Scarlett Will Prioritize Frame Rate Over Graphics

[Pemalite]

Mr Puggsly said:

StuOhQ said:
I think that should have been the goal a long time ago. We could be living in a world with almost no load times and 60fps locked for very pretty games and instead we are chasing pixel count so that our games look decent on unnecessary display upgrades.

The funny thing is, if we were still using CRTs - the resolution would matter so much less and what we could do with the games would be ridiculous. With 4K, we're wasting tons of resources run mediocre looking games.

Eh, the leap from 480p to 720p was pretty significant to the presentation of games, its about triple the pixels. I can still tolerate 720p actually, even on a 4K screen. Playing games at 480p in comparison is not great.

Developers could simply build games around 60 fps if that was really a priority. Specs aren't the problem per se.

480P in a 16:9 format is 854x480 = 409,920 pixels. (Many Switch games in portable mode run at around this resolution!)
720P in a 16:9 format is 1280x720 = 921,600 pixels.

So more like a doubling of pixels.

480P can look great, depending on scaling and the input method in-use. I.E. The PS2/OG Xbox/Gamecube/Wii/Xbox 360 "version" of 480P tends to not look great on a HDTV due to composite/Component being used.

Of course you also have another aspect to consider... Perceived Pixels Per Inch... Smaller+further away the screen, the less resolution you need... TV sizes exploded when Full High-Definition became the norm, thus lower resolutions started to look dated very quickly on newer and larger panels.

I have a CRT in my games room and older games that are 480P look far better on the 27" CRT than my 75" LCD panel.