High Definition PC Gaming

i haven't played a ps3, frankly i won't lie, i don't want to either. but in threads i see the ps3 seems to be suffering on framerates, doesn't some game, was it Dirt, or, forza is 360 only i think so not that, anyway some game is 60fps on the 360 and 30fps on the 360. added that the 360 has AA on and the ps3 is fast becoming a joke.

i've also seen more people complain about slowdown on the ps3 rather than the 360, but that could be game specific, or down to biased people. hard to know for sure.


and whoever said you couldn't play in high resolutions till recent cards. what utter tripe. i've been playing at 1600x1200 minimum, well now 1680x1050 due to widescreen which is a little lower resolution i would think, since my gf3, which was the first every proper card i bought. well, thats a lie, we had pc's before, but that was the first i built, i think we did buy a voodoo something or other and stick it in a previous PC. but i honestly can't remember what games those were, or what monitor i had back then. using a cal, 1920x1080 isn't actually that many more pixels than 1600x1200, but as stated, almost all games on consoles are 768p only which is far far FAR lower resolution.

1378x768 (no idea what the 13XX number should be tbh :p ) is circa 1,050,000 pixels, a fairly average 1280x1024 is 1,300,000 basically, almost a 3rd more. and my what 6-8year standard resolution, 1,920,000 almost double the current definition of consoles.

which is why i found the ps1/2/xbox gamecube and Wii to be entirely joke consoles compared to my concurrent PC gaming experiences. the 360/ps3 have closed the gap a crapload, but still don't cut it IMHO.
 
drunkenmaster said:
i haven't played a ps3, frankly i won't lie, i don't want to either. but in threads i see the ps3 seems to be suffering on framerates, doesn't some game, was it Dirt, or, forza is 360 only i think so not that, anyway some game is 60fps on the 360 and 30fps on the 360. added that the 360 has AA on and the ps3 is fast becoming a joke.

i've also seen more people complain about slowdown on the ps3 rather than the 360, but that could be game specific, or down to biased people. hard to know for sure.


and whoever said you couldn't play in high resolutions till recent cards. what utter tripe. i've been playing at 1600x1200 minimum, well now 1680x1050 due to widescreen which is a little lower resolution i would think, since my gf3, which was the first every proper card i bought. well, thats a lie, we had pc's before, but that was the first i built, i think we did buy a voodoo something or other and stick it in a previous PC. but i honestly can't remember what games those were, or what monitor i had back then. using a cal, 1920x1080 isn't actually that many more pixels than 1600x1200, but as stated, almost all games on consoles are 768p only which is far far FAR lower resolution.

1378x768 (no idea what the 13XX number should be tbh :p ) is circa 1,050,000 pixels, a fairly average 1280x1024 is 1,300,000 basically, almost a 3rd more. and my what 6-8year standard resolution, 1,920,000 almost double the current definition of consoles.

which is why i found the ps1/2/xbox gamecube and Wii to be entirely joke consoles compared to my concurrent PC gaming experiences. the 360/ps3 have closed the gap a crapload, but still don't cut it IMHO.
Click to expand...

You simply cannot compare the number of pixels between PC monitors and televisions. You sit right up close to your PC, but much further back from your television. Therefore games consoles require a much lower resolution. Anyway, who cares about the number of pixels. The most important thing is the games themselves. The Xbox 360 and PS3 both have some very impressive games, just as the PC does. I don't want people to think I'm biased. I play both PC and console games and couldn't say that one is better than the other. They're both for a certain time and place, and both have they're pro's and cons.

Judging which is best based on the number of pixels is utterly ridiculous. WHO CARES?
 
Eriedor said:
Doesn't really matter about what the wiki states, technically he is correct, definition, fundamentally is defined as a measure of resolution against viewing surface, it is the fault of the industry for dumbing down the concept of resolution for average joe, that causes confusion.

You could say group a set of broadcasts together based on their resolution and call them high definition as they are not bound to a viewing surface size as tvs are.

Or finally you could define a resolution on a tv as high def only if viewed at a distance relative to the size of the screen.

All of that probably doesnt make sense but im tired and can't be arsed to rewrite it ;d
Click to expand...

im sorry but no. "HD is nothing to do with the total resolution, its to do with the density"

http://tvcalculator.com/index.html?90fb91302986349acb4ce8daef2b40e3

two displays. one 40" 1080p (1920x1080) the other is a somewhat mythical 10" display with a native resolution of 420x310. Tell me, which is one 'high definition' because if we were to believe streeteh, it would be the 10" with its higher pixel density.

now, to me, 'high definition' means displaying a scene in high definition. thats pretty straight forward isnt it? you take a scene, display it in high res and there you go. ORR you take a scene, render it in a very low resolution and display it on a small screen. is that really what high definition is about?
 
Last edited:
Alex UK said:
You simply cannot compare the number of pixels between PC monitors and televisions. You sit right up close to your PC, but much further back from your television. Therefore games consoles require a much lower resolution. Anyway, who cares about the number of pixels. The most important thing is the games themselves. The Xbox 360 and PS3 both have some very impressive games, just as the PC does. I don't want people to think I'm biased. I play both PC and console games and couldn't say that one is better than the other. They're both for a certain time and place, and both have they're pro's and cons.

Judging which is best based on the number of pixels is utterly ridiculous. WHO CARES?
Click to expand...


thats , basically, rubbish. if a face of a character you are talking to has 10k pixels assigned to it, because thats all that can be spared, they maybe can't make it look realistic, if because its a much higher resolution, they can assign 150k pixels to it, and make it look far more realistic, it CAN improve the game.

frankly how a game looks does effect how good a game is. yes the gameplay, story, controls and everything else are hugely significant to how a game plays, but saying how it looks doesn't is ridiculous. why do i want to play i dunno, the darkness as opposed to super mario bros now? because i played super mario bros ( actually i honestly don't know , early 90's?) X number of years ago, every time i play a game , in general, i want to move on, move forwards. if i learn maths, i want to move forward and learn the next thing, not go backwards. we all move forwards thats life. i want games with more detail and more realism because that would seem to be the ultimate goal really so yes, quite largely the same game with the same gameplay and style, but one version looks very realistic and one doesn't i would think 99% of us would enjoy one version and i'll let you guess which one it is.

while a guy looking not real won't change how you interact with him, what his part is in the story, it can be the difference between pulling you into the story and not. the same way a basic story with very little detail seems dull and unimaginative, and a great book with very detailed descriptions seem much more real, they come alive and are far far better.

pretending graphics don't make a difference is silly, claiming they are what makes a game is stupid also. but you can claim they can ruin a game. for me sup commander looked crap, the terrains are dull and uninspired, the units are, vastly the same as the first game, don't look fantastic and even the nukes were small and fairly boring. it didn't feel like it had massively moved on for me, so it wasn't nearly as good as it could have been. but gameplay also, bar zooming out, didn't change really, mostly same units. but 2-3 effects for me, don't make a game great. same with CNC3, a pretty ion cannon doesn't make the badly scaled units and boring, semi cartoonly lowish detail units great.
 
Alex UK said:
You simply cannot compare the number of pixels between PC monitors and televisions. You sit right up close to your PC, but much further back from your television. Therefore games consoles require a much lower resolution. Anyway, who cares about the number of pixels. The most important thing is the games themselves. The Xbox 360 and PS3 both have some very impressive games, just as the PC does. I don't want people to think I'm biased. I play both PC and console games and couldn't say that one is better than the other. They're both for a certain time and place, and both have they're pro's and cons.

Judging which is best based on the number of pixels is utterly ridiculous. WHO CARES?
Click to expand...


actually all i really needed to say was, you made a good point tv screens are further away. as things move away the scale of the screen needs to increase, with the SAME resolution to give the same appearance. a lower resolution is worse, up close and EVEN worse further away. its somewhat compensated for by a larger screen. but any screen, close, far, a million miles away so you can't see it, will look better with a higher definition picture.
 
I have the 26" Samsung LCD HDTV at the moment, but feel I need to invest in a larger more capable screen for when HD really takes off.
 
Azagoth said:
but feel I need to invest in a larger more capable screen for when HD really takes off.
Click to expand...
I had skyHD for about 7 months now...But i still watch much more SD then HD...am thinking of canceling my HD sub because of this...
 
hd is still somewhat of a novelty, it wont be taking off all that quickly as far as broadcasts go. HD-DVDs are still too few and far inbetween IN MY OPINION too, and its still fairly expensive, since the prices will drop considerably soon no doubt, if history serves us correct.
We'v only got a HDTV because our other TV was about 27years old(it was a beauty!!) Quite mad going from that old brown 'color' TV to this sexy flatpanel 37" :)

On the arguement of pixel density, well thats a bit of a rubbish arguement, even if thats classed as the real definition, just keep it simple and say its about resolution, we dont really care how big the screen is, because to be honest if you have a massive screen and sit close to it you dont deserve to have an opinion, as you're dumb enough to be straining your eyes that much.
 
Thorpy said:
So my 1440x900 19" is HD?

Cool :cool:

Oh and consoles suck

Arn't all games played at 30fps or something silly?
Click to expand...


well actually its technically "HD Capable"

meaning it has a high resolution screen, but none of the inputs required to be technically called a HD monitor. Technically it must have HDMI to be HD.
 
Sniper123 said:
Where can I download some HD games to play on my dell 24" :confused: :D
Click to expand...

:'(

I'm thoroughly ashamed. I just thought that console HD gaming was somehow different and special! You guys have certainly taught me a lesson...with a big stick!
 
MrLOL said:
well actually its technically "HD Capable"

meaning it has a high resolution screen, but none of the inputs required to be technically called a HD monitor. Technically it must have HDMI to be HD.
Click to expand...
HDMI offers no higher resolutions than Component or VGA/DVI.

That logic is just stupid.
 
High Definition is just a consumer word.
It's high resolution really, that's all, and PC's have been doing this since the beggining of time.

(Almost ;) )
 
Doesnt a device have to be HDCP compliant to be classified as 'HD Ready'? Not that it makes any difference unless you're watching bluray/hddvd mind.
 
The industry states that a HD Ready TV should be capable of the following:

Display:

The minimum native resolution of the display (e.g. LCD, PDP) or display engine (e.g. DLP) is 720 physical lines in wide aspect ratio.

Video Interfaces:

The display device accepts HD input via:

*Analogue YPbPr (component video)

* DVI ( with HDCP) or HDMI (with HDCP)


:)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom