Why are we so obsessed with HD?
- Thread starter HaloHappy
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Well, that part depends on the price of the console. I wouldn't buy a, well, this-gen console if it had the graphics capability of a PSOne. After all, that's what's really being improved with the newer games.HaloHappy said:
I think it really depends on your playstyle. If you more play to win, graphics aren't a concern. If you play casually, and do it to be entertained, then you'll want decent graphics to sit back and watch.
Maybe because games have clearly increased in quality over time at the same time graphics have improved a 3d platform would be an impossible genre if we only had the graphics capabilities of Monkey Island.
Gameplay is not designed by the developers thats mainly done by the publishers the idea that time spent on graphics somehow interacts with the actual gameplay in a negative way is just wrong just like how graphics artists don't write the dialogue.
Gameplay is not designed by the developers thats mainly done by the publishers the idea that time spent on graphics somehow interacts with the actual gameplay in a negative way is just wrong just like how graphics artists don't write the dialogue.
I don't think it's that we're against better graphics, more that if you for instance reduced the graphics team by a couple of people and hired couple more for the level design team, you'd have a better game.
Sure some games are meant to be 'show off' games, designed to make the console look good, for instance, Gran Turismo, Crysis, Donkey Kong Country, God of War 3, etc, and that's fine as most of these are actually pretty damn good games too.
I just think sometimes the companies are blowing way too much of the budget on making things shiny, when they could be making the game bigger and better instead, or just getting it out faster for less money.
Sure some games are meant to be 'show off' games, designed to make the console look good, for instance, Gran Turismo, Crysis, Donkey Kong Country, God of War 3, etc, and that's fine as most of these are actually pretty damn good games too.
I just think sometimes the companies are blowing way too much of the budget on making things shiny, when they could be making the game bigger and better instead, or just getting it out faster for less money.
HD Graphics are not all that big a deal to me. What does annoy me though is how awful PS2 games look on an HD screen.HaloHappy said:
Seriously, they look great on a Standard Definition TV, but on 1080 pixel capable screens, PS2 games look jagged, dark as fuck and just plain crap.
Don't believe me? Try playing Yakuza 2 with all the "black" areas looking perfectly black. Everything else besides the black is too dark to see.
That's just not right.
The visuals are somewhat important but I like the whole blu-ray thing for the better audio. I can give in a bit on visuals but no way can I abide shitty audio.
Not to say I'd go back to below 1080p but it comes in second to the 7.1 dolby digital and/or thx audio.
PS. That's for movies, for games I pretty much stick to the 360 or pc. Not enough good on ps3 for me so it's a blu-ray plus.
Not to say I'd go back to below 1080p but it comes in second to the 7.1 dolby digital and/or thx audio.
PS. That's for movies, for games I pretty much stick to the 360 or pc. Not enough good on ps3 for me so it's a blu-ray plus.
I'm guessing because high definition things look soo much better than standard definition things which, in games, creates a more realistic atmosphere.
This remindes me of a friend of mine who played Dragon Age for a couple of minutes, didn't like the graphics and deamed it a horrible game.
I think that graphics have their place and don't mind admitting that I am generaly more impressed with games with nice graphics. I do know people that take this too far and who really piss me off by completely judging games by their graphics. Although I believe that graphics are an important part of most games, there are much more important components like gameplay and plot.
I think that graphics have their place and don't mind admitting that I am generaly more impressed with games with nice graphics. I do know people that take this too far and who really piss me off by completely judging games by their graphics. Although I believe that graphics are an important part of most games, there are much more important components like gameplay and plot.
Its just marketing! You've heard the fable "the emperor's new clothes" HD is just a new outfit! Some of the best games of all time came out on the N64 and playstation(1, LOL indeed)Its just a new way to get our monies with minimal effort. I'm not a graphic designer but I'm pretty sure its easier to render a realistic looking world than it is to come up with an original and awe inspiring story! Just my opinion.
Blah blah blah graphics aren't everything blah.
We've had this sort of thread a million times.
Personally, yes I get graphics aren't everything. I still expect a certain standard to be met.
If I play a modern game with poor graphics for the time it was released, I wonder what else they didn't put much effort into in regards to the development process. There's also the importance of camera angles for playability, environments for setting the mood and feel, interactive objects being noticable.
I know graphics whores are annoying, almost as annoying as gamers who expect a great storyline out of every game (even though a lot of games don't need one), or that expect multiplayer from every game (seriously I've heard so many people saying Mass Effect should have online... that would not work), but the fact is graphics are an important part of the game, hence the term video games.
We've had this sort of thread a million times.
Personally, yes I get graphics aren't everything. I still expect a certain standard to be met.
If I play a modern game with poor graphics for the time it was released, I wonder what else they didn't put much effort into in regards to the development process. There's also the importance of camera angles for playability, environments for setting the mood and feel, interactive objects being noticable.
I know graphics whores are annoying, almost as annoying as gamers who expect a great storyline out of every game (even though a lot of games don't need one), or that expect multiplayer from every game (seriously I've heard so many people saying Mass Effect should have online... that would not work), but the fact is graphics are an important part of the game, hence the term video games.
I would have agreed with you when I owned an SDTV, but now that I got an HDTV I am really starting to have a hard time playing games with blurry backgrounds and PS2 fog.
I had some trouble with MGS3 recently, as I found it much harder to identify things without the clarity of high definition.
Being more realistic isn't important, but man do I love clear high quality textures.
I had some trouble with MGS3 recently, as I found it much harder to identify things without the clarity of high definition.
Being more realistic isn't important, but man do I love clear high quality textures.
Another very good point. For anyone slightly below the hardcore line, the first twenty/thirty minutes of a game determine if they're going to like the game (even if they play for hours after that). That means you can't give someone terrific gameplay with today's games because there'd be too much to learn at once (Prototype tried. It's no spoiler to tell you about the first level. The first level, they equip you with every power in the game and say "have fun!". You spent a whole level learning the controls you don't use again for hours).Marmal4de said:
It only takes a second to impress someone with pores though...
Well thats good, i'm the same as you but i do know people who dont go back and play the old ps1 and n64 games because the graphics were bad and they're not new enough for them.666Chaos said:
But i'm reallly not super mad at the graphics or nothing people, its the people who only play online multiplayer and thats all they care about people.
I am assuming one thing before I respond. You have never played Far Cry 2 or checked out the map editor have you?HaloHappy said:
That having been said I will answer your question. "HD" and great quality graphics are the same to a video game as is great film and good looking actors are to a movie. Most movies that are of any good are filmed to look great, they don't purposely set out to film a terrible looking film now do they? So why should a video game look like shit if it doesn't have to? Do graphics make a game, no. But if the technology exists to make it look great why not use it?
The problem with the Wii isn't so much its complete lack of HD, it's it complete lack of knowing what the gaming community wants. If you look at the Wii's sales figures for their consoles compared to their games you will be shocked to see their games (except some first party titles) don't sell well at all.
The core reason behind this is that Nintendo through out their seal of approval and allows any shovelwear onto their systems. So when Ma and Pa go to buy a game for Little Timmy they will be enticed to purchase a terrible game because its $20 as opposed to a greatly designed game that is $50.
So the Wii needs to get some form of quality control and also make a ton more games that truly do cause you to "exercise" before anyone will take them seriously.
Back to graphics, I loved Prototype even though the cutscenes and overall graphics were shit. Why? Because it was a blast to play. However Dragon Age Origins was my least favorite game of 2009 because of its graphics. They were so bad it subtracted a lot of the experience out for me. People have told me its a great game once you get into it but the terrible graphics distracted me so badly I couldn't.
I am a 25 yr old gamer who started when I was 2 yrs old on the original Nintendo. Back then graphics in 8-bit on games like Mario Brothers blew me away, when I aged a bit Super Mario and Donkey Kong Country blew me away with their graphics on the SNES. Then came Mario 64 on the Nintendo 64 and once again graphics played a large part of my enjoyment with the game. So to make it appear as though this is the first generation of consoles where we care about graphics is being you being either silly or young and not looking at the past systems.
Wow, I thought Prototype looked pretty good, even though it could've been excused appearance because it was just so much fun.mrpmpfan said:
Dragon Age Origins... Graph... OH You people were probably playing it on the 360
Apparantly the graphics were awful on the 360. I played it on the PC and I was impressed with how detailed the Darkspawn were (Example of good usage of better graphics. They were all the more scary because the detail on their flesh and spiked teeth and the blood and the... oh I feel all faint.)