The "Sony Games" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
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? :)
> Nope, don't think most of my questions (if any) have been
> answered.
>
> *corrects a few mistakes*
Put three across simply in one post and I'll try and answer.
Recordable DVD is the cheapest way bar VHS to get a good recording. Recorders at £80 and discs at £5 for 25 (or £1 each for DVD-RW). Can't complain with that...
*corrects a few mistakes*
And getting ex-rental videos at £2 each is great, especially if you have no interest in all the extra guff you get on a DVD. Plus with the new VCR quality you get crystal clear auto-tracking from a 60 quid VCR. :)
Also if you don't like the movie you can just plug up the holes and tape over it!
We were quite poor when I was a kid, so we didn't have a VCR. However, I sometimes buy videos for cheap films I'd like to see, but don't want to pay much for, and don't care if they're in the old format.
> 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.
Heh heh, feeling a tad old now are we? :P
>
> 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.
Doesn't Sky+ do all that from 1 box? It's their version of TiVo I think.
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.