HD gaming, is it hype?

dirtydog · 13 Jan 2006 at 07:34

Jabbs said:
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.

Toekiller · 13 Jan 2006 at 08:18

I'm utterly hating playing HD games on a 9ft screen with surround sound.

dirtydog · 13 Jan 2006 at 08:21

edit - never mind.

SC04 · 13 Jan 2006 at 08:39

Toekiller said:
I'm utterly hating playing HD games on a 9ft screen with surround sound.

take away the HD and surround sound, and projector gaming is still awesome.

gram333 · 13 Jan 2006 at 10:16

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?

I personally think HD 720p on the xbox is a good idea... if you think how many different displays games can be played on... when you standardise this to one resolution then it give developers a chance to know what to program to and consumer know exactly what they need to play the game ideally.

If your upset at the new releases on the 360? Then remember development is at a very early stage.

As for realism and games looking like reality, processing power is still well off this i thought on a forum like this you could understand that? Iv done a bit of open GL programming at uni and was crap at it! But i understand the concept of SDTV picture being 1 dimensional, your seeing a picture of colour not any processing.
Programming and processing a 4 dimension, artificial intelligent enviroment, is heafty and unless you want blocky objects you need a **** load of resolution to produce all the colours we see.

Its just uncomparable.

dirtydog · 13 Jan 2006 at 10:24

gram333 said:
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.

gram333 · 13 Jan 2006 at 10:37

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."

"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... Again, real life isn't like that and if you read a newspaper or book, text looks smooth, not pixellated"

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

just to point out a few

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

dirtydog · 13 Jan 2006 at 10:46

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.

gram333 said:
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 :cool:

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.

gram333 · 13 Jan 2006 at 10:58

dirtydog said:
All you have really done is told me that what I've said is wrong without offering an explanation as to why.

I dont remember telling you were wrong... and i didnt mean to call your discussion a battle but essentially all discussions and debates are, fighting your pov.

BTW.. Your coment back initially "Have you read the thread? Your question suggests not."... didnt suggest you read my post :rolleyes:

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?

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

dirtydog · 13 Jan 2006 at 11:04

gram333 said:
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

BassPunk · 13 Jan 2006 at 19:49

not really as bigger screens need more pixels for definition

my projector loves HD but the current 360 games are a little laggy in the higher res

The Running Man · 13 Jan 2006 at 20:50

gram333 said:
"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."

i think your missing the point that sony et al can ship a LOT more HD TV's with the advent of HD gaming...CRT TV's have been falling in ASP, and margin for years.

the fact is they had to introduce a new technology to keep the sales up/drive the market forward.

we havent even seen HD DVD, BD, or anything else yet, but they are still shipping HD tv's

SC04 · 13 Jan 2006 at 21:14

Nickg said:
i think your missing the point that sony et al can ship a LOT more HD TV's with the advent of HD gaming...CRT TV's have been falling in ASP, and margin for years.

the fact is they had to introduce a new technology to keep the sales up/drive the market forward.

we havent even seen HD DVD, BD, or anything else yet, but they are still shipping HD tv's

Widescreen CRTs were shipping a long time before even a reasonable amount of TV broadcasts were in widescreen, and yet most people stretched the picture to use their new fangled technology, not caring it actually looked bad (or in denial) Theres a lot of money about these days, and the consumer will buy anything if it looks cool.

davewhite04 · 13 Jan 2006 at 22:15

I suppose the release of the Nintendo Revolution should settle this argument. If its games look impressive on standard TVs and people don't need to spend thousands or hundreds to get the best out of it then it will have a MASSIVE advantage, especially with the gaming genious's they have working for them.

This is going to be an exciting year for gaming, if we get the Rev this year that is.

schnipps · 13 Jan 2006 at 22:24

Peeps that are playing their 360 on monitors really arent doing it justice, its not a pc it needs a big screen 32"+ in Hi -def, thats when it comes alive. I realise not everyone can go and splash out on a 42" plasma or DLP but please bear in mind that this console has to be future proof for the next 4-5 years so Microsoft assume that the display device evetually will be a big hi def screen.

davewhite04 · 13 Jan 2006 at 22:29

What Microsoft has done is pretty much unique, where'as in the past consoles just plugged into any old TV and it was all about gameplay, they have said well this is our product and it works best on technology that you probably haven't got, a bit like upgrading PC components to get the best games working properly.

I'm not convinced by this tactic and Microsoft and Sony could have shot themselves in the foot if Nintendo come good, it is a BIG if like. Seems these days people are spending daft money on gaming/home entertainment.

NokkonWud · 14 Jan 2006 at 00:22

davewhite04 said:
What Microsoft has done is pretty much unique, where'as in the past consoles just plugged into any old TV and it was all about gameplay, they have said well this is our product and it works best on technology that you probably haven't got, a bit like upgrading PC components to get the best games working properly.

I'm not convinced by this tactic and Microsoft and Sony could have shot themselves in the foot if Nintendo come good, it is a BIG if like. Seems these days people are spending daft money on gaming/home entertainment.

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.

Jabbs · 14 Jan 2006 at 00:23

schnipps said:
Peeps that are playing their 360 on monitors really arent doing it justice, its not a pc it needs a big screen 32"+ in Hi -def, thats when it comes alive. I realise not everyone can go and splash out on a 42" plasma or DLP but please bear in mind that this console has to be future proof for the next 4-5 years so Microsoft assume that the display device evetually will be a big hi def screen.

I don't agree with that, with that statement its like saying you shouldn't be playing pc games on a monitor you should be using a big hdtv. Fact is the 360 and ps3 can produce high rez gfx as the pc can, whats the difference playing cod2 on a 19" tft compared to playing it on a pc on the same display nothing at all.

Whats the difference racing round on pgr3 online or offline, or racing on a pc racing in the same way nothing, lets face facts not everyone can afford or wants to spend £700 on a tv for there 360, where as they can get a £20 cable for there monitor/tft that gives the same thing.

dirtydog · 14 Jan 2006 at 08:06

NokkonWud said:
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.

MouseMat2004 · 14 Jan 2006 at 08:31

HD gaming is well worth it. end. of.