High-res graphics are not needed for gaming

High-res is great for t.v. and movies. It really is not needed for gaming though. I think Mario Galaxy proves that. It is as beautiful, if not more beautiful, than any game being released for any console this year. Yet it only runs in 16:9 480p.

In gaming it's the talent of the artists and the programmers that make a beautiful game. Higher resolution doesn't automatically make a game look better.

High-res is great for t.v. and movies. It really is not needed for gaming though. I think Mario Galaxy proves that. It is as beautiful, if not more beautiful, than any game being released for any console this year. Yet it only runs in 16:9 480p.

In gaming it's the talent of the artists and the programmers that make a beautiful game. Higher resolution doesn't automatically make a game look better.

Number_1_Gamer

it is not needed for tv either. It looks better though.

wii fanboys... stop trying to make yourself feel better because wii has gamecube graphics.Claw8k

I'm no fanboy. I'm simply a purveyor of the truth.

When I first got my 360 I thought I just had to have an HDTV. I went and bought a cheap one and it looked pretty good. But then I tried hooking it up to my standard 32" Panasonic and played Gears of War. I had to say that it still looked awesome. Maybe some little details were lost but I was still impressed with the non HD version as well. Bottom line isn't always the TV but the art direction and graphics engines of the games themselves.

[QUOTE="Claw8k"]wii fanboys... stop trying to make yourself feel better because wii has gamecube graphics.Number_1_Gamer

I'm no fanboy. I'm simply a purveyor of the truth.

High-res is great for t.v. and movies. It really is not needed for gaming though. I think Mario Galaxy proves that. It is as beautiful, if not more beautiful, than any game being released for any console this year. Yet it only runs in 16:9 480p.

In gaming it's the talent of the artists and the programmers that make a beautiful game. Higher resolution doesn't automatically make a game look better.

Number_1_Gamer

You're right, they should just start making games for the Atari 2600 and NES again, we don't need these next gen systems with high resolution HDTV capabilities.

Gears, Crysis, R&C, BioShock - all disagree with youh575309

why would those games disagree? they would all run in a 480 resolution and they would all still look good.

many times i have switched my tv to lower resolutions... and the games still look good. hd graphics are not needed. they are just a really really nice addition. and i wish my wii was native hd so i did not have to buy a 600 dollar scaller for it.

High-res is great for t.v. and movies. It really is not needed for gaming though. I think Mario Galaxy proves that. It is as beautiful, if not more beautiful, than any game being released for any console this year. Yet it only runs in 16:9 480p.

In gaming it's the talent of the artists and the programmers that make a beautiful game. Higher resolution doesn't automatically make a game look better.

Number_1_Gamer

......yeah, I'm gonna go ahead and disagree with that..and ehh..I think most people here are on my side with this one...:?

[QUOTE="h575309"]Gears, Crysis, R&C, BioShock - all disagree with youfrankeyser

why would those games disagree? they would all run in a 480 resolution and they would all still look good.

many times i have switched my tv to lower resolutions... and the games still look good. hd graphics are not needed. they are just a really really nice addition. and i wish my wii was native hd so i did not have to buy a 600 dollar scaller for it.

well when i think of hd graphics and the such, i think of the technology behind it. its just the next step in clarity and realism. isnt that essentially what alot of game makers want to emulate?

also, i see a considerable difference with these games on hd tvs. not only is it easier to see in distances, details stick out. honestly though, if wii was in HD no one would be complaining if Mario's ass was in HD. youd be loving it.

then again, if your gonna be technical, the TC's post is that HD graphics arent "needed", which i can see may be true. but games are a luxury in the first place so theyre not needed.

also, you obviously play halo 3 by that pic there. do you play on an hdtv? that game shows some considerable differences in hd compared to sd. i play on a sharp 1080p 42 inch and its pretty gorgeous.

its def. needed... example, you cant even see some enemies off in the distance or what they are doing in halo 2... now in halo 3 you can. I didnt pay $$$$ for an HDTV to get cheated by nintendos cheap graphics... super paper mario proved why HD is needed. They game couldnt even zoom in without looking awful.

High-res is great for t.v. and movies. It really is not needed for gaming though. I think Mario Galaxy proves that. It is as beautiful, if not more beautiful, than any game being released for any console this year. Yet it only runs in 16:9 480p.

In gaming it's the talent of the artists and the programmers that make a beautiful game. Higher resolution doesn't automatically make a game look better.

Number_1_Gamer

Yeah 3d graphics are not needed either or for that matter color tv's :roll:

Sheep need to stop the damage control it's getting pathetic.

Changing of controls isn't needed either, nor is a controller that has yet to prove it can do anything thats so unique it qualifies as a purchase due to it alone, Metroid Prime 3 gets a lot of praise, it probably deserves it, but the game would not suddenly be a 6/10 if it wasn't for the controls, MP games scored higher on regular controls too.

Gameplay shoulden't depend on controllers, graphics shoulden't depend fully on being really high defenition but be bland anyway, you need a solid combination.

gameplay matters most, graphics matter too to a certain extent, thats like saying we dont really need a beautiful girl but the truth is we do want best of all worlds.

so graphics do matter sorry.

no matter how good gameplay is if the graphics is buttugly... its not as enjoyable.

By your logic, we don't need games at all, i mean why bother when you have awesome alternatives such as blackjack and dominoes?

It's called progress, no of course it's not needed, but the point is its better.

Top-Notch graphics don't make games good.

Top-Notch graphics makes good games great.

To say you don't need top-notch graphics in 2007 is naive and short-sighted. It sounds more like an excuse or damage control, then it does a genuine belief.

it's not the high -res that is the problem. it's that HD games still don't look as good as SD tv. so why did they bother to go HD before they could reach photo quality on SD? because increasing resolution is easier than having to come up with programing ways of making games look better. Ontain

Games have been running in resolutions equal to or greater than 1080p for a while, so it's not like HD gaming is a big breakthrough for gaming; it's a big breakthrough for consoles. But let's be honest--Compare the graphics on a game like Gears of War to a game like Shenmue (one of my favorites of all time, btw). Both are/were benchmarks graphically, and look at how huge the difference in detail is. It's going to take a long time before we have "photo-realistic" games (not only due to how many textures and polygons that would require, but also because of how hard it is to realistically animate something), but it's not like devs aren't trying. We're still a ways off, but it's fairly plain to see that we're slowly getting there.

[QUOTE="Ontain"]it's not the high -res that is the problem. it's that HD games still don't look as good as SD tv. so why did they bother to go HD before they could reach photo quality on SD? because increasing resolution is easier than having to come up with programing ways of making games look better. SeanBond

Games have been running in resolutions equal to or greater than 1080p for a while, so it's not like HD gaming is a big breakthrough for gaming; it's a big breakthrough for consoles. But let's be honest--Compare the graphics on a game like Gears of War to a game like Shenmue (one of my favorites of all time, btw). Both are/were benchmarks graphically, and look at how huge the difference in detail is. It's going to take a long time before we have "photo-realistic" games (not only due to how many textures and polygons that would require, but also because of how hard it is to realistically animate something), but it's not like devs aren't trying. We're still a ways off, but it's fairly plain to see that we're slowly getting there.

I know it's not a breakthrough. i'm a PC gamer at heart. of course there's a huge difference between GeoW and Shenmue. but you would have seen that difference in SD as well. if the goal is to reach "photorealistic" would it be wiser to do it first on SD then go to HD or just skip trying on SD and go to HD knowing that we won't have the memory or power to do it?

Metroid Prime 3 gets a lot of praise, it probably deserves it, but the game would not suddenly be a 6/10 if it wasn't for the controls, MP games scored higher on regular controls too.

ZanuffC

mmmm... a change in the rating systems didn't account for the difference in scores either.

High-res is great for t.v. and movies. It really is not needed for gaming though. I think Mario Galaxy proves that. It is as beautiful, if not more beautiful, than any game being released for any console this year. Yet it only runs in 16:9 480p.

In gaming it's the talent of the artists and the programmers that make a beautiful game. Higher resolution doesn't automatically make a game look better.

Number_1_Gamer

well its not more beautiful, but it does look good thanks to the lighting.

I know it's not a breakthrough. i'm a PC gamer at heart. of course there's a huge difference between GeoW and Shenmue. but you would have seen that difference in SD as well. if the goal is to reach "photorealistic" would it be wiser to do it first on SD then go to HD or just skip trying on SD and go to HD knowing that we won't have the memory or power to do it?

Ontain

From a developmental standpoint, yeah, that'd probably be more effective. But honestly, I'd rather be playing games in 720/1080p on my TV right now with slightly worse graphics than playing them with better graphics in 480i/p. Clearly for people who don't have any interest in an HDTV right now, this wouldn't be an issue, but for me personally, I like seeing the games in HD. I think that they way they're going about it right now is pretty decent (devoting time to both resolution issues and graphical ones). I think the issue is that while the majority of people still have SDTVs, technology is always aimed at the early adopters, which is why there's such a big focus on HD.

High-res is great for t.v. and movies. It really is not needed for gaming though. I think Mario Galaxy proves that. It is as beautiful, if not more beautiful, than any game being released for any console this year. Yet it only runs in 16:9 480p.

In gaming it's the talent of the artists and the programmers that make a beautiful game. Higher resolution doesn't automatically make a game look better.

Number_1_Gamer

[QUOTE="Number_1_Gamer"]

High-res is great for t.v. and movies. It really is not needed for gaming though. I think Mario Galaxy proves that. It is as beautiful, if not more beautiful, than any game being released for any console this year. Yet it only runs in 16:9 480p.

In gaming it's the talent of the artists and the programmers that make a beautiful game. Higher resolution doesn't automatically make a game look better.

afmsquid

You're right, they should just start making games for the Atari 2600 and NES again, we don't need these next gen systems with high resolution HDTV capabilities.

He is talking about RESOLUTION. Jesus, people! He's not talking about crappy or good graphics.

He's saying that even though HD makes the games look crisper, it isn't needed desperately. Look, you survived the PS2/GC/Xbox/N64/PSone/Dreamcast years!

theres 2 sides to this

the ideal res of a screen is related to its size. if u plan to only play games on a 20 inch telly then higher reses are no good at all. put a 20 inch HD telly and a 20 inch SD telly side by side and the difference would be negligable. nintendo have made a gamble with wii, arguing that although HD will become the norm, it wont be for many years yet. WII 2 will be a HD capable console. market penetration of big HD screens worldwide remains relatively small but it is growing. did nintendo make the right choice? we will find out in about 4 years. however as a screen gets bigger, its resolution and the resolution of the output from devices attached to it ideally should go up with it. otherwise images wil get very stretched and pixelated....which is bad. many tellys are good at upscaling which reduces these effects but that will only go so far. Bigger tellies are also going to be very popular. the day of the 21" crt as standard is coming to an end. every company knows this, including nintendo.

the other side of this is the actual resolution of the textures in the game, along with the detail in the models n stuff. although these arent needed for gaming really, they certainly can add to the experience. it doesent matter if these graphics are played on a SD or HD telly....the difference is still very noticable. while i would argue that too much focus is being put on improving textures and graphics in games at the expense of other areas, i certainly wouldnt argue that these should be completly ignored in the future.

The next nintendo console should be less powerfull then the SNES...about even w/ the NES...since sheep don't seem to want graphics.

Graphics make the game more enjoyable, and lead to better everything.

.....says the gamer without an HDTV.The_Crucible

I've had an HDTV (1080i)for two years. I havea high-def set top box with digital cable, and all the 500+ channels are in HD.I LOVE watching sports and movies in HD. Anyone who says I don't have an HDTV is a liar and shouldn't be listened to.