Despite the fact we'd love to see every game rendered in true high definition, there are reasons why some developers choose a lower resolution. …well, we assume there are good reasons, at any rate.

Take Infinity Ward, for instance: according to GameZine , Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 will boast a resolution of 600p, which is equivalent to 1024 x 600 pixels, and this has been confirmed by the Beyond3D technical forums. For the record, the first Modern Warfare was also shown in 600p, and everyone is asking the same question: is this a significantly negative point of interest? Wouldn't it be fair to assume that a sequel two years later, especially in this HD-crazy generation, might use a higher resolution? Perhaps it's important to note that the game should run at a silky smooth 60 frames per second – just like the original – and I don't recall critics or gamers having a problem with the visuals. And based on what we've seen thus far of Modern Warfare 2 , it should be another graphically stunning title, so maybe we don't necessarily need something higher than 600p. Maybe it's better to keep a slightly lower resolution and avoid the slower 30fps; some of the more visually advanced titles won't run faster than 30.

So what say you? Should Infinity Ward have tried for a higher resolution? Do you think they could've kept 60fps with more pixels flying around the screen? It's your chance to show off your technical knowledge…

Related Game(s): Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2

Subscribe
Notify of
169 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
godsman
godsman
11 years ago

A quick action game, where the slightly delay means life or death, requires a higher frame rate. Just do whatever it takes to make the experience fun.

Note that there are still many people that cant tell the difference between DVD upscaling and true high definition. 600p is better than dvd quality. I think its good enough.

Shadow_Ninja
Shadow_Ninja
11 years ago

apparently "good enough" isn't good enough for some people…

WorldEndsWithMe
WorldEndsWithMe
11 years ago

Could they have? Duh, only if it were an exclusive. This is soooo weak.

LightShow
LightShow
11 years ago

i'm not sure exactly why games run anywhere higher than 30fps. i'm pretty sure that thats how fast the brain can process, any faster and it cant tell the difference. maybe its just a buffer to keep it up during high-stress computing…

TheHighlander
TheHighlander
11 years ago

Indeed. A good human reaction time is somewhere around two tenths of a second. 30 frames a second means each frame lasts a thirtieth. An above average person reacts in 6 thirtieths, or six frames of action. At 60 frames per second, 12 frames pass by before even a fast human can react.

Our ability to react to events in a game is not significantly altered by the frame rate. However the 60 frames per second is smoother and more comfortable to view. This is because the human eye, and bran is fast enough to process the image at 60fps, even if the human body takes twelve frames to actually move in reaction to the events on screen.

So 60 frames per second is better, it's smoother, and easier on the eye. It may not help speed the reactions of players, but it is less fatigue on the player's eyes.

aaronisbla
aaronisbla
11 years ago

you would be surprised how important 60fps is to the 3d fighting game community like Tekken and Soul Calibur

TheHighlander
TheHighlander
11 years ago

@aaronisbla

Not really, I'm well aware that some of that community believe that frame rates as high as 240 frames per second aren't enough. The trouble is that at frame rates of 60fps and higher you may perceive that the image is steady and motion is smooth. But your ability to react is what it is. Your reaction time is in the order of 12 times the amount of time a single frame is visible at 60fps. When you're playing any fast game like this you are far more affected by the flow of the game and action than you are by anything else. You anticipate actions and react accordingly. The ability to anticipate the actions of an opponent have nothing to do with frame rate.

If you have a link that points to actual research on this that proves faster frame rates actually have a pay off in reaction times, I'll gladly read it and retract my statements. But I've never read any such research. I've been gaming for more or less as long as most of the folks on this site have been alive, and I have yet to notice any major benefit of frame rates much higher than 60fps, although I can confirm that frame rates that drop below 25 frames a second, or frame rates that vary are distracting enough to slow down reaction times.

NiteKrawler
NiteKrawler
11 years ago

The average person can detect a difference up to about 60fps. After that, it just takes more work for nothing. Really though, I think 30fps is just fine. If they could have reasonably got 60fps with no slow down without spending too much money and working themselves to death, I bet they would have.

aaronisbla
aaronisbla
11 years ago

@TheHighlander

Earlier when i said that 60fps is important to the communities of Tekken and Soul Calibur, trust me, i know what im talking about here.

I never said something higher was needed. Who in these communities said something higher is needed? thats new to me. Look at their respective gaming websites (Tekkenzaibatsu and 8wayrun) and took a look at their frame data that gets compiled for each game. Its all based on the frames being locked at 60. Personally, id hate to see any new fighting games moving at 30 frames.

The games run at 60fps, therefore people in these communities can actually count how many frames a move will take. Yes, they actually come up with pretty damn accurate data. You might not think it helps with reaction times but it does and this is how.

We study the moves we do and the moves that other characters do. If we say a move comes out in 15 frames, we are saying it comes out in 1/4th of a second. Pretty basic but it goes deeper. By counting frames, we can determine which moves are safer to use than others and to see what can punish other moves, whether they hit or are blocked. It can be pretty hard to explain if you are not use to the lingo that tekken or SC players use. But basically, by knowing how many frames a move takes to connect, how fast you recover from block stun ( which is also counted in frames ) you can then determine the best course of action from situations

On SC4, my main character is Astaroth, big guy with a huge axe. He isnt the fastest guy in the game, so when he blocks a move, its really important to know what moves you can use at that time. By knowing the amount of frames it takes a move to actually connect, you can determine all sorts of things, like whats the best attack in a certain situation, what's the worse option that will get you hurt, things of that nature

Its not like you have to know the frame data of every move on the game, just the more important ones. Frame Data is extremely important in fighting game communities and it 60 fps, it makes it a easier to deal with. Whats the last good fighting game that moved slower than 60fps?


Last edited by aaronisbla on 7/30/2009 1:19:04 AM

Fane1024
Fane1024
11 years ago

A slight correction: the study I saw said humans can distinguish images up to about 45 or 50 frames per second.

Mornelithe
Mornelithe
11 years ago

The other thing to understand is that the human eye doesn't perceive data in the way of 'frames per second'. You have to understand it's data being transmitted through rods/cones in your eye, through to the optic nerve, which is then dispersed throughout the rest of the brain. As such, what you tend to happen BEYOND 60fps, is, the information/data is there, however, your brain starts missing details of the images you're seeing, because it lacks the ability to decipher all the data it's taking in that quickly.

Point being, as Highlander indicated, 60fps is actually proven to appear smoother, and more fluid. And, to be honest, we can see perfectly fine images higher than that, it's just going too high becomes meaningless as we aren't able to pick out all the data/detail.

TheHighlander
TheHighlander
11 years ago

@All

Human vision is analog. We do not specifically distinguish individual frames. A human can perceive that there is a difference between two images even if the difference is only visible for a moment, be it a hundredth or a thousandth of a second, I'm not sure. But the perception of a difference is not specific to a given frame rate. Most people would be able to tell you that video playback on a 240Hz screen with 240 frames per second look smother than 120 or 60 frames per second, but they wouldn't be able to individually distinguish one frame from another during live playback. By that I mean, they'd know that there was a change. But not necessarily what the change was, on an individual frame by frame basis.

With gaming, yes 60 frames per second is important because at the alternative – 30 frames per second – each frame lasts a significant portion of the reaction time. The lower the frame rate the greater the possible reaction time gap between two players who are a few frames apart in terms of action and response. The faster frame rate reduces the amount of perceived lag between action and reaction. However, as frame rates climb past 60, the significance of the frame to frame lag drops from significance. That's why I don't see the importance of frame rates beyond 60. That said, I have read so many articles on so many hardcore PC gaming sites where the 'willie waving' PC gamers are trying to out do each other's frame rates and extolling the virtues of frame rates in excess of 120. So, when I mentioned that some want frame rates higher and higher, it was these gamers I was referring to.

NiteKrawler
NiteKrawler
11 years ago

Yeah, Highlander is right. 60 fps is better than 30 fps. Looks much smoother.

aaronisbla
aaronisbla
11 years ago

yeah pretty much agree with you, maybe its cuz ive never been a pc gamer but i dont see the need for all games to be in the upper regions of fps.

Mornelithe
Mornelithe
11 years ago

Heh, please don't add me into that Highlander, I do prefer a higher frame rate, but beyond 70 is getting to the point where there's no noticeable difference. 60's just fine for games, imo.

somethingrandom
somethingrandom
11 years ago

The vast majority of times you will not notice the difference even between 60fps and 10000fps. This is because the vast majority of TV's do not support refresh rates over 60Hz (Hz=cycles/second). Even if you have a plasma TV or an LCD with higher refresh rates, this is done with software in the TV to create new frames in between existing ones. There is no HDMI cable I've ever heard of that could support the amount of data needed to display at much higher than 60 fps…

ThePearlJamer
ThePearlJamer
11 years ago

what were MGS4 and KZ2?

Btw…Does anyone think that KZ3 might be in the works…

Reccaman18
Reccaman18
11 years ago

based on what Guerrilla games has said about their future, no. Apparently, they want to do something else.

aaronisbla
aaronisbla
11 years ago

mgs 4 ran at 1074 x 764. Frame rate was 30 fps but rose near or at 60 frames when night vision goggles was used on the solid eye.

Killzone 2 was 720p at 30fps

Nynja
Nynja
11 years ago

MW looks great in motion. For the type of game it is and how fun it can be, I'll forgive IW for dropping the resolution in favor of 60fps.

Fluidity really helps when its a fast paced game.

Bugzbunny109
Bugzbunny109
11 years ago

I honestly see Modern Warfare 2 as COD4 with a different plot. MW2 having the same graphics as COD4 supports my opinion even further. I will be getting MW2 only because I enjoyed COD4. I have seen nothing so far that would make me want to say, "Oh I can not wait to play this game!".

Morals
Morals
11 years ago

The ps3 could handle the 1080p res at 60 FPS.

huskerfan_101
huskerfan_101
11 years ago

Then, why didn't Killzone 2 run at 60 FPS?

LegendaryWolfeh
LegendaryWolfeh
11 years ago

Hardware capabilities are not equal to the developers limitations in coding and other things. Sure they could run it, but I doubt it'd be stable, unless you limit textures and other enhancements.

TheHighlander
TheHighlander
11 years ago

Yes, but it's like this. PS3 can push 1080p at 60fps with an image that has a certain complexity. Let's call that amount of work A. If you increase the amount of work needed per fram by 100% so that the work load is now 2 x A, the PS3 can no longer push 1080p at 60 frames per second, it'll have to switch down either to 1080i, or 720p or the equivalent. 720p is roughly half the workload of 1080p, the pixel count is about half 1080p.

If a lot of additional visual effects are being used then depending on how well they are implemented and how they are applied, it may not be possible for any GPU or CPU to manage 1080p60. so the render target is adjusted downwards depending on the goals. In the case of MW2, they want 60fps, so they dropped the resolution. Dropping the resolution and/or frame rate has a directly proportional effect on the workload. If they'd been ok with 30fps then they could have rendered at a higher resolution.

It's all about trade offs, balancing the resolution, framerate and the number of visual effects used.

raztad
raztad
11 years ago

Example of 60fps/1080p:

Wipeout HD, GT5:P, GT5 is expected to run at 60fps/1080p

KZ2 runs at 30fps/720 cause its engine heavily uses postprocessing/a lot of light sources/particle effects. Besides, KZ2 is far from reaching 100% of PS3 theoretical power so we can expect even better graphics, higher resolutions in upcoming interations of KZ. I dont think GG is aiming for 30fps. KZ2 gameplay is slow paced, not twitchy like COD.

GoW3 is expected (said by the same project leader at E3) to reach 1080p with resolutions fluctuating between 30 and 60fps. It will drop down to 30fps wwhen a lot of enemies/action is going on on screen.

Hexen
Hexen
11 years ago

I am sure the PC gamers will mock this and possibly gloat; as well they should.

Mornelithe
Mornelithe
11 years ago

Well, I'm not getting MW2, I have a severe hatred for the Modern Warfare era/fake scenario style that comprises that game. However, when they reskin it and call it [email protected] in either the pacific theater, or vietnam. Yes, I'll be getting it for my PC, and I'm certain I'll be running it at 1920×1200 ūüėČ

Only buy exclusives for my PS3, all else goes to PC.

Now…give me Gran Turismo 5!

LegendaryWolfeh
LegendaryWolfeh
11 years ago

How can you hate the modern era? The past is just to too used up in my opinion. I mean hell there's at LEAST 20+ games about WW2. Just because they're 'fake' scenarios doesn't change the fact that they can really happen and those situations are actually possible in todays world.

Ben Dutka PSXE
Ben Dutka PSXE
11 years ago

It's tough to gloat when the PC has been a declining platform for a decade.

Mornelithe
Mornelithe
11 years ago

@ LegendaryWolf – Ok seriously, we're not going to see eye to eye here. It's just my personal preference. I went to the CoD franchise for accuracy and to tell me a story of amazing camraderie. Sure, there've been 20+ games based upon WW2 (I'd actually argue there are more). However, you can't tell me that every story has been told. For me, and for many rabid fans of the franchise from day 1. It's always been about WW2 or a real conflict, and following a story that only few lived to tell of.

Personally, I can't wait to see the cascade effect that'll occur when 'The Pacific' is finished. It's a new HBO 10-part series, just like Band of Brothers, except obviously…about the pacific theater. They've got a $250 million budget, and have survivors from the encounters helping with the detail. It's exciting because it'll undoubtedly push IW/Treyarch/Grey Matter/whoever the fuck, to pump out a new line of Pacific oriented WW2 games, based upon those series…as they did with COD1/UO-2.

@ Ben – You're wrong, actually. I can gloat perfectly easily, other than Sony exclusives, I can play virtually every other game out there, at 10-50x the resolution the consoles can achieve. Better physics, better framerates, easier modability, downloadable patches for free. I'm sorry, but the PC community still has PLENTY to gloat about.

Make no mistake though Ben, I still own a PS3, and will continue to get Sony machines, as long as it's necessary. Sony is quite intelligent insofar that it doesn't release it's epic stuff on PC. Whereas, MS usually ends up caving and doing so. But, the PC does most gaming better, from a hardware perspective, it's undeniable…however, there are some genre's of gaming that I prefer on console also…like your fighters, Tekken/SF/CvSNK, racing games, etc..

Even still though, take Street Fighter IV, as an example. My PC Runs SFIV @ 1920×1200 60hz C16xQAA at an average 65.96 FPS….have you seen what it looks like on a decent PC? It actually feels like a Turbo street fighter…not like the slo-mo on the consoles. You just get better performance on PC.

Anyway, as stated, will probably get [email protected] But, not interested in the MW series.

Mornelithe
Mornelithe
11 years ago

@ Ben – I do however, choose to keep my gloating to a relative minimum…as this is a PS3 oriented site. Still, there are plenty of reasons why PC gaming is not only badass, but truly superior. I think too many people choose the cheap, immediate satisfaction item. Rather than working for something greater. Sounds like the 360 vs PS3 argument, no?

ArnoldK PSXE
ArnoldK PSXE
11 years ago

I have to say, Mornelithe DOES have a point. If I was a gamer with some extra dough, I'd just buy a competent PC and enjoy my games without any of these limitations.

TheHighlander
TheHighlander
11 years ago

@Mournelith

10-50x the resolution a console can manage?

Really? So you have how many PCs that can pump out anything between 10 Mega Pixel and 50 megapixel images at 30-60 frames per second? Console games of today run on average in 720p which is essentially a one mega pixel image. If you have a PC that has the capability of running anything at 10-50 Megapixel resolution with a frame rate between 30-60fps I'll be shocked beyond belief.

I understand the reaction to Ben's statement about PC gaming dying (although I agree with Ben), but really?

Mornelithe
Mornelithe
11 years ago

That's a bit of a generous average, don't you think Highlander? I probably over-estimated a bit, but the point is, rarely do any of the serious multi-platform games, heck, even some of the big-time exclusives, don't hit 720p. Halo 3, comes to mind. Ghostbusters, GTAIV. As I stated previously, my system runs GTAIV, Crysis, Crysis Warhead, Farcry 2, CoD [email protected], Company of Heroes, Prototype, Stalker: Shadows of Chernobyl, and Stalker: Clear Skies @ 1920×1200. That's higher than 1080p (Which is 1200×1080). Resolution is negligible however, as most TV's can't go beyond 1080p. PC Monitors can however.

Beyond that, there's also the tremendous RAM increase, as well. Not to mention the severely underpowered GPU's in both machines. Again, remember here, I own a PS3 and am quite avidly awaiting many a-game… But the facts speak for themselves.

Mornelithe
Mornelithe
11 years ago

@ Highlander+Ben & Co, sorry if I seemed upset or annoyed or something there. Totally wasn't, and don't mean to come off that way.

vicious54
vicious54
11 years ago

@Morne

I don't know where you get your information but 1080p's resolution is 1920 X 1080.

Ben Dutka PSXE
Ben Dutka PSXE
11 years ago

That's fine. I'm just waiting to hear about all those PC exclusives that are supposed to be far superior to the console exclusives.

…oh wait, this isn't 1998. ūüėČ

TheHighlander
TheHighlander
11 years ago

@mornelith

I didn't get the impression you were upset or annoyed.

720p is 1 megapixel, that's the resolution. 1080p is a 2megapixel image. Most PS3 games render at 720p, some render at 10880p, some render below 720p, but by and large the average game renders at 720p. 10 to 50 times that resolution is 10-50 megapixels, it's just math.

I agree that in light of today's GPUs the GPU in the PS3 (and the 360) is underpowered compared to the current state of the art. However for the purpose that they are designed for – pushing 720p/1080i/1080p images, both GPUs are more than adequate.

PC gaming is still doomed. It may never die, but it's doomed to a niche existence in specific genre of game.

That said, I also wonder how many game developers will continue to devote resources to PC games at high resolution with the attendant costs (game devs are always complaining about the costs associated with 720p games, imagine their dismay with resolutions higher than 1080p). Game piracy on PC is, and always will be, a huge issue. The return on investment just isn't there in a lot of cases.

Mornelithe
Mornelithe
11 years ago

@ Ben – PC Exclusives? You mean…like….Stalker: Shadows of Chernobyl? Stalker: Clear Skies? Crysis? Crysis: Warhead? World of Warcraft? Diablo 3? Starcraft 2? You mean those exclusives?

I've yet to see any 'console' game engine, come close to looking like Crysis: Warhead on enthusiast. Whether you like the game or not is irrelevant. Crysis: Warhead is nearly a 2 year old game, that's only matched by it's 3 year old counter-part (Crysis). Want to see a real difference in power? Let's compare and contrast the CryEngine 3, on console vs PC, when Crytek finishes their next game.

Hexen
Hexen
11 years ago

@Mornelithe

For some reason you think that a game is about graphics and resolution alone,Nothing else matters.The PC exclusives you named are superior and better to the console's because they have better graphics and better resolution *wink*.Would it be a safe bet to call you a specs whore?

Mornelithe
Mornelithe
11 years ago

No, not at all. I still thoroughly enjoy playing NES, SNES, N64, PS1 and PS2 games. However, I _prefer_ to play games, at the resolutions the developer intended. Not, I repeat, NOT, the resolutions, textures, load times et al, that they're FORCED to utilize, when limited by console hardware.

And, as with PS3 gaming, the PC also has free online play (as well as some Pay games not available for console), mods are a dime a dozen, which creates a huge amount of variety. Patches are not only free, but available from so many different sources that snagging them on a knee-jerk fancy, is a matter of a few minutes wait. Again, I realize this is preference we're talking here. Some people want to just play the games, and that's fine. I however, just like to see the games be all they can be.

It's interesting though, I've been questioned on my desire for the best possible performance before. And…I keep asking myself…who WOULDN'T want their favorite game, to play, look, and feel….better? I mean….sure, not everyone has the income, even though it's quite easy to set aside some money here and there over a long period of time to build your machine…but, given the opportunity, I find it just…a foreign concept, to not want to improve the experience. Call me crazy.

As for _why_ I like them, and named them. Well, Ben referred to PC exclusives that were 'supposedly better than the console exclusives'. I gave 7, off the top of my head. I'll add in Company of Heroes as well, as that's an insane RTS, and plays great on a DX10 rig. And to clarify, I didn't just list those games because they're gorgeous. Some of them are rife with issues, but are still vastly superior games (In my opinion). CoH trumps Red Alert on PS3, no doubt about it. Crysis/Crysis Warhead trump and physics/realism the PS3/360 have managed thus far. Stalker was a very very very interesting series. And incredibly under-appreciated in my opinion. A vast, vast sandbox style, tons of weapons, multiple endings to the game…absolutely fantastic. Sure, it was a little less buggy than AC, but, the gameplay and plot made up for it, imo.

Graphics _aren't_ everything though, I'm not trying to say they are. However, leaps and bounds in graphical acuity, realism, physics, and such, DO advance the industry as a whole. And I really like to see what new bounds they're pushing.


Last edited by Mornelithe on 7/29/2009 12:53:08 PM

Mornelithe
Mornelithe
11 years ago

Additionally, you may or may not notice the difference in _when_ and how often the game loads, on PC. There's a reason why the Crysis series, and Stalker series didn't make it to console. It's because of the map size. A big problem with Fallout 3 on console imo, not to mention GTAIV. The bigger the map/area you're in, the more they have to section it up, and cut down texture detail in order to toss it on console. A more current example, would definitely be Rage. There's supposedly 2 huge maps, so it'll be a good way to guage if they've closed the gap on that or not.

WorldEndsWithMe
WorldEndsWithMe
11 years ago

I just think even your average working joe can get himself a PS3, while keeping your PC up to gaming specs is a serious financial investment. My PC is pretty old, it does everything I want, and I have no desire to sit at my desk and play anyway. Getting a big rig to a giant monitor out near my couch would be an even bigger investment. I think what Ben is getting at is when you go to any store, the PC games shelf is shrinking and the sales aren't doing too well anyway. No one wants to argue that games don't look better on PC, but the platform is becoming less viable as time goes on. But I don't blame you, if I had a badass PC I'd probably be a little proud of it too.

Mornelithe
Mornelithe
11 years ago

Well, I'm proud of the investment certainly. This rig will last me for some time, and has potential for upgrading in the future. The thing is, I buy PC and PS3 games, pretty much evenly. And spend time doing both, on a consistent basis.

As for not being a viable platform? Really, I'm not so sure. I think allot of PC gamers are a bit more finicky in some regards. But, if you can capture their attention…ala WoW. There's a revenue source that makes consoles pale in comparison. Blizzard generates what, 2 billion a year alone, on the $15 subscription? Say what you will about WoW, but that's a huge chunk of change. And merely indicative of the size and scale of the PC base. Make a game, that doesn't depend on graphics (but does support hardware scaling), that hits the hearts of many, in that way, they generate revenue to take more risky endeavors. Think Starcraft 2 and Diablo 3 as examples of where the PC base is at in the coming future.

Lastly, and I forgot to mention this earlier, I have to admit, several people seem to be quite oblivious to the rampant piracy issue on the 360. I know it takes less than an hour to mod one. And games hit the net days in advance of street launch. So, it's already begun, and will most certainly get worse as time progresses for that consoles revenues.

Ben Dutka PSXE
Ben Dutka PSXE
11 years ago

Good for you. You named about two or three decent exclusives and a few that don't even exist yet. How many exclusives have come out that everyone needs to play on PC in the past five years? Want me to run down the list of console exclusives that have been as good or better in that same time frame?

Here's the bottom line. PC hasn't dominated the Game of the Year nominations and victories as it once did. Every year these days, you can BET that a PC exclusive title WON'T win Game of the Year. If anything it'll be ALSO on PC but it will NOT be best PLAYED on PC. Last year, big winners were MGS4 and LBP (the latter swept up at the AIAS Awards). This year your nominations will likely go to Killzone 2 and Uncharted 2 and others.

You seem to forget something. If there was a reason to own a gaming quality PC, I would own one. I only want to play the best of the best. However, the best of the best simply aren't on PC and haven't been in quite some time. I won't have any need of a PC for GT5, FFXIII, Uncharted 2, Assassin's Creed II, GTAV, Heavy Rain, God of War III, The Last Guardian, Alan Wake, etc. And PC freaks can brag all they want about resolution; significant differences in HD resolutions can only be seen on larger screens, anyway, and I'm not missing much of anything with my 1080p, 40" screen.

And I don't care what anyone says, an action game has NEVER been best played on a PC, nor has a sports game. This doesn't excuse the obscene lack of variety on PC, though; of all the great PC titles in the past decade, which of them CAN'T be classified as a FPS, RTS, or Western RPG? …any? I'll be awaiting that answer.


Last edited by Ben Dutka PSXE on 7/29/2009 3:26:16 PM

bamf
bamf
11 years ago

@Morn
I have to point out that those resolutions are too high to be important. You take Blu-ray for instance, the HD quality at 1080p and 1080i for smaller TV's is that crisp now, no one is going to care about even higher resolutions unless you plan to buy an 100" LCD. 1080p is where its at that and the HD image is good enough to convince everyone to ugrade their standard definition TV's for HD ones. I think it ends there and super HD TV's will never take off as the increase in resolution isn't noticeable due to the fact that 1080p is so crisp and sharp anyway.
If there's a choice of 2 PS3's, one that's just powerful enough to play 1080p at 60fps and the other with more juice that will also do 60fps and will output games at 1920×1200 but this means the second PS3 is 5
3 times more expensive. I would choose the first PS3, paying 3 times the money just for a higher resolution than 1080p just isn't worth it.
We all know that its down to the demand of the PC gamer why GPU's and CPU's would become faster and more powerful. I think those days have gone now, and I think this is also what Ben means about the PC fading out. Spending more money on dual cards just for 120fps and 1920×1200 is pointless.

Alienange
Alienange
11 years ago

@ Ben – Reading all this I was completely losing it over this crazy argument of PC gaming supremacy. I just knew there was something amiss about the PC argument. Your last comment there, well, it hit the nail on the head.

Besides, if PC gaming was so awesome and can't be touched for all it's greatness, why does he also have a PS3?

Mornelithe
Mornelithe
11 years ago

Um, you asked for exclusives Ben, I gave them, you didn't indicate that X number of exclusives would be required in order for my point to be valid. If you really want to have a conversation about this, maybe set the rules in advance, before making up the conversational architecture as things progress.. No need to cop an attitude, I'm simply offering up my personal opinion, based upon hardware FACTS. Like it or not, there's just more you can do with the horsepower PC's afford. Again, you somehow think that what you qualify as 'good or better' means anything to me. Remember, it's personal preferance here Ben. Not, this is the world according to Ben. I made it quite clear that it was my opinion, and some enjoy certain genre's of gaming on certain platforms, respectively. I made no attempt to state everyone felt the same way I did.

Beyond that, yes, some exclusives I named are not out yet (Amusingly enough, all 9 of the ones you listed aren't either…and yeah, GTAV won't ever come out on PC…really??). Then again, some of the exclusives we talk about here all the time, aren't out yet either. It makes them no more or less valid to the genre. And if you go back and read what I was stating, I indicated that those games (D3/SC2) would be a good indicator of the health of the PC market, outside of WoW. Yes, PC's have been taking a back seat to consoles for a little bit, but that's honestly to be expected in an emerging market such as this. PC's were once the red-headed step-child of entertainment. Now, it's being tapped into by multiple sources and spread to newer constituency's. This does not take away from the fact, that there are more PC's in the world, than there are any one type of console. As such, it will always represent a huge base for publishers to depend upon.

Then we move onto PC/PS3 why need what blah blah. Seriously Ben, take a deep breath and re-read what I said. I own a PS3 for Sony's exclusives. Period. If Sony's released their games on PC, I would most likely buy the majority for PC, and have games such as LBP, Tekken, SFIV, KoFXII, Wipeout, Gran Turismo etc… for my PS3. I enjoy those types of games on a console more, controllers and such. But Uncharted on PC? Hell yeah. I love GTAIV on PC…it's freekin fantastic. Vastly…vastly superior to the PS3 version (I have both). But, make no mistake, I _like_ Sony's 1st party developers. It's why I purchased a PS3. Why else?

I try not to brag about the machine, although, I definitely have in the past (Trying to tone it down honestly). But…I have the option of running at whatever performance I want on most games…whereas the consoles are stuck to something quite a bit lower. My Street Fighter IV example was about as clear as you can get. GTAIV is only further proof.

As for lack of variety…you're somewhat right. I mean, there's Uru, the next chapter in the Myst games, but I guess that'd be a Western RPG, although, it's more of an intelligent adventure if you ask me. The problem is, remember, the PC market is where gaming gained allot of traction, and was, for quite some time a targeted audience of FPS/RPG/RTS gamers, for one…that's still a monsterous demographic. Huge…especially the RTS, and especially the 2 RTS' that are still played ad-nauseum today (Starcraft/Diablo2), Starcraft 2 is going to sell…quite a bit, and that's probably an understatement. But, I digress…I think that honestly the PC market is going to have to prove that it's capable of sustaining other genre's of gaming as well, before it'll get too much more variety. But, it'll still have the best performing/looking FPS'/TPS' and RTS' (MY opinion), for years to come.

Anyway, take it easy Ben…not everything is attack on you personally.

Ben Dutka PSXE
Ben Dutka PSXE
11 years ago

…who took anything personally?

I'm sorry, but I really don't care about hardware. I wouldn't care if a PC or console had the power to send me to Mars. If it doesn't have the software, I – and nobody else – will care. Look, there's a reason why the PC market has been on the steady decline, and the most obvious explanation is that console gaming simply provides an overall better experience.

All I care about are the games. The total number of great games I can play on any given platform. I'm sorry, but when the PC can't even produce more than one or two titles I might want to play in a full year, I consider that a dead platform. PC exclusives fail to gain acclaim, fail to gain the attention of gamers, and in general, fall well short in terms of just about everything that makes games entertaining.

Technical superiority only goes so far, and like I said, this isn't 1998. The gap in technology between consoles and PC, along with the fact that one group of systems has the diverse and top-notch software and the PC doesn't, has contributed to the aforementioned decline. You can play whatever you like. If you have fun doing what you do, then fine. I have no problem with that at all, and never have.

But to say the PC is still valid is closer to denial than truth. Sales numbers alone should end that debate.

P.S. Bear in mind that I WAS a PC gamer for a long time; the Tandy IBM was my first computer and I probably played it more than any other console until the PS1. It was also a huge part of my multiplayer gaming with friends and helped with my RPG urging. Remember that I loved many of the PC classics (and still do). But as my priorities have never changed – just find all the best games I can – something else DID. So I had to adapt.


Last edited by Ben Dutka PSXE on 7/29/2009 7:30:52 PM