Hynad said:
The way you're talking seems to imply that if the resolution of the games don't go beyond 1080p, then graphics will stall and won't improve in quality even if the hardware gets better. I may be wrong, but that's what I got from the way you wrote this. Like you're talking about something you don't fully grasp. In any case, I'll just reiterate that a higher resolution isn't the only way to improve graphics, and is in fact more demanding to the hardware than most other graphical processes. |
I think you have a fundamental lack of understanding of computer graphics. What is taxing to the system is not the display resolution, 1920x1080 is all it takes to fill the pixels. It's the physics required to render believable images at that resolution that is taxing. It is much easier for a computer to render 100 images on the same sized screen using smaller pixels on a higher resolution screen than forcing a programmer to render the same 100 images on the same sized screen using bigger pixels. TV resolution refers to the number of physical pixels. Your computer has a hard time rendering at 1080p because your gpu and cpu cannot support the number of calculations needed to render the image on a timely basis.
Your verdict is based on a system that rendered pictures, not as intended. Systems that can easily produce 1080p with all the physics produce BETTER quality pictures with cleaner edges. There are effects you simply dont see, such as shimmering.
Video Game = Interactive Computer Generated Images. What is taxing is how to emulate reality with computer generated images. A monitor with higher resolution allows finer dots to draw with. 1080p is much fewer pixels than most decent sized computer monitors. Grapics have improved as the GPUs and CPUs have improved. Current gen consoles have problems populating 720p screens at much beyond 30 frames per second. The limiting facor was what was under the hood.
We now have the 1080p. Wii U is 1080p capable. That doesn't mean if everyone rendered at 1080p, the graphics will be nearly the same quality. The physics could be infinitely taxing, layers and layers of effects can still be piled on. When I said Avatar was a bad example, I didn't argue with much else of what you said, bur Avatar is CGI (with human art vs computer generated in spots). Just because the new Super Bug can do 0-62 in 1.8 seconds doesn't mean you can use that as an example to prove all cars with four wheels with a Scion budget has much room for improvement. No! Consoles are budget computers just like the one you got. There is no way in hell these consoles can go anywhere near Avatar, which is just a series of images displayed one after another with ZERO interaction that causes any recalculations.
Again, I am ok if you insult me with "as if I don't understand what I'm saying". But I do hope you are able to separate TV resolution from computer generated images quality. Understand that it wasn't the resolution that caused your comouter to huff and puff but the PHYSICs. Things wouldn't look as jaggedy if they were painted with a finer brush. The granularity is EASY. But making all those grains dance, shimmer, reflect light is super hard and super taxing. If you lowered the resolution, your pc finally catches up, but the Physics wont work if by default your display resolution is less granular than what the damn engine is trying to refine.
Thats why I really agree that 1080p display resolution is gonna be it for a while, at the expense of 4k TVs. So I agree with you that resolution is not the only way to improve graphics (even though it's the easiest way), but respectfully disagree with how much room there can be with console budgets.