Network now...BLOG
Optimal Optional
You probably wouldn’t want to watch the recent Star Trek film on a PSP. And even if you did, you would have to concede that something of its dazzling spectacle would be lost during the compression down from the all-encompassing cinema screen to a small LCD. Should we have similar expectations regarding the way that games are played? Sure, few consumers will be able to climb into a bespoke Forza 3 gaming pod, but is it unreasonable to assume that players know that the intended experience might be found behind a force-feedback wheel? Is it widely understood that to squeeze the best from DJ Hero you need to ditch the tinny TV speakers and hook it up to a sound system capable of rumbling diaphragms with its bass?
As we discussed in E200, the majority of consumers are still struggling to understand and embrace HD, and though Sky has estimated that the number of UK households with HD television sets will double to 14 million next year, research suggests that their level of adoption was until recently still lagging behind 5.1 sound systems. Given the fury aimed by SD gamers at Rare and Capcom for certain games’ failure to accommodate older TV sets, compatibility issues are clearly not yet a thing of the past. These are people with no reason to suspect that developers would use such diminutive typography as to render mission instructions illegible on SDTVs. But can they really make the same complaint with a game about the audio experience, which will naturally need a system capable of producing a decent sound to enjoy its full potential?
Part of the problem is that the goalposts keep moving, and as soon as HDTV adoption reaches a peak the pressure to move to the next significant technology will increase tenfold. But while the improvement of directional sound and HD is palpable, will the next generation see diminishing returns? Surround sound companies are pushing 7.1 audio, but few would argue that the difference is as marked between 7.1 and 5.1 as 5.1 is from stereo. Mass adoption of 3DTV? The need for plastic glasses seems certain to keep take-up moving slowly. In real terms, gaming pods aside, we may just be glimpsing a plateau in what the optimal home experience entails.
Contact Us / About Us / Advertise With Us / BeltwayBlips / TechBlips / MassiveBlips / GamerBlips / FAQ
Subscribe To Edge Magazine / Corrections / Terms & Conditions / Privacy Policy
Copyright 2006 - 2009 Future Publishing Limited, Beauford Court 30 Monmouth Street Bath, UK BA1 2BW
England and Wales company registration number 2008885
Subscribe To Edge Magazine / Corrections / Terms & Conditions / Privacy Policy
Copyright 2006 - 2009 Future Publishing Limited, Beauford Court 30 Monmouth Street Bath, UK BA1 2BW
England and Wales company registration number 2008885
this a very valid, and interesting topic. But I find that my biggest worry is how different a game can look on todays hd tvs. I have a samsung plasma 42", and withhin it it has various different settings from, sports to movie and game, as well as a optimal setting 'dynamic' which seems to push the tv to its best picture. But, what IS the best picture? In movie mode, a game's colours may look a bit satyurated, but in a nice way, when in game mode, the games looks a lot more vibrant, still very nice. In dymanic it looks all very nice, but since hd, I have noticed the jagged lines on the edge of all the objects on the game. I know its supposed to be clearer.
In any case, I have then made my own custom settings, which actually look a lot better than most of the options without, having the tv at full potential, which wears it out. The main improvement i the sharpness, I have changed the sharpness to a very low setting, which means I dont get to see all the jagged lines on each polygon.
Then again I can just go back to an SD tv, a lot smaller, but the colours and contrast seem more faithfull.
Developers are obviously aware of this, but I would assume they use big hd tvs, to preview their games after tweaking it in a pc monitor.
I would like to hear what game devs say about all this formats and changes in colours and contrasts, as each game seems to have its own brighness setting.
I work with video editing and similar problems arise, so it would be inresting to have a few developers talking about these issues, whic I believe are a bit up in the air at the moment, with everyone believing they need to spend over £1000 for a good tv.
By the way mine is just £450, and looks very nice, but then again I can only base that conclusion on what I have seen which is not much, I dont really have that many plasma tvs hanging around.
Ever since HDTV's hit the market there's a GREAT deal of over-assumption by game companies that MOST if not ALL gamers would automatically dump analog sets and upgrade to high-def sets. Unfortunately, a LOT of those folks had to decide between buying a "next-gen" system OR buying a hi-def TV. That's a reality for a lot of gamers that still exists, period.
While I have both an HD and standard def TV set up in my place, it's interesting talking to my gamer friends who still haven't made the move simply because they can't afford a good quality HD set. Surrrrrre, you can say "but blag-buy has them at $109 or whatever, but that's talking about a crappy low end HD model with lousy contrast and ghosting galore. SOme rube off the street will buy one of those in a heartbeat because they're getting a "deal."
But, try and play a game on one of these cheapo TVs without getting a massive headache or wondering why the blacks are either too black or kinda grey and you'll lose that battle every time...
Playing games in HD is always going to require time and money invested in getting a set that will not only hold up for current gaming needs, you also need a set that can be useful a few years down the road. Hell, I absolutely HATE replacing a working TV with another one just so i'm "up to date" with whatever crappy new tech i have no interest in (yeah, blu ray, and HD-DVD, i'm talkin' to you) suddenly gets overhyped as the next big thing. *yawn*
In the case of budget-conscious families, way too many of these folks run out and buy cheap LCD HD's and have no idea how to set them up properly. SO they still end up watching cable in standard def and when they finally find those HD channels WAY on the end of the tuner, they're surprised at the difference. On the other hand, a small percentage of people can't seem to tell the difference between standard and high def unless they see a video game running on it. Then, they see where the higher resolution comes in handy...
Yeah my little bro still plays all his 360 games on this tiny little piece of crap we used to play gamecube/PS2/Xbox on in high school. He just has different aspirations for gaming as I did. I wanted the richest experience possible when I bought a PS3 so I got an HDTV and a surround sound system. He got a new car.
Everybody else I know that plays games uses SDTV except those who think of themselves as 'hardcore' or avid gamers or are older and have a cash to drop on a decent $3000 set. I thought that American gamers would mostly have HD, or HD ready sets as tech is a lot cheaper in the USA compared to us down under.
It's interesting that Microsoft has just retired its insistence that all 360 games are developed in HD. (http://www.develop-online.net/blog/44/Microsofts-new-resolution, right at the bottom).
Could this indicate a realisation that a large part of its audience, presumably, consists of young boys playing on retired family TVs in their bedrooms or students who can't justify swinging for an HD TV on a budget of 37p a week?
Because none of the big games are natively in HD, more like.
It seems entirely sensible that they've dropped the requirement, if such a large proportion of people are not going to see the benifit.
I played GoW 2 in SDTV and I thought it looked amazing. However once I played GoW in HD that changed. I was blown away by just how stunning the game looked and after going a few rounds online I could never go back to standard def...ever!!
It's an interesting point that. Quite often I'll ask someone if they have a HD TV when buying a new console, and more often than not, the answer is no.
Given the difference I saw between my (very) old TV, and the HD one I now posses, there is no way I could go back. Certain games I'm more than willing to play, FIFA for example. But Dead Rising was actually unplayable, and PGR 3 and Table Tennis looked very odd, so were only ever played in the living room, on the main TV.
Because many of these people have never seen the difference between a HD set and a normal set, they see no reason to upgrade. Certainly if you don't have Sky, there will be much less reason - Freeview is not improved on HD sets.
I find it interesting that he was hesitant to come out with that comment. Actually, it's probably the most important comment from the entire interview. We're gearing up for Natal rather than a new console, possibly because any new console would only really benifit from large scale HDTV uptake, and they can't be sure people would buy into a new console without having a HDTV.
Is this something the industry isn't keen on saying? Or am I just reading too much into it?