Star Citizen feature

Chris Roberts; 4K on PC more beneficial, can’t appreciate resolution at certain distance

Lately we’ve been hearing a lot about resolutions and how console gamers are unable to distinguish the difference between 720p and 1080p. And while most of you will raise your hand and say that you can easily notice the difference between these two resolution standards, Star Citizen’s Chris Roberts claimed that really high resolutions can’t be really appreciated when players are gaming on their HDTVs..

During AMD’s Developer Summit 2013, Chris Roberts said that while it is easy to appreciate 4K resolutions while gaming on the PC, it is really hard to appreciate these high resolutions when you are meters away from your HDTV set.

“A lot of people can’t tell the difference between 720p and 1080p on a HD set because at a certain distance you just can’t really appreciate the resolution. Now if you go right up close to the screen you can see the resolution (that’s one of the reasons why even on the Rift 1080p set you can see the pixels, cause it’s right by your eyes). And the thing is with the PC you have your monitor fairly close to your face so you can actually appreciate the resolution the way that you wouldn’t do on your living room. So I actually think 4K for PCs is actually a lot more compelling than it would be in living rooms.”

Roberts is actually right about it. Here is a small test you can do for yourselves. Start playing a low-res video and move away from your monitor. You will notice that at a certain distance, that low-res video feels actually pretty good. Sure thing, it won’t be as good as its HD cousin, but you won’t notice the pixels that can be easily spotted when you are up close to the monitor. Well, the very same thing – more or less – happens with aliasing.

18 thoughts on “Chris Roberts; 4K on PC more beneficial, can’t appreciate resolution at certain distance”

  1. Looking forward to Pax East (April 10th) for the reveal of Dog Fighting Module and release of it after a week or so .

    1. It most likely depends on if they have reached 40 million dollars or not. Why is it so damn hard to find footage/info for this game? I would like to know a lot more about this game, especially the Squadron 42 campaign.

      1. Visit the website , there is more than enough information about the game . They started brand new session “Monthly Report” as well . I have stopped visiting Q&A session in forums because I felt that they may be sharing way too much about the campaign Squadron 42 (except story) and I want to be surprised .

      2. Visit the website, there is info. Footage is scarce as the game isn’t in a playable state except some parts. They have raised 39,782,756 dollars at this point.

  2. It also depends on one’s vision. Some people can’t tell the difference between resolutions even with a computer monitor in their face.

    My vision is near-perfect, though, so I can tell if I’m watching an HD image even from across the room. Looking out the window now I can pick out individual leaves and twigs from more than 100 yards away, and I’m slightly more nearsighted than far. I can’t wait for 4K computer monitors (and for graphics cards to catch up).

  3. 4K gaming? Not everyone is a millionaire like you Chris. Just for the record: PS3 hit game The Last of Us was “only” in 1280 x 720 and 30 frames. Yet I have still to hear one single complaint about that fact.

    1. Well then, let me formally and officially complain about TLOUs low resolution and frame rate in your vicinity. Especially action games suffer from low frame rates. Anything below 60 fps is unacceptable for any fast moving and/or reflex based game.

        1. How so? when next gen can barelly do 1080p and we have been playing lots of 60 fps games lately, its not that suprised, you think i am talking about graphicalyl impressive games but i am not, i am talkign about gmaes like dmc, darksiders 2, borderlands 2, resident evil 6, dead space 3,all run at 30 fps on consoles Its easy to run those with 60 fps on pc though.

      1. blurry textures, jaggies subpar framerate, awful aiming, few shadows and no ambient occlussion, to the eyes of the consoletarsd its the most amazing looking game untill killzone shadowfail came out.

        Pathetic.

      2. So, 59fps is unacceptable? And 50fps too? As much as I love pretty graphics and gaming at 60fps, it’s silly to say that “Anything below 60 fps is unacceptable for any fast moving and/or reflex based game”. Sure, it sucks but it isn’t unacceptable. I’d say the closer it is to 60fps, the better. And it’s tolerable as long as it’s above 30fps.

    2. Sorry to burst your bubble, but The Last of Us looks like straight up ass. The choppy frame rate isn’t any better.

      After gaming at 1440p for awhile now and firing up my PS3 to play that game, I was astounded at how awful it looks.

    3. PSST killzone shadowfail mp runs at 960x1080p at 45 fps, not everyone has to sellte for “next gen” trashboxes sand their pathetic limitations.

    4. No-one complained because console players dont know any better. Also many have such small tv’s that 720p isnt horrible, it’s like playing on a phone in the sense that anything looks goof on a small enough screen. PC players like I dont complain as you cant do anything about it. And the graphics were good otherwise.

  4. Nothing new here, but unfortunately many people dont know, understand or even accept this. I have compared AC3 on my TV with xbox and PC both connected, the difference in resolution and fps is mind blowing. But console players cant know, until now. 4K will be rather useless unless it’s a huge screen and you are near the screen. On a “small” 24-32″ PC monitor the difference will be clear as said.

    1. 4K would be best used in the Oculus but I guess it’s rather hard and expensive to have 2 really small 4K screens. And really challenging for the hardware running the game.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *