HD gaming, is it hype?

[dirtydog]

The next-gen consoles are making a big thing about providing high definition games, but I am confused why this is seen as such a big deal. With the exception of PGR3, most of the early release titles for the 360 look more or less like current (or last)-gen games except with a higher resolution.

Now while that situation will probably improve as more 360-only titles emerge (rather than cross platform), and developers get to grips with the 360's potential, I am still left wondering. The current PAL resolution is (correct me if I'm wrong) 720x576. The ps2 and xbox generation of games have come nowhere near to reaching the maximum quality of graphics that you can achieve at that resolution. Surely until that situation has occurred, ie. something approaching lifelike graphics at 720x576, it is pointless to up the resolution - unless the goal is to only make a relatively small improvement in the graphics.

I have an xbox and when using it on a widescreen 28" CRT, I do not have a problem with the resolution being too low - not at all. I think the PAL resolution is perfectly fine except for huge 40"+ displays which few people can afford. Now while HD is undoubtedly better than SD, I don't find it as compelling as having more realistic graphics would be. If the next-gen consoles stuck to the same resolution as the previous gen then surely we would be able to see a far bigger jump in the quality and realism of graphics? Because power wouldn't be wasted in making the game run at higher resolutions.

 

[dirtydog]

Just to reiterate, of course I acknowledge that a given game is going to look better at 1280x720 or 1920x1080 than at 640x480 or 720x576 Do people take my point though, that the standard definition resolution is not what's preventing real-life quality graphics. Television and film already looks perfectly real and lifelike, so the 'low' resolution is not the problem but processing power. The big selling point of the next-gen consoles seems to be the higher resolutions, and content seems secondary. I hope I'm doing a good job of explaining myself here

 

[dirtydog]

I think you are limited to what you can do on SD Televisions because you generally get a blur effect unless you thrash the knockers off the system with super-high resolution textures. HD allows for more detail without stupidly over-sized texture maps.

I don't see any blurring when I watch, for example, live motorsports on television There is nothing technically preventing a console or computer from rendering the exact same thing in real time, at 60fps without blurring - the only thing stopping it is processing power.

 

[dirtydog]

Which I mentioned...

Sorry I thought you said you get blurring effects on a standard def. TV? I'm confused - oh well.

 

[dirtydog]

It was in response to that . i.e. you get blurring because the systems can't output the textures equivalent to real life imagery.

Ah so you're referring to current consoles. I'm talking hypothetically, theoretically etc. There is no reason *if a console existed with sufficient horsepower* that standard definition couldn't produce a stunning lifelike game which looked just like reality.

Anyway while I can obviously see that a higher resolution is better looking than a lower one, I don't think it's that big a deal. It's the same with HD DVDs.. I expect most people are quite happy with ordinary DVD quality especially as most people probably own a 28" or smaller TV. I'm certainly not planning to replace all my DVDs with HD ones in future, for a marginal improvement in quality.

From what I gather also, the next-gen consoles are more of a pain to set up than the last gen, due to the different resolutions they output, and with the up or down-scaling issues that might arise. With the old consoles it was simple, you just plug it into a TV and it works, period.

 

[dirtydog]

I have read elsewhere that some people prefer pal 50 to pal 60 because they say the picture is a bit clearer.. but the downside then is you get 25/50 fps in games rather than 30/60 of course.

Anyway all this talk of CRT TV refresh rates is kinda off topic really

 

[dirtydog]

I think they made the right decision moving too high def, lets face it a tv can't show the gfx quality of a hdtv or vga, what rez does a tv run in anyway ? am sure its pretty low.

I did say what resolutions a TV runs in, in my opening post

A CRT TV can generate very realistic and lifelike images without needing a high resolution, due to the nature of CRT screens. As soon as you run 640x480 or 720x576 (actually, 768x576 is the correct 4:3 aspect ratio, although PAL DVDs are 720x576) on a large LCD screen, even if properly upscaled, it will look blocky and pixellated. That isn't so much to do with the resolution but with LCD technology. Anyway, there is nothing stopping developers running games on a standard def. TV at 768x576 or 800x600 - it doesn't have to be 640x480. PAL has 576 horizontal lines.

As has been said by others, when you watch TV or play on a games console, you tend to sit some distance from the screen. The reason why VGA monitors give a sharper image is because they were primarily designed to display text clearly, and to have the user sitting a few inches from the screen. As far as games on HDTV looking really 'sharp' - why is that seen as a good thing, I've never quite understood that. Real life is not 'sharp' like that. Then again I've never understood the attraction of computer LCD monitors either - why is it seen as a good thing that text is so ultra sharp that you can make out every pixel. Again, real life isn't like that and if you read a newspaper or book, text looks smooth, not pixellated.

The hype over HDTV reminds me of the hype over digital TV. We were told that digital TV would give better picture quality, but the truth was that AT BEST it was the same quality as a standard analogue signal, and at worst it was pixellated, blocky and would sometimes break up or stutter.

 

[dirtydog]

edit - never mind.

 

[dirtydog]

Sorry dirtydog but i am confused what exactly your rant is here?

Are you having a go at:

game developers not making good enough games to amuse you?
games not being real looking? games not being like what you see on tv shows?
hd displays?


Confused at what your actaully complaining about here?

Have you read the thread?

Your question suggests not.

 

[dirtydog]

I acknowledge that a lot of, and probably most, people won't understand what I'm getting at, but some do like Chojin and Sagalout above.

Is that all the reply to the comments i made you can come up with?
I have been keeping an eye on the last two days and you have made some strange comments throughout.

"There is no reason *if a console existed with sufficient horsepower* that standard definition couldn't produce a stunning lifelike game which looked just like reality."

What is strange about that? There are already games which look pretty lifelike, eg. some racing games. With more cpu + gfx processing power + memory, even more realism could be achieved, no?

"A CRT TV can generate very realistic and lifelike images without needing a high resolution" ...but to program that?

See above.

Your fighting a losing battle anyway... you and a few others agreeing on this are far off the developers out there.

I didn't realise I was fighting a battle, I thought this was a civilised discussion It's not about being right and wrong, it's about the direction consoles are going in and different people's opinions about whether it is the best direction or not. All you have really done is told me that what I've said is wrong without offering an explanation as to why.

 

[dirtydog]

Now dont get defensive... im not saying your wrong but can you show us a screeny of what you mean by lifelike/realism?

Current games which look like quite lifelike, I'm thinking of something like Gran Turismo 4. PGR 3 also, although its framerate is more film like than lifelike. (Note to all: please let's not restart any argument about PGR 3's framerate though - thanks)

edit - note, re Gran Turismo 4.. I am referring to watching the game in motion on a CRT TV screen.. NOT taking one single frame and looking at it on your VGA monitor, where the illusion of realism will be lost

 

[dirtydog]

Rubbish I'm afraid. You can't keep sitting back on old technology. Sometimes a push is required. Like swapping from VHS to DVD. Or from Tape to CD. Sometimes you need to be revolutionary and make a change. Believe me, they wouldn't have made the change if they weren't limited.

Limited? How do you mean.

 

[dirtydog]

Does the 360 take any sort of performance hiy at higher resolutions?

In theory no, because all games are meant to be rendered internally at 720p and then up or downscaled as per the display which is used. However, from what I've read here and elsewhere, it seems that some games do run smoother at a lower resolution - which IMO shouldn't happen with a games console and is getting into (bad) PC territory.

 

[dirtydog]

Totally wrong. The xbox has a lot of content. Also games like PGR3/kameo/PDZ/Condemned/DOA4 DO look a lot better than previous generation consoles. Why do you keep trying to pick faults, mentioning the 360 - as if other consoles in the past have launched with amazing line ups? The 360 lineup has been the best lineup i've seen (inc ps1 and ps2). The killer app of the xbox is live and in a month or so we'll have Gears of War, Alan Wake etc. Kamoe looks absolutely amazing and to say it doesn't really is plain ignorance. There are scenes in Kameo where you step back and think; "wow this really is next gen.".

If those games do look better it isn't only because they are HD, which was my point. If they'd been restricted to one resolution only and the devs had fully optimised the game for say 640x480 or 768x576 (PAL resolution) they could have used even more detail, no?