Wreckage
Banned
- Jul 1, 2005
- 5,529
- 0
- 0
I don't think that's invalid. The point is: there are plenty of IQ enhancements that we don't have *yet* in real-time, which are more important than resolution.
Apparently we don't share the same opinion on what makes something 'realistic'.
I would much prefer the added geometry detail, animation, physics and AI over Far Cry, at the cost of a slightly lower resolution and a bit of aliasing.
Far Cry at 2650x1600 with SSAA would just be a very clinically rendered world that isn't very realistic. Reminds me too much of the raytracing crowd... "Look at this beautiful collection of perfectly round spheres on a checkerboard that I've rendered!". Yea okay... but we don't have all that much in the form of spherical objects and checkerboards in the real world. So it may be cleanly rendered, but it's not a realistic 'world'.
I just picked up a 23" monitor and considering I sit at a desk, a much bigger monitor is not needed. So I completely agree with what you said. I think a lot of people are fine at 1280x1024 or 1650x1050. They want more eye candy to use on their existing monitors.
For example look at the recent steam survey, here are the top resolutions.
http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/
Code:
1024 x 768
10.71%
0.00%
1152 x 864
1.87%
-0.03%
1280 x 720
0.75%
+0.05%
1280 x 768
0.78%
+0.02%
1280 x 800
7.36%
-0.26%
1280 x 960
1.33%
-0.08%
1280 x 1024
16.75%
-0.34%
1360 x 768
1.27%
+0.06%
1366 x 768
6.06%
+0.48%
1440 x 900
10.91%
-0.30%
1600 x 900
3.06%
+0.20%
1600 x 1200
0.85%
-0.03%
1680 x 1050
16.71%
-0.08%
1920 x 1080
11.84%
+0.75%
1920 x 1200
5.68%
-0.29%
