Support NeoGAF

[iHaunter]

Split the difference, that's where we are now.

 

[fart town usa]

I'd be happy gaming on a CRT with any console.

I played through SH: Homecoming via S-Video on a Trinitron about 2 months back and I thought it looked amazing. The main issue with playing HD games on a CRT is the text, it's usually too small. Graphics wise it doesn't both me in the slightest. Some games actually translate incredible well to it.

 

[Fortress of Regrets]

240p for sure. It's beautiful!

The resolution chasing fetish is hilarious. Not even the latest consoles deliver 4k without massive compromises. Deathloop is completely fucked with the hilarious FOV they saddled the PS5 version with.

 

[Business]

Of course real footage looks real at 240p

I know it’s obvious right but I was replying to a guy that said it doesn’t. There’s even another one a few posts up…

 

[alabtrosMyster]

This is a false choice, look at this:

 

[nkarafo]

Whichever runs at 60 fps.

Otherwise, i'll take better visuals at lower resolutions. I could use an older CRT for that and benefit from no ghosting/blurring as well.

 

[ZoukGalaxy]

240p is unbearable for 3D games.
Xbox 360/PS3 games at 8K is the way to go even it's a waste.

 

[Pagusas]

If it was 480p, then maybe (but ugh it would still suck) but 240? No sale.

 

[RoadHazard]

Neither. 1440p-1800p checkerboarded (or AI upscaled) to 4K is a good compromise.

8K is silly.

Edit: Alright, if I really have to choose I'd go with PS3 visuals at 8K. Should result in very nice image quality supersampled down to 4K (I'm not buying an 8K TV anytime soon, if ever). 240p would look like absolute shit on a modern TV, all the next-gen visuals would be pointless at such a low resolution.

 

[Bruno_Arrais85]

this thread is beyond insanity.

 

[Pejo]

I'd accept PS2 looking games if it meant we got better variety of games and genres and games released in 1-2 years instead of 5-7.

 

[thicc_girls_are_teh_best]

Uh...did the people who voted for PS3-looking games at 8K forget that upscaling exists and will only get better with time?

Why waste power on native 8K when you can potentially upscale from lower resolutions and get a similar result but with much better asset quality, animations, textures etc.?

I'd accept PS2 looking games if it meant we got better variety of games and genres and games released in 1-2 years instead of 5-7.

But we're getting that already and dev tools are making game dev way more accessible than it was during PS2 gen. Only difference is that variety is now in the indie and burgeoning AA space rather than AAA space, but at some point indie/AA space will reach AAA levels of production quality and be doable with much smaller teams to boot, and faster dev cycles.

So you can literally get the best of both worlds in the near future.

 

[lachesis]

I will settle with 240p as long as text is readable, and screen is no bigger than 17", and has to be on CRT.
I will settle with 480p as well - for up to maybe 24", preferably on CRT.
720p up to 42"
1080p up to 65"

Hate small texts in general - especially in the corner of screens.

 

[Sub_Level]

Honestly I'd be fine if games could only reach OG XBOX graphics. To me this is already good enough.

PS3 is just icing on the cake at that point. Call of Duty 4, for example, is still hella impressive. As much as I love MW 2019, it could look like CoD4 and I'd still love it just the same.

 

[sunnysideup]

what are we talking about

rendered at 240p or displayed at 240p.

realistic graphics displayed at 240p will smoke fucking gamecube graphics any day of the week.

Kinda tarded. Does starwars on laser disc look worse than rouge squadron on dolphin.

 

[Tomofdahook17]

People who are voting 240p probably do not realise how low it actually is.

It's like hurt your eyes after 30 seconds low. I can't even look at Uncharted 4 in 8-bit mode in 1080p for more than like 15 seconds.

 

[Lethal01]

This is a false choice, look at this:

What point are you making here? This is clearly a game that's decades away from photoreal.

 

[manzo]

Basically plug in a N64 to a 65-75” TV and aks yourself do you want 240p triangle rendering. Doesn’t matter if it’s lifelike, the IQ will be so fucking atrocious that you will want to throw up.

also, think of Alan Wake or Deadly Premonition on Xbox360.

 

[DGrayson]

PS3 looks great.

240p makes sense for non realistic games.

 

[Keihart]

If i can get some dope ass CRT i guess 240 isn't that bad, but if we are going with modern screens i would say a minimum of 720 is required, you can easily upscale that shit with DLSS. and keep it looking suave.

I have little interest in high resolutions tho, going from 1k to 4k in a 4K monitor is not even as much of a difference as going from 1k to 1k with proper HDR.

Edit: i mean common! this shit in a CRT would look awesome:

 

[rofif]

downzized to 240p, saved and upscaled to 4k bilinear.
Pretty sure if much better scaling method was used, 240p internal would win... but ps3 games can look great at 4k like Dark Souls

 

[alabtrosMyster]

What point are you making here? This is clearly a game that's decades away from photoreal.

Like this then?

This is "in game" for an FMV game released in 2017.... very photo realistic, I don't care for this type of game, but they have the best "graphics".

 

[chasimus]

I used to imagine a game company making a video game that directly emulated what a 90s sci-fi tv show would look like in video game rendering. 360p/4:3 ratio. I still to this day go back and watch these shows and they're still amazing! Just imagine the animations, textures, lighting you'd be able to get. Of course playability is another factor, but still curious!

 

[Trashytrash]

Assuming we’re doing this to get 144 fps either one is fine

 

[gypsygib]

Trick question because PS3 games at 240p look real.

 

[Lethal01]

Like this then?

This is "in game" for an FMV game released in 2017.... very photo realistic, I don't care for this type of game, but they have the best "graphics".

Like i said, I'm trying to find out what point you were trying to make with the god of war picture, I really don't get it. Maybe I'm having a brainfart but help me out here.

Also, if by "like this" you mean playing like an FMV game then no, I mean God of war but with enough power that it could render something that realistic. Also does have to be literally realistic, that much power could enhance stlized games just as much, See guilty Gear Strive or Ratch and Clank, both are games that look as good as they do because of graphical horse power.

 

[Great Hair]

You ain't getting "real looking" at 240p

Spoiler

 

[Rentahamster]

Spoiler

That's not 240p

Is your TV the size of a business card?

 

[Great Hair]

Is your TV the size of a business card?

Yeah!

 

[MetalRain]

I've played Zenoblade Chronicles 2 on Switch, I'd rather play PS3 games in 8K, even PS3 and 1080p is better than anything in 240p.

There is diminishing returns with resolution but I do think 4K is still definitely worth it, I haven't seen 8K yet.

 

[ÆMNE22A!C]

I'd rather eat sushi

 

[synchronicity]

PS3 (and earlier) looks great to me still. Easy choice.

 

[Jigsaah]

Real looking games at 240p. The resolution itself betrays its realism. I think you might want to rephrase your options OP.

 

[n0razi]

Framerate is king for me

 

[ÆMNE22A!C]

Remember early ps2 days, "better" graphics but ultimately it was just a shimmering stuttering pos

Bro. Graphics are nice but if I get a headache 2 minutes in perhaps you should optimize

 

[SpongebobSquaredance]

this is actually kind of OK

I too thought that 240p would be to low, but after watching this video it's actually completely fine. In OP's scenario they perhaps further developed the technology behind CRT's, so the games would look even better.

 

[NahaNago]

Interesting question. At first I thought ps3 at 8k as well since I thought ps3 graphics looked pretty good but then I actually played a video at 240p and it didn't look as bad as I though it would. The only problem I have is that most of the games I like don't really go after that realistic look.

 

[marquimvfs]

Weird question... but answering it, ps3 on high resolution. Not because the resolution itself, but personally, its easier to adjust to a well done "surreal" art direction than an poorly done "real" art direction.

 

[MrFunSocks]

Uh...did the people who voted for PS3-looking games at 8K forget that upscaling exists and will only get better with time?

Why waste power on native 8K when you can potentially upscale from lower resolutions and get a similar result but with much better asset quality, animations, textures etc.?



But we're getting that already and dev tools are making game dev way more accessible than it was during PS2 gen. Only difference is that variety is now in the indie and burgeoning AA space rather than AAA space, but at some point indie/AA space will reach AAA levels of production quality and be doable with much smaller teams to boot, and faster dev cycles.

So you can literally get the best of both worlds in the near future.

There’s no upscaling that can go from 240p to anything useful.

 

[PaintTinJr]

Let's say you have the power to choose what games would look like (no matter what platform) for the next 10 years. What would you prefer: Super realistic games (indistinguishable from real life, like a movie) at 240p or PS3-looking games at a crisp 8K (or more)?

Comments and rules:

- Yes, you could use a nice CRT TV for 240p if you wanted.
- Yes, I'm going for extremes here and setting a time-frame you'd have to live with your choice to force you to really think about it.
- You have to choose one of the pre-determined options. You can't comment something like "games from the next generation at 1080p" or "Atari games at 200K". Comment about your reasoning for choosing the option you chose.
- If you don't care about game graphics, please don't derail the thread with your comments. Go away. Shush!
- DLSS or other upscaling techniques are not allowed in this hypothetical scenario.

Examples:

240p:




8k PS3:

The question isn't really a fair question, because 240p wouldn't fit with lots of game types where user picking needs a certain base resolution. Had you chosen 480p/576p like the PS2/GC/XBOG gen, then I think the question would offer the real choice you are try to give.

I would certainly go with better pixels, in that circumstance, but as is, only one of those options is suited to cover all gameplay scenarios.

 

[Celcius]

PS3 at 8K for me

 

[thicc_girls_are_teh_best]

There’s no upscaling that can go from 240p to anything useful.

OP's example is a little extreme, TBF. 720p would've been a better baseline (if they're then talking about PS3-era games at 8K), and you can absolutely upscale from 720p to something useful already with a lot of games. There's also room for upscaling technologies to grow and improve.

 

[Spukc]

Spoiler

omfg driveclub still best looking racer

 

[Wonko_C]

Even at 1080p PS3 graphics are still amazing to me. Last year I played The Last of Us for the first time and that shit looks phenomenal.

 

[Zannegan]

8k is completely excessive, but I wouldn't be able to see details at 240p. Online shooters and the like would be a total nightmare.

I guess it's Switch-level games in crisp 8k for me. I can survive that.

 

[D7im]

I’m fine with 1080p if it’s going to give photorealistic next gen graphics

 

[LazyParrot]

Modern game UIs are damn near unusable at low resolutions. Easy choice.

 

[N0S]

I found the Wii unplayable back in 06... Not only for the terrible controls but also for the low res graphics... On my 42 inch plasma. 240p on 65inch?!