By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
nitekrawler1285 on 03 March 2014
Edit Thread
ctalkeb said:
nitekrawler1285 said:
ctalkeb said:
nitekrawler1285 said:
ctalkeb said:
nitekrawler1285 said:

The writing of any blockbuster film is often horrible.  Luckily with movies in particular there are far more and better ways of expressing your intent. As you'll see in my above post there are reasons for the film to resonate with international audiences outside of how it looked. 

Those are your reasons, however.  In hindsight, and indeed at the time, the visuals of the movie were what constituted its "watercooler" power. Your claim above this about women going to see Bullock/Clooney no matter the rest of the movie is also more than just slightly sexist, and also probably not true.

If you can show me some data showing the number of households whom even have a 1080 p television of the right size(I believe 42'' or larger) to percieve the difference between 720 and 1080 and I will stop hollering diminishing returns.  You just can't. HD TV penetration is supposed to be 50% by 2016 last I heard. Though those do not make a distinction in HD level.  

1: as you've kindly pointed out below, screen size doesn not matter, but rather how close you are to the screen realtive to its size. The market penetration number you quote is worldwide - including BRIC countries. The number for the U.S. was 75% at the end of 2012. Where I live, I'd guess the number is higher.

Generally speaking, if you sit more than 10 feet away from your TV, and your display isn’t bigger than 50 inches diagonally, you won’t be able to tell the difference between 720 and 1080. 

This rate is caculated for film/TV content that benefits from almost infinite antialiasing. It cannot be compared to native resolution rendering.

Most customers don't have the equipment needed so they can even notice the difference. It's where technology is in consumer homes that clearly state most people can't precieve the difference. Irrespective of my or your own anecdotal evidence. 

Most consumers actually do have the equipment, as I've shown above.

However, when was this resolution thing even part of what we were talking about?

I have already said that diminishing returns are real enough, but that you can't point to them in one field, such as polygon count or resolution, and conclude that we've reached that point in all fields.


I assume that advertisements and marketing are the way in which most are informed about films. Otherwise it seems silly to waste money on generating them or paying for them to be shown before other films. But yes the preview is what caused my decision and I'm sure no one elses.  

You can think that as sexist as you like.  I just hope advertisers don't have the same ideology as yours or they would waste tons of dollars advertising films like Miss Congeniality to the macho 16-25 year old male audience and that would be a waste.  Tehe.  I was just talking to my mom on the phone. She thinks it's funny that you would think she is sexist too.  

 You show that you cherry picked numbers to inflate your argument. Games sell world wide.  Even if I was just talking about the US only up until recently did larger 40+ inch HDTv's get popular. Meaning that unless people are sitting right in front of the TV ie 2- 4 feet it's still a practically indistinguishable. You aren't supposed to be that close to your TV to avoid eyestrain and headaches. So it looks to me like most consumers don't have the right equipment.  Though obviously we have different ideas of whom that market is since you just assume the US.    

http://www.gamespot.com/articles/playstation-4-exclusive-deep-down-delayed-to-improve-graphics/1100-6417593/ This is the reason I am in this thread.  Developers pointlessly adding cost to games that no one can see.  There can't be any differene greater than 720 to 1080 in this specific instance.  Even that difference is one that at this time the majority of possible consumers probably can't see.  That is why I have focused on that difference in particular.  

When it comes to art and entertainment that humans consume because we are only capable of perceiving so much with our eyes I can easily say that in primarily visual mediums we have hit diminishing returns across the board.  Unless you want people to start producing content for resolutions that nobody has displays capable of displaying for the next 15 years but .01% of the market there isn't any financial incentive.  

I'm not qualified to say whether your mom is sexist or not, suffice it to say that it's fully possible to be a woman and sexist without being aware of it.

I also don't understand why you're so hung up on resolutions, even if you're wrong (and you are), that's not really what we're talking about.

Just read the post by SvennoJ.

I read his post.  Still unconvinced. Games aren't supposed to be accurate simulations of life.  If that's what people wanted they would go outside. Outside of those producing an engine or middleware such an investment is fiscally irresponsible.


You still don't seem to understand the point, which is simply that animation, physics and lighting is far behind resolution and polygon count.

It's not like I have a true problem with any of those. It's just that money spent on them isn't money being spent on things that consumers are more likely to notice.

Physics in particular is very demanding and for the purpose of most games realism in physics isn't even what is wanted.  That raises costs for the hardware to even run this game.  We can combine many existing things and approximate well enough in most cases. Let Box 2D, NVidia PhysX, Havoc and all those people take the financial dive and license.