Just wanted to point out that 4K is exactly 9x 720p. 1280x3=3840, 720x3=2160.
Hence the hidden beauty of a 4K screen as it can both perfectly scale 720p and 1080p content.
And thus switch will render games at 900p just to piss me off :)

720p in 2017 is not respectable.....It wasn't even respectable in 2013 lol XB1 has been getting hammered for playing games at 900p so what makes you think people are going to be okay with 720p?

Maybe he means it's respectable for Nintendo games?

It may not be respectable for the hordes of superficial graphics whores out there that play at 1m of their tvs, but for a lot of other gamers is just not that important at all, WiiU had several 720p games that look crisp, clear and beautiful, how is that "not respectable" for a real gamer?







^ Not respectful...

Apparently "crisp" and "real gamer" are highly subjective in this forum.

But yeah, people who strive for the highest fidelity are all bad people and whores, got it.

Long distance between someone that likes high fidelity and someone that thinks 720p is not even worth to play.

Not that long. But you say it as if refusing to consume low fidelity media is a bad thing.

When that means to put superficial values above everything, of course, in gaming the important thing is games, the more mainstream this market becomes the souless it is, now people is so damn obsessed with numbers and technical details that is just depressive. We have to buy the 4k photorrealistic game with subsurface scattering and shitty gameplay instead of the fun and brilliantly designed one because is just 720p? Is that your idea of making gaming advance on the right direction? Because I think you are deeply wrong.

The correct advancement would be to stop treating as if visual fidelity and gameplay are mutually exclusive things. Bad games don't suck because of great graphics and bad looking games aren't great because of bad graphics. I think it is in our right to demand both at the same time. There are plenty examples to boot.

Saying a bad looking game is better because of gameplay is just as wrong as saying a bad game is better because of better graphics. Because both failed half of their job in this audio-visual medium.

Having a powerful console that can deliver actually crisp graphics is nothing that would hinder Nintendo's creativity.

But that balance is damn hard to find when you need to waste 200 million dollars and a 2000 people team to make a single game, there is no freedom there, there is little space for the game to have a soul, any bad calculated risk can make you lose money so you better don't make a single one. That's one of the reasons why so many triple A are so damn dissapointing or/and need to sell a ton of milions to be profitable, they are all impressive in the way they can sell you the game, because they rather spend most of the budget and talent on technical stuff than on most important things, cause chances are you are gonna buy it by the looks as most people.

Nintendo is bringing a more conservative philosy to to the table, one that, in my opinion, benefit the average quality of the games, and they have still achieved some very good looking games: Mk8 and 3DWorld are 2 great examples of games that look and play great even at 60fps on ancient technology. Now you can dislike this approach, you can argue that if Nintendo and its philosophy was ruling the place right now it would hold back the industry on the technical side, but I think is essential their approach is not underrated as they somehow bring some balance to the industry, and its decline would make more harm than anything else.