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%
 
Total:88
curl-6 said:

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



Around the Network
Mr Puggsly said:
Peh said:

The higher the resolution the higher the details: 

 

Agreed...

But for that picture you posted to make sense it would be Batman's face from a great distance. Do we really that level of clarity from something far from the screen? Maybe on a massive screen its nice and noticeable, but you couldn't really notice it on an average living room TV? Not really.

For example, we can already see enemies far off in the distance in a 720p game, in 1080p that distant enemy become more clear and crisp, but do I really need 4K to see his tiny face a little more clear? I'm not sure if that's gonna make a big difference on the enjoyment of the game.

Resolution certainly matters, but there is diminishing returns. I mean I would like to see a game on the X1X that pushes the full 6TF on cutting edge graphics over 4K.

I have both, a 27inch monitor and a 55inch TV in 4k.

A big factor for noticing details is the size of the display and distance towards it. I am sitting way closer to my monitor than the TV. I also have a 1440p monitor at the same size. The difference between both is, that the image is way sharper on the 4k one. 3D games, even old ones, really do take advantage of a higher res. Not that the texture quality enhances, but the aliasing gets less noticeable. 

For games with a high texture quality and lots of geometry in it the image feels crowded and messy on lower resolutions. So, at a certain point, you won't notice even higher details being added to the game since there is not enough room on the display to present it.

Where 4k really shines are games with very detailed environments like Assassins Creed Odyssey. But also a game like Rage looks very stunning in 4k.

 

Well, it doesn't have to be details on a tiny little face, but in BF5 it helps to spot an enemy in the distance and so it will be way easier in 8k.

 

Bofferbrauer2 said:
Peh said:

The higher the resolution the higher the details: 

In theory, yes

In practice, the higher resolution costs so much power and space that often texture quality has to be reduced at the same time, thus, while having more details than HD for instance, 4k often doesn't look nearly as great as it's supposed to be.

Also, if your Screen/Monitor is too small, the increase in resolution will be barely discernible, while getting higher detail textures will be much more visible. Just look at the picture and you see just how much they had to zoom in to make the difference obvious.

Not just theory. It's a simple fact.

 

I don't take processing power into the discussion, because people already had this exact discussion arguing between 720p and 1080p several years ago.

We will still see this on 4k vs 8k. It will go on until our retina won't see a difference.

 

"Also, if your Screen/Monitor is too small, the increase in resolution will be barely discernible, while getting higher detail textures will be much more visible."

 

This sentence doesn't make sense. How can you see higher texture detail with less resolution? The resolution detemines how much you can see. Take Batmans eye for example. Would a higher textured eye give more details to that picture? It's a no on both screens. But on 4k we don't have to zoom in further to see it since it is 4 times the resolution of 1080p.

 

 

 

JRPGfan said:
Peh said:

The higher the resolution the higher the details: 

^ thats some marketing BS stuff, and not real.

 

 

This is the "real" thing:

PS4pro (set to running 1080p):

vs

Xbox One X (4k):

 

In alot of games the difference isnt that great.
Fornite being a prime exsample of this.

No, no marketing BS. That's just a fact. 4k is four times the resolution of 1080p. Or to say it differently, I could place 4 1080 screens on one 4k display without a loss in information in relation to 4 1080 display. I could post some screens of my own if you really want to see the difference. I sadly don't have a 1080p display at home, so the upscaler would fill the missing pixels.



Intel Core i7 8700K | 32 GB DDR 4 PC 3200 | ROG STRIX Z370-F Gaming | Nvidia RTX 2080 Ti 11GB VRAM | Asus PG27UQ gaming on 3840 x 2160 @120 Hz GSYNC HDR| HTC Vive Pro :3

Reached PC master race level.

Fortnite is a 1440p game on PS4 Pro.



720p is fine for the Switch but it can feel a little rough on my PC, though 900p is more than enough for me. Xenoblade 2's undocked low resolution makes it basically unplayable.
So I'm not particularly picky and I value solid framerate above all, but I do move with the times.

And I'd definitely choose resolution over details.

Last edited by Moren - on 02 December 2018

Detail and resolution go together, the poll makes no sense. All depends on the games you play.  Try getting this detail and draw distance in 1080p.                                                                                                                



Around the Network
morenoingrato said:

720p is fine for the Switch but it can feel a little rough on my PC, though 900p is more than enough for me. Xenoblade 2's undocked low resolution makes it basically unplayable.
So I'm not particularly picky and I value solid framerate above all, but I do move with the times.

And I'd definitely choose resolution over details.

Is this GTA5 in the first pic? Can't remember seeing a draw distance like that.

 

2nd one is Kingdom Come: Deliverence and it looks great in 4k.



Intel Core i7 8700K | 32 GB DDR 4 PC 3200 | ROG STRIX Z370-F Gaming | Nvidia RTX 2080 Ti 11GB VRAM | Asus PG27UQ gaming on 3840 x 2160 @120 Hz GSYNC HDR| HTC Vive Pro :3

Reached PC master race level.

Resolution has been pretty irrelevant in my experience.

Honestly, I would take a Nintendo Switch with a 480P (or even 240P) screen if it meant a bunch more mid-budget games getting made (shorter development time, lower budgets needed for modeling/textures/etc.) and taking more risks with more novel/niche ideas.

Indies are great on the Switch, but so so many of those fall quite short of the mid-budget cool/quirky stuff we used to get in the PS1/PS2 days; MOST NOTABLY, in terms of those games having game worlds crafted with fine care at a much larger scale and scope, etc.

Nowadays, my priorities are: Portability > Controller Inputs > How Much I enjoy the gameplay/art direction/game world/content/scope/scale/music/sounds/etc. > Load Times/Install Times > Framerates > Animations > Visual Effects > Texture Quality > Polygon Count > Resolution

They all are part of a video game, sure, but I find investing in larger pixel counts (and the much higher texturing/modeling/etc. cost that gets pushed along with it) is usually pretty superfluous; such resources and time is much, much, much better spent on expanding the rest of the game's elements.



Peh said:
morenoingrato said:

720p is fine for the Switch but it can feel a little rough on my PC, though 900p is more than enough for me. Xenoblade 2's undocked low resolution makes it basically unplayable.
So I'm not particularly picky and I value solid framerate above all, but I do move with the times.

And I'd definitely choose resolution over details.

Is this GTA5 in the first pic? Can't remember seeing a draw distance like that.

 

2nd one is Kingdom Come: Deliverence and it looks great in 4k.

Both GTA V and KCD  are 4k. Both are maxed (draw distance) beyond default sliders, GTA V with edited settings files, and KCD with console commands (CryEngine). One of the joys of pc gaming.



I can definitely tell the difference between 720p and 1080p, so it definitely matters if you simply look at it like that.
However, I will gladly take a resolution hit if it means a more stable framerate and/or other graphical improvements.



curl-6 said:

It got me thinking; is more pixels really the best way to spend limited rendering resources?

Generally I am a PC gamer, so "limited resources" isn't a thing.

So... Yes. More resolution.

In consoles though, there is a balance where the hardware has enough bandwidth/fillrate to hit various resolutions. For the Playstation 4 that seems to be around 900P-1080P, Xbox One... Around 720-900P.

KLXVER said:
Resolution is just something PC gamers use to act superior...

Don't forget console gamers beat the resolution drum as well... ResolutionGate at the start of the 8th gen being a prime example where the Xbox was trolled into oblivion due to it's plethora of 720P titles.

And why can't we use it as a selling point? If the PC is capable of handling 11,520x2160 and a console is struggling to maintain 1280x720... Isn't it worth of mention? In that aspect the PC is clearly superior, no contest.

CGI-Quality said:
Overrated? No. However, I think people should slow down a bit an absorb the individual details contained in lower solutions. For instance, although most of my personal 3D work is rendered in 8K, I find the sweet spot for gaming to be 1440p/144Hz. Very few games take advantage of the higher fidelity, so there's no need to go gaga over 4K. It looks fabulous, don't get me wrong, but it's just a bit more than needed at the moment.

Higher hertz is much more of a priority for me.

Same. I prefer downsampling from 4k to 1440P. It provides an amazing image that is a step up from 1080P, but still allows you to have all the bells and whistles turned on.

Refresh rates have a direct impact on gameplay as well.

Mr Puggsly said:

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.

I am at that point where I think 1080P looks rather dated.
All my devices are 1440P or better for that exact reason, literally put my money where my mouth is.

Mr Puggsly said:

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.

The ironic thing is that during the 7th gen... My debates with console gamers generally resulted in a downplaying of resolution and anisotropic filtering... It's nice that it's gaining more prominence now that the masses have gotten a small taste of it.

Mr Puggsly said:

Even if you have an expensive PC video card, you can't always get 4K, 60 (or higher) fps and the highest graphics settings.

Compromises are made and I think the average consumer is fine with 1080p for higher graphics settings and performance.

You lower your settings... Even lowered PC settings at 4k will often still beat the consoles anyway in terms of fidelity and clarity.

ironmanDX said:
In the sense that they're the most important factor in image quality? Yes.
Resolution is still quite important though. I'd take 1440p with better visual effects over 4k.

I think most people would. Quad-High Definition (1440P) is a big step up over 1080P, yet still affordable where you can dial up all the visuals.

manuelogando40 said:
It depends. At the beginning of the generation the resolution was the most important thing.
After the output of xbox one x, the resolution is no longer important.

Resolution has always been important. ~ PC Gamers.
PC gamers had the option of 4k~ back in 2001.
PC gamer had the option of 1080P back in 1995.

And 1440P has been around for donkey's and is super affordable now.

KBG29 said:

Devs need to offer options in all games going forward on PS5/XB4.

Wouldnt you be better off just buying a PC then?

o_O.Q said:

 

 

...but seriously as a long time console gamer who transitioned to pc gaming over the last year or so with a fairly powerful pc, the difference having higher resolutions and framerates (especially) makes to the gaming experience is amazing

i can't go back now, when i see stuff in 30 frames on console it hurts my eyes now and low resolutions make everything look so blocky

Welcome to the #PCGamingMasterRace. May all your games be good ones.

trent44 said:
Resolution has been pretty irrelevant in my experience.

Honestly, I would take a Nintendo Switch with a 480P (or even 240P) screen if it meant a bunch more mid-budget games getting made (shorter development time, lower budgets needed for modeling/textures/etc.) and taking more risks with more novel/niche ideas.

Resolution has zero effect on a games budget directly
It literally takes a few seconds to edit a configuration file to swap between 240P and 4k... The cost is building assets to shine at a higher resolution, but a developer isn't obligated to do that. - In-fact allot of games during the 7th gen had high frequency texturing anyway, which actually shines at higher resolutions... Which is why allot of Xbox One X backwards compat titles in 4k can start to look like a massive step up. (Final Fantasy 13 for example)

A Nintendo DS game upscaled to 4k on PC can look leagues better than the DS.

Last edited by Pemalite - on 02 December 2018

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