The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
The Future of Television has nothing to do with the Future of Gaming. Or does it? I mean, we all play our PS2’s, Xbox’s and GameCube’s on them (except for the lucky few with bi-switches), so why shouldn’t they be discussed.
Anyway, ethics aside, there is an issue in gaming which depends on TVs, and it is the key issue for developers when selling a game. Graphics. There will come a point in gaming when our screens will not be sharp enough for the graphics intended. At that point, there will be a problem. Either TVs will be changed, or we use those blessed bi-switches with our PC monitors. I go for the former.
Televisions are already changing right now. High-definition, Trinitron, 60hz, heck, even Wide and flat screen TVs make a difference to picture quality. We all know that online gaming really hangs in the balance. If it makes it, Internet will be used on our consoles and we will face having to read extremely small and blurry print on our TVs... as people still do with internet TVs.
In the near future, it is certain that the number of hertz will go up. For many it means nothing, as do all those PC specifications which actually determine how many times Microsoft Word crashes, but numbers are the key. As the saying goes, ‘the more the merrier’, and in viewing standards that is true. If we could get TVs with extremely high resolutions, you could surf the net like you are this second, on your TV instead. Video-game graphics could therefore, become phenomenal.
But first and foremost, let me remind you of the situation in PC gaming. Great graphics in a PC game will have to have anti-aliasing. A little thing which slightly blurs the edges of characters and objects, to rid them of those pesky and annoying jagged edges. Because of high definition PC screens, gaming in this dimension is not at the stage where graphics are so good that screens need to be better. Whereas console gaming IS at this stage because our screens are not as good as PC screens.
I think that by now, for the non-technical you are problem at a confused state, so I’ll simplify – PC screens look nicer than TV screens, so PC gaming can look nicer than console gaming. Console graphics are at the upper extreme – getting even better graphics will require a better screen, whereas because the PC screen looks better, the case isn’t true for PC gaming. Yet.
Imagine, lets say, in 10 years, when we’re playing on our PlayStation 3’s, Nintendo Eclipse’s and Zdodecahedron’s (sorry, rubbish pun I know), with our MGS’s, Zelda’s and Halo’s, think what the graphics will be. Do you really think developers will settle with the constraints of current TV’s? My a**e. They are going to make bigger, better and nicer TVs, and so will our gaming evolve. Graphics will be phenomenal, and I’m in no doubt that those cool 3D glasses will also come along with some specially formatted games.
Gaming depends on TVs, so as well as improving the games, improve the TVs. It couldn’t be simpler. After all, game success depends 90% on graphics alone, and to the casual gamer, games are judged purely on looks alone. Oh, and the box. Nobody here on SR is a casual gamer. Anyone talking to people about games on the internet is more than that. So go out there tomorrow and buy a high-definition hyper flat super wide screen TV with hundreds of hertz. Your looks depend on it. Well, no, the looks of your games depend on it. Go now, young padawan!
Anyway, ethics aside, there is an issue in gaming which depends on TVs, and it is the key issue for developers when selling a game. Graphics. There will come a point in gaming when our screens will not be sharp enough for the graphics intended. At that point, there will be a problem. Either TVs will be changed, or we use those blessed bi-switches with our PC monitors. I go for the former.
Televisions are already changing right now. High-definition, Trinitron, 60hz, heck, even Wide and flat screen TVs make a difference to picture quality. We all know that online gaming really hangs in the balance. If it makes it, Internet will be used on our consoles and we will face having to read extremely small and blurry print on our TVs... as people still do with internet TVs.
In the near future, it is certain that the number of hertz will go up. For many it means nothing, as do all those PC specifications which actually determine how many times Microsoft Word crashes, but numbers are the key. As the saying goes, ‘the more the merrier’, and in viewing standards that is true. If we could get TVs with extremely high resolutions, you could surf the net like you are this second, on your TV instead. Video-game graphics could therefore, become phenomenal.
But first and foremost, let me remind you of the situation in PC gaming. Great graphics in a PC game will have to have anti-aliasing. A little thing which slightly blurs the edges of characters and objects, to rid them of those pesky and annoying jagged edges. Because of high definition PC screens, gaming in this dimension is not at the stage where graphics are so good that screens need to be better. Whereas console gaming IS at this stage because our screens are not as good as PC screens.
I think that by now, for the non-technical you are problem at a confused state, so I’ll simplify – PC screens look nicer than TV screens, so PC gaming can look nicer than console gaming. Console graphics are at the upper extreme – getting even better graphics will require a better screen, whereas because the PC screen looks better, the case isn’t true for PC gaming. Yet.
Imagine, lets say, in 10 years, when we’re playing on our PlayStation 3’s, Nintendo Eclipse’s and Zdodecahedron’s (sorry, rubbish pun I know), with our MGS’s, Zelda’s and Halo’s, think what the graphics will be. Do you really think developers will settle with the constraints of current TV’s? My a**e. They are going to make bigger, better and nicer TVs, and so will our gaming evolve. Graphics will be phenomenal, and I’m in no doubt that those cool 3D glasses will also come along with some specially formatted games.
Gaming depends on TVs, so as well as improving the games, improve the TVs. It couldn’t be simpler. After all, game success depends 90% on graphics alone, and to the casual gamer, games are judged purely on looks alone. Oh, and the box. Nobody here on SR is a casual gamer. Anyone talking to people about games on the internet is more than that. So go out there tomorrow and buy a high-definition hyper flat super wide screen TV with hundreds of hertz. Your looks depend on it. Well, no, the looks of your games depend on it. Go now, young padawan!
Resevilfan wrote:
> Those "pesky jagged edges" aren't anything to do with your tv ;-) and
> I think the future of gaming will revolve around televisions but not your PAL
> Square format with stero sound but more on the lines of Widescreen running at
> 60HZ with 5:1 sound. Monitors are annoying, ok they may give out a higher res
> and a sharper image but they can't beat the big screen.
And neither did I say they depend on TVs. They depend on Anti-aliasing. What I was getting at, is that umm...
An example:
Lets say you have a game for the PC, and PS2. They are exactly the same in terms of everything graphical. On a PC monitor, you can see some jagged edges. Put it on a TV, and you won't.
What I had meant was that games graphics can depend on the screen. If a game looks tops on a TV, you'd think 'great', whereas if it looks exactly the same on a PC monitor, it could look bad and you'd think otherwise.
Now I'm just writing pointlessly, so I'll leave.
> Those "pesky jagged edges" aren't anything to do with your tv ;-) and
> I think the future of gaming will revolve around televisions but not your PAL
> Square format with stero sound but more on the lines of Widescreen running at
> 60HZ with 5:1 sound. Monitors are annoying, ok they may give out a higher res
> and a sharper image but they can't beat the big screen.
And neither did I say they depend on TVs. They depend on Anti-aliasing. What I was getting at, is that umm...
An example:
Lets say you have a game for the PC, and PS2. They are exactly the same in terms of everything graphical. On a PC monitor, you can see some jagged edges. Put it on a TV, and you won't.
What I had meant was that games graphics can depend on the screen. If a game looks tops on a TV, you'd think 'great', whereas if it looks exactly the same on a PC monitor, it could look bad and you'd think otherwise.
Now I'm just writing pointlessly, so I'll leave.
Ah, cheers for that Albert!
So basically, every new console supports HDTV, except the one that promised it- Sony!
Sonic
So basically, every new console supports HDTV, except the one that promised it- Sony!
Sonic
½pint wrote:
We all know that online gaming really hangs in the balance.
> If it makes it...
Nope, Online Gaming is the future.
The only question is how long it'll be before it properly takes off.
With all the next gen consoles having a broadband option, I say about 5 years.
We all know that online gaming really hangs in the balance.
> If it makes it...
Nope, Online Gaming is the future.
The only question is how long it'll be before it properly takes off.
With all the next gen consoles having a broadband option, I say about 5 years.
===SONICRAV---> wrote:
High Density TVs- something that Sony promised to support, but
> only MS has.
Actually, some Gamecube titles such as Rogue Squadron II support HDTVs, but not to the extent that X-box titles can. Have to go back to my technical gaming terms encyclopedia for that one!
High Density TVs- something that Sony promised to support, but
> only MS has.
Actually, some Gamecube titles such as Rogue Squadron II support HDTVs, but not to the extent that X-box titles can. Have to go back to my technical gaming terms encyclopedia for that one!
Those "pesky jagged edges" aren't anything to do with your tv ;-) and I think the future of gaming will revolve around televisions but not your PAL Square format with stero sound but more on the lines of Widescreen running at 60HZ with 5:1 sound. Monitors are annoying, ok they may give out a higher res and a sharper image but they can't beat the big screen.
Well, the Dreamcast intoroduced gamers to 60Hz as standard... however, this is NOT an improvement in gaming seeing as the US and Japan have been playing on these NTSC signals for years!
Two actual new idea are monitors (on the Dreamcast) and High Density TVs- something that Sony promised to support, but only MS has. Both these displays have better resolution than normal TVs... however, only if a game is programmed to give a high resolution signal (or it's done in hardware) will the display be any better.
For that reason, Dreamcast games that supported monitors- like Soul Calibur- look miles better than normal TVs- you can see the vains and fingernails on the characters! However, PS2 games don't have any monitor improvment because they're not optimised! Why on Earth Sony have release monitor boxes is beyond me!
Sonic
Two actual new idea are monitors (on the Dreamcast) and High Density TVs- something that Sony promised to support, but only MS has. Both these displays have better resolution than normal TVs... however, only if a game is programmed to give a high resolution signal (or it's done in hardware) will the display be any better.
For that reason, Dreamcast games that supported monitors- like Soul Calibur- look miles better than normal TVs- you can see the vains and fingernails on the characters! However, PS2 games don't have any monitor improvment because they're not optimised! Why on Earth Sony have release monitor boxes is beyond me!
Sonic
The Future of Television has nothing to do with the Future of Gaming. Or does it? I mean, we all play our PS2’s, Xbox’s and GameCube’s on them (except for the lucky few with bi-switches), so why shouldn’t they be discussed.
Anyway, ethics aside, there is an issue in gaming which depends on TVs, and it is the key issue for developers when selling a game. Graphics. There will come a point in gaming when our screens will not be sharp enough for the graphics intended. At that point, there will be a problem. Either TVs will be changed, or we use those blessed bi-switches with our PC monitors. I go for the former.
Televisions are already changing right now. High-definition, Trinitron, 60hz, heck, even Wide and flat screen TVs make a difference to picture quality. We all know that online gaming really hangs in the balance. If it makes it, Internet will be used on our consoles and we will face having to read extremely small and blurry print on our TVs... as people still do with internet TVs.
In the near future, it is certain that the number of hertz will go up. For many it means nothing, as do all those PC specifications which actually determine how many times Microsoft Word crashes, but numbers are the key. As the saying goes, ‘the more the merrier’, and in viewing standards that is true. If we could get TVs with extremely high resolutions, you could surf the net like you are this second, on your TV instead. Video-game graphics could therefore, become phenomenal.
But first and foremost, let me remind you of the situation in PC gaming. Great graphics in a PC game will have to have anti-aliasing. A little thing which slightly blurs the edges of characters and objects, to rid them of those pesky and annoying jagged edges. Because of high definition PC screens, gaming in this dimension is not at the stage where graphics are so good that screens need to be better. Whereas console gaming IS at this stage because our screens are not as good as PC screens.
I think that by now, for the non-technical you are problem at a confused state, so I’ll simplify – PC screens look nicer than TV screens, so PC gaming can look nicer than console gaming. Console graphics are at the upper extreme – getting even better graphics will require a better screen, whereas because the PC screen looks better, the case isn’t true for PC gaming. Yet.
Imagine, lets say, in 10 years, when we’re playing on our PlayStation 3’s, Nintendo Eclipse’s and Zdodecahedron’s (sorry, rubbish pun I know), with our MGS’s, Zelda’s and Halo’s, think what the graphics will be. Do you really think developers will settle with the constraints of current TV’s? My a**e. They are going to make bigger, better and nicer TVs, and so will our gaming evolve. Graphics will be phenomenal, and I’m in no doubt that those cool 3D glasses will also come along with some specially formatted games.
Gaming depends on TVs, so as well as improving the games, improve the TVs. It couldn’t be simpler. After all, game success depends 90% on graphics alone, and to the casual gamer, games are judged purely on looks alone. Oh, and the box. Nobody here on SR is a casual gamer. Anyone talking to people about games on the internet is more than that. So go out there tomorrow and buy a high-definition hyper flat super wide screen TV with hundreds of hertz. Your looks depend on it. Well, no, the looks of your games depend on it. Go now, young padawan!
Anyway, ethics aside, there is an issue in gaming which depends on TVs, and it is the key issue for developers when selling a game. Graphics. There will come a point in gaming when our screens will not be sharp enough for the graphics intended. At that point, there will be a problem. Either TVs will be changed, or we use those blessed bi-switches with our PC monitors. I go for the former.
Televisions are already changing right now. High-definition, Trinitron, 60hz, heck, even Wide and flat screen TVs make a difference to picture quality. We all know that online gaming really hangs in the balance. If it makes it, Internet will be used on our consoles and we will face having to read extremely small and blurry print on our TVs... as people still do with internet TVs.
In the near future, it is certain that the number of hertz will go up. For many it means nothing, as do all those PC specifications which actually determine how many times Microsoft Word crashes, but numbers are the key. As the saying goes, ‘the more the merrier’, and in viewing standards that is true. If we could get TVs with extremely high resolutions, you could surf the net like you are this second, on your TV instead. Video-game graphics could therefore, become phenomenal.
But first and foremost, let me remind you of the situation in PC gaming. Great graphics in a PC game will have to have anti-aliasing. A little thing which slightly blurs the edges of characters and objects, to rid them of those pesky and annoying jagged edges. Because of high definition PC screens, gaming in this dimension is not at the stage where graphics are so good that screens need to be better. Whereas console gaming IS at this stage because our screens are not as good as PC screens.
I think that by now, for the non-technical you are problem at a confused state, so I’ll simplify – PC screens look nicer than TV screens, so PC gaming can look nicer than console gaming. Console graphics are at the upper extreme – getting even better graphics will require a better screen, whereas because the PC screen looks better, the case isn’t true for PC gaming. Yet.
Imagine, lets say, in 10 years, when we’re playing on our PlayStation 3’s, Nintendo Eclipse’s and Zdodecahedron’s (sorry, rubbish pun I know), with our MGS’s, Zelda’s and Halo’s, think what the graphics will be. Do you really think developers will settle with the constraints of current TV’s? My a**e. They are going to make bigger, better and nicer TVs, and so will our gaming evolve. Graphics will be phenomenal, and I’m in no doubt that those cool 3D glasses will also come along with some specially formatted games.
Gaming depends on TVs, so as well as improving the games, improve the TVs. It couldn’t be simpler. After all, game success depends 90% on graphics alone, and to the casual gamer, games are judged purely on looks alone. Oh, and the box. Nobody here on SR is a casual gamer. Anyone talking to people about games on the internet is more than that. So go out there tomorrow and buy a high-definition hyper flat super wide screen TV with hundreds of hertz. Your looks depend on it. Well, no, the looks of your games depend on it. Go now, young padawan!