Xbox Head: Not Every Game Should Be 1080P

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
I was going to make a crack about console makers acting like 1080P is the maximum resolution for games but I know my PC gamer brethren will do that for me in the comments. ;)

"We announced that Destiny will have the same resolution and frame rate on Xbox One as PS4. Reaching parity with our partners has been important," Spencer told CVG. "Frame rate to me is significantly more important to gameplay than resolution and the mix of those two which brings the right art style and freedom, whether it's on PlayStation or our platform."
Click to expand...
 
Spencer pointed out that Sony has picked a resolution other than 1080p for PS4 exclusive The Order 1886, a decision that the developers say is intended to make the game look more cinematic.
Click to expand...

Wow, you can't even make this stuff up. What the fuck were these shitty console companies thinking when they developed these consoles? They didn't realize that 1080p was the standard?

I would not be surprised if the PS5 or Xbox Two (or Xbox Master Chief, whatever the fuck they're going to call it) couldn't even do 1080p.
 
A lot of words to say very little. On one hand we have developers claiming that resolution is a magic number and using lower resolution values can make games look "more cinematic", and on the other we have developers claiming that framerate is a magic number and using lower FPS values can make games look "more filmic". Instead of just having the balls to come out and say "We can't get 1080p/60fps/good settings on this hardware so we have to make sacrifices in one, both, or all three, and we've chosen to go with X/Y/Z. Sorry, no options."
 
While its fun to rip on console about resolution you won't get 1080P solid 60fps out of a PC for $400 to $500 bucks either and then be able to use that machine for the next five years plus without a single hardware upgrade.

Ive upgraded gpus I can't count how many times since 2005 just to play at that 1080p/60 minimum.
 
I heard a rumor that PC games let you turn off things like anti-aliasing so you can maintain performance even with lower-spec hardware.
 
Megalith said:
I heard a rumor that PC games let you turn off things like anti-aliasing so you can maintain performance even with lower-spec hardware.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I really don't get why they don't let you change the gfx settings on consoles. Let the gamer choose whether they want to sacrifice graphic quality for resolution and framerate. We've only been doing this on pc for, oh I dunno, 20 years...
 
I guess I reword it better: The issue is one of disguising the issue.

They try to make it sound like "900p" can look better than "1080p" simply because it's 900p and that itself can look better than 1080p. This brings the attention of the user away from the power of the console and tries to convince the public that higher resolutions aren't better than lower resolutions with all other things being equal.

Instead of saying 900p can look better than 1080p because it allows them to adjust FPS and graphic settings. It's not the lower resolution causing the game to "look better", it's the adjustment of the ratio of Res/FPS/Settings. Unfortunately this would highlight that higher resolution is better and some sacrifice had to be made due to the hardware or the game requirements.
 
RealityCrunch said:
Instead of saying 900p can look better than 1080p because it allows them to adjust FPS and graphic settings. It's not the lower resolution causing the game to "look better", it's the adjustment of the ratio of Res/FPS/Settings.
Click to expand...

That's too complicated for a console gamer to understand, if the head of xbox says 900p is better than 1080p than it must be true.
 
The reality is the console makers lost large amounts of money last generation. That means this time they had to be conservative. Even now they don't make much profit from the boxes. If they included more hardware, it would be in the $500-$600 range and you can ask sony how successful that was.
 
I uses to be hardcore FPS junkie, as in getting max frames per second. Most games I tried to optimize it for over 100fps if it dropped under 70fps in I would find out why and tweet it some more and of cause at the max settings.

One thing that i did that fixed the problems was turn off the FPS counter and enjoyed the dam game.

The new consoles are way better then the last ones. If you like Xbox get Xbox if you like PS then get a PS. If you want the best you can get get a dam PC. It is what it is deal with it.
 
Damn right not every game should be 1080p when they have to go through 32 megs of esRAM while still having the requirement to make for pretty screenshots when they are large-publisher titles.

Try P.T. on the PS4 (free on the store), they cut internal rendering size, effects, textures, filtering, frame-rate freaking everything down hard to make it look like the surprise indie horror title they had intended until somebody managed to finish it early and teach the internet it was a Silent Hills teaser. It looks like that and grainy but good enough to make even horror-game haters clench the ringpiece.

It's in the game engines and the work put forth and Fox Engine stands on top. A great demonstration that you don't need 1x1 pixel rendering to make something utterly amazing and immersive.

1886 looks like a freaking CG dream and renders at 1x1 pixel size (1080p with black bars cropping to 1920x800) but does it need that level of sharpness? Not really, but I'm okay with it being there.
 
I've been gaming at 1440p on the PC for well over a year now and I don't see how I could go back to 720p. For the living room 1080p should be a minimum target. If these consoles couldn't meet that they both should have gone back to AMD and re-negotiated a better product even if it delayed launch. I haven't bought anything on the wii u that runs under 1080p.
 
HisSvt76 said:
While its fun to rip on console about resolution you won't get 1080P solid 60fps out of a PC for $400 to $500 bucks either and then be able to use that machine for the next five years plus without a single hardware upgrade.

Ive upgraded gpus I can't count how many times since 2005 just to play at that 1080p/60 minimum.
Click to expand...

Generally speaking you kinda have to have a PC at a modern home, so making it a gaming PC is more or less a video card upgrade, you can have one surpassing a modern console for under $200.
 
Its laughable that current generation consoles can't even do 1080p while PC's can do more than 4K, if not more, I guess graphics and resolutions doesn't really matter to console users anyway.

Personally I can't even stand using 1080p anymore since I upgraded to 4K.
 
I'm sure after the next update you'll be able to Crossfire a couple of XboxOnes and get 1080p. :D
 
every PC gamer is thinking "I game at xxxxp and 100fps all day"

for the record I game at 1200p and 1440p
 
The Xbox is a failure. Sales have plummeted and the PS4 is mopping the floor with them.
 
Total bullshit.
My 3 year old PC has been running @ 1080p the whole time and unless you're running a laptop your PC is 1080p (at least) as well.
I've had a 1080p tv for over 5 years now and the 720p just died, so guess what replaced it?
1080p, that's right!
So we're going to be stuck with consoles that can't run 1080p for the next 8 years?
Maybe MS and Sony will get off their dead asses and give us 1080p by the time we make 4k our day to day standard.
I just can't believe the went the Wii route and said "no one will notice."
Well we did. Screw you.
 
Admit defeat lower price MS, you bet wrong get over it.
 
It may not be the [H]ard way of thinking but I agree with him. For me if I want the best visuals I'll opt for the PC version. Now do I think the consoles should be more powerful, I think this is also going to be a shorter generation. I think in 3 years the next generation is already started or close to begin, but that is a topic for another day.

I have both a PS4 and Xbox One, and I didn't find the differences that significant in a normal setting, 60" tv sitting 8 feet away . I could barely notice a difference on destiny, I would probably wouldn't be able to tell the difference if weren't for which controller I had in my hand.
 
qbanb8582 said:
It may not be the [H]ard way of thinking but I agree with him. For me if I want the best visuals I'll opt for the PC version. Now do I think the consoles should be more powerful, I think this is also going to be a shorter generation. I think in 3 years the next generation is already started or close to begin, but that is a topic for another day.

I have both a PS4 and Xbox One, and I didn't find the differences that significant in a normal setting, 60" tv sitting 8 feet away . I could barely notice a difference on destiny, I would probably wouldn't be able to tell the difference if weren't for which controller I had in my hand.
Click to expand...

Why don't you ask him if we would publicly say if you want the best visuals you should buy a PC? I bet he won't. I am pretty sure that most of the point of a new console IS upgraded visuals. So I don't know how you could agree when most games are running at the same resolution as the nearly decade old Xbox 360. If Kinect is the main gain they could have added that to the 360. No they touted bullshit huge advances in graphics and they delivered more of the same 720p crap.
 
Megalith said:
Wow, you can't even make this stuff up. What the fuck were these shitty console companies thinking when they developed these consoles? They didn't realize that 1080p was the standard?

I would not be surprised if the PS5 or Xbox Two (or Xbox Master Chief, whatever the fuck they're going to call it) couldn't even do 1080p.
Click to expand...
Well apparently Microsoft was thinking this system was going to last TEN YEARS, so better to cut costs and not be able to do 1080p properly because that makes sense for long term thinking. I mean seriously, this is the first generation of consoles that didn't push the hardware as far as it would go because of

Reality Crunch said:
They try to make it sound like "900p" can look better than "1080p" simply because it's 900p and that itself can look better than 1080p. This brings the attention of the user away from the power of the console and tries to convince the public that higher resolutions aren't better than lower resolutions with all other things being equal.
Click to expand...
Yeah, it reminds me of the myth of the "fat burning zone" pace when exercising, As if somehow MORE exercise doesn't burn more fat than the special marketed "zone." It's the exact same marketing bs logic at work here.
 
rudy said:
Why don't you ask him if we would publicly say if you want the best visuals you should buy a PC? I bet he won't. I am pretty sure that most of the point of a new console IS upgraded visuals. So I don't know how you could agree when most games are running at the same resolution as the nearly decade old Xbox 360. If Kinect is the main gain they could have added that to the 360. No they touted bullshit huge advances in graphics and they delivered more of the same 720p crap.
Click to expand...

You probably didn't read my entire post about how I do think the consoles should be more powerful, but regardless the new consoles are an upgrade in visuals compared to the previous generation. The reality is most people expected more of an upgrade then what was delivered.

Just because they're same resolution, doesn't mean they look the same. You take Metal Gear solid which is 720p on the 360 and Xbox One. The xbox one version looks significantly better then the 360 version, and its at the same resolution.
 
With that kind of shitty statement I am glad I ditched my xbox one. Question is should I get a PS4?
 
For me frame rate is king. I'm starting to like 30 fps less and less. Except maybe for RPG's.
 
Megalith said:
Wow, you can't even make this stuff up. What the fuck were these shitty console companies thinking when they developed these consoles? They didn't realize that 1080p was the standard?

I would not be surprised if the PS5 or Xbox Two (or Xbox Master Chief, whatever the fuck they're going to call it) couldn't even do 1080p.
Click to expand...

Comparing to previous generations, they went cheap this time and simply settled for an APU. There's only so much preformance you can pack into a single chip. We wouldn't be having this conversation if they had develop a proper CPU and GPU that are designed for gaming like they did in previous generations.
 
HisSvt76 said:
While its fun to rip on console about resolution you won't get 1080P solid 60fps out of a PC for $400 to $500 bucks either and then be able to use that machine for the next five years plus without a single hardware upgrade.

Ive upgraded gpus I can't count how many times since 2005 just to play at that 1080p/60 minimum.
Click to expand...

since you did not fixed image quality boundaries nor specific poorly coded games i am pretty sure that TH system builders marathon has been nailing that target since at least the i3 2xxx launch.
 
Megalith said:
Wow, you can't even make this stuff up. What the fuck were these shitty console companies thinking when they developed these consoles? They didn't realize that 1080p was the standard?

I would not be surprised if the PS5 or Xbox Two (or Xbox Master Chief, whatever the fuck they're going to call it) couldn't even do 1080p.
Click to expand...

They were thinking profits. The masses will continue to buy whatever garbage sony and microsoft throw out there just like they pay a large premium on apple products.
 
I have a 1600p display since 2007 and while i have been upgrading a lot in the mean time, since the 880GT i can game confortably as long as i don't mind image quality compromises and most hardware upgrades where in search of better iam,ge quality, not because a game was utterly unplayable at my native resolution.

Heck i am reading noobs and idiots planning hardware upgrades for 1080p gaming that i would not consider necessary for 1440p gaming. For the last 2y $150-200 has been the market of more than good enough 1080p gaming VGAs, and $200-300 VGAs offer decent gaming at 1600p/1440p gaming.

If one go back and vist the [H] review of the 4870x2, you will see it gaming at 1600p 12xAA, and that was a 2008 card:eek:
 
geok1ng said:
I have a 1600p display since 2007 and while i have been upgrading a lot in the mean time, since the 880GT i can game confortably as long as i don't mind image quality compromises and most hardware upgrades where in search of better iam,ge quality, not because a game was utterly unplayable at my native resolution.

Heck i am reading noobs and idiots planning hardware upgrades for 1080p gaming that i would not consider necessary for 1440p gaming. For the last 2y $150-200 has been the market of more than good enough 1080p gaming VGAs, and $200-300 VGAs offer decent gaming at 1600p/1440p gaming.

If one go back and vist the [H] review of the 4870x2, you will see it gaming at 1600p 12xAA, and that was a 2008 card:eek:
Click to expand...
I don't think anyone is building a computer to play Call of Duty 4 or GRID nowadays... :p
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top