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

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Gaming shouldn't go over 4K. Once we fully achieve 4K we should focus on framerate!

 

Do you agree?

I agree 74 73.27%
 
I disagree 22 21.78%
 
Nice face. 5 4.95%
 
Total:101
freebs2 said:

A viable option would be to give the player the option to run the game in 1080p at 60fps.
1080p is already good enough unless you have a, >60" TV.

I'm a Nintendo fan so hopefully Nintendo gives us that with the switch and creates amazing games for it with not just 1080p resolution and 60fps but detailed worlds and as another user said optimisation that let's us barely tell the difference between cutscenes and gameplay. Xenoblade 2 if it is 1080p 60fos would be awesome but I don't see that happenings. Honestly I played xenoblade x and final fantasy XV but loved XCX way more. Also you could use mechs to go wherever while in ffxv there was that stupid car that felt like it was there to give the console enough time to render the next scenes. My point is gameplay should come before graphics. Sure ffxv was prettier but XCX was better because it was more fun and good gameplay. Its main story might not have been much but the side questsade the story that much more awesome



Just a guy who doesn't want to be bored. Also

Around the Network
Eagle367 said:
Pemalite said:
Sorry to burt your bubble, but 8k or 7680×4320 is next. ;)

Games that can leverage the increases in resolution should do so.

Games that are more sensitive to performance should focus on that area. (Overwatch for example.)

Please come on stop this madness. What the hell are humans gonna do with 8k. I mean will 8k truly translate to more crispness for our eyes. What next? Will the PS7 play 16k games. When will the stupid resolution saturation reach.

The human eye doesn't perceive the world in terms of pixels.

With that in mind... I don't think we have reached the point of "good enough" just yet. Almost. But not yet.

The amount of pixels that you can discern does vary depending on display size, display quality, your eye quality (You can actually exceed 20/20 vision) and distance from the display.

Eagle367 said:

Some games and animations already feel life-like as is. What are they gonna look more real than the real world around me? I mean I ask whether 4k movies and games are not enough even though they have barely caught on as is. Also how much resolution can the human eye register. Can we even without kidding ourselves tell the difference between 4k 8k and a possible 16k


Well. To be fair... We haven't technically "saturated" even 720P yet, games still don't look photo-realistic even at 720P, let alone 1080P or 4k.
Resolution is only part of the equation for better image quality.




--::{PC Gaming Master Race}::--

How about 1080p 60FPS first!



palou said:
I'm personally of the opinion that 2k is already more than the medium requires... Soaring development costs are holding back the industry.

This ^

And my  dislike for changeing TV's too often (expense I dont want) and the adoption rate times for new higher res TV's.

I hope 4k becomes the defacto standard and lasts 10+ years or something.



Imo, stable frame rate is much more important than 60fps or resoluton



Around the Network
m_csquare said:
Imo, stable frame rate is much more important than 60fps or resoluton

agreed!



We should have had 60fps standard before even going for 4k.



The next graphics card I get will have to be 1080p @120fps... 4k? It would be nice but framerate is what gives games their best foot forward.



Feel free to check out my stream on twitch 

I do not think 4K is even required. Moreover I would take more gfx affects over resolution.