Why does HD Resolution matter so much to SW?

I've seen countless arguments on this forum that discredit games that are "sub-HD" (540p) rather than 720p or above. I don't understand how this minor change in resolution is so crucial for determining graphical quality. It's like, people use some flawed logic that since numbers are absolute and objective, HD resolution must be a key component for graphics. But it isn't.

Things that should matter WAYYYYY more than HD resolution (especially when the difference is minimal, like 540p vs 720p) would be:

-Texture quality

-Draw distance

-Frame rate

-Lighting and shadows

-Art style

-Animations

All of these (and I'm sure I missed a few) should be priotized above HD resolution when determining a game's graphics.

Kinda agree.

Although resolution does a lot for a game.

I've seen countless arguments on this forum that discredit games that are "sub-HD" (540p) rather than 720p or above. I don't understand how this minor change in resolution is so crucial for determining graphical quality. It's like, people use some flawed logic that since numbers are absolute and objective, HD resolution must be a key component for graphics. But it isn't.

Things that should matter WAYYYYY more than HD resolution (especially when the difference is minimal, like 540p vs 720p) would be:

-Texture quality

-Draw distance

-Frame rate

-Lighting and shadows

-Art style

-Animations

All of these (and I'm sure I missed a few) should be priotized above HD resolution when determining a game's graphics.

Trinexxx

because PC gamers like making a big deal about things tha they know console gamers can't achieve. I might just have a bad eye but I don't real notice a diffenace. For Example Wipeout HD which is 1080p looks amazing, but so does GoW 3 which probably isn't even 720p. I would rather have good gameplay and all the stuff you listed.

If graphics did not matter, PC gaming would be the laughstock of the industry

I've seen countless arguments on this forum that discredit games that are "sub-HD" (540p) rather than 720p or above. I don't understand how this minor change in resolution is so crucial for determining graphical quality. It's like, people use some flawed logic that since numbers are absolute and objective, HD resolution must be a key component for graphics. But it isn't.

Things that should matter WAYYYYY more than HD resolution (especially when the difference is minimal, like 540p vs 720p) would be:

-Texture quality

-Draw distance

-Frame rate

-Lighting and shadows

-Art style

-Animations

All of these (and I'm sure I missed a few) should be priotized above HD resolution when determining a game's graphics.

Trinexxx

textures are also rated by resolution...if you have a max resolution of 540p...then your textures can ONLY be a max of 540p

also...marketing something as an "hd console" and a game as "hd" and having sub-hd graphics is kind of a rip off dont you think?

think about this as well...720p has roughly 2x the dpi that 540p...and 1080p has more than 2x the dpi that 720p does...which means more polygons and texture quality...also the bigger the display...the more you will see the resolution quality...at, say, 22in display, 720p and 1080p have some differences...but not nearly as noticable as you would at say...44in...think about it...a ps2 game looked ALOT better...relatively...on a ~20in display than it did on a ~40in display

shadows also have resolutions...if you limit you display resolution...then you limit the max quality that your shadows can be rendered

another thing is...with a higher resolution...aliasing is much less of an issue...if you have to use 8x ssaa at 540p...you only need roughly 4x ssaa at 720p(which btw uses less power since it is ALREADY being rendered higher instead of having to recalculate the image again) and even at that u would need roughly 2x ssaa at 1080p...all for the same image quality...yet 2xssaa at 1080p runs more steadily than 8x ssaa at 540p...it takes less power to render in a higher resolution to begin with than it does to use anti aliasing to make it look better

what is the point of having better textures and lighting when the overall image would end up as a blurry mess? Is not like you're gonna see the additional textures details that way. :?

-Texture quality

-Draw distance

-Frame rate

-Lighting and shadows

-Art style

-Animations

Trinexxx

Nope, those things are pointless. The only thing that matters is MOAR PIXELZ. Running Half Life 1 at 346767x92389283 resolution looks better than any console game.

[QUOTE="Trinexxx"]

-Texture quality

-Draw distance

-Frame rate

-Lighting and shadows

-Art style

-Animations

Teufelhuhn

Nope, those things are pointless. The only thing that matters is MOAR PIXELZ. Running Half Life 1 at 346767x92389283 resolution looks better than any console game.

[QUOTE="Teufelhuhn"]

[QUOTE="Trinexxx"]

-Texture quality

-Draw distance

-Frame rate

-Lighting and shadows

-Art style

-Animations

inb4uall

Nope, those things are pointless. The only thing that matters is MOAR PIXELZ. Running Half Life 1 at 346767x92389283 resolution looks better than any console game.

[QUOTE="inb4uall"]

[QUOTE="Teufelhuhn"]

Nope, those things are pointless. The only thing that matters is MOAR PIXELZ. Running Half Life 1 at 346767x92389283 resolution looks better than any console game.

Teufelhuhn

Try playing 480p Wii games on a HDTV. That's why resolution matters.

Whats the point in having great graphics and high textures, great lighting and realistic models if you can't see any of the detail being shown because of a blurry resolution? This thread is ridiculous

Because it's 2012 and 1080p should be the minimum for anything.

[QUOTE="Teufelhuhn"]

[QUOTE="inb4uall"] that must be one expensive screen to support the resolution.....

inb4uall

Whats the point in having great graphics and high textures, great lighting and realistic models if you can't see any of the detail being shown because of a blurry resolution? This thread is ridiculous

seanmcloughlin

Was just about to write that...

Resolution is by far the most important aspect of techincal graphics,and contributes a lot to visual fidelity...

"Sub-HD" resolution can easily overshadow most of the things listed in the OP...

Because this is SW, people on here are either just having fun and over exaggerating for the hell of it, or they are people with a MASSIVE case of buyers remorse and are trying to justify their purchase.

To me (and everyone in real life) the resolution isn't that big of a deal, like I can't tell if a game is "sub HD" or not. Take RDR for example I honestly played both versions and I did not notice a damn bit of difference, but yet a lot of people on here think there is, but that's only because they are going by what they get told, if they played both versions they wouldn't see much of a difference either.

As long as the game looks great I don't really care.

.

Because this is SW, people on here are either just having fun and over exaggerating for the hell of it, or they are people with a MASSIVE case of buyers remorse and are trying to justify their purchase.

To me (and everyone in real life) the resolution isn't that big of a deal, like I can't tell if a game is "sub HD" or not. Take RDR for example I honestly played both versions and I did not notice a damn bit of difference, but yet a lot of people on here think there is, but that's only because they are going by what they get told, if they played both versions they wouldn't see much of a difference either.

As long as the game looks great I don't really care.

ShadowMoses900

Well,not much difference between software upscaled 1152x640(PS3 RDR) and 1280x720(360 RDR),but I still noticed the slight difference between PS3 and 360 RDR versions,it's not much,but it's there.360 version does look more "clean"...

Better resolution=more pixels=better graphics,it's as simple as that.Resolution is probably the most important part of technical graphics,and it matters in real life.Case closed!

Because it's 2012 and 1080p should be the minimum for anything.

Klipsh

+1

[QUOTE="ShadowMoses900"]

Because this is SW, people on here are either just having fun and over exaggerating for the hell of it, or they are people with a MASSIVE case of buyers remorse and are trying to justify their purchase.

To me (and everyone in real life) the resolution isn't that big of a deal, like I can't tell if a game is "sub HD" or not. Take RDR for example I honestly played both versions and I did not notice a damn bit of difference, but yet a lot of people on here think there is, but that's only because they are going by what they get told, if they played both versions they wouldn't see much of a difference either.

As long as the game looks great I don't really care.

Rocker6

Well,not much difference between software upscaled 1152x640(PS3 RDR) and 1280x720(360 RDR),but I still noticed the slight difference between PS3 and 360 RDR versions,it's not much,but it's there.360 version does look more "clean"...

Better resolution=more pixels=better graphics,it's as simple as that.Resolution is probably the most important part of technical graphics,and it matters in real life.Case closed!

Doesn't matter too much to me, in RDR I didn't see a difference. Here:

PS3 Vs. 360 Comparison - Red Dead Redemption Video ... - IGN

As you can clearly see, they look identical.

Mabey I'm not as picky but "sub HD" doesn't really bother me, unless there is a huge noticable difference then I don't care. As long as my game looks and playes good that's all I care about. But I agree resolution is important to a degree, but UC3 is 720p but it looks a million times better than every 1080 game out there.

Resolution, by itself, can do a lot to make a game look incredibly "crisp" for lack of a better word. This goes a long way to making a game look better.

It's very noticeable when going between PC and consoles. It's funny because I've had console friends of mine tell me that my PC games look better, but in reality the only thing the PC games have over the console games is resolution.

Textures are worse, lighting is worse, animations are worse, etc etc.

I think that says a lot to me of just what 1080+ resolutions can do for a games' graphics.

Which would you rather play?

[QUOTE="Rocker6"]

[QUOTE="ShadowMoses900"]

Because this is SW, people on here are either just having fun and over exaggerating for the hell of it, or they are people with a MASSIVE case of buyers remorse and are trying to justify their purchase.

To me (and everyone in real life) the resolution isn't that big of a deal, like I can't tell if a game is "sub HD" or not. Take RDR for example I honestly played both versions and I did not notice a damn bit of difference, but yet a lot of people on here think there is, but that's only because they are going by what they get told, if they played both versions they wouldn't see much of a difference either.

As long as the game looks great I don't really care.

ShadowMoses900

Well,not much difference between software upscaled 1152x640(PS3 RDR) and 1280x720(360 RDR),but I still noticed the slight difference between PS3 and 360 RDR versions,it's not much,but it's there.360 version does look more "clean"...

Better resolution=more pixels=better graphics,it's as simple as that.Resolution is probably the most important part of technical graphics,and it matters in real life.Case closed!

Doesn't matter too much to me, in RDR I didn't see a difference. Here:

PS3 Vs. 360 Comparison - Red Dead Redemption Video ... - IGN

As you can clearly see, they look identical.

Mabey I'm not as picky but "sub HD" doesn't really bother me, unless there is a huge noticable difference then I don't care. As long as my game looks and playes good that's all I care about.

Nowhere did I say the PS3 version looks bad,they're very similiar as you said,but 360 still does have a slight advantage,since resolution and number of pixels matter.360 version looks overall slightly more sharp and clean.It doesn't affect gameplay in any signifficant way,but it's there...

Because it's 2012 and 1080p should be the minimum for anything.

Klipsh

Which would you rather play?

Zevante101

I guess the people here that don't care about resolution still play on CRT tvs right ?

Because otherwise they would be hypocrites :roll:

[QUOTE="inb4uall"]

[QUOTE="Teufelhuhn"]

140". I had to sell my house to buy it...totally worth it.

Teufelhuhn

"Gaming is having a ridiculously large TV in a tiny 1 bedroom apartment" ;)

nether I don't like halo

inb4uall

Hmm, I wonder why your profile is set to private.

Initially the consoles were advertised as HD, but eventually high profile releases ended up as sub-HD with all the mocking from the other side that entails.

The hardware couldn't keep up with progressing software and detail levels and maintain 720p at the same time...

OP makes no sense. Everything he mentioned is useless if it's displayed at a low res on a big screen, as it will look messy and blurry. And why does he oppose resolution and all those other elements? Some of them are actually interdependent.

As for dismissing resolution, that's just ridiculous. Resolution is the single setting I never lower. When my rig ages, and I need to make sacrifices to keep a decent performance, resolution is the last thing I will try to cut down, and if it ever became necessary, I would immediately upgrade my PC.

Because most of the posters here are shallow graphics whores who cant bare playing a shooter thats doesnt look pixel perfect.

[QUOTE="Klipsh"]

Because it's 2012 and 1080p should be the minimum for anything.

silversix_

Because most of the posters here are shallow graphics whores who cant bare playing a shooter thats doesnt look pixel perfect.

Shirokishi_

Which would you rather play?

Zevante101

Case in point right here. Both have the same textures and lighting but if you have a lower resolution then it's completely useless.

Im curious as to what some people think resolution does for a game that they can just say it doesn't matter. All these coms and lems fighting over graphics and yet none of them understand the importance of resolution and most don't understand the importance of framerate either.

Granted I didn't know much either till I started on PC. Not being an elitist but it literall taught me a lot

Also wait until next gen when more stuff is 1080p native or 60 fps and console gamers will suddenly think it's important.

Picture quality and frame-rate is important. When most TV sets and monitors on the market support 1080p, games should also target that resolution with good AA and AF levels and smooth framerates. Even older games can look great if you bump the res and AA/AF.

Crysis (2007) was graphics king for years and with mods, it still isBPoole96

off-topic but what mod is that in your sig? :P

Picture quality and frame-rate is important. When most TV sets and monitors on the market support 1080p, games should also target that resolution with good AA and AF levels and smooth framerates. Even older games can look great if you bump the res and AA/AF.

nameless12345

QFT

it's part of the reason why all these HD remakes are good looking. If they were straight ports with no resolution bump they would look horrible. Why do these devs make them for you console guys if you don't care about the resloution in the first place?

I find jaggies really annoying, so I'd rather have 720p with 2xAA than 1080p with no AA. It's not like I can really tell the difference between 720p and 1080p on my 26" Bravia anyway...

Whats the point in having great graphics and high textures, great lighting and realistic models if you can't see any of the detail being shown because of a blurry resolution? This thread is ridiculous

seanmcloughlin

I find jaggies really annoying, so I'd rather have 720p with 2xAA than 1080p with no AA. It's not like I can really tell the difference between 720p and 1080p on my 26" Bravia anyway...

manicfoot

I find that at 1080p you need less AA.

[QUOTE="seanmcloughlin"]

Whats the point in having great graphics and high textures, great lighting and realistic models if you can't see any of the detail being shown because of a blurry resolution? This thread is ridiculous

lowe0

Watching TV is not the same as playing a game.

Don't take the post so literal, you know what I meant