If you insist on a laptop for your new computer, I'd recommend ASUS's G## series. I picked up a G46 for $800 and it's pretty rock solid.KazeAizen said:
Titanfall Runs at 792p, 60 FPS on Xbox One
- Thread starter Steven Bogos
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I think it's hilarious that the Xbone (a game console), can't even game as well as a PC. I mean if I was to neglect PC gaming, for a console, I'd making it a fucking good console.
Mark me among those who don't really care about resolution. Since I grew up on the NES, it would seem rather hypocritical of me to rag on games for bad graphics when a large part of my gaming history was 8-bit sprites trodding across flat backgrounds. If I truly gave a crap about graphical optimization, I would do my gaming on a PC.
Haha. Its last gens fault for pushing HD ready so much. Now people feel we need 1080 to show progress.
Can't stand 720 on my monitor, but on a big tv, I'm sure it'll lok good as long asit doesn't drop below 30fpsI
Can't stand 720 on my monitor, but on a big tv, I'm sure it'll lok good as long asit doesn't drop below 30fpsI
I've been playing it most of the weekend and haven't seen that. I've been amazed at how rock solid the frame rate has been. Could be connection issues.Duffeknol said:
the guys at PCGmaer got this baby running at 7680x1440 with their "Large Pixel Collider"
http://www.pcgamer.com/2014/02/14/titanfall-screenshots-maxed-settings-at-7680x1440-on-lpc/
something that bothers me is that, its the source engine, that thing from what i understand runs incredibly well on top of having a fantastic scalability, how can the xbone not run this at 1080p and 60 fps?
http://www.pcgamer.com/2014/02/14/titanfall-screenshots-maxed-settings-at-7680x1440-on-lpc/
something that bothers me is that, its the source engine, that thing from what i understand runs incredibly well on top of having a fantastic scalability, how can the xbone not run this at 1080p and 60 fps?
Why try to squeeze more out of a console than it is capable of? It just makes the console seem underpowered. They should just be humble about it and lower the settings until it runs at a constant 60fps, at a native resolution of 1920x1080.
humble? sensible solutions?Flammablezeus said:
YOU DONT KNOW THE AAA INDUSTRY DO YOU? CLEARLY THIS IS A PROBLEM THAT CAN ONLY BE FIXED BY THROWING MORE MONEY AT IT!
Really, I'd say the Source Engine only has 2 real problems:NuclearKangaroo said:
Load Times can be a bit long, [footnote](and I WISH Respawn would have the map load while you wait in the lobby, it would make things much smoother)[/footnote] and that for whatever reason, every game on it only spans from 75 to 90 degree FOV. (Possibly an artifact from being created in 2004, when 4:3 monitors were the standard?)
MY KINECT 2 IS RUNNING OUT OF CRANNIES TO STUFF MONEY INTO! I'LL TRY THE SYSTEM'S FAN!NuclearKangaroo said:
Where could it go? Rather, where has it went. the most popular new monitor purchases are actually 1440p already. the UHD (UltraHD) that we call 4k is also going to come sooner or later. And we are going to call it whatever we like. names can be changed just as easily as they were given.KazeAizen said:
And stay where for 10 minutes exactly? Because we have been playing games on HD res monitors back when it used to be kinescopic, you know, in the 90s. We have been here for 2 decades. Nice of you console folk to catch up.
Holo decs are terrible. It looks like a nice concept til lyou try to ground it in reality. People had trouble with Kinect not working in their homes because the room was too small. Something like holodeck would be unworkable. not everyone lives in a mansion. not to mention the size if hardware installation that wouldn't be easy to do for everyone. No, something like Oculus Rift is a much better option. Except we should work towards it being controlled by a brainwave reader instead of omnitrack, as that severely limits options.
I grew up in that era as well. Does not mean i am blind to benefits of resolution. You seem to be using the "nostalgia therefore good" argument, which only works if nostalgia exists. and for most people it seems that it doesnt (graphics sell). You are correct though, if you cared about graphics you would be playing on PC.el_kabong said:
poor quality is totally cinematic bro!Zachary Amaranth said:
Bad resolution will look good on higher screen? What is this i dont even? If you were to argue that 720p looks good enough on soemthing with a small screen (like a tablet) then you would have a point. a large TV is lolwut type of idea.Mr Ink 5000 said:
I don't understand what "What is this i dont even?" means. Sorry, it makes no sense to me. I wasn't arguing anything.Strazdas said:
To elaborate; it was a passing observation, from playing a game on my PS3, on a 50" screen at 720p, in my living room to playing the same game on my PC (Steam sales, I have rebought games as I've shifted to more of a PC gamer), on a 22" monitor a foot away from my face, 720p looked horrible and so does any game that isn't in 1080p. IMO
It's pretty sad that for $500 I could build a PC that runs Titanfall at 1080p. I actually feel sympathetic for you if you bought a XB1, seriously, it's getting pretty clear that Microsoft is not selling a device worth $500. $500 is a lot people, that's a down payment on a car and a half.
I mean for fuck's sake the PS2 could manage 1080p, I find it disgusting that even last gen we weren't all at 60FPS 1080p.
If this console generation can't even manage that now, we're going to be stuck in a rut graphically like we've never seen before.
Then again maybe that would force devs to actually make fun games with lots of content, if they don't have to constantly keep stepping their art budget. That'd be good, right?
Personally I could go for some actually fun games, last gen had too much "LOOK AT OUR ART BUDGET SEE HOW MUCH BLOOM AND LENS FLARE WE HAVE"
I mean for fuck's sake the PS2 could manage 1080p, I find it disgusting that even last gen we weren't all at 60FPS 1080p.
If this console generation can't even manage that now, we're going to be stuck in a rut graphically like we've never seen before.
Then again maybe that would force devs to actually make fun games with lots of content, if they don't have to constantly keep stepping their art budget. That'd be good, right?
Personally I could go for some actually fun games, last gen had too much "LOOK AT OUR ART BUDGET SEE HOW MUCH BLOOM AND LENS FLARE WE HAVE"
1440p? Never heard of it. "Nice of you console folks to catch up." Do you realize what an arrogant jerk that makes you sound like? That kind of attitude is what pisses console gamers off about PC gamers. If both sides could stop doing crap like you just did we might all be able to get along for once in our lives.Strazdas said:
As for the holo decks I was mostly just joking about that. How can you say holo decks are terrible when they don't even exist. Are you joking when you say brainwave reader or are you serious? In case you haven't noticed I am pretty sure no one in the realm of video games is working on anything even remotely similar to a brainwave reader. Of course the omni track is severely limiting in some cases. Now I'm gonna sound like a jerk here but why don't you try and build a consumer prototype of something like that and have it not be limited. I know I sure as heck can't.
I can't believe this UHD is actually a thing. Can't wait for that come. Now I really will be able to count every blade of grass on the screen because you know that's why I've always wanted. *face palms*
ah right, I see.Strazdas said:
Not really far, no.
Think of it this way; the best consoles had done is 720p. living room gaming has no other comparrisons unless you have a PC in there, which I don't and I'm assuming not many do judging by some of the comments to Steam Machines.
Now the new consoles are here and a Google search on "1080p next gen consoles" the first 10 results are how next (current) gen is failing to reach 1080p.
So as a console gamer, in the living room, 792p is gonna be ok/good. they've nothing else to compare it to.
Thats my take on it
You mean the resolution you need more than a 50" screen to even begin to tell the difference? I think that kinda helps the point that we're reaching diminishing returns.Strazdas said:
I can't wait for PC gamers to swear they can totally tell the difference on a 20 inch screen.KazeAizen said:
Well, unless they have Blu-Ray or some other source of 1080p quality to compare to. Or they've played on a PC with 1080p or better. Or they've played a current gen console game that's 1080p. Or they played a PS3 game that's 1080p. There are a lot of options, actually.Mr Ink 5000 said:
well watching a bluray isn't gaming, I thought we were talking about gaming?Zachary Amaranth said:
My comment was in relation to how on the big screen in the living room, your average console gamer wont have anything better to compare to on that screen.
a quick google search and there aint many PS3 games in 1080p. I'm finding it difficult to find a comprehensive list.
PS4 may manage it on some games, but as i said, first 10 results on Google say the current gen is struggling to hit 1080p.
Unless youre nitpicking, a console going from a PS3/360 to an xbone, 792p aint gonna be a drop in quality is it? so it'll be good for them.
Do you think there are many who own both PS4 and XBone at the moment?