Tarumon said:
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. |
You really are a mouthful. -_-
You basically say the same thing I do, but from a different point of view.
You say that the physics are what's taxing. And then say it is easier for that physics to be rendered at a lower resolution. I say the resolution is taxing, because rendering that same physics at a higher resolution makes my PC struggle.
You play semantics. I understand you like to hear yourself talk and read your own words. But if you want to argue over something, at least do it when the situation remotely requires it.
The point I was making, you finally agreed to it. But the judge is still out as to how much the visuals (and all that it implies) can be improved if our displays remain at a 1080p standard.