Post by: Rize on June 20, 2005, 09:21:04 PM
Post by: Bill Aurion on June 20, 2005, 10:04:33 PM
Post by: KDR_11k on June 20, 2005, 10:16:21 PM
I object. HD resolution is nothing you're going to notice in a game unless the screen is really huge but who will put a huge screen on a demo kiosk? The difference between interlaced and proper display will be more obvious and Nintendo might still support proper displaying. With AA the difference in resolution will only matter for text. Console games aren't very text heavy, unlike PC games.
Post by: Rize on June 20, 2005, 10:21:43 PM
"I object. HD resolution is nothing you're going to notice in a game unless the screen is really huge but who will put a huge screen on a demo kiosk?"
You can easily notice the difference between 640x480 and 800x600 on a 15 inch computer monitor. I'm quite sure people will see a significant difference between 720p and 480i even on 20 inch sets.
And who would put a large HDTV in a store? MS and Sony would. Unlike Nintendo, they actually place kiosks in stores themselves sometimes if I'm not mistaken.
Anyway, one of my points is that good FSAA and AF will help mitigate the lack of HD. I'm not too worried about image quality (although there will be a significant difference), I'm mostly concerned about Nintendo losing another major PR battle.
Post by: WindyMan on June 20, 2005, 10:21:57 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: KDR_11k
HD resolution is simply stunning to behold
I object. HD resolution is nothing you're going to notice in a game unless the screen is really huge but who will put a huge screen on a demo kiosk? The difference between interlaced and proper display will be more obvious and Nintendo might still support proper displaying. With AA the difference in resolution will only matter for text. Console games aren't very text heavy, unlike PC games.
You obviously haven't been around HDTV programming. Watch ESPN in normal TV resolution. Then watch ESPNHD in hi-def. Go back to ESPN in normal resolution. There is an enormous difference between the two, even moreso when they're displayed next to each other.
And Microsoft is planning to come out with retail kiosks with Samsung HD displays for their games. If you have a game running at a high resolution next to a game that isn't, the one that isn't won't look as good, no matter how good it looks by itself.
If it only matters for text, then why do you think Microsoft and Sony are pushing so hard for HD support in their games?
Post by: thepoga on June 20, 2005, 10:23:13 PM
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on June 20, 2005, 10:23:16 PM
I'm not thrilled about seeing more letterboxes for the sake of "higher definition" aka more pixels (that obviously won't be using the rest of my TV's 4:3 screen). And I don't think Nintendo, as a developer, is thrilled with having to design for both widescreen and fullscreen TVs, so my GUESS is they're just designing with the, *ahem*, market leader in mind...... fullscreen/square/4:3 televisions.
Post by: Rize on June 20, 2005, 10:24:41 PM
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on June 20, 2005, 10:45:32 PM
My problem is this "next big step" in image definition ONLY comes in widescreen. So if you're like me who has a 4:3 HDTV in the household, there's a "sacrifice" involved in taking advantage of this HD, and that's is jumping to 720 or 1080 lines would add letterboxing -- gee, thanks, the pixels are nice and smaller but you're now using much less of the 50-60inch than I'd prefer. The 4:3 configs will sadly not take advantage of the extra lines of resolution, and remain in 480-land.
**Metroid Prime 2 in 480p looks outstanding, btw, and Daisy in Mario Power Tennis moves silky-smooth.
Post by: Mario on June 20, 2005, 11:02:18 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: WindyManQuote
Originally posted by: KDR_11k
HD resolution is simply stunning to behold
I object. HD resolution is nothing you're going to notice in a game unless the screen is really huge but who will put a huge screen on a demo kiosk? The difference between interlaced and proper display will be more obvious and Nintendo might still support proper displaying. With AA the difference in resolution will only matter for text. Console games aren't very text heavy, unlike PC games.
You obviously haven't been around HDTV programming. Watch ESPN in normal TV resolution. Then watch ESPNHD in hi-def. Go back to ESPN in normal resolution. There is an enormous difference between the two, even moreso when they're displayed next to each other.
And Microsoft is planning to come out with retail kiosks with Samsung HD displays for their games. If you have a game running at a high resolution next to a game that isn't, the one that isn't won't look as good, no matter how good it looks by itself.
If it only matters for text, then why do you think Microsoft and Sony are pushing so hard for HD support in their games?
He said game. Microsoft and Sony are "pushing so hard" for it so they have another thing to throw on the spec sheet.
I think this whole thing is pretty silly considering we don't even have confirmation other than a shaky "oh, HD, what the hell's that? No, we don't do HD, go away" from Parrot Kaplan. Who knows, maybe we won't even play Revolution games on TV's at all? We don't even know what Revolution games look like when they're running.
Also, the issue with framerate i've heard constantly being brought up, along with the issue Pro is talking about, leads me to think this HDTV garbage is going backwards.
Post by: ruby_onix on June 21, 2005, 12:13:42 AM
The biggest show of the year, and Nintendo didn't even want their games to be shown at their best.
I think Nintendo has just decided that they hate grafx now.
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on June 21, 2005, 01:15:33 AM
Post by: KnowsNothing on June 21, 2005, 02:37:36 AM
Personally, I don't think HDTV is really that great. I've got a 40-something inch high-def DLP screen in my living room, but I choose to play on a 5 year old 17-inch screen in my room because it's easier, less expensive, and Metroid Prime still looks amazing.
Also, I haven't actually read the article yet.
Post by: Lokno on June 21, 2005, 04:06:32 AM
Post by: Ian Sane on June 21, 2005, 07:42:03 AM
"Nintendo could go a long way toward defusing the PR nightmare they’re heading for by requiring that all Revolution games support 480p and especially 16:9 wide-screen."
I don't like that because it's a restriction. In principle it's no different than Microsoft forcing devs to support HD or Nintendo forcing devs to not support HD. The ideal solution is to put the damn port on the Rev and tell third parties to do whatever they want. HD support should be an option free for any Rev developer to make use of. And if they don't want to support anything extra for display purposes they don't have to.
That kiosk issue would still exist but I think that's minor. I feel the goodwill of being flexible with third parties for a change would be more beneficial. Graphics are important but the general public is not that good of a judge. GTA was the big seller this gen and it looks like total sh!t. Most people thought the PS2 had better graphics than the Cube. Graphics has more to do with marketing than tech specs. TV commercials are probably going to attract more sales than store demos. The general public will watch TV commercials on non-HDTVs. So Nintendo can make their graphics look good by showing off really good footage in the commercials. HD won't make a difference there. Though this gen Nintendo sucked at showing good looking footage or screenshots so there's some work to be done.
"Kiosks would be a problem if the Revolution is going to be just another PS3 or 360, but that's not the case. I don't think many consumers will say, 'Well, that kid over there seems to be having fun with this revolutionary new controler, but DAMN that image on that xbox is sharp, makes me want to go buy an HDTV.'"
You're putting a lot of faith in Nintendo to deliver a great idea and in the public to care about it. I think it would be better for the Rev to be a good matchup against the PS2 or 360 as an auxillary plan in case the "revolutionary" idea doesn't fly.
Post by: Rize on June 21, 2005, 07:45:33 AM
ruby_onx: there were proscan tv's in Nintendo's booth. Zelda was running on giant plasma's or lcd's of some kind. Obi saw geist running in proscan so that suggests the regular tv's were progressive also (although many games weren't properly booted in pro scan mode).
KnowsNothing: true, Nintendo will have its own unique feature that the other guys won't. The question is how will people react to it? And you haven't read the article... it looks like no one has.
Lokno: finally someone who read it ; ) Yeah. That's my point abou 16:9 and 480p support. The media is reasonable enough to understand what Nintendo gains by leaving out HD support and if Nintendo throws them a bone in the way of 16:9 and 480p gauranteed for every game, I think it would go a long way to defusing the PR mess.
" don't like that because it's a restriction. In principle it's no different than Microsoft forcing devs to support HD or Nintendo forcing devs to not support HD. The ideal solution is to put the damn port on the Rev and tell third parties to do whatever they want. "
That could work if Nintendo themselves rigidly support 16:9 and 480p. In that case cheap developers could do what they want, but any developer that wants good media attention had better include 16:9 and 480p.
Post by: ShyGuy on June 21, 2005, 07:55:07 AM
Why? so you can read your email on a Television and the text won't look fuzzy. That way, Microsoft can sell you the hardware and the software that you use to get on the internet and do your computing. The Xbox losing billions is done so Microsoft can establish domination in the living room.
Post by: hudsonhawk on June 21, 2005, 08:07:44 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Ian Sane
I'm on the pro-HD side but I strongly disagree with one point made in this editorial.
"Nintendo could go a long way toward defusing the PR nightmare they’re heading for by requiring that all Revolution games support 480p and especially 16:9 wide-screen."
I don't like that because it's a restriction. In principle it's no different than Microsoft forcing devs to support HD or Nintendo forcing devs to not support HD. The ideal solution is to put the damn port on the Rev and tell third parties to do whatever they want. HD support should be an option free for any Rev developer to make use of. And if they don't want to support anything extra for display purposes they don't have to.
But this generation should have proven pretty clearly that not forcing devs to support widescreen means no devs will support widescreen.
Of all the games that I played on the Cube this generation, only Buffy and F-Zero supported it. I hate to admit that it makes a difference, but when I had Halo 2 and Metroid Prime at the same time, it was pretty painful going from widescreen back to academy ratio; I felt like I was wearing blinders when I was playing Prime, since suddenly I had no periphery.
The fact is, by the end of this new generation most or all TVs sold in the US will be widescreen HD- or EDTVs. It will make a difference in terms of who buys what. I never even entertain the notion of buying a multi-platform game for the Cube anymore; even though I'd rather support the Cube, I know that the Xbox version of said game will be Widescreen, hi-def.
Not only that, but while a standard-def TV owner won't see the difference between a hi-def source and a standard-def source, putting a standard-def, interlaced signal into any digital TV looks like absolute crap. I'm not saying that they need to full-on support high def / widescreen - that would, by most estimates, quadruple the amount of RAM required for the box (which is probably the real issue here in terms of cost-saving) - but at the very least you have to support 480p / widescreen to look good on a digital TV.
I love Nintendo desperately, but if the Rev doesn't support 480p at the very least, I will probably wait to get one. As an HDTV owner who's gotten spoiled on progressive scan sources, even with the Gamecube, I just couldn't go back to a composite source. It would be roughly akin to going back to monaural sound from surround, or having to go back to only having d-pads from using analog sticks for so long.
Post by: vudu on June 21, 2005, 08:48:46 AM
Post by: Rize on June 21, 2005, 09:08:35 AM
And yet Sony is doing the same thing. Just because there are potential side benefits for MS doens't mean that HD isn't worth it in its own right. How many people play PC games in 640x480 anymore? That's the minimum resolution now. Doom 3 (since I used it to demstrate anisotropic filtering) doesn't let you choose a resolution lower than that without console trickery.
vudu: look at the floor as it recedes into the distance and also ribbed wall behind the pipe in the upper left. With trilinear filtering, the detail is blurred as it recedes into the distance. Anisotropic filtering isn't needed for the portions of the picture close to the viewer and it isn't really need for surfaces that are parallel with the screen (such as the door).
Post by: The Omen on June 21, 2005, 09:10:23 AM
Quote
Sure, the multiple configs will be supported. I didn't imply they won't (well, i think i didn't).
My problem is this "next big step" in image definition ONLY comes in widescreen. So if you're like me who has a 4:3 HDTV in the household, there's a "sacrifice" involved in taking advantage of this HD, and that's is jumping to 720 or 1080 lines would add letterboxing -- gee, thanks, the pixels are nice and smaller but you're now using much less of the 50-60inch than I'd prefer. The 4:3 configs will sadly not take advantage of the extra lines of resolution, and remain in 480-land.
So, do you watch dvds in full screen? Or letterbox? I mean, I feel for you having a 4:3 HDTV, but what the hell was the point in buying it? It was cheaper? I have a 51 inch widescreen HD and it only set me back $1200., so while I can understand buying a 4:3 HDTV for $400 cheaper, it costs you in the long run.
Ian Sane has the right idea-ENABLE HD so that those who wish to use it do so. Especially some big name games that come out for the 360 and PS3 won't have to cut us out when the inevitable port comes. If there is no HD, I get the feeling there will be no ports. Or support in the first place. If Rockstar Games(hypothetically speaking) wants to support HD, they will obviously skip over a Rev. title all together. Any third party will for that matter.
Post by: Shecky on June 21, 2005, 09:47:28 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Rize
pro666: that's your fault for buying a weird tv... 4:3 HD? I don't even know why they ever sold those. What stretching options do you have? If you have the option to display the whole 720p (1280 pixels wide) full screen, then a game could use 720p in 4:3 mode.
As someone with a HD 4:3 TV myself, I'll save pro666 the trouble of a Daisy quote... Weird TV? "Whatever!"
Games still are benefited from just a cleaner signal that the component cables provide. Things like color definition, brightness, "bleeding/blurriness", etc. It would be interesting to really see the difference between, standard composite 480i, enhanced component 480p, and high-def component 720p.... *side by side*. I have witnessed each individually, but have only been able to use the same source to compare the first two cases.
Post by: Rize on June 21, 2005, 10:15:53 AM
Post by: Shecky on June 21, 2005, 01:34:42 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Rize
I'd like to see 480p and 480i side by side, but I don't need to see 720p side by side. HD resolutions are instantly noticable with proper HD content (some HD content is badly compressed and you start to wonder if it's really HD).
Well content is the key word. Compression is one way to mess with it. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that playing Pac Man in 480p and 720p would not yield a noticeable difference
I think for that reason, the "mandatory to be HD" that's being tied to the xbox360 needs to taken lightly.Also, I have the ability to do the 480i / 480p side by side, but no good way of capturing it effectively - and I would still want to see all 3 (480i,480p,720p) with the *same* source.
Post by: Rize on June 21, 2005, 01:39:18 PM
Post by: Dirk Temporo on June 21, 2005, 02:44:41 PM
...
Does that mean HD support would make the system cost $100 more...?
Post by: BigJim on June 21, 2005, 05:51:52 PM
Well, yeah. I don't know if we needed a technical lesson to get that point across. The editorial's answer: support widescreen. I'm not sure that was the question being asked. I guess he's saying, "if nothing else, at least support that."
If, it might, it may, sometimes, I believe.... There are a lot of if/but/maybe/might/shoulda/woulda/coulda's. We don't even know the nature of Revolution yet. Nintendo has been more willing to tell us what it's *not* than what it *is*.
The bottom line for me is this. Nintendo has a history of letting their game designers dictate the hardware. There is wisdom in this, but there are reasonable limits. This is not a hardware cost issue. No HD for Revolution means their own art department's costs are controlled, so to hell with everybody else.
Pop your bubble and smell the fresh air, Nintendo. Doing things "your way" has reduced your marketshare in half for 3 generations, and your mindshare down to an afterthought in the mass media.
Until they figure it out, claiming to have a pulse on the gamer and knowing what they want holds little merit with me.
Post by: jarob on June 21, 2005, 09:08:55 PM
Post by: Rize on June 21, 2005, 10:56:24 PM
Post by: stevey on June 22, 2005, 03:58:37 AM
Post by: trip1eX on June 22, 2005, 05:39:04 AM
It looks like they are going the DS route with their next gen console. So imagine the 360 and PS3 are the PSP. And the Revolution is the DS. What are the differences between the PSP and DS? The PSP looks alot better and is widescreen and more powerful. The DS tho is $100 cheaper and has dual screens and touchscreen and built in mic. Expect the same differentiation with the REvolution.
Nintendo will able to do some interesting things by staying at 480i. Maybe mix in some full video into their games. They'll surely be able render lots more objects at 480i. And the games will surely look better than the Gamecube's. That excites me.
Anyway NIntendo is conservative. They don't want to break the bank on hdtv support when most folks don't have hdtv. I think the penetration in Japan and Europe is even less than the U.S. for instance. Can you imagine how many folks in Japan have the 42" TV in their home? I think Nintendo will cater to their home market first.
I did read they will have vga out support. IF that's true than they must support 480p. Perhaps they'll even support 800x600.
Anyway even for those that have hdtv in their, how much of your gaming will be done on one? Alot of folks seem to have the consoles in their bedrooms or guest rooms or can only play in the living room when Mom, DAd, Wife, Husband, Brother, Sister, etc aren't in there.
Post by: Rize on June 22, 2005, 06:32:34 AM
True. And of course this is a 4:3 signal, but a widescreen TV can stretch the signal just as it would any 4:3 signal, so if the game has a 16:9 mode then you're good to go.
A game doesn't even need 480p to use 16:9. You can plug a plain old 480i signal into a widescreen TV and use a 16:9 mode. For example, Perfect Dark and Goldeneye on the N64.
Post by: Ian Sane on June 22, 2005, 07:46:29 AM
I don't think that would be a great strategy. The DS can get away with being technically inferior because of two things:
1. It's a portable and people have lower standards for acceptable portable graphics.
2. Nintendo is the absolute king of the portable market and the DS benefits greatly from being associated with the Gameboy (despite Nintendo's efforts to push it as a third pillar).
People expect cutting edge graphics on consoles so the Rev just plain cannot have significantly weaker hardware than the PS3 and Xbox 360 and expect to be taken seriously, even if the big feature is really great. The Rev also lacks the strong brand image that Nintendo has in the portable market. In the console market the Nintendo brand is not very popular. There already is a negative bias towards the Rev just because it is the followup to the Cube. Inferior hardware compared to the competition would just fuel the negative bias. The DS strategy relies on people giving the system a chance. The Rev can't rely on anyone to do that. It has to wow everyone at first glance.
Post by: KDR_11k on June 22, 2005, 08:08:26 AM
RE4 uses widescreen. That was the only game that looked right on our family widescreen TV. I suppose it would have looked better had I not enabled 60Hz because I doubt it does 100Hz with 60Hz input signals but whatever.
Post by: Rize on June 22, 2005, 05:13:05 PM
Post by: trip1eX on June 22, 2005, 06:51:51 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Ian Sane
I don't think that would be a great strategy. The DS can get away with being technically inferior because of two things:
1. It's a portable and people have lower standards for acceptable portable graphics.
2. Nintendo is the absolute king of the portable market and the DS benefits greatly from being associated with the Gameboy (despite Nintendo's efforts to push it as a third pillar).
People expect cutting edge graphics on consoles so the Rev just plain cannot have significantly weaker hardware than the PS3 and Xbox 360 and expect to be taken seriously, even if the big feature is really great. The Rev also lacks the strong brand image that Nintendo has in the portable market. In the console market the Nintendo brand is not very popular. There already is a negative bias towards the Rev just because it is the followup to the Cube. Inferior hardware compared to the competition would just fuel the negative bias. The DS strategy relies on people giving the system a chance. The Rev can't rely on anyone to do that. It has to wow everyone at first glance.
WEll the REv can be $100 less and inferior like the GAmecube was to the Xbox. INferior tho meaning almost as good. I mean look at RE4. So they'll go that route again plus throw in some DS differentation by adding some new techs to their controller. NOt to mention the whole download thing and the Gamecube backward compatibility. Plus it looks like they'll offer DVD playback as a peripheral for those that want such a thing.
Nintendo is going after profit not market share per se. MS can lose $3 bil and not blink. Nintendo can't.
Also not sure I buy that Nintendo can't be less powerful and still get third party support. PCs run games at different resolutions and the games are made to run on machines with a wide variety of power. 3rd parties could easily port to the REvolution even if it's less powerful. IT just depends on whether the userbase is there.
Post by: TheZooKeeper on June 23, 2005, 05:40:09 AM
I'd like to point out, though, that I disagree with the average person seeing a greater difference between HD resolutions vs improved pixel shading (and other rendering enhancements). Putting a better rendered 480p up-scaled image on a plasma screen side-by-side with a less-well rendered image on the same screen at 720p, I bet the average consumer will be more impressed with the 480p version. Just my 2 cents.
Post by: KDR_11k on June 23, 2005, 06:01:37 AM
Unless the Rev is the dominant console and has good third party sales the third parties will make their games for the X360 first and then try to port to PS3 and Rev. If porting to Rev doesn't work they'll skip that. Especially if the Rev ends up like the GC with ports not exactly being worth the effort bewcause noone buys them.
Post by: Rize on June 23, 2005, 09:19:02 AM
Well, it depends on how much better obviously. A minor bump would not look as good as HD. But if the full power of an HD console was devoted to making a good 480p game instead of a720p capable game, it could be significantly better. But will the rev have the full power of an HD console?
"Unless the Rev is the dominant console and has good third party sales the third parties will make their games for the X360 first and then try to port to PS3 and Rev. If porting to Rev doesn't work they'll skip that. Especially if the Rev ends up like the GC with ports not exactly being worth the effort bewcause noone buys them."
That's exactly it. What if the rev's controller is so different and the graphics so much worse that they didn't bother with ports, but went for unique games. Revolution adopters would be much more likely to by unique games and they may not cost any more than a big budget port.
I don't think the Revolution will be that weak though. I think it'll be at least as capable (although in non HD resolution) as the 360 and PS3.
Post by: KDR_11k on June 23, 2005, 11:22:08 PM
Not really. Not many objects need pixel shaders and you'd have to pretty much overload the scene with them to make much of a difference. Besides, most stores will just throw a multiplatform game in there and there goes your advantage.
that they didn't bother with ports, but went for unique games.
You mean "went for no games" because I can't see them risking money on a console they believe will fail and have a userbase that won't buy their game anyway when the dev costs are this high. The DS can get away with that to some degree, it's so underpowered the games are really cheap to make but current gen games are expensive enough for them not to risk putting something on the Rev and the Rev only. You definitely overestimate the cost difference HD will make. A Rev game will still be more expensive to make than a GC game and a GC game is already too expensive for experiments unless you're Capcom. IOW Capcom might support it and sell pretty low while not contributing anything to the Rev sales while the rest of the world ignores the rev completely.
Post by: Rize on June 24, 2005, 07:28:09 AM
A good looking rev game. Not all games have to be good looking. Look at the number of 2D DS games in the works. Nintendo gamers are known for valuing gameplay over graphics. If a publisher thinks they can publish a fun game with mediocre graphcis that exploits the rev's unique interface and make a few bucks, they'll do it.
"Not really. Not many objects need pixel shaders and you'd have to pretty much overload the scene with them to make much of a difference. Besides, most stores will just throw a multiplatform game in there and there goes your advantage."
I'm not sure what you mean by this. In the latest pixel shading engines (Doom 3 and Unreal 3) EVERY single pixel needs shading, and most pixels need the same amount of shading. What you can do with 3x the shading power is increase shader quality across the board. Or add new shading effects. It has nothing to do with adding more objects that need pixel shading. Every object needs pixel shading. And Nintendo can send out demo disks (with multiple games and videos) which will give stores an obvious and completely Nintendo controlled catalogue of demos. Of course Nintendo will focus on the rev's unique capabilities not graphics.
Post by: nemo_83 on June 24, 2005, 09:13:19 AM
I see where you're coming from about resolution; and the kiosks example was a great one. I too have been thinking of the effects of that on buyers in stores.
Early adopters and hardcore gamers go hand and hand it seems. The people these companies rely on to buy consoles the first day are the hardcore gamers yet the consoles aimed at hardcore gamers do not always succeed. Just look at Saturn, Dreamcast, and Xbox. HD support from software makers benefits Sony and that is why they seem so reliant upon it. They make tvs and soon are to be entrenched in Blue Ray technology. Their Playstation brand is a way of getting consumers to buy their other more profitable products. Nintendo benefits none from this. Thus the logic suggests Nintendo seek an alternative avenue such as a visor which can still attract hardcore gamers. They do not wish to limit themselves to the American market via high resolution. Plus I know people who claim they want to buy HD tvs eventually, but I see no way of it happening. People in America have bigger eyes than they do walets. I can say I am planning on getting a HD tv eventually, but truthfully the economy, inflation, and the job market are sucking the joy out of life. Who is to say that things won't be even worse in three years than they are now? Gas prices could be five or six dollars a gallon. Who is going to be worried about resolution on their tv then?
Moderator: Ixnay on the politics. They are completely off-topic here.
Post by: KDR_11k on June 24, 2005, 11:56:30 AM
Yes but why complain about hardware at all then? You could just as well make a bad looking XBox 360 game.
They won't test the waters with bad looking games because then they wouldn't know if it was the idea or the graphics that scared people away if it doesn't sell.
As for the per-pixel lighting, the X360 and PS3 can handle fairly advanced stuff at 1080p. If there were shaders that required so much more they'd work only in SD you could expect devs to make them optional, i.e. they only trigger when the game is run at 480 on the X360 and PS3.
Post by: nickmitch on June 24, 2005, 07:48:01 PM
Post by: KDR_11k on June 24, 2005, 08:43:55 PM
Post by: nemo_83 on June 24, 2005, 11:43:19 PM
P.S. Sorry, about the political joke in my previous post; I was trying to lighten the mood. I guess I have developed a gallows humor. Most every proffessor I take, every author I read; every comic I watch uses politics for jokes and it bleeds through.
Post by: Rize on June 25, 2005, 03:45:42 PM
Most devs will be lazy and optimize the game for the min spec though. Also it may not be quite so easy to just turn on better shaders for a game that is simultanously being optimized for a number of different resolutions.
But it is defintely possible for a 360 or PS3 dev to have better shaders at regular resolution.
Post by: mantidor on June 25, 2005, 06:04:23 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Rize
Why is this debate a farce?
You can easily notice the difference between 640x480 and 800x600 on a 15 inch computer monitor. I'm quite sure people will see a significant difference between 720p and 480i even on 20 inch sets.
Thats because we see computer monitors at a distance of two feets at most. People dont normally watch TV so close, specially if you have a huge TV.
And I also didnt find any difference in the doom screenshots until you pointed out the floor, and I really dont think Ill notice the difference when Im playing the game, its not like I stare at the floor for thirty seconds and see how defined it is, I just go in to kill some mosters. Graphics easily go to second or third in importance (and sometimes to no importance at all) once you are into the game.
Post by: Rize on June 26, 2005, 08:26:08 AM
Post by: BlackNMild2k1 on June 27, 2005, 09:53:27 PM
Roundtable: David Gornoski(Nintendo Now) and Matt Casamassina(IGN) Discuss HD and More
Quote
David: We have no clue how the Revolution's graphics will look. We're only assuming they will look worse because the execs have said they are not looking to beef up horsepower. But as we've seen with Japanese imports, more horsepower does not necessarily mean better performance. So which would you prefer: solid frame rates w/ no HD or poor frame rates w/ HD?
Matt: Tough one. I'm a stickler for fluidity, so I'd go with frame-rates. Still, we don't know for sure if HD games will really run bad on these new consoles. It's a potential problem articulated by one developer.
Quote???huh???
Matt: Yes. Xbox Live was perhaps the biggest innovation this generation. Nintendo copied Sony's EyeToy, meanwhile. To say that neither challenger is innovating is absurd. Fact is all of the companies innovate. However, with Nintendo, it oftentimes seems to come at the expense of technology, at least where next-generation consoles are concerned.
Post by: oohhboy on June 28, 2005, 03:04:28 AM
Post by: nemo_83 on June 28, 2005, 03:53:30 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: oohhboy
What do you expect out of Matt? The guy should have been run out of the journalism biz longtime ago. The fact he is still here only shows there are still too many dumb people in the world.
I am not a fan of paying for online journalism in IGNinsider, but Matt is well spoken. I don't know what he meant about the eyetoy comment, maybe he has seen more than us. I don't neccessarily agree with all his opinions, but I read cube.ign weekly still. Also you have to think of all the mail he probably gets from fanboys.
Post by: KnowsNothing on June 28, 2005, 06:05:12 AM
Post by: BlackNMild2k1 on June 28, 2005, 07:28:24 PM
Post by: vudu on June 29, 2005, 12:46:54 PM
Post by: Rize on July 02, 2005, 08:59:05 AM
Post by: mantidor on July 02, 2005, 06:11:37 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: nemo_83
I am not a fan of paying for online journalism in IGNinsider, but Matt is well spoken. I don't know what he meant about the eyetoy comment, maybe he has seen more than us. I don't neccessarily agree with all his opinions, but I read cube.ign weekly still. Also you have to think of all the mail he probably gets from fanboys.
Now I understand why you post the way you post
seriously, what can he know about the eyetoy that we dont know? its a copy from the GB camera, is as simple as that, unless Nintendo travel to the future and copy the idea....and I totally disagree that Matt is well spoken, for good editorials Ill stick with gamesindustry.biz, not the biased crap he does.
Post by: KDR_11k on July 02, 2005, 09:39:16 PM
Post by: nickmitch on July 03, 2005, 10:02:01 AM
Post by: mantidor on July 03, 2005, 10:33:18 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: KDR_11k
Eyetoy a copy of the GB camera? Seriously, WTF? It's a webcam with games, just because Nintendo attached a camera to a games device once upon a time doesn't mean everything thereafter is a clone.
That stills doesnt explain how the hell could Nintendo copy the eyetoy, when the only device that Nintendo has that is any similar to the thing is the old gameboy camera... or is there a weird peripheral for the GC that I havent heard of?
Post by: KDR_11k on July 04, 2005, 02:54:48 AM
Post by: nickmitch on July 05, 2005, 03:46:26 PM
