Am I missing something here?

that might have something to do with it.

I have a 40" Samsung 1080p 100hz set and it does look really good. Suggest you try a console on a really nice big telly to see the difference.

Having said that though, Reach runs at less than 720p 1156 x 720 to be precise.

Its never going to have that High Res feel that a pc game has when run on a high res monitor at 1680 x 1050 etc..
 
The Hype for reach isnt based on the GFX, its the gameplay, MP game and the whole experience. It looks better than halo 3 but i would put it on a par with MW2 (playing on neighbours 360 not mine) but the lighting is very good indeed. If you bought a 360 for a GFX showcase compared to a high end PC then your made a mistake, it plays good looking console games that compare to PC of a few years back, or a current mid-range one. Halo Reach isnt the pinnacle of GFX on the 360, not sure what is but Alan Wake can look fantastic at times.
 
MrLOL said:
that might have something to do with it.

I have a 40" Samsung 1080p 100hz set and it does look really good. Suggest you try a console on a really nice big telly to see the difference.
Click to expand...

My feeling is that the size of the telly has absolutely nothing to do with this. If anything, on the smaller screen, the image quality should look better (less blured and more sharper) than on a larger screen.

If you going from a hi-end PC to much cheaper console, you are comparing a c.£1k machine with an xbox360 costing around £200.

Its interesting that people don't seem to want to come terms with this and are going as far as blaming the HDMI cable. When the OP confirmed that he is using an HDMI cable, it is now being suggested that the culprit is the 23" monitor. If anything, the larger screen is going to make things worse.
 
As above really.

You need to re-asses what the 360 is. It's not a showcase for graphics, take your 'I need everything to run at 4xaa 170000x188888' head off and just enjoy it for what it is.

I was the very same as you about 6 years ago, I scoffed at the original xbox, but once I started a family and didn't have a massive disposable income to sink into PC gaming, I bought a second hand original xbox, and I realised that for gaming they are more than acceptable.

Today I love my 360/PS3 and I solely use these for playing modern day games on, the ease of use is brilliant, I don't need to worry about what card/drivers etc I have, I get home on day 1 and it will just work.

EDIT: FWIW I wasn't going to blame the HDMI cable, I just wondered how i was connected as the OP doesn't say and as MrLOL said, you do not get an HDMI cable in the box, so he could have had the standard cables!
 
msmalls74 said:
The Hype for reach isnt based on the GFX, its the gameplay, MP game and the whole experience. It looks better than halo 3 but i would put it on a par with MW2 (playing on neighbours 360 not mine) but the lighting is very good indeed. If you bought a 360 for a GFX showcase compared to a high end PC then your made a mistake, it plays good looking console games that compare to PC of a few years back, or a current mid-range one. Halo Reach isnt the pinnacle of GFX on the 360, not sure what is but Alan Wake can look fantastic at times.
Click to expand...

I've just been playing the Dead Rising 2 demo now and the graphics seem quite a bit better. Much more the type of thing I was expecting
 
anticonscience said:
You need to re-asses what the 360 is. It's not a showcase for graphics, take your 'I need everything to run at 4xaa 170000x188888' head off and just enjoy it for what it is.
Click to expand...

Yeah I understand... I never expected the 360 to be as good as a PC. Like I mentioned it was just that I was rather suprised at the lack of innovation since the original Halo. Anyways I've obviously got a distored view on consoles now. I think I'd probably enjoy going back to SNES games instead, simply for the gameplay and nostalgia
 
I've never really got into Halo so cannot comment on that.

Just give other games a try. Dead Rising 2: Case Zero is going in the right direction.
 
sunama said:
Its interesting that people don't seem to want to come terms with this and are going as far as blaming the HDMI cable. When the OP confirmed that he is using an HDMI cable, it is now being suggested that the culprit is the 23" monitor. If anything, the larger screen is going to make things worse.
Click to expand...

we questionned if he was using one at all, if he used the cables in the box he'd be playing it in standard definition. Nobody blamed the HDMI cable.
 
i-bert said:
I think he's just trolling.

It looks amazing on my panny plasma.
Click to expand...

I don't think that he is trolling.

He is merely pointing out, that to his eyes, the graphics on a "standard" console look poor compared to a mid/high end PC.

Remember, opnions regarding image quality and graphics are subjective. What to you may look acceptable, to someone else, may look poor.

I don't own a console, however, when I've seen my friends using their consoles, I find these consoles to offer poor image quality and am amazed that in 2010, people find this acceptable. I wouldn't pay more than £20 for one of the current generation consoles, due to the poor quality they offer...but this is just my opinion.

I can though, completely see why families who can't afford a PC based gaming machine, would choose to own a (current generation) console.
 
sunama said:
I don't think that he is trolling.

He is merely pointing out, that to his eyes, the graphics on a "standard" console look poor compared to a mid/high end PC.

Remember, opnions regarding image quality and graphics are subjective. What to you may look acceptable, to someone else, may look poor.

I don't own a console, however, when I've seen my friends using their consoles, I find these consoles to offer poor image quality and am amazed that in 2010, people find this acceptable. I wouldn't pay more than £20 for one of the current generation consoles, due to the poor quality they offer...but this is just my opinion.

I can though, completely see why families who can't afford a PC based gaming machine, would choose to own a (current generation) console.
Click to expand...

Thats because sitting 3 feet away from a monitor, you need good image quality.

I bet if I run Crysis through my 720p 42" plasma I wouldn't see much of a difference sitting 8 feet away.
 
i-bert said:
Thats because sitting 3 feet away from a monitor, you need good image quality.

I bet if I run Crysis through my 720p 42" plasma I wouldn't see much of a difference sitting 8 feet away.
Click to expand...

No one would want to run Crysis on a monitor in 1280x1024 and monitors always display games better than a TV

As for Halo when I had an Xbox 360 I played the old one and I just dont get it at all, the graphics are very dated looking, theress barely any physics, the story was meh, the weapons were crap I just didnt "get it"

I sold my 360 long ago simply because I also have a PC and I just see it as pointless having both when the 360 never got any use
 
Relentless81 said:
No one would want to run Crysis on a monitor in 1280x1024 and monitors always display games better than a TV

As for Halo when I had an Xbox 360 I played the old one and I just dont get it at all, the graphics are very dated looking, theress barely any physics, the story was meh, the weapons were crap I just didnt "get it"

I sold my 360 long ago simply because I also have a PC and I just see it as pointless having both when the 360 never got any use
Click to expand...

I'm saying if I run Crysis on my 22" monitor at 1080p, then through my 42" plasma at 720p, I wouldn't see that much of a difference because of the distance that i'm sitting from them.

As for Halo being a crap game, imo only Half Life comes close.

I played Reach for the first time last night and I can't believe that on such old harware, and after playing the latest PC games, I'm still impressed with the graphics.

AND, given the choice, I prefer to use a pad to play FPS.:)
 
Well thats where opinion dominates any possible argument because my opinion that Half Life and Halo cannot be compared, no comparison what so ever and playing FPS on a pad is just criminal to me.

However the monitor VS TV thing is just plain wrong, 1080P gaming on a monitor compared to 720P on a TV? The monitor is obviously going to be superior
 
Relentless81 said:
Well thats where opinion dominates any possible argument because my opinion that Half Life and Halo cannot be compared, no comparison what so ever and playing FPS on a pad is just criminal to me.

However the monitor VS TV thing is just plain wrong, 1080P gaming on a monitor compared to 720P on a TV? The monitor is obviously going to be superior
Click to expand...

Yes It is superior, but not by that much. Yet 1080p and 720p on a monitor, the difference is massive.
 
Well just a quick update... The 32" arrived and unpacking it I was quite excited. Was well impressed with the build quality and size etc (my first large TV as I use my computer for almost everything).

However having plugged the 360 in it's just ridiculous. The quality has gone from poor to awful. I'm not joking, it looks so much better on the 23" computer LCD.

So you guys can flame me, but this is an absolute joke IMO :(
 
sunama said:
I don't own a console, however, when I've seen my friends using their consoles, I find these consoles to offer poor image quality and am amazed that in 2010, people find this acceptable. I wouldn't pay more than £20 for one of the current generation consoles, due to the poor quality they offer...but this is just my opinion.
Click to expand...

I'm not saying anything.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom