Playing Old PC Games in 4K

WhoMe said:
Once you do 4k, you can't go back. If my "old" games won't work in 4k I won't play them...ok not really but they can look better with the inherent anti-aliasing effect you get in 4k, I've noticed this in old flight simulators especially. And in older games with anti-aliasing settings I just turn it off no sense wasting cpu/gpu cycles.
Click to expand...

I've done 4k, I wasn't impressed and was even less so at the massive performance loss. I see no reason to play any video game above 1080p. I'll take 1080p running at 100+ FPS over 4k running under 60 every single day of the week. The point of this is just to call out the "once you go you can't go back" statement as hyperbolic nonsense. If you like it, good for you. Personally I see zero reason for 4k if you aren't gaming on a 70"+ screen 20 feet away. I run 24" on my PC and 55" on my TV, I in no way shape or form benefit from 4k on any level.
 
Dekoth-E- said:
I've done 4k, I wasn't impressed and was even less so at the massive performance loss. I see no reason to play any video game above 1080p. I'll take 1080p running at 100+ FPS over 4k running under 60 every single day of the week. The point of this is just to call out the "once you go you can't go back" statement as hyperbolic nonsense. If you like it, good for you. Personally I see zero reason for 4k if you aren't gaming on a 70"+ screen 20 feet away. I run 24" on my PC and 55" on my TV, I in no way shape or form benefit from 4k on any level.
Click to expand...

In contrast, I've never been impressed with 1920x1080. I skipped that nonsense and went straight to 2560x1600 and then to 7680x1600 and 4320x2430 I think it is. I've tried to game on a larger format display at 1920x1080 and I think that looks like shit. 4K is necessary for sizes like that. Also, people thinking you need to sit 20 feet away for such a display are completely missing the point. Sitting super far away from a large display isn't any different than sitting the same relative distance from a smaller display. The idea behind a larger display is to fill your peripheral vision and create a more immersive experience. Something I don't think 1920x1080 is or ever was well suited for.

Now, I can agree with you about the refresh rates to some extent. I'd like faster displays. That said, I'll take resolution and size over refresh rate to some degree. That's obvious given the display I'm using. I've tried those smaller and faster panels and I never found 24" 1920x1080 or 27" 2560x1440 displays particularly immersive. Everyone's thresholds for what they'll trade off using current display technologies is different.
 
Dekoth-E- said:
I've done 4k, I wasn't impressed and was even less so at the massive performance loss. I see no reason to play any video game above 1080p. I'll take 1080p running at 100+ FPS over 4k running under 60 every single day of the week. The point of this is just to call out the "once you go you can't go back" statement as hyperbolic nonsense. If you like it, good for you. Personally I see zero reason for 4k if you aren't gaming on a 70"+ screen 20 feet away. I run 24" on my PC and 55" on my TV, I in no way shape or form benefit from 4k on any level.
Click to expand...

I do all my gaming 2ft away from a 48" 4k screen.

I couldn't ever go back to 1080p or small screens. The experience is incredibly underwhelming by comparison. It may work in some crappy indoor tunnel shooters, but in large outdoor map war sims, at 1080p your long range shooting would be a matter of aiming at a few semi-antialiased pixels not distinguishable as a real target.

red_orc_5.png


Maybe all you see is a single muzzle flash in the shade under the arch of that city hall ahead. Having high resolution makes the difference between simulating a real out door long distance visibility and not seeing shit.

Low resolutions are why scopes are so overused in games at comically short distances, to compensate for people not being able to see more than a tiny pixelated mess at distances.

The screen real estate also comes in real handy in strategy games.


But yeah, for console-like scripted tunnel shooters, or the fake basic-bitch likes of Counter-Strike and its console Call of Duty or Battlefield ripoffs, sure, 1080p is just fine. :p
 
Zarathustra[H] said:
I do all my gaming 2ft away from a 48" 4k screen.

I couldn't ever go back to 1080p or small screens. The experience is incredibly underwhelming by comparison. It may work in some crappy indoor tunnel shooters, but in large outdoor map war sims, at 1080p your long range shooting would be a matter of aiming at a few semi-antialiased pixels not distinguishable as a real target.

View attachment 72708

Maybe all you see is a single muzzle flash in the shade under the arch of that city hall ahead. Having high resolution makes the difference between simulating a real out door long distance visibility and not seeing shit.

Low resolutions are why scopes are so overused in games at comically short distances, to compensate for people not being able to see more than a tiny pixelated mess at distances.

The screen real estate also comes in real handy in strategy games.


But yeah, for console-like scripted tunnel shooters, or the fake basic-bitch likes of Counter-Strike and its console Call of Duty or Battlefield ripoffs, sure, 1080p is just fine. :p
Click to expand...

Difference in how we game really. When I used to play shooters, I played competitively. That means the more I had to move my head to see the screen or move the mouse, the more of a disadvantage I was at. That said, I outright disagree on strategy games as that is the primary thing other than survival games that I play these days. Very few strategy games that I know of at least give any kind of advantage over seeing a larger area of the map. Fog of war pretty much eliminates that. Speed in moving your units around and reacting is everything and again, same principle applies of the more you have to move, the slower your time is. Survival and builder type games, sure I can see wanting more immersion, but meh I don't really care enough as I never allow myself to be that immersed anyhow. I have multiple monitors running with multiple things going, even when I'm playing I'm usually watching something else, or have my headset half off so I can hear my kids and or talk to them about what is happening. I get what you are saying, I just don't see any personal value in it. I would much rather have multiple monitors on my desk vs one giant one I can't see the whole thing.
 
Dekoth-E- said:
I've done 4k, I wasn't impressed and was even less so at the massive performance loss. I see no reason to play any video game above 1080p. I'll take 1080p running at 100+ FPS over 4k running under 60 every single day of the week. The point of this is just to call out the "once you go you can't go back" statement as hyperbolic nonsense. If you like it, good for you. Personally I see zero reason for 4k if you aren't gaming on a 70"+ screen 20 feet away. I run 24" on my PC and 55" on my TV, I in no way shape or form benefit from 4k on any level.
Click to expand...
Maybe you just don't play the right kind of games. I like larger maps in staregy games. Bigger field of view in flight simulator type games...much more immersive. BTW I have a 55" screen plenty big (any bigger wouldn't even fit).
 
Zarathustra[H] said:
I do all my gaming 2ft away from a 48" 4k screen.
Click to expand...
Out of curiosity have you ever experienced eye or neck fatigue with that setup? at that size you potentially would have to move your eyes (or neck) up to 40 degrees to see the edges of the screen.
 
sfsuphysics said:
Out of curiosity have you ever experienced eye or neck fatigue with that setup? at that size you potentially would have to move your eyes (or neck) up to 40 degrees to see the edges of the screen.
Click to expand...

I'm about 2 1/2 feet from my 49" Samsung and I've never had neck issues from that. I will say that the top corners are kind of useless for me productivity wise unless I sit in just the right position. I think 40-43" is a better size for work. For gaming its perfectly fine and very immersive.
 
sfsuphysics said:
Out of curiosity have you ever experienced eye or neck fatigue with that setup? at that size you potentially would have to move your eyes (or neck) up to 40 degrees to see the edges of the screen.
Click to expand...

Not really, but I also don't find myself looking around much. That is what I use the mouse for. The far edges of the screen are mostly for peripheral vision for me.

That being said, I think the 48" screen is may just a tad on the large side. 43" would be perfect.
 
Quake 3 was "ahead of its time" in all sorts of ways. Menus, HUD, crosshair. Everything scales with resolution.
 
ZLoth said:
As of this writing, there are several issues that I have with 4K gaming... all of them in the technological camp. I'm sure that, in five years, technology will catch up.

First of all, monitor limitations. A quick check of Newegg monitor listings shows that the 4K monitors have a maximum refresh rate of 60Hz, thus 60 FPS. My current GSync monitor is capable of up to 144Hz overclocked to 165Hz.
Click to expand...

Don't know about graphics cards (the 1180 is strongly rumored to be announced in July with shipping in September), but I do see that Acer Predator X27 bmiiphzx 27" 4K IPS UHD monitor with 144HZ and G-Sync is now up for pre-order. Only $2,000.... but in five years.....
 
dgz said:
Quake 3 was "ahead of its time" in all sorts of ways. Menus, HUD, crosshair. Everything scales with resolution.
Click to expand...

Actually, that's how a lot of older games were handled back then. They didn't make shitty console ports where they forgot the lessons of the early 1990's with games that had their physics tied to frame rates and took variable resolution into account.
 
Dan_D said:
Actually, that's how a lot of older games were handled back then. They didn't make shitty console ports where they forgot the lessons of the early 1990's with games that had their physics tied to frame rates and took variable resolution into account.
Click to expand...

Got any examples? Because I have to blame for not fixing it in all these years. At today's resolution you can't even see your crosshair
 
ironforge said:
Mech Commander was awesome IMO. We need a more awesome updated version.
Click to expand...

MechCommander/MC2's "spiritual successor" is, of course, Battletech (one of the main devs on that game was the lead designer for MC2, if I'm not mistaken).

Of course, Battletech is turn-based, so that might throw off some.
 
tungt88 said:
MechCommander/MC2's "spiritual successor" is, of course, Battletech (one of the main devs on that game was the lead designer for MC2, if I'm not mistaken).

Of course, Battletech is turn-based, so that might throw off some.
Click to expand...

I played battletech using CGA 4-color graphics on my 286-12mhz. Yes I believe it was turn based! (similar to a lot of the SSI gold box RPG's)
 
gamerk2 said:
Retroarch + HQ4x filter. Done.
Click to expand...

I haven't tried this particular filter, or retroarch, but I tried playing some NES titles for old times sake in fceux, and even loaded up some SNES titles in zsnes.

I tried all of the filters they had, and I never liked the smoothed interpolated look.

I'd rather just run the games in a small window approximating the 13" color TV I had for this kind of stuff back in 1986, and run no filters at all.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top