Anyone else feel overwhelmed by high-def graphics?

FatCobra · Post by **FatCobra** » Tue Oct 14, 2008 1:40 am

For some reason, I really can't play high-definition (ie, current gen graphics) games really well because the graphics are.....too high def?

Basically, I guess my brain is getting overloaded with eye candy and I can't focus on my game. That, and all the bloom, and mostly brown (did color go out of style or something?) color palettes.

Case in point, GTA4. I've played this on my roommate's 360 and I'm not sure if I like it or not. The physics feel too realistic and every car drives like it has a lead weight on it. Not to mention everything's all bloomed out and a shade of brown so it all blends together.

So, anyone else here unable to process high-def graphics easily? It's a weird question, but a good one.

Pixel_Outlaw · Post by **Pixel_Outlaw** » Tue Oct 14, 2008 2:01 am

I think it has a lot to do with the television too. The new televisions just have so much screen area that you cannot take in the whole screen as easily.

Ed Oscuro · Post by **Ed Oscuro** » Tue Oct 14, 2008 2:35 am

Does anybody else feel "hi-def" is soooo last gen?

There's really two things going on here - one, artistic tendencies; two, crappy GeForce 7800-era graphics chips in modern systems.

But to answer the question: No, but I don't game on anything bigger than 21" screens, if that matters.

I used to bitch (back in the days of Half-Life 1 and especially Counter-Strike 1.6 and earlier) about games pegging things far off in the distance to a few pixels of screen space. This isn't so much of a problem anymore. On the FPS shooters side, Rainbow Six Vegas and more recently Call of Duty 4 have both performed admirably for me with lots of detail.

CoD4 more than many other games I have played online makes it pretty easy to miss details in all the foliage, but as that's realistic and adds a gameplay element for me I don't mind it.

tl;dr - Gradius II announcer says "YOU NEED SUM PRACTICE"

FatCobra · Post by **FatCobra** » Tue Oct 14, 2008 2:51 am

Pixel_Outlaw wrote:I think it has a lot to do with the television too. The new televisions just have so much screen area that you cannot take in the whole screen as easily.

Yeah, the TV I was playing the game isn't high-def, but it was a pretty big TV. I can understand the whole "couch gaming" concept where you have a huge TV, comfy couch, and a wireless controller.

Bigger isn't always better. I prefer a smaller screen, and I don't mind being hunched over looking at a monitor because I at least can see everything!

I think there's too much detail in new games as well, sooo distracting. In older games, there was less detail and you could tell the difference.

Maybe if they realized that there's other colors besides brown and gray. I'm not asking for the game to look like a unicorn barfed a rainbow on it, but c'mon!! I'm tried of gritty realism.....bring back the bright blue skies!

kengou · Post by **kengou** » Tue Oct 14, 2008 2:57 am

On the contrary, I'm underwhelmed most of the time. I simply don't care about graphics, and a lot of the time if I play a game on the Wii or PS2 and compare the graphics to the same game on the 360 or PS3, I can hardly tell a difference (or maybe I just don't care enough about the differences).

Crazy videophiles, audiophiles and graphics-whores really confuse me. What's the point?

JBC · Post by **JBC** » Tue Oct 14, 2008 4:10 am

I got me a 32" HD screen which is just right for me and my bad eyes. I usually sit about 4-5 ft away on my bed and never have to squint at anything with it thank god.

Aru-san · Post by **Aru-san** » Tue Oct 14, 2008 4:16 am

kengou wrote:Crazy videophiles, audiophiles and graphics-whores really confuse me. What's the point?

They think reality is IN, and that video games should be able to LITERALLY (well, not really, but at least get DAMN CLOSE) suck them away from reality. IMHO, I don't need realistic graphics to zone out of reality and into the gaming world. Hell, I can zone out by playing a shmup!

MathU · Post by **MathU** » Tue Oct 14, 2008 4:18 am

I have consistently felt underwhelmed by so-called "next-gen" graphics these past several years.

Ed Oscuro · Post by **Ed Oscuro** » Tue Oct 14, 2008 4:39 am

kengou wrote:Crazy videophiles, audiophiles and graphics-whores really confuse me. What's the point?

Crawling in the grass, stalking your prey, without the whole unethical killing for keeps part. But hey, who woulda thought there would be people who didn't understand love of graphical fidelity on a forum dedicated mainly to games over a decade old?

Aru-san wrote:IMHO, I don't need realistic graphics to zone out of reality and into the gaming world. Hell, I can zone out by playing a shmup!

I can zone out playing DOOM multiplayer (or even SP, heh), but the graphics side adds a lot of possibilities. Shooting people through walls is impossible (save some crazy clipping glitch, and one-way hidden walls doesn't count) in DOOM; but following somebody behind a wall in Call of Duty 4 with a stream of Skorpion bullets and taking them out is exercising some spatial and tactical skills that simply aren't possible without that level of detail.

Plus, I like to just wander through pretty areas (wish there were more games like Uru: Ages Beyond Myst, without the epic rebirth and death cycle of the online component, that is) in media and the real world.

Damocles · Post by **Damocles** » Tue Oct 14, 2008 4:47 am

Ed Oscuro said some stuff leading up to wrote:Skorpion

I love you.

Ed Oscuro · Post by **Ed Oscuro** » Tue Oct 14, 2008 5:21 am

Likewise

I think I'm on Expert Challenge II for that one (finished Marksman Challenge III a while ago; I've only played a few days on weekends thus far). Very good gun with Sleight of Hand enabled for CQB like Killhouse or Shipment; possibly more so if you have Bandolier.

JoshF · Post by **JoshF** » Tue Oct 14, 2008 6:24 am

Me playing hi-def games

Ed Oscuro · Post by **Ed Oscuro** » Tue Oct 14, 2008 6:37 am

JoshF wrote:Me playing hi-def games

Perfect. (Audiovisual!)

Strider77 · Post by **Strider77** » Tue Oct 14, 2008 6:40 am

I have no issue with it, Ninja Gaiden 2, Gears, Bioshock, VF5, Metal Gear 4 are a some of the ones so far that I can honestly say that:

Speaking for myself only, that I was truly seeing and playing something that was far more impressive then what I had experienced before. Others can disagree but when I saw Gears for the 1st time in HD I was pretty floored. I mean I know PCs could handle it but I am not a PC gamer. Metal Gear and also Ninja Gaiden 2. There are some really nice looking levels in those games. Mass Effect also has some really pretty colors in the landscapes and lighting.

I have seen some frame issues in some games sure, but I've seen just as much if not worse in last gen games. I know folks are gonna disagree on this but there are some games out there that are very much next gen on the visual level if nothing else.

Also it sounds trivial but have a wide screen display is great for 3D. It's not necessary no, but... it deffinately gives you a wider range of view and givs you more playfield. It makes more sence for them to use it in HD then not.

I don't really see how anyone could be sitting in front of an awesome low res RGB monitor and then also have sony 1080p TV sitting there with a 360 and PS3 hooked up to both.... and them not clearly seeing and preferring the 1080p view for a game that is made ground up for HD.

Stormwatch · Post by **Stormwatch** » Tue Oct 14, 2008 6:45 am

JoshF wrote:Me playing hi-def games

Curiously, he did die of a heart attack...

Ed Oscuro · Post by **Ed Oscuro** » Tue Oct 14, 2008 6:49 am

Stormwatch wrote:Curiously, he did die of a heart attack...

Elizabeth is the name he said he was coming to in his show. COINCIDENTALLY (or so they would say), the game Ninja Gaiden 2 has an evil person who DRINKS THE BLOOD (it comes from hearts the source of Redd Foxx's constant pains) named...Elizabeth?!

Holy crap I'm going to need to sit down a moment.

Strider77 · Post by **Strider77** » Tue Oct 14, 2008 6:50 am

Crazy videophiles, audiophiles and graphics-whores really confuse me. What's the point?

b/c it's cool to have things look better as time moves forward... if it didn't we'd all be playing game that looked like pong, or how about a throw you a bone and make you stuck with just 2600 stuff.

you know it's ok to like awesome grafix... it's not to much to ask for both gameplay and visuals. there have been games to manage both and i was very much ok with it. not to say i've been ok with not alot of visual flare but awesome to play.... still if you want to give me both and still be the best of the best gameplay wise why wouldn't I go with that and enjoy it when it happens. And along with it at least hope it will happen with each new game.

Daedalus · Post by **Daedalus** » Tue Oct 14, 2008 7:23 am

I don't see how anyone could be against higher resolutions. First of all, sharper graphic are just more pleasant to look at.

It's true that some games are busier, but that's a good thing. If I'm going to play a historical piece, for example, I'd rather get to see my character walk down the streets of Heian-kyo than play a game where a block abstractly represents my character and he walks between other colored blocks representing the buildings.

And like Ed Oscuro mentioned, it adds a host of new options to games. Not just in FPS games too... RPGs can hide items in plain sight instead of making you search an empty space to make it appear. Sports games can display jersey numbers. etc etc.

It sounds like a lot of complaints are not from hidef itself, but rather poor game design. My advice: Don't play a mediocre game like GTA4

Ed Oscuro · Post by **Ed Oscuro** » Tue Oct 14, 2008 7:25 am

Daedalus wrote:RPGs can hide items in plain sight instead of making you search an empty space to make it appear.

You know, they've been doing this for ages in point 'n' clicks. Pixelbitching

Otherwise, how could I disagree with points like those?

JoshF · Post by **JoshF** » Tue Oct 14, 2008 7:37 am

I don't see how anyone could be against higher resolutions. First of all, sharper graphic are just more pleasant to look at.

When using 'kong country graphics as the example.

Zebra Airforce · Post by **Zebra Airforce** » Tue Oct 14, 2008 7:57 am

HIGH DEF

JoshF · Post by **JoshF** » Tue Oct 14, 2008 9:09 am

It's like when I'm watching FILMS in Media Player Classic and I try to skip ahead and like "hey I don't wnat that."

Or maybe it's VLC.

EDIT: FRANK TV IS BACK

Ex-Cyber · Post by **Ex-Cyber** » Tue Oct 14, 2008 9:26 am

I think the problem is more artistic than technological, and the technology increases the impact of the artistic abuses. A lot of "high-def" games seem to end up being sloppy and creating visuals that look like crap despite the higher resolution, and the resolution reinforces the fact that you're looking at crap. It's like a less severe version of those crappy flash games that use gradients instead of actual artwork.

Also, HIGH DEF.

moozooh · Post by **moozooh** » Tue Oct 14, 2008 9:42 am

MathU wrote:I have consistently felt underwhelmed by so-called "next-gen" graphics these past several years.

Heh, pretty much. There's more fad in high definition than actual definition. Hi-fad.

MR_Soren · Post by **MR_Soren** » Tue Oct 14, 2008 3:08 pm

Problem with High-Def is that you have to wait longer to fill the ram with oversized textures from an optical disk, then sit in front of a TV that is larger than your peripheral vision, to play a game that tries so hard to look realistic that you can't help but notice how fake it looks and how unoriginal the gameplay is.

It turns out that realistic facial animation does not make a game more enjoyable. I'd prefer a good standard-definition game with great art direction.

Another problem with high-def is that games have stopped looking like games. Many high-def games look like a brown muddy wash, and it's often difficult to pick out objects from the background. Items and enemies should be immediately obvious to players. Games like Mushihime-sama are only playable because the bullets are bright purple over a background of less saturated colors.

A shmup that is all gunmetal and mud would give people headaches.

auryn · Post by **auryn** » Tue Oct 14, 2008 3:17 pm

I think hi-def graphics just leave less up to the imagination; take the example of the original space invaders - when you look at that game you can see:

-a funny little game featuring a bunch of tiny, cute & comical looking beasties shuffling down towards your clunky pea shooter

-an epic struggle featuring an army of enormous vile repugnant monstrosities marching down on your state of the art harbinger of cosmic immolation

-or anything in between

entirely depending on what you want to see. The abstraction of the game's low-res gfx allows for both these extremes to be true, depending on the player's imagination.

New hi-res games don't allow that - they force their specific interpretation/style on you. Which makes for games that have a less general appeal. On the other hand hi-res games do appeal more to people without an active imagination.

IMHO.

Herr Schatten · Post by **Herr Schatten** » Tue Oct 14, 2008 3:18 pm

MR_Soren wrote:I'd prefer a good standard-definition game with great art direction.

Art direction is the key. People seem to think that getting all the physics and lighting right automatically makes a game look good. They could learn from the movies: hand camera at bright daylight might look very realistic, but you won't get a movie with strong visuals that way.

MR_Soren wrote:A shmup that is all gunmetal and mud would give people headaches.

I get headaches from Garegga, too.

Twiddle · Post by **Twiddle** » Tue Oct 14, 2008 3:47 pm

the pixels i can't see the pixels

croikle · Post by **croikle** » Tue Oct 14, 2008 3:49 pm

Strider77 wrote:Ninja Gaiden 2

Totally, man. Awesome graphics.

FatCobra · Post by **FatCobra** » Tue Oct 14, 2008 3:51 pm

MR_Soren wrote:Another problem with high-def is that games have stopped looking like games. Many high-def games look like a brown muddy wash, and it's often difficult to pick out objects from the background. Items and enemies should be immediately obvious to players. Games like Mushihime-sama are only playable because the bullets are bright purple over a background of less saturated colors.

A shmup that is all gunmetal and mud would give people headaches.

Exactly, it even applies to last-gen games. I still play the original Forza Motorsport on my Xbox, and I have a hard time judging distances when it comes time to use the brakes. Good thing you can use the "suggested line" feature and crave a path through that semi-hi def mess. Gran Turismo, I have no problem with. Forza probably has too much bloom I think.

GTA4 may look better, but I still find the GTA3 era games superior in terms of gameplay. At least the cars handle good. In GTA4, they handle as if they have a lead weight on the hood. Combine that with a sh!t brown color palette and abusive use of bloom, and that can render the game an unplayable mess. If I'm playing a game were driving is involved, I want to be able to see where I'm going and the car to handle decently.