Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Is HD Important To The Future of Gaming?

Posted by Zonk on from the it-sure-looks-nice dept.

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 "

8 of 77 comments (clear)

  1. Not in my house by nb+caffeine · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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
    1. Re:Not in my house by BenjyD · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yeah, because 6 games are nowhere near as much fun as a minor improvement in graphical quality.

  2. Yep, right on the nose. by Palshife · · Score: 5, Funny

    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!
  3. It looks better... by Threni · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ... 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.

  4. The Future Of Gaming by BigDork1001 · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Far more important to the future of gaming than HD is innovation. Something seriously lacking today. While Nintendo has done some good with DS and possibly the Revolution, Nintendo is just one company. There are many more out there, many of them putting out sequel after sequel after movie licensed game after updated sports roster after clone of some other company's game.

    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
  5. In my eyes, no. by NanoGator · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "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."
  6. If I could, I'd mod up this quote from the article by PhoenixOne · · Score: 3, Informative

    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!
  7. Re:well by Karma+Farmer · · Score: 3, Interesting

    some estimates say that as many as 50% of HD TV owners are not using them for HD...

    I'm pretty sure that 50% of HD TV owners report they're not using them for HD. I would be a small fortune that another 30% aren't using them for HD, but report that they are.

    For example, in the last Slashdot article about this very subject a disturbingly large number of Slashdot posters reported that they receive and HD signal only when they watched DVDs. In other words, a large number of Slashdotters would report that they're using their television for HD, but would be wrong.