1080p is a must for next-gen: No it isn't

Recently there was news concerning the Xbox One and the upcoming Call of Duty: Ghosts game that for many, was disheartening to say the least. From threats of cancelling system pre-orders to extreme bouts of nerd-rage, and enough virtual facepalms to make one's head completely cave in, the internet exploded to the extent that you'd think Activision officially announced that smallpox infected blankets would be shipping with the Xbox One versions. Unfortunately, nothing that drastic has happened to warrant such extreme behavior, and instead it's just news that the Xbox One version of the upcoming Call of Duty Ghosts will be 720p, compared to 1080p native on the PS4.

In light of this "tragic" news, I'd like to address the recent notion that 1080p is a "must" for next-gen gaming....it isn't...1080p is not some "holy grail," mandatory accomplishment that games must meet in order to be considered "next-gen." It is little more than an arbitrary technicality cooked up by the community, largely due to moving goalpost mentalities and wishful thinking. Graphics or resolution alone is not some guideline to base whether or not a game achieves "next-gen" status, and if you think otherwise, then quite frankly, you're wrong. I don't doubt that games will release in 1080p, as some games already are, but to apply this short-sighted way of thinking to every single game? If that's the case, then frankly, you are in for some disappointment.

The notion that in 2013, 1080p, or more importantly, 1080p/60fps, should be a standard in gaming, is again, largely wishful thinking. This level of gaming can be standard, if you have the power, and frankly the new systems do not, as is evident by games being announced at less than 1080p and/or 60fps on both systems. If we were discussing high-end PC's, then these arguments would carry much more weight, but we are speaking of modestly priced, retail entertainment devices. The fact is this - the new systems, regardless how "next-gen" many expect them to be, are still using dated tech before they even release, that can't even achieve 1080p on certain older titles, with or without max settings enabled. Even in instances where games do achieve this goal, sacrifices are likely going to have be made elsewhere to do so.

If you choose a lesser medium in terms of graphics/processing power, then you should except lesser results, it's really that simple. You can point the finger and cry "PC elitism," but really it's just being rational. You can't buy a Hybrid based on preference, and then demand it performs like a Ferrari, and then cry foul when it doesn't. Anyone suggesting that any game that gets released on a $400-500 device, cannot be considered "next-gen" if it is anything less than 1080p, or even more demanding, 1080/60fps, is naive and out of touch with reality, especially considering all the other (arguably) more important factors that can contribute to a game being "next-gen," which is a little more than a buzzword itself, with no definitive meaning.

If none of the games released on the new consoles achieved 1080p, they could still easily qualify as next-gen, due to other aspects, such as better performance, new, innovative ideas or added features. Battlefield 4 is a good example of this. Is it running at 1080p? No, not on either system, but both versions are running at 60fps, and have 64 player servers, as well as advanced features such as Battlescreen That is an example of "next-gen" in gaming, despite lacking 1080p resolution. In relation to COD Ghosts, both versions will have the same campaign, the same multiplayer, the same features and both will be running at 60fps. Players will equally be having fun on both versions, despite the apparent doomsday revelation that the Xbox One version will only be running at 720p...

It seems that the console community has become increasingly close-minded and superficial in their views, to the point that they seem to have forgotten why they play games in the first place - for fun. Why is it that when discussing graphics in a PC vs console format, graphics don't matter as much and it's all about the games, but once it becomes a matter of console vs console, graphics take center stage as proponents from each side engage in a blood lust fueled fervor? 720p, 1080p, who really cares? Games are going to be equally enjoyed by players on both consoles, so why turn it into a chest pounding ego-fest? Why does it always have to result in a "console war"? There are many people who will be purchasing both consoles for their love of games, so it seems trivial to pick sides and fight tooth and nail for your preferred platform. If it's the prettiest games running at smooth framerates that is needed to justify your purchase, then again, you are on the wrong platform, since we have been achieving this for years on PC. If it's other aspects that lead you to choose console gaming, such as functionality, exclusives, controllers, etc. than focus on those aspects and leave it at that.

[HonestDragon]

"Why is it that when discussing graphics in a PC vs console format, graphics don't matter as much and it's all about the games, but once it becomes a matter of console vs console, graphics take center stage as proponents from each side engage in a blood lust fueled fervor?"

Well said, but in terms of the console vs console part with graphics, you can add exclusive games and company history to that list. You will have fanboys on either camp saying that the PS4 and Xbox One "don't have any games", which translated means "their games are inferior to MY console's games". Then there is also the favored jabbing of company history. The big blunders if you will. People love to harp on the shutdown of PSN without knowing the facts of what happened. People also love to reference Microsoft's deal with the NSA with sharing customer information. While both instances are serious, it shouldn't alter a person's perception of the company as a whole.

I think that the reason why so many people are talking about better fps and resolution per a game is just to boost the console they are getting this month. It could be a case of classic fanboyism or obsession with graphics. If anyone shares my view when it comes to video games, we would appreciate video games for being a good quality game as opposed to having the best graphics ever.

Why else are gamers (including myself) still playing hit games from ten to twenty yeas ago? Not because they have intense graphics, but because they are good games. Sure, technology is advancing, but that doesn't mean we can't look back and appreciate what was there. I play games to experience interesting, fun, and great games, not for how realistic something looks.

[darthv72]

A great game is a great game regardless of the specs.

A bad game is a bad game regardless of the specs.

What defines great/bad is the passion and creative development behind the game....not the specs.

The specs are a guideline that developers use to gauge their project and know how much they have to work with. i have seen some amazing things done with lesser hardware and some really crappy efforts put into better hardware.

[TopDudeMan]

I totally agree. I was playing Terraria in 480p on my Netbook and still think it was one of the better games of last generation.

The 1080p thing is just another thing for fanpersons to bitch about. If I'm playing a bad game I don't think "well, at least it runs at 1080p".

It's desirable, not a necessity.

[HonestDragon]

Exactly. We should be looking at a game on its own merits (gameplay, sound, plot, controls), not for the specs. For example, Battlefield 4 will play same and be the same on all platforms it's on. No resolution, frame rate, or video card can change that game's presentation or modes. Like you said, "specs are a guideline".

[pixelsword]

"Why is it that when discussing graphics in a PC vs console format, graphics don't matter as much and it's all about the games, but once it becomes a matter of console vs console, graphics take center stage as proponents from each side engage in a blood lust fueled fervor?"

Why is it that when people say "PC graphics" all of a sudden every PC that ever existed can do 4k, 1000fps?

PC graphics are arbitrary and variable, and the people who experience the most exceptional versions of PC graphics are the minority.

The average PC player doesn't fare much better tha PS3 or 360, and when that standard rises, it'll be no different than a PS4 or Xbox One.

[MidnytRain]

pixelsword

What I find interesting is that many times the cost of the machine and the install base has nothing to do with the topic. People like to talk about "1% of PCs" as some sort of attack when it's not even relevant.

[pixelsword]

@ MidnytRain:

Well, yeah; it's not relevant:

When people talk about such a small percentage of their gaming audience pretending that they're 100%, they totally skew the conversation, plus overlooking the needs of the average PC gamer.

[Skizelli]

@darthv72: Well said. Those who disagreed with you shouldn't be allowed to call themselves gamers.

@pixelsword: "Why is it that when people say "PC graphics" all of a sudden every PC that ever existed can do 4k, 1000fps?"

When people say "PC graphics," they're talking about what PCs are capable of right now, regardless of its install base. He made a valid point. PC games have been pushing higher resolutions than consoles for as long as I can remember, but fanboys choose to ignore these things unless it suits their argument.

[pixelsword]

"When people say "PC graphics," they're talking about what PCs are capable of right now, regardless of its install base."

Well, you actually made my point because PCs are also capable of making graphics as good as a PS3/PS4 right now, and the needs of those people aren't being addressed; irregardless of the install base. Seeing that most PC players won't play with the graphics and settings the minorities will have the privilege of playing with, this is tantamount to bullshots to the average PC gamer, but that is never addressed; they actually will never see what a game will look like with average settings.

It's the biggest crock in gaming.

[Skizelli]

"Well, you actually made my point because PCs are also capable of making graphics as good as a PS3/PS4 right now, and the needs of those people aren't being addressed."

I'd have to disagree. The needs of PC gamers are being addressed just fine. I can name numerous multiplat games from this generation that looked significantly better on PC than their console counterparts (Dead Space series, Batman Arkham series, Battlefield series, the list goes on). PS4 may rival what's been more than possible on PC for a while now, but "PC graphics" will continue to evolve, and before you know it consoles will be behind again.

I'm not saying PC is better than console, as I'm a fan of both. I'm just being realistic.

[DragonKnight]

"Why is it that when discussing graphics in a PC vs console format, graphics don't matter as much and it's all about the games, but once it becomes a matter of console vs console, graphics take center stage as proponents from each side engage in a blood lust fueled fervor?"

Because PC and consoles aren't on equal footing. There is no way a console can compete with PCs in terms of graphics, but when two consoles are pitted against each other (especially if they are so close in specs) then you're talking about two devices that CAN compete with each other.

I mean, I could say "Why is it when talking about exclusive games in a PC vs Console discussion, graphics are all that matters..." couldn't I?

[HammadTheBeast]

The problem isn't expecting 1080p and 60 fps. It's not the whole deal at all. The problem, is that a system that costs $100 less than the competitor is out-performing it. That, is the real problem.

[DaGR8JIBRALTAR]

precisely...and furthermore I don't see why all of a sudden the gaming community are the bad guys for wanting and expecting more out of next-gen systems. I bet if the shoe were on the other foot though...

[HammadTheBeast]

It's ironic, since the PS3 got tons of hate for not out-performing the 360 by a lot at the price that it was.

[Skizelli]

Yeah, and people seem to forget that PS3 cost $600 when it came out, yet most multiplats ended up playing better on 360 throughout their lifespans. Power isn't everything. The PS4 isn't even out yet and we already have a review for a 1080p game with framerate issues that the other ports don't seem to have.

And I say this as someone who's getting a PS4 first, so don't get your panties in a wad, fanboys.

[ThatCanadianGuy514]

^

"The PS4 isn't even out yet and we already have a review for a 1080p game with framerate issues that the other ports don't seem to have. "

Might want to check up on that.
http://n4g.com/news/1388010...

[Skizelli]

^

Thanks for the correction. That article was nowhere to be found last night when I posted my previous comment. Seems to be a crappy game in general. They even re-used a cut-scene from MW2.

http://www.computerandvideo...

[H0RSE]

The "problem" you are bringing up has nothing to do with the piece I wrote. You are injecting your own concerns into a discussion where they aren't even a talking point. This blog is not Xbox vs PS4 piece - it is my opinions on an issue(s) that is taking place in the community in general, and is not exclusive to either console, so please don't turn the comment section into yet another battleground or soapbox, okay?

[HammadTheBeast]

Well, your blog is discussing 1080p on next gen,which is 2.5 consoles, and the blog picture is that of a PS4 game stacked against an XBO game.

The game, BF4, stirred controversy and dispute over not being 1080p on either platform, but higher on one, so in the end it does become a "vs." thing as much as we try to stop it. In the coming weeks it only gets worse.

[H0RSE]

I understand how it can be a "vs" thing with you, or others, or even the community as a whole, but that isn't the point. My point was that it doesn't and isn't a "vs" thing in this blog, so bringing up the topic, is actually off-topic.

I chose the pic for my blog, because it shows a game that serves as a good example where a game can achieve "next-gen" status, despite not being 1080p on either platform - I explain this in more detail in the blog. Although the point you make is valid, it is an entirely different discussion, regardless how related it may be to this one.

The last paragraph of the blog should be be sufficient enough to see that it was never about choosing sides, so stop trying to shoehorn your personal opinions in and make it an "us vs them" debate.

[memots]

This i don't agree, 1080p looks nicer that is a fact.

My issue is with 30fps versus 60fps. This to me its a non issue since forever there are only a few games that hit 60fps and it didn't add that much to the game. Did i enjoy less The last of Us, Mgs2/3/4, God/gear of War or Halo because they were 30fps >? Nope.

[HammadTheBeast]

Depends on the genre. For FPS type games which require quick reflexes and mechanics, 60 fps is nice. For more cinematic games, like TPS action adventures, it's not really all that necessary.

It's always better, but not necessary.

[mp1289]

completely agree, 60fps is for competitive multiplayer were every reflex counts. This is why guerrilla was smart to use 30fps on single/60 on multiplayer.

[MRMagoo123]

I guess it matters to anyone but the ppl that are getting an xbox one only, most ppl getting both will want to know which console has the best performance and that will be the ps4 so they will get it for that. The gameplay will be directly influenced by console performance as well, by drops in frame rates, it would be nice to just hide it all under the rug so the xbox one fans didnt have to hear it, but thats the way it is.

Putting the shoe on the other foot , if it was the ps4 getting the multiplats in 720p and the xbox one getting them in 1080p i would be pissed with Sony and would probably switch to the xbox one, but luckily i dont have to.

[newflesh]

Some nice valid writing you did here I agree with. 1080p doesn't make a game next gen at all. I'd rather have 720p and 60 fps with more physics and detail in exchange

[MRMagoo123]

Yet with the ps4 you get "more physics and detail" and you also get 1080p with 60fps, there is no trade off. Thats the thing ppl are failing to see, take cod for example like it or hate it (the game i mean not the point im gonna make) you get the exact same game on the xbox one as you do on the ps4 no extra bells or whistles but the ps4 is doing it all at 1080p, there is no downgrade of effects or textures, so why not have both if your machine can do it, and why not call it was it is an advantage.

[Convas]

If every game on PS4 was running 1080p60, you'd have a point, but that's not the case so, there are definitely trade-offs on the PS4.

And if you think devs will stop putting purty, eye-pleasing graphics at a higher priority than achieving 1080p60, you've got a rude awakening coming.

[Ravenor]

Ridge Racer 7 was 1080P/60FPS.

Clearly it was the game of the generation.

[memots]

Lol good one. I'll add to that wipeout hd truly ahead of the class

[Ravenor]

Wipeout HD was a spectacular game, hell I'm awful at them but I still bought the...Fury pack? (It's been awhile I forget.) But just like any game that ran in 1080P on consoles this generation, it was clear there were areas that cuts were made to make that work. The resolution wouldn't stay at 1920*1080 in Wipeout HD for instance, but did anyone really notice? Did anyone actually care?

http://insidethedigitalfoun...

[SmilingAdvocate]

I think this article is missing the point a little.

When comparing the res/graphics on consoles, it comes down to one simple thing...

The price of the console. I think people are moaning more simply because the output of the PS4 is better at a lower price. And I know people will say ohh but xbox one has Kinect, but honestly, where are these great kinect launch titles.. where were these amazing kinect games on the 360? It was a fad that has had its day.

[H0RSE]

Inaccurate comparison.

Kiect 1.0 was a completely separate peripheral, designed and released years after the 360 launched, and although they may have tried to incorporate it with the system, they could only achieve so much.

Kinect 2.0 and the X1 were designed from the ground up to be work together, as sort of an extension of one another. As for games, Kinect Sports Rivals looks really fun, and the face scanning technology is impressive. It's also been mentioned that a lot of Xbox One games are going to incorporate Kinect functionality in them, regardless if they are "Kinect exclusive" or not, along with the all the functionality that's been built into the console alone. Then there's the announcement of Xbox Fitness, which looks really extensive in it's features.

One thing I find promising, is how a person could go the entire life cycle of the console without ever playing a Kinect game, and still get good use out of the device.

[Majin-vegeta]

Brought to you by M$ damage control....GTFO.

[H0RSE]

I was addressing the next-gen consoles as a whole, seeing as how neither console will be outputting every game at 1080p/60fps. This blog was my outlook on things, in light of the ridiculous levels the focus and demand on resolution has reached. It has nothing to do with "damage control."

The entire piece is about all the other aspects/features games will have that will warrant a "next-gen" label, despite resolution, so what damage would I need to control if I don't even see resolution as a defining trait?

[SugarSoSweet]

It is for me I've been playing 720p since the 90's no excuses 1080p or GTFO it's 2013 for gods sake

[Statix]

1080p isn't a "must" for next-gen.

However, higher than 720p IS a must for next-gen.

720p is last-generation's standard resolution. Just like 480p was the standard for last-last generation (PS2/XB1/Gamecube). Next-gen should at least be pushing greater resolution than 720p. 720p is unacceptable for hardware released in 2013.