Roma said:
tube82 said:
"Beyond that, current technologies don't feasibly support the idea of a new console. High-definition 1080p is as good as it gets. It's just not possible to make games look any better yet. The Wii U ran straight into this complaint, and that's why it's a catch-up machine, not a quantum leap. It's really the best Nintendo -- or anyone -- can do at the moment."
I'm so sick of statements like that. PCs run HD resolutions since the 90s. Does that mean games don't look better now than Q3 Arena did in 1600x1200?
It just doesn't make any sense to measure image quality in pixels.
There are so many areas in which the graphics could be improved A LOT before even thinking about increasing the resolution further.
Framerate, tearing, draw distance, texture size, texture quality, number of polygons, proper use of image enhancers like AF or AA, lighting, modern shaders,...
SO much room for improvements.
|
Its funny how people who work with this stuff don’t know what they are talking about :P
I mean look at Avatar its not like the resolution made it have more polygons :P
|
Thank you! I get so frustrated when I hear that argument... There is SO much more room for improvement, and as technology advances, there will always be more and more.
What I find most pathetic is how EA recently said they wouldn't even know what to do with a more powerful console. Yet... at the same time... they're launching Battlefield 3 on the consoles and the PC and it's a way bigger game on the PC due to not having the consoles' restrictions...
