Anyone else feel overwhelmed by high-def graphics?

[320x240]

Just too add to what's already been said: HD is quite new and, I would guess, a lot more expensive and time consuming to develop for. I would imagine that most developers have to cut corners somewhere just to be competitive.

[Lordstar]

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

oh god its like my fantasy woes revisited in here

[Elixir]

I don't feel overwhelmed. I just feel disappointed that most of my favorite old school games are turning into flash games. The only thing that's keeping me from buying a PS3 at the moment is the price, otherwise, I'd get one for Disgaea 3. That's probably the easiest game to run on the entire console, excluding PSN titles. It isn't about graphics.

I'm in it for the length. When it comes down to it, games don't need to be ridiculously long like Disgaea in order to be worthwhile. Games half or less of Disgaea's length even possess more depth, which is why I like shmups. Although they apparently went a little crazy with Disgaea 3, though. The game sucks you in by thinking you're gaining hundreds of levels within hours, only to realize that you'll still be doing the exact same thing 100 hours from now.

It sounds lame, but it keeps me from diving into MMORPGs. I admit, I used to play PSO a lot. Never touched WoW for good reason. I've learnt my lesson, that's for sure; if you're going to grind, make sure it's locally stored data. Nothing like 100+ hours going out the door in a split second when your favourite private server decides to die. Not to mention the number of bad MMORPGs out there. Anyone remember Trickster, or FlyFF?

High def graphics interest me. Stuff like Raiden IV do a perfect job of transitioning from SD to HD with little flaws. But as for the bigger titles; GTA IV, Halo, Gears of War, etc.. they're not my kind. They seem more for show. Yes, GoW has gameplay, but the FPS issues I have are another debate. Basically I refuse to play GoW until they put in left handed support for people who don't enjoy aiming with the right analog stick, but left. (Bonus confusion: I'm right handed)

This generation's been pretty interesting so far. We finally have consoles that can get releases that last gen, only the PC would receive. Fallout 3 is a good example. The online capabilities are a nice bonus as well. But there's still something missing. I've little to no clue why Japan has decided the 360 is the right console to release retail shmups on, nor do I understand where fanboys are at. They've always existed, but they're way more rabid this season.

HD's doing good for the old school, too. Pacman Championship Edition looks great and the original version is also available on XBLA too. But I'm not getting any younger and I'm starting to realize that my enjoyment of games has become extremely limited as I've made a lot of bad gaming purchases recently. if they're not shmups, RPGs or VNs then I'm probably not going to enjoy them half as much.

What I think bothers me most about HDTVs and widescreen stuff is, developers are slowly forcing widescreen into games. Bionic Commando Rearmed has this. Things like that are just uncalled for. You shouldn't be expected to own a HDTV (or buy one) in order to enjoy a certain game to it's full potential.

[JoshF]

Totally, man. Awesome graphics.

Those are awesome graphics.

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

I can't think of any way to make fun of this other than to repost it. But, since I already made fun of luddites I should make fun of technocrats whose eyes apparently evolve with imaging technology and prefer playing Metal Slug 3 in 2x Sai on an LCD. Take look at SSF2X and TURBO HD REMIX for an example of well-made dot art versus photoshop trash. Also, try convincing people like this that a well placed dot is an outdated and ugly medium, right before taking a flight to Italy and telling them (THE ITALIANS) to replace the statue of David with the statue of MARCUS.

[moozooh]

Just too add to what's already been said: HD is quite new and, I would guess, a lot more expensive and time consuming to develop for. I would imagine that most developers have to cut corners somewhere just to be competitive.

The only reason developers have to cut corners is that the consoles themselves are still pretty weak for the stuff they're supposed to run flawlessly (see the multiple notions and examples of cheap upscale techniques employed on the current-gen consoles, including PS3).

That being said, PC gaming has had the "high definition" for years, and by years I mean at least 6-8 years since even raster graphics games started moving from 640x480 to higher resolutions, nevermind 3D games which don't even require any additional efforts to redraw the screen at whatever resolution using hardware scaling. Being a PC gamer myself, it's hard to feel overwhelmed by something you've been using by default for any purpose without any particular fad values pressing on you.

[Pixel_Outlaw]

I don't know why I'm posting but I did recently have a thought.

I miss playing as a 8x16 character. The artists were very skilled in placing pixels. They had to decide what to omit and what to draw due to limited space. The artists of today have the opposite problem they have so much space that they include everything and still have large areas of bland blank space. The remedy this by smudging the hell out of things just to get more shades of a color. I like to be able to crank up the old NES and really enjoy how well each color was chosen and how each pixel was drawn. I like to enjoy how sometimes they used color tricks like gray in missing colors just to make a very unique looking color visually. I'm sure everyone remembers some shading in NES games in which the artist choose a gray because they were missing colors in between. You don't see that much today because of the high resolution color depth. The artists now days just make a gradient of tones shading from a base color to a midtone color to a very bland white or yellow white color. The artist who uses an odd color in their shading to supplement a missing color often makes a whole new material. There is no longer any charm arising from skillful art done within strict and demanding limitation. Video games are turning into movies. Sure there have always been games about movies but excluding the terrible games for the Sega CD the games have always defined themselves as interactive experiences. Not really cinema quality mildly interactive eye candy.

[kozo]

Art direction is the key.

This matters more than technology.

[PC Engine Fan X!]

I don't feel overwhelmed. I just feel disappointed that most of my favorite old school games are turning into flash games. The only thing that's keeping me from buying a PS3 at the moment is the price, otherwise, I'd get one for Disgaea 3. That's probably the easiest game to run on the entire console, excluding PSN titles. It isn't about graphics.

I'm in it for the length. When it comes down to it, games don't need to be ridiculously long like Disgaea in order to be worthwhile. Games half or less of Disgaea's length even possess more depth, which is why I like shmups. Although they apparently went a little crazy with Disgaea 3, though. The game sucks you in by thinking you're gaining hundreds of levels within hours, only to realize that you'll still be doing the exact same thing 100 hours from now.

It sounds lame, but it keeps me from diving into MMORPGs. I admit, I used to play PSO a lot. Never touched WoW for good reason. I've learnt my lesson, that's for sure; if you're going to grind, make sure it's locally stored data. Nothing like 100+ hours going out the door in a split second when your favourite private server decides to die. Not to mention the number of bad MMORPGs out there. Anyone remember Trickster, or FlyFF?

High def graphics interest me. Stuff like Raiden IV do a perfect job of transitioning from SD to HD with little flaws. But as for the bigger titles; GTA IV, Halo, Gears of War, etc.. they're not my kind. They seem more for show. Yes, GoW has gameplay, but the FPS issues I have are another debate. Basically I refuse to play GoW until they put in left handed support for people who don't enjoy aiming with the right analog stick, but left. (Bonus confusion: I'm right handed)

This generation's been pretty interesting so far. We finally have consoles that can get releases that last gen, only the PC would receive. Fallout 3 is a good example. The online capabilities are a nice bonus as well. But there's still something missing. I've little to no clue why Japan has decided the 360 is the right console to release retail shmups on, nor do I understand where fanboys are at. They've always existed, but they're way more rabid this season.

HD's doing good for the old school, too. Pacman Championship Edition looks great and the original version is also available on XBLA too. But I'm not getting any younger and I'm starting to realize that my enjoyment of games has become extremely limited as I've made a lot of bad gaming purchases recently. if they're not shmups, RPGs or VNs then I'm probably not going to enjoy them half as much.

What I think bothers me most about HDTVs and widescreen stuff is, developers are slowly forcing widescreen into games. Bionic Commando Rearmed has this. Things like that are just uncalled for. You shouldn't be expected to own a HDTV (or buy one) in order to enjoy a certain game to it's full potential.

When the USA region first generation PS3 console went on sale, it debuted at a whopping $599.99 USD for a 60GB HD version & one SixAxis controller. Nowdays, you can buy a USA region PS3 console with an 80GB HD and a single Dual Shock 3 controller for a mere $399.99 USD. Sure, an extra DS-3 controller will set one back at $54.99 USD per additional player.

Widescreen format has been around for ten years now -- some PSX game titles have built-in support for this format, believe it or not. The PSX game of Gran Turismo has widescreen format that is selectable from the menu screen but since the PSX hardware is SD, it'll look at it's best in S-Video and RGB modes. Even the PSX game of Ridge Racer Type 4 supports widescreen format, no shit.

Such widescreen CRT-based TV monitors can be bought today but most current TV manufacturers don't make them anymore but Sony still does. Sony sells a 30" Sony Wega HD widescreen CRT-based TV monitor that bridges the gap for those who are reclutant to take the plunge into LCD format widescreen TV monitors head-on and are still used to the traditional CRT-based medium that SD affords. Different strokes for different folks.

If you really do want to have said PS3 game look at it's best in the highest native resolution, 1080p, then a 1080p TV monitor will be needed to take advantage of that format. Not to mention that when you buy a PS3, a simple HDMI cable isn't provided. You have to pony up the extra cash to get one. Sure, some PS3 games have their highest picture output at 720p. Time Crisis 4 on the PS3 only outputs at 720p.

720p is the absolute minimum of HD gaming for the PS3 console-wise but it is regarded as HD still.

When I bought a 23" widescreen Samsung LCD TV monitor and found out that it could only support up to 1080i, I took it back and got a Sharp Aquos 32" widescreen LCD TV monitor with native 1080p and was a happy guy. Sure, it costs more but it's worth spending more for the additional visual clarity like when playing those cool 1080p Blu-Ray movie discs on it. ^_~

And yes, the PS3 doubles as a Blu-Ray player...so no need to buy a seperate Blu-Ray player anyways. A USA region PS3 console can play those cool Japanese Blu-Ray movie discs without any problems and vice versa for a JPN region PS3 console with USA region Blu-Ray movie discs.

PC Engine Fan X! ^_~

[moonblood]

This is such a great thread, that dragon was amazing

[kengou]

That being said, PC gaming has had the "high definition" for years, and by years I mean at least 6-8 years since even raster graphics games started moving from 640x480 to higher resolutions, nevermind 3D games which don't even require any additional efforts to redraw the screen at whatever resolution using hardware scaling. Being a PC gamer myself, it's hard to feel overwhelmed by something you've been using by default for any purpose without any particular fad values pressing on you.

Maybe this is the reason I hardly notice/care about HD consoles/TVs/anything. I've been playing at high resolutions on my PC for years.

Also while this is probably only slightly related, one of the worst products of this generation of graphics is the "grey and brown" color palette every game since Gears of War has used. Looks even worse at high resolutions.

[FatCobra]

That being said, PC gaming has had the "high definition" for years, and by years I mean at least 6-8 years since even raster graphics games started moving from 640x480 to higher resolutions, nevermind 3D games which don't even require any additional efforts to redraw the screen at whatever resolution using hardware scaling. Being a PC gamer myself, it's hard to feel overwhelmed by something you've been using by default for any purpose without any particular fad values pressing on you.

Maybe this is the reason I hardly notice/care about HD consoles/TVs/anything. I've been playing at high resolutions on my PC for years.

Also while this is probably only slightly related, one of the worst products of this generation of graphics is the "grey and brown" color palette every game since Gears of War has used. Looks even worse at high resolutions.

Well, PC has had high-res for a while now, the only difference is that you're really close to the monitor, whose size averages around 19-22" It's small enough so you can see everything.

On an HDTV, those things are HUGE, it's quite easy (for me anyway) to lose track of things because the screen is huge. Excessive bloom and brown/gray color palettes don't help either.

[320x240]

I miss playing as a 8x16 character. The artists were very skilled in placing pixels. They had to decide what to omit and what to draw due to limited space. The artists of today have the opposite problem they have so much space that they include everything and still have large areas of bland blank space.

I guess this is a question of transparancy.

When talking about how modern games go for that realistic look it is important to remember that pixel graphics used to be about 'realism' too. That dragon Josh F linked too is of course very well done, but the style used is one that was originally borne out of a want for more realistic graphics.

[Strider77]

some truly brilliant comments in this thread... you know who you are.

[Ed Oscuro]

some truly brilliant comments in this thread... you know who you are.

Thank you, I'm so humbled.

[Lloyd Mangram]

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

I can't think of any way to make fun of this other than to repost it. But, since I already made fun of luddites I should make fun of technocrats whose eyes apparently evolve with imaging technology and prefer playing Metal Slug 3 in 2x Sai on an LCD. Take look at SSF2X and TURBO HD REMIX for an example of well-made dot art versus photoshop trash. Also, try convincing people like this that a well placed dot is an outdated and ugly medium, right before taking a flight to Italy and telling them (THE ITALIANS) to replace the statue of David with the statue of MARCUS.

Hmm... maybe you should have read auryn's post in its entirety before plucking a quote from it, because you appear to have completely misunderstood what he was getting at.

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.

[Ed Oscuro]

I think it's a sad day when I have to look at the side of the arcade machine to imagine the game better.

[JoshF]

I read it. It's like someone trying to interpret Pearl Jam lyrics. It's funny.

[Elixir]

720p is the absolute minimum of HD gaming for the PS3 console-wise but it is regarded as HD still.

Do you think it's necessary to have a 1080p-capable HDTV in order to enjoy the PS3? I currently have a HDTV which supports 720p (native) and 1080i. The television includes every input imaginable, except for S-video. I'm just wondering if I should bother with HDMI cables when the time comes, or whether to stick with VGA. Apparently there's very little difference between the two. Since I'm going to be using it on a 32" screen and not something absurdly large like my cousin has; 52" behemoth plasma, middle of his living room - I'm probably not going to notice the difference after all.

One thing I did notice while using component cables with my 360 on that tv was the slight ghosting of text. It was quite annoying.

[Herr Schatten]

When talking about how modern games go for that realistic look it is important to remember that pixel graphics used to be about 'realism' too. That dragon Josh F linked too is of course very well done, but the style used is one that was originally borne out of a want for more realistic graphics.

I disagree. Of course it has to apply a certain level of realism to make it believable, but the dragon in JoshF's example is highly stylized, much in the way Henk Nieborg's pixel graphics are. That's the point where art direction comes into play. Good art direction can create stunning visuals even with a few pixels or polygons, but it always does it at the price of a certain level of abstraction. It's important to not put in everything and the kitchen sink.

Striving for "realism" without an artistic vision behind it has never, and won't probably ever, yield really strong visuals, regardless of the technology used, and "realistic" graphics age terribly. That's why Pit Fighter, which was hailed to have the most realistic graphics ever at the time of its release, looks absolutely laughable today, but SFIII still looks stunning.

A big problem is that a lot of people who do graphics today aren't artists, but engineers. It's only natural that they stick to what they know. Maybe they can't paint or draw, but they can get the light and the physics right, so they concentrate on that, naturally. Unfortunately, many people seem to think that it's all it takes. But games like Ico show what can be achieved when good art direction is involved. Compare that to mainly technology-driven games like Crysis. Which one's graphics will be remembered in 10 years and which one will be the new Guardians of the Hood?

art direction >>> technology

[Ed Oscuro]

I hate to be the one who needles the balloon, Mr. Schatten, because I agree with you generally and in most of the specifics - but realISM is by definition itself an artistic movement and indicates a certain vision. You're freely associating realism with a lack of artistic direction (such as in phrases like '"realistic" graphics age terribly').

Realistic movements tend towards a bias to mundane objects and the like, as should be evident when we consider that the realistic movement showed up after the invention of photography which provides realism without any authorial intent. You can have a beef with that, but there's no denying the results can sometimes be stunning (ever checked out featured company galleries of still-lifes rendered with the latest 3D rendering software?). There's reality, and then there's realism - and hyper-realism, and hyper-atrophied game art discussions.

This is important, I suppose, because some people seem to think that realistic environments in video gaming and elsewhere are grown in pots or on bushes in weedy lots, without any significant artistic direction.

I also suppose this is furthermore somewhat ironic because we all know full well that applying the term "realistic" to anything related to electronic entertainment, as opposed to records of the real world, will be used in a very limited sense. Call of Duty 4's realistic handlebar moustaches, helicopter rides, doggies and swirling leaves in abandoned tracts of land are only so realistic as they can or need be.

Also, that dragon has a wiggly belly. I'd like to poke it, for some reason. Just once, I'm sure.

[320x240]

When talking about how modern games go for that realistic look it is important to remember that pixel graphics used to be about 'realism' too. That dragon Josh F linked too is of course very well done, but the style used is one that was originally borne out of a want for more realistic graphics.

I disagree. Of course it has to apply a certain level of realism to make it believable, but the dragon in JoshF's example is highly stylized, much in the way Henk Nieborg's pixel graphics are. That's the point where art direction comes into play.

Of course today it's a matter of art direction but that very detailed Amiga/ST graphics was as much about realism as it was about art direction back when it was state of the art. Just like todays graphics it took advantage of new hardware to create more 'believable' game worlds.

As an aside, one criticism of Nieborgs works, and indeed most Amiga-era graphics, is that because the same technique is used everywhere, everything ends up looking like it was hewn out of rock, even grass, water etc. I have always felt this undermines the believability of the game world present.

[Ed Oscuro]

As an aside, one criticism of Nieborgs works, and indeed most Amiga-era graphics, is that because the same technique is used everywhere, everything ends up looking like it was hewn out of rock, even grass, water etc. I have always felt this undermines the believability of the game world present.

Interesting, thanks for that insight.

But your other point I have to disagree with, same as with Schatten - creating a "believable" world is perhaps a slight misnomer (for the reason I mentioned before - these are computer games after all); creating one which feels coherent is the issue. I do get your meaning of course. Amiga stuff seems to me more obsessed with natural rock forms and organic shapes (spirals and thorns and the like). Again, that's not quite the same thing as realism, though it's an art form borrowing some elements from reality (as all art styles must).

[D]

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

Hi Deadalus, your post makes my blood boil. Why?
Resolution has absolutely nothing to do with sharpness.
Sharpness means focus.
You are comparing a blurry filtered sd image with a clean/less filter hd image.
This comparison makes no sense, because the average ps1 game is way more sharper than the average ps2 game. Yep, the ol' 240p vs 480i remark.
But I guess it could be a comparison between a ps2 game and a ps3 game.

For me personally it also has everything to do with art. They can make a game with a turd rendered in 32000 X 32000 resolution and it would still look shit. The best artists out there can make a gameboy b/w game look ace. This is al personal, but I will come out and say this. I think (IMHO) that realism sucks. Realism is all around you why would you want to play a game that's realistic. Here the developers have the ability to create unique Sci Fi worlds and what do they do?

Also for those that wonder why games are shit since recent years, here are my guestimates:
-we are getting older and it becomes harder to please us with these 'games'
-quality means nothing, marketing everything. You can market a turd, it will sell. You can make the best game ever, but nobody knows about it so it won't sell. It is not about us real hardcore gamers. No, it's about the people that don't care and buy just about anything. These people mean actual profit. So focus is not on the games themselves.

Also, I think that this whole realism thing originates to the 16-bit era where people fantasized to one be able to be in a movie through a game.
"It's like you are in the movie......" blech

Overwhelm HD moments for me.
2000 2D Guilty Gear X Dreamcast VGA 480p
2003 3D F-Zero GX Gamecube component 480p
2006 3D Gran Turismo HD Demo (unknown resolution, but less than 1080p)
2008 2D KOF12 720p?

How about everybody just lists the HD 2D and/or 3D games that oowed them.

[Grinning Cat]

720p is the absolute minimum of HD gaming for the PS3 console-wise but it is regarded as HD still.

Do you think it's necessary to have a 1080p-capable HDTV in order to enjoy the PS3?

It really isn't - especially on only a 32" screen. And the majority of 'credible' reviews will bear this point out. Resolution is only one of many, many things that defines an HD screen's overall quality. Judging a panel on resolution, alone, is pretty much like judging a digital camera on the number of megapixels

Case in point, I've owned 1080p sets before (though my main screen is actually a 720p Plasma right now), and I can say (totally honestly) that the Pioneer PDP-428XD Plasma I picked out for my parents about a year ago, still wipes the floor with any 1080p screen I've ever owned. Its resolution? 1024x768 Colours, motion handling and most of all, black levels, are just as important defining factors. Perhaps even more so, in my eyes...

[D]

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

Hi Deadalus, your post makes my blood boil. Why?
Resolution has absolutely nothing to do with sharpness.
Sharpness means focus.
You are comparing a blurry filtered sd image with a clean/less filter hd image.
This comparison makes no sense, because the average ps1 game is way more sharper than the average ps2 game. Yep, the ol' 240p vs 480i remark.
But I guess it could be a comparison between a ps2 game and a ps3 game.

Found it:

Spot the difference?

[mufunyo]

Spot the difference?

Am I the only one that prefers the low res one? With the high res one, you see how badly 3D modeled and rendered the sprite is, whereas the low res one leaves more up to your imagination. My verdict: if you're going to go high res, make sure your assets are up to snuff.

[MX7]

Spot the difference?

Am I the only one that prefers the low res one? With the high res one, you see how badly 3D modeled and rendered the sprite is, whereas the low res one leaves more up to your imagination. My verdict: if you're going to go high res, make sure your assets are up to snuff.

Yeah, the low res one looks loads better. The one on the right looks like some plastic toy, or like something from an early 90's computer generated kid's show. Not cool.

[JoshF]

lol, still using that kremling as an example

[JoshF]

The one on the left looks like it's a sprite from the game Donkey Kong Country, or maybe Donkey Kong Country 2. It could be a boss from Johnny Bazookatone, but that'd be generous. The one on the right looks like something printed in the Donkey Kong Country Official Players Guide, the one with all the tips & tricks & hidden bonus room locations (like in one of the snow levels, you'll see a slow moving Necky, get on top of the igloo and wait for him to get near and jump, propelling you into one of the most exclusive bonus barrels in the game!)

[Davey]

With the high res one, you see how badly 3D modeled and rendered the sprite is, whereas the low res one leaves more up to your imagination. My verdict: if you're going to go high res, make sure your assets are up to snuff.

Exactly. A higher resolution will make good art look better and bad art look worse.