Is this the new standard for video games?

Absolutely, I stomp nerds in Overwatch every day with the 1440/144 setup

Hottest new PC meme, nothing more.
>i spent $4000 for my rig XD
No one cares.

Not yet, unfortunatelly.

I got the Pixio korean one that is 1440p 144hz IPS for 389 USD. Shitty stand though so probably have to get a aftermarket one if you care, I did.

does high refresh rate have a negative effect on image quality when it comes to IPS??

Right just like 4K is hottest new console meme

anything below this is LITERALLY unplayable

1080p 144hz, you fucking poorfag.
Its actually 1440p, 144hz

Yes

>tfw i dont have $1200 to upgrade and play like that

It does have a higher response rate than tn, but tis rated at 4ms which is alright for me.

> Playing on shitty TN panel
> Tolerating that atrocious red tint

What's wrong with people?

No, and it quite literally won't be for a very long time. Quite possibly in your lifetime. Unless you consider 'standard for video games' to mean playing on low to medium settings to consistently get those results in newer games.

Useless because of these 30 ticks bro.

Nope, it's 4K.

Standard implies is affordable and most people have it. 1080p 60 for PC is standard, 1080p 30 is standard for consoles.

It's 60

>Is 1440p the new standard
>When companies are pushing 4K up the ass without proper power

4K is being marketed as the new standard whether Cred Forums likes it or not.

The problem is that is just a shitty meme as of now.

Nope its 20.

1440p @ 96Hz/FPS is more realistic.

Update your memes, they've upped the tickrate to 60 2 months ago

I would imagine a great deal of this comes down to what they know can be pushed through marketing well. 4k sounds a lot sexier in advertising (to retards) than 2.5k.

>4k sounds a lot sexier in advertising (to retards)

And this is why the PS4 Pro will be successful as fuck.

They're the Apple of video games.

>144hz
1440p 165hz you mean?

it's just when they say 4K, uninformed people automatically think 4 TIMES BETTER than 1080p. It technically has 4 times the amount of pixels but the Height/Width is only increased by 2. Saying 2160p wouldn't seem like much of an increase.

this is getting out of hand

It might not be the standard, but I can enjoy it on a lot of games with my rig. I really think 1440p is the way to go over 4K for PC gaming, I have a 4k TV that I play PC games on ocasionally but 1440p at 27" is absolutely perfect and vastly easier to get running at good framerates.

and yet they call 21:9 an unfair advantage

ITT: No one knows the definition of 'standard'

Do they even make larger 120hz+ monitors? I can only find a few above 27in and they're all 21:9 (and curved - not a fan), which is almost the same height as 16:9 27in.

anything over 720p 60FPS is wasteful

Sure, if you're legally blind

More like last week, but yeah.

If it looks great and gets console friends this worked up then maybe it is a good meme.

Dunno if you're joking but I'm actually 100% fine with that and wouldn't have cared if it stayed like that forever.

When will they make good gameplay finally a standard?

Most console games can't get steady 30fps anyway.

8540p 620fps

Everything else is poorfag tier

>play game at 4k
>cutscenes are pre-rendered at 720p
>cutscenes are heavily compressed video files
>cutscenes consume a large amount of storage space
>subtitles are hardcoded into cutscenes doubling that size
>textures are designed for 720 (1080 maybe)

There's no point in going above 1080. It's still the current standard and will remain so as long as developers remain incompetent.
Some games are fucking 50GB already and still look like trash.

When consoles use a mouse and keyboard, so never.

Not joking

I don't think 1080p is significant enough to justify the inevitable drop in framerate that lazy/shitty devs will suffer for it, nevermind anything higher.

You'd have to be a really fucking retarded developer to not be able to hit 720p 60 FPS consistently on current gen hardware (I'm talking consoles here mind you, because let's be real most PC games are just console ports or are otherwise held down by the console versions anyway) and I mean, if you can do better with the framerate or resolution without sacrificing that bare minimum then great but really I'd rather you put that power into something else like rendering more complex shit than rendering simpler things in a higher resolution.

Mouse and keyboard are better for some stuff but worse for others. Unless you're dumb you'll use both.

I feel similarly, but I also don't care about graphics and wish more devtime went to gameplay or literally anything else about the game right down to the music. I think the big focus on graphics gives us some really shitty shallow pretty games.

No. It's still 1080 60fps

This

Doesn't necessarily have to be prettier graphics. I mean for example imagine something like a Wonderful 1001, where instead of having 100 little buggers running about you get 1,000 of them.

>the average intelligence of a pc user

Any sane person would be upset about bad game play but as long as you have your shiny graphics everything is ok.
I wish I was as simple minded as you and would eat shit if they painted it gold.

Why are you so keen on stagnating technology and the means by which we view our entertainment?

I'm not fine with things like 1440p, 2160p and things being labeled as 4k and whatnot because it's misleasding.

When I started hearing about consoles in 4k, I thought they were heading for true, legitimate 4320p.

Having to accept mediocrity because people like you are fine with 720p 60fps are the reason people are so adamant about consoles offering false 1080p and unsteady 30fps.

You're paying more for services and products only to end up defending the corporation who should be innovating to find ways to make us want to give them money. Not letting them know that they will get our money just because they did a couple things right a decade ago.

I like 4K because I have good eyes and I'm very picky with visuals since I'm a part time photographer

I tried capping at 60 fps from the normal 144 just so I could better graphics but it was HORRIBLE, mccree was literally unplayable.

I'd rather play a game with Snes tier graphics and enjoyable gameplay than something that looks good and plays like ass. I spend more time emulating old games than playing new ones, as I type this I'm emulating an old Snes game in another window.

I would really have cared if graphics never advanced at all, and I've noticed that the more dev time that seems to have went into graphics the worse everything else seems to be.

The eye can't see above 60fps, what's the point?

You are a gigantic asshat.

Half the reason for newer graphics was pushing the boundaries of gameplay. Newer graphics don't just mean visuals. They can be the product of the the game's engine and the physics, feel, and feedback that are provided.

We've progressed from 2D to 3D and there's only so much you can do when we're limited in that way.

Gameplay is diluted when there's so much good to take from other games and so much bad to avoid if it means making a sale. It's incredibly hard to be unique when "everything has been done before until it hasn't" is the goto situation for developing games.

Taking the time to research and develop new and refreshing gameplay is an immense task for any one person or any fully staffed department.

Progressing and developing new technology is key if we want to see more ways we can provide new ways to play our games.

There's no longer clear jumps from new gameplay advances as there was 30 years ago when we jumped from multiple styles of 2d to 3d and evolving stages of that platform. I'd argue VR and AR are the new jump but that's emerging slower than expected due to poor choices and lack of content.

You're viewing games of the past as if their aren't just as many shitty and terrible games that there are now. I'd say it's scaled pretty much the same but exponentially. For every good game then, there were 5 shit games. But now that number is about 50-100 seeing as developing video games is much more accessible.

Depends.

If you talk Counter-Strike or Dota or other low-gfx games then yes

Pulling out 120 fps in any gfx-intensive modern game on max settings is close to impossible.

But it would be nice.

1080GTX fag here I know my shit

Roadhog still gets hooks through 2 walls.

I didn't intend to imply only old games are good, instead I think that games that focus heavily on graphics are generally ass.

FTL was a far better game than The order 18whatever for example.

720 and 60fps is perfectly serviceable to me. My experience isn't significantly improved with higher resolutions.

>FTL was a far better game than The order 18whatever for example.
>FTL: Faster Than Light is a top-down roguelike space ship simulator
>comparing in to a TPS

?????????????????????????????????????????????

Ok. Vanquish was a far better game than the order 18whatever.

>mfw 2560x1080/60Hz

At least I'm slightly above the 1080/60 standard.

qtp
more of her with tits?

His comparison was justified in the contect of this conversation. And he was right for the most-part.

The Order 18181 was heavily marketed as being a graphically amazing game but was shit when it came out seeing as it utilized black bars to maintain the sense that it was in 1080p when it wasn't, was missing graphical features like soft shadows, ambient occlusion, etc., and relied on cheap tricks like blue filters, intense DOF, and other things to hide just how terrible it was.

FTL on the other hand was pretty simplistic but easy on the eyes. It achieved it's goal by having a realized art-style, color palette, and acceptable animations.

I'd say that I had a much better time playing FTL than the Order.

The Order was hampered by it's focus on graphics while FTL's graphics were a boon to helping it become an enjoyable experience.

that makes two of us