Is there any point to playing games in 4K or is it just a meme power level?
1440p is enough for me
It's for the people who genuinely look like the fatass falseflag wojak meme images.
>>333472528
For me, there's a point in playing games in QHD.
I use a 16:10 1680x1050 monitor. When I use VSR w/ R9 290, I can downscale 2560x1600 (QHD) to 1680x1050 (sub-HD) to get a crisper image. It's really helpful because in games at 1680x1050, sometimes things in the far off distance can be grainy. This is especially useful w/ judging depth perception in games like Rocket League where you need to focus on a object that is a far distance away.
I like it.
Give it a decade or so to really catch on though.
>>333473234
>4k
>still jaggies
>>333473371
That's because you're viewing that image on your shitty low PPI monitor.
>>333472528
Depends on your monitor.
And higher def doesn't make bad game better.
I wish devs return to old big levels with minimalistic graphics aside from today bloom-filled uncany-valley corridors.
>>333472528
if you can then why not? It really does look better imo
>>333473494
that's not how it works, son.
>>333472528
I play at 4k on my television and it's absolutely a worthwhile improvement. That said, my TV is 50 inch and about 5ft from my sofa so the pixel density is actually a much bigger deal than it is for most people.
I think this image is absolutely correct at this point in time.
its meme magic
if it's rendered but downsampled by the monitor it's just fancy AA
I play FFXIV Ultra 60fps
Pretty good, so good that I cant play 1080p games anymore
>>333472528
It makes the games look prettier but outside of that
>>333474041
>>333472528
It's a marketing trend to get gullible people to buy more expensive hardware.The sad part is that it works.
>>333473776
That's exactly how it works.
Unless they run AA over the image, or downscale from a much larger image, the image is going to have jaggies.
The idea is that you shrink the pixels and cram as many onto a monitor as possible, you can't see the jaggies becuase they are simply too small. Problem is, jaggies don't go away until you're at an 8k resolution on a standard size (24") monitor. That's over 350 ppi. We're nowhere close of being able to do that in real time with high fidelity.
>>333472528
It does literally nothing of benefit besides having to sit even farther from the screen.
>>333474243
>what is multitasking
Geta job nigger.
Resolution is what's killing graphical advancement between console gens.
Think about it for a second. Remember when the greatest leaps were made?
The third gen, the fourth gen, and of course the 5th gen when three dimensional graphics first successfully entered the mainstream.
You know what they all had in common? 240p. Am I saying that we should have stayed at 240p? Hell no. We did get to a point where a resolution jump was necessary.
But perhaps we should focus on pumping out better visuals at 1080p resolution before even thinking about 4k. God knows modern consoles can't even do 1080p right half the time.
The market has shown that we can't get too expensive, and soon it may show that we can't go too underpowered, too unimpressive.
Maybe it's time we stop pushing resolution for a gen or two.You PC faggots are just gonna chime in with your fucking >consoles rhetoric and brag about how you upgrade your machines every two years and your giant steam libraries, but this is your problem too. Especially since devs refuse to optimize for PC ever.
Wait for 8K
>>333474458
Well technology moves fast and it's not going to wait for you.
Anyone have a good 2160p screen they recommend? 1080p needs to be put down.
>>333474404
That's better with two screens though, I don't want to play a game unless it's fullscreen.
>>333474595
you're going to have to slow it down if you dont want shitty ports
>>333474458
Nah I'm a pc person and I agree with you. Makes sense.
4k monitor and 4k tv user here, It's not a meme the models and textures looks detailed as fuck even in old games but in new games you better get used to 30 fps also the tv is shit compared with the monitor
>>333474595
Not him, but your response was retarded. It's not a matter of technology advancing, but we're actually pushing it ahead when it's still immature. Worst part of all is that there are retards like you who support the process simply because "lol 4K is a cooler name than 1080p although I have no fucking clue about how does it impact anything".
my monitor 1360x768. I could not care less
It's not worth it. It's mostly just a common progression of technology, but just because we have it doesn't mean you should do it. 4K gaming will require even more work from your hardware, and that just means more sacrifices to the game and lots of latency.
Don't buy into it/
>>333474595
Technology can't be adopted as quickly as we like if the pricing is prohibitive.
We can have higher resolutions or we can have prettier, more detailed graphics with more objects on screen and at smother frame rates.
Can't have both if you wanna play at reasonable prices. Maybe vidya was always meant to be behind television in resolution. It's something to really think about.
4k monitors are worth using. 8k 100hz would be perfect though.
The amount of idiots in this thread is incredible. Who knew people could be so misinformed on something as simple as resolution.
>>333474458
>TFW nintendo makes the prettiest games of the gen with the cucking Wii
>>333475260
>8k 100hz would be perfect though.
Not if they still only used 8 bits per color channel though. Color banding is total shit if any games try to get dark at all.
>>333472528
I've got a 2K Monitor for my desktop and a 4K laptop.
I actually really enjoy the high res.
>>333475303
>Throwing shit while not stating out clear what is his stance on the subject
And here we have a shitposter with the sole intention of bumping a thread.
>>333474458
you're not entirely wrong.
being that it's a "video" game, of course graphics are important, but if gameplay suffers for the sake of making sparkle effects extra sparkly or whatever, then it won't be enjoyable no matter how pretty it is. and, like yourself, i'd want devs to focus on innovating core mechanics and bug-fixes.
i think the underlying problem is that there's nothing new under the sun. everything good has been done already, and if there are new genres waiting to be explored, devs lack the imagination to discover them. then again, the AAA boat has plotted a course for profit above all else at full steam. and far too many "indie" devs are just interested in trying to get a piece of the pie.
that said, there's still some indie devs out there that are actually interested in making quality games, but their games are works of passion; they make the games they want to play, not the games they think will sell well.
i believe a good product sells itself, but with dedicated die-hard "fans" of companies and far too many indie scams on the market, i don't think the rare gems get talked about enough to raise awareness of them.
/blog
>>333475340
Working with the same architecture for 3 gens has its advantages, like knowing how to make a game look damn good with what resources you have right away.
It also helps that Nintendo tends to make stylized games with simple details and textures.
Style will always trump pure power in terms of visuals.
>>333474458
right now the biggest problem is that the technology is at a halt and/or catch-up since gamedevs cant seem to stop wanting graphics to improve that a majority of people are behind because the technology isnt there, i mean im rocking a 980Ti but cant use ultra in R6 siege because i didnt shell out another $500 for a titan instead.
right now the technology has to improve more than ANYTHING, or gamedevs have to optimize better than they are right now, because the fact i upgraded only 2 months ago to a more modern GPU that is already borderline outdated for its intended purpose is a fucking joke.
>>333475603
ah, i forgot to make my point.
point is, that since most devs universally suck, they'll hide their awfulness behind "look how pretty our game is! you should see it in 4k!"
>>333474905
hit the nail on the head.
>It's not a matter of technology advancing, but we're actually pushing it ahead when it's still immature.
fuckin' a. that's the crux of it.
it's a crutch to lean on while devs fail to make worthy games.
>>333475603
You've got some good points there, anon. There's a couple things I'd like to point out, though.
1. Prettier graphics are generally what we look forward to the most in a new console gen.
2. Part of the problem with genres might be the controllers. This is a bit of a moot point with PC for obvious reasons, but you can only do so much different with modern controllers before everything starts to fall into various existing genres. On top of this, it's not like we can just add more buttons. The current controller configurations are about ideal as it is, adding more buttons risks making an overcomplicated mess.
Of course, I could just be flat out wrong and new controller designs could come out with so many buttons that a lot of action games become even more simplified to press this button to perform this action. But then you have to ask yourself if you really want an industry where combos are virtually non-existent.
>>333473776
That's precisely how it works. Most people don't get the point of 4k because you literally can't view it properly on a 1080 monitor, you have to see it in person. I wasn't sold until I went to Fry's Shillectronics and checked one out in person.
Still can't afford one though, so no thank you until the price goes down.
>>333476080
i dunno. i'd say there's merit to your controller argument, but the overly elaborate shit is pretty much enthusiast-tier. for example, i don't play that dcs a-10 simulator, so i don't need a super fancy flight stick. -even those folks that do play it don't "need" one. but they're nice enough to have for those niches, and if someone has disposable income, there's no shame in spending extra dosh on some kit that makes them happy.
i think that you're mostly right. controllers can't get too much fancier, but i think there will always be a market for enthusiast peripherals.
mario paint was the only snes game to make use of it's mouse. very few snes games could make use of the super scope. and let's not forget that xbox game with the mechs and the fuckhuge controller with a dedicated eject button.
>>333474231
>1080 is just a fad guys, it'll go away I swear
Depends on how close you are.
If you like to smooch your monitor while gaming then yes it's probably worth it.
>>333475340
Because Nintendo is all about keeping it stylistic/cartoony. So you can make games like 3D World that looks amazing yet still has a stable frame rate. Nintendo doesn't really care about resolution so while people want them to make every game 1080p and 60fps they rather just focus on stable frame rate while keeping their stylistic look. Xenoblade X is the most "realistic" game yet it's still all style.
>>333473234
>a decade
we went from 320x480 to 1080p on phones in less than a decade. Surely we'll get to 4k now that video processing is buffing up for VR.
>>333476468
Specialized peripherals like that tend to be niche at best, but usually end up outright failing and being dropped altogether.
But that doesn't mean it's necessarily a problem with the peripheral itself. Peripherals like that just don't get support because there's no reason to develop a game for a platform if EVERYONE who owns that platform can't play it.
The Super Scope and the mouse never saw widespread support because it's simply better to sell to everyone who already has just the base SNES.
The most successful alternative controllers were those that were bundled with consoles at launch like the NES zapper and the wiimote.
Hell, even the dualshock controller had trouble getting support before the PS2 introduced it as a standard. In vidya, it's all about the install base.
>>333477083
VR can hardly be played right on standard specs. That might take 5 years before it's really viable. And even than there's other problems that are going to come up. 4K monitors will soon cost the same as 1080 or 1444 which really is what most people would want over VR.
I love my new 144hz monitor, made the jump to it and it has really improved my game in CSGO. I'd honestly rather get the 144hz feel than higher res, if of course you can actually hit 144 fps in the game you are playing. I'd rather wait till 4k or even 1440p can run 144hz to get it.
>>333472528
Personally, I'm still ok playing at 720p. I'm much more concerned with a game's framerate than it's resolution.
>>333473776
console cuck confirmed
it looks great but I would wait a couple of years for it to become standardized or at least when gpu's can run it comfortably
>>333474017
How was that graph even worked out?
>>333473234
>anti aliasing will soon be a thing of the past
>consoles will still have jaggies
>>333474129
I hear you senpai, 1440p here too on FFXIV, but my 970 can only power highish settings, like no shadows / AA, still pretty nice looking though
I don't understand how 1440 isn't enough.
>>333472528
Wait, I must have missed it; when did newfags change the meaning of "meme" to "a thing I don't like/understand?"
