Wow... gamers are dumb.

I think people should just stop buying shitty FPS games, cuz that seems to be the genre with the most screen tearing from what I've seen. I never buy a game unless I know it's high quality and made by people who actually give a shit. That's why I stick to staple franchises like Resident Evil, Metal Gear, Soul Calibur, etc. I haven't noticed screen tearing in those games, because they weren't half-assed like all those FPSs like Call of Juarez or Dark Sector or any of that crap.

Bottom line, don't just blow your money on every game that comes out just because you saw it in an advertisement. That'll encourage people to work harder.

To Oldschool: Um, and what's wrong with SNES graphics? Lol you know what, in most cases the art style in SNES games were better then anything found in the newer consoles(and alot of the graphics looked cleaner as well).

However I have to agree about M$ promising a PC quality xp, exc, exc(everything you listed in that statement was basically word for word what M$ was promoting). The 360 in every way, shape, and form is a repackaged PC, and was advertised as such, so I would wish people would stop pulling the, but It's a console, therefore it can't live up to PC standards card(It's a repackages PC, and they promised all those things).

Although I can't recall Sony claiming the PS3 was to be as good as a gaming quality PC or that it would offer a PC xp, however with that being said, there are tons of other things Sony has promised, yet went back on their word(being able to install an alt OS, BC, evidently SD support, exc exc, and somewhere down the list of broken promises, they promised the best graphics on the market, which clearly Isn't true either, not like graphics matter, but still).

To Why-Disciple: I couldn't agree with you more.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zoltor

To Oldschool: Um, and what's wrong with SNES graphics? Lol you know what, in most cases the art style in SNES games were better then anything found in the newer consoles(and alot of the graphics looked cleaner as well).

---

:lol:

Let's not go even further off topic. :p


Anyway, I was thinking some more and honestly you could equally argue that the Wii should support HD resolutions commonly with user defined options.
Honestly even last generation the emphasis on SD support was over the top for contemporary standards but it was the overwhealming norm and thus developers catered to it (albeit there was common 480p support on some of the systems and you at least had 480i becoming the norm above 240p the previous generation of consoles). Developers seem to mainly add such options only when forced, thus it's commonplace on PCs due to the nonstandard hardware with vastly variable performance, but it's useful for far more than that. (ie take any fixed system, treat it as a console and you've got tons of flexibility for software detail settings over contemporary consoles -including playing on an HDTV in 1360x768 native even if with VGA -HDMI is dumb sometimes)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kool kitty89

Why wouldn't tripple buffering open up fully variable framerates to allow almost as fast as the render speed, unlike double buffering which would only practically allow an integer division of the refresh rate?
You'd get a bit of stutter sure, just like 30 FPS progressive DVD players vs 60 FPS interlaced 3:2 pulldown, yet another case where user selactable options are preferable.

---

Regardless of what the frame rate is (60, 50, 30, whatever), it's still one single frame each 1/x time period. Say it's 60 Hz progressive. That means the console displays 60 distinct frames each second. If you go with triple buffering, all you are doing is ignoring those frames generated that do not fall on a vblank period. Say a game runs at 180 FPS - on a 60 Hz TV with vsync and triple buffering, you are showing one frame, skipping the next two frames, then showing the fourth frame, skipping the next two frames, then showing seventh frame, and so on. They are never seen in any form at all.

Now if you don't use vsync and simply flip the buffer, the TV has time to show part of the first frame, then part of the second frame, then part of the third frame, all in the first frame displayed on the TV. So you get tearing at each place a new buffer appears, but you at least get to see some of those frames instead of all of one and nothing of the other two. Depending on how fast the game is, this might be advantageous to the gamer... in FPS games, it generally tends to be. If the game only runs at 30 Hz internally, clearly it's not an advantage. It all depends on the game and the person playing. Something like an RPG or The Sims should be vsync'd... something like Call of Duty probably shouldn't. Someone who complains about AA and tearing in a game like CoD is probably having his ass handed to him by all the other players. If you're really into a game like that, you're willing to take ANY advantage you can; there's literally NO TIME to sit around and discuss the merits of AA versus no AA.

Wow.. what a thread :o

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomaitheous

Wow.. what a thread :o

---

What a can of worms that has been opened :daze:

And SNES graphics are awesome :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chilly Willy

Regardless of what the frame rate is (60, 50, 30, whatever), it's still one single frame each 1/x time period. Say it's 60 Hz progressive. That means the console displays 60 distinct frames each second. If you go with triple buffering, all you are doing is ignoring those frames generated that do not fall on a vblank period. Say a game runs at 180 FPS - on a 60 Hz TV with vsync and triple buffering, you are showing one frame, skipping the next two frames, then showing the fourth frame, skipping the next two frames, then showing seventh frame, and so on. They are never seen in any form at all.

Now if you don't use vsync and simply flip the buffer, the TV has time to show part of the first frame, then part of the second frame, then part of the third frame, all in the first frame displayed on the TV. So you get tearing at each place a new buffer appears, but you at least get to see some of those frames instead of all of one and nothing of the other two. Depending on how fast the game is, this might be advantageous to the gamer... in FPS games, it generally tends to be. If the game only runs at 30 Hz internally, clearly it's not an advantage. It all depends on the game and the person playing. Something like an RPG or The Sims should be vsync'd... something like Call of Duty probably shouldn't. Someone who complains about AA and tearing in a game like CoD is probably having his ass handed to him by all the other players. If you're really into a game like that, you're willing to take ANY advantage you can; there's literally NO TIME to sit around and discuss the merits of AA versus no AA.

---

Oh, you mean if the framerate is HIGHER than the refresh rate. OK, triple buffering doesn't help that... it would help if you had say a game jumping between 40-60 FPS on a 60 Hz display (maybe not catching every single frame, but probably pretty close) vs a double buffered display where you'd have to drop to an integer division of 60 Hz. (ie 30, 20, 15, 12, etc) For PAL that's even worse as you have many fewer integer steps with 50 than 60.

What would also be useful is rather than waiting only for the start of vblank, you mark the specific point within vblank where there would not be enough time to fill the entire frame (or enough time to switch banks if using a page flipping mechanism rather than plain buffering -that would be a lot faster). Thus if the next frame becomes ready during vblank and there's still enough time left, it displays, otherwise it waits until the next vblank period. (again, only useful for going up to the max framerate)


For 180 Hz without vsync that would literally mean 3 torn segments per page, but if you really want to see what's changed in that 1/3 of a frame, it would be useful. (again, that's where user set detail options would be preferred)

It seems like a lot of older games do vsync and double or triple buffering by default without any option to do otherwise. (some older games have options to drop to double buffering, but very few offering single buffering as an option -if they didn't offer it, they didn't do it at all for some really old games, but for most such PC games you rendered in main memory and copied to video RAM, so double buffering by default)

Quote:

---

Wow... gamers are dumb.

---

Of course they are, the population in general is very dumb and most people aren't capable of noticing the finer details. Why should gamers be any different? People accept badly damaged/dirty film presentations when going to see a movie (or digital projection with HD resolution blown up to 40 feet wide or drastically dim 3D projection). People accept MP3s as quality audio. People accept distorted recordings that are way too loud with tons of clipping that the studios put out these days (regardless of listening format). People accept crushed images in the JPEG format as acceptable viewing. Hell, tons of people even accept 4:3 images stretched to 16:9 for viewing on their HDTV sets just because "they paid for the entire screen and want to use it". People are retarded. This should not be a surprise to anyone. Striving for high quality will get you nowhere, especially when the majority of people are content with "average".

I am not content with average. I always strive for better. But at least, in time, better usually becomes the new average... except in the case of CD to MP3.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Why-Disciple

I think people should just stop buying shitty FPS games, cuz that seems to be the genre with the most screen tearing from what I've seen. I never buy a game unless I know it's high quality and made by people who actually give a shit. That's why I stick to staple franchises like Resident Evil, Metal Gear, Soul Calibur, etc. I haven't noticed screen tearing in those games, because they weren't half-assed like all those FPSs like Call of Juarez or Dark Sector or any of that crap.

Bottom line, don't just blow your money on every game that comes out just because you saw it in an advertisement. That'll encourage people to work harder.

---

Yeah my little bro bought Halo Reach and the screen tearing is really horrendous, but it's still fun to play. RE5 is probably one of the best looking multi-platform games to come out so far. I don't think I've seen any screen tearing, because capcom actually gives a shit. I <3 capcom

OldSchool you are an idiot who cannot accept someones opinion is as valid as his own
"They promised Next Gen gaming, guys... WHERE THE HELL is it" Right here it is mostly just a graphical enhancement of the last as many generations are.

"I'd rather your opinion didn't count" Exactly my point you are an idiot.

"It's thanks to individuals like yourself for todays Mediocrity.
cheers" Nothing to do with little brats like you then?

"thks, asshole" No problem you whiney little cunt.

Attachment 1778

I saw the name of this thread, and then who started it, and LOL'd.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zoltor

To Oldschool: Um, and what's wrong with SNES graphics? Lol you know what, in most cases the art style in SNES games were better then anything found in the newer consoles(and alot of the graphics looked cleaner as well).

---

I going to agree with you here.SNES graphics hold up much better, just look at Chrono Trigger.

Being elitist about video.. We should label those people the Cyber-aristocrats. I think it's in people's sick nature to feel superior to generalised groups, in this case being anal about pixels and bitrates. You guys have a lot of time and decadence on your hands. There's a lot that the public can be criticised for, but to include games and other media on a technical level is genuinely pushing it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zoltor

However I have to agree about M$ promising a PC quality xp, exc, exc.

---

Using the dollar sign is old hat now, try of thinking of something new. Would you care to corroborate with actual press releases or interviews? I sure can't bother to look them up. In fact some even compared the 360 to the Dreamcast. Look up the 1Up article regarding this very comparison.

I hear there's no screen tearing in Kinectimals. Perhaps you should go play Kinectimals. You can be the tiger cub man! YOU CAN BE THE TIGER CUB!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by zyo

I hear there's no screen tearing in Kinectimals. Perhaps you should go play Kinectimals. You can be the tiger cub man! YOU CAN BE THE TIGER CUB!!!

---

:rofl:

I am going to be honest, I haven't seen much tearing in my 360 games, the only one I can think of Bayonetta.