Support NeoGAF

[xexex]

HD graphics. Will Revolution be better off without them?


High-Def: 360 and Revolution

Perhaps hi-def visuals aren't really such a HUGE deal after all, eh Matt? I read in the NFS:MW review for X360 that the game didn't look as dramatically improved as expected when run in 1080i or 720p. So perhaps if Revolution has good anti-aliasing capability, and can push a sufficient amount of geometry, high quality textures, lighting effects, etc. at a good framerate, it'll be enough to take techie's minds off the lack of HD support, as I'm sure Perrin Kaplan desires. What are your thoughts on this? Of course, HD support wouldn't hurt, but I'd rather have a smooth-running, graphically impressive 480p game than a hi-res 1080i one with choppy or subpar actual graphics.

some IGN guy responds: This is a good question and a topic I've been meaning to address, especially now that I've had some time with Xbox 360 and its games. Before I go into it, though, first let me give you a little history. I picked up an Xbox 360 the night before it launched and have delved deeply into about 10 of the initial games, including everything from King Kong, Madden and Need for Speed to PGR, Kameo, Call of Duty 2 and Condemned. I've got everything running in 720p on a high-end 50" Panasonic plasma. I expect that I've put a fair amount of time into each game -- admittedly some more than others. I keep trying to get into Kameo, but damn it, I just can't. Meanwhile, I'm just about done with the single-player career mode in PGR and I'm a good chunk into Condemned.

Random shot of my plasma set up while playing Burnout Revenge on Xbox

There's really no point in beating around the bush: there is a clear, significant difference in both detail and clarity when the games are running in high-definition. This is not something that can be shrugged off as either marginal or inconsequential. It's just not. The added definition gained in higher resolutions is substantial and if you've got a television that can display HD content, you're really going to find yourself oohing and aahing at some of these 360 games in motion. I have been particularly impressed with PGR and Condemned in motion. PGR because it has sacrificed nothing in the jump to HD; the cars look outstanding, the race locations are visually unsurpassed, I've never seen a slicker in-car driving view, the sheer number of polygons being pushed (cars and huge city backdrops included) is mind boggling and it runs with a very smooth framerate. I normally hate racing with the in-car view. However, with PGR I simply refuse to race any other way because it's so well put together and in turn immersive. Condemned, meanwhile, is a convincingly atmospheric and eerie first-person title that oozes mood and looks fabulous.

I think there's a common misconception that because 360 and PS3 games run in HD that all resources are immediately evaporated. It's not true. These machines are designed with higher resolutions in mind and as PGR proves, gamers can get the added definition plus texture, lighting and particle effects without throwing framerates out the window. That's not to say that all developers will be able to pull it off, but neither have they been able to do so this generation. Need for Speed Most Wanted has a sluggish framerate on 360. But guess what? It runs worse on GameCube.

Some believe that because Revolution doesn't need to worry itself with the delivery of HD, it can instead output greater numbers of polygons, more fluid animations, more detailed lighting effects, and so on. That is true, to a certain extent. But to say that this somehow evens the graphical battlefield is flat out wrong. Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3 have more graphic horsepower than Revolution -- significantly more, according to some developer reports. Bearing that in mind, you're not likely to get Revolution games with graphics way better than the competitors minus high-definition textures. Instead, I think you're going to find that 360 and PS3 games do everything that Revolution ones do on a graphic level, except they also run in HD. So if you've got an HD setup at home, this puts Revolution at a noticeable disadvantage where visuals are concerned.

If you don't have an HD set, none of this is going to matter much. A funny story. When we first got our 360s in the office, we hooked one up to an HD LCD and started to play Condemned. We ran through about five minutes of the game and none of us were blown away by the graphics. A couple of us even said, you know, maybe Nintendo really is onto something -- these visuals don't seem to be that great of a leap over the last generation. Then, we figured out that we had forgotten to flip 360's video switch to HD out. We had been running everything in standard definition. People who pick up a 360 and play everything on a regular TV will absolutely not be as impressed as those who play their games in HD. It's a night and day difference. Incidentally, when we flipped the switch to HD out and rebooted the game, we were immediately taken aback at how crisp and clean the graphics were.

Revolution is the source of a really odd dichotomy for me. People can try to defend Nintendo's decision to cut HD until they're collectively blue in the face. I hear it all. Nobody has an HD television. They're too expensive. HD won't be a standard for a couple years. It goes on. The Big N's decision to stick with carts over CDs during the N64 era remains its biggest mistake, in my book. But its refusal to make Revolution an HD-ready console during an era when analog TVs are slowly being phased out comes in at a very close second. This shows an unparalleled lack of foresight and it's a decision that I think will ultimately come back and bite the company in the ass -- deservedly so.

And amazingly, in the very same breath I can honestly say with unflinching conviction that I am more excited about Revolution than I am PlayStation 3 or Xbox 360. The potential of the controller is practically limitless and it has me more hyped than any advancement in video resolution ever could. Which is saying something, really, since I'm a self-advertised graphics whore.

I know Revolution games are going to play like nothing else out there and I'm convinced that the controller is going to make some titles on other consoles feel positively dated. Watch it happen. If the peripheral delivers on its potential, once you play an FPS with the Revolution controller, going back and playing Halo 2 is going to feel like a stupid exercise in clunky design. On the same token, I know Metroid Prime 3 is going to look fantastic, even if it's only running in progressive-scan. But I'm not going to lie, either: I will always wonder how much better such a game might have looked were it running in high-definition, too.

http://cube.ign.com/mail/

 

[HomerSimpson-Man]

High def no high def games like MGS4 and Gears of Wars have shown even in nonHD videos it's a high difference from this gen.

 

[GitarooMan]

On the same token, I know Metroid Prime 3 is going to look fantastic, even if it's only running in progressive-scan. But I'm not going to lie, either: I will always wonder how much better such a game might have looked were it running in high-definition, too.

This is pretty much how I feel. Lack of HD isn't a deal-breaker, but after playing some hi-def stuff now with X360, I think it's going to be a bit of disappointment and a lot of what-if. I agree it lacks foresight and is a pretty sizable mistake, but won't kill the system.

 

[John Harker]

I can buy all that and swallow it easy enough.

With that said.... awww, lets not fight.

 

[emomoonbase]

I figure a good game is gonna be a good game, whatever screen it's on. I'd prefer the best I can get, but I won't avoid something just because it isn't HD.

 

[OG_Original Gamer]

I have the same fears as Matt.

Its N64 with optical media.

 

[Mifune]

I just think that, as more and more HD sets enter people's homes, the Revolution is going to look more and more outdated graphically. Normally a system looks better as a generation wears on, but I think Rev might be the opposite.

 

[Monk]

No its not. Optical media really limited devs and what they could fit inside games.

most a n64 game held = 64 MB
most a psx game held =~ 2.5 GB

That like 40 times more space.

It is really not the same thing.

 

[emomoonbase]

If a big part of the Rev is the avaliability of the old games is HD really gonna make LttP and such look better? Maybe that was part of their thinking. It might also be that they want to undercut everyone on price and this was a concession they had to make?

 

[Monk]

Normally a system looks better as a generation wears on, but I think Rev might be the opposite.

That is a bit of a stretch. Even upscaled from 480p it won't look that bad, to this day I still love chrono trigger and it still looks good imo and that was much less than 480p.

 

[Amir0x]

Do we really need another thread discussing whether Rev is "better off" without HD?

No, they're not. They should have it. Pretty simple. They don't, oh well, moving on. The fact that this is from Matt only makes this discussion start worse.

 

[Nerevar]

meh, I think Nintendo has decided that would rather be everyone's "second" console rather than fighting Sony and MS for the first. Potentially, the market for that is even bigger, especially if they can ifferentiate themselves enough (and by the controller, they will have).

 

[shuri]

I have no idea why people think that FPS using the remote will be an experience completly different than playing House of the Dead.

It won't change a thing

 

[Gio_CoD]

I have no idea why people think that FPS using the remote will be an experience completly different than playing House of the Dead.

It won't change a thing

Possibly because House of the Dead was on rails?

 

[Monk]

Do we really need another thread discussing whether Rev is "better off" without HD?

No, they're not. They should have it. Pretty simple. They don't, oh well, moving on. The fact that this is from Matt only makes this discussion start worse.

Why? You are saying that as if HD penetraition will affect most people this gen.

 

[xexex]

I have no idea why people think that FPS using the remote will be an experience completly different than playing House of the Dead.

It won't change a thing

that's being awful closed-minded, don't you think?

 

[Myoclonic Jerk]

Progressive Scan is different than HD??

 

[xexex]

Progressive Scan is different than HD??

480 progressive scan (480p) is standard definition, not HD.

HD is 720p or 1080i or 1080p

 

[vantastic]

ah yes, another "revolution doesn't need hd" thread

 

[Amir0x]

Why? You are saying that as if HD penetraition will affect most people this gen.

Because, as a gamer, games in HD will look better. That simple. End of discussion. We've had this discussion before, so please don't go into retard mode as you normally do. You already made a thread before about how you're fucking blind as a god-damned bat and can hardly tell the difference, and how you don't think penetration is gonna be such to effect anything.

You're blind, right? Penetration will be such that it will become important by mid next-gen, and it's bad for Nintendo not to do it. Nothing left to discuss. You can go back in circles about the benefits of fucking wagging a wand around, but at the end of the day - from a purely visual perspective - Revolution is inferior simply because it's not HD. And that's all that matters in this conversation. If it's not GOOD for Amir0x, the gamer, then it's bad.

 

[Myoclonic Jerk]

480 progressive scan (480p) is standard definition, not HD.

HD is 720p or 1080i or 1080p

Thanks... so REV will have 480p??

 

[Ryudo]

The revolution wont be better off without HD, but i see no reason why not having HD would render the console useless. Resolution is important, but so are textures and effects.

BTW: How does the rev controller work ? is it like the light guns ? How does having an lcd or plasma effect it ?

 

[PhoenixDark]

No its not. Optical media really limited devs and what they could fit inside games.

most a n64 game held = 64 MB
most a psx game held =~ 2.5 GB

That like 40 times more space.

It is really not the same thing.

That is a very good point. The lack of disks hurt the N64 in developers eyes because of storage issues. Nintendo's stubburness on the issue was amazing.

With HD, you aren't looking at something that could effect gameplay or how games are created. The lack of HD is going to hurt Nintendo in terms perception. From a perception perspective, the lack of disks hurted Nintendo too. But, it also greatly limited developers. Herein lies the difference: I don't think anyone believe the lack of HD will limit developers.

Nintendo is losing mindshare on this issue, and they stand to lose even more in 2-3 years when HD becomes more mainstream and customers expect it.

 

[Amir0x]

The revolution wont be better off without HD, but i see no reason why not having HD would render the console useless. Resolution is important, but so are textures and effects.

BTW: How does the rev controller work ? is it like the light guns ? How does having an lcd or plasma effect it ?

The interesting thing is that visuals are probably the least compelling aspect of everything we know about Rev. I just wanna see how games are gonna be controlled by the wand, but every day we get a new thread about how Rev will/will not benefit from not having HD.

Anyway, it's not a light gun. It has two sensors that you place near your tv, and it apparently calculates trajectory and angle and movement and stuff. I'm not entirely clear on the specifics, but it's far more advanced than a mere light gun. This is true movement in 3D.

 

[VALIS]

Do we really need another thread discussing whether Rev is "better off" without HD?

No, they're not. They should have it. Pretty simple. They don't, oh well, moving on. The fact that this is from Matt only makes this discussion start worse.

QFT, as they say.

Hey, I'm buying a Rev when it comes out, but if people are gonna tell me not having HD is no big deal, please, peddle your papers somewhere else. That's absurd. Could be plenty good without it, would have been better with it.

 

[Ryudo]

The interesting thing is that visuals are probably the least compelling aspect of everything we know about Rev. I just wanna see how games are gonna be controlled by the wand, but every day we get a new thread about how Rev will/will not benefit from not having HD.

Anyway, it's not a light gun. It has two sensors that you place near your tv, and it apparently calculates trajectory and angle and movement and stuff. I'm not entirely clear on the specifics, but it's far more advanced than a mere light gun. This is true movement in 3D.

Thats cool, light guns had all sorts of problems, even on flat screen crt's. Thanks for you help.

 

[Scrow]

No its not. Optical media really limited devs and what they could fit inside games.

most a n64 game held = 64 MB
most a psx game held =~ 2.5 GB

That like 40 times more space.

It is really not the same thing.

CDs can hold 2.5GB? WOW!

-_-;

 

[Ryudo]

CDs can hold 2.5GB? WOW!

-_-;

If you stick them together !

 

[Monk]

Amirox, you need to relax . But the world doesn't revolve around you

Penetration will be such that it will become important by mid next-gen

There’s no doubt that the market for HDTV sets continues to grow, but it’s difficult to gain a consensus on just how many homes will house HD sets by the end of the decade.

Data released last week by Leichtman Research Group Inc. and Kagan Research LLC said that with dropping prices and the availability of more enhanced format content, more than one in two households will own HDTV sets by the end of 2010.

Leichtman projected that 55% of U.S. households will have at least one HD-capable set by that point, while Kagan was more bullish, estimating an 82% penetration rate.

"At the end of 2004, there were 11 million HD households, each owning an average of 1.2 HD sets,” Kagan Research associate Patrick Johnson said in a prepared statement. ”We project that the average price of an HD set will decline some 38% by 2010, reducing the average price to $1,139. Rapid price declines, coupled with increasing levels of HD programming, will drive the number of HD households to nearly 97 million in 2010, penetrating more than 82% of total TV households.”

Somewhere in between are data compiled by JupiterResearch, which last month forecast that 63% of U.S. homes would have HDTV sets by decade’s end.

Elsewhere in its “The State of High Definition Television 2006” report, Kagan estimated that 9.1 million HD sets will be sold to consumers this year, compared with 3.4 million and 5.6 million bought in 2003 and 2004, respectively.

Kagan also found that the number of cable HD subscribers grew from 675,000 in 2003 to 2.3 million in 2004. That total is expected to grow to 3.8 million at the conclusion of the current year and to surpass the 30 million mark in 2010.

Leichtman’s “HDTV: Awareness, Interest and Intent to Purchase 2005” study was based on a survey of 1,300 households throughout the United States, and the company said the number of households with HDTV-capable sets rose 7% in the third quarter of 2004 and 12% at the end of this year’s third quarter.

Nielsen Media Research pegged the number of U.S. TV households for the 2005-06 season at 110.2 million.

Other Leichtman findings included:

• 89% of adults nationwide have heard of the format;

• Consumers reported spending an average of $1,600 for HDTV sets over the past year, down from $2,400 over a year ago; and

• 11% of non-HDTV owners expressed some interest in purchasing the equipment if it cost $1,000.

http://www.multichannel.com/article/CA6283333.html?display=Breaking+News

And that is just in the US. In Europe it would be worse. And that is without taking into account the number of gamers using a secondary tv for their gaming needs. For me personally HD for gaming is only good if it comes without any cost to the sdtv user.

CDs can hold 2.5GB? WOW!

-_-;

FF8 had 4 cds.

 

[Vieo]

The way I see it, either one of these two things is true:


1. It's pretty obvious Revo is supposed to be a budget/cheap/affordable/economically-efficient home game console. The small form factor, it's lack of HD, and the rumors of it being a notch above GCN all point to such. If this is the case, HD really wouldn't benefit the console as it wouldn't have adequate hardware to take advantage of it.

2. The 3D rumors about the console are true. Some how games are displayed in such a way that HD isn't even part of the picture any more.

 

[Amir0x]

Amirox, you need to relax . But the world doesn't revolve around you

Actually, I assure you, the world does revolve around me. Surely I'm not seeing the inferior visuals through YOUR eyes, am I? Regardless, it doesn't matter. Objectively speaking, no HD is bad. There's no possible debate for it otherwise. People TRY to make it into one in a hundred threads, but it's a dead end conversation.

From a visual perspective, no HD is worse. It's as simple as it can get. So as a gamer, you're getting less. Even if you don't currently own a HD set, one day you will. And then when you pop in your Rev games, they're still going to look inferior. Except without hi-resolution as well. This is all we're discussing, and that's all that matters. You can choose to be blind and bullshit about how you can hardly tell the difference, but...

Leichtman projected that 55% of U.S. households will have at least one HD-capable set by that point, while Kagan was more bullish, estimating an 82% penetration rate.

55% of households by 2010 in the US is an astonishingly big number. And Nintendo isn't going to be apart of that, and they're going to have an entire generation of games that look noteably inferior due to this.

And for Amir0x, the gamer, and MILLIONS of others - it's a mistake. Objectively, it's a mistake.

But what can we do? We've had this discussion before. It goes in circles, you bullshit, others bullshit, even I bullshit... and we arrive at the same benchmark. Revolution is about the wand, and we haven't even seen games yet. So who cares that the visuals are going to be inferior? I do. Is it going to make Rev worthless? No. Rev has a far more important aspect to contemplate. Is it bad Nintendo didn't do it? Absolutely, without any doubt, yes.

 

[Doc Holliday]

But Nintendo paid ATI lots of MONEY!

It doesn't matter, people are convnced that the Rev is gamecube 1.5...only thing that can change that is actual game screenshots/movies. You can have iwata himself state that the Rev will make you say Wow and people still wont belive you

 

[AndoCalrissian]

Nice to see Matt finally dragged his ass out of a coma to update the site.

 

[Ponn]

Posted earlier from other crazy nintendo thread that was locked...

- Nintendo "We feel people don't want HD"
- Nfans "We don't care about HD, i'm not buying a HD set for years, in fact I hate HD, I don't want a better picture and i'm gimping myself"

Pretty much sums up my response here as well.

 

[Xellos]

If Nintendo's plan is to save money on hardware by limiting it to 480p then great, as long as the console is otherwise a significant step up from current gen and those savings get passed along to the consumers (i.e. $200 pricepoint).

 

[APF]

For actually playing games, resolution + frame rate has always won out over graphical effects/etc as far as my own preferences are concerned. That's one of the ironies at work in this discussion.

 

[Doc Holliday]

What gets me is that nintendo fans are actually hurting their beloved company by always following the company line. Maybe if we make a big enough stink about it, HD will be added. I'm still one of those that thinks something really fishy is going on at Nintendo though. Im not saying its VR or projected 3d but maybe just maybe they know what they're doing.

 

[xexex]

its possible to have graphics at 480p that blow the living hell out of PS3/X360 at 720p/1080i - not that Revolution will have such graphics but I think the whole HD is so important thing is really overblown. yes HD can make things a whole lot crisper but its not necessary for amazing graphics.

 

[Ulairi]

I have no idea why people think that FPS using the remote will be an experience completly different than playing House of the Dead.

It won't change a thing

The Rev controller is the first controller that is designed for 3d games, taking into account a 3d space. The current joypads were designed for 2d games. It will change everything.

 

[drohne]

hd makes a big difference. playing 360 games makes this obvious to a degree that screenshots don't. the prospect of new hardware that can't do hd is distasteful and will only become more so as hd broadcasts mature and blu ray happens. matt is quite right to acknowledge all this. that imaginary revolution games counterbalance his real disappointment is a bit sad.

 

[VALIS]

What gets me is that nintendo fans are actually hurting their beloved company by always following the company line. Maybe if we make a big enough stink about it, HD will be added.

Exactly. Complaints were pretty widespread about the lack of backwards compatibility in early details about the 360, sure enough, a month or two later it's announced (at E3) that it's been added. Granted, the 360's BC is pretty gimped, but at least it is a work in progress and they listened to what consumers want. Hardcore N-tards really need to start being a little tougher on their precious.

 

[methodman]

What gets me is that nintendo fans are actually hurting their beloved company by always following the company line. Maybe if we make a big enough stink about it, HD will be added. I'm still one of those that thinks something really fishy is going on at Nintendo though. Im not saying its VR or projected 3d but maybe just maybe they know what they're doing.

I have an HD, and I love watching football on it, but my Xbox 360 doesn't really show me that change from SD to HD that football on HD does. Football on HD looks so amazingly crisp, and I feel like I can't ever go back to SD (but i do). I tried my X360 on a SD rez, and it wasnt that much of a difference. I sit so far from the TV, I can't really tell if there is pixels or there isnt.

BTW, its a Mitsubishi 63 inch HDtv.

EDIT: I'm not saying that Nintendo has chosen the right way to go with this, they should have HD. To some people it's that big of a difference.

 

[Doc Holliday]

Tell you one thing tho....if no HD means i get to buy a Rev system and play Mario 128 for less than 300 bucks than i might go for it.

 

[Son of Godzilla]

Heh, I just got Mario Power Tennis and it made me think of something along the lines of this. Take some of the Mario X games, tennis, golf, kart, whatever. There isn't alot of room for improvement from the GC incarnations to next gen within that art style. Better particle effects, lighting perhaps, textures, and environmental details. That's about it really. HD would provide a much more apparant improvement.

 

[El Papa]

Progressive Scan is different than HD??

Progressive scan is just a different method used to diplay an image, as opposed to interlaced, and is considered a better way to display graphics especially at lower resolutions. That's where you get the 480p, 1080i, etc. check out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_scan

"HD" is just the standard recognized as High Definition. 720 resolution and above are considered HD while 480 is SD (Standard Definition). You can still have progressive scan and interlaced at HD resolutions, like 720p and 1080i. Most people seem to think that 720 progressive gives a better quality image than 1080 interlaced. I can't really say since I don't have a HD tv and the people I know who do don't have anything other than a DVD player hooked up to it. I've heard some people claim that there's really not much difference or that 1080i is better.

 

[Monk]

From a visual perspective, no HD is worse. It's as simple as it can get. So as a gamer, you're getting less.

I am not arguing against this, as i agree.

Even if you don't currently own a HD set, one day you will. And then when you pop in your Rev games, they're still going to look inferior.

By that time I believe that the Rev 2 will be out and will all backwards compatible games to be played at HD.

You can choose to be blind and bullshit about how you can hardly tell the difference, but...

Well, actually I chance my stance on that... a bit I can see the difference when the detail is there. A sub 2k game will not have a significant leap in visuals at 1600X1200 from 800X600.

I admit that HD is better for PS3 and 360, but it wont be much for Rev games as it has a weaker graphics chip and thus wont be able to display the detail needed to make the big difference.

 

[AndoCalrissian]

What gets me is that nintendo fans are actually hurting their beloved company by always following the company line. Maybe if we make a big enough stink about it, HD will be added. I'm still one of those that thinks something really fishy is going on at Nintendo though. Im not saying its VR or projected 3d but maybe just maybe they know what they're doing.

Apparently, you've never gone to 1080up.org.

My friend is one of the founders, in fact the first sample letter is one written by me. Personally though, I really am not too interested in HD, even though I imagine my LCD monitor could support it. I'm looking forward to a new control experience more than higher resolution graphics. If it has HD, I imagine I will use it. If it doesn't, I'm A-OK with that too.

EDIT: I think he told me (at the same time I wrote the letter which I think was in August) that they had something like 40,000 click throughs to the email form. I suppose they could always use more.

 

[heidern]

Would the x360 be better with 1 gigabyte of RAM? Yep. Was it a mistake to only have 512MB? Not neccessarily, you need to look at the whole system and its release and pricing then compare it to the competitors whole system and its release and pricing. Would the ps3 be better if the cell ran at 6.4ghz? Yep. Was it a mistake to have it at 3.2 ghz? Nope, it's what they budgeted for. Again, you need to look at the whole system and its release and pricing then compare it to the competitors whole system and its release and pricing to draw a conclusion. The exact same thing applies to the Rev. To be able to decide if not having HD is a mistake we need to know details of the whole system, its release and its pricing. We know none of that in detail, just patchy details.

Thus all conclusions drawn, including cor blimey, by the one whom the world revolves around are entirely worthless.

 

[Vieo]

I just think it's really lame that we haven't seen a single tech demo and no new info will be revealed until E3. What a fuking cocktease. I would have preferred for them to not have unveiled the controller until E3 2006 if I knew they weren't going to show any screens until then.

 

[drohne]

no. the rev's lack of hd support is a priori an oversight. it's something that hardware now needs, whatever its context or design. that hd incapacity may save nintendo money is no consolation to end users, and that it may put the rev in a lower price bracket is, i think, a very small consolation -- the initial investment in console hardware is minor compared to what you'll spend on games over the years, and every revolution game you buy will be compromised by nintendo's thrift.