Slashdot Mirror
Is HD Important To The Future of Gaming?
Gamasutra's weekly question to the industry taps the pulse of designers and developers on the importance of HD in gaming. From the article: " Absolutely. After seeing a game like Oblivion in HD, I think most gamers will never look back. That's going to affect the amount of time and money that gets put into top-shelf games. It's certainly going to increase the market for texture designers. -Morgan LaVigne, Classroom, Inc "
Its not really that HD is the future of gaming, its just that its what your going to need to play games. Normal 4:3 televisions have lived a long life and people are demanding higher quality, more detailed pictures. Its the future for everything really, and it -does- make gaming better.
because I cant frickin afford one. I got a DS. Thats not in HD. Yet its some of the most fun gaming I've had in years.
:)
But then again, I'm a cynical prick
"Something's wrong with you...and I hope we never do meet again." - Deftones When Girls Telephone Boys
Yes. Yes, HD is vital to the future of gaming.
HD will allow us to make better, more engaging games. It'll make them more fun, more challenging. It'll force us to innovate by creating new interfaces and new philosophies. HD will certainly improve the quality of game software, make games more accessible to the general public, and will even go so far as to absolve gaming for being responsible for violent crime.
Chess is a great game. Chess doesn't care about HD. It never did and it never will. Article gets -1 Irrelevant. Thanks for another gem, Zonk.
Attention deficit disorder is a complicated issue, spanning several major... HEY LET'S GO RIDE BIKES!
... but that's it. Doesn't make new genres possible or improve gameplay. We just need faster and faster CPUs (for AI) and lower latency network connections more than another billion polygons or four times the screen resolution.
If there isn't more innovation people are going to get bored and stop playing.
"Armed forces abroad are of little value unless there is prudent counsel at home" - Cicero
Hi-def in games is essential in the near future because plumetting prices have encouraged many people to buy big, HD TV's. They need/want HD games for three reasons: (1) Standard-def looks poor on a digital (non-CRT) HD screen, because it has to be scaled to the HD unit's native resolution (2) On a big (40"+) screen, a game's graphical flaws (low poly count, low-detail textures, etc) are glaringly visible, and (3) In order to justify the $$ that they spent on their new HDTV's, owners want to know that all of their equipment (PVR, DVD, game consoles, etc) are showing HD content.
Slashdot: come for the pedantry, stay for the condescension.
"Is HD Important To The Future of Gaming?"
Real time graphics have come a long way. However, I'm still watching DVDs that are far more visually stunning than I'm seeing on video game systems. In the mean time, to crank out the higher resolution stuff, you need more memory and more processing power. The result? Well, sure, you're rendering at higher resolutions, but you're not gaining much detail. Just some clarity. (Slower frame rates, to boot.)
Don't get me wrong, I'd love to play in HD, but plain ol broadcast still has a ways to go.
"Derp de derp."
... It's just another thing Microsoft takes credit for "innovating". My monitor does 1600x1200, meaning I can run some games in pretty damn "HD", and I've seen the low-res textures and models before anyone complained about 360 ports of Xbox games -- I'm talking about playing Quake3 and Jedi Academy at 1600x1200...
The only thing more "HD" about the 360 is that it's probably about 3x as powerful as my desktop. But that'll change, and I don't have to pay a subscription fee to download demos of indy games. For that matter, how can a game be "indy" if it's published by Microsoft? I'd hardly call them "independent"...
And I don't really want to pay $50 for a 360 game. Know why? Because they will almost certainly be too short/repetitive. UT2004 installed on something like 5 or 10 gigs, and then there were mods -- piles and piles of mods -- and that was nowhere near the level of detail in current "next-gen" or "HD" games, and yet, Microsoft stuck with the DVD format. I don't want to swap discs, and developers know this, so games will probably stay on one disc, meaning either lower detail, shorter games, or much more repitition.
If not, well then, there are good games that are relatively small -- Half-Life 2 is just over a gig -- but in that case, I'll just stick with PC gaming, thank you very much.
I'll wait to buy my 360 until it has a solid Linux port, and I can get a DVI cable to plug it into my monitor. Even then, I might just buy an original xbox -- they're getting cheaper every day.
And for the record, I'm as much of a pixel whore as anyone else, but I don't see enough good "HD" content coming out to pull me away from my very low-definition, high-content MMO. Nexus forever!
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
Given that computer users have been getting near HD-quality & better for a while, it is really only important for the console systems, and as such is naturally a selling point. HD in of itself is not important as is the overall fact that game engines & hardware are improving very quickly, now approaching cinematic quality in certain instances. High resolution art will become more common in-game, not just in prerendered sequences and thus greater time & energy will need to be spend on creating those assets, but this was going to happen without HD, just look at where the Unreal3 engine is heading.
My argument is mainly that this is not a result of HD; HD has just appeared at a time when this is now possible. If we had HD 10 years ago, we would have high resolution displays with low resolution games & art. If we still didnt have HD today, we'd still have pretty nice computer monitors which would take advantage of the high resolution artwork that UE3 and the like is offering. HD just ensures it will be spread into the mainstream even faster through consoles as opposed to computers. Hopefully it will also raise the expectations of game art & assets in general for all games & systems.
"What can a thoughtful man hope for mankind on Earth, given the experience of the past million years? Nothing." -Bokonon
It is, and it will be... but not right now. At the moment, there isn't a large enough installed base of HDTVs in consumers' homes, but in a few years there will be. I'd predict around 2007 is when it will really start to matter, in the U.S. at least. This is assuming we are talking about consoles though, as high resolution graphics have mattered for quite some time in the PC market.
-Derick Eisenhardt, EMH Games
Spell cheek you've failed me four the last thyme!
$1000 for an HDTV and $400 for a console that will let me watch a grown man sweat? Why wouldn't it sell?
of course it is!!! all games looks better is higher res?
-r3m0
...
:)
/rant :)
of course, how fscking obvious??!?? We game mostly in "HD" anyway unless we play on consoles or handhelds. Hell, I am playing nethack in 1280x1024 as we speak
How many pc gamers with a half decent rig play at 720x576 (or local equivalent??), which is the maximum resolution of PAL... no, we play at 1280x1024 on our LCD monitors or 1600x1200 on our massive CRTs with SLI 7800GTX's. It is inevetable that console games will want to improve resolution to match those capable on PC games; they would rather you bought an XBOX 360 and 6 games than SLI 7800GTX!!
Why are we even having this discussion?? even in Australia entry level 1280x1024 27" HD LCD TV's are now below $1000.00 (AUD); most nations will switch of analogue transmissions in the not to distant future...
Ah well, clearly a slow slashdot news day
err!
jak
I've been enjoying HD quality graphics resolutions in PC games for years now. Low-def video is one of the many reasons I have avoided TV-based game consoles (other reasons include non-upgradability, poor controllers for many types of games, harsher platform life-cycle, etc.). I've always wondered what the point is of having a console as powerful as a desktop but only running the graphics output at 320x240 or so (yes, they say 640x480 but look up the NTSC or PAL specs and you'll see that the standard TV is closer to 320x240 regardless of what the hardware in the console is doing)
Arguing about vi versus Emacs is like arguing whether it's better to make fire by rubbing sticks or banging rocks.
I'll say it again for all you techno-utopians: Most people do not buy televisions like you buy computer equipment!
I used up all my sick days, so I'm calling in dead.
Why has everyone in the industry been recently bemoaning how expensive hd games are going to be? PC games have supported the equivelent (4:3) of 720p for years, and 1080p for at least a while. Nobody's complained about that. Why all the furor just because console gaming is finally getting something that PC gamers have had for years?
In the beginning the universe was created. This made a lot of people very angry and is widely considered as a bad move.
Each version sported massivly improved graphics. Wich is all that HD is. Higher resolution.
Check the "resoltion" on your DS. The screen real estate is simply 2x the size!!! as that of what game before.
Oh and you can't afford HD? What are you sitting behind when writing this? Could it be a screen that easily spanks most HD tv's?
If you were still playing on an original Gameboy then you could claim to be a non-hd house. I would just whip out my Game&Watch mario game and call you a graphics freak who doesn't understand about the joy of pure gameplay.
Kids these days don't know how good they got it, why when I was your age we had to BUY a NEW console EVERYTIME we wanted to play a new game. AND The store was uphill both ways! If you wanted a new battery you had to go the other way, uphill AND through the snow. Rechargeable? HA! Spoiled brat.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
HD just means the game wont look so damn blurry on a HDTV. Hell I wish my SNES had a HD output!
HD is important to the future of gaming simply because more games will have to be created with widescreen in mind. Since HD resolutions are natively widescreen, more of the game world is displayed on screen, resulting in a (potentially) more immersive and engaging gaming experience. Of course, the increased resolution and expanded viewing area of HD won't suddenly turn a bad game into a good one.
Personally I'm holding out for 1080p consumer TVs. Looked into 23" computer TFTs to use as monitor and TV set with 1080p capability, but will just wait for it to become more common and cheaper so I can go with a bigger screen.
The jump from SD to 720p just doesn't seem worth it to me, especially as games look nowhere near their counterparts of real life footage. Real life boxing still looks better than Fight Night, RL football still looks better than EA Sports FIFA Soccer, racing coverage better than GT4 and action movies still look a lot better than Halo or Ninja Gaiden in SD to me, so SD doesn't seem to be graphically exhausted to me.
HD? Yes, please - just not now yet.
I don't think HD is the future on its own. Surely as HD adoption happens in the TV market place, HD will become necessary and common to satisfy those consumers. HD however, is rather meanlingless in the bigger picture. Most people don't have HD tv sets right now and aren't going out to purchase them just to play games. HD is going to become a bigger headache than anything for gaming companies in the immediate future. As companies make games, they are going to have to decide how much time to devote to making the game look good and with what resolution. In the last gen, companies focused on getting standard def to look as awsome as possible. This is evident on Resident Evil 4 on the gamecube. Capcom used the system well to get a beautiful looking game out there. If HD would have been a factor, they would most likely spend the time getting HD to be awsome with little concern for the standard def people. HD will be treated as a requirement to the game.
The situation will be similiar to the X-Box 360 hard drive issue. Gamers will be assumed to own the hard drive and games will be made with that assumption. Nintendo revolution is smart in putting off HD for a generation, this will allow all game companies to make games as pretty as possible for the majority of the consumers, not just those fortunate enough (or crazy enough) to be early HD owners...
The real question is if graphics are all you're bringing to the table, will better graphics make my games more fun?
People who think they know everything really piss off those of us that actually do.
Personally, I agree that they wont be in even half the houses by 2007, but I do think there is a good chance that most hard-core, and many 'normal' gamers will have access to HD by XMas 2007. By then, the market will be big enough to support HD games (e.g. games that take advantage of HD and are geared for hard-core gamers).
This assumes that HD TV continue to go down in price, and more HD content (TV, HD-DVD, Games) becomes available.
Spell cheek you've failed me four the last thyme!
in Morrowind, I turned up resolution when I was low level so I could avoid the flying bird monsters (they're a nightmare to kill if you don't have a good ranged attack untill you're pretty high level). I was able to see them clearly from a distance because I played in 1024x768. With tv resolutions they'd be indistinguishable green dots on you before you realized it (they draw a bead on you when they get close).
When I used to play Shadow Warrior on a lan playing in 640x480 gave me a huge edge, I could see players across the whole level and nail them with a rail gun while they ran around.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Because they also sell HD TVs, and, will sell you again all those movies you purchased on DVD, on the new Blu Ray.
Although it's nice to have a lot of resolution I'd much rather play in 480p than 1080i. Getting rid of interlacing really is the major benefit you'd get. It isn't very noticeable on TV compared to gaming due to naturally occuring anti-aliasing.
However going from 480i to 480p is an incredible improvement for games. Of course 720p would be even better and if you can handle 1080p (my TV does not) that would kick ass if the performance was good.
As for it being needed, I don't think it's a determing factor for this console generation. Also although I have a HDTV capable TV, I have never actually used it. If I were to get HDTV from Comcast, I couldn't use my TIVO. If there was an affordable HD-DVD system with sufficient content (may the best format win) I would definitely use that though.
I think you've missed the part where new SDTVs are going to be gone very soon due to legislation.
No, you've just misunderstood the legislation. The law only says that broadcasters have to switch over to digital signals (ATSC), and new TVs will need to be equipped with ATSC tuners. They need not be capable of HD resolutions. Face it, SDTV will be with us for at least another decade, and quite possibly longer.
I used up all my sick days, so I'm calling in dead.
1) Television usage has plummeted. Advertising dollars are slowly moving toward the Internet. Due to competing medias, people are watching less and less TV. Those who think HD is to the TV what Color TV was to Black TV do not get this. For many people, there is NO REASON to go re-buy their TV.
/ index.jhtml?headlines=true) To those who say, "development prices don't go up with HD", Cliffy B says the opposite. Nintendo says the opposite. Look at the prices for Xbox 360 games at $60 and you can see which direction this is headed. Even Electronic Arts has complained about the higher development costs. This means that all we can expect from HD games is LESS RISK. Since the market for HD games is much lower than normal TV games, they must either sell more games or price them higher.
2) Xbox 360 and PS3 are the very first consoles (that I know of) that are requiring the consumer to CHANGE their TV to get the most out of the console. No console has ever done this. This means many people will not think it worth buying a Xbox 360 or PS3 if they don't have HD TV. And face the facts: not too many people do.
3) HD increases development costs. From Gears of War developer, Cliffy B, said, "What other entertainment medium that's mass market is at $60 a pop?" said Cliff Bleszinski, lead designer at developer Epic's 360 title "Gears of War," due next year. "If video game pricing continues to go up, we will crash." http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1515122/20051128
4) Americans are obsessed with upgrading their televisions (they also have more money to do it). With the exception of perhaps a few other western nations, HD television is not catching on ANYWHERE in the world soon. While the American Market is very important to the games industry, we live in a global age. A console must work globally, not just in the American Market like the Xbox primarily has done.
5) The integration of 3d helped immersion. Rumble feedback helped immersion. Surround sound helped immersion. But how in the world does HD help immersion? While prettier pictures helped a LOT back in the 80s and during the adaptation of 3d, this was due to the console game industry being young (in the 80s) and adapting to 3d (in the 90s). Simpler a prettier image does not make the game more immersive but rather, less. This is why movies like Toy Story did not show the Humans in computerized graphics. It is the Uncanny Valley problem.
There is only ONE purpose of the HD console: that is to be 'technologically' elite with your HD TV. The problem is that video game console is based on bringing cheap entertainment to the masses. You get rich by selling to the poor, you get poor selling to the rich. This is why HD gaming is not important and, and why it will not catch on (at least this new generation).
The original PC had 640x200 graphics, with some unusual modes that provided for more colors at yet lower resolutions. The jump to EGA(640x350) and even 640x480 were minor because initially these resolutions didn't add more color depth. It took until SVGA to give us a taste of the good quality graphics we have today on the PC.
Now, on the PC it's fairly common to have people running in 1280x1024 mode. 1600x1200 resolution is possible for most people, but due to screen size and limited UI scaling in applications, it's difficult for those who use the UI to run at 1600x1200 on a 19 inch screen because the on-screen controls become too small in many cases.
In comparison to normal TV, 1024x768 is high definition. It may not be the same thing as "HD" since HD in this case refers to a television display, but it's up there. 1600x1200 of course would seem like ultra high definition in comparison then.
So, for consoles, the big thing is that they now are pushing into higher resolutions than they had access to before. PC games have had this level for ages now. It's just that consoles are finally starting to show up. If we compare Oblivion for the PC and for the Xbox 360, I'm sure the PC version will still look quite a bit better, even if there may be some bugs on some machines due to hardware differences between machines that you don't see on a console.
But, think about this, a game with poor gameplay won't be improved just by the move to higher resolutions. A boring game wil still be boring. A game may have amazing cinematic effects and scenery, and cut scenes, but just moving to a higher resolution won't make a bad game good.
The reason these industry experts push crap like high-definition as the FUTURE of gaming is because its something quantifiable. To the average ignorant consumer, if you can impress them with the flashy graphics they'll perceive that as a mark of progress.
Truly innovative gameplay, however, is less quantifiable. It isn't necessarily something you can immediately identify, especially if you've been trained to believe that flashy graphics are the epitomy of innovation. The second risk here is that the consumer isn't necessarily going to like your brand of gameplay, regardless of how innovative it is.
This idea that improved graphics will somehow spur innovation and enable new forms of gameplay is nothing but marketing crap. I'd argue that the Atari 2600 fostered far more creativity than any gaming platform out there today. A developer really had to stretch his imagination to turn a bunch of blocks into some kind of cohesive and entertaining gameplay. Some of those early developers were more innovative and creative than a legion of developers today.
Recreating realism in the form of a game shows the progress hardware has made. On the other hand, it shows a complete lack of imagination on the part of the developer who can't do anything other than copy what was seen in a photograph, and that's not taking into account how badly developers rip off each others' ideas.
That the average person has no concept of HD, and most of those that own HD sets have composite cables hooked up to it thinking they are in HD. The official date for the switch to HD has again been pushed back to 2009 due to the economy and that is a long way off with a lot of uncertainty in between then and now that could further change it.
/.'ers are into technology and understand it and utilize it, but most regular folks do not. HD in games is still in its infancy, hell, HD itself isn't even really out of diapers yet.
HD is nice, it isn't like OMFGWTFASIANHOOKER!!!11!1, just a nice upgrade in visuals. Most of us
People keep trumpeting HD this, and HD that, but the American public hasn't even begun to care let alone adopt it. It is the future of gaming for sure, but it is still quite a way off in that future before it is a reality in homes across the U.S. Just like the PS3 claiming 120FPS and 1080p on TWO outputs... umm, yeah that soooo extreme! Especially since no TV (HD or not) can reproduce 120FPS, nor can your eye see them, and the damn PS2 only has a single output even capable of outputting 1080p and even it is not capable of outputting the claims made by Sony.
People fall for this crap time after time, when will we learn. History FTW!
http://teasphere.wordpress.com - A little spot of tea
yes, but youre also missing the larger point. your average joe blow in hicktown, usa doesnt know what any of that means. he knows that his old tv doesnt work anymore or is about to be obsolete, so he gets in his pickup truck and goes to walmart and asks the saleman what to do. obviously, walmart salemen know EVERYTHING about tvs and will give them the best advice!!!!
do you think said salesman is going to say... "hey, buy this cheap converter that is partially subsidized by the govt"? do you think hes going to say... "this tv is just like yours in terms of quality and price, except it works and yours doesnt"? or is he going to say... "this is the biggest and best. buy the new uber super widescreen flat lcd 1080p HDCP HDMI HDTV with builtin toaster oven and a handy builtin cabinet for your shotgun collection"?
most people dont understand the mid-ground. they dont want to figure out how to hook up new boxes... they dont want to read a manual [isnt there a significant portion of illiterate americans still?!?!?!] they just want it to work. to that end many will gladly buy a new tv instead of spending the four minutes to RTFM or google up some research on how to make the old one work... i mean its the american way!
Comment summation:
Nintendo. Nintendo. Nintendo. Only Nintendo makes fun games. Nintendo. Nintendo. Nintendo. Nintendo is the greatest. Nintendo. Nintendo. Nintendo. Mature games are for immature people. Nintendo. Nintendo. Nintendo.