LATEST CHATTY HEADER
Subscribe to Shacknews Mercury starting at $1/month!
Chrome Shack Community Guidelines Chatty Search
Scroll down to join the conversation.
New to Shacknews? Signup for a Free Account
Already have an account? Login Now
Subscribe to Shacknews Mercury starting at $1/month!
Chrome Shack Community Guidelines Chatty Search
Scroll down to join the conversation.
there has been much debate about this, and are they "too much?"
At first i was like "fuck the haters" because we spend all this money on our PCs and finally a game comes a long that actually justifies that expense. A hardcore, fuck the newbs, system-killing game.
All praise Crytek. Raise the bar and all that shit.
But then again, I was able to play EP2, Portal, Bioshock and Cod4 at 1920x1200 with everything maxed at 60fps, and I liked it.
Crysis? I have to play at 1600x1200 with a mixture of medium and high settings, and it runs at about 30fps. It's playable, but barely.
So on the one hand I praise the move to the next gen and how it will really push technology. But on the other hand I wish it was a bit less demanding and ran better on very high end systems like my own.
So I'm conflicted.
Thread Truncated. Click to see all 147 replies.
1024 x 768 is a width to height ratio of 16 x 12.
1280x720 is a ratio of 16 x 9.
So you can look at it this way:
If a 720p TV was only 16 x 12 then the resolution would only be (720 / 12) x 16 pixels wide or 960 x 720.
960 x 720 is worse than 1024 x 768. Therefore a 720p HD TV is basically worse than a 1024 x 768 monitor but compensates for the lower resolution by adding 160 columns of pixels down either side which is definitely nice to have but most of your attention is focused in the middle of the screen.
Applying similar logic to a 1080p HDTV if it was in 4 x 3 (16 x 12) it would only be 1440 x 1080. That is not a whole lot better than 1280 x 1024 that many LCDs use or 1280 x 960 on a CRT.
The post has been reported. Thank you!
You must be logged in to post.
You must be logged in to post.