OlasDAlmighty said:
I'm calling bullshit to this right off the bat. I never have the graphics "blown up" when I game because that makes it look TERRIBLE. And for your information my TV's native resolution is 720p and NO the pixels on it are not "millimeters across", nor can you make them out unless you're standing only a few away from it.
The idea that 720p is so terrible that you actually have to squint to see anything is laughable, considering I've been playing games on devices with far lower resolutions all my life with zero difficulty.
It seems obvious that you don't actually use non HD monitors in your day to day life, which makes me wonder why you're lecturing me on them. I know what I'm talking about.
Screen resolution matters A LOT when the game has high resolution textures. This being consoles, of course it wont have high resolution texures, so you will be watching a 360p resolution image on 1080p resolution rendering. and hence why you will fail to see a difference. would the game textures actually be high enough, the difference is HUGE.
Which is why I don't get why people care about the resolution only being 720p. If anything the game looks worse with higher resolutions because you can see the shitty 360p textures more easily.
And we are not talking asthetics. we are talking quality. higher resolution gives higher quality image. there is no discussion about it.
This is purely semantics. The word "quality" in this case is simply the word being used to describe the resolution. It doesn't mean anything else. I's not meant to imply the actual visual itself is better or worse. Shitty graphics look shitty at any "quality", and only look shittier when that quality is increased more and more.
Astheticso n the other hand are subjective and the only thing you can do about it is hire the artist yourself. other than that you will have to deal with what you have. Computer power will not improve asthetics becuase that is not measured by how pwoerful your computer is. Altrouh high resolution textures could i guess, when rocks start looking like rocks and not grey blobs id say asthetics improve.
When I say aesthetics, I'm not talking about choice of colors and shapes. I'm talking about higher polycounts, better textures, better lighting and partical effects, more realistic animations. These are all things that more computing power can improve.
You never have graphics blown up? Well i guess at least nwo we know your exclusively PC gamer then. Because both current consoles and mobiles do that to pretend to be higher resolution.
Your TV being native 720 must be quite small if you are unable to see seperate pixels on it.
You have been playing on lower resolutions does not mean it hasnt been enlarged though. You can strech low graphics over larger surface area. you can make a 120x78 game run in 1080 but it will still look 120x78. You can game on that wouthout difficulty when the developers are anticipating this, and thats why low rsolutio gaming worked, however the visual difference between that and real HD is quite large.
Both my laptop and my monitor at work do not support full HD. i know how it looks, dont worry about that.
People care about he reolution being only 720p, because they are hoping that high resolutions would force the developers to use higher resolution textures. i mean for example for Skyrim we had an official high res texture mod.
Quality does mean quite a few things, such as implying there is no scream tering, no bluryvision, no overlaying pixels (in some models there was ap roblem where the plasma in the screen didnt cool fast enough and you would see previuos frame for some pixels, making moving picture look bad) and plenty of other kinks that are worked out behind the scenes and the average user does not even know about. V-sync exists as easy solution for some, hardware enchantments needed for others, ect.
Shitty graphics implies lack of quality in itself. What you actually meant was graphics that you find unpleasant. An easy example here would be "brown military shooter". many people think it looks bad ect, which is their personal taste. obviuosly, there are enough people that like that looks, as they keep buying these games. It isnt worse in quality, its a matter of asthetics, which ends up in personal taste. Being brown or colourful does not depends on resolution either. Why did you involve this into this discussion i do not know.
Polycounts, texture resolution is part of quality from software side, it is not asthetics though. polygons do not equal "emoshions" despite what one particular industry person woudl have you believe. Asthetics are your personal look of whether the game looks pleasant, and that often has nothing to do with technical side of it. What you counted as asthetics are all software side stuff that can only benefot from higher resolution, but do not have to use it (and thus we result in low resolutino tectures displayed on high resolution screens). Yes, more computing pwoers can imporve these things. However there is a thing here, you cant increase this above the lelve of display resolution (well, technically you can, but you wont be able to see it), thus display resolution must come first, and these things must raise to that level. Now that doesnt really apply to animations since that is a beast on its own, unless they involve movement so sbutle that it would fall between pixels in low resolutions (which was the case in early days of gaming, not really the case anymore).