ManUtdFan said:
Your speaking of 16k resolution and 120fps, is like the audiophile argument positing 24 bit 192 khz audio as superior to 16 bit 44.1 khz. It's a falsehood based on an erroneous premise, that higher numbers always equal better performance. It really comes down to what the human eye or ear can perceive. Regarding graphics, my subjective opinion in order of priority: 1) high frame rate, preferably locked over variable/dynamic 2) high resolution 3) texture detail, number of triangles, anisotropic filtering, anti-aliasing 4) wankathon effects e.g. lighting, shadows |
What I am saying to you is there is no point in having the upper 2 on this list if the 3rd is just completely ignored though, you can have a 4k game running at 60fps but with starfox esque graphics from the SNES as the number of triangles and texture detail are down on the priorities, for a game to look its best imo you always need a smooth balance of all of the above, I would equally think that a game with perfect looking textures and AA would look completely wrong without correct lighting and shadows to it, would ruin the whole effect of what is being displayed.
I would see your view being equal to someone who suggests the only thing which matters about a painting is the canvas which is used being of a certain size and quality, regardless of if a child were to use crayons to scribble on it, would still be a fine painting because of it's size and image quality.
Why not check me out on youtube and help me on the way to 2k subs over at www.youtube.com/stormcloudlive