Retina or not (Gamer/Developer)

[minnus]

You still get the same FOV in StarCraft 2 whether you're running at 1920x1200 or 1680x1050. Try it. You do get more pixels at 1920x1200, but I was talking purely aspect ratio.

Hm - I didn't know that. That would explain why you were only talking about 1680x1050. I actually don't have SC2, so I was shocked to see such a comparison being made. Seems pretty lame to remove the pixel advantage when going over 1080p.

 

[Drask]

Hm - I didn't know that. That would explain why you were only talking about 1680x1050. I actually don't have SC2, so I was shocked to see such a comparison being made. Seems pretty lame to remove the pixel advantage when going over 1080p.

It's actually competitive wise done, if you think about it, most modern games won't add 'more vision' when playing 1440x900 to 1920x1080, because then having a 27" would be a huge advantage over playing on a 15". The difference comes at detail.

 

[minnus]

It's actually competitive wise done, if you think about it, most modern games won't add 'more vision' when playing 1440x900 to 1920x1080, because then having a 27" would be a huge advantage over playing on a 15". The difference comes at detail.

I think this is only applicable to RTS. Most modern games can support Eyefinity/Nvsurround setups, and provide more vision. I can understand the logic for RTS, however, it seems a tad silly to restrict it at 1080p, instead of 1200p. If it was done completely out of fairness, everyone should be cropped accordingly; but they're not.

Anyways, this is super OT, lol

 

[Wafflausages]

I have been gaming on my Retina MBP since i got it about one and a half weeks ago.
While 2880x1800 looks insanely crisp and sharp it is mostly to choppy for gaming; 1200p looks very good on the retina display too though...not blurry at all.
The GPU is also surprisingly strong and can handle many modern games quite well on 1920x1200 and High to Max. settings, for Example Skyrim, which is my favorite game.

From my point of view the Retina MBP is well suited for you.

Idk if I'm thinking this right but I'm considering an rMBP though I know that I have to play games at scaled resolutions. What I'm "theorizing" in my head is that since the pixel density is so much higher than ordinary screens, playing games at a scaled resolution would be sharp up to a certain point. Am I wrong?

 

[AzN1337c0d3r]

You don't have to be a pro to be a "SERIOUS gamer." I'm sure there's thousands of hardcore PC gamers who play at a lower than native resolution.

I dont understand those people. Just buy a monitor at that resolution if you're going to run the lower resolution.

OT: Take a FPS gamer and a console gamer, put them in the same game. And the PC gamer will eat the console gamer for breakfast.

A lot of StarCraft pros also play on low, and you can play SC2 on low on the rMBP just fine at 2880x1800 anyway (especially in Boot Camp) at a good frame rate

They don't just "low" everything and be done with it. It certainly doesn't sustain 60 FPS.

By the way, 16:9 is just simply superior to 16:10 in SC2. 1680x1050 puts a "pro" at a disadvantage compared to 1080p So I think most pros would prefer 1080p to 1680x1050. In SC there's no reason why you would choose 1680x1050 over 1080p, everything else being equal, especially if your attention to detail is so high that you'd care about display scaling affecting your ability to spot cloaked units.

Sure there is. Monitors which support 1080p @ 120 Hz are simply too large (23 inch minimum). That's why the Pros choose 1680x1050. They come in 21.5" sizes which apparently has been shown to be optimal for gameplay. (Too lazy to find citation, Google it)

If you REALLY cared about playing SC professionally and you had to use your notebook's built-in display, you wouldn't get an Apple laptop at all.

But if you ONLY had a choice between 1680x1050 on an rMBP and a 1680x1050 on a uMBP and you had the laptops at a side-by-side, you'd pick the uMBP. In some games with their own text rendering API that doesn't play well with downsampling, you would even call the rMBP unusable.

 

[tninety]

I dont understand those people. Just buy a monitor at that resolution if you're going to run the lower resolution.

OT: Take a FPS gamer and a console gamer, put them in the same game. And the PC gamer will eat the console gamer for breakfast.

What about people playing other generes professionally, like fighting games? I told you not to give me the PC gamer master race ******** and yet you did. Are Halo competitive players any less SERIOUS than competitive PC FPS gamers? Yes, they might get owned by a pro CS player with a mouse and keyboard in a hypothetical competition just because the mouse and keyboard input method is objectively better than joysticks, but that doesn't mean they are inherently less serious about their career.

They don't just "low" everything and be done with it. It certainly doesn't sustain 60 FPS.

Except they often do just "low" everything and be done with it. Many of the streams on Twitch.tv are clearly just "low." I haven't tested SC2 myself on low and 2880x1800 - I'll test it and report back with my findings, however - I have a feeling it will be pretty close, but I could be wrong I know it runs with Ultra on a lower resolution just fine.

Sure there is. Monitors which support 1080p @ 120 Hz are simply too large (23 inch minimum). That's why the Pros choose 1680x1050. They come in 21.5" sizes which apparently has been shown to be optimal for gameplay. (Too lazy to find citation, Google it)

So now you're introducing refresh rate into the equation? Barely any laptops support 120 Hz anyway. Why are you even looking at a MBP if you want 120 Hz gameplay? The monitor is 60 Hz. You even imply above that 60 frames per second is enough - unless your monitor is doing some kind of interpolation (which would be bad for gaming) or you need 3D (which is bad for SERIOUS GAMING, in your definition of the word), if you are running at 60 fps or over, you would not notice the difference between 60 Hz and 120 Hz. Besides, your whole "dur hur 15" Retina MBP is bad for SERIOUS GAMING" point is moot when you can just ****ing plug in an external monitor, which any SERIOUS GAMER would have on hand anyway…

Besides:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...peTabStoreType=&AdvancedSearch=1&srchInDesc=#

NO RESULTS for ANY 1680x1050 monitor at 120 Hz.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...SpeTabStoreType=&AdvancedSearch=1&srchInDesc=
60 results for the venerable 1080p monitors at 21.5" size. None with a 120 Hz refresh rate, granted, but there aren't any 1680x1050 monitors at 120 Hz either!

But if you ONLY had a choice between 1680x1050 on an rMBP and a 1680x1050 on a uMBP and you had the laptops at a side-by-side, you'd pick the uMBP. In some games with their own text rendering API that doesn't play well with downsampling, you would even call the rMBP unusable.

You've got "downsampling" and "upsampling" mixed up. The data has to be upsampled to the native resolution, not downsampled. Downsampling is what the rMBP does when it renders the larger "scaled" resolutions at 2x and have to scale them down to 2880x1800, a technique which isn't used in full screen games (or Windows for that matter) anyway

I challenge you to find ONE example of a game released in the past few years that is ruined and made unplayable because of blurry text by playing at a lower than native resolution. Game developers have to take this into account. Usually the scaling is done in the screen itself, so the use of an alternate text rendering API would NOT affect the readability.

I think you have no idea what you're talking about.