Support NeoGAF

[Pop]

Again, I'm 10 feet away from my HDTV and can see the difference clearly.

900p upscaled is blurry even in the so called best case Ryse.

Regarding the article, pointing to your compressed youtube video is really misleading. 900p whether its Ryse, Black Flag or AC unity is blurry, its immediately obvious to me.

Running native res does matter if one does and one doesn't but if we take an exclusive and running 1080p native means excluding subsurface scattering, removing lighting, dropping PBR then its a good question. Alan Wake went 540p with screen tear for alpha and x4 AA but the result was poor.

You know sometimes I like to amuse myself and set my 1080p monitor down to 900p and the image quality, hurts. Physical pain. But seriously, resolution does matter for your displays native res.

 

[BigDug13]

You remember them wrongly, because they were completely on point. They actually compared resolutions differences similar to current ones between two consoles, 900p vs 1080p

And this article is anything but comparison between platforms ...

It's not an article to compare platforms. It's an article to mitigate the damage done by the Nielson poll by claiming that people's choice of choosing PS4 over XBO because of resolution difference isn't really valid anymore, and that people should instead choose based on fun.

(But since both consoles are nearly identical in mainline AAA games, so therefore roughly equal in fun, and resolution shouldn't be considered, I guess there's zero reason to choose any console over another.)

 

[Dragonborn]

Why does a site who's entire point of existance is comparing every little graphical detail ask such a stupid question? Oh right, it's leadbetter.

I don't get why they're so slanted towards Xbox. When are Gies and Ars going to to put up their "don't read too much into it" artcles?

 

[Final Verdict]

most 360/ps3 games that had a different resolution were not 576p vs 720p either. 640p was the ps3s 900p.

https://forum.beyond3d.com/threads/list-of-rendering-resolutions.41152/

as I said some 576p even had better IQ because of better AA. 576p last gen was the 720p of this gen but one where some 576p even had advantages whereas 720p games this gen have had none.

yes, that is true, but he was not asking about the 360/PS3 resolution, so I figured I would just leave it be.

I'm not sure what the differences were, but I bought several 3rd party games on PS3 such as Skyrim, and didn't notice any graphical inferiority from 360 games I had played...

The graphical differences both last gen. and this gen, are very much overblown in my opinion. If I had a PS4 right now, I would probably get 3rd party single player games for PS4 since it does have better clarity, but I would still get multiplayer games on my Xbone since that is where my friends are.

So yeah, I think that resolution does mater, but not as much as people make it out to, and to me it is definitely not worth getting one console over the other for by itself.
I would take good exclusives that I enjoy such as Halo, and Sunset over more pixels, and though I will be getting a PS4 eventually, it won't be for its better performance or higher pixel count, it will be for exclusives like Uncharted.

(Now I understand that this stuff matters a lot more to other people than it does to me, so just keep in mind that this is just my personal opinion/taste.)

 

[KKRT00]

It's not an article to compare platforms. It's an article to mitigate the damage done by the Nielson poll by claiming that people's choice of choosing PS4 over XBO because of resolution difference isn't really valid anymore, and that people should instead choose based on fun.

(But since both consoles are nearly identical in mainline AAA games, so therefore roughly equal in fun, and resolution shouldn't be considered, I guess there's zero reason to choose any console over another.)

Yes it is, if You skip the most important parts of the article.
Read full article and whole point of the article, its not about mitigating damage, but its debate about resolution as the most important factor in game rendering.

 

[Dragonborn]

Yes it is, if You skip the most important parts of the article.
Read full article and whole point of the article, its not about mitigating damage, but its debate about resolution as the most important factor in game rendering.

I, unfortunately, did read the whole article and it's pretty clear what the guy is trying to do. Plus, it's leadbetter so it comes as no surprise

 

[Orca]

It seemed to mattered a lot last generation with the rise of these "comparison" sites... Odd how it's not as much of a big deal this time to the same people.

To be fair, it's also odd how some people didn't like it last gen but now want to talk about it all the time, isn't it?

 

[SenjutsuSage]

Personally, I don't feel it ever mattered nearly as much as people were trying to make it out to seem. It was just the most popular way of poking fun at one videogame system for not having specs as impressive as the other, but in reality it's always been incredibly difficult to tell the difference.

 

[Dragonborn]

To be fair, it's also odd how some people didn't like it last gen but now want to talk about it all the time, isn't it?

Comparison articles have always drawn a lot of attention. It's just that forums like this are much bigger now than they were last gen

 

[Surface of Me]

Dumb article, it boils down to the individual and what they think is important. I thought GZ on X1 had the best IQ of my games until GAF told me it was 720p.

 

[Griss]

I hate the fact that the conversation instantly leaps to 'lol biased Leadbetter, DF is trash' and such talk, even if, in this case, I disagree with what he's saying.

Native res always has a cleaner, smoother look to it that I enjoy. You should hit native res, then apply whatever IQ techniques you want (AA etc) and then if you can't hit 30fps reduce the textures, models etc until it's all stable. There's no reason that using such techniques should mean you can't aim for native res. If it does, turn down the detail.

I remember seeing Black Flag in 1080p for the first time. It's not the most detailed game, but the screen just looked so fresh. I started playing Tearaway on Vita last night, and having come from a bunch of non-native games the razor-sharp clarity of it blew me away. For me, you need to be striving for native res as much as you can. Also, for me, in most genres, I'd take native res at 30fps over less than native at 60. I rarely notice framerate, I always notice resolution.

 

[SneakyStephan]

Even 42" is insufficient for most at 6'. That is the size:distance you can start to tell the difference between 720p, not where you can appreciate the full detail of 1080p. That would require over 50" at 6'. I'm not sure if you're intending this for me or others, I am well aware of all this. Did you perhaps misinterpret my post?

This tired viewing distance argument again,are you going to bring out that awful graph next?

I just switched from a 19" 1600x1200 crt to a 24" 1080p lcd monitor, I sat 3 feet away from the 19" and have had to put the 24" one way back(almost 2 arm lenghts, so 4+ feet) because 1080p on a 24" feels like way too low pixel density at that distance.

At 4 feet I can still clearly make out the pixels.

This also has nothing to do with the fact that sub native resolutions are blurry on lcd displays because they can't scale without blurring.
I'm sorry your eyes suck, I guess, it's pretty irrelevant. This viewing distance discussion is just an attempt to steer the discussion away from the fast that upscaling is highly undesirable on lcd panels.

Image quality takes a big hit at the exact cutoff point of native resolution (go below it and there's an instant large drop in image quality in the form of blur)
So yes, resolution does matter on its own, 1080p is not some arbitrary number, if every tv was 1200p then 1200p would be the desired resolution to render content at and 1080p would suck the same was anything below 1080p sucks on a 1080p panel

 

[Wuthering_Heights]

Microsoft must love this guy.

I often wonder why Microsoft has a PR department when so many journalists are willing to do it for free.

 

[Synth]

What I don't get are his closing remarks. How he hopes that the next poll will show that people are choosing one console over another based on how much more "fun" it offers than the other or things based on "gameplay". But when 99% of the games are identical across both, how is "fun" supposed to be a differentiating factor to choose a PS4 over XBO or XBO over PS4?

The REASON things like resolution become important is because of how similar both of these consoles are in every other way for playing the majority of games.

If he wants it based on nothing but fun and gameplay and maybe "complete games without the need for day one patches" and "less nickel and diming on bullshit DLC", then he should be hoping everyone chooses Wii-U the most on the next poll.

If people are choosing PS4 over XBO when most of the games are identical in gameplay, then resolution seems like something to consider, otherwise there's very little to consider at all outside of what your friends own.

It also seems to go against their entire reason for existance. "Don't look into the technical differences, choose based on fun". Ok so then why do I need your website anymore?

I kinda read that part to mean that hopefully in the future we won't be seeing Battlefield Harldine and Metal Gear Solid V style 720p releases. Basically hoping there won't be further "unimpressive" IQ in future Xbox One titles. The idea is that whilst 900p is probably good enough for many people, 720p simply isn't. So resolution does matter to an extent.

 

[Tagyhag]

It depends on the individual. Higher resolution is factually better but at the end of the day it just truly doesn't matter to everyone.

Maybe Leadbetter is one of those people.

 

[BigDug13]

Yes it is, if You skip the most important parts of the article.
Read full article and whole point of the article, its not about mitigating damage, but its debate about resolution as the most important factor in game rendering.

But what is his point exactly? If people see PS4 and XBO as being the exact same console, then slight differences in spec strength seems like it's something people can latch onto when making a decision. Otherwise if all people want to play are AAA multiplats, why ISN'T resolution important if everything else is equal?

His point is that we shouldn't make a choice based on resolution. But for AAA multiplats on PS4 and XBO, what else IS there except resolution differences? The rest of it is pretty much identical. Both consoles outside of performance are equal on multiplat "fun" and "gameplay" which are the standards he thinks we should use to choose.

He is baffled as to why people are choosing PS4 based on spec difference. But I'm not seeing anything here to make me think I shouldn't because otherwise there's nothing to differentiate. (If I'm looking for a console to play EA, Ubisoft, Activision, Take 2 games)

Differences are small, but they ARE differences and in most cases, they are the ONLY difference between the two consoles. So therefore if there is ONE and only ONE variable between two different consoles, people are choosing the one that seems to come out on top in those comparisons.

And it's a strange article to make when your entire existance is to nitpick technical differences to choose a "winner" with each game.

 

[DarthWalden]

I agree with what is being said in the article... the higher the resolutions go the diminishing the returns have become.

The difference between 900P and 1080P on my TV is very small from my experience and once you get into a game and stop gawking at whether you can notice if its 900P or 1080P you don't even realize you are playing a non-native resolution mainly because you don't care at this point because your playing a game not a resolution. I don't think 4K is going to see the adoption that 1080P sets get for that reason. The difference between 640P and 720P was far more noticeable IMO.

 

[Final Verdict]

Gamespot's reality check had participants viewing a 27" PC MONITOR FROM AN APPARENT 6+ FOOT DISTANCE. The fact that Gamespot did it and that Eurogamer has attempted to loosely base an article on it is a circus of stupid on the level of IGN.gif for both outlets. Screen Size Vs. Distance, it's elementary level common sense. How do some of these people have jobs?

LOL! yeah, they should do a 50 inch TV from ~10 feet away. I think that would be fair....
if they do the monitor, it should be from 2-3 feet away....though my cousin does play his xbox on a 30 inch tv from 6-7 feet away, so I guess that isn't totally unrealistic...just not what they should be using for a test like that...
Because nobody is going to be able to tell a difference like that unless you are comparing last gen to next gen versions.

Again, I'm 10 feet away from my HDTV and can see the difference clearly.

900p upscaled is blurry even in the so called best case Ryse.

Regarding the article, pointing to your compressed youtube video is really misleading. 900p whether its Ryse, Black Flag or AC unity is blurry, its immediately obvious to me.

Running native res does matter if one does and one doesn't but if we take an exclusive and running 1080p native means excluding subsurface scattering, removing lighting, dropping PBR then its a good question. Alan Wake went 540p with screen tear for alpha and x4 AA but the result was poor.

Is it just me, or does the low-high PC setting look almost Identical in those pictures?
(I have Ryse on my PC, and it looks great, but I haven't looked at it on lower settings as my PC is a beast.

 

[Kezen]

It's a hypothetical situation for shits sake. You read into everything like there is a hidden meaning. I do not like what Microsoft has brought to the industry and think we'd be better off if they had never entered it. I can throw that aside when writing and present thoughts free of my dislike for them, however, but reading into it as if I actually PREFER the Xbox?! Pure madness.

I know it's definitely OT but I wonder why you think that MS should have never entered the console space.

 

[Peltz]

Even 42" is insufficient for most at 6'. That is the size:distance you can start to tell the difference between 720p, not where you can appreciate the full detail of 1080p. That would require over 50" at 6'. I'm not sure if you're intending this for me or others, I am well aware of all this. Did you perhaps misinterpret my post?

No, I was just agreeing with you and backing up what you were saying.

I agree that sub native resolution is very discernible from native res no matter the size of the fixed panel display (even on a cell phone, it's noticeable).

I was just posting that size/distance chart to help illustrate why Gamespot's test wasn't really fair.

 

[KKRT00]

But what is his point exactly? If people see PS4 and XBO as being the exact same console, then slight differences in spec strength seems like it's something people can latch onto when making a decision. Otherwise if all people want to play are AAA multiplats, why ISN'T resolution important if everything else is equal?

His point is that we shouldn't make a choice based on resolution. But for AAA multiplats on PS4 and XBO, what else IS there except resolution differences? The rest of it is pretty much identical. Both consoles outside of performance are equal on multiplat "fun" and "gameplay" which are the standards he thinks we should use to choose.

He is baffled as to why people are choosing PS4 based on spec difference. But I'm not seeing anything here to make me think I shouldn't because otherwise there's nothing to differentiate. (If I'm looking for a console to play EA, Ubisoft, Activision, Take 2 games)

Differences are small, but they ARE differences and in most cases, they are the ONLY difference between the two consoles. So therefore if there is ONE and only ONE variable between two different consoles, people are choosing the one that seems to come out on top in those comparisons.

And it's a strange article to make when your entire existance is to nitpick technical differences to choose a "winner" with each game.

Its NOT a comparison article.
Its about devs rendering priorities. Should they focus on resolution or should they focus on pixel quality, so stability [high AA], fidelity [high quality shaders, assets, lighting, post processing], stable framerate.
Because consoles have limited resources some elements (fidelity, resolution or framerate) must be sacrificed.
Thats all this article is about. Only people who have not read or read with some kind of agenda cant really see this.

He's not baffled that people are choosing PS4 based on hardware, but that resolution is the most important factor, which in rendering is not completely true and he debates why, quoting in the process tons of high end graphics programmers.

Its really simple, short and generic article, i really dont get how people can get so confused.

 

[ALLseeingEYE]

Man, all the knee-jerk reactions at the beginning of this thread from people who haven't even read the article are sad to read. I thought this was actually an excellent, seemingly well researched article. This part in particular was interesting, when he questions the pixar guy:

"We do what is essentially MSAA. Then we do a lens distortion that makes the image incredibly soft (amongst other blooms/blurs/etc). Softness/noise/grain is part of film and something we often embrace. Jaggies we avoid like the plague and thus we anti-alias the crap out of our images," Horne added. "In the end it's still the same conclusion: games oversample versus film. I've always thought that film res was more than enough res. I don't know how you will get gamers to embrace a film aesthetic, but it shouldn't be impossible."

I would certainly say that Ryse and the Order are possibly the two best looking games out of current-gen consoles. The fact that they achieve such beauty based on a similar technique to Pixar is quite interesting. I would love to see more devs explore that direction more.

 

[dark10x]

I know it's definitely OT but I wonder why you think that MS should have never entered the console space.

OK maybe that's a bit hasty. I don't actually hate the system. I'm just frustrated. :-/

 

[Final Verdict]

Even 42" is insufficient for most at 6'. That is the size:distance you can start to tell the difference between 720p, not where you can appreciate the full detail of 1080p. That would require over 50" at 6'. I'm not sure if you're intending this for me or others, I am well aware of all this. Did you perhaps misinterpret my post?

So what is the average distance that people play games away from their TV, and what is the average size of a gamer's TV?
If we had numbers for that, then we could conduct a proper test, and see if the resolution difference can really be detected by the average gamer today.


Anyways, would I be alone in saying that I hope that next gen consoles stick to 1080p for games, and simply focus on better lighting/assets/animation/framerate??

I feel like there are severe diminishing returns once you go past 1080p....
Though I guess UHD could be necessary for VR games to feel good...

 

[Dictator93]

I understand the preference of some for pixel "quality" at the cost of native rendering and such... but sitting so close to my PC as I do, it is hard to play games below native res without assuring proper scaling (nearest neighbor, CRT emulation perhaps). I almost never have this choice though. Likewise, the priorities of console devs are quite different than a PC user or PC dev.

Nonetheless, I currently have to play Star Citizen at 900p (due to hardware limitations with my GPU VRAM) and I would really love if it supported Ryse-esque SMAA (currently does not). The pixel popping combined with non-native is pretty brutal.

 

[BigDug13]

Its NOT a comparison article.
Its about devs rendering priorities. Should they focus on resolution or should they focus on pixel quality, so stability [high AA], fidelity [high quality shaders, assets, lighting, post processing], stable framerate.
Because consoles have limited resources some elements (fidelity, resolution or framerate) must be sacrificed.
Thats all this article is about. Only people who have not read or read with some kind of agenda cant really see this.

He's not baffled that people are choosing PS4 based on hardware, but that resolution is the most important factor, which in rendering is not completely true and he debates why, quoting in the process tons of high end graphics programmers.

Its really simple, short and generic article, i really dont get how people can get so confused.

They don't focus on resolution. They focus on the lowest common spec between XBO, PS4, and PC and they achieve what they want performance-wise on the lowest spec which has been not-1080p most of the time on the lowest spec console. Then once you have achieved that performance level, you tweak it based on available resources. They're not going to make a game based on what XBO can't accomplish, and since the PS4 will always hold a spec advantage on GPU, they will be able to do more with that version.

So I still don't understand why his argument exists. If XBO is the lowest common spec they have to cater to, and they're already dropping resolution to achieve it, and they don't have to drop resolution to achieve the same thing on PS4, we are still left with a situation where two consoles are nearly identical except one is capable of running a target that was ALREADY set based on what the weakest multiplatform console can do, but at a higher resolution.

Games are not getting gimped across all platforms because they're trying to achieve 1080p resolution on PS4. And disregarding a 1080p target on PS4 does not suddenly allow devs to achieve more within the game they're designing because they're still held back on what the lowest spec console can do. Just like CPU-bound things are held to the lower standard of what the PS4 can do when a game is designed.

So again, I don't understand the point of this article because even if they went with a 900p target on PS4, they would be rendering graphics intense enough to be forced to go below 900p on XBO. PS4 is doing 1080p not because of some mandate or just to check a box, it is doing so because it has that much performance overhead above the lowest spec target for the game.

These consoles don't exist in a vacuum alone, so discussing how developers shouldn't target 1080p on PS4 as it's unimportant disregards the reason they're hitting 1080p on PS4 which brings in a comparison to that other console that is playing the exact same games.

 

[digoutyoursoul]

It's a hypothetical situation for shits sake. You read into everything like there is a hidden meaning. I do not like what Microsoft has brought to the industry and think we'd be better off if they had never entered it. I can throw that aside when writing and present thoughts free of my dislike for them, however, but reading into it as if I actually PREFER the Xbox?! Pure madness.

Perhaps then you guys should not be trusted when covering Xbox? Saying we would be better off without them ever entering the industry is a pretty strong remark to make. After all the shit other companies have pulled over the years going way back to the late 80s and 90s, it's them who everyone would be better off without?

What is it about this box or the brand that drives people to be like this. People are getting ostracised just because of a different preference, getting sick of this shit.

 

[BashNasty]

I have all three current-gen consoles and I'm on the same page as this article. 1080p is nice, of course, but art direction matters far more in the end. The two games I've been most impressed with visually this gen are Mario Kart 8 and Sunset Overdrive.

 

[ProfessorMoran]

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2015-does-resolution-really-matter

Guess the author...





Lots more on the link discussing how changes in filters and scaling techniques are hiding the resolution deficit.

uwotm8?

 

[FranXico]

Perhaps then you guys should not be trusted when covering Xbox? Saying we would be better off without them ever entering the industry is a pretty strong remark to make.

Why are you saying "you guys"? He stated that as a very personal opinion, and one which he never expresses when he writes for DF.

After all the shit other companies have pulled over the years going way back to the late 80s and 90s, it's them who everyone would be better off without?

What is it about this box or the brand that drives people to be like this. People are getting ostracized just because of a different preference, getting sick of this shit.

How does someone's poor opinion on a company equate to ostracizing people?

 

[Koh]

If it didn't matter, couldn't PS4 ports just go with 900p or 1080pr and get a sizeable increase to framerate or effects?

Someone is making the decision that 1080p is the goal, and id assume there is a business value associated with that decision.

 

[AlphaDump]

The bigger the tv's get, the more it makes a difference.

In addition, consumers ARE buying bigger tvs.

Yes, it matters.

According to NPD DisplaySearch, the average screen size of today's televisions is 36.8 inches. That's up two inches in just the last year alone.

that quote is dated Oct 13, 2012.

 

[JordanN]

Has anyone ever thought, if resolution doesn't matter, why does it even exist?

Like, how come no one over the past 30 years ever told engineers "guys, stop. 100 x 100 pixels is enough. Don't bother with any of this 480p, or 1080p stuff".

 

[digoutyoursoul]

Why are you saying "you guys"? He stated that as a very personal opinion, and one which he never expresses when he writes for DF.



How does someone's poor opinion on a company equate to ostracizing people?

Because it's not just him, the UK gaming press at the moment is a farce

 

[Cidd]

Over year later and still asking this ridiculous question, unbelievable.

 

[virtualS]

Come clean Leadbetter. Who do you work for? It clearly isn't your readership.

 

[dark10x]

Perhaps then you guys should not be trusted when covering Xbox? Saying we would be better off without them ever entering the industry is a pretty strong remark to make. After all the shit other companies have pulled over the years going way back to the late 80s and 90s, it's them who everyone would be better off without?

What is it about this box or the brand that drives people to be like this. People are getting ostracised just because of a different preference, getting sick of this shit.

Nah, that's not really true, just an overreaction to people making crazy assertions.

Truth be told, I love all devices and electronics including the Xbox line. I wouldn't have massive shelves full of games for all systems if not. I dislike what they were attempting to do early on with Xbox One BUT they've been turning things around so I'll give them that.

 

[digoutyoursoul]

Nah, that's not really true, just an overreaction to people making crazy assertions.

Truth be told, I love all devices and electronics including the Xbox line.

Well then, I take everything I said to you back and apologise. My problem isn't with preferences you understand, it's how some people go about them.

 

[GoaThief]

Because it's not just him, the UK gaming press at the moment is a farce

In a manner other countries are not, and in what way(s)?

 

[dark10x]

Well then, I take everything I said to you back and apologise. My problem isn't with preferences you understand, it's how some people go about them.

Absolutely, I agree 100%.

I'm just frustrated for being labeled in any way as a "fanboy" for a platform when I know that simply isn't the reality. Heck, on the phone side, I have Android, iOS, and Windows Phone devices all in my possession - I just like technology. I'd like to be able to recommend an Xbox game for legit reasons (such as a smoother frame-rate ala Dragon Age) without people going nuts. I wish people could just see the good and bad of all platforms and enjoy them for what they are.

 

[Breakfast at Noon]

How come during the ps3 360 days resolution and performance mattered but now apparantly it does not.

 

[Haint]

This tired viewing distance argument again,are you going to bring out that awful graph next?

I just switched from a 19" 1600x1200 crt to a 24" 1080p lcd monitor, I sat 3 feet away from the 19" and have had to put the 24" one way back(almost 2 arm lenghts, so 4+ feet) because 1080p on a 24" feels like way too low pixel density at that distance.

At 4 feet I can still clearly make out the pixels.

This also has nothing to do with the fact that sub native resolutions are blurry on lcd displays because they can't scale without blurring.
I'm sorry your eyes suck, I guess, it's pretty irrelevant. This viewing distance discussion is just an attempt to steer the discussion away from the fast that upscaling is highly undesirable on lcd panels.

Image quality takes a big hit at the exact cutoff point of native resolution (go below it and there's an instant large drop in image quality in the form of blur)
So yes, resolution does matter on its own, 1080p is not some arbitrary number, if every tv was 1200p then 1200p would be the desired resolution to render content at and 1080p would suck the same was anything below 1080p sucks on a 1080p panel

The "awful graphs" are based on what distance 20/20 vision can pick out single, double, and triple+ pixel/line wide resolution patterns. You're arguing against objective science. Now if you want to claim 20/20 is not "normal", and assert most people have 20/15, 10, or 5 (they don't), or that resolution patterns don't accurately reflect real world source material, that's fine. It's not their intent in the first place, their purpose is simply to illustrate what size:distance 20/20 vision can discern full and partial resolution under ideal circumstances. It's great that you probably have better than 20/20 vision, the charts do not apply to you. Unfortunately most people have 20/20 or worse, which is who the charts exist for, the average and the majority.

So what is the average distance that people play games away from their TV, and what is the average size of a gamer's TV?
If we had numbers for that, then we could conduct a proper test, and see if the resolution difference can really be detected by the average gamer today.

Anyways, would I be alone in saying that I hope that next gen consoles stick to 1080p for games, and simply focus on better lighting/assets/animation/framerate??

I feel like there are severe diminishing returns once you go past 1080p....
Though I guess UHD could be necessary for VR games to feel good...

Truthfully, the average size:distance is likely so tilted most probably have a hard time selling the difference in 480p and 1080p (e.g. DVD and BR). I wouldn't be at all surprised if there exists a national average of 40" from 10' in America. The problem is they don't represent these test as being limited to an average living room, they present them as matters of fact, "you can't tell X from Y" implying it applies to every situation without exception. They are perpetuating ignorance and misinformation, which is why you have dumbassery like those IGN bafoons in that gif.

 

[Synth]

Has anyone ever thought, if resolution doesn't matter, why does it even exist?

Like, how come no one over the past 30 years ever told engineers "guys, stop. 100 x 100 pixels is enough. Don't bother with any of this 480p, or 1080p stuff".

I think the title is being taken too literally. The article mostly talks about resolution past a certain point, and the tradeoffs required to render at higher resolutions.

Screen manufacturers don't have to concern themselves with the tradeoffs required to get a game running at 1080p or above.. hell other entertainment mediums don't really have to give a shit either. In their cases higher res is pretty much always the best option.

 

[SapientWolf]

Everything else being equal, a higher resolution is obviously better than a lower one, even if some gamers don't notice. At the very least you avoid scaling lag.

I think a better premise would have been to provide objective information on how resolution affects image quality on a fixed pixel display, and let the reader decide for themselves if it's important to them. People need to be familiarized with concepts like viewing angle and upscaling artifacts. This article seems to obfuscate rather than illuminate.

 

[Hiko]

It depends on which platform has the advantage.

 

[AlphaDump]

Absolutely, I agree 100%.

I'm just frustrated for being labeled in any way as a "fanboy" for a platform when I know that simply isn't the reality. Heck, on the phone side, I have Android, iOS, and Windows Phone devices all in my possession - I just like technology. I'd like to be able to recommend an Xbox game for legit reasons (such as a smoother frame-rate ala Dragon Age) without people going nuts. I wish people could just see the good and bad of all platforms and enjoy them for what they are.

it would help to standardize the analysis, so the content being presented is consistent across the board.

 

[Skux]

"I've got a 1080p monitor, I want a 1080p picture" in the comments sums it up.

If you can tell the difference, then it matters.

 

[digoutyoursoul]

Absolutely, I agree 100%.

I'm just frustrated for being labeled in any way as a "fanboy" for a platform when I know that simply isn't the reality. Heck, on the phone side, I have Android, iOS, and Windows Phone devices all in my possession - I just like technology. I'd like to be able to recommend an Xbox game for legit reasons (such as a smoother frame-rate ala Dragon Age) without people going nuts. I wish people could just see the good and bad of all platforms and enjoy them for what they are.

Yes I agree 100%. Once again my apologises for my earlier comments.

 

[Mugatu]

Posting still images doesn't mean anything - under motion it;s a lot more difficult to tell.

Sometimes it matters, sometimes it doesn't - depends on how the game/console/PC/TV handles it the scaling.

 

[digoutyoursoul]

In a manner other countries are not, and in what way(s)?

I take more notice of the UK press/media than others you see. I don't like the way a lot of them conduct themselves. making excuses for one companies failings or current negativities and attacking others for the same issues. Sites such as NowGamer, VG247 and the reporting side of online retailer Shopto . I have more respect for those who will say how things are rather than either damage control or balloon situations in a attacking sense for more views.