The "Sony Games" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
It's easy to see where Sony's intentions lie. Microsoft started all this talk of the "HD era" with its Xbox 360 and Sony are going one better. The result is a world of higher definition, even more pixels on one screen and an ever greater strain on their (admittedly very powerful) PS3. But consider this: is hi-def really the way to go? Just what is it that makes an image truly real?
Does screen res have anything to do with in-game 'reality'? I don't think so. Evidence? Take a look at your standard-def TV. That news footage looks real enough doesn't it? I'll go one further. How about phone videos? Yes, those dark, scratchy, blurred messes of pixels that you shoot on a whim and flash to your mates. Are you ever in any doubt that what you're looking at is real? How terrible is that quality, and yet what you're seeing really happened. But consider how many pixels are making up the image. What is it? 320 by 240? Hardly 1920 by 1080, then. And at 16 frames per second? And yet, for all its cruddyness 'phone video' remains undeniably 'real'. Here's a twist. How about game makers use PS3 use PS3's power properly. Instead of ever more hi-res games, they make 'low-res' games that actually are indistinguishable from real life.
Imagine a game played through the eye of a phone camera. A game with big fat 320 by 240 pixels where PS3 wasn't used to pump more 'detail' into plastic characters, but was used to perfect physics, animation and lighting. Imagine it was a survival horror game. Imagine you're trapped in a city crawling with zombies. And now imagine how much scarier and much better it'd be.
Does screen res have anything to do with in-game 'reality'? I don't think so. Evidence? Take a look at your standard-def TV. That news footage looks real enough doesn't it? I'll go one further. How about phone videos? Yes, those dark, scratchy, blurred messes of pixels that you shoot on a whim and flash to your mates. Are you ever in any doubt that what you're looking at is real? How terrible is that quality, and yet what you're seeing really happened. But consider how many pixels are making up the image. What is it? 320 by 240? Hardly 1920 by 1080, then. And at 16 frames per second? And yet, for all its cruddyness 'phone video' remains undeniably 'real'. Here's a twist. How about game makers use PS3 use PS3's power properly. Instead of ever more hi-res games, they make 'low-res' games that actually are indistinguishable from real life.
Imagine a game played through the eye of a phone camera. A game with big fat 320 by 240 pixels where PS3 wasn't used to pump more 'detail' into plastic characters, but was used to perfect physics, animation and lighting. Imagine it was a survival horror game. Imagine you're trapped in a city crawling with zombies. And now imagine how much scarier and much better it'd be.
Page:
It is I :D
Whatever happened to Cruciatum Fixative? *shrugs* ah who cares
The other day my mum wanted to look at some new fridges for the house when we move. Of course I went straight to the TVs and finally saw the HD ones, wow I'm very impressed especially the bigger screens. I'm sold on the whole HD thing and can't wait to get one :) I wonder games will be like on them, like Pong.
The other day my mum wanted to look at some new fridges for the house when we move. Of course I went straight to the TVs and finally saw the HD ones, wow I'm very impressed especially the bigger screens. I'm sold on the whole HD thing and can't wait to get one :) I wonder games will be like on them, like Pong.
Come on chaos, give a kid a break. See that, kid.
I type alot better than most kids my age would, and you didn't even bother to say anything about my first post, which is the good one.
But, regardless of all that, a few exclamation marks and/or question marks added on won't hurt enough for you to discard the whole sentence.
I type alot better than most kids my age would, and you didn't even bother to say anything about my first post, which is the good one.
But, regardless of all that, a few exclamation marks and/or question marks added on won't hurt enough for you to discard the whole sentence.
This is what I meant on my 'Con Pop' thread post about you pb, you always seem to have the perfect opinion on just about everything!
Oh and
snake11 wrote:
> Why the hell is it whenever I make what I think is a good post
> the whole thread seems to freeze??????!!!!!!
Because of this "??????!!!!!!" the grammar and the sentence structure, but don’t worry, you’ll get the hang of it sooner or later.
Oh and
snake11 wrote:
> Why the hell is it whenever I make what I think is a good post
> the whole thread seems to freeze??????!!!!!!
Because of this "??????!!!!!!" the grammar and the sentence structure, but don’t worry, you’ll get the hang of it sooner or later.
My prediction is that HD will take around 5-10 years to really take off. That's the period when enough people will have changed their TV (through it breaking or through choice) to make the most of the digital TV HD choice and to appreciate next-gen games on the (next) next gen consoles.
Do we need it? Well, in a way yes we do. Not for 'more realistic' game environments, just as a step up. This generation is merely testing the water, it's new technology after all. Wait for the next set of consoles that can cope with a decent graphics engine on a faster processor to see what it can do.
So, HD - no good for improving the graphics processing, but good for improving the graphics.
Do we need it? Well, in a way yes we do. Not for 'more realistic' game environments, just as a step up. This generation is merely testing the water, it's new technology after all. Wait for the next set of consoles that can cope with a decent graphics engine on a faster processor to see what it can do.
So, HD - no good for improving the graphics processing, but good for improving the graphics.
Why the hell is it that whenever I make what I think is a good post the whole thread seems to freeze!?
Nobody really needs HD, but from what I can tell it just gets better graphics. Regardless if its necessary or not, its stil another step into the future.
I don't know, I may be wrong, but HD is bringing us one step closer to that "phone camera" you're talking about.
And yeah, like geffdof, I would hate it if the characters in a game looked like real people. I prefer normal, bright graphics that let you see where the hell you are going.
I don't know, I may be wrong, but HD is bringing us one step closer to that "phone camera" you're talking about.
And yeah, like geffdof, I would hate it if the characters in a game looked like real people. I prefer normal, bright graphics that let you see where the hell you are going.
Mumbai Duck wrote:
> It may not be viable in some games demanding a really high level
> of interactivity, but with sufficient footage for a range of
> reasonably simple moves, say with a football game, it could work
> well.
Alright, lets take your example of a football game. The player has to be viewable from every angle. Lets be generous and only work in 1 degree angles, but thats still 129600 views of the player you need. Add in 30 frames per second of animation and thats 3888000 images you need just for 1 second. When you consider all the different animations you might need for a player, you could be talking about 1 gig of data easily just for a single player (and we've not even considered different looking players).
And the funny part is, all these sprites will be taken from 3d models in the first place. So with your approach we still need the 3d models AND the sprites, hardly going to be a shortcut to better quality for cheaper production costs is it?
We've reached the point where we can create photo realistic 3d models there isnt any need for substitutes to gain better quality. The rest is just economics and sooner or later it'll end up in mainstream usage.
EDIT: Old article, but still worth a read in terms of where 3d graphics are going.
> It may not be viable in some games demanding a really high level
> of interactivity, but with sufficient footage for a range of
> reasonably simple moves, say with a football game, it could work
> well.
Alright, lets take your example of a football game. The player has to be viewable from every angle. Lets be generous and only work in 1 degree angles, but thats still 129600 views of the player you need. Add in 30 frames per second of animation and thats 3888000 images you need just for 1 second. When you consider all the different animations you might need for a player, you could be talking about 1 gig of data easily just for a single player (and we've not even considered different looking players).
And the funny part is, all these sprites will be taken from 3d models in the first place. So with your approach we still need the 3d models AND the sprites, hardly going to be a shortcut to better quality for cheaper production costs is it?
We've reached the point where we can create photo realistic 3d models there isnt any need for substitutes to gain better quality. The rest is just economics and sooner or later it'll end up in mainstream usage.
EDIT: Old article, but still worth a read in terms of where 3d graphics are going.
Garin wrote:
> Sprites are 2d, you switch back to using them and you
> effectively lose the ability have your characters interact with
> a 3d environment. No amount of processing power will change
> that.
But if your sprites perform the movements needed from the 3d model, perhaps being used in combination with a 3d 'ghost' model, to interact with the environment, it could be made to fit together with the interactivity.
It may not be viable in some games demanding a really high level of interactivity, but with sufficient footage for a range of reasonably simple moves, say with a football game, it could work well.
> Sprites are 2d, you switch back to using them and you
> effectively lose the ability have your characters interact with
> a 3d environment. No amount of processing power will change
> that.
But if your sprites perform the movements needed from the 3d model, perhaps being used in combination with a 3d 'ghost' model, to interact with the environment, it could be made to fit together with the interactivity.
It may not be viable in some games demanding a really high level of interactivity, but with sufficient footage for a range of reasonably simple moves, say with a football game, it could work well.
Mumbai Duck wrote:
> As data capacities increase, sprites and images become the path
> to realism.
Sprites are 2d, you switch back to using them and you effectively lose the ability have your characters interact with a 3d environment. No amount of processing power will change that.
> As data capacities increase, sprites and images become the path
> to realism.
Sprites are 2d, you switch back to using them and you effectively lose the ability have your characters interact with a 3d environment. No amount of processing power will change that.
Page: