PandaBear86's forum posts

Avatar image for PandaBear86
PandaBear86

3389

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

20

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#1 PandaBear86
Member since 2007 • 3389 Posts

[QUOTE="eveileb-ekam"][QUOTE="Mystic-G"]

http://img695.imageshack.us/img695/1324/cod4mp20100316081440.jpg

http://img688.imageshack.us/img688/9823/cod4mp20100316081405.jpg

I fail to see where the graphics suddenly got better.

Mystic-G

The comparison is ridiculous if it is not in motion and on your television screen. Seriously, go plug SCART or component cables into your machine and compare the quality of the picture with an HDMI cable. The effect is largely noticable in first person shooters and picking enemies off in the distance.

I'm a PC gamer (where you think I got those screens came from?)... trust me, I've dealt with different resolutions on the same games I've played. Just because you see the enemy better at one resolution doesn't make the graphics better, there are more pixels available such there are more pixels to be filled. And just because there are more pixels doesn't make the quality of the visuals better.

It only seems better because a larger screen stretches a small resolution game whereas a higher resolution is outputting for such sizes.

Resolution = a part of graphics. Yes, there are other factors such as textres, polygon count, shaders, and other things, but resolution is part of what makes graphics. Let me ask you something: is my hand a part of my body? If yes, does this mean that if you destroy my hand, you destroyed my entire body? No, because my hand is a PART of my body. I think you get what I mean when I say that resolution is a part of graphics.

And resolution does not make graphics "seem" better. It makes them better. Play Mass Effect 2 on an SDTV. You can hardly read the words when browsing your inventory, and mnay ME2 buyers actually complained about this on the BioWare forums. Try telling them that resolution has nothing to do with graphics, let alone readability?

Avatar image for PandaBear86
PandaBear86

3389

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

20

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#2 PandaBear86
Member since 2007 • 3389 Posts
[QUOTE="Mystic-G"]

http://img695.imageshack.us/img695/1324/cod4mp20100316081440.jpg

http://img688.imageshack.us/img688/9823/cod4mp20100316081405.jpg

I fail to see where the graphics suddenly got better.

One of those pictures is 679x509, and the other is 636x509. Check the properties of those pictures.They are almost the exact same resolution.
Avatar image for PandaBear86
PandaBear86

3389

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

20

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#3 PandaBear86
Member since 2007 • 3389 Posts

[QUOTE="WilliamRLBaker"][QUOTE="PandaBear86"] Resolution IS A PART of graphics. Just like how your fingers are a part of your hand. My goodness some people are ignorant

eveileb-ekam

so then If I make a Stick figure 2d game and run it at 1080p with the images formated that way...then my game is good in graphics? no resolution is not a part of graphics it is simply how those graphics are output.

Lets not play semantics. Graphics refers to the creation, reception and output of visual data. Resolution might not be the be all and end all of graphical fidelity, but it does play a part in how good modern games look. Using arbitrary examples of 2D stick figures and 2D sprites and upscaling them is not the point. The point is the higher resolution of modern games offers a clarity not available on SD television sets. In which case, the TC is right, if only fractionally.

Thank you for coming to my defense. I was being outnumbered here, with people talking about upscaling stick figures and then trying toshow how it relates to complex 3D games like Farcry or Crysis.

Avatar image for PandaBear86
PandaBear86

3389

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

20

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#4 PandaBear86
Member since 2007 • 3389 Posts

Alright, how do the graphics look 'better'?

Mystic-G

If the resolution are too similar, you can hardly tell the difference. I cannot tell much difference between 1680x1050 and 1920x1200. But as for 640x480 like non-HD consoles, YES I CAN see a difference :)

Avatar image for PandaBear86
PandaBear86

3389

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

20

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#5 PandaBear86
Member since 2007 • 3389 Posts
[QUOTE="BubbyJello"]

[QUOTE="PandaBear86"][QUOTE="BubbyJello"] Because Braid has a higher resolution, so by what you were saying, Braid has better graphics.

Resolution is ONE aspect of graphics. There are other aspects that count too. Textures, polygon count, draw distances, etc. Resolution is ONE area of graphics. Some games are high in one area, but poor in others.

Movies have different resolutions as well, so are you telling me I could watch the Notebook with better graphics if I bought the Blu-Ray?

It depends from movie to movie, and also depends on what kind of camera they shot the movie with. Oh, and these movies are not made up of 3D models like FarCry is. Why are you bringing this up?
Avatar image for PandaBear86
PandaBear86

3389

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

20

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#6 PandaBear86
Member since 2007 • 3389 Posts
[QUOTE="Mystic-G"]


If you can tell me which mario looks better I'll give you a cookie. If you can't then your link between resolution and graphics is fake and this topic should die.

This is a 2D sprite, which is very different to a 3D model. 2D sprites = stuck to one resolution. Making the image bigger will not increase the graphics 3D model = not dependant on resolution. You can view a 3D model in any resolution, and the model will look different according to what resolution you are looking at
Avatar image for PandaBear86
PandaBear86

3389

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

20

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#7 PandaBear86
Member since 2007 • 3389 Posts

[QUOTE="PandaBear86"][QUOTE="Mystic-G"] Megaman @ 1080p doesn't make it 32bit. Resolution scale doesn't change graphics, it just turns one small black pixel into 10 small black pixels, it in no way shape or form makes the graphics better hence why I say resolution =/= graphics. Your topic is a ploy to make graphics somehow linked to gameplay in-which again I say Megaman 10.Mystic-G

I normally don't like flaming people, but you are really un-intelligent if you don't think reolution is a PART of graphics. Resolution is calculated by your GRAPHICS CARDYou still talk about "32bit", even though we don't judge graphics by how many "bits" we have.

Give me proof that resolution scale makes graphics better. That's what I say to you sir.

Try playing any PC game at 640x480 resolution, then change it to 1680x1050 resolution. You tell me whether or not resolution makes a difference to graphics.
Avatar image for PandaBear86
PandaBear86

3389

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

20

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#8 PandaBear86
Member since 2007 • 3389 Posts

[QUOTE="PandaBear86"][QUOTE="BubbyJello"]So you're saying Braid in 1080i has better graphics then Super Mario Galaxy in 480i?BubbyJello

Resolution is ONE aspect of graphics. There are other aspects wich are also important too. Why are you comparing a game with 2D gameplay with SMG anyways?

Because Braid has a higher resolution, so by what you were saying, Braid has better graphics.

Resolution is ONE aspect of graphics. There are other aspects that count too. Textures, polygon count, draw distances, etc. Resolution is ONE area of graphics. Some games are high in one area, but poor in others.
Avatar image for PandaBear86
PandaBear86

3389

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

20

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#10 PandaBear86
Member since 2007 • 3389 Posts
So you're saying Braid in 1080i has better graphics then Super Mario Galaxy in 480i?BubbyJello
Resolution is ONE aspect of graphics. There are other aspects wich are also important too. Why are you comparing a game with 2D gameplay with SMG anyways?