The "Sony Games" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
Ok so HD's being pushed to death and the next-generation of games certainly do look good on a standard tv, but it'd be interesting to see the difference between non-HD and HD with regards to games.
I know tv programs in HD are/can be 4x more detailed but is this generally the case for games? Obviously games aren't up to the standard of real footage (although some might give Pixar movies a run for their money!) so is the difference really worth forking out for a new £500+ tv?
Clearly people can offer opinions until they're blue in the face but I'd rather see a link to some pictures that can accurately portray the differences between a game being displayed on a HD television and the same game on a normal tv.
Also, are computer monitors able to display games in HD? Would a VGA box be able to take a HD signal and display it properly on a monitor?
As you can see I'm not up on the technical stuff, perhaps some of you can help answer these questions and/or provide a satisfactory link so I can really see what all the fuss is about? :)
I know tv programs in HD are/can be 4x more detailed but is this generally the case for games? Obviously games aren't up to the standard of real footage (although some might give Pixar movies a run for their money!) so is the difference really worth forking out for a new £500+ tv?
Clearly people can offer opinions until they're blue in the face but I'd rather see a link to some pictures that can accurately portray the differences between a game being displayed on a HD television and the same game on a normal tv.
Also, are computer monitors able to display games in HD? Would a VGA box be able to take a HD signal and display it properly on a monitor?
As you can see I'm not up on the technical stuff, perhaps some of you can help answer these questions and/or provide a satisfactory link so I can really see what all the fuss is about? :)
Page:
Ok so HD's being pushed to death and the next-generation of games certainly do look good on a standard tv, but it'd be interesting to see the difference between non-HD and HD with regards to games.
I know tv programs in HD are/can be 4x more detailed but is this generally the case for games? Obviously games aren't up to the standard of real footage (although some might give Pixar movies a run for their money!) so is the difference really worth forking out for a new £500+ tv?
Clearly people can offer opinions until they're blue in the face but I'd rather see a link to some pictures that can accurately portray the differences between a game being displayed on a HD television and the same game on a normal tv.
Also, are computer monitors able to display games in HD? Would a VGA box be able to take a HD signal and display it properly on a monitor?
As you can see I'm not up on the technical stuff, perhaps some of you can help answer these questions and/or provide a satisfactory link so I can really see what all the fuss is about? :)
I know tv programs in HD are/can be 4x more detailed but is this generally the case for games? Obviously games aren't up to the standard of real footage (although some might give Pixar movies a run for their money!) so is the difference really worth forking out for a new £500+ tv?
Clearly people can offer opinions until they're blue in the face but I'd rather see a link to some pictures that can accurately portray the differences between a game being displayed on a HD television and the same game on a normal tv.
Also, are computer monitors able to display games in HD? Would a VGA box be able to take a HD signal and display it properly on a monitor?
As you can see I'm not up on the technical stuff, perhaps some of you can help answer these questions and/or provide a satisfactory link so I can really see what all the fuss is about? :)
HD is pointless, "Super HD" to be released in 2009 will out perform all HD TVs anyway. So your brand new Hi-Def tele was indeed a waste of money.
Cruciatum Fixative wrote:
> So your brand new Hi-Def tele was indeed a waste of money.
I take it you mean other's with HD TV's as I don't have one yet: hence the post. :D
Suppose I'll have to get one when all tv signals become HD-only... or is it just that everything's going digital soon and not HD? I forget. :D
> So your brand new Hi-Def tele was indeed a waste of money.
I take it you mean other's with HD TV's as I don't have one yet: hence the post. :D
Suppose I'll have to get one when all tv signals become HD-only... or is it just that everything's going digital soon and not HD? I forget. :D
Hedfix wrote:
> I take it you mean other's with HD TV's as I don't have one yet:
> hence the post. :D
Yeah I did, sorry.
> Suppose I'll have to get one when all tv signals become
> HD-only... or is it just that everything's going digital soon
> and not HD? I forget. :D
Everything says it is going Digital, but if HD kicks off; which it is, then everything will go HD too.
> I take it you mean other's with HD TV's as I don't have one yet:
> hence the post. :D
Yeah I did, sorry.
> Suppose I'll have to get one when all tv signals become
> HD-only... or is it just that everything's going digital soon
> and not HD? I forget. :D
Everything says it is going Digital, but if HD kicks off; which it is, then everything will go HD too.
I dont see the big deal in hd stuff.
It renders the game, or video in more colours, colours which the eye cannot make out, which makes it very bright, and shiny in places. You all know what I mean. But, this has made it unrealistic, such games as tomb raider for the 360 used it and for everything, like vases were soo bright.
If i go out into the street, nothing glows like that, its like the normal way it used to be. I dont see this glow at every place that light is. Its just an extra fancy effect..
It renders the game, or video in more colours, colours which the eye cannot make out, which makes it very bright, and shiny in places. You all know what I mean. But, this has made it unrealistic, such games as tomb raider for the 360 used it and for everything, like vases were soo bright.
If i go out into the street, nothing glows like that, its like the normal way it used to be. I dont see this glow at every place that light is. Its just an extra fancy effect..
Hmmm I got that effect when I put the 360 on it's PAL 60 mode, it just made everything brighter really but if I hadn't done it I wouldn't have suddenly thought the original picture wasn't bright enough. Seemed fine to me. :S
When it feels like companies are forcing new technology on people without any real justification, that feels pretty crap.
The gimps want to turn off the analogue tv signal soon, don't they?
I'm not a big tv watcher, and I was happy with analogue. Instead I have to buy a box (okay, they're pretty cheap now, but that's not really the point), and if I have a bad signal, instead of getting a usable low quality feed, I 'll get no feed at all.
Will my radio be redundant too?
Then again, when you look at cassettes and VHS tapes, you wouldn't want to ditch your CDs and DVDs - even though they seemed fine at the time.
High end audio-visuals for rich people is fine. But when you try and force it on a mass market who simply don't need it, don't gain any significant benefit - be it through shutting off of signals and supply of compatible media or using simple marketing pressure - it looks to me like the vile side of corporate p****s again.
The gimps want to turn off the analogue tv signal soon, don't they?
I'm not a big tv watcher, and I was happy with analogue. Instead I have to buy a box (okay, they're pretty cheap now, but that's not really the point), and if I have a bad signal, instead of getting a usable low quality feed, I 'll get no feed at all.
Will my radio be redundant too?
Then again, when you look at cassettes and VHS tapes, you wouldn't want to ditch your CDs and DVDs - even though they seemed fine at the time.
High end audio-visuals for rich people is fine. But when you try and force it on a mass market who simply don't need it, don't gain any significant benefit - be it through shutting off of signals and supply of compatible media or using simple marketing pressure - it looks to me like the vile side of corporate p****s again.
Yep, I mean if the difference isn't enough to improve gameplay in anyway then I don't see the point but I'll hold off final judgement until I see a decent comparison.
Personally I prefer analogue because it doesn't completely die if there's heavy rain. However you get more channels via digital and terrestrial is now very poor (Lost and Desperate Housewives vs 24, Boston Legal and a few others? No contest).
I suppose the argument could be made against Blu-Ray too, it's not the same leap as DVD was from VHS and as far as space for games goes: games can be spread over a few DVDs, as has been offered in PC gaming for quite sometime.
It does feel like force more than choice, but if there's some decently practical benefit to gaming then I'll consider it.
Personally I prefer analogue because it doesn't completely die if there's heavy rain. However you get more channels via digital and terrestrial is now very poor (Lost and Desperate Housewives vs 24, Boston Legal and a few others? No contest).
I suppose the argument could be made against Blu-Ray too, it's not the same leap as DVD was from VHS and as far as space for games goes: games can be spread over a few DVDs, as has been offered in PC gaming for quite sometime.
It does feel like force more than choice, but if there's some decently practical benefit to gaming then I'll consider it.
blue ray will be cool, i could back up my whole hard drive with a few br disks..
Only you probably won't get blu-ray recordable for a while and when you do it will be expensive.
As for HD - people are singing its praises, so it must be good for something. No, it doesn't really enhance gameplay, but you could argue that the move of Tomb Raider from a PS1 to PS2 to Xbox to 360 wouldn't either, as it's only a step up in graphics (if you ignored the extra game bits).
It is just a stage though, and yes, there will be something better (super-HD), but given the length of time HD has taken to take off, anything else that comes along will be at least 3 years after release before it's fit for living rooms everywhere.
So, no general move of everyone to HD yet, but it may happen in 5 years or so. Digital won't be the norm for the entire UK until 2010 anyway, and you need digital for HD, plus you need the majority of people to have an HD TV.
My only bugbear with Digital, by the way, is the inability to watch and record different channels without an extra box and an extra subscription (for Sky) or a new 2 or 3 channel Hard Disc recorded with a built in freeview tuner.
As for HD - people are singing its praises, so it must be good for something. No, it doesn't really enhance gameplay, but you could argue that the move of Tomb Raider from a PS1 to PS2 to Xbox to 360 wouldn't either, as it's only a step up in graphics (if you ignored the extra game bits).
It is just a stage though, and yes, there will be something better (super-HD), but given the length of time HD has taken to take off, anything else that comes along will be at least 3 years after release before it's fit for living rooms everywhere.
So, no general move of everyone to HD yet, but it may happen in 5 years or so. Digital won't be the norm for the entire UK until 2010 anyway, and you need digital for HD, plus you need the majority of people to have an HD TV.
My only bugbear with Digital, by the way, is the inability to watch and record different channels without an extra box and an extra subscription (for Sky) or a new 2 or 3 channel Hard Disc recorded with a built in freeview tuner.
Page: