Quantcast
Anyone else feel resolution is overrated?

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Anyone else feel resolution is overrated?

I prefer...

Resolution over detail/effects 23 26.14%
 
Detail/effects over resolution 65 73.86%
 
Total:88
yvanjean said:
Conina said:

No, it only shows that it is easier for the developers to deliver higher resolutions than higher stable fps with the current bottlenecks.

Seem like on the X1X, they could easily pull of 60 FPS if they just lowered the resolution, but they choose to focus on hitting 4K instead. Thankfully going forward most developer will give you the choice between Graphic and performance. This is going to be even more of a hot topic issue at the start of the next gen, when some gamers will still be using 1080p and 1440p screen and wants the focus to be on performance. 

Lowering the resolution doesn't help if the CPU is the bottleneck. 



Around the Network
Shadow1980 said:
I have a One X and a good-quality 4K TV, and after replaying games enhanced in 4K, I can say that the resolution bump provides a substantial increase in quality. Details that I never noticed at lower resolutions reveal themselves. The image is much sharper than 1080p and especially sub-1080p. I honestly cannot say I'd want to go back.

That doesn't mean I want devs to focus solely on resolution. Other aspects of visual fidelity matter as well. Next generation I hope they focus on lighting effects and shadows, draw distances (noticeable texture and object pop-in and other LoD issues are still a commonplace this generation), animation quality, and other graphical bells & whistles.

This is one of the reasons why I kind of don't understand this topic, or rather the many replies in this thread. Old games look infinitely better at higher resolutions; sometimes resolutions they don't even support. 

Resolution is ALWAYS going to be one of those things that many people don't care about much in the present, why? Because you're playing games that are already at an acceptable resolution, which were tailored for the standards of today. When that happens, of course people are going to say resolution is "overrated". They take it for granted, especially in an era where remasters allows us to look at games the same way we thought they looked back when we had first played them. 

It really is an important factor. Not the most important but it's up there. 

Edit: Also next gen I want to see better AI mostly : ) 



eeeh I don't know I play stardew valley a lot and I can't imagine that game not hurting my eyes if it wasn't in 1080p



In case my OP was misunderstood by some, as CGI rightly pointed out, I am not saying resolution is entirely unimportant. Just that I personally think the end result is often more pleasing when other graphical aspects are prioritized over sheer pixel count, and that I feel the raw number of pixels is sometimes given more emphasis than it warrants.

AngryLittleAlchemist said:

This is one of the reasons why I kind of don't understand this topic, or rather the many replies in this thread. Old games look infinitely better at higher resolutions; sometimes resolutions they don't even support. 

Resolution is ALWAYS going to be one of those things that many people don't care about much in the present, why? Because you're playing games that are already at an acceptable resolution, which were tailored for the standards of today. When that happens, of course people are going to say resolution is "overrated". They take it for granted, especially in an era where remasters allows us to look at games the same way we thought they looked back when we had first played them. 

It really is an important factor. Not the most important but it's up there. 

Edit: Also next gen I want to see better AI mostly : ) 

A lot of us don't only play games made in today's standards though. This year I've spent more time playing on my 360 than my Switch due to the lack of appealing games on the latter, so a lot of the stuff I've played recently are games made 6-13 years ago. Speaking of Switch, due to hardware constraints when porting from more powerful hardware, some of its games don't reach the generally accepted resolution "standards of today" either.

Totally agree with your edit, that and interactivity are two areas I want to see future games focus more on.

Marth said:

Also that poll is a bit silly since more resolution = more detail.

Not necessarily; a higher resolution can only further clarify asset detail that already exists. But by spending more of your processing budget on more pixels, you have less left over to spend on asset detail.

Last edited by curl-6 - on 03 December 2018

PwerlvlAmy said:
I dont believe its overrated, however people tend to put more emphasis on it than actual game play at times,which is the problem for me.

Most of that is that platform boasting, dick teraflops. One reason I'm glad the X1X exists is we get a little boasting about how important resolution is.

A good game is good at any reasonable resolution, I was playing BLOPS2 the other day and its still looks fine, still a high enough resolution to not be a blurry or pixelated mess even at sub HD.

The resolutions people have complained about this gen arent that bad.



Recently Completed
Crackdown 3
for X1S/X1X (4/5) - Infinity Blade III - for iPad 4 (3/5) - Infinity Blade II - for iPad 4 (4/5) - Infinity Blade - for iPad 4 (4/5) - Wolfenstein: The Old Blood for X1 (3/5) - Assassin's Creed: Origins for X1 (3/5) - Uncharted: Lost Legacy for PS4 (4/5) - EA UFC 3 for X1 (4/5) - Doom for X1 (4/5) - Titanfall 2 for X1 (4/5) - Super Mario 3D World for Wii U (4/5) - South Park: The Stick of Truth for X1 BC (4/5) - Call of Duty: WWII for X1 (4/5) -Wolfenstein II for X1 - (4/5) - Dead or Alive: Dimensions for 3DS (4/5) - Marvel vs Capcom: Infinite for X1 (3/5) - Halo Wars 2 for X1/PC (4/5) - Halo Wars: DE for X1 (4/5) - Tekken 7 for X1 (4/5) - Injustice 2 for X1 (4/5) - Yakuza 5 for PS3 (3/5) - Battlefield 1 (Campaign) for X1 (3/5) - Assassin's Creed: Syndicate for X1 (4/5) - Call of Duty: Infinite Warfare for X1 (4/5) - Call of Duty: MW Remastered for X1 (4/5) - Donkey Kong Country Returns for 3DS (4/5) - Forza Horizon 3 for X1 (5/5)

Around the Network
curl-6 said:

In case my OP was misunderstood by some, as CGI rightly pointed out, I am not saying resolution is entirely unimportant. Just that I personally think the end result is often more pleasing when other graphical aspects are prioritized over sheer pixel count, and that I feel the raw number of pixels is sometimes given more emphasis than it warrants.

AngryLittleAlchemist said:

This is one of the reasons why I kind of don't understand this topic, or rather the many replies in this thread. Old games look infinitely better at higher resolutions; sometimes resolutions they don't even support. 

Resolution is ALWAYS going to be one of those things that many people don't care about much in the present, why? Because you're playing games that are already at an acceptable resolution, which were tailored for the standards of today. When that happens, of course people are going to say resolution is "overrated". They take it for granted, especially in an era where remasters allows us to look at games the same way we thought they looked back when we had first played them. 

It really is an important factor. Not the most important but it's up there. 

Edit: Also next gen I want to see better AI mostly : ) 

A lot of us don't only play games made in today's standards though. This year I've spent more time playing on my 360 than my Switch due to the lack of appealing games on the latter, so a lot of the stuff I've played recently are games made 6-13 years ago. Speaking of Switch, due to hardware constraints when porting from more powerful hardware, some of its games don't reach the generally accepted resolution "standards of today" either.

Totally agree with your edit, that and interactivity are two areas I want to see future games focus more on.

Curl .... literally my second sentence. 



AngryLittleAlchemist said:
curl-6 said:

In case my OP was misunderstood by some, as CGI rightly pointed out, I am not saying resolution is entirely unimportant. Just that I personally think the end result is often more pleasing when other graphical aspects are prioritized over sheer pixel count, and that I feel the raw number of pixels is sometimes given more emphasis than it warrants.

A lot of us don't only play games made in today's standards though. This year I've spent more time playing on my 360 than my Switch due to the lack of appealing games on the latter, so a lot of the stuff I've played recently are games made 6-13 years ago. Speaking of Switch, due to hardware constraints when porting from more powerful hardware, some of its games don't reach the generally accepted resolution "standards of today" either.

Totally agree with your edit, that and interactivity are two areas I want to see future games focus more on.

Curl .... literally my second sentence. 

I'm not talking about playing old games at higher resolutions though. I'm talking about the tradeoffs made when a game is created. For example, when Alan Wake was made, the devs chose to target 540p instead of the typical 7th gen 720p in order to focus more resources on other aspects.



curl-6 said:
AngryLittleAlchemist said:

Curl .... literally my second sentence. 

I'm not talking about playing old games at higher resolutions though. I'm talking about the tradeoffs made when a game is created. For example, when Alan Wake was made, the devs chose to target 540p instead of the typical 7th gen 720p in order to focus more resources on other aspects.

But that's why the topic doesn't make sense. 

How many devs nowadays really make the tradeoff in favor of resolution instead of against it?  In order for something to be overrated, people have to be massively in favor of it. But I've certainly never heard someone say that they wanted a game to look worse for a better resolution. Games which are using the PS4 and Xbox One to their absolute maximum capabilities are cutting back on resolution as a result, and most games (at least on base PS4, and every console more powerful than it) perfectly balance between a high resolution and great graphical capabilities. There has never been a time where I turned on a PS4 game and thought "Damn, if only they cut back on the resolution, then this game would be prettier" - most of them fit their pursuits perfectly. Realistically 99% of triple A games meet the graphical quality they want to meet, unless you're talking about the PC version which will always have more options. This topic would make a lot more sense for graphics over frame-rate, because it doesn't make a lot of sense in it's current state. Especially because resolution is a big factor in how good a game looks. 



curl-6 said:
Conina said:
Mr Puggsly said:

Its also worth noting Remedy went surprisingly low on resolution for Quantum Break. I mean its a 720p game well into the X1's launch and its not even aiming for 60 fps. However, it makes great use of post processing effects so you get a better image than a standard 720p game. Alan Wake on the hand, not so much. I'm surprised MS helped get the game relisted but hasn't funded a remaster or even a 4K patch.

The 7th gen could have really benefitted from dynamic resolution given GPU power was often its biggest obstacle. A game like Alan Wake could have used it. Rage was one of the first times I recall it implemented on consoles and it was pretty late into the 7th gen.

Remedy do seem to have a tendency to focus on effects over pixel count, which I like.

There were a few games on 7th gen with dynamic resolution (In addition to Rage, Wipeout HD, Doom 3 BFG edition, Wolfenstein The New Order, and Syndicate on PS3 come to mind) but yeah it didn't really become common until the PS4/Xbone hit their stride. If I had to pick out one obstacle for last gen consoles though, I'd say it would be RAM, not GPU power. Less than 500MB of RAM available to games was a real bottleneck, especially in open world titles.

RAM was certainly a limitation long term, especially on PS3 which had less flexibility on how RAM was used. Consider 7th gen consoles had games like Crysis, Far Cry, Battlefield, Assassins Creed, GTA, Elder Scrolls, even some MMOs, etc. There The biggest RAM hog is often textures. Crossgen 7th gen games had abysmal textures likely because the game engines had less efficient use of RAM. But overall 7th gen consoles did amazing things with a small amount of RAM.

So I dont think RAM was the biggest limitation, if last gen had double the RAM then MOST games would have just had better textures. More often games struggled with performance or made significant visual compromises because of GPU limitations.

I will put it like this. If I could have chose double the RAM or GPU power for last gen, I would have opted for double the GPU power. Because more games would have utilized it better. Better resolutions (which Alan Wake needs), performance and higher quality effects. Last gen already had just enough RAM to make great open world games. Also, we have have consoles with significantly more RAM but the open world experiences haven't evolved much. You know what has improved significantly? Textures.



Recently Completed
Crackdown 3
for X1S/X1X (4/5) - Infinity Blade III - for iPad 4 (3/5) - Infinity Blade II - for iPad 4 (4/5) - Infinity Blade - for iPad 4 (4/5) - Wolfenstein: The Old Blood for X1 (3/5) - Assassin's Creed: Origins for X1 (3/5) - Uncharted: Lost Legacy for PS4 (4/5) - EA UFC 3 for X1 (4/5) - Doom for X1 (4/5) - Titanfall 2 for X1 (4/5) - Super Mario 3D World for Wii U (4/5) - South Park: The Stick of Truth for X1 BC (4/5) - Call of Duty: WWII for X1 (4/5) -Wolfenstein II for X1 - (4/5) - Dead or Alive: Dimensions for 3DS (4/5) - Marvel vs Capcom: Infinite for X1 (3/5) - Halo Wars 2 for X1/PC (4/5) - Halo Wars: DE for X1 (4/5) - Tekken 7 for X1 (4/5) - Injustice 2 for X1 (4/5) - Yakuza 5 for PS3 (3/5) - Battlefield 1 (Campaign) for X1 (3/5) - Assassin's Creed: Syndicate for X1 (4/5) - Call of Duty: Infinite Warfare for X1 (4/5) - Call of Duty: MW Remastered for X1 (4/5) - Donkey Kong Country Returns for 3DS (4/5) - Forza Horizon 3 for X1 (5/5)

AngryLittleAlchemist said:
curl-6 said:

I'm not talking about playing old games at higher resolutions though. I'm talking about the tradeoffs made when a game is created. For example, when Alan Wake was made, the devs chose to target 540p instead of the typical 7th gen 720p in order to focus more resources on other aspects.

But that's why the topic doesn't make sense. 

How many devs nowadays really make the tradeoff in favor of resolution instead of against it?  In order for something to be overrated, people have to be massively in favor of it. But I've certainly never heard someone say that they wanted a game to look worse for a better resolution. Games which are using the PS4 and Xbox One to their absolute maximum capabilities are cutting back on resolution as a result, and most games (at least on base PS4, and every console more powerful than it) perfectly balance between a high resolution and great graphical capabilities. There has never been a time where I turned on a PS4 game and thought "Damn, if only they cut back on the resolution, then this game would be prettier" - most of them fit their pursuits perfectly. Realistically 99% of triple A games meet the graphical quality they want to meet, unless you're talking about the PC version which will always have more options. This topic would make a lot more sense for graphics over frame-rate, because it doesn't make a lot of sense in it's current state. Especially because resolution is a big factor in how good a game looks. 

 The push for resolutions over 1080p on Pro/X is probably the prime example putting too much emphasis on pixel count in my opinion.