Announcement

Join us on Discord: https://discord.gg/nf43FxS
Discuss.
SuperJail Warden
Member
+199|2123
They give teachers and substitutea Chromebooks. I like mine. Google's office apps are actually pretty decent.

As far as mobile gaming goes...why bother? I don't see myself ever needing to play Magic the Gathering far from home.
uziq
Member
+175|1855
yeah 'mobile gaming' is a bit of a misnomer. playing games actually 'mobile' is relatively rare. long coach journeys or flights are a neat exception.

obviously sitting at a desk to play is ideal. it's just nice to be able to take it all with you when you're on the move. even when it comes to moving from room to room, or going to play at a friend's. moving a desktop isn't really fun.

gaming is like 10% of why i wanted the MBP, in any case. i'd say the revamped speakers and keyboard are a much bigger bonus, for me. those have everyday benefits. i'm not going to say any laptop manufacturer should prioritise or focus on gaming. it should only ever be a secondary convenience. hence my point that it's great the new MBPs have so much performance increase for the exact same price.

i really do think this is the biggest win from apple in 5-6 years. it's a suspiciously good upgrade, considering their track record.

Last edited by uziq (2019-11-28 16:27:47)

uziq
Member
+175|1855

Finray wrote:

uziq wrote:

i could probably appreciate a 120Hz screen if i was playing lots of FPS games and quite serious about it. i'm not denying that they're an improvement in terms of 'feel' with quick moving games. i mean to deny it would be to deny something very obvious.
Even on the desktop, it's really nice to have, and you notice it when you go back.

uziq wrote:

but my point is that i played games for 15+ years, sometimes to a top level, with a 60hz screen or an early CRT. i never once thought 'damn this refresh rate sucks' or 'the ghosting is distracting'. for you to turnaround and say that 60Hz is trash-tier and horrid and that a laptop that can only game on 60Hz is 'unplayable' is just ridiculous.
never said any of that. 60 fps max is trash tier. 60 fps 60hz is quite playable.

uziq wrote:

people have played on 60hz for the majority of gaming's history. you're really drinking the marketing kool-aid if you think sub-120Hz is 'unplayable'.
dude, crts were pushing hundreds of hz 30 years ago. High refresh has always been a thing, it's just taken this long to get it working on flat screens.

uziq wrote:

it's also ironic that you trash gaming laptops and then say 'higher refresh rates in gaming laptops is decent'.
no I said higher refresh rates on laptops is decent, even out of games it's still nice to have.

uziq wrote:

lol show me a laptop that can consistently maintain 120fps or 144fps on a 1080p+ screen.
like, any of the current gaming laptops, if you're playing lite current games(CoD, Apex, CS:GO)

uziq wrote:

and i'm not being nasty at all, i just think you're being super pedantic and autistic about a fairly unexceptional claim:
yes, that is the entirety of the point of this conversation, I came for a fight

uziq wrote:

that mobile GPUs now are really in a good place, in that mid-range options can play just about any game that a gamer would want to play nowadays. having the very best laptop for my freelance/creative work that can also jump into fortnite or overwatch or play through a new single-player game at acceptable frame rates IS astounding to me. even buying specced-out MBPs in the past, to game on a high resolution would equal 12-15fps. now that is what i would objectively say is 'unplayable'. to claim that 60 fps is game-breaking is just ridiculous, because it's obviously not. you're not going to be competitive at cs:go, of course, and there will be screen tears and slow downs, but in general it's fine.
Ehh, I dunno man. I think we have different definitions of "fine". "Fine" is merely acceptable, it ticks the boxes but doesn't excel. Unfortunately, I'd say that under 60FPS average with demanding current-gen titles is not a "fine" gaming experience, it's sub-par. It's not terrible, I grant you, but it's not "fine" in my book. "Fine" is 60FPS minimum, not maximum.
you're very hung up on one guy's benchmark of a tomb raider game, despite the fact that every other popular game he demo'd was comfortably in excess of 60 fps.

you also say '60fps on 60hz is quite playable'. well that is literally the MacBook pro in that example? lol wtf. of course it will be playable. that's my whole point.

i'm aware CRTs have great refresh rates, among other benefits. but i don't fetishise gaming on a 21" square cube, just like i'm not going to throw something in the trash because it doesn't offer 120 Hz for *checks notes* smoother mouse scrolling on the desktop. the colour reproduction, detail, brightness etc. on the MBP screen is absolutely top-notch for a laptop. it's made for design professionals ffs. no i do not miss a high refresh rate.

Last edited by uziq (2019-11-28 16:34:48)

Finray
Hup! Dos, Tres, Cuatro
+2,620|4191|Catherine Black

uziq wrote:

you're very hung up on one guy's benchmark of a tomb raider game, despite the fact that every other popular game he demo'd was comfortably in excess of 60 fps.

you also say '60fps on 60hz is quite playable'. well that is literally the MacBook pro in that example? lol wtf.
no. please look up the difference between maximum 60 fps and minimum 60 fps.

also,

Finray wrote:

Knew you'd come back with this. Why are you using the term "current title?" why is a laptop running current titles impressive? Because it implies that's the most demanding game you can run on it. That's what "current title" is used for, and if you didn't know that you're ignorant and if you did you're dishonest.

uziq wrote:

i'm aware CRTs have great refresh rates, among other benefits. but i don't fetishise gaming on a 21" square cube, just like i'm not going to throw something in the trash because it doesn't offer 120 Hz for *checks notes* smoother mouse scrolling on the desktop. the colour reproduction, detail, brightness etc. on the MBP screen is absolutely top-notch for a laptop. it's made for design professionals ffs. no i do not miss a high refresh rate.
I'm not asking you to wtf lol, I'm not ragging on the mbp for not including one, I'm not ragging on a 60Hz gaming system, they're very playable, refresh rate is one of the last things you should spec into your build, but  120+ is SO NICE, it's a shame Apple haven't got them going yet

Last edited by Finray (2019-11-28 16:39:36)

https://i.imgur.com/qwWEP9F.png
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+1,751|5175|USA

Going to chime in at this point and say that I'm fine with my 60Hz screen for any number of games that I'm playing. I don't really notice any skips, stutters, or tearing. It's good enough for many applications. I've played games capped at 30 fps that still looked reasonably smooth. Maybe it helps that I sit at a distance and don't have my nose pressed up against the screen.

I tend to look more for response time, panel type, color-precision (something that sites like Newegg doesn't list), and (ideally) zero-pixel guarantees when browsing monitors. You can plug a laptop into a monitor anyway. With a Macbook Pro, I'd probably spring for a 30" IPS external. FreeSync if it has it, but not critical.

When a laptop was my main PC, I had it plugged into external peripherals constantly when at home. Helped keep it in good condition.

Looking forward to your 8-bit indie project, Finray.


e:

Going to add that 16:10 was nice when I was heavily editing videos. Let me view more of a program's controls and timeline during playback. Some of the 5k IPS I've checked out seem attractive for similar purposes. Whoops, 60Hz. Better throw that notion out the window …
Finray
Hup! Dos, Tres, Cuatro
+2,620|4191|Catherine Black

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

Going to chime in at this point and say that I'm fine with my 60Hz screen for any number of games that I'm playing. I don't really notice any skips, stutters, or tearing. It's good enough for many applications. I've played games capped at 30 fps that still looked reasonably smooth. Maybe it helps that I sit at a distance and don't have my nose pressed up against the screen.

I tend to look more for response time, panel type, color-precision (something that sites like Newegg doesn't list), and (ideally) zero-pixel guarantees when browsing monitors. You can plug a laptop into a monitor anyway. With a Macbook Pro, I'd probably spring for a 30" IPS external. FreeSync if it has it, but not critical.

When a laptop was my main PC, I had it plugged into external peripherals constantly when at home. Helped keep it in good condition.

Looking forward to your 8-bit indie project, Finray.


e:

Going to add that 16:10 was nice when I was heavily editing videos. Let me view more of a program's controls and timeline during playback. Some of the 5k IPS I've checked out seem attractive for similar purposes. Whoops, 60Hz. Better throw that notion out the window …
for video/photo editing, yeah a high refresh isn't gonna help you, totally agree, get panel and colour accuracy. But you should really try out a high refresh monitor.. everyone should. Or maybe don't, because it'll make you wanna spend money. Honestly, I couldn't go back to 60hz, even if I gave up gaming today.

(ps we start our graded unit after lunch today D: )

Last edited by Finray (2019-11-29 04:18:15)

https://i.imgur.com/qwWEP9F.png
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+1,751|5175|USA

I used a 144Hz ASUS for awhile. It looked smooth, but not really a night & day difference between that and the larger 60Hz I'm using now in the games that I played. Currently, the new Star Wars Dark Souls game looks amazing.

Finray wrote:

Here's a current title that's not built off the back of an engine from 1999
Man, Delta Force 2 came out in 1999.

Even so, it had mechanics that I wished had been brought into the Battlefield franchise. Even had to account for windage when you took a shot.
Finray
Hup! Dos, Tres, Cuatro
+2,620|4191|Catherine Black
genuinely the first person I've come across to no be that fussed, fair enough
https://i.imgur.com/qwWEP9F.png
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+1,751|5175|USA

My understanding is that sometimes people overstate the importance of a highly marketed spec. 120+ is well and fine if you're actually going to use it and it won't compromise some other aspect that's important to you.

Also keeping stuff like this in mind:
https://www.cnet.com/news/fake-refresh- … ally-120hz
uziq
Member
+175|1855

Finray wrote:

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

Going to chime in at this point and say that I'm fine with my 60Hz screen for any number of games that I'm playing. I don't really notice any skips, stutters, or tearing. It's good enough for many applications. I've played games capped at 30 fps that still looked reasonably smooth. Maybe it helps that I sit at a distance and don't have my nose pressed up against the screen.

I tend to look more for response time, panel type, color-precision (something that sites like Newegg doesn't list), and (ideally) zero-pixel guarantees when browsing monitors. You can plug a laptop into a monitor anyway. With a Macbook Pro, I'd probably spring for a 30" IPS external. FreeSync if it has it, but not critical.

When a laptop was my main PC, I had it plugged into external peripherals constantly when at home. Helped keep it in good condition.

Looking forward to your 8-bit indie project, Finray.


e:

Going to add that 16:10 was nice when I was heavily editing videos. Let me view more of a program's controls and timeline during playback. Some of the 5k IPS I've checked out seem attractive for similar purposes. Whoops, 60Hz. Better throw that notion out the window …
for video/photo editing, yeah a high refresh isn't gonna help you, totally agree, get panel and colour accuracy. But you should really try out a high refresh monitor.. everyone should. Or maybe don't, because it'll make you wanna spend money. Honestly, I couldn't go back to 60hz, even if I gave up gaming today.

(ps we start our graded unit after lunch today D: )
i can easily afford it, i just don’t feel the need to have it. nor do most consumers or media professionals. high refresh rates are for gamers. why would i want to put a display on my laptop that might have worse colour reproduction? it’s been a few years since i’ve been monitor shopping but this reminds me of the early difference between TN/IPS panels. gamers were nuts for low response times and high refresh rates, but everything under about £500 looked like trash in terms of brightness, contrast, colour repro. yeah i really don’t think your average MBP user wants a 144 Hz display.

maybe the technology has come along and now you can easily have an affordable high-refresh display that also looks top notch. honestly, i don’t know. similarly to why i don’t know about apple’s choice to not use OLED in their monitors. my only cavil there is that going to 144 Hz necessitates a whole other level of GPU expense. i don’t really want to spend £1000 on a monitor and GPU because of the ‘improvements’ of a high refresh rate. it just commits you to a certain level of investment for a very narrow, specific benefit. there are no games in the world that are worth that investment to me. at least the hardware commitment involved in 4k/5k resolutions has a general benefit. i’d rather have a beautiful 5k display like on the iMac than a 240 Hz epilepsy factory that guzzles 120W from a top-end GPU every time you open a full screen video app.

again, in this whole discussion i’ve very much voiced the joe bloggs ‘average consumer’ take on the current state of laptop gaming, and you keep coming back saying it’s ‘unplayable at 60fps’ or under 120 Hz at ‘60 Hz trash tier’. i don’t think you really get what most laptop users want. having a 3x as powerful GPU that can play games perfectly capably, at the same basic entry price as last year’s model, is a huge win for your all-round MBP-type consumer. even with games like your overwatches or your grand theft autos, to be able to crank them up to high settings and play at 100-120fps steady was not a convenience that was imaginable on the last generation. and i am very careful here to distinguish between ‘all round laptops’ which are highly desirable for consumers/creatives/gamers alike, and ‘gaming laptops’ which have obviously been able to do that for years. you don’t have to think very hard about why most people don’t want those giant lenovo laptops.

and yeah, warcraft looks beautiful on this screen. it looks beautiful on my 60Hz, design-oriented dell external monitor. for a game with such vivid colours, contrasts, etc, i really appreciate the top quality panel. why do i need 144 Hz refresh rate when i’m playing a game with minimal fast camera movement? i dont get any ghosting and that’s always been a fine basic requisite for me.

Last edited by uziq (2019-11-29 05:52:50)

Finray
Hup! Dos, Tres, Cuatro
+2,620|4191|Catherine Black

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

My understanding is that sometimes people overstate the importance of a highly marketed spec. 120+ is well and fine if you're actually going to use it and it won't compromise some other aspect that's important to you.

Also keeping stuff like this in mind:
https://www.cnet.com/news/fake-refresh- … ally-120hz
yeah I know they're dodge with TVs but generally I've never seen anything like that in the desktop monitor market.
https://i.imgur.com/qwWEP9F.png
uziq
Member
+175|1855
yeah instead you just get people piling on suspiciously cheap OEMs or brands from the far east that crop-up every now and then, taking the panel and RMA lottery with horrendous quality hardware. i swear there's been 2-3 instances of gamers jumping on one 'monitor deal' with a too-good-to-be-true price by a nameless brand and then lots complaining about dead pixels, burnt out screens, etc.

i am immediately suspicious of any hardware marketed specifically at gamers because they are a bunch of fucking goons, if not teenagers with their parents' credit cards. even on the rare occasion that the quality is fine, 'gamer' is still is still synonym for 'full of bulky plastic and flashing lights'.

Last edited by uziq (2019-11-29 08:29:54)

Finray
Hup! Dos, Tres, Cuatro
+2,620|4191|Catherine Black
those people are idiots
https://i.imgur.com/qwWEP9F.png
uziq
Member
+175|1855
obviously. my point being that corner of the tech industry is still full of fads, bad deals and shitty quality.
Finray
Hup! Dos, Tres, Cuatro
+2,620|4191|Catherine Black
eh, not entirely, yeah there are definitely really bad products out there as you described full of plastic and LEDs aimed at 12 year olds but to get some of the latest tech you sometimes have to go with a "gamer" option, and obviously if you're buying flagship stuff from reputable vendors you get some really good stuff you can't get elsewhere
https://i.imgur.com/qwWEP9F.png
uziq
Member
+175|1855
yo i heard you like quality mice/keyboards, computer cases and motherboards.

https://junkee.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/pimpmyride.jpg

let me just put that inside a polygonal form factor for you with lots of acute angles, and give you a rainbow of LEDs that respond to your every twitch donation.

Last edited by uziq (2019-11-29 08:42:55)

uziq
Member
+175|1855


unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+1,751|5175|USA

uziq wrote:

yeah instead you just get people piling on suspiciously cheap OEMs or brands from the far east that crop-up every now and then, taking the panel and RMA lottery with horrendous quality hardware. i swear there's been 2-3 instances of gamers jumping on one 'monitor deal' with a too-good-to-be-true price by a nameless brand and then lots complaining about dead pixels, burnt out screens, etc.

i am immediately suspicious of any hardware marketed specifically at gamers because they are a bunch of fucking goons, if not teenagers with their parents' credit cards. even on the rare occasion that the quality is fine, 'gamer' is still is still synonym for 'full of bulky plastic and flashing lights'.
I had a top-end ASUS "gaming" monitor that ended up with frozen pixels, dead pixels, and horrendous bleed within months. Was recommended by a number of enthusiast sites by people who aren't just spec monkeys, but who actually know what they're doing. As with RAM, it's all pretty much a hardware lottery. Pixel-perfect guarantees and companies with smooth and non-combative RMA procedures are something I pay a lot of attention to.

Finray wrote:

eh, not entirely, yeah there are definitely really bad products out there as you described full of plastic and LEDs aimed at 12 year olds but to get some of the latest tech you sometimes have to go with a "gamer" option, and obviously if you're buying flagship stuff from reputable vendors you get some really good stuff you can't get elsewhere
To be fair, products aimed at adults are also saturated with LEDs. Good for the electrical tape business when people want a dark room. Not so good for overall aesthetics. I wish it would become an industry standard to have an off-switch for device displays and indicators. It's not desirable to be kept awake by blue dawn when your air cleaner flicks on, and gadgets covered in a patchwork of tape and cardboard don't look very good.

uziq wrote:

let me just put that inside a polygonal form factor for you with lots of acute angles, and give you a rainbow of LEDs that respond to your every twitch donation.
Ugh. Some of the mice look like they were commissioned by the underworld to reap the suffering of the living.
uziq
Member
+175|1855




Last edited by uziq (2019-11-30 03:55:31)

uziq
Member
+175|1855
one thing i haven't noticed before is that now everyone on youtube hides endorsements and sponsorships in their actual video content, lol. when did this start to happen? it's been a few years since i've gone down the rabbit hole of tech/gadget/instrument reviews on youtube, and literally every single content creator is doing it. did youtube change their adsense policy or something to stiff content creators? it's almost like a sport, trying to guess when they're going to work in their plug.

Last edited by uziq (2019-11-30 03:55:48)

unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+1,751|5175|USA

I think because Youtube changed the way it decides to pay people in such a manner that makes it challenging for content creators, people are plugging their patreons and getting sponsors independently of the system.

It's slightly horrifying seeing the way some YT game channels have adopted a grating cartoon persona and self-censor just to keep going on there.

Not often I run into a worthwhile series I can play in the background like Ross's Game Dungeon.
uziq
Member
+175|1855
yeah, i know all about that part. about 3 of the UK's biggest gaming channels are located across the street from my apartment in bristol. they are always filming in the square and being loud and obnoxious. bunch of 30-somethings acting like hyperactive kids after their third tube of smarties. dressed like comic book goobers. christ.
SuperJail Warden
Member
+199|2123
YouTube demonetized a lot of history related YouTube creators which is a big letdown. 20 minute YouTube documentaries on obscure subjects are great for the classroom.
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+1,751|5175|USA

At least with the plugs and stuff they don't try to make you feel guilty about having an adblocker enabled. I won't turn it off because I feel bad about watching something "for free." My monitors have smacked down malware from ad services used by supposedly reputable sites, youtube included. Granted, some of them were likely false positives, but others for sure were not.

It's usually predictable how long a plug will last and you can mouseover the progress bar to find the rest of the content if you're not interested.

However, upon reviewing the monetization status of The Great War’s videos, he was presented with a huge list of videos with the infamous yellow dollar sign which means the video is “Not suitable for most advertisers.” Flo said that videos from 2018 and 2019 were “mostly fine” but “over 250 of our videos have been demonetized now.” Many of the demonetized videos were originally published and approved for monetization in 2016.

Flo described YouTube’s lack of transparency during the process and said he received no notification from YouTube about this demonetization. According to Flo, most people who find The Great War, want to watch the videos chronologically so demonetizing these older videos is “really hurting the channel.”

One of the most concerning aspects of this decision for Flo is that “YouTube can change their mind any minute and if they do, they’re also going to apply all their new rules and terms of service retroactively to all the existing content out there.”

Flo’s story is reflective of many other YouTubers in 2019 who have found, often without any advanced warning from YouTube, that their videos or channels are either no longer monetized or even removed outright. As Flo puts it: “They don’t seem to have an interest in supporting creators like us via their monetization system.”

YouTube mass demonetizes World War 1 history channel The Great War
https://reclaimthenet.org/youtube-demon … -great-war
2019 10
That's pretty much the sentiment I've seen from other content creators on the subject. It's not predictable, so people who use youtube as a source of income have to find other ways to secure their income.

YouTube Is Demonetizing Small Channels, And That's A Good Thing
https://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2 … 3b99053d8e
2018 jan
" … ensure that (your) content is up to YouTube's community standards." lol
uziq
Member
+175|1855
not sure whether to feel bad about youtube/twitch.tv/etc streamers. there seems to be a controversy every other week. then again, they are literally parasites dependent on someone else's platform for their entire income. they get to upload hundreds of hours of 4k footage a month -- and pay nothing, the last time i checked? good luck to them if they want to host their own content and have the same exposure. plus most of them don't do fucking shit anyway. great, the 1,000,000th account doing slick, colour-graded tech reviews or 'let's plays' and expecting $10,000/month for it. get a fucking job.

i feel like youtube and suchlike have all the power here, because the sites were never started with these 'professional content creators' in mind. it was literally a place to dump short clips with some adsense on it. the fact that some people have done extremely well out of it almost seems accidental, and irrelevant to google/youtube.

But you should really try out a high refresh monitor.. everyone should. Or maybe don't, because it'll make you wanna spend money.
OK, i'll bite. say i wanted a 27/28 inch monitor to main screen my games on. 1440p/144hz? or even a nicer quality IPS panel that's 100-120Hz? what would you recommend that sums up this greatness that i'm missing?

as i work from home about 80% of the time, i am briefly tempted to get a 21:9 ultra-wide screen, just to have the convenience of having 3-4 full-width apps open at once (super useful when editing and proofreading, emailing, with excel open, etc.) but it seems like to do that with decent quality you need to spend £600. i could potentially flip my current top-notch dell IPS monitor to portrait mode (it's 16:10 so bonus points), and get a 'decent' mid-range 27 inch in the middle. wouldn't necessarily need professional grade colour or picture quality if it was just for gaming. it will be run off my 5500M though so i don't really want 4k or insanely high refresh rates.

Last edited by uziq (2019-12-02 02:21:04)

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2019 Jeff Minard