Why so few games in 1080p?
- Thread starter bossdirge
- Start date
Recommended Videos
<.<Xzi said:No doubt, but that's not something you normally have to worry about. Especially not on consoles.LegendaryGamer0 said:<.<Xzi said:LegendaryGamer0 said:Because consoles can't really handle resource demanding games in 1080p. Better to lower the resolution and have a smoother game than jack it up to 1080p and have it run like shite.
Hell, until 3 or so weeks ago, I use to game on an 11 inch Emerson in 480i. With Mono sound. Left speaker only. With a fucking VCR built in. That didn't work. While playing a foot away from the screen.
Now, I play on a 37 inch 1080p VIZIO. Happy with it, have seen tiny little details in games I have not seen before. Able to tell in Bro Company 2 that the objective says A, B, C and D. But, if it randomly exploded on me, I would proudly go back to my old TV. I grew up on small screens. It is a part of the gaming legacy.
Whatever happened to enjoying the game? ;~;Yup...Xzi said:
When it comes at the cost of performance, I'd rather have the graphics take a shit. <.<
You're kidding, right?
Your giant, throbbing PC favoritism is starting to get on my nerves. Yes PC's are a great platform but when you go blurting out 'PC's are the best gaming platform' people who've played consoles for most of their life........ don't really give a shit. PC gaming is expensive and is always advancing and to be truly good at keeping up you have to be an enthusiast. Console gaming is just simpler, often cheaper and have graphics that can get the job done. So what if my framerates aren't as high as yours? So what if I can't see that leaf in the wind from 1000 miles away?FranBunnyFFXII said:
If there's one thing about console gaming it's that you don't think your gaming platform of choice is superior to all others, you just want people to shut up so you can enjoy it.
Okay then:FranBunnyFFXII said:
You clearly stated that PC's are better. Better than what I wonder? I'm gonna go out on a leg here and say consoles cause they're the only two horses in this race. Therefore you were clearly saying that PC's are better than the alternative (consoles) and are therefore better best choice. (I'm not twisting your words, just showing you the deeper meaning)FranBunnyFFXII said:
Friend, I wouldn't be able to do any worse than you considering its only your first week.FranBunnyFFXII said:
FranBunnyFFXII said:
You can't stop console wars but while I see 360 vs. PS3 all the time, it's never surprising to see people calming everything is inferior to the PC.
For your sake, I suggest not taking a gamble. It could turn out bad for you. Trust me when I say getting banned is nothing to laugh about.FranBunnyFFXII said:
Would it really hurt to say something nice about the 360 or PS3? In console wars (at least here on Th Escapist) people tend to explain the advantages and disadvantages of each while I see you and plenty of others not even considering that there's anything good about console gaming. Just, say something nice about console gaming instead of spouting the regular bullshit about why PC's are the best. Compare and contrast reasons why people prefer their platform of choice and maybe you'll see what I'm getting at.
I like my 720p console games. :] Maybe that's from my small TV.
Then again, I've never been a huge tech guy. I mean, I can surely appreciate new advances in gaming and electronic tech, which sometimes make me drop my jaw, but it's never been at the forefront of what I look for in my games (or systems).
Also, if you happen to be raging at someone for preferring a different system (no names mentioned here), take a step back and think about how incredible it really is that there is even room for disagreement there. You're arguing about which little box full of wires and metal (that can fit on a desk) will make the picture on your other box full of lights and metal (that is on the same desk) look the best.
Really?
But maybe I'm just old-fashioned.
Then again, I've never been a huge tech guy. I mean, I can surely appreciate new advances in gaming and electronic tech, which sometimes make me drop my jaw, but it's never been at the forefront of what I look for in my games (or systems).
Also, if you happen to be raging at someone for preferring a different system (no names mentioned here), take a step back and think about how incredible it really is that there is even room for disagreement there. You're arguing about which little box full of wires and metal (that can fit on a desk) will make the picture on your other box full of lights and metal (that is on the same desk) look the best.
Really?
But maybe I'm just old-fashioned.
Huh. The last part of that was about him quoting me on what's 'wrong' but whatever.FranBunnyFFXII said:
http://xkcd.com/732/
What? Someone had to...
Anyway, 720p is fine, if you want higher res go get a PC.
In the meantime, I'm going to go play games, rather then argue about which resolution is best or the reasons for them not being used (hint: this gen of consoles were designed with 2005-ish specs) , because that doesn't matter aslong as the game is compeling and good with decent game mechanics.
This post must be gold plated. Nao.tehbeard said:
http://xkcd.com/732/
What? Someone had to...
Anyway, 720p is fine, if you want higher res go get a PC.
In the meantime, I'm going to go play games, rather then argue about which resolution is best or the reasons for them not being used (hint: this gen of consoles were designed with 2005-ish specs) , because that doesn't matter aslong as the game is compeling and good with decent game mechanics.
It's a conditional fact, the condition being the strength of your PC. I have a PC that barely runs Shogun 2 on the very lowest settings and overheats all the time. I have this PC because I can't afford a new one, or to replace parts of it. This paying your own way stuff is a ***** when it comes to tech...Korten12 said:
What I'm saying is that while consoles are a constant and will dependably play games you put in them, your PC requires upgrades fairly regularly to get the best out of it. So saying "PC's are better, FACT" is a false statement, because even PCs released at the same time can be of vastly different quality.
That said, a top of the line PC will always ALWAYS outperform the consoles of the time.
And this...
[http://s4.photobucket.com/albums/y133/Jonbob/?action=view¤t=Whatthefuck.jpg]
Seriously captcha, what the fuck?
:edit: I'd like to proudly state that I got that captcha right!
Ever heard of Operation renigger?Jonabob87 said:
That Probably is why you got it right. Look it up sometimes.
[link]http://funnyjunk.com/funny_pictures/1019304/Operation+ReNigger/[/link]
Anyway, the XKCD comic pasted by tehbeard said enough.
My 2 cents.
Consoles don't have the GPU horsepower for 1080p. Period. Less resolution is much easier on the GPU, so console games pretty much have to be 720p to look good.
On PC gaming, of course, resolution is whatever you want it to be. All my games are 1080p... so...
And as a last comment, about that HDTV thing. First off, a true HDTV IS 1080p. 1080i/720p are not true HDTV, but of course they do get advertised as HD anyway because they just want your money. 1080p is only better on a PC monitor because the pixel density is much higher. Small screen with same amount of pixels... obvious, right? So yes you'll get a sharper image on a monitor (for example I have a 40" 1080p TV and a 24" 1080p monitor. I tried plugging my PC into my TV once, and I couldn't read text!)
Anyway real gamers use 2560x1600.
(sarcasm)
Consoles don't have the GPU horsepower for 1080p. Period. Less resolution is much easier on the GPU, so console games pretty much have to be 720p to look good.
On PC gaming, of course, resolution is whatever you want it to be. All my games are 1080p... so...
And as a last comment, about that HDTV thing. First off, a true HDTV IS 1080p. 1080i/720p are not true HDTV, but of course they do get advertised as HD anyway because they just want your money. 1080p is only better on a PC monitor because the pixel density is much higher. Small screen with same amount of pixels... obvious, right? So yes you'll get a sharper image on a monitor (for example I have a 40" 1080p TV and a 24" 1080p monitor. I tried plugging my PC into my TV once, and I couldn't read text!)
Anyway real gamers use 2560x1600.
(sarcasm)
Well that's my sense of achievement crushedmonkey_man said:
That's insane. What exactly are they using the other word for? I read through the whole thing but I can't work out what it's being used for...
:edit: Oh I get it, the other words generate the actual word you need to type in.
THE GOVERNEMENT IS USiNG T TO CONTROL YOUUUUUUJonabob87 said:Well that's my sense of achievement crushedmonkey_man said:
That's insane. What exactly are they using the other word for? I read through the whole thing but I can't work out what it's being used for...
in all seriousness, I do not know
Here is something to read. 720p is the HD standard for TV.
http://reviews.cnet.com/hdtv-resolution/
Here is a quote:
True 1080p is restricted to Blu-ray, some video-on-demand sources and the latest video games, however, and none of the major networks has announced 1080p broadcasts.
http://reviews.cnet.com/hdtv-resolution/
Here is a quote:
True 1080p is restricted to Blu-ray, some video-on-demand sources and the latest video games, however, and none of the major networks has announced 1080p broadcasts.
Pretty much. You also have to factor in the amount of time developers spent optimising their code. If they just spit the code out, it's not going to run well, regardless of platform. Sadly, not many developers give a damn about optimising these days.Danceofmasks said:
So I don't have to spend money to upgrade my rig every 3-5 years and just desire to play a game?Xzi said:Not at all. What's the point of buying a standardized platform if you don't get generally favorable and stable frame rates? I've never had unacceptably low frame rates on my Xbox 360 running at the highest resolutions that these games support, but that's because developers know to drop the quality settings to a level it can handle.LegendaryGamer0 said:<.<Xzi said:No doubt, but that's not something you normally have to worry about. Especially not on consoles.LegendaryGamer0 said:<.<Xzi said:LegendaryGamer0 said:Because consoles can't really handle resource demanding games in 1080p. Better to lower the resolution and have a smoother game than jack it up to 1080p and have it run like shite.
Hell, until 3 or so weeks ago, I use to game on an 11 inch Emerson in 480i. With Mono sound. Left speaker only. With a fucking VCR built in. That didn't work. While playing a foot away from the screen.
Now, I play on a 37 inch 1080p VIZIO. Happy with it, have seen tiny little details in games I have not seen before. Able to tell in Bro Company 2 that the objective says A, B, C and D. But, if it randomly exploded on me, I would proudly go back to my old TV. I grew up on small screens. It is a part of the gaming legacy.
Whatever happened to enjoying the game? ;~;Yup...Xzi said:
When it comes at the cost of performance, I'd rather have the graphics take a shit. <.<
You're kidding, right?
Then again, I've never played games like Alpha Protocol, New Vegas, or Metro 2033 on my console either...those I always reserve for the PC.
Define "unacceptably" low. Are we talking extreme stutter or "Holy Shit, is this game even running?"?
I reserve those for consoles. When I get them, that is.
I don't mind consoles at all, convenient things they are.
It's just a fact that when games are developed for a console, they're just going to be limited in some way.
Some games are pure genius in the way they tackle their limitations, and turn out amazing.
For other games, however ... for the sake of performance you can often end up playing in a cardboard box.
Yes, call of duty, I'm talking to you.
Now, if the devs already decided that tiny maps and a relatively small # of maximum players are acceptable sacrifices to make, going 1080p is downright idiotic.
Battlefield 3 is going to have a 64 player limit on PC .. and a 24 player limit on consoles.
Why? Because they can. They want a battlefield ... so ... their grand vision requires development for PC.
Sure, if you just want to run around and shoot people, the console versions are fine.
(Actually, I have concerns about 64 player battles actually working with any semblance of order .. and small battles might provide the better gaming experience .. especially if your PC can't actually handle the bigger map, but it's nice to have options, y'know?)
Also, load times.
I hate the ridiculous load times for consoles.
My PC is well ventilated and has nice power saving features, so ... I never turn it off.
I get upset if any game ever takes more than 10 seconds to load.
10 seconds.
(Fuck you Civilization 5, you poorly coded piece of garbage, never mind load times, 30+ seconds per turn is retarded. I'm not playing you again until I build my 5GHz Ivy Bridge in November)
It's just a fact that when games are developed for a console, they're just going to be limited in some way.
Some games are pure genius in the way they tackle their limitations, and turn out amazing.
For other games, however ... for the sake of performance you can often end up playing in a cardboard box.
Yes, call of duty, I'm talking to you.
Now, if the devs already decided that tiny maps and a relatively small # of maximum players are acceptable sacrifices to make, going 1080p is downright idiotic.
Battlefield 3 is going to have a 64 player limit on PC .. and a 24 player limit on consoles.
Why? Because they can. They want a battlefield ... so ... their grand vision requires development for PC.
Sure, if you just want to run around and shoot people, the console versions are fine.
(Actually, I have concerns about 64 player battles actually working with any semblance of order .. and small battles might provide the better gaming experience .. especially if your PC can't actually handle the bigger map, but it's nice to have options, y'know?)
Also, load times.
I hate the ridiculous load times for consoles.
My PC is well ventilated and has nice power saving features, so ... I never turn it off.
I get upset if any game ever takes more than 10 seconds to load.
10 seconds.
(Fuck you Civilization 5, you poorly coded piece of garbage, never mind load times, 30+ seconds per turn is retarded. I'm not playing you again until I build my 5GHz Ivy Bridge in November)