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

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Anyone else feel resolution is overrated?


I prefer...

Resolution over detail/effects 23 26.14%
Detail/effects over resolution 65 73.86%

I frankly couldn't care less about resolution. Framerate is more important

Around the Network

It's definitely overrated. While there is a noticeable difference in resolutions depending on screen size and viewing distance from the screen, you still get a more noticeable difference with increased graphical effects and detail. We have reached the point of diminishing returns now on resolution, where the extra processing power needed to reach higher resolutions is huge, and better spent elsewhere. 

Conina said:
curl-6 said:

So I'm replaying Alan Wake on the 360 at the moment, in glorious 960x540, and it strikes me; this game still looks great.

Obviously the PC version is the way to go for Alan Wake since it beats the 360-version in every aspect by miles (resolution + framerate + effects + viewing distance + no screen tearing)

The PC version was one of a kind. It literally destroyed the console version in every way. Resolution also made a massive difference, because you could experience the game with all of the art in its original clarity.

Ultimately, 4K isn't necessary for the best looking games, but resolution still remains an important aspect of visual technology.  It certainly isn't overrated. Next gen consoles should go with a base res of 1440p and push as much detail on screen as possible (the jump is going to be noticeable either way, trust me), but with the Pro and X, that idea is now tossed. 


1080p is great. It should be the standard, but if the hardware can only do 1080p by sacrificing effects and texture quality then then no, lower the resolution.

PS4(PS5 Soon)and PC gaming

There's only 2 races: White and 'Political Agenda'
2 Genders: Male and 'Political Agenda'
2 Hairstyles for female characters: Long and 'Political Agenda'
2 Sexualities: Straight and 'Political Agenda'

I use to think that 1080p should be the ceiling, until I saw stuff in 8K that literally crush it. Sure, for most people, they may not notice the difference, but if you work with image quality on a daily basis, you know the differences are massive. Hell, you can just be a PC gamer with access to higher resolutions, or someone rich enough to afford the latest TVs to know the differences are substantial. "Diminishing returns" is something I hear a lot (especially when it comes to graphics - where people simply don't get that we're nowhere close to a graphical ceiling), but it's not as simple as that. Resolution is in a similar boat. It's not cheap to upgrade to 4K, and 8K won't be a standard for many years to come, so I understand why it's intimidating. However, the technology speaks for itself if you know what to look for.

EDIT: Other things to keep in mind (or learn about) are rendering paths and original sources. If something was originally rendered in 4K, it will look best in 4K. And, not just talking resolution. 4K imagery, for example, is 3840x2160. But, let's use a character model's (aka as a canvas in the art world) textures or even environment planes (Battlefront II is the best recent example of extremely high texture maps). Most modern video game characters use up to 2K (2048x2048) texture maps. Experienced artists in the 3D world use between that and 4K (4096x4096 - which is what my character models use). The absolute pros use 8K (8192x8192) and on occasion 16K (16,384x16,384 - but this is a ridiculous memory hog and impractical for even the most advanced operations in 2018). 

Now, let's say I want to see my 4K (4096x4096) art in its intended form. If I bog it down behind a lower resolution (we'll say Full HD), I can't really receive what was put in. Yes, super sampling makes for some cleaner edges/high IQ, but you still aren't seeing the game in its true form and certainly not as good as it would be were it in a higher resolution. That's why a lot of older games getting "bumped" to 4K look so magnificent. If the game's assets were already low (ex: 512x512 or 1024x1024), however, while you will get a slightly cleaner image, it may remain an ugly game. But even then, the upped resolution will do it some justice. However, in the PC world, a lot of folks add additional detail to older games (the PS2 era Silent Hill titles are the best examples of detail + res updates that almost make them look like they came from the 7th gen).

Now, is it resource hungry? Expensive? You betcha! If you want the current best, you're gonna pay the premium. Plus, with 8K textures, for example, it will gobble up VRAM in no time flat (even faster than higher poly counts). It is more about necessity than ratings. The higher the resolution, the better the detail/IQ. That's just science. It really depends on what your needs (and budget) are.

Last edited by CGI-Quality - on 02 December 2018


Around the Network

Since I discovered that the most beautiful game I've played this year (Spider-Man) is sometimes around 900p on the PS4 Slim, I couldn't care less about resolution.

"Quagmire, are you the type of guy who takes 'no' for an answer ?"
"My lawyer doesn't allow me to answer that question"

PSN ID: skmblake | Feel free to add me

Resolution does make a difference (that glorious, razor sharp 4k), but if devs prioritize res over fps, then yes, it's overrated.

Mr Puggsly said:
Hiku said:

Some times when I look at things in 720p, mainly videos, the blurry text can bother me and prompt me to change the settings to a higher resolution. But that's different from gaming, since a lower resolution of a video wouldn't produce a native image, which can cause it to be more blurry.
When it comes to games 720p is usually just fine. And anything beyond 1080p is unnecessary to me at this point.

I think 1080p is always gonna look good. We're just at point where going above 1080p is easy with affordable specs. I mean its matter what looks sharp to the human eye and 1080p is just that.

Although the nice thing about games running natively above 1080p is the improved visuals on that same 1080p screen. I'm referring to super sampling and it creates an overall better image even if you don't want to upgrade your display resolution. 16x anisotropic filtering is also great for improving the clarity of textures.

Essentially 1080p is that sweet spot resolution that will always be crisp to the human eye and we can still see improvements of higher native resolution and post processing effects. 4K will become the new standard eventually, but its not as crucial at the jump from 480p or even 720p.

Yeah, I feel that way as well. Though if you use significantly bigger screens, higher resolution can be needed to maintain that same crisp sweetspot.
But there's also a limit to how much space we have in our rooms for such larger screens, so some people will never get to that point.

Barkley said:
JRPGfan said:
^ thats some marketing BS stuff, and not real.

Those fortnite picks are BS. The XBO X runs the game dynamically from 1152p to 1728p. The PS4 Pro runs dynamically from 900p to 1080p.

Why are both those images 1152p? Because they shrunk the XBO X image down to it's worst possible resolution, and scaled up PS4 Pro for comparison.

The PS4 Pro image should be scaled up to the same size as the XBO X for comparison, but the XBO X image should not be shrunk down at all.

If the XBO X was actually rendering at 1152p in that scene they took a screenshot of, then they chose the worst possible scene for comparison, again to make the PlayStation look good, and makes using it as a comparison for "4k vs 1080p" completely useless, as those images are comparing 1152p vs 1080p, not 2160p vs 1080p.

The site I took it from, was compairing them to one another, and had them labled as 1080 for the PS4pro, and 4k for the xbox one x.

curl-6 said:

So I'm replaying Alan Wake on the 360 at the moment, in glorious 960x540