I just watched the IGN vid reviews of both PGR 3 and Kameo and the both mention how amazing they look with an HDTV and even in the Kameo video review himself he mentions that if you play it on a normal TV, you won't be able to tell a difference between last gen and this gen. Is this true? If so I'm really upset about that, the HDTV market has yet to hit Europe with full impact and even then, I'm not exactly rich at 18 years old to buy an HDTV. I hope this isn't the case for many other next-gen games too.
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
So, normal TV users are screwed? (Xbox 360)
- Thread starter Lakitu
- Start date
Cerebral Palsy
Banned
If I'm not happy with how it looks on my television (480p/1080i) I'll just use one of my computer monitors. Either that or steal the tv from the frontroom.
Lakitu said:
Well isn't this expected? It's much harder to tell the difference (especially for casual gamers) between PGR2 and PGR3 on a normal TV. Besides, we've heard versions of this argument at the start of every generation. I remember some people saying even when the SNES came out that the graphical differences were hard to see unless you had a quality TV or if you connected the systems through the regular RF connection.
Gek54 said:You got to be kidding?
Well I don't know if you're being sarcastic or not but you need to post better examples than the ones you posted to highlight the difference between the two gens. In any case, I distinctly remember reading quotes like the one I posted in mainstream articles.
Gee
Member
You won't see as much of a difference as someone using a HDTV but of course there'll still be a big upgrade. It's just that the upgrade from PS2/Xbox/GC to Xbox360 on a HDTV is MASSIVE.
I'm still looking for a HDTV but they're either too expensive in Britain or have some pretty big problems
I'm still looking for a HDTV but they're either too expensive in Britain or have some pretty big problems
The problem is that the launch games aren't huge improvements over what the current gen systems have to offer. The major appeal of the these games is the increased resolution and if you don't have a HD capable screen then a lot of that appeal will be lost on you.Grug said:
Late Stage Marxist
Member
ExactlyGrug said:
DenogginizerOS
BenjaminBirdie's Thomas Jefferson
I am not worried about having a non-HDTV. Games looked great with my original XBOX and these will look better.
DenogginizerOS
BenjaminBirdie's Thomas Jefferson
cybamerc said:
Have YOU seen the launch games on a regular TV?
Whoa, you can do this? Can you do it out of the box, or do you have to buy a VGA adapter? And how much is it for the 360, if so? And most importantly, how will the widescreen aspect ratio be displayed on a computer monitor?Cerebral Palsy said:
Hoping somebody has the answers. :'(
DenogginizerOS
BenjaminBirdie's Thomas Jefferson
Andy787 said:
Yes you can do it but cable is sold separately. $400 in the US. Widescreen aspect can be displayed with black bars or the scaler will fit onto your 4:3, I believe.
Resolution alone doesn't do anything for the beliveability of the graphics. You can render very impressive pictures @ 512x512 (if AA is applied that is).Grug said:
A lot of the manufacturingcosts of the 360 goes towards having the higher resolution (which isn't even full 720, seing as some of (if not all) launch-games run at lower res. and then upscale, without AA (PGR3)).
If you take out the die-area consumed by having to be able to run @<720, you could make a comparable or better console which i less expensive.
This is why I argued from the get-go that by targeting 480p, Nintendo's games are going to look a lot more impressive out the gate than the 360 launch on 95% of TVs out there.
The reason is that with modern technology and a knowledge that you'll never need to put out any more pixels than 640x480, you have all the time in the world to fucking paint each frame. What it means is that at least on SDTVs, Revolution games should be pretty impressive visually.
Of course, this entire conversation is really for nought because we're at the point now where nothing matters but art. Art. Art. Art. It's all about hiring the most competent team of artists who can work together to create realistic worlds. There are only a few animation studios on earth who have pulled that feat off, and they work around the clock for a couple years each to put together non-interactive movies. The real limiting factor this generation is going to be the absurdly high cost of content (textures, models, shading, etc) and not the technology.
It's a goddamn shame, too. I hope Will Wright and the procedural gaming disciples he's swayed can help to come up with an algorithmically-minded solution to the problem before the industry consumes itself. There literally aren't enough 3D artists on the planet to keep up with the graphical fidelity leaps people are expecting per generation.
The reason is that with modern technology and a knowledge that you'll never need to put out any more pixels than 640x480, you have all the time in the world to fucking paint each frame. What it means is that at least on SDTVs, Revolution games should be pretty impressive visually.
Of course, this entire conversation is really for nought because we're at the point now where nothing matters but art. Art. Art. Art. It's all about hiring the most competent team of artists who can work together to create realistic worlds. There are only a few animation studios on earth who have pulled that feat off, and they work around the clock for a couple years each to put together non-interactive movies. The real limiting factor this generation is going to be the absurdly high cost of content (textures, models, shading, etc) and not the technology.
It's a goddamn shame, too. I hope Will Wright and the procedural gaming disciples he's swayed can help to come up with an algorithmically-minded solution to the problem before the industry consumes itself. There literally aren't enough 3D artists on the planet to keep up with the graphical fidelity leaps people are expecting per generation.
capslock said:
I don't remember EVER reading this. Especially back in those pre-internet days. Anyone who's dumb enough to day that needs to be shot, even some of the uglier SNES games looked better than NES ones and RF -> RCA is still the same res.
Oh and his example was perfect, the best mario game on the nes versus a lauinch mario title on the snes. The SNES one looks loads better.
Version 3.0
Member
koam said:
And the correct answer is: IGN is stupid.
Next-gen games can and do look tons better, even in 480i.
krypt0nian
Banned
Gamespot's video review said the complete opposite.
"Gaming consoles still can't do 100 percent realistic graphics yet my TV can display DVD footage that looks close to real life."Grug said:
I figured you were making a statement about overall graphics fidelity versus resolution. Anyway, the reason why game consoles can't do realistic graphics even at 480i/p is that they simply aren't powerful enough.
gamergirly
Member
Normal TV users are screwed? Who do you think is going to be buying most of the early Xbox360s? HDTV penetration is years away
dark10x said:
Well there's room to grow, but if the developers aren't able to tailor-fit their games to SDTV then the small TV owners actually are being shortchanged. 360 games all have to target 720p, so developers can't use the extra horsepower they're wasting on SDTVs for anything but AA. In the case of Revolution, they'll be able to dedicate all sorts of per-pixel operations that we aren't seeing in 360 games because of just how many more pixels each game is forced to be pushing.
So yeah, Iwata was right in that sense.
If they can't tell the difference at standard definition, that would imply the only difference between the generations is resolution.
Since a dramatic increase in polys should be noticeable at nearly any resolution, and certainly so should many of the new shader and lighting effects, it's clear the games are at fault in this scenario.
Everyone repeat after me ... 'launch titles'.
Since a dramatic increase in polys should be noticeable at nearly any resolution, and certainly so should many of the new shader and lighting effects, it's clear the games are at fault in this scenario.
Everyone repeat after me ... 'launch titles'.
Grug said:
Some would argue that game developers are not 'attacking' the most important parts of graphics design to produce dramatically more realistic results. Simply increasing polys, etc. is a case of diminishing returns, etc.
While there is probably some truth to that, I see this as merely a result of rushed launch titles. It happens every gen.
Juice, I think you're being a bit bullish in saying Revolution will look better because its not limited by HD.
Maybe the Xbox 360 and PS3 will have a fillrate hit due to using HD. But then Revolution is likely to be cost engineered around an SD/ED resolution.
Surely it'd be better to expect Revolution to have similar graphics on normal TVs, not better ones?
Maybe the Xbox 360 and PS3 will have a fillrate hit due to using HD. But then Revolution is likely to be cost engineered around an SD/ED resolution.
Surely it'd be better to expect Revolution to have similar graphics on normal TVs, not better ones?
deadhorse32
Bad Art
There is still LOTS of room for improvement at 480p. Since i don't plan to upgrade my SDTV any time soon. Viva LA REVOLUTION
(and I'll use my monitor for the PS3 if I want HD)
(and I'll use my monitor for the PS3 if I want HD)