HD gaming, is it hype?

dirtydog · 12 Jan 2006 at 07:33

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.

a_jam_sandwich · 12 Jan 2006 at 07:49

To be honest the level of detail in PGR3 with HD TV is amazing and I whole heartly recommend it.

[Death] · 12 Jan 2006 at 08:02

after upgrading from a normal tv to a HD LCD , the quality was amazing. i would definatel;y recomend anyone get 1

starscream · 12 Jan 2006 at 08:29

Leaving all the numbers out of it for a second, I have a 42" HD plasma and there is a HUGE difference between the original xbox games and 360 ones. I would imagine the difference is less and less as you move down screen sizes and resolutions.

VIRII · 12 Jan 2006 at 08:35

I'll let you know over the weekend DD.
I have a modded original X box on a 50" HD TV and it looks pretty good.
I have a 360 and that looks really good.
PAL Xboxes had the 480p and 720p output disabled.
I have a HD cable for the original Xbox waiting for me at the post office.

So I will be able to offer you an opinion on how much difference there is between regular PAL via xbox, 480p via Xbox and 720p via Xbox360.

I was given to believe that 480p output on a HD TV will significantly improve on the PAL output that a standard UK xbox gives out. Why PAL xboxes never had the capability in PAL mode I'll never understand. It seems that it was overlooked at the time of release, originally the Advanced AV cables were available (not the scart cables)
were available in the UK but were quickly withdrawn from sale and most places don't stock them.

Is HD gaming all hype ? Not in my experience but I should be able to give you a more qualified opinion after the weekend.

Ukadder · 12 Jan 2006 at 09:48

Been round a friends house playing on his HD TV, huge improvement over the normal TV which i'm currently useing (new xbox360 Scart cable ordered, will be interesting to see if they helps)

dirtydog · 12 Jan 2006 at 09:57

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

NokkonWud · 12 Jan 2006 at 10:15

dirtydog said:
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.

You're wrong, sorry. Kameo is just breathtaking as is Perfect Dark Zero (and those are past generation games forwarded).

HD certainly isn't a gimmick or hype, it's an incredible upgrade. I'd go as far to say that the quality leap is the same as you got when going from TNT2 to GeForce 2.

NokkonWud · 12 Jan 2006 at 10:17

dirtydog said:
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

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 think I see where you are coming from though. I do believe we are a generation off HD standard SD graphics.

SC04 · 12 Jan 2006 at 10:29

NokkonWud said:
I'd go as far to say that the quality leap is the same as you got when going from TNT2 to GeForce 2.

The graphics are the same on the 360 on a CRT TV or a monitor, there is no increase, HD is just a way of presenting them clearer.

Going from a TNT2 to GF2 would have given you more power to enable graphical improvements and/or present it in a higher res.

lightbulb · 12 Jan 2006 at 10:35

SC04 said:
The graphics are the same on the 360 on a CRT TV or a monitor, there is no increase, HD is just a way of presenting them clearer.

Totally agree with that. On the Xbox Live marketplace there are a number of games, oldies and new games alike that have been given the HD treatment. As a result the graphics, simple as they may be, are displayed in a crisp and clear manner with solid colouring

melchy · 12 Jan 2006 at 10:46

SC04 said:
The graphics are the same on the 360 on a CRT TV or a monitor, there is no increase, HD is just a way of presenting them clearer.

Going from a TNT2 to GF2 would have given you more power to enable graphical improvements and/or present it in a higher res.

I think NokkonWud was refering to the difference in graphics between the last generation of (generally) non HD consoles and the 360, rather than the difference between SD and HD on the 360.

dirtydog · 12 Jan 2006 at 12:06

NokkonWud said:
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.

NokkonWud · 12 Jan 2006 at 12:24

SC04 said:
The graphics are the same on the 360 on a CRT TV or a monitor, there is no increase, HD is just a way of presenting them clearer.

Going from a TNT2 to GF2 would have given you more power to enable graphical improvements and/or present it in a higher res.

I'm not talking in technology terms, I am talking in terms of the "Wow Factor".

Some people are just so quick to jump on something.

NokkonWud · 12 Jan 2006 at 12:25

dirtydog said:
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.

Which I mentioned...

dirtydog · 12 Jan 2006 at 12:28

NokkonWud said:
Which I mentioned...

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

NokkonWud · 12 Jan 2006 at 12:35

me said:
you generally get a blur effect unless you thrash the knockers off the system with super-high resolution textures

It was in response to that

. i.e. you get blurring because the systems can't output the textures equivalent to real life imagery.

HD is a way of getting a little extra with little/no extra output from the console. Just like upping the resolution on the PC.

dirtydog · 12 Jan 2006 at 12:44

NokkonWud said:
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.

NokkonWud · 12 Jan 2006 at 12:51

Ahh, I suppose in that retrospect we were both correct

.

I agree with the HD-DVD issue. I for one, certainly won't be replacing my DVD's (for a start I have over 300 all original DVD's) with the HD version. I will get a HD-DVD player though as they are 100% backwards compatible.

Consoles are definitely going the way of the PC in the terms they have to do more and because of that developers have to spend more time and money to make sure they are correct to the standards. Microsoft did the right thing by setting up some standards that every game must fit (Xbox Live! enabled, High Definition etc..).

Gimpymoo · 12 Jan 2006 at 13:00

It is true that that the MAJORITY of future 360 owners will only be playing on SD TV's... HOWEVER, at present, I would think a large proportion of the "Early Adopters" have also purchased HD TV's to work alongside it.

I think that as you say, when the MAJORITY realise that on a SD TV, the quality does not look as "next gen" as they thought, more "noise" will be made about this.

NokkonWud said:
Microsoft did the right thing by setting up some standards that every game must fit (Xbox Live! enabled, High Definition etc..).

Does every game HAVE to be Live! enabled?