High Resolution Gaming Overrated: 4850/Warhead nice at 1024x768 4xAA on 24" Monitor

Status
Not open for further replies.

DWade

Limp Gawd
Joined
Dec 22, 2008
Messages
247
Maybe ati drivers are somehow optimized and enable the game to look very good at lower resolutions
perhaps. May depend on your monitor as well. I got that glossy brightview monitor so pretty much
makes the colors pop even more. It also helps that IQ from ati cards are top notch.
 
Joined
Sep 28, 2007
Messages
703
With some games it doesn't matter. If you're playing Quake 3 for example.

When playing BF2; the higher, the better. At 1600x1200 you can see a lot of targets when sniping you won't see with 1024x768. It just a pair of pixels of their head around the corner and *BOEM headshot* :D
 

DWade

Limp Gawd
Joined
Dec 22, 2008
Messages
247
Can't argue with a man's subjective opinion but you've obviously got lower standards than most. 4xAA won't help with the lower texture resolution and lower detail that you seem to be happy with. Not to mention playing at a 4:3 resolution on a 16:10 display.

So you're running it stretched, blurry and low-res and think it looks great. Boggles the mind :)

I don't think so. I got a Blu Ray and a Plasma. For video playback, high resolution is important. For gaming though high resolution isn't
as important...at least to me it's not, as a game looks just as good at lower resolution IMO.
Doesn't look stretched or blurry...and it does look great. I attribute this to running 4xAA though. Plus in a game like Warhead, your
constantly moving and blowing stuff up any way. ;)
 

DWade

Limp Gawd
Joined
Dec 22, 2008
Messages
247
With some games it doesn't matter. If you're playing Quake 3 for example.

When playing BF2; the higher, the better. At 1600x1200 you can see a lot of targets when sniping you won't see with 1024x768. It just a pair of pixels of their head around the corner and *BOEM headshot* :D

Good point. In a lot of games you can actually change your field of view. I don't know
the command for it in warhead but I know in cod4 I usually use the command
"cg_fov 80" in the console.
 

trinibwoy

2[H]4U
Joined
Apr 25, 2005
Messages
2,090
You can't argue the stretched and blurry. These are facts not a matter of opinion. Running a 4:3 resolution on a 16:10 display is stretched - no two ways about it. All that's happening here is that you don't seem to notice the difference between what you see and how it looks when properly setup.
 

GreenGoose

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Aug 17, 2004
Messages
1,681
I don't think so. I got a Blu Ray and a Plasma. For video playback, high resolution is important. For gaming though high resolution isn't
as important...at least to me it's not, as a game looks just as good at lower resolution IMO.
Doesn't look stretched or blurry...and it does look great. I attribute this to running 4xAA though. Plus in a game like Warhead, your
constantly moving and blowing stuff up any way. ;)

You are blind and in denial sir.
 

DWade

Limp Gawd
Joined
Dec 22, 2008
Messages
247
You can't argue the stretched and blurry. These are facts not a matter of opinion. Running a 4:3 resolution on a 16:10 display is stretched - no two ways about it. All that's happening here is that you don't seem to notice the difference between what you see and how it looks when properly setup.

Perhaps, but to me it's just a game(and a dam fine one Crysis Warhead is) and it doesn't really look that realistic to begin with. Looks good as a game though to me. Jaggies is what bothers me. I don't see
blurry images though. Perhaps it is stretched as you say, but it really looks fine as it is. I'll try playing
the game and maintaining the aspect ratio through the ati cp and see if there is a notable difference
on my monitor. I think it just may depend on the monitor. I am using HDMI...not sure if that makes a
difference so maybe the quality is able to still look great at low res for some reason.
 

Kowan

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jun 28, 2000
Messages
5,316
At least the OP is happy. :D
I couldn't imagine playing that low a res on my Dell 30in. :p
 

Harb

Limp Gawd
Joined
Apr 10, 2007
Messages
155
Tomorrow:

DWade posts on a car-related forum that the Reliant Robin is the best vehicle ever, because 4 wheeled cars are overrated and by using a 3 wheeled one, he beats the system by getting just as good an experience while spending less money on tires.
 

no2censorship

Limp Gawd
Joined
Oct 20, 2008
Messages
393
I think that 2560x1600 is overrated.

For me, 1600x1200 or 1680x1050 is almost always good enough for me. I notice less aliasing with 4x aa and a lower res than with a much higher res w/ no aa.

I think 2560x1600 being a standard for many, pretty much ended any hopefulness 4x or 8x RGSS fans had, since it would look better at 1280x960 than no AA at 5120x3200, IMSubj.O. I've always implied that nvidia cared more about increasing res, than making breakthroughs in AA.

Internal rendering always matters more than screen/dac output.

To me, it seems res actually matters more with 2D, than it does with 3D.

And the DS's low res has always bothered me. Games look pretty bad when they're rendered and outputted at 256x192.
 

Zellio2009

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Nov 22, 2008
Messages
1,057
This is our brain:

005-5.jpg


This is your brain on drugs:

001-15.jpg


Stop taking drugs.
 

Tudz

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jun 15, 2008
Messages
7,434
I don't think so. I got a Blu Ray and a Plasma. For video playback, high resolution is important. For gaming though high resolution isn't
as important...at least to me it's not, as a game looks just as good at lower resolution IMO.
Doesn't look stretched or blurry...and it does look great. I attribute this to running 4xAA though. Plus in a game like Warhead, your
constantly moving and blowing stuff up any way. ;)


I could not possibly disagree more :p Video playback normally looks fine at lower resolution (480p and such) as long as it has good post processing. Games will usually look like crap because the generated textures look worse at low res (opposed to actual real life images which aren't as fussy).

But your opinion is your opinion, I'm not going to argue that you dont like it, all I can say is I dont like it :p

I have a 22" screen, I tried playing at a 16:9 ratio on my 16:10 monitor and that was annoying enough for me, let alone a 4:3 ratio. IMO 4:3 on 16:10 monitor is about as beautiful as hairy arse (ie, very ugly). So clearly your standards are different to what most people like.
 

trinibwoy

2[H]4U
Joined
Apr 25, 2005
Messages
2,090
rofl! funniest thing i've seen in a while.....i actually lol'ed.

and damn crysis looks good in that shot. i need to get through my backlog of 2005/6 games so i can get into the new stuff.
 

VorpalBFG

Limp Gawd
Joined
Sep 4, 2008
Messages
350
Tomorrow:

DWade posts on a car-related forum that the Reliant Robin is the best vehicle ever, because 4 wheeled cars are overrated and by using a 3 wheeled one, he beats the system by getting just as good an experience while spending less money on tires.

Nice.

In defense of DWade, sorta, some people just don't have the eye that many "enthusiasts" have, or simply just don't care about those little details.
 

trinibwoy

2[H]4U
Joined
Apr 25, 2005
Messages
2,090
I tried to demonstrate the difference between stereo and 5.1 surround sound to a friend of mine yesterday. She swears the 5.1 just sounds "louder" to her and doesn't know what all the fuss is about. I nearly threw her out of my apt.
 

DWade

Limp Gawd
Joined
Dec 22, 2008
Messages
247
Stop taking drugs.

Stop trolling and follow your own advice. ;)

After switching resolutions from 1024 x 768 4xaa / 1280 x 768 4xaa / 1280 x 800 4xaa / 1920 x 1200 No AA.

There isn't a notable difference that takes away from the game experience. Some of you guys are
taking this personal it seems, it's a subjective opinion so take it as you will. The only
difference really is the field of view as mentioned, but I think that can be changed through
a console command.
 

DWade

Limp Gawd
Joined
Dec 22, 2008
Messages
247
I could not possibly disagree more :p Video playback normally looks fine at lower resolution (480p and such) as long as it has good post processing. Games will usually look like crap because the generated textures look worse at low res (opposed to actual real life images which aren't as fussy).

But your opinion is your opinion, I'm not going to argue that you dont like it, all I can say is I dont like it :p

I have a 22" screen, I tried playing at a 16:9 ratio on my 16:10 monitor and that was annoying enough for me, let alone a 4:3 ratio. IMO 4:3 on 16:10 monitor is about as beautiful as hairy arse (ie, very ugly). So clearly your standards are different to what most people like.

That's strange, movie playback looks terrible to me at lower resolutions. 3d gaming however looks perfectly fine at lower resolutions to me because you can turn up the
AA. No need to argue here, just a difference in opinion.
 

Tudz

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jun 15, 2008
Messages
7,434
There isn't a notable difference that takes away from the game experience. Some of you guys are
taking this personal it seems, it's a subjective opinion so take it as you will.



Well you posted saying high res gaming is over rated, this is [H], I guarantee you most people here do game at high-ish resolution :p Also I'd suggest most people have tested lower res and didn't like it, or have played with a 4:3 res on a 16:10 monitor and didn't like it.

I personally think playing at 4:3 hugely detracts from the gameplay, which is my opinion, and I'm guessing most peoples' opinion ;)

You post on a forum, expect discussion, and you just happened to pick a topic where almost everyone on an "enthusiast" forum will disagree with you.
 

trinibwoy

2[H]4U
Joined
Apr 25, 2005
Messages
2,090
If you got the time can you post some pics of the monitor of 1920x1200 vs 1024x768 ? Would be interesting to see what you see.
 

Tudz

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jun 15, 2008
Messages
7,434
That's strange, movie playback looks terrible to me at lower resolutions. 3d gaming however looks perfectly fine at lower resolutions to me because you can turn up the
AA. No need to argue here, just a difference in opinion.

I'm definately not arguing, the first thing I said was "I disagree" not "you're wrong" ;) But the with video playback I usually have a lot of post processing (eg. edge sharpening and AA). Because you aren't concerned with massively awesome framerates or input lag, video playback can have good post processing, which is why I think a 32" LCD TV looks fine if its 720p and 1080p isn't really needed.
 

DWade

Limp Gawd
Joined
Dec 22, 2008
Messages
247
Is the edge sharpening and AA automatic or something you have to set in the video cp?
 

SubRlly87

n00b
Joined
Dec 7, 2008
Messages
31
I wouldn't say it's under rated, but 1024x768 is real, real, real low. I've gamed on 1280x1024 for quite sometime. That's a lower resolution as well, but games still look great on it. I haven't gamed on 1024x768 since I had my CRT in '05 heh.

I'm personally fine with 1280x720 on my 32" LG 720p/1080i. Games look great at that low of a resolution.

Plus you really don't need a TON of card for that low of a res.
 

Zellio2009

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Nov 22, 2008
Messages
1,057
Stop trolling and follow your own advice. ;)

At least you could tell I was joking ;)

If I sat in front of my 40" tv and played at 1024x768, it would be nes graphics.

The Wonderful end of the world plays at that res, and while it does look like dogshit, I'm not sitting right in front.....
 

TehQuick

2[H]4U
Joined
Jul 3, 2004
Messages
3,738
I hate any resolution lower than native on my 24" monitor. If you do first person shooters, there's no other options - only with high res monitors can you achieve such high precision headshots :D
 

no2censorship

Limp Gawd
Joined
Oct 20, 2008
Messages
393
Well you posted saying high res gaming is over rated, this is [H], I guarantee you most people here do game at high-ish resolution :p Also I'd suggest most people have tested lower res and didn't like it, or have played with a 4:3 res on a 16:10 monitor and didn't like it.

I personally think playing at 4:3 hugely detracts from the gameplay, which is my opinion, and I'm guessing most peoples' opinion ;)

You post on a forum, expect discussion, and you just happened to pick a topic where almost everyone on an "enthusiast" forum will disagree with you.
I'm not saying that they're the best games or anything, but 2 examples of why you always need aa, and that it doesn't matter how high the res are Alone in the Dark, and Matrix Path of Neo. Playing them at 1920x1200 still has way too many jaggies. I think 1280x960 with 4x RGSS would look a lot better than 1920x1200. For one thing, your internal res will be higher.

One can argue there would might be a bigger performance hit, but speaking of IQ, 1280x960 4x RGSS beats the hell out of 1920x1200 no AA, and that's really not even a statement based upon subjectivity; rather, it's a statement who's opposite is idiotic.

Yes, I realize ati and nvidia don't do rgss, but I'm just trying to prove that uber-high res isn't unconditionally better than 1280x960.
 

xbob04

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jul 8, 2005
Messages
308
I'm glad you are okay with this but I think you are really only trying to convince youreself. The screenshots are irrelevant as they don't represent the stretched and blurry image your eyes are seeing on screen. No doubt your video card is rendering that image, but I doubt it is what you are seeing. Running slightly below native res can be tolerable and on occaission a necessary evil, but unless your LCD has an amazing internal scaler there is no way you are getting a crisp image with that kind of drop in resolution.
 

xbob04

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jul 8, 2005
Messages
308
Stop trolling and follow your own advice. ;)

After switching resolutions from 1024 x 768 4xaa / 1280 x 768 4xaa / 1280 x 800 4xaa / 1920 x 1200 No AA.

There isn't a notable difference that takes away from the game experience. Some of you guys are
taking this personal it seems, it's a subjective opinion so take it as you will. The only
difference really is the field of view as mentioned, but I think that can be changed through
a console command.

No one is taking it personal, we just all know that what you are claiming has no basis in reality. If you are happy with a stretched and blurry image that is great, but don't try and convince everyone it's equal to running at native res or that is just doesn't matter.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top