So I'm replaying Alan Wake on the 360 at the moment, in glorious 960x540, a resolution that was mocked even when the game released in 2010, and it strikes me; this still looks fine, far better than the number itself would seem to imply.
It got me thinking; is more pixels really the best way to spend limited rendering resources? For a long time now, I've felt like devs nowdays place too much emphasis on the number of pixels, when it my opinion you often get better overall results with fewer but better quality pixels.
On the Wii U for example, Smash Bros 4 at 1080p is crisper than Mario Kart 8 or Captain Toad Treasure Tracker at 720p, but does it look better overall? I'd argue not, as the tradeoff is lower quality textures, materials, and effects.
On Switch, Mario Odyssey and Kingdom Battle forgo a full 1080p in favour of richer lighting and materials, and I personally feel the results pay off handsomely.
But that's me. Which would you rather be prioritized, resolution, or detail/asset quality/effects/etc?Last edited by curl-6 - on 03 December 2018
Bet with Liquidlaser: I say PS5 and Xbox Series X will sell more than 56 million combined by the end of 2023.