Is Gaming At Less Than 720p Really That Bad?

[xCloneECKO]

I already know people are going to jump the gun here and say that anything less than 1080p is garbage, or "too casual", but it's something that generally bugs me about the PC Gaming community that I feel like asking now. Is it really all that bad, especially for casual gamers?

So, let me take a step back for a minute. I'm definitely not a "casual" gamer by even my own standards. I have an expensive rig that I really like with a 4690k and a GTX 970, I'm personally not slouching in the hardware department, but I justify spending over $1,000 on my computer because I find it a fun hobby I can get satisfaction in, I use it for more than just games (I'll be it, not much more), and because I use it so often it was well worth the expenses. What about a more "casual" gamer though, who doesn't like consoles? Or just someone who likes PC Gaming, but their on a really tight budget? Sure everyone wants a 5960X with dual 980 Ti's, but a responsible person with low income isn't gonna blow all their money like that. Yet everyone who talks about PC Gaming really degrades anything less than 1080p, 60fps.

I know that there is a standard as far as the community goes with modern game developers. If you're game can't run on mid range to high end hardware at 1080p 60 FPS, it's either not well optimized or too graphically demanding to be consumer friendly (usually the first one though). I also understand that's the reason consoles get so ragged on is because their terriblely underpowered for today's day in age. The prices have dropped to something much more reasonable, but because the damage has already been done it is still an unappealing purchase for the smart consumer. However I see people taking this standard used by developers, and push it to be a community standard. As in, if you're system doesn't run 1080p, you didn't spend enough money on it, or spent money on certain hardware that didn't improve performance (ex: buy 64gb of ram, but you only got a GTX 960, that's generally not a good decision for part picking). Does it really matter though?

Generally speaking I understand the point in having these high standards from the PC Gaming community. It influences the hardware manufactures and game developers in a positive way by making the hardware more powerful for less cost, or just developing better optimized games.

I guess my real point that I'm trying to get at is would the more casual PC gamer be considered outcasted for owning a rig like this: http://pcpartpicker.com/p/78yT23

No, its not fancy AT ALL. It actually sucks, but it's a capable system for 720p Gaming (or even lower) if all you want to do is play games on your computer and nothing much else. It's not meant to do 1080p 60fps with maxed out settings, but it could still play games, and that's really what matters to some people, and honestly is what deters console gamers from moving over to PC Gaming. The system alone is about the same price as a current "next gen" console, but it can still deliver an experience thats more enjoyable because of the benefits of PC Gaming. People are generally correct when they say that PC Gaming is expensive because that's what everyone keeps making it out to be as. Everyone likes to pull the "but look at this budget PC" argument whenever their talking about the price of PC Gaming, but most of those people (from what I see) own $1,000+ rigs and have never even thought about Gaming at lower resolutions just because it "doesn't look as good".

LinusTechTips actually did a video I remember seeing maybe 2 or 3 years ago where Linus showed the difference in price to performance on the extremely low end side of graphics cards vs something $20-$30 more expensive, which he was in fact correct on his stance when he made the video, but does it really matter all that much? If you're OK with Gaming at lower resolutions, do you really need a GTX 970 then, or even a 960? You could go as low as a 750 Ti and the casual consumer probably won't notice the difference. I really want to know what people think about this. Am I the only one who thinks its ok to own a cheap system and not game at 1080p? Or is the difference really so drastic for some people (maybe because we can actually tell the difference?) that anything less is rubbish?

I guess as a closing statement I'll say that my family owns a 480p television and a 720p television and they can't tell the difference in picture quality between the two. They can see the difference between 60 and 30 FPS, but the differences in resolution don't phase them at all because they just want something "good enough". Even I run videos on my phone at 480p when I'm using 4G service just because I honestly don't see much of a difference between that and 1080p, it just saves me on data usage. I CAN tell the difference, its just not a significant enough one in my opinion to make me enjoy whatever video I'm watching with less satisfaction. This is where I got the thought for this topic from.

[lopj245]

It's not that its bad, just gaming at 1080  + is soooo much better.

[comefightme]

I already know people are going to jump the gun here and say that anything less than 1080p is garbage, or "too casual", but it's something that generally bugs me about the PC Gaming community that I feel like asking now. Is it really all that bad, especially for casual gamers?

So, let me take a step back for a minute. I'm definitely not a "casual" gamer by even my own standards. I have an expensive rig that I really like with a 4690k and a GTX 970, I'm personally not slouching in the hardware department, but I justify spending over $1,000 on my computer because I find it a fun hobby I can get satisfaction in, I use it for more than just games (I'll be it, not much more), and because I use it so often it was well worth the expenses. What about a more "casual" gamer though, who doesn't like consoles? Or just someone who likes PC Gaming, but their on a really tight budget? Sure everyone wants a 5960X with dual 980 Ti's, but a responsible person with low income isn't gonna blow all their money like that. Yet everyone who talks about PC Gaming really degrades anything less than 1080p, 60fps.

I know that there is a standard as far as the community goes with modern game developers. If you're game can't run on mid range to high end hardware at 1080p 60 FPS, it's either not well optimized or too graphically demanding to be consumer friendly (usually the first one though). I also understand that's the reason consoles get so ragged on is because their terriblely underpowered for today's day in age. The prices have dropped to something much more reasonable, but because the damage has already been done it is still an unappealing purchase for the smart consumer. However I see people taking this standard used by developers, and push it to be a community standard. As in, if you're system doesn't run 1080p, you didn't spend enough money on it, or spent money on certain hardware that didn't improve performance (ex: buy 64gb of ram, but you only got a GTX 960, that's generally not a good decision for part picking). Does it really matter though?

Generally speaking I understand the point in having these high standards from the PC Gaming community. It influences the hardware manufactures and game developers in a positive way by making the hardware more powerful for less cost, or just developing better optimized games.

I guess my real point that I'm trying to get at is would the more casual PC gamer be considered outcasted for owning a rig like this: http://pcpartpicker.com/p/78yT23

No, its not fancy AT ALL. It actually sucks, but it's a capable system for 720p Gaming (or even lower) if all you want to do is play games on your computer and nothing much else. It's not meant to do 1080p 60fps with maxed out settings, but it could still play games, and that's really what matters to some people, and honestly is what deters console gamers from moving over to PC Gaming. The system alone is about the same price as a current "next gen" console, but it can still deliver an experience thats more enjoyable because of the benefits of PC Gaming. People are generally correct when they say that PC Gaming is expensive because that's what everyone keeps making it out to be as. Everyone likes to pull the "but look at this budget PC" argument whenever their talking about the price of PC Gaming, but most of those people (from what I see) own $1,000+ rigs and have never even thought about Gaming at lower resolutions just because it "doesn't look as good".

LinusTechTips actually did a video I remember seeing maybe 2 or 3 years ago where Linus showed the difference in price to performance on the extremely low end side of graphics cards vs something $20-$30 more expensive, which he was in fact correct on his stance when he made the video, but does it really matter all that much? If you're OK with Gaming at lower resolutions, do you really need a GTX 970 then, or even a 960? You could go as low as a 750 Ti and the casual consumer probably won't notice the difference. I really want to know what people think about this. Am I the only one who thinks its ok to own a cheap system and not game at 1080p? Or is the difference really so drastic for some people (maybe because we can actually tell the difference?) that anything less is rubbish?

I guess as a closing statement I'll say that my family owns a 480p television and a 720p television and they can't tell the difference in picture quality between the two. They can see the difference between 60 and 30 FPS, but the differences in resolution don't phase them at all because they just want something "good enough". Even I run videos on my phone at 480p when I'm using 4G service just because I honestly don't see much of a difference between that and 1080p, it just saves me on data usage. I CAN tell the difference, its just not a significant enough one in my opinion to make me enjoy whatever video I'm watching with less satisfaction. This is where I got the thought for this topic from.

Do you have severe myopia? I have 20/20 vision and cannot stand anything less than 1080p unless its on a very small screen

My goodness nice essay there m8, and perfect grammar and spelling. ahhh

[byalexandr]

No, any PC is good to me. But everyone who has a PC deserves to have 1080p at least. It's just better.

[prepp3]

If it is a television 480 and 720 arent very different because you are further away from it (usually) and it is ok to play 720p if you like that as long as it is playable for you.

[shadowbyte]

I just got back from a friend's house, where he got watch dogs for Wii U.

The game runs at about 720p at 20fps with terrible textures and jagged lines everywhere.

The thing is, he claims that framerate doesn't matter.

I think that this is a non-debate, as some people simply cannot see or don't care about higher resolutions or framerates.

[Stuff_]

This question is completely opinionated. There's no answer except the on you think, and I think it's perfectly acceptable.

[prepp3]

BTW that system can play csgo at 1080p 60 fps+ easy

[Leonard]

--gone--

Below......

 

It's not that its bad, just gaming at 1080  + is soooo much better.

and gaming at 1080p + 144hz + 1ms = erection

 

Gonna keep a roll of bounty if i get a 144hz with G/Freesync.

[CeremonialSnips]

TLDR;

I guess my real point that I'm trying to get at is would the more casual PC gamer be considered outcasted for owning a rig like this: http://pcpartpicker.com/p/78yT23

 

Why would you be outcasted... that is a better PC than many.... just because it cant play at max res and fps does not mean anything to people who enjoy pc's and gaming.....

[Guest]

10/10 essay.
Would read again.

[xCloneECKO]

BTW that system can play csgo at 1080p 60 fps+ easy

Yeah, I'm sure it can.

Also, for the thread as a whole, my question isn't really regarding frame rates, just resolution. I can't stand anything below 60fps either in gaming.

[Guest]

TLDR;

 

Why would you be outcasted... that is a better PC than many.... just because it cant play at max res and fps does not mean anything to people who enjoy pc's and gaming.....

Reddit PCMR, cancer of the internet. Biggest douches over there.

[xCloneECKO]

TLDR;

Why would you be outcasted... that is a better PC than many.... just because it cant play at max res and fps does not mean anything to people who enjoy pc's and gaming.....

I agree, if you're ok with either playing at a lower resolution or just lower quality graphics then its perfectly capable, but a lot of people seem to think otherwise.

[TheMechEngineer]

I do all my gaming at 720p nowadays.

It's awesome because it means I can play modern games without requiring a beast graphics card.

[CeremonialSnips]

Reddit PCMR, cancer of the internet. Biggest douches over there.

 

Thats great... but this is not the cancer of PCMR Reddit (atleast from what I have experienced) and hopefully keep it that way!

[Swndlr]

BTW that system can play csgo at 1080p 60 fps+ easy

CSGO isnt one of those games where 60FPS really  cuts it, youre gonna want to be getting 200 or more for the game to feel smooth and enjoyable.

[AMICLG]

Well it's because 1080p 60FPS is so easy and cheap to run these days. There's really no point to aim for less unless you're on an extremely tight budget.

 

A GTX 780 is still able to play almost every game today at ultra 1080p with 60+ FPS average. And the hard to run titles you just have to run at high w/ some filters turned down.

 

A semi-decent 23" 1080p IPS can be had for around $100-$120 as well. A used GTX 700 series or R9 series can be had for about $200 or less. 

[Guest]

Thats great... but this is not the cancer of PCMR Reddit (atleast from what I have experienced) and hopefully keep it that way!

tbh, this forum is EXTREMELY clean, compared to any other forum I've used people here don't flame and can generally back up their arguments fairly well.

Also no AMD bs all the time, and if it is, it's 90% a joke.

[xCloneECKO]

If it is a television 480 and 720 arent very different because you are further away from it (usually) and it is ok to play 720p if you like that as long as it is playable for you.

Fair enough point about my example.

[kgorringe]

Thank you for this post. People think gaming in anything less than 1080p is like gaming on a Pentium III.

 

Seriously guys.

 

Seriously.

 

srsly

 

srsy

 

 

guiz pls

[EthanTheFrogMan]

I already know people are going to jump the gun here and say that anything less than 1080p is garbage, or "too casual", but it's something that generally bugs me about the PC Gaming community that I feel like asking now. Is it really all that bad, especially for casual gamers?

So, let me take a step back for a minute. I'm definitely not a "casual" gamer by even my own standards. I have an expensive rig that I really like with a 4690k and a GTX 970, I'm personally not slouching in the hardware department, but I justify spending over $1,000 on my computer because I find it a fun hobby I can get satisfaction in, I use it for more than just games (I'll be it, not much more), and because I use it so often it was well worth the expenses. What about a more "casual" gamer though, who doesn't like consoles? Or just someone who likes PC Gaming, but their on a really tight budget? Sure everyone wants a 5960X with dual 980 Ti's, but a responsible person with low income isn't gonna blow all their money like that. Yet everyone who talks about PC Gaming really degrades anything less than 1080p, 60fps.

I know that there is a standard as far as the community goes with modern game developers. If you're game can't run on mid range to high end hardware at 1080p 60 FPS, it's either not well optimized or too graphically demanding to be consumer friendly (usually the first one though). I also understand that's the reason consoles get so ragged on is because their terriblely underpowered for today's day in age. The prices have dropped to something much more reasonable, but because the damage has already been done it is still an unappealing purchase for the smart consumer. However I see people taking this standard used by developers, and push it to be a community standard. As in, if you're system doesn't run 1080p, you didn't spend enough money on it, or spent money on certain hardware that didn't improve performance (ex: buy 64gb of ram, but you only got a GTX 960, that's generally not a good decision for part picking). Does it really matter though?

Generally speaking I understand the point in having these high standards from the PC Gaming community. It influences the hardware manufactures and game developers in a positive way by making the hardware more powerful for less cost, or just developing better optimized games.

I guess my real point that I'm trying to get at is would the more casual PC gamer be considered outcasted for owning a rig like this: http://pcpartpicker.com/p/78yT23

No, its not fancy AT ALL. It actually sucks, but it's a capable system for 720p Gaming (or even lower) if all you want to do is play games on your computer and nothing much else. It's not meant to do 1080p 60fps with maxed out settings, but it could still play games, and that's really what matters to some people, and honestly is what deters console gamers from moving over to PC Gaming. The system alone is about the same price as a current "next gen" console, but it can still deliver an experience thats more enjoyable because of the benefits of PC Gaming. People are generally correct when they say that PC Gaming is expensive because that's what everyone keeps making it out to be as. Everyone likes to pull the "but look at this budget PC" argument whenever their talking about the price of PC Gaming, but most of those people (from what I see) own $1,000+ rigs and have never even thought about Gaming at lower resolutions just because it "doesn't look as good".

LinusTechTips actually did a video I remember seeing maybe 2 or 3 years ago where Linus showed the difference in price to performance on the extremely low end side of graphics cards vs something $20-$30 more expensive, which he was in fact correct on his stance when he made the video, but does it really matter all that much? If you're OK with Gaming at lower resolutions, do you really need a GTX 970 then, or even a 960? You could go as low as a 750 Ti and the casual consumer probably won't notice the difference. I really want to know what people think about this. Am I the only one who thinks its ok to own a cheap system and not game at 1080p? Or is the difference really so drastic for some people (maybe because we can actually tell the difference?) that anything less is rubbish?

I guess as a closing statement I'll say that my family owns a 480p television and a 720p television and they can't tell the difference in picture quality between the two. They can see the difference between 60 and 30 FPS, but the differences in resolution don't phase them at all because they just want something "good enough". Even I run videos on my phone at 480p when I'm using 4G service just because I honestly don't see much of a difference between that and 1080p, it just saves me on data usage. I CAN tell the difference, its just not a significant enough one in my opinion to make me enjoy whatever video I'm watching with less satisfaction. This is where I got the thought for this topic from.

I used to play Battlefield 4 at 20% resolution scaling, I am not sure what that amounts too in resolution but it was really bad, also I had it at minimum settings. It was fine until I saw the game in 1080p in person. So just like anything, its good until you see better, then you cannot live with what you had. Reminds me of kids and cell phones

[Doughnutnator]

I guess that pixel density also matters. Look at some smartphones screens, the iPhone 4 ran a weird, not so good resolution, but it looked quite good thanks to the size of the screen, and the ppi (pixels per inch)

If you're running 720p or less, I would get a small monitor, so pixels don't get so stretched, you get a better ppi/dpi

 

Take a look at this site, it calculates that based on your resolution and screen size: http://isthisretina.com/

I still believe that 1440p/4K is better, but if you have a 1080p monitor, and you just take more distance between you and the screen, you will notice less pixels, and still have a nice experience.

[EposVox]

Another thing to consider is that running games a sub-the native resolution of your monitor generally looks WAY WORSE than running it at whatever resolution natively.

 

I.e. 480p on a 1080p monitor, if a cheap monitor, will look HORRENDOUS to just about anyone who has gamed since the 90s.

 

Newer and higher-end monitors upscale a lot more cleanly and look fine (i.e. 1080p on my 4K screen looks fine), but on lower-end and lower-res ones it absolutely does not.

[xCloneECKO]

I used to play Battlefield 4 at 20% resolution scaling, I am not sure what that amounts too in resolution but it was really bad, also I had it at minimum settings. It was fine until I saw the game in 1080p in person. So just like anything, its good until you see better, then you cannot live with what you had. Reminds me of kids and cell phones

I was kinda thinking maybe that's what it is too. If you're on a budget (like a REALLY tight budget) I'm sure any type of PC would make you happy, even if it only cost you $360 and the performance reflected that, but once you see how much better it gets when you spend that extra $100, then another $100 and so on its hard to go back to the lower end system even though you initially were having just as much fun with it. Lesson to take away from that is to just spend your money responsibly in the first place, don't get jealous of other people's stuff and be happy with what you get because beggars can't be choosers.