Anyone else feel resolution is overrated?

[curl-6]

Mr Puggsly said:

curl-6 said:

Because Burnout and Driver were simplistic with basic and repeated assets. And Rage was not open world at all.

You are simply incorrect here. Again, in 2008 their GPUs were still quite decent, but even by then less than 500MB of RAM for games was a joke.

Many games use repeated assets, Rage actually boasted about not doing that. But it did have unusual texture pop in kinda like a UE3 game. Rage is indeed an open world game. 

500MB was fine for 7th gen games because it wasn't running Windows and the games were simply more efficient. It was also running textures at around low/medium quality compared to what PC was doing. VRAM at that time was probably 256-512mb.

Full circle by the way, the biggest asset drain is textures and that's exactly where 7th gen cut corners. They often used low quality textures or sometimes higher quality textures popped in depending on the game and engine. Crossgen (7th and 8th gen) games suffered from some of the worst quality or severe texture pop in.

Eh, I've played Rage and I certainly wouldn't call it open world; more like a series of hubs and linear levels connected by corridors. That's a whole other topic though.

To tie back into resolution, both last gen console seemed pretty comfortable delivering (for the time) great visuals at 720p, but this gen I'd peg the sweet spot for the Switch at more like 900p rather than 1080. Even the base Xbox One seems to do its prettiest graphics at around 900p, with games like Battlefront 1 & 2, Ryse, and RDR2.