Topic: EDITORIAL: The HD Debacle

[Rize]

This thread is for discussion of my latest editorial.

[Bill Aurion]

What perfect timing...Just as this farce of a debate begins to die an editorial comes out...Excuse my blatent sarcasm...

[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.

[Rize]

Why is this debate a farce?

"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.  

[WindyMan]

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?

[thepoga]

If you're comparing the GC's component cable's image with it's regular cable's it IS barely noticable. I've said this before, but it's simply amazing to watch 720 HD on Discovery Channel. It's like a Polariod camera compared to a digital camera. Or something.  

[NinGurl69 *huggles]

I think HD gets pretty "meh" once you consider the idea that these new fancy 16:9 HD games will end up with forced letterboxing on your lovely super-expensive SQUARE/4:3 big-screen HDTV.  If your HDTV isn't widescreen, you'll be enjoying lots of black, empty, unused space (or an image that's Gumbi-stretched).

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.

[Rize]

p666: what makes you think that all 360 and PS3 games won't be forced to support both 4:3 and 16:9 aspect ratios?   The idea is that Revolution games should support 4:3, 16:9 480i and 480p in whatever configuration the player needs (same as 360 and PS3 games except they'll also have 720p).  I haven't heard that the 360 and PS3 are definitely supporting 4:3 ratio, but it'd be crazy not to (as you've pointed out).  And there's little reason why 480p couldn't be supported if they're supporting 720p and 480i.

[NinGurl69 *huggles]

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.

**Metroid Prime 2 in 480p looks outstanding, btw, and Daisy in Mario Power Tennis moves silky-smooth.

[Mario]

Quote
Originally posted by: WindyMan

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?

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.

[ruby_onix]

I'm not sure (I wasn't there), but didn't I hear some people complaining back at E3 about how Nintendo strangely didn't put up any progressive-scan TV's for any GameCube games in their E3 booth.

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.

[NinGurl69 *huggles]

Must've been the shortage of progressive-enabled GameCuub's and shortage of component cables (see store.nintendo.com) caused by Nintendo's wisdom last year.

[KnowsNothing]

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."  The only people this will affect are people that have already meade up their mind about next gen.

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.

[Lokno]

I'm one of those people who's not dreaming of HD, and I'm having trouble understanding the difference it makes on games, especially to your average game, which will probably look about the same graphically as games in this generation. So I agree that this is chiefly a PR problem, and you hit the nail on the head when you mentioned that most game reviewers are the "money is no object" type of gamer, and are HD ready. But I’d like to emphasize that this is no coincidence, and Sony has implied that the reason they support things like output to two individual HDTVs with PS3 is to appeal to the game media. Frankly, I respect Nintendo doing things their own way, whether they please the journalists or not. Let’s hope this all blows over, and Nintendo wins over the populace in the end by price, service and content.

[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.

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.

[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.

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.

[ShyGuy]

The reason Microsoft is requiring HD support in their games is they want to force everyone over to HD TVs.

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.

[hudsonhawk]

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.  

[vudu]

Rize - I stared at those Doom 3 screenshots for about 3 minutes before I determined I couldn't tell a single difference between them.  Perhaps if you used larger pictures your point would come across a little stronger.

[Rize]

"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. "

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).

[The Omen]

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.

[Shecky]

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.

[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).

[Shecky]

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.

[Rize]

2D games are certainly noticably improved by resolution bumps.  Of course, the art has to be properly scaled for each resolution.