By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Consoles would benefit at running games 720p instead of 1080p.

AZWification on 20 July 2014
etking said:

I prefer 20FPS@1080p over 60FPS@720p. Resolution and texture detail are much more important to me than frame rate. Even on the N64, I always enabled hires mode because it looked a million times better.

Well, frame-rate is much more important than resolution when it comes to platformers, fighting games and action games like Bayonetta!



                
       ---Member of the official Squeezol Fanclub---

Around the Network
crissindahouse on 20 July 2014

I think it would be nice if some games would be "only" 720p if that would mean that the game would have more other stuff going on (If you get a game like Skyrim on console with  1080p and bad foliage, drawing distance and so on I would prefer 720p) but in other games I would prefer a higher resolution.

Mostly in games where a clear picture is very important and where the look of the game is not very important for atmosphere and so on. Something like Counter Strike as example. Nobody needs a Counter Strike with the best graphics (well, smoke effects are kinda important), but it's pretty important to have a super sharp picture where you can see even the tiniest part of your enemy from a long distance.

But everything below 720p isn't good nowadays in my opinion but I would still play the games if they would be below that.

The problem is that developers won't have the balls to go 720p and a much better presentation overall because they would get so much hate on the interent even if their game would blow every other game away in every graphical aspect except for resolution. Pretty sad that we are at this point to be honest. 



mochachino on 20 July 2014

Consoles should at least go down to 900p, the games would look better.



Captain_Tom on 20 July 2014
Mr Puggsly said:
Captain_Tom said:
1) The difference is massive.

2) Without 1080p, you won't be able to see the extra detail. Metro 2033 on ultra looks no different than medium if you play it below 900p.

1 is subjective.

2 is bullshit. This is kinda like saying PS3 and PS4 look the same on a 720p TV. You don't need 1080p resolution to notice higher polygon models, better lighting, smoother frame rate, etc.


They often do look the same on a 720p TV.  Haven't you noticed how so many people keep saying this about the comparison videoes on YouTube?



Conina on 20 July 2014
Intrinsic said:

Downsampling (which is actually called supersampling in AA speak and is the most expensive type of AA) a game from 4k (8.2M+ pixels) to 480p (320k pixels) will require the post processing AA equivalent of over 64xMSAA. Running as much as 8xMSAA cripples most game engines. It will cost you less performance to up the rez of a game from 480p to 720p/1080p than to use 64XMSAA. Way, way, way, way less. And no one said games can't be playable at lower resolutions. That is not what this thread was about. What it was about was if lowering the rez could double the franerate amongst other things.

Yeah, supersampling is also super-taxing to the hardware... but it delivers some great stills which can be used for wallpapers. ;)

Here are some awesome galleries:



Around the Network
Zekkyou on 20 July 2014
Mr Puggsly said:
Zekkyou said:

I need to chill? I'm curious to know what about my reply gives the impression I'm not. It's written in essentially the same tone as yours.

Your wording implied something that isn't the case. I was, as you say, merely pointing that out ^^

You're creating an unnecessary debate and clearly in defense mode.

I'm simply stating some facts, no need to defend the developer's decision.

I wasn't creating a debate. I was stating a fact ^^



DrDoomz on 20 July 2014

Ppl can't tell the difference between tiny color shades either. Don't know what all the hooplah over them new fangled million color nonsense is all about. Bring back 16-colors demmit! 16 colors is all we need.



prayformojo on 20 July 2014
Player2 said:
prayformojo said:
720P 60FPS>1080P 30FPS. But having said that, who cares? Why SHOULD we care? I don't recall playing Pacman in the arcades when I was 5 going "gee, this shit needs more frames per second."

Pacman ran at 60FPS. I'd bet you don't recall people saying "OMG! This looks horrible! I'm blind!" too.


I don't recall anyone talking about "graphics" until companies started using it as bullet points to sell their products. The bottom line is, they don't matter. It's cliche, but true. Angry Birds and Minecraft wouldn't exist otherwise. 



Conina on 20 July 2014
prayformojo said:
Player2 said:

Pacman ran at 60FPS. I'd bet you don't recall people saying "OMG! This looks horrible! I'm blind!" too.

I don't recall anyone talking about "graphics" until companies started using it as bullet points to sell their products. The bottom line is, they don't matter. It's cliche, but true. Angry Birds and Minecraft wouldn't exist otherwise. 

Beggars can't be choosers... you were lucky back in these days to get some fun games for your console or home computer at all. Today we have have much more choices in games to play... of course the personal standards in graphics and/or gameplay are much higher than in the past to filter the titles which are worth the investment of time and money.

And of course even in the past people talked about the graphic differences between different versions, if they knew about the differences. But in a much smaller scale, only in the circle of friends / schoolfellows. There was no internet to discuss in larger scale.



Hynad on 20 July 2014
Conina said:
prayformojo said:
Player2 said:

Pacman ran at 60FPS. I'd bet you don't recall people saying "OMG! This looks horrible! I'm blind!" too.

I don't recall anyone talking about "graphics" until companies started using it as bullet points to sell their products. The bottom line is, they don't matter. It's cliche, but true. Angry Birds and Minecraft wouldn't exist otherwise. 

Beggars can't be choosers... you were lucky back in these days to get some fun games for your console or home computer at all. Today we have have much more choices in games to play... of course the personal standards in graphics and/or gameplay are much higher than in the past to filter the titles which are worth the investment of time and money.

And of course even in the past people talked about the graphic differences between different versions, if they knew about the differences. But in a much smaller scale, only in the circle of friends / schoolfellows. There was no internet to discuss in larger scale.

Nah... During High school, People were always fighting over what was better, SNES or Genesis. Genesis processed faster, while the SNES had better overall picture quality and sound...

But the arguing over graphics was there. We just didn't have the tools to properly measure every single little technical aspects of the games like we do now (like with DF).