Modern Warfare 2 Will Render at 600p
- Thread starter lionelhutz
- Start date
Freeza Under The Shower
Member
TheHeretic said:
wikipedia said:
Boom baby!
BravoSuperStar
Member
Gr1mLock said:
This is why console gamers shouldn't even care about such things. It's beyond them.
LQX
Member
COD4 on the PC blows away the console version but even at 600p COD4 on the console looks better than 85% of all the games out there thanks to the smoothness of that 60fps. Will be picking this up for 360 day one and when the new video cards start shipping with MW2 I will be upgrading from my current GTX260.
TheHeretic
Banned
MrVargas said:
When people are talking are USB standards as an upgrading problem and 17 pixels its pretty clear you aren't dealing with PC gamers anymore.
Zeitgeister said:
How were the N64 Starcraft tournaments? A shitty port that can't be played to any degree the creators intended is hardly a bragging point. But it solidifies my point, people play Starcraft PC to this day, how many people are playing the N64 version?
Remember when the PS3 was going to be pushing 1080p and this was a major talking point in arguments between 360 proponents and PS3 proponents? Console gaming this gen is a farce. Sub-HD resolutions, awful framerates, screen tearing, choice between shit free online and usable pay online. Shoddy build quality, too. And we're going to be stuck with all of it for several more years.
Console-only guys are going to have to deal with PC gamers having a louder and louder voice around these parts, because the hardcore will be looking at their substandard experiences and comparing them to 1080p/60fps vsync w/ AA and AF on an affordable PC gaming platform with ideal free online and free additional content and an open choice of control methods.
It's irrational to be a hardcore gamer and advocate unnecessarily inferior experiences. PC gaming welcomes you, don't fight it.
Console-only guys are going to have to deal with PC gamers having a louder and louder voice around these parts, because the hardcore will be looking at their substandard experiences and comparing them to 1080p/60fps vsync w/ AA and AF on an affordable PC gaming platform with ideal free online and free additional content and an open choice of control methods.
It's irrational to be a hardcore gamer and advocate unnecessarily inferior experiences. PC gaming welcomes you, don't fight it.
D
Deleted member 30609
Unconfirmed Member
my monitor's native res is 1680x1050, but I'll sometimes play particularly demanding games (think Crysis) at 1600x900 for the sake of a solid 60FPS in place of 60FPS with occasional dips.MrVargas said:
vandalvideo
Banned
Zeitgeister said:
Boom baby!
Vandal thinks he was speaking figuratively. As in, a game that lasted X years on consoles.
Happy.Neko
Banned
It's probably still a bad FPS. One of the worst. (SP, I don't play MP)stuburns said:
vandalvideo
Banned
Chao said:
Whoa srsly? Have you seen the difference between 600p and upwards? They are worlds apart.
D
Deleted member 30609
Unconfirmed Member
at least something good came of this threadagaru said:And there goes your tag.
MightyHedgehog
Member
You know, I remember when even those people who could easily afford better looking visuals chose to play a game like Quake as ugly as possible in order to maintain framerate advantage in online and LAN play. Those dudes were hardcore. What happened to them? Are we now attempting to join all hardcore gamers and tech freaks together in some unholy union? I thought there was room for those that could be hardcore yet choose not to care as much about tech and the cost (of time and money) that goes with it?EviLore said:
TheHeretic said:
There have been threads on this forum featuring a rather large group of gamers wondering why exactly we should expect and want games to be at 60 FPS and not 30. A lot of it is just ignorance - they've mostly only been exposed to 30 FPS, sub-HD gaming and believe that it's the perfect norm.
They also see pointing this out as some attack against console players, when it's an attack on the consoles themselves (specifically the hardware). There are very few hardcore PC gamers I've known throughout the years who didn't also mess around with consoles in some capacity, so you won't find many dissing the people who actually play them.
GAF and PC gaming in general don't mesh too well, in my experience. Misconceptions fly around here on a consistent basis, and when these misconceptions are pointed out and corrected by facts, terms like "elitist" and "pretentious" start flying around (at least "$5000 PC" seems to have finally died off, thanks to the work of some people like brain_stew). I would say PC gaming discussion is probably GAF's biggest weakness as a gaming forum, mostly due to a low relative representation.
LordPhoque
Banned
PC version FTW. Still it's not that bad for the consoles version considering that the game is gorgeous and runs at 60fps... but still, this sub-HD bullshit needs to stop, especially when it comes to consoles exclusives. In only 3 days we had confirmation of Halo ODST, Vesperia PS3 and COD6 being sub-HD. WTF.
Mr.Potato Head
Banned
Seriously..did COD MW1 look bad? Sure looked nice to me...Acosta said:
Wasnt it running at the same rez as COD MW2 will? I think it was..correct me if im wrong
vandalvideo
Banned
Zeliard said:
I think this statement applies everywhere but Rock Paper Shotgun. :|
MightyHedgehog said:
The difference is that now you can get a good gaming rig for a helluva lot cheaper than you used to be able to. Playing the price card doesn't mean as much as it used to. You're free to your opinion, but I agree with everything Evilore just said - there's really little advantage to being a console gamer if all they're going to be is PC-lites with a negligible price difference.
AppleBlade
Member
That's understandable because even at 1600x900 you're still getting an incredibly sharp picture. But assuming you had a low-end/mid-range graphics card would you put the game at "very high" and then play the game at 800x600 just to get a solid frame-rate?Rez said:
BTW, have you looked into some of the custom configs out for Crysis. You might be able to get the solid 60 FPS at native resolution without sacrificing any graphic fidelity.
Freeza Under The Shower
Member
vandalvideo said:
On its online component, yes. But since console games hold up better in popular opinion than PC games due to their one-shot nature (before this gen, that is), it's a kind of silly question to ask. Super Mario Bros will always be the same game and will always maintain the same 'quality' due to the fixed nature of the hardware.
PC games do not have that advantage and age quicker in popular opinion. And to be honest, starcraft did become dated rather quickly after release. This being a graphics thread and all, I think the focus should be on that. Not to mention the fact that consoles have only gone online fairly recently, so making a comparison on this aspect isn't relevant to begin with.
TheHeretic
Banned
Mr.Potato Head said:
To you being the operative words. COD4 is a blurry mess because of the degree it upscales, especially on a 1080 television.
vandalvideo
Banned
Zeitgeister said:
You'd have a hard time arguing that your opinion is the popular one when confronted with twenty million Koreans.
2 Minutes Turkish
Banned
EviLore said:
All good points. All of them.
I just don't wanna but.
And, the claw.
MightyHedgehog
Member
I have a great computer, but I choose to play on console because I prefer it. I didn't always think this way, but that's because I have different priorities now. My idea is that not all hardcore gamers need to subscribe to the same school of thought when it comes to technical priorities.Vinci said:
Do NOT blame Infinity Ward.
If you wanna blame anyone, blame Microsoft and Sony for designing their GPUs (or allowing ATI & Nvidia to limit their GPUs) with a 4000 Mpixel/sec pixel fillrate limit and 128-bit external memory bus with ~22 GB/sec bandwidth. That's around half the pixel fillrate and less than half the external bandwidth of high-end PC GPUs of 2005.
IW is just doing their best, choosing FRAMERATE over RESOLUTION, with the limited resources that Microsoft & Sony allowed for their GPUs.
so STFU.
If you wanna blame anyone, blame Microsoft and Sony for designing their GPUs (or allowing ATI & Nvidia to limit their GPUs) with a 4000 Mpixel/sec pixel fillrate limit and 128-bit external memory bus with ~22 GB/sec bandwidth. That's around half the pixel fillrate and less than half the external bandwidth of high-end PC GPUs of 2005.
IW is just doing their best, choosing FRAMERATE over RESOLUTION, with the limited resources that Microsoft & Sony allowed for their GPUs.
so STFU.
Most PC gamers on this forum will acknowledge the benefits of the consoles. But it also annoys us when people use resolution and what not to attack one game and then on the other hand dismiss any horsepower arguments from PC gamers. Basically, changing the rubric to suit your argument instead of a fixed set of criteria to judge something.
To some extent this is a problem with the psychology of message boards. As there is a tendency to view GAF as one entity and thus you see hypocrisy everywhere, when in actuallity it is a entity made up of various view points constantly in contention with each other.
To some extent this is a problem with the psychology of message boards. As there is a tendency to view GAF as one entity and thus you see hypocrisy everywhere, when in actuallity it is a entity made up of various view points constantly in contention with each other.
TheHeretic
Banned
Zeitgeister said:
Starcraft didn't become dated quickly after release, thats an absurdly ignorant thing to say. Neither did counter strike, nor Quake. Your argument is consoles that have consistently shitty graphics gives them an edge over an evolving platform. Unfortunately thats nonsense, there are ways to make old games look far better through forcing image enhancement through video drivers, as opposed to playing an early game on the PS1 and having your eyes bleed.
PC games sell for a very long time because people upgrade periodically and give themselves access to a huge backlog previously hard to get into. Warcraft 3 is still on the shelves and still sells because of its modding community, as is Diablo 2. As games get patched, modded and expanded they get better over time. CivIV is much better now than it was 5 years ago, how true is that of any console game?
Baraka in the White House
2-Terms of Kombat
EviLore said:
That's understandable, but it shouldn't mean they have to muster up their white-hot righteous snark and act like cocks just because a couple thousands pixels happens to be a non-issue for some people. I have no doubt that some of the console posters in this thread have trashed Wii games in the past, but like I said before, that was just the strawman; I'm willing to bet they're a tiny minority among the millions of people who will buy MW2 and legitimately couldn't care less about the resolution disparity.
Zeliard said:
wait.....you honestly didn't see the majority of this thread? it's nothing but insults to console gamers. most discussion about PCs here end up in the shitter because someone eventually calls someone else a peasant. now i'm all for PC gamers doing what they do. i'll call it assholish because it is but it's their right and when they have such superior hardware i can see it being hard for some of them not to toot their own horns, but to act like they're not pointing and publicly mocking console only gamers every chance they get is just false.
of course it's all a moot point when the guy that runs this show just basically came out and said, "yeah, they're going to continue to troll you and your purchases so.....get used to it". and fact of the matter is that over the last few years i have gotten used to it but i do notice that it happens. like i said earlier, people can be dicks and that goes for all gamers. but it's just absurd to me. if i have a friend telling me that he enjoyed a movie the other night i'm not going to insult him and tell him he should be watching in HD. i don't get anything out of that so i guess i just don't "get it". pretty fun thread though.
Woffls
Member
You only get 100fps on 1.6? Or is that to match the refresh rate?
Exodus, that will cause an unstable frame rate, which is, i'm presuming, very bad in CS 1.6 when you're at the top of your game. I think the low resolution also makes the hit detection different, but i'm not sure on that one.
Anyway, I'd rather play a game that runs smoothly online and lose a few pixels.
Exodus, that will cause an unstable frame rate, which is, i'm presuming, very bad in CS 1.6 when you're at the top of your game. I think the low resolution also makes the hit detection different, but i'm not sure on that one.
Anyway, I'd rather play a game that runs smoothly online and lose a few pixels.
TheExodu5 said:
No, he's dead serious. It makes a huge difference in your game play, and a good portion of the competitive community uses it. Everything from mouse sensitivity, recoil control, aiming, smokes, models. I play on 800x600. I would so play on 640x480, but it's hard to see from a distance with it. 800x600 is good middle ground when it comes to everything about that game. I started CS with 1024 and I could never get 1 deags or barely control the damn usp, but everything else was fine. I had to switch because pistols are a big part of the game, and I wanted to step up my game.
Misterinenja
Member
Gully State said:
Just as pointless and stupid.
MightyHedgehog said:
It´s not a school of thought, it´s not philosophy, it´s not about priorities, it´s not relative.
The message is clear and can't be argued. PC offers the best technology for nowadays games, and it does it at an affordable price. We are talking of huge differences here, starting from the resolution and finishing with stuff like V-Sync that should be mandatory in every game. And game by game, this is more notorious.
The reality is that neither PS3 nor 360 can reach to what developer are aiming for without compromises, sometimes resolution, sometimes framerate, sometimes both. Yes, I'm agree with you, framerate is a main priority. But when you have a machine that offer framerate AND anything else, you say it in forums like this it in hope more people open the eyes and notice they are being charged MORE for INFERIOR product, being exactly the same games, what's the point?
I's not bragging, it´s a reality check and it's composed by plain facts. Keep the consoles for exclusives, but if you want the best option (with difference) for your multi games, you should know where to check.
TheExodu5 said:
No it's not CS still chokes systems because valve hasn't optimize it. Steam forum is full of people for both CS who machines do have good or high end hardware and no stability. ATI cards suck on 1.6 for performance unless you get certain drivers and alter some cp settings.
brain_stew
Member
butts said:
Yup, whilst it sucks that the average gamer suffers for it, the further these developers push these consoles to the edge, the better our PC games at 1080p/60fps look. 30fps racing games should be a jailable offence by now but I don't mind letting it slide this generation as it means my 60fps racers look all the better for it.