you are disappointed more people don't think like you.

@gruff182: He is making an argument/point about things that doesn't exist. Rumor came out about COD being 720 on X1, gaf freaks out (as it is one to do) and here comes a thread about how sick he is about gamer's focus on resolution. Keep in mind if you search the forum here, you will probably find about 2-5 thread about resolutions out of thousands. My guess is he vented on gaf, got banned, and here he is. I see no "uproar or focus" on resolution on this site before this thread.

When I deal with 1080p (not just upscaled 720p) with my PC I do notice a pretty big difference on my current TV. On my old TV I didn't. So it really depends on what you are playing games on. For me personally I want 1080p because I want my games to look as good as possible on my TV. That's really all there is to it. If that's unreasonable then fine. Whatever.

Yeah I actually partly agree with what he is saying. Of course resolution isn't all, (but surely its always better to have better resolution) The problem is that he seems to know a lot about all this sort of thing and if he was another poster I would be interested, but at this point I can't separate the reality from the foaming at the mouth bias.

Of course all fanboys are terrible, just this guy is making the most noise at the moment. It just staggers me that anyone without a financial incentive can get so worked up about something like this. I don't know how people manage to align themselves with consoles or products in the same way they would a football team or religion. The essence of fanboyism must be that you personally identify with the product, so that you see an attack on the product as an attack on yourself. However this sort of thinking is slightly disturbed if you ask me.