Top
150°

Why are still so few games in 1080p?

SchollA from consolecontrollus.com writes - It’s nearing the end of 2011 gamers and what is it like, going on 5-6 years into this gaming generation, I guess depending on the system you own. So why in the world are there still soooo few games in 1080p.

Here's some questions I asked myself.

Read Full Story >>
consolecontrollus.com
The story is too old to be commented.
xtremegamerage2576d ago

They don't have the throughput for 1080p, not in todays graphic standards.

Although PC guys might argue, Most of the sweet fx in games is being done on these consoles, DOF,shading,lighting, etc. But to do all that at high rez takes more gpu grunt.

Uncharted 3 could be 1080p, but would not look as good.

It's depends on the engine, what's being done etc.

Not all games need 60fps, but it does make those games smoother.

Ranshak2576d ago

We been seeing 1600*1200 on PC since 1998 (which is about 1080p).

1080p is actually an entry level for PC these days. There are many setup out there that are running games on multiple screens now at some crazy resolutions like 5750*1080 (which is about 6 times higher then the current console 720p HD standard), You dont even need much expensive hardware to make that happen. A combo of 6870's can easily acheive this(which would cost about 350usd).

The only reason why CONSOLE gamers are not seeing more games in 1080p is because of the ancient tech in the consoles. Hence its a question of people limiting themselves to old tech, then whining why it wont perform like entry to mid level PC of today.

malol2576d ago (Edited 2576d ago )

on my pc i game on 1280 * 1024
so not a problem here

jacksheen00002576d ago (Edited 2576d ago )

well, its because there just isn't enough RAM(512) which is the main reason why some game can't run in full 1080p. Further more, it would be too much headache for game developers to spend time on tweaking/optimization to get it to work.
And, of course, if developers decides to use low RES texture it wouldn't look good in 1080p simply because the blocky graphics would be more visible to the naked eye; which wouldn't look appealing to some. Not to mention,how much anti-aliasing would have to be implemented to the in game graphic; which would result to high performance hit on the GPU/CPU.

psyxon2576d ago

No, it's because the consoles don't have strong enough GPUs. There aren't many PCs with GPUs that run games on high in 1080p, let alone consoles. Most console games that run in 1080p have dumbed down graphics. I'd much rather a lower res with better gfx, than a lower res with shitty gfx. RAM has little to nothing to do with it. There's plenty of RAM to make 1080p games, but with high demanding gfx, 1080p just wouldn't cut it.

kneon2576d ago

Memory is a major issue, a 1080p screen has more than twice the pixels of a 720p screen. That requires more memory for all the higher quality textures. And in the case of the XBox an additional problem is that the framebuffer is smaller than a single 1080p frame. It was clearly designed with 720p in mind. Sure it can do 1080p if needed but it requires jumping through some extra hoops.

jacksheen00002575d ago (Edited 2575d ago )

@influxity

No, it's because the consoles don't have strong enough GPUs. There aren't many PCs with GPUs that run games on high in 1080p, let alone consoles. Most console games that run in 1080p have dumbed down graphics. I'd much rather a lower res with better gfx, than a lower res with shitty gfx. RAM has little to nothing to do with it. There's plenty of RAM to make 1080p games, but with high demanding gfx, 1080p just wouldn't cut it.

You're wrong buddy. Because a console don't have strong enough GPUs doesn't means a game developer can't use cheating methods/graphically tricks to achieve something far beyond the hardware/GPU limitation.

That said, there is many graphical tricks a game developer can use like z-buffering, Z-culling,W-buffer, vertex buffers, index buffers, more just to name a few. Further more, game developer can also use rotational texture maps for false lighting, anti aliasing,LowRES textures that responsibility good enough visual wise, optimization/tweaking etc etc. The drawback is, it requires more RAM to use some of these graphical tricks.

@ kreon

I couldn't say any better

psyxon2575d ago

None of what you referred to relates to why games aren't in 1080p. It's hardly because of RAM, as stated most PC GPUs don't even run games in 1080p well and PCs have vast amounts of RAM. It's because these console GPUs are dated, and weak. We've only just started having PC games with amazing graphics that run well in 1080p because of the GPU.

Pikajew2576d ago

I rather have great gameplay than great graphics

Jihaad_cpt2576d ago

where will you find both? PC game staples are MMOs & FPS

buddymagoo2576d ago (Edited 2576d ago )

@Jihad

You not seen Uncharted and Gran Turismo 5? Also Wipeout HD still looks incredible at 1080p. Then I have Call of Duty multi-player in 1080p 90fps on the PC.

Jihaad_cpt2576d ago

well I was refering to PCs not the PlayStation buddy. I have both those games and I love them both. Uncharted my favourite game this gen despite me loving Final Fantasy last gen

CloseSecond2576d ago

GT5 is a real mixed bag in terms of visuals. Sometimes its looks great and other times it leaves you wanting. Terrible shadow effects, some real bad reflections (lights at night), rain effects are sub par. Small things but they stand out like a sore thumb as they dont match the quality of the other visuals.

buddymagoo2576d ago (Edited 2576d ago )

Close second

Do you pick out all the negatives in life? It's the best looking Race game out there, by a distance.

Ranshak

Have you played GT5 on a 1080p screen? Trust me Dirt 3 and NFS don't look better.

Ranshak2576d ago (Edited 2576d ago )

@buddy

GT5 maybe a good game however its no where close to being the best looking race game. That title easily goes to Dirt 2 or Grid running on PC, Hell even NFS Shift running on PC beats out GT5.

Ranshak2576d ago

I have played GT5 i think its a good game, but graphics wise its average best. Most of the environment looks very static, Imo dirt 2 on PC looks alot better.

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 2576d ago
zinki332576d ago (Edited 2576d ago )

Since I don't have 56+inch tv yet,..only 42,..And from where I am sitting I really don't care much,.. Some AA and aniso is really nice thought,..

I really care about it far more on my monitor,..but I am sitting half a meter from my monitor,.. I still, most of the times, rather lower the reso and have some more AA and aniso forced,..

I really don't understand ''so few games'' in 1920*1200p(or 1080p) statement ,.. We have been playing that in Quake1 time,.. and even before that,..And that is like 16 years ago,.. Did not make them look better, then the games we have today,..did it?

Native reso has very little to do with graphics quality or fidelity,..It is important, but there are far more important things in graphics,..Unless it is really low,.. (I sometimes wish Wii games weren't exactly 480p without any AA,.. Especially on big screen LCDs,..Because I know they would looks so much prettier in HD with some AA and aniso),.. Still, if the game is good and pulls you in,.. you seldom forget about it fast,..

RedSky2576d ago

I expect when the next generation of consoles rolls around there will be a massive leap in resolution, AA/AF and more complex lighting/shader effects that aren't able to get 60 let alone 30 FPS at the moment on what is honestly pretty aged hardware.

In the last few years, console game developers have really been riding on some pretty impressive optimization on their part but once the next generation eventuates even unoptimised it's hard to see anything at today's level not being able to run 1920x1080 with most effects enabled and AA when even a budget ~150 video card can run most console ports with much better fidelity no probs.

Show all comments (33)
The story is too old to be commented.