david.dakota Posted March 4, 2007 Share Posted March 4, 2007 Like it or lump it, Wii is no HD machine. Sony and Microsoft are making a big deal of HD "its the future of gaming", "you've not seen anything like it" and other snippets are all well and good for marketing their gaming beasts. But are we being encouraged to jump ship too early? Take a look at your DVD collection for a moment. Standard definition DVDs utilise each and every pixel on your standard definition TV - using your TV to the max. Now, take a CGI animation (Shrek, Monsters Inc, Final Fantasy: Spirits Within) and compare the image with current Wii Games, heck, even XBox 360 (and PS3) games and you'll notice that there is still massive improvements to be made in standard defintion. The processing power needed to create a full 3D gaming world looking as solid as Monsters Inc would be huge, but surely we know that its acheivable. A lot of processing power in the 360 and PS3 is being dedicated to delivering increased resolution for HD, a waste considering there is still more improvements in SD. I'm not trying to slate any machine, rather insisting that HD gaming is not the be all and end all. What are your thoughts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jasper Posted March 4, 2007 Share Posted March 4, 2007 Our thoughts? Again? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcj metroid Posted March 4, 2007 Share Posted March 4, 2007 oh help not again please. This can't be happening! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pedrocasilva Posted March 4, 2007 Share Posted March 4, 2007 I don't think it's necessary, and to be honest I don't care... if I cared I wouldn't have played consoles this generation since PC was already in HD all along. It's just the base selling point and biggest improvement on Sony and Microsoft consoles since last gen so they want to make it a trend. As for it being the "wrong way" well... I don't think of it like that, but it's certainly one of the paths you can take, not the only one. No doubt Nintendo will go there too. Films like are still pretty far away because they aren't even rendered in real time to begin with... they are often done through raycasting, in super computers and don't even use normal polygons in them, they use NURB's instead, also a lot of times detail is local, they actually do a lot of slightly diferent faces and use them, when you see a close-up with the chraracter talking they are only rendering it, so it's really rendered to the detail of that scene and nothing more, a game is bound to be more interactive than that. I think it's pretty feasible to come pretty close to a CG filme on a console today, even if by other means, but it's not about the power, it's about development time and budget. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caris Posted March 4, 2007 Share Posted March 4, 2007 Yes, Wii looks shit on HDTV's and it shouldnt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jordan Posted March 4, 2007 Share Posted March 4, 2007 Thats because 480p is shit... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4q2 Posted March 5, 2007 Share Posted March 5, 2007 The HD+Gaming thing is blown out of proportion imho, there are still boundaries to be broken with standard definition yet as you state....Sure, you have better clarity and sharper images, but what is the real point if graphics devs cannot truly imitate real life in standard definition ? I have yet to see a human gaming character look truly human. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blender Posted March 5, 2007 Share Posted March 5, 2007 Yes wii is rubbish. Need HD... especially for internet browsing and stuff like that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jordan Posted March 5, 2007 Share Posted March 5, 2007 The HD+Gaming thing is blown out of proportion imho, there are still boundaries to be broken with standard definition yet as you state....Sure, you have better clarity and sharper images, but what is the real point if graphics devs cannot truly imitate real life in standard definition ? I have yet to see a human gaming character look truly human. Watch the trailer for a tech demo called Heavy Rain, my god that looks... so true to life its scary. http://www.gametrailers.com/gamepage.php?fs=1&id=2717 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fierce_LiNk Posted March 5, 2007 Share Posted March 5, 2007 I still don't see why everything to be realistic. Is that really what we're aiming for in terms of graphics? If that's the case, Nintendo may as well shut up shop and go home. I still don't think we ever saw the best of the Gamecube. We probably never will, nor will we ever see the absolute best of the Wii, Xbox360 or the PS3. As soon as developers finally get to grips with how to push a system, a new generation comes around and the whole process starts again. An absolute waste of fucking time. Whatever happened to the days of the NES where we could have a console for longer than 4 or 5 years? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hellfire Posted March 5, 2007 Share Posted March 5, 2007 Yes, Wii looks shit on HDTV's and it shouldnt. I've played Wii on 4 different HDtvs with and without component and it looks great either way. If it looks like shit in some tvs its because they have shitty upscaling chips. On the other hand, 360 games on sdtvs look pretty normal, the graphics dont seem that good and in some games the text is illegible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cube Posted March 5, 2007 Share Posted March 5, 2007 I've played Wii on 4 different HDtvs with and without component and it looks great either way. If it looks like shit in some tvs its because they have shitty upscaling chips. Mine works wonderfully on my step-dads HDTV and HD Projector. But, Sony and Microsoft are right about one thing: HD is the future of gaming. Theres just the problem that that future isn't for at least a few more years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4q2 Posted March 5, 2007 Share Posted March 5, 2007 Watch the trailer for a tech demo called Heavy Rain, my god that looks... so true to life its scary. http://www.gametrailers.com/gamepage.php?fs=1&id=2717 Looks quite impressive...great stuff.:awesome: The point I was getting at is there are plenty of things that are not mastered graphically that allow me to view a game character as a real human, to watch a tech demo and think it was a TV program or live action is the pinnacle that needs to be reached...At the end of the day that is what most of this technology claims to allow for. I have to agree with everything that Fierce is saying though. Technology is never pushed to its true limit, and the reason is its easier to just wait for the next technology to come along. RE4 looked good, and I dont think even that was pushing the cube to its true potential. The problem with constantly moving technology like it is atm is it doesnt allow for familiarity and mastery of the systems. PRoducing real life in a game isnt the be all and end all either....The previous Gen were capable of producing games based on cartoons, but that wasnt pushed all the way either but enough potential was shown with games like Wind Waker for instance. The sooner we hit a technology 'wall', the better imho (Something I have been praying for over the last few years). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cube Posted March 5, 2007 Share Posted March 5, 2007 Looks quite impressive...great stuff.:awesome:The point I was getting at is there are plenty of things that are not mastered graphically that allow me to view a game character as a real human, to watch a tech demo and think it was a TV program or live action is the pinnacle that needs to be reached...At the end of the day that is what most of this technology claims to allow for. Theres one big problem I have with "realistic" graphics. The animation looks far from realistic. With games that don't attempt a photorelistic, you don't notice unrealistic animation because you don't expect it. In games like MGS4 and that Heavy Rain tech demo, I just think that the animation sticks out as bad animation, and makes the game look awful in motion (which is the opposite to most other games). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Bard Posted March 5, 2007 Share Posted March 5, 2007 I actually thought that the animation was particularly good in that Heavy Rain demo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4q2 Posted March 5, 2007 Share Posted March 5, 2007 Theres one big problem I have with "realistic" graphics. The animation looks far from realistic. With games that don't attempt a photorelistic, you don't notice unrealistic animation because you don't expect it. In games like MGS4 and that Heavy Rain tech demo, I just think that the animation sticks out as bad animation, and makes the game look awful in motion (which is the opposite to most other games). I dunno, could be a subjective thing.....I just watched the animation with the girl entering the room and being sat in front of the camera, and the motion seemed spot on, but the skin texture and lighting failed it as soon as the camera focussed. The closest I ever came to believing a computer animation was 'real' in recent times was the first part in Animatrix, but as soon as the skin came into view i detail it was shattered....No-one has skin and toning that clinically perfect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcj metroid Posted March 5, 2007 Share Posted March 5, 2007 ok hd where to start again... nintendo are right nobody needs it right now. Too expensive etc. it doesn't make a MAJOR difference and i don't care what videos you show me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ManiLink Posted March 5, 2007 Share Posted March 5, 2007 Its the uncanny valley thing again though - In that clip that woman looks realistic, but no matter how hard they push the animation she still won't seem right...You see the way I see it is that the more realistic a game becomes the more fault I see in the actions and behaviours of that character and world. In games that go the other way, and mark out a defined artisitc style (Okami, Windwaker, Killer 7) its not an issue. Therefore when something like an enemies arm goes through a wall in goldeneye, Links hat somehow passes through him in zelda TP or a window doesent smash no matter how much you Shoot it in Half life - The user is pulled out of the experience and reminded that they are playing a videogame. I have a HD TV and I think its going to be part of the future of videogames - but Isnt HD really just as way for us to have higher resolution images on a larger screen? Its just an evolution on the realisation that people want bigger sets and sick set ups then ever before. I also love the fact that my PC, Wii and PS2 are all hooked up to my Samsung HDTV :P - All in one package. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Bananagrabber Posted March 5, 2007 Share Posted March 5, 2007 nintendo are right nobody needs it right now. Wrong. Too expensive etc. Wrong. it doesn't make a MAJOR difference Wrong and i don't care what videos you show me. That's a shame. You'll always be wrong if you refuse to listen to anyone else Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ManiLink Posted March 5, 2007 Share Posted March 5, 2007 Haha that last post was genius....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
c0Zm1c Posted March 5, 2007 Share Posted March 5, 2007 I'd have liked the Wii to support HD, and I doubt it would have increased the cost of the machine that much either. The original Xbox - a five-year old machine - had HD, in the US at least, so I don't see why the Wii couldn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
system_error Posted March 5, 2007 Share Posted March 5, 2007 I don't need a HD enabled console for my living room because I don't own a HD TV yet - it is different compared to a computer screen. BUT extra horsepower for a console is never wrong. Wether it is for more detailed geometry, antialiasing, physic effects, AI, ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZeldaFreak Posted March 5, 2007 Share Posted March 5, 2007 Just a little thing pixar movies etc that you posted about is really just graphics programming and then it gets converted into a .avi file, unlike games. And yes I would rather see my games glorious looking like shrek than a n64 port. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fierce_LiNk Posted March 5, 2007 Share Posted March 5, 2007 Just a little thing pixar movies etc that you posted about is really just graphics programming and then it gets converted into a .avi file, unlike games. And yes I would rather see my games glorious looking like shrek than a n64 port. Yeah, but Shrek has quite a unique graphical style, which is probably why others love it so much. (and humour) Found it funny you said something like Shrek instead of something more realistic. Also, Perfect Dark was an N64 game, Superman 64 was an N64 game, Ocarina of Time was an N64 game, as was Carmageddon 64. Quite a mix there, good and bad. From the sublime to the awful. You'd be a fool if you didn't think there were any great N64 games graphically. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jasper Posted March 5, 2007 Share Posted March 5, 2007 I'd have liked the Wii to support HD, and I doubt it would have increased the cost of the machine that much either. The original Xbox - a five-year old machine - had HD, in the US at least, so I don't see why the Wii couldn't. GameCube had HD support, too, it just wasn't used. It's not on the later models anymore - but if you have an early one you might have noticed the 'digital out' - that's High Definition. But neither the Xbox nor the GameCube could spur out 720p or 1080p - don't even remotely think so. There's a significant reason why the 'HD'-consoles are so expensive. But I have to stick with Nitnendo on this one - HD is not necessary right now. it's necessary in three years from now, but not at the moment. We can live without. When everybody has an HD-tv, then it's a bright move to do it, and then they can do it much cheaper than their competitors because of cheaped up production. Now let's quit talking about this. It's starting to get annoying to read all the threads on graphics all over again with no valuable arguments given anymore. Nintendo won't change this one and apparantly they've got the right end of the stick - that's what sales prove right now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts