HD gaming, is it hype?
- Thread starter dirtydog
- Start date
In answer to the original question, yes I believe it is hype, at least to an extent.
As I've said on here before I went went from CRT 28" to 26" HDTV. Now, the difference there is a wow factor, no doubt about it. However, one downside is on the CRT, games feel cinematic in quality. COD2 looked and felt like an interactive saving private ryan. On the LCD set it suddenly looked like a computer game again (a good looking one mind).
Now, when playing around with the settings I found that some games definitely ran better in 480P than 720p. NFSMW demo was a prime example. in 720p it was jerky vision but in 480p is was much much smoother. COD2 suffers slightly in 720p when theres loads going on but doesnt in 480p. The strange thing was the games didnt look much diferent, leading me to believe the wow factor comes from the difference between LCD and CRT technology rather than the actual number of pixels.
Because of this I decided to try an SD plasma, as whilst the LCD was good on the XBOX it was frankly pants as an allround TV, and I do like my movies so wanted to try a bigger screen. So I sent it back and bought a 42" SD plasma.
The picture on this is stunning - crisp lines, vivid colours and best of all no frame rate drops! Mates have been round and their jaws have dropped watching PGR3 and COD2 on it, and they were convinced it must be in some sort of HD mode. Its 100x better than an original xbox which I also run into the set at 480p through component. The xbox is better than it was on the TV, but the lack of detail and jaggies (no AA compared to the 360) is very apparent. I'm just saying this as I know some people have questioned if the 360 actually looks like an xbox 1 at sd resolutions. Best of all though DVDs and even SKY look fantastic as well!
So in summary I'd say that HD is laregly hype unless you use your 360 like a pc (ie sat with your face 2ft from the screen). Most people are getting the wow factor because they are moving from CRT blurriness to LCD crispness. If anyone else wants to test it, set your 360 from 720p to 480p and play PGR3 or something and see how different it actually looks in game. I remember someone posting a PGR screen showing the textured door trim on a 355 and people saying "wow, thats just not there on SD" but the fact is it is - its perfectly visible on my plasma in SD, but it wasnt on the CRT so its more about image quality than number of pixels.
edit - just to be clear - If I could afford a HD 42" plasma I would still get one. HD is better, but its very subtle compared to the leap from CRT to LCD/Plasma image crispness/quality
As I've said on here before I went went from CRT 28" to 26" HDTV. Now, the difference there is a wow factor, no doubt about it. However, one downside is on the CRT, games feel cinematic in quality. COD2 looked and felt like an interactive saving private ryan. On the LCD set it suddenly looked like a computer game again (a good looking one mind).
Now, when playing around with the settings I found that some games definitely ran better in 480P than 720p. NFSMW demo was a prime example. in 720p it was jerky vision but in 480p is was much much smoother. COD2 suffers slightly in 720p when theres loads going on but doesnt in 480p. The strange thing was the games didnt look much diferent, leading me to believe the wow factor comes from the difference between LCD and CRT technology rather than the actual number of pixels.
Because of this I decided to try an SD plasma, as whilst the LCD was good on the XBOX it was frankly pants as an allround TV, and I do like my movies so wanted to try a bigger screen. So I sent it back and bought a 42" SD plasma.
The picture on this is stunning - crisp lines, vivid colours and best of all no frame rate drops! Mates have been round and their jaws have dropped watching PGR3 and COD2 on it, and they were convinced it must be in some sort of HD mode. Its 100x better than an original xbox which I also run into the set at 480p through component. The xbox is better than it was on the TV, but the lack of detail and jaggies (no AA compared to the 360) is very apparent. I'm just saying this as I know some people have questioned if the 360 actually looks like an xbox 1 at sd resolutions. Best of all though DVDs and even SKY look fantastic as well!
So in summary I'd say that HD is laregly hype unless you use your 360 like a pc (ie sat with your face 2ft from the screen). Most people are getting the wow factor because they are moving from CRT blurriness to LCD crispness. If anyone else wants to test it, set your 360 from 720p to 480p and play PGR3 or something and see how different it actually looks in game. I remember someone posting a PGR screen showing the textured door trim on a 355 and people saying "wow, thats just not there on SD" but the fact is it is - its perfectly visible on my plasma in SD, but it wasnt on the CRT so its more about image quality than number of pixels.
edit - just to be clear - If I could afford a HD 42" plasma I would still get one. HD is better, but its very subtle compared to the leap from CRT to LCD/Plasma image crispness/quality
Last edited:
Caporegime
mmj_uk said:
LOL you obviously havent a clue as to what your talking about do u??, a 100hz tv is going to be much much better than a 50hz tv...simple fact of life. The 100hz tv will give a much sharper, clearer and cleaner picture than the 50hz tv. But HD knocks both of them into touch, im still umming and ahhinng about whether to get one or not.
Bonjour said:What's wrong with 100Hz screens?
In general the picture is less defined than 50Hz TV's.
But my main dislike is the insane amount of flicker you get as standard, granted you can usually run a 100Hz Plus mode which cuts down on the flicker but then you get motion artifacts due to the processing involved, football for instance is awful and almost any horizontal scrolling text which zips along the screen is unreadable in this mode.
I've gone from a high-end Panasonic to HDTV and even freeview is 10x better now, despite the amount of compression artifacts that have become apparent.
Last edited:
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
Anyway all this talk of CRT TV refresh rates is kinda off topic really
I got a VGA cable to hook my 360 up to my 19" monitor and to see what the fuss was about HD.
Played for half an hour before taking the console back downstairs to my 32" widescreen tele.
The VGA cable will probably be appearing in the MM soon...
Played for half an hour before taking the console back downstairs to my 32" widescreen tele.
The VGA cable will probably be appearing in the MM soon...
Soldato
The cable is fine, but you need widescreen for the 360. A normal 4:3 jobbie just doesn't look right in some games and PGR3 for example looks squashed. The cable should be top stuff though.Jabbs said:
Soldato
- Joined
- 12 May 2005
- Posts
- 12,631
Well, I have been playing on My 19" samsung CRT Syncmaster 957P... and have to say, even though it is not widescreen I am very happy with it.
The graphics are certainly a lot clearer, especially reflections and shadows. The lack of WS is rather anoying, but I will be buying a wide screen display soon. I have to say though, I am happy with VGA.
The graphics are certainly a lot clearer, especially reflections and shadows. The lack of WS is rather anoying, but I will be buying a wide screen display soon. I have to say though, I am happy with VGA.
Associate
hi.
no you will not be disapointed,i was using my 360 on a 32 inch crt tv .
managed to get a madcatz vga cable yesterday and connected it to my 19 inch sony pc monitor.the picture is much clearer,colours are better etc.
cheers ian.
no you will not be disapointed,i was using my 360 on a 32 inch crt tv .
managed to get a madcatz vga cable yesterday and connected it to my 19 inch sony pc monitor.the picture is much clearer,colours are better etc.
cheers ian.
I agree dirtydog. I made a thread about this a while back but people didn't see what I was getting at. HD is definitely in vogue and is used as a marketing tools than anything else. We have had high definition games (PC) and video (D-Theater) for years.
The processing requirements for higher resolutions are exponential. Rendering games at a higher resolution uses processing power that could otherwise be used to make the game look more lifelike e.g. HDR effects, anti-aliasing, higher polygon models, more models on screen at once, maybe even a higher framerate!
While higher resolution has its benefits I think it can also accentuate the flaws in the graphics. Our brains have the ability to fill in the blanks when viewing lower resolution video. How many times have people downloaded a video clip of a game and were impressed by its graphics, then played the game and it wasn't so good?
Microsoft and Sony have made the decision to move to high definition for the next generation, although they didn't have to. Nintendo will not be using high definition on the upcoming Revolution. I don't think Nintendo are handicapped by this decision - it could actually give them an advantage.
The processing requirements for higher resolutions are exponential. Rendering games at a higher resolution uses processing power that could otherwise be used to make the game look more lifelike e.g. HDR effects, anti-aliasing, higher polygon models, more models on screen at once, maybe even a higher framerate!
While higher resolution has its benefits I think it can also accentuate the flaws in the graphics. Our brains have the ability to fill in the blanks when viewing lower resolution video. How many times have people downloaded a video clip of a game and were impressed by its graphics, then played the game and it wasn't so good?
Microsoft and Sony have made the decision to move to high definition for the next generation, although they didn't have to. Nintendo will not be using high definition on the upcoming Revolution. I don't think Nintendo are handicapped by this decision - it could actually give them an advantage.
no, I know exactly what he means by nintendo may have an advantage. The 360 developers are going to have to use a lot of the 360 power to make sure games run in HD, even for people like me that wont run there games in it, whereas on the revolution more power can be given over to other tasks, be that increasing frame rate, animations or whatever. Obviously the rev by the sounds of it starts with less power in the firstplace so all it probably does it level the playing field.
The way I look at is that games graphics are still a long way away from movie special effects, which we see rendered in 480P (or pal), therefore theres a long way to go in SD before HD is a necessity. I havent seen a flight sim that looks as good as say top gun scenes or an FPS that looks as realistic as saving private ryan (COD2 is getting there).
The way I look at is that games graphics are still a long way away from movie special effects, which we see rendered in 480P (or pal), therefore theres a long way to go in SD before HD is a necessity. I havent seen a flight sim that looks as good as say top gun scenes or an FPS that looks as realistic as saving private ryan (COD2 is getting there).
Chojin said:
Since the two biggest gaming markets in the world have been watching high definition TV for years I'd imagine a lot of people expected it and would have felt short changed not to get it
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 hope to recieve my cable early next week so ill see if it makes a difference graphically on me monitor.
I hope to recieve my cable early next week so ill see if it makes a difference graphically on me monitor.