Discussion in 'PC Games Screenshots' started by Princess Garnet, Jun 13, 2012.
Real mature. As I said, take it elsewhere.
Sorry PG, just having a crud day because I've had issues getting money that's owed to me by so called friends today and I'm still waiting for results of my mum's scan to find out if the tumors she has are cancerous and I'm getting frustrated with all the delays she has had.
Sorry to take that out on you, but I still don't see how this thread is going to accomplish much with only Snicko and yourself with hardware capable of its purpose.
But you alienated the only person that could have posted fresh pics (and did) that weren't just "found" on a websearch somewhere.
I am sorry to have derailed your thread but I honestly feel it was well on its way before I first posted anyway
GREAT POST GLAD! :thumb:
I'll make this my last post in this thread, please accept my apology for any grief I have brought you.
However I hope you will know that you have brought a smile to my face in my time of worry.
Spoiler (Move your mouse to the spoiler area to reveal the content)
Love ya darl...
Love ya darl...
Because your title isn't broad, everyone understood you. The offtopic posts would have come even with a more specific thread title.
And you never specified what it would be changed to...and again it wouldn't matter since as I told you no one else can play along.
I was having a bad day (and few months, really) too, so all's forgiven, and I'm sorry about everything. I think you're still misunderstanding me a bit. That's partly my fault for being a bit broad, but I tried explaining that.
It's not about who can "play along". I knew not everyone could. That's partly why I posted them (and no, not to gloat, but to show a glimpse of what tomorrow's higher detail would be like because we're not using now). I posted them to show them and expected nothing in particular beyond that. People are thinking it's about high resolution images when my title was very, very broad. It's about high detail (beyond what we have today, so above 1600p in my mind) and nothing more, but people are trying to invalidate my thread by talking about aspect ratio or display type or FOV and that's all aside and irrelevant factors and it's frustrating me. When you brought up personal things towards me when I had no personal issues with me, after last night's bad night, I was a bit aggravated too.
I'm sorry too, and I hope maybe you understand a bit more now.
Spoiler (Move your mouse to the spoiler area to reveal the content)
If you understood it, you'd know it was broad because it is broad for what the thread is instead specifically for, so apparently you do not understand that specific thing so much as you think it is what it isn't.
You're ignoring what I said earlier. The thread isn't invalidated because everyone can't post images of the like.
I don't mean the thread is invalidated, I mean it's title could be bulletproof and not as broad as you say it is and it would still look the same.
By saying that, you're effectively freeing me of any part for the replies the thread received because none came from thinking it was meant in a more broad sense.
I don't believe that though. I believe my broad title is partly to blame, and regardless of what caused it, it should be your responsibility to try and reasonably quell any off topic or personal remarks (the latter at least of which seem to have been cleared up), but instead you put your worth in on an unrelated matter, which certainly didn't help.
Don't take my remark too personally or overall of what I think of you or how you do your duty, but at least here, I'm disappointed. This isn't about what you think of the matter the thread is for versus another; it's about letting the thread be for it's intended purpose (even if that means it sits there with next to no replies, then so what?), not arguing in it with the ones who made it about what it's about or it's validity.
Which is exactly what I'd meant, you are free of any part.
If I saw possibility for the thread (a lot more people stepping in an providing material fit for the thread) I'd have been a bit more staff and less normal member but since, as I said, pretty much no one can play along (since not even the people that tried to really met the bar) and since I feel a thread with responses even if offtopic is preferable to one with none at all I decided to leave things as they are. (Well I would change the title if you'd finally tell me what it should be, I don't see high detail as being any less broad)
And I then chose instead to do something more constructive like start a debate which has been dismissed as just being about aspect ratio (which was only the 2nd part, the first was about the high resolution or detail as you call being pointless on game that were never meant for 1080P let alone anything bigger, it actually reduces "detail" since it uncovers how simplistic the graphics were).
I see little point in reprimanding when the alternative wouldn't yield a more fitting response. Also Glad's post was very obviously a joke. If however such stuff would have continued then I would have stepped in.
I am not. It's easy to see where confusion may have come from and it's not fully their fault.
I made a broad titled thread and posted a few high resolution images to show high detail. Someone else posted "random high resolution images", and they didn't fit, so I told them they didn't, and another member (DarkSamus) thought I was telling a few people off as a way of gloating about what I posted based on other past events when it was all a misunderstanding.
We're seemingly past all that now though.
It should be about doing your duty and keeping the thread on topic, not contributing to the thread in a different, argumentative way just because you think it's more constructive and lacks validity with less people providing. That's all there is to it, period.
As per your points, that's not what the thread is for. I'll entertain one of your mentions though. Commenting about how some of today's games don't have the texture detail to look like a game from tomorrow (which would seem obvious...) is fine, and I even said that myself, but to make an issue out of it like it invalidates the point of what the thread is for? Other than the Sims 3 (which is viewed from far away outside CAS most of the time anyway), none of those even look that bad. If you think developers are still making textures for 768p or something, you're mistaken. Most look fine at 1080p and higher so that's mostly moot. There comes a point where some stuff starts looking washed out, yes, but not enough to invalidate the perks of the higher detail level on the whole (which is about more than texture detail but also 3D rendering definition).
I understand not everyone can conjure up images of this type. I never necessarily expected it, and its not needed to validate the thread or get your approval of it less you let other stuff fly in it. If this stuff was normal, I wouldn't be posting it for the sake of being high detail. In reality, a truer high detail would have a higher DPI/PPI too, so just viewing them on most of today's screens isn't the same thing, but it still gives a rough idea. That's really all I wanted to originally do, but sorry for trying, and thanks for helping make it harder. I apologize for the broad title and misunderstanding I had with DarkSamus, but you should be respecting my simple requests (requests made to help try and clarify the thread's intent).
I meant yesteryear's games, not today's. Aside from Crysis all your shots were from older games where I really don't see them getting any benefit, if anything it makes them look worse since you can clearly see how little graphical detail there actually is in them. That's where my 4:3 comment came from that you missunderstood, any game made when 4:3 was still king was not made for high resolutions/high detail. It's only when gaming went widescreen that games started getting sufficient detail to be able to benefit from 1080P and beyond.
And I don't mean washed out, I mean the graphics essentially break or at least their immersion effect does. You look at a C&C3 tank at a lower res on a smaller screen and it looks kind of like a tank. You look at it at a much larger res on a bigger screen and it basically devolves into a bunch of geometric shapes put together in the shape of what a tank might be.
Ok I'm going to try this one last time and then never come back to this thread again. What do you want me to rename it to?
It has nothing to do with aspect ratio and more to do with texture quality like I said.
By the way, you may want to check the release dates because Crysis is the second oldest game pictured, and the oldest came from only about half a year earlier. Both are from 2007. The Sims 3 is from the middle of 2009 and Portal 2 is newer than Crysis as well (and the newest). Those are all games with Hor+ properties (aside from Command & Conquer which actually has two base aspect ratios but is still wider in widescreen aspect ratios) so your remarks of 4:3 content don't fit any of these titles. These are all relatively recent and widescreen era games; they're just not very high on visuals or textures (Crysis being the exception).
Like I said, it has to do with texture quality. Crysis was made as a graphical monster and none of those other games are. Think of it like emulation where cranking the resolution too high destroys the 2D, but it's not as pronounced.
Those images of Command & Conquer 3 are fully zoomed in, and in 4:3, it's even more zoomed in than it is with any other aspect ratio. It's not a game with high detail textures, and it's not a game you play zoomed in all the time.
You missed my point that high detail is about more than textures. The higher render resolution, the higher definition, is another part of it. You also missed that I admitted in my very opening post the very thing you are arguing; that this would merely be a glimpse because today's games don't have the quality tomorrow's will to fully make the best of such resolutions. It's obvious that these games don't have the texture detail for such resolutions and beyond.
This is the first time you're even trying to truly ask!
I wonder if it's even truly worth it now, but I guess just changing "Resolution" to "Detail" or something might make it more specific.
I think the title is fine, just add some rules for minimum resolution and stuff to the first post ... and thumbnails, please thumbnails.
Other thant that, I used to play with my CRT forcing higher resolutions to take sshots too. Everything was utterly unplayable one way or another, but it was nice to look at the pics later. XD
I KNOW it has nothing to do with the aspect ratio itself, I'm merely using it to mark a timeline...I have been the whole time.
You really can't use Portal2 to prove your point since you didn't actually really show it off. I will admit though I got Crysis and Sims3 dates backwards but it still stands that Sims3 doesn't benefit from this higher resolution at all.
Not gonna touch the rest since I don't even know how our views on it split since what you wrote is most of what I was trying express just with the wrong words that lead to confusion.
It's at least the 3rd time.
Done (even though you yourself said that other than Crysis these games don't have the texture detail to validate any claim of high detail).
It's not about a minimum resolution though, because some images above a certain resolution still may not fit. For example, the Lion King one posted earlier is an example of a very large resolution image that still doesn't fit the criteria. It's just a large and full shot of the whole level but not of a higher actual rendering resolution/definition, if that makes sense.
In any case, my idea of "high detail" is beyond what we have today, so higher than 1600p was what I had in mind (although, in my opinion, 1440p and more especially 1600p are rather high detail themselves, but I was going more for beyond that even).
I did take for granted for people would know what I was specifically after, but it was too broad.
I know that, but as I said, these are all widescreen behavior/era games, and you said games started being able to show advantage of resolutions of 1080p and beyond around then, but my games show otherwise, which proves it's about texture detail and not age.
I don't need Portal 2 there to prove the point. It is one example, but it's not a graphical monster either so it'd fall right in with the rest.
Which is exactly what I was saying... (that you are arguing a point that I myself admitted way back in, oh... the first post!)
Thank you, but where's the other times where you actually (and only) asked? I saw like one other time where you said you didn't see the point or whatever. I never saw any confirmation of my request to change it that asked what I wanted it changed to.
Quit trying to turn my words on me. If you're going to sit there and just call the thread worthless, then yes, please leave. (I'm not saying I don't want you posting at all, just that I don't want you posting if that's what you'll be doing.)
Also, yet again you miss my statement that there's more to it than texture detail. I said that this is just a glimpse of things.
Even if it's render resolution, you would still need a minimum resolution rule. And for those cases of upscaled stuff, just add more rules! Rules can be as detailed and complex as you make them, but make some. Your concept for the thread needs them.
Perhaps. I guess my idea was for beyond what we have today, so stuff higher than 1600p at least. As said though, not all stuff higher than 1600p may fit. I wasn't really expecting a whole lot of others to be able to post such stuff; I was more just showing it.
I enjoy these shots, even if I need to scroll to see em. Keep postin' yo!
Can we please behave like we know how to do more than read the title? This is the "PC Games Screenshots" forum.
Separate names with a comma.