You seem to be dramatically overestimating the effort needed to hit stuff like 1080p, but ignoring that, 900p has always been 'okay' for the majority. 1080p is just better. How important that difference is mostly comes down to the person.

I don't think I ever implied that in the OP. In fact, I want to know if people that shunned on games with sub-1080p res, changed their mind about it or gaming in general.

Disagree. The *proof* I posted says otherwise. (Minus cost. PC was stupidly expensive back then. Stupidly. I think I spent almost $1,500 on a pair of Voodoo 2's back then.)
Pretty much every Multi-platform through gaming history, even back in the MS DOS days... PC had better image quality.

Another example is Wolfenstein. Released in 1992, the SNES didn't get anything like that untill a few years later... And then when it was ported It's Object/Wall resolution was half that of the PC anyway.

The PC also had the likes of Dune 2, WarCraft, Wing Commander, X-Com, Scorched Earth, Civilization. etc' in the early days.

The NES could do 48 colors and 6 grays. @ 256x240 resolution.
A PC at the time... Could be equipped with a 256 color SVGA card and do full Audio and was technically capable of 800 x 600.

Here is Kinds Quest 5 released in 1990:
NES:




PC:


PC has always had the edge, I have provided the proof. You have not. So please do so. ;)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nintendo_Entertainment_System#Hardware
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_video_graphics_array
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATI_Wonder_series#VGA_Cards
http://www.techradar.com/au/news/gaming/the-evolution-of-pc-graphics-will-blow-your-mind-1289593

Perhaps i'm just misinterpreting it then, but 'games that focused on satisfying gamers' 1080p lust, have fallen from grace especially' implies that 1080p is somehow responsible.

Anyway, i don't think any but a minority have ever actively shunned a game simply because it wasn't 1080p. The closest to that we've ever had was the console power debates, during which many PS4 owners would champion 1080p and the like in response to X1 owners that denied there was a hardware gap (or insisted we just had to wait for [insert secret sauce]). Now that X1 owners have settled down on that front, so have the reactionary PS4 owners. Even then it was mostly just a minority from both fanbases. A very loud, repetitive minority :p

As for the aforementioned minority that do act like the lack of 1080p makes something somehow unplayable, they're unlikely to ever change that view. They're mostly just engaged in a console war by proxy, so the core point is irrelevant.

So you are comparing inferior versions intentionally?

The NES was totally outdated when Kings Quest 5 came out. But feel free to compare some mid to late 80's PC-games with 2D graphics.

Same for Wolfenstein. SNES was basically 100% 2D by design. It was weak with raycaster engines and even weaker with polygons. But it could do 2D stuff that was hard to handle for PC's until years later.

About Descent, Doom etc., i played on a 486DX50 back then. Not what you'd call slow 93/94. Doom and Doom 2 already had some framerate issues sometimes and Descent ran like shit on high details when there was more than one enemy at a time, even with 8MB of RAM.

That was when the Playstation came out in Japan and had great looking games that ran perfectly fluid (for that time) like Ridge Racer, Tohshinden and so on.

PC pros were storage (floppy, hdd) especially for stuff like adventures and RAM for textured 3D titles as well as some 2D games.

On the other hand PC's for a very long time had weak spots.

Most of that disappeared over time.

It's a fair comparison. All console games are on a technical level usually inferior anyway. :P

The reason for the difference was because the PC had a higher colour pallet. It also had more memory and streaming so it could pull off those visuals compared to the NES.

I am going to ignore all this because you failed to provide proof like I have done. Thus I will assume it is all personal opinion.

Nope. It's not a 'fair' comparison.

Or would you please show me a 1985 PC that could actually run Kings Quest 5?

Doom on an average PC back then:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3fcPxAO1FeU

Note that those SX usually missed a mathematical coprocessor (FPU). My DX50 was way faster though still had issues sometimes.

I could show a video with Rayman Legends running 1080p60 on Wii U, PS4 and Xone. Conclusion, all three have the same speed. Wouldn't make sense though.

Or i could show SNES games with massive parallax scrolling, transparency effects and zooming effects a PC around 1990 could hardly handle or not at all.
At the same time i could show Starglider 2, a 1988 game the SNES could've hardly handled without a SuperFX chip.

I've done all that shit like installing a f...ing mouse driver making start discs because of not enough free 640K memory, knowing my sound cards DMA and IRQ for game setups...

At the same time i played on SNES, Amiga and other systems. I still know the pros and cons of all platforms back then very well.

Or how fast my heavily overclocked Celeron B was outdated even after changing my TNT2 for a GeForce.

Now, another comparison Hi Octane on a Pentium 200 vs Wipeout...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oT-klOes3Es

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ukOU1FpKTOM

Thing is the Pentium 200 came out mid 1996.

I didn't care about 1080p and 60fps when I only had a Wii U and I still don't care about it now that I have a PS4. All I know is that Batman: Arkham Knight looks really good and that's good enough for me.

It always was "worthy". I thought most of the discussions were on how the PS4 was more powerful and costs less.

900p is fine since it gets upscaled. But higher resolution and higher frame rate will alway be prefered, especially when it can be made possible.

This is pretty much how I feel, except I game a lot more on PC now. I only use my consoles for exclusives and the occasional indie on the Wii U gamepad.

All multiplats are played on PC.