Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Games Entertainment

Is HD Important To The Future of Gaming? 77

Posted by Zonk from the it-sure-looks-nice dept.
Gamasutra's weekly question to the industry taps the pulse of designers and developers on the importance of HD in gaming. From the article: " Absolutely. After seeing a game like Oblivion in HD, I think most gamers will never look back. That's going to affect the amount of time and money that gets put into top-shelf games. It's certainly going to increase the market for texture designers. -Morgan LaVigne, Classroom, Inc "
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Is HD Important To The Future of Gaming? More

Is HD Important To The Future of Gaming?

Comments Filter:
  • Its not really that HD is the future of gaming, its just that its what your going to need to play games. Normal 4:3 televisions have lived a long life and people are demanding higher quality, more detailed pictures. Its the future for everything really, and it -does- make gaming better.

    • Re:well (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Austerity Empowers ( 669817 )
      HD has 4:3 aspect ratios too. It's a common misconception that HD necessarily means 16:9. In fact some xbox (1) games support 4:3 HD resolutions. It looks a little silly to play that way (since there's all that blank space unless you stretch/deform the picture) but it's nice to have the extra detail.

      As for whether HD is critical to gaming, the answer should be DUH. It's been answered on the PC for years. 320x200 stopped being "enough" over 10 years ago. 640x480 (for practical purposes, this is standard TV r
      • I dunno... I'll drop 1600x1200 for 4xAA and some Aniso if the framerates are comparable.

        The latest generation of games are really hurting my aging 6800 though, NFSMW, F.E.A.R and Civ IV all have amazing and demanding graphics engines.

        Certainly, however, anything below 1024x768 is a joke nowadays, and that includes trying to play a game on an analog CRT television set.
        • Civ4 is just sloppy coding. I've managed to duplicate much of their graphics engine at a far greater frame rate (mostly so I can make a map builder that does not suck). Don't get me wrong, I love Civ4, it's not meant to be a FPS so I can understand them not focusing on performance graphics. I actually would rather they let you play out of a window and just use sprites, but I digress.

          I stopped playing FPSs a few years ago, firstly because I don't think there's anything more that can be done with the genre th
      • I will first drop resolution, to get more framerate. i will always prefer smoother animation to hig res chopiness.

        And, as for anything below 1024 being silly, that is just because PC games tend to have lots of menus and small HUDs, that do not look well on 800x600 or lower. But you really are not losing gameplay, unless you count things like not being able to snipe people from one side of the map to the other in BF2.

        i think it will be important for the jocks who buy Madden XX every year, as they will always
    • Actually TV manufacturers have worked for over 10 years to build "customer demand" and some estimates say that as many as 50% of HD TV owners are not using them for HD (in many cases because they don't know how). I'm not saying HD isn't better, I'm just saying that the TV/electronics manufactures, the MPAA (because of broadcast flags and other DRM), and the hopeful future providers of "Rich Content" ("click here to learn more" as they say in Starship Troopers), and maybe game console makers, are much more e

      • Re:well (Score:4, Interesting)

        by Karma Farmer ( 595141 ) on Thursday December 22, 2005 @09:16PM (#14324067)
        some estimates say that as many as 50% of HD TV owners are not using them for HD...

        I'm pretty sure that 50% of HD TV owners report they're not using them for HD. I would be a small fortune that another 30% aren't using them for HD, but report that they are.

        For example, in the last Slashdot article about this very subject a disturbingly large number of Slashdot posters reported that they receive and HD signal only when they watched DVDs. In other words, a large number of Slashdotters would report that they're using their television for HD, but would be wrong.

    • Re:well (Score:1, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward
      wait what?

      Consumer demand for HDTVs is still very very low, and the majority of people that own HDTVs do not use them for HD content, Including myself. There is not a single HD device connected to my HDTV.

      I certainly dont regret the purchase. It makes the dvds and games I already have look FANTASTIC.

  • Not in my house (Score:5, Insightful)

    by nb caffeine ( 448698 ) <nbcaffeine@nOSpam.gmail.com> on Thursday December 22, 2005 @05:10PM (#14322498) Homepage Journal
    because I cant frickin afford one. I got a DS. Thats not in HD. Yet its some of the most fun gaming I've had in years.

    But then again, I'm a cynical prick :)

    • Re:Not in my house (Score:3, Interesting)

      by nekoes ( 613370 )
      Likewise.

      It's going to be a long long time before I go out to replace any of the 10 tv's in this house. I've been playing games at near "HD" quality on my PC for ages now. Sure HL2 looks brilliant at high resolution, but (unfortunately) it doesn't play any better than it does at 640x480.

      I'm seriously disinterested with this next line of consoles. The PS3 and the Xbox360 promise high-definition gaming, but what else? I just get the feeling I'm going to be playing this generation's games on the next generatio

      • Re:Not in my house (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Babbster ( 107076 )
        I just get the feeling I'm going to be playing this generation's games on the next generation's platform, since developers couldn't be bothered to come up with new ideas.

        It's good that folks like you have been able to come to this kind of conclusion within the first two months of the "next generation."

        And, talk about a dumb question on which to base an article. Of course HD is important to the future of gaming. It's so by virtue of the fact that, at some point, there will only BE high-definition tele
        • Of course the inclusion of HD in consoles is a good thing. I'll go ahead and state the obvious that HD penetration is also quite low. Sure, including HD as a system feature is a good idea, but touting it as a major selling point and a revolution in gaming is quite stupid.

          Personally (and I'm sure a lot of people feel this way) because of the low penetration and the high prices of HDTV's, what real interest am I supposed to have in a feature that I'm not going to be using until maybe 5 or 6 years down the roa
      • Why on earth was this modded flamebait?

        In any case, there's a solution that doesn't require a new TV: http://www.xbox.com/en-US/hardware/x/xbox360vgahd c able/ [xbox.com]

        Plugs right into your TV monitor. Haven't tried it myself. I went for an LCD TV from Dell [dell.com], nifty, as it doubles as a TV (with a TV tuner), HDTV for gaming, and a computer LCD.

    • Ask your elders about handhelds of their youths. About the LCD games BEFORE we got pixel based screens. Compared with them the original Gameboy was HD. So was the Color version vs the black & white. So was the GBA vs the GB Color and now the DS.

      Each version sported massivly improved graphics. Wich is all that HD is. Higher resolution.

      Check the "resoltion" on your DS. The screen real estate is simply 2x the size!!! as that of what game before.

      Oh and you can't afford HD? What are you sitting behind whe

      • About the LCD games BEFORE we got pixel based screens. Compared with them the original Gameboy was HD.

        No it wasn't. Compared to the images of pretty much any LCD game, the sprites in GB screen were unbelievably blocky. What GB did was allow the sprites to move freely, instead of just from one prepainted position to another; but as far as image quality goes, those old LCD displays beat GB hands down - and if we're just talking resolution and sharpness, they propably still beat any pixel-based display in

      • I'm not that old (23) and have owned pretty much every system out there. And yes, I am typing this from a monitor that spanks most TVs :) too bad its not mine

    • If you can afford 6 games, you can afford HD. It won't be big screen, but it'll be HD. Of course, if you wait one more year, it's likely you'll find HD + bigscreen very affordable.

      • Re:Not in my house (Score:4, Insightful)

        by BenjyD ( 316700 ) on Friday December 23, 2005 @05:31AM (#14325613)
        Yeah, because 6 games are nowhere near as much fun as a minor improvement in graphical quality.
        • Depends on what you like really. I wouldn't call quadrupling your resolution a minor improvement. Often people wind up with 1 or 2 games that they play a lot, and many games that gather dust. Maybe not buying a few games and enjoying the games you really love that much extra would be worth it to some people.
      • in the next couple of years prices for all HDTVs will fall dramatically as more and more are brought to market.

        1) people will start buying HDTVs in the US due to the govt approving the switch to digital TV in three years, so people are going to rush to buy new tvs... regardless of what the govt says about subsidizing convertors for everyone. people [americans esp] wont wait until the last minute to buy a new tv if they think they may miss reruns of sex in the city, survivor and lost.

        2) with all of these con

  • Yep, right on the nose. (Score:5, Funny)

    by Palshife ( 60519 ) on Thursday December 22, 2005 @05:15PM (#14322540) Homepage
    Yes. Yes, HD is vital to the future of gaming.

    HD will allow us to make better, more engaging games. It'll make them more fun, more challenging. It'll force us to innovate by creating new interfaces and new philosophies. HD will certainly improve the quality of game software, make games more accessible to the general public, and will even go so far as to absolve gaming for being responsible for violent crime.

    Chess is a great game. Chess doesn't care about HD. It never did and it never will. Article gets -1 Irrelevant. Thanks for another gem, Zonk.
    • You must not have read the article (yes yes, I'm new here). One page is devoted to people who think it is important, and another where developers (including me!) say it isn't. Some people echo your basic sentiments about gameplay being important. And the purpose of the question, just like Zonk's posting of it, was to generate discussion on this point, rather than to tell you what to believe.
      • This article/question is stupid.

        HD is a technology advancement/benefit. If you want to focus on gameplay rather than graphics, then go right ahead-- You'll have the tools available to use HD if you want.

        HDTV's are becoming more and more common in homes.. and even if you don't have an HDTV, you can pick up a $20 XBox360 VGA cable and enjoy 720i HDTV gaming on your PC monitor.

        And if you want to develop for the XBox360, you'll have to do your development in HD as well as SD. Don't like that? Then go develop fo
      • Thanks for pointing that out. In my moment of weakness I just went off of the quote in the blurb. It echoed a very one-sided view of the argument. The summary should have indicated that it was a point-counterpoint piece.

        I suppose I find it offensive that these blurbs are allowed to editorialize the content behind them which, in effect, IS Zonk telling me what to believe. The games page is being run in a very counter-slashdot manner, in my opinion. I believe that the posts should come from the users more tha
    • in Morrowind, I turned up resolution when I was low level so I could avoid the flying bird monsters (they're a nightmare to kill if you don't have a good ranged attack untill you're pretty high level). I was able to see them clearly from a distance because I played in 1024x768. With tv resolutions they'd be indistinguishable green dots on you before you realized it (they draw a bead on you when they get close).

      When I used to play Shadow Warrior on a lan playing in 640x480 gave me a huge edge, I could see
    • I might go so far as to suggest a large chessboard with hefty quality marble pieces and clearly defined squares with plenty of space to see and properly analyse the game makes a better chess set than a tiny traveller set with barely enough room to move the pieces without moving them all out of place. I would enjoy playing with the former rather than the latter.

      The topic is about the nature of the presentation of the content, not the content itself.

      Sometimes the fidelity, the quality of the experience count

    • -1 irrelevant??

      Every person who makes games for a living and is breathing right now will have to ask themselves the 16:9 HD question. And that, my friend, makes it totally relevant.

      I'd say your little snippet about chess is irrelevant. I know they throw the occasional bone to Kasparov, Deep Blue, whatever...but c'mon, really, have you been reading this site much lately?

    • That is utter nonsense. How can more pixels make for more engaging gameplay? The most engaging make I played this year was Mario and Luigi: Superstar Saga on the GBA. That has, what, half of SD resolution? But somehow they managed to entertain me for 40 hours with just that half a megapixel or so image. Amazing.

      Yes, I agree that a game needs to look good to be truly great, but looking good is more about style and vision that pixel count. Also, HTF does upping the resolution lead to more innovative interface

  • It looks better... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Threni ( 635302 ) on Thursday December 22, 2005 @05:16PM (#14322551)
    ... but that's it. Doesn't make new genres possible or improve gameplay. We just need faster and faster CPUs (for AI) and lower latency network connections more than another billion polygons or four times the screen resolution.

  • The Future Of Gaming (Score:4, Insightful)

    by BigDork1001 ( 683341 ) on Thursday December 22, 2005 @05:18PM (#14322573) Homepage
    Far more important to the future of gaming than HD is innovation. Something seriously lacking today. While Nintendo has done some good with DS and possibly the Revolution, Nintendo is just one company. There are many more out there, many of them putting out sequel after sequel after movie licensed game after updated sports roster after clone of some other company's game.

    If there isn't more innovation people are going to get bored and stop playing.

  • Yes! (Score:3, Insightful)

    by kirkb ( 158552 ) on Thursday December 22, 2005 @05:19PM (#14322582) Homepage
    Hi-def in games is essential in the near future because plumetting prices have encouraged many people to buy big, HD TV's. They need/want HD games for three reasons: (1) Standard-def looks poor on a digital (non-CRT) HD screen, because it has to be scaled to the HD unit's native resolution (2) On a big (40"+) screen, a game's graphical flaws (low poly count, low-detail textures, etc) are glaringly visible, and (3) In order to justify the $$ that they spent on their new HDTV's, owners want to know that all of their equipment (PVR, DVD, game consoles, etc) are showing HD content.

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by account_deleted ( 4530225 )
      Comment removed based on user account deletion

    • essential adj.
      1. Constituting or being part of the essence of something; inherent.
      2. Basic or indispensable; necessary: essential ingredients. Synonyms indispensable.

      Is HD essential for games? If you go by the actual dictionary definition of essential, no.

      Want to use the marketing definition instead (hell, the article seems to, so why not?)? HD games are not ever close to new. Games have exceeded the resolution available on even the best televisions available to

  • In my eyes, no. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by NanoGator ( 522640 ) on Thursday December 22, 2005 @05:24PM (#14322621) Homepage Journal
    "Is HD Important To The Future of Gaming?"

    Real time graphics have come a long way. However, I'm still watching DVDs that are far more visually stunning than I'm seeing on video game systems. In the mean time, to crank out the higher resolution stuff, you need more memory and more processing power. The result? Well, sure, you're rendering at higher resolutions, but you're not gaining much detail. Just some clarity. (Slower frame rates, to boot.)

    Don't get me wrong, I'd love to play in HD, but plain ol broadcast still has a ways to go.

  • HD is not new... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by SanityInAnarchy ( 655584 ) <ninja@slaphack.com> on Thursday December 22, 2005 @05:26PM (#14322635) Journal
    ... It's just another thing Microsoft takes credit for "innovating". My monitor does 1600x1200, meaning I can run some games in pretty damn "HD", and I've seen the low-res textures and models before anyone complained about 360 ports of Xbox games -- I'm talking about playing Quake3 and Jedi Academy at 1600x1200...

    The only thing more "HD" about the 360 is that it's probably about 3x as powerful as my desktop. But that'll change, and I don't have to pay a subscription fee to download demos of indy games. For that matter, how can a game be "indy" if it's published by Microsoft? I'd hardly call them "independent"...

    And I don't really want to pay $50 for a 360 game. Know why? Because they will almost certainly be too short/repetitive. UT2004 installed on something like 5 or 10 gigs, and then there were mods -- piles and piles of mods -- and that was nowhere near the level of detail in current "next-gen" or "HD" games, and yet, Microsoft stuck with the DVD format. I don't want to swap discs, and developers know this, so games will probably stay on one disc, meaning either lower detail, shorter games, or much more repitition.

    If not, well then, there are good games that are relatively small -- Half-Life 2 is just over a gig -- but in that case, I'll just stick with PC gaming, thank you very much.

    I'll wait to buy my 360 until it has a solid Linux port, and I can get a DVI cable to plug it into my monitor. Even then, I might just buy an original xbox -- they're getting cheaper every day.

    And for the record, I'm as much of a pixel whore as anyone else, but I don't see enough good "HD" content coming out to pull me away from my very low-definition, high-content MMO. Nexus forever!
    • Will people seriously drop the PC and XBox360 comparisons?

      If you want a gaming console, go buy an XBox360 and hook it up to your SD or HD TV. Enjoy.

      If you want a multipurpose machine capable of business applications, gaming, multimedia.. then buy a PC, hook it up to a nice monitor. Enjoy.

      A lot of people love to talk up that their PC is more capable games/graphics wise than the 360, but if you do the math you're flat out wrong-- as I've said in other comments, you cannot build (for $400) a PC capable of 1920
      • I'm a gamer, I read your post. I say, No.

        See, I don't want to play a souped up version of Space Invaders.

        I want to play FPS games (and do the aiming myself instead of relying on autoaim).
        I want to play MMORPG's and use a keyboard to chat with people while I'm playing.
        I want to play open source games and download mods and maps without paying a fee to Microsoft.
        I want the freedom to upgrade to bleeding edge graphics far superior to the 360 whenever I want.
        I want the luxury of choosing which CPU to install ne
        • I'm a gamer

          Ahh, yes, but not primarily a console gamer..

          I want to play open source games and download mods and maps without paying a fee to Microsoft.

          Do you know that all 360 owners get an XBox Live silver subscription for free?

  • Only to Console Gaming (Score:3, Interesting)

    by quantax ( 12175 ) on Thursday December 22, 2005 @05:29PM (#14322663) Homepage
    Given that computer users have been getting near HD-quality & better for a while, it is really only important for the console systems, and as such is naturally a selling point. HD in of itself is not important as is the overall fact that game engines & hardware are improving very quickly, now approaching cinematic quality in certain instances. High resolution art will become more common in-game, not just in prerendered sequences and thus greater time & energy will need to be spend on creating those assets, but this was going to happen without HD, just look at where the Unreal3 engine is heading.

    My argument is mainly that this is not a result of HD; HD has just appeared at a time when this is now possible. If we had HD 10 years ago, we would have high resolution displays with low resolution games & art. If we still didnt have HD today, we'd still have pretty nice computer monitors which would take advantage of the high resolution artwork that UE3 and the like is offering. HD just ensures it will be spread into the mainstream even faster through consoles as opposed to computers. Hopefully it will also raise the expectations of game art & assets in general for all games & systems.

  • If I could, I'd mod up this quote from the article (Score:4, Informative)

    by PhoenixOne ( 674466 ) on Thursday December 22, 2005 @05:29PM (#14322665)
    It is, and it will be... but not right now. At the moment, there isn't a large enough installed base of HDTVs in consumers' homes, but in a few years there will be. I'd predict around 2007 is when it will really start to matter, in the U.S. at least. This is assuming we are talking about consoles though, as high resolution graphics have mattered for quite some time in the PC market.
    -Derick Eisenhardt, EMH Games
    • Folks have been talking about high definition television since the 1980s. Now, they're finally getting popular in stores, and you think they'll be mainstream by 2007? I'm afraid not. TV lifespans are measured in 1 to 2 decades, not 3 to 5 years like consoles and computers. Over half the western population might have a HD capable screen by 2015, assuming low-end models from no-name companies start coming out so stores stop selling SD TVs.

      I'll say it again for all you techno-utopians: Most people do not

      • I didn't say that, I'm quoting somebody else. :) But I think he has a point.

        Personally, I agree that they wont be in even half the houses by 2007, but I do think there is a good chance that most hard-core, and many 'normal' gamers will have access to HD by XMas 2007. By then, the market will be big enough to support HD games (e.g. games that take advantage of HD and are geared for hard-core gamers).

        This assumes that HD TV continue to go down in price, and more HD content (TV, HD-DVD, Games) becomes avail

  • $1000 for an HDTV and $400 for a console that will let me watch a grown man sweat? Why wouldn't it sell?
  • ...

    of course, how fscking obvious??!?? We game mostly in "HD" anyway unless we play on consoles or handhelds. Hell, I am playing nethack in 1280x1024 as we speak :)

    How many pc gamers with a half decent rig play at 720x576 (or local equivalent??), which is the maximum resolution of PAL... no, we play at 1280x1024 on our LCD monitors or 1600x1200 on our massive CRTs with SLI 7800GTX's. It is inevetable that console games will want to improve resolution to match those capable on PC games; they would rather
    • How many pc gamers with a half decent rig play at 720x576 (or local equivalent??), which is the maximum resolution of PAL
      Don't forget about the interlacing, it's 288 lines alternating to give you that splitting headache you deserve ;)

      Yes, HD is more than welcome for consoles.
    • We game mostly in "HD" anyway unless we play on consoles or handhelds.

      Who is 'we'? Most people who play games either play them with consoles on the TV, or something like the Sims or minesweeper taking up a small part of a 800x600 PC monitor.

      How many pc gamers with a half decent rig play at 720x576 (or local equivalent??), which is the maximum resolution of PAL... no, we play at 1280x1024 on our LCD monitors or 1600x1200 on our massive CRTs with SLI 7800GTX's.

      This 'we' rears his ugly head again. I presume it

  • No (Score:2)

    by HunterZ ( 20035 )
    I've been enjoying HD quality graphics resolutions in PC games for years now. Low-def video is one of the many reasons I have avoided TV-based game consoles (other reasons include non-upgradability, poor controllers for many types of games, harsher platform life-cycle, etc.). I've always wondered what the point is of having a console as powerful as a desktop but only running the graphics output at 320x240 or so (yes, they say 640x480 but look up the NTSC or PAL specs and you'll see that the standard TV is c
  • Why has everyone in the industry been recently bemoaning how expensive hd games are going to be? PC games have supported the equivelent (4:3) of 720p for years, and 1080p for at least a while. Nobody's complained about that. Why all the furor just because console gaming is finally getting something that PC gamers have had for years?
    • PC games are not necessarily taking advantage of the higher resolution: you could play the original Half Life in 1600x1200 and it wouldn't look *that* much better, because the textures are still designed for 800x600 or so. It's kind of an arms race thing.
      • PC game textures are designed to be as large as the hardware at the time allows, not a specific resolution. No point in jamming 2GB worth of textures into a scene just because there may be a system capable of displaying those in the next decade.
  • Personally I'm holding out for 1080p consumer TVs. Looked into 23" computer TFTs to use as monitor and TV set with 1080p capability, but will just wait for it to become more common and cheaper so I can go with a bigger screen.

    The jump from SD to 720p just doesn't seem worth it to me, especially as games look nowhere near their counterparts of real life footage. Real life boxing still looks better than Fight Night, RL football still looks better than EA Sports FIFA Soccer, racing coverage better than GT4 and
  • I don't think HD is the future on its own. Surely as HD adoption happens in the TV market place, HD will become necessary and common to satisfy those consumers. HD however, is rather meanlingless in the bigger picture. Most people don't have HD tv sets right now and aren't going out to purchase them just to play games. HD is going to become a bigger headache than anything for gaming companies in the immediate future. As companies make games, they are going to have to decide how much time to devote to ma
  • The real question is if graphics are all you're bringing to the table, will better graphics make my games more fun?

  • It is important to Sony. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Zangief ( 461457 ) on Thursday December 22, 2005 @07:33PM (#14323559) Homepage Journal
    Because they also sell HD TVs, and, will sell you again all those movies you purchased on DVD, on the new Blu Ray.

  • Although it's nice to have a lot of resolution I'd much rather play in 480p than 1080i. Getting rid of interlacing really is the major benefit you'd get. It isn't very noticeable on TV compared to gaming due to naturally occuring anti-aliasing.

    However going from 480i to 480p is an incredible improvement for games. Of course 720p would be even better and if you can handle 1080p (my TV does not) that would kick ass if the performance was good.

    As for it being needed, I don't think it's a determing factor for t

    • Re:The most important feature is not resolution (Score:1, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Amen!

      I've always said this:
      Put Lord of the Rings (or some other visually impressive movie) into a progressive scan DVD player and play it on your HD television. THAT's the graphics ceiling for 480p on an HD-capable television set. Do you see many jaggies? How about that framerate?

      480p in gaming is nowhere near its ceiling, and is more than adequate for this next generation.
  • 1) Television usage has plummeted. Advertising dollars are slowly moving toward the Internet. Due to competing medias, people are watching less and less TV. Those who think HD is to the TV what Color TV was to Black TV do not get this. For many people, there is NO REASON to go re-buy their TV.

    2) Xbox 360 and PS3 are the very first consoles (that I know of) that are requiring the consumer to CHANGE their TV to get the most out of the console. No console has ever done this. This means many people will not thi
    • Xbox 360 and PS3 are the very first consoles (that I know of) that are requiring the consumer to CHANGE their TV to get the most out of the console. No console has ever done this.

      You're a moron. Every console that has come with Composite video output (everything since the original NES) could be classified as this. If you didn't (and some people still don't) have a TV with A/V input jacks, you were stuck seeing an RF-modulated signal, which is a much poorer quality signal than the console will provide.

      We're
      • Um, no, you're the moron. Here is why. The entire marketing around the Xbox 360 (PS3 may be similiar but it's not out yet) is because of HD graphics. How many people own a HD TV? What about in Japan, Europe, and everywhere else? The entire difference between a Xbox and Xbox 360 is mostly towards the HD graphics. The gameplay is the same. The controller is virtually identical. We get the same sequels. Even a similiar Xbox Live. In fact, the same games are coming out on both the Xbox and Xbox 360, the diffe
  • The original PC had 640x200 graphics, with some unusual modes that provided for more colors at yet lower resolutions. The jump to EGA(640x350) and even 640x480 were minor because initially these resolutions didn't add more color depth. It took until SVGA to give us a taste of the good quality graphics we have today on the PC.

    Now, on the PC it's fairly common to have people running in 1280x1024 mode. 1600x1200 resolution is possible for most people, but due to screen size and limited UI scaling in appli
  • The reason these industry experts push crap like high-definition as the FUTURE of gaming is because its something quantifiable. To the average ignorant consumer, if you can impress them with the flashy graphics they'll perceive that as a mark of progress.

    Truly innovative gameplay, however, is less quantifiable. It isn't necessarily something you can immediately identify, especially if you've been trained to believe that flashy graphics are the epitomy of innovation. The second risk here is that the consumer
  • That the average person has no concept of HD, and most of those that own HD sets have composite cables hooked up to it thinking they are in HD. The official date for the switch to HD has again been pushed back to 2009 due to the economy and that is a long way off with a lot of uncertainty in between then and now that could further change it.

    HD is nice, it isn't like OMFGWTFASIANHOOKER!!!11!1, just a nice upgrade in visuals. Most of us /.'ers are into technology and understand it and utilize it, but most reg

Slashdot Top Deals

A physicist is an atom's way of knowing about atoms. -- George Wald

Close