Unpopular Opinions about Video Games

SSj_Ness said:
1080p is just fine. If Steam Deck 2 is OLED 1080p it's good enough for life, a forever system.
Click to expand...
You can't compare a handheld to a desktop setup, that's silly. Big screens are where high resolutions shine. I'll agree that going from 2K to 4K is not that big, but 1080p on a 32" gaming setup is going to look pixelated in the menus, all the text, and many of the environments, not all, but many.
 
  • Like
  • Agree
  • Dumb
Reactions: MurderGuaranteed, Wright, Whoopsie Daisy and 1 other person
thejackal2 said:
You can't compare a handheld to a desktop setup, that's silly. Big screens are where high resolutions shine. I'll agree that going from 2K to 4K is not that big, but 1080p on a 32" gaming setup is going to look pixelated in the menus, all the text, and many of the environments, not all, but many.
Click to expand...
I always preferred handhelds, it's easier to follow the action, and the advantage of 4K is not something I care much about because I can hardly tell the difference anyway (it's nice but not mandatory).
 
Prophetic Spirit said:
Nobody gave a fuck with Barret from FF7,
Click to expand...
Barrett Wallace was a great character. Very passionate guy. Loves his daughter, hates Shinra, and wants to save the planet. He was funny and really brought a lot of life into FF7, and played off of Cloud's moody character very well. Nobody gave a flying fuck that he's black.

The crux of so many modern characters is that they're tokens that follow what seems to be a stock list of features designed by committee that always seems to pop out Dreamworks Face smug assholes who are as deep as a puddle, and mumble out snarky quips. That's it. The N-words never start flying when you've got good black characters like Barrett, but when they design shitty characters and try to hide behind their races, man, fuck them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: LORD IMPERATOR and anustart76
thejackal2 said:
I'm currently using a 4K asus mid tier panel I paid $299 for in 2022 black friday. It's ok, it's 120hz and 4k, but the brightness and color is mid, and no HDR. It has some cool features that I'd pay for again tho like built in crosshair.
Click to expand...
Nice deal, but I gotta have a good dynamic range. HDR > refresh rate > resolution for me.

thejackal2 said:
You can't compare a handheld to a desktop setup, that's silly. Big screens are where high resolutions shine. I'll agree that going from 2K to 4K is not that big, but 1080p on a 32" gaming setup is going to look pixelated in the menus, all the text, and many of the environments, not all, but many.
Click to expand...
You're not wrong, but some graphic elements on the Steam Deck are pretty nasty due to its 1280x800 screen. A lot of small text in Like a Dragon IW is hardly legible, though that's more or less the developer's fault for bad scaling.

1080p is such a nice sweet spot, though. It's high res enough to be good for just about everything, but low res enough so that even midrange hardware can run it well. I'm another guy who can't really tell between 1080p and 4k in my entertainment, either. Though I do like having a nice wide 1440p monitor.
 
MembersSchoolPizza said:
Maybe because my eyesight isn't exactly perfect, but I see no need for me for anything beyond 1080p. Text and small UI elements become too small to make out comfortably and quickly.
Click to expand...
It's already a pain in the ass trying to figure out exactly what single pixel zone will let me click the seek bar and not the buttons above and below it in a lot of video players. Just because modern displays allow you to make UI elements razor thin doesn't mean you should.
 
  • Like
Reactions: The Foxtrot
Since people are talking about monitors, the one thing I don't understand, is why Gamers are obsessed with games going above 60 FPS, given that 144 Hz and higher monitors are a thing. I know that some games are very dependent on high FPS since it directly effects gameplay, i.e. Counter-Strike, and people have been complaining about CS2 feeling unpolished, due to FPS drops. Maybe I'm just used to 60 FPS, and that is fine for most games.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: The Foxtrot and Asian tech support
Thiletonomics said:
Since people are talking about monitors, the one thing I don't understand, is why Gamers are obsessed with games going above 60 FPS, given that 144 Hz and higher monitors are a thing. I know that some games are very dependent on high FPS since it directly effects gameplay, i.e. Counter-Strike, and people have been complaining about CS2 feeling unpolished, due to FPS drops. Maybe I'm just used to 60 FPS, and that is fine for most games.
Click to expand...
Once you get a "feel" for 144 or so 60 fps looks choppier. Not as bad as 60 vs 30, but it's noticeable. The thing is you hit diminishing returns so you need to increase the gap more and more as you go higher. Just moving the cursor around on screen feels a lot smoother.

There's also talk about hitting very high refresh rate targets (like, 1000) using stuff like interpolation and whatnot so you can get blur free motion from a CRT onto modern LCDs. While 60 fps on a $100 22" VA panel looks fine to most, there really is a whole different level out there as far as smoothness and detail popping out is concerned and to some, they really need the extra to enjoy games more.

Some people are just more sensitive to stuff like input lag.

As I said, I'm spoiled on HDR now and it's a bit hard to play the same games on my main pc anymore because they just look dull. I've been using 144, then 175, and now 240hz (on my laptop) screens for so long now that if a setting changes a display to 60hz it really sticks out to me.

*Edit* Now if a game doesn't make use of the higher fps then yeah, it's a wash. But if it does and you get used to it and then try to back off again it sticks out.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Wright, Cold Root Beer, anustart76 and 1 other person
Just Some Other Guy said:
While 60 fps on a $100 22" VA panel looks fine to most, there really is a whole different level out there as far as smoothness and detail popping out is concerned and to some, they really need the extra to enjoy games more.
Click to expand...
Sounds like they'd blow their brains out if they so much as as looked at a Game Boy. I have no idea what Pokemon or Mario Land's frame rates were and never even thought about it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SirCliveSinclairdabbing and The Foxtrot
SSj_Ness said:
Sounds like they'd blow their brains out if they so much as as looked at a Game Boy. I have no idea what Pokemon or Mario Land's frame rates were and never even thought about it.
Click to expand...
Those systems are all 60 or 59.9 FPS
If they were 30 FPS or lower, I'd argue nobody would still be playing or speedrunning them today
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dante Alighieri
Thiletonomics said:
Since people are talking about monitors, the one thing I don't understand, is why Gamers are obsessed with games going above 60 FPS, given that 144 Hz and higher monitors are a thing. I know that some games are very dependent on high FPS since it directly effects gameplay, i.e. Counter-Strike, and people have been complaining about CS2 feeling unpolished, due to FPS drops. Maybe I'm just used to 60 FPS, and that is fine for most games.
Click to expand...
When moving and turning the camera fast in a 3D game it is easily observable that everything begins to stutter especially the further away from the camera things are. Some people don't mind a little juddering just like some don't mind bad antialiasing, so they will be perfectly happy on a 60fps monitor.
 
  • Like
Reactions: The Foxtrot
My most unpopular gaming opinions are probably:

-Master System is better than the NES

- Sonic Adventure and Sonic Unleashed are better than Mario 64 and Mario Galaxy 2

-Assassins Creed was never good

- Halo Infinite is actually a good game

- Golden Eye is massively overrated

- Donkey Kong is cooler than Mario

- PS4 generation made me hate Sony

- All consoles of the 6th generation (Dreamcast, GameCube, OG Xbox and PlayStation 2) are Goated

- Genesis is better than the SNES

- Saturn has aged better than the PS1
 
  • Lunacy
  • Agree
  • Like
Reactions: Wright, Judge Dredd, verissimus and 9 others
SSj_Ness said:
I couldn't find their frame rates Googling, but 3D Land popped up, apparently that's 30 fps. Played just fine imo.
Click to expand...
NES & SNES : 60.0988
GB, GBC & GBA : 59.7275
SGB : 61.1679
SGB2 : 60.0988

Apple II, Atari 2600, Colecovision, IBM CGA, PCjr., Tandy 1000, EGA @ 200, MSX, SMS & Genesis : 59.9275
Commodore 64 = 59.862

Hercules Graphics : 50.050048
IBM VGA : 70.086303
IBM VGA 640x480 : 59.940475

Gamecube & Wii : 60.00222p/59.88814i
Click to expand...
Source
 
JF97 said:
- Halo Infinite is actually a good game
Click to expand...
I'd go further and say that the multiplayer of Infinite is the best multiplayer of Halo when it comes to sandbox and balance, the Assault Rifle finally has a proper place and can compete against the accuracy weapons, energy weapons have a major purpose of being shield breakers and Forerunner weapons being made to be crowd control/vehicle killers is excellent. The removal of the classic Magnum for the Sidekick is also a great change and addition when it comes to the nerfing of accuracy weapons. The art style, a hyper controversial topic in the Halo community, looks fucking excellent in Halo Infinite too. It properly looks like a true extension of the Bungie style while still feeling somewhat unique. The main thing that I really like when it comes to the style of Infinite has to be John's armor as it's basically directly inspired by/taken from Halo Legends.

John - 117.png Legend 117.png
(I just wish they'd bring back the pouches from Halo 1's Mark V GEN 1 Mjolnir armor.)
 
  • Like
  • Informative
Reactions: Judge Dredd, CrazyKahoots, The Foxtrot and 1 other person
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back