Do the awesome graphics lose their novelty?

[quote name='Dasflikko']@cheapest

After spending 45 seconds on the interwebs I have concluded that the powers that be that want to charge you $600 for a 27" LCD are really ripping you off!!!

http://www.bestbuy.com/site/Panason...068507560&skuId=9244329&st=9244329 &cp=1&lp=1
That's a pretty decent starter set, and an excellent price tag that's somehow less than $600????

But I think you were just using hyperbole to hammer home your point that you are FILLED WITH RAGE at everything in the gaming world right now. (Or maybe you aren't? But I do see a lot of rage filled angry posts from you on these forums)

But anyways, keep up the good fight dear sir, one of these days progess will halt and all will be right again.[/QUOTE]

Unfortunately reason and logic aren't one of his things. Plus, he wasn't want a large HDTV, he's made it clear that 26" is as high as he will go. But I've already pointed out $250 easily for a 26" and a lot of stores this holiday season are no doubt going to have HDTVs on sale so I wouldn't be surprised to see $200 for a good brand.
 
[quote name='jh6269']@Cheapest,

I guess you'll need to wait longer then, because you've kind of painted yourself into a corner... IMO, $500-$700 is a bargain for an HD LCD. I paid $2300 for mine.

Anyway, now they're coming out with more reasons to keep prices higher; for example, the 120 or 250 Hz ones are higher, and so are the 3d capable.

I'm satisfied with my older model for now.

If I were you, I'd figure out what you want to spend and find a TV for that price in a Black Friday ad, or on the web.[/QUOTE]

But that's the thing, I don't NEED a tv. Everyone in my family has always and will always wait until ours completely break before we buy new and then we go for the cheapest replacement. I'm not a videophile and I don't need an HDtv. I just want A TV. That's it. If it means buying someone's used SDtv because stores no longer carry anything but the $500-600 HDtvs, then so be it.

[quote name='Dasflikko']@cheapest

After spending 45 seconds on the interwebs I have concluded that the powers that be that want to charge you $600 for a 27" LCD are really ripping you off!!!

http://www.bestbuy.com/site/Panasonic+-+VIERA+/+42%22+Class+/+720p+/+600Hz+/+Plasma+HDTV/9244329.p?id=1218068507560&skuId=9244329&st=9244329%20&cp=1&lp=1
That's a pretty decent starter set, and an excellent price tag that's somehow less than $600????

But I think you were just using hyperbole to hammer home your point that you are FILLED WITH RAGE at everything in the gaming world right now. (Or maybe you aren't? But I do see a lot of rage filled angry posts from you on these forums)

But anyways, keep up the good fight dear sir, one of these days progess will halt and all will be right again.[/QUOTE]

LOL Rage filled posts? That's how I come across to some? Like I said above, I'm not going to buy a tv just to 'upgrade'. I buy a tv ONLY when mine is completely and totally dead or damn close. The $200 pricetag is my maximum I'll ever pay for a tv. It's just NOT that important of an item to me, since I can watch most of what little I do watch on tv on the net via the various networks websites.

[quote name='SynGamer']Unfortunately reason and logic aren't one of his things. Plus, he wasn't want a large HDTV, he's made it clear that 26" is as high as he will go. But I've already pointed out $250 easily for a 26" and a lot of stores this holiday season are no doubt going to have HDTVs on sale so I wouldn't be surprised to see $200 for a good brand.[/QUOTE]

When something isn't broke, why do people feel the need to 'replace' it? That's wasteful spending right there. Plus, the ones you pointed out were with 'Bing cashback' and yadda yadda rebates and all sorts of other extraneous crap hoops to jump through. Once the tv's are $200 at retail without having to do silly rebates and I actually NEED a tv, I may 'upgrade'. Till then though I'll keep my money in my pocket and not waste it on something I already have. Thanks.

Why does every topic like this turn into 'zomg you're gaming on an SDtv, you NEED to upgrade' and tons of people trying to 'help' me by pointing out these 'zomg great(overpriced)deals' on something I have already that's not broken?

There are things I NEED to do(eat, sleep, breathe), but buying an overpriced tv just because random people on the net think I should when my tv isn't broken is NOT one of them.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Lol, I think we'd make perfect friends. I feel the same way, people are so wasteful to throw out working TV's just because their idiot friends 'think' HD is worth that much money and they fall for peer pressure. I don't mind rebates as long as it shows up in the alotted timeframe and I'm defintely not stupid enough to go shopping on black friday.
 
Who said the SDTVs are thrown out? We (my GF and I) bought a 32" HDTV last April (2008). We put the old 27" SDTV in our bedroom. Fairly logical in terms of upgrading if you ask me. I got the TV for $600 on Jellyfish.com (before MS bought it and turned it into Bing.com) when at the time it retailed for about $750 so I got a damn good deal. If you have an Xbox 360 or PS3 then you really "should" be gaming on an HDTV to take full advantage of the games. If you don't want to, that's fine, but why pay for a console and games when you aren't going to get everything out of them?
 
[quote name='mission42']I beg to differ....Boobs don't.[/QUOTE]

boobs suck. It's all about the slippery sloppery twat.
 
[quote name='SynGamer']Who said the SDTVs are thrown out? We (my GF and I) bought a 32" HDTV last April (2008). We put the old 27" SDTV in our bedroom. Fairly logical in terms of upgrading if you ask me. I got the TV for $600 on Jellyfish.com (before MS bought it and turned it into Bing.com) when at the time it retailed for about $750 so I got a damn good deal. If you have an Xbox 360 or PS3 then you really "should" be gaming on an HDTV to take full advantage of the games. If you don't want to, that's fine, but why pay for a console and games when you aren't going to get everything out of them?[/QUOTE]

Because I play games for the sake of playing them and I don't care that MS and Sony went the HD bs route this gen? As long as game devs continue to realize that many people still are not on an HDtv and keep the visuals able to be downgraded into 480i for SDtvs, I'll continue to be a gamer.

But as soon as they opt to make them like Dead Rising on 360, where you supposedly can't read anything on the screen on an SDtv, then I'll stop gaming or only buy stuff on super cheap clearance or USED so those devs who forget that not everyone has 'upgraded' yet don't see a damn dime of my money.

As for me though, $150 off a tv is NOT a good clearance/deal, if you ask me. But that's just cuz I'm super cheap.
 
@cheapest

So I'm confused now as to what your issue is. Either you want to upgrade or you don't. I mean, playing video games is a luxury in itself--nobody needs to do it (unless you get paid to do it).

So if you can afford yourself the luxury to play games, then it shouldn't be a huge stretch for your mind to undersand why folks like me want an HDTV. It's a better experience, it puts you closer to visualizing the environment that you are exploring. When the visuals on the screen are closer to what you brain perceives of the real world, it makes it easier for your mind to place you in that imaginary space. Back when I started playing games in '82 - '84, the graphics barely resembled what they were supposed to represent; but my mind was able to fill in the gaps--now it's just easier to see what an image, character, or object is meant to be.

Bringing it back to the OP's original question, no the novelty does not wear off, it becomes the standard by which you prefer to play games.
 
[quote name='jh6269']@cheapest

So I'm confused now as to what your issue is. Either you want to upgrade or you don't. I mean, playing video games is a luxury in itself--nobody needs to do it (unless you get paid to do it).

So if you can afford yourself the luxury to play games, then it shouldn't be a huge stretch for your mind to undersand why folks like me want an HDTV. It's a better experience, it puts you closer to visualizing the environment that you are exploring. When the visuals on the screen are closer to what you brain perceives of the real world, it makes it easier for your mind to place you in that imaginary space. Back when I started playing games in '82 - '84, the graphics barely resembled what they were supposed to represent; but my mind was able to fill in the gaps--now it's just easier to see what an image, character, or object is meant to be.

Bringing it back to the OP's original question, no the novelty does not wear off, it becomes the standard by which you prefer to play games.[/QUOTE]

Thing is, I play games for an escape, so the game enviro really doesn't matter to me as long as the game isn't a totally buggy pos.

As for the HDtv being a 'better experience', that's subjective and pure opinion.

It's fine that some of you have upgraded and all, but to preach to me that I 'zomg shouldn't be playing a PS3 on an SDtv' as if it's blasphemy, well that just makes me want to preach right back how I'm 100% fine with SDtv.

Again no offense, but my tv is good enough for me and I just don't care about the 'zomg difference between SD and HD'. I've seen the difference and I'm really NOT impressed. Especially not for the price you pretty much need to pay to 'upgrade'.

Unless prices really drop or they completely phase out ALL SDtvs from every store, I'll never 'upgrade'.
 
[quote name='IAmTheCheapestGamer']Thing is, I play games for an escape, so the game enviro really doesn't matter to me as long as the game isn't a totally buggy pos.

As for the HDtv being a 'better experience', that's subjective and pure opinion.[/QUOTE]

I don't think it's opinion. If you are able to perceive the difference between 1080P vs 480i, then it's a better experience; visually at the very least.

[quote name='IAmTheCheapestGamer']
It's fine that some of you have upgraded and all, but to preach to me that I 'zomg shouldn't be playing a PS3 on an SDtv' as if it's blasphemy, well that just makes me want to preach right back how I'm 100% fine with SDtv.

Again no offense, but my tv is good enough for me and I just don't care about the 'zomg difference between SD and HD'. I've seen the difference and I'm really NOT impressed. Especially not for the price you pretty much need to pay to 'upgrade'.

Unless prices really drop or they completely phase out ALL SDtvs from every store, I'll never 'upgrade'.[/QUOTE]

Hey, I never preached to you that you should have a PS3 w/o an HDTV.. if you want to drive your Ferrari 2 MPH on a bike path, be my guest.

(just kidding)

Anyway, it's a shame that you don't get as much of a kick out of the spectacular looking games as I do. I'm just trying to explain to the OP, and anyone else on the fence, that it's worth the upgrade if you have the means.
 
[quote name='jh6269']I don't think it's opinion. If you are able to perceive the difference between 1080P vs 480i, then it's a better experience; visually at the very least.

Hey, I never preached to you that you should have a PS3 w/o an HDTV.. if you want to drive your Ferrari 2 MPH on a bike path, be my guest.

(just kidding)

Anyway, it's a shame that you don't get as much of a kick out of the spectacular looking games as I do. I'm just trying to explain to the OP, and anyone else on the fence, that it's worth the upgrade if you have the means.[/QUOTE]

It's not that I don't get a kick out of the better visuals, as I do still see them on my SDtv, but I just don't see the need for the HDtv.

I know you weren't preaching about 'how dare I play a PS3 without an HDtv', but that's the feeling I get from MANY who respond to me saying that I don't have an HDtv, as if it's a REQUIREMENT.

Trust me, I grew up in the age of Atari, where an imagination was definitely a requirement to play those games. So I definitely do appreciate the nicer visuals, but the way some respond you'd think you slapped their mother by saying that HDtv's are useless for some of us.
 
[quote name='IAmTheCheapestGamer']As for the HDtv being a 'better experience', that's subjective and pure opinion.[/QUOTE]

Actually, HDTV is a MUCH better experience. Fact. Higher resolution, better colors (more colors), a crisper image allowing for more details to be seen. There's nothing subjective about HDTV being better.
 
i was playing the ps3 on a 60 elite for a while. then i got kicked out and now i use a sd 32". it sucked but i got used to it. the only thing that i hate is when developers have those tiny font lines on screen that are meant for hdtvs. on hdtvs, they're small but they come across as sharp and readable. on sd tvs, they come out fuzzy. most of time, i have to guess what they intended to say.
 
I would not suggest getting a HD Game system and not having a HDTV. Just don't bother. Stick to the PS2 with its great library. When you have the funds, move up to a PS3 + HDTV and you will be blown away, bigtime. You see people like iamthecheapestgamer, who does nothing but complain, and whos opinion is as useful as a cock flavored lolipop.

There are many alternatives to a HDTV like pc monitors with HDMI input being cheap. Asus has a lot of them. The huge step up graphically is amazing, and sometimes i'll be playing Gears of War 2, Uncharted, Street Fighter 4, etc, and i just look at the picture and it still blows me away. Its amazing and its just going to get better. This is going to be the longest video game generation so far, so good times are ahead.
 
[quote name='SynGamer']Actually, HDTV is a MUCH better experience. Fact. Higher resolution, better colors (more colors), a crisper image allowing for more details to be seen. There's nothing subjective about HDTV being better.[/QUOTE]

See, this is what I'm talking about. That is YOUR opinion and while it may be backed up by 'stats' on the spec pages of MANY tvs, some of us just don't give a shit to waste such an ungodly amount of money on something we're not getting a buttload of use out of. So while it MAY be a better experience, it's a waste to some of us.

[quote name='blitz6speed']I would not suggest getting a HD Game system and not having a HDTV. Just don't bother. Stick to the PS2 with its great library. When you have the funds, move up to a PS3 + HDTV and you will be blown away, bigtime. You see people like iamthecheapestgamer, who does nothing but complain, and whos opinion is as useful as a cock flavored lolipop. [/QUOTE]

First of all, learn to spell WHOSE. Second, you've done the same bullshit as SynGamer always does and give the videophile opinion of things like it's the ONLY opinion of gaming this gen and that you absolutely NEED an HDtv for gaming.

Grow up and start learning to understand that other people are going to have differing opinions from yours and they're not wrong for having them, so the insults are really uncalled for. But I only return what is given.

Personally, I still hope Sony continues to get their ass handed to them and bows out of the console biz. They deserve it for being a bunch of greedy motherfuckers who ignored their PS1 and PS2 fanbase this gen and priced it out of the casual gamers reach.

Oh and enufs8d, I've suffered through that tiny font crap before too. The developers who clearly made their games tailored for HDtvs will no longer be getting my business when it comes to buying NEW games. Since I can't fully enjoy their games on my SDtv, their future games are USED buys for me.
 
[quote name='IAmTheCheapestGamer']See, this is what I'm talking about. That is YOUR opinion and while it may be backed up by 'stats' on the spec pages of MANY tvs, some of us just don't give a shit to waste such an ungodly amount of money on something we're not getting a buttload of use out of. So while it MAY be a better experience, it's a waste to some of us.[/QUOTE]

$200 is not ungodly, especially considering you said you would pay $188 for a 27" SDTV which is a HUGE ripoff considering most stores don't even sell SDTVs anymore (only clearance what's left in stock).

[quote name='IAmTheCheapestGamer']Tell the powers that be to drop TV prices significantly then, since I'm not paying $600 for a fuckin' 26" LCD tv when I can pay $188 for some wayyyy off brand SD one from Wally World that's 27".[/QUOTE]

They don't sell them for multiple reasons; they use more electricity, they way considerably more, they look like shit compared to LCDs, they don't give you the full picture...ah, widescreen. I'm sure you're against this as well? Almost ALL movies are shot in widescreen (various ratios) so when you watch a movie on an SDTV, you are either missing 1/3rd of the screen/movie, or you have black bars on the top and bottom which means the movie is displayed even smaller in order to fit everything on screen.

Again, enough with the "$600 for a fuckin' 26" LCD TV..." Myself and others have pointed out plenty of times that you can get a 26" for about $250, and I wouldn't be surprised to see some for $200 for Christmas deals this year. As for usage, anytime you use your HDTV you will be getting use out of it, whether it be a game, movie, or TV. So don't give me that bullshit either. Yes, people are entitled to their own opinions, but not when they are wrong. If you would just come out and say you hate new technology, I'd be fine with that. Because that's essentially what you are saying. Even though the technology is a better deal and reasonably priced (even for your $188 pricetag you specified), you still refuse acknowledge that HDTVs are better bang for your buck.

/end rant
 
Crysis did it for me. Nothing else even comes close after seeing this game running at 30 FPS on very high. Every time I revisit the game to play a modded map, I'm still impressed with the level of detail and physics. Ever since Crysis, I've been desensitized to incredible graphics. Uncharted 2 is pretty until you start inspecting the game up close, such as the backgrounds, pixelated shadows, etc. Crysis is still the king when it comes to real-time rendering vs. pre-rendered on consoles.
 
[quote name='SynGamer']$200 is not ungodly, especially considering you said you would pay $188 for a 27" SDTV which is a HUGE ripoff considering most stores don't even sell SDTVs anymore (only clearance what's left in stock). [/QUOTE]

Huge ripoff? Not to me. All I want is A TV. I don't give a shit about size or power usage, as long as it allows me to watch the little bit of tv I do and play my games on it.

[quote name='SynGamer']They don't sell them for multiple reasons; they use more electricity, they way considerably more, they look like shit compared to LCDs, they don't give you the full picture...ah, widescreen. I'm sure you're against this as well? Almost ALL movies are shot in widescreen (various ratios) so when you watch a movie on an SDTV, you are either missing 1/3rd of the screen/movie, or you have black bars on the top and bottom which means the movie is displayed even smaller in order to fit everything on screen.

Again, enough with the "$600 for a fuckin' 26" LCD TV..." Myself and others have pointed out plenty of times that you can get a 26" for about $250, and I wouldn't be surprised to see some for $200 for Christmas deals this year. As for usage, anytime you use your HDTV you will be getting use out of it, whether it be a game, movie, or TV. So don't give me that bullshit either. Yes, people are entitled to their own opinions, but not when they are wrong. If you would just come out and say you hate new technology, I'd be fine with that. Because that's essentially what you are saying. Even though the technology is a better deal and reasonably priced (even for your $188 pricetag you specified), you still refuse acknowledge that HDTVs are better bang for your buck.

/end rant[/QUOTE]

You're an arrogant motherfucker to say that people are entitled to their own opinions but 'not when they're 'ZOMG WRONG'. Who made you fuckin' God to tell people when they're wrong and when they're not? Stop being such an asshole and proclaiming your opinion as LAW and maybe I'll stop firing back responses already.

As for me, I don't watch many movies since most of the shit out now isn't worth buying for home viewing imo and whatever ones I do buy will be bought used or super cheap on normal DVD's. I don't care what's going on in off to the sides or the top or the bottom of the screen when I watch a movie, so the 'zomg loss of so much of the picture' means squat to me.

As for you and others telling me that there's going to be HDtv's for sale for $200-250 this Christmas or whatever, thanks for the heads up but I don't need another tv just yet as I'm ok with mine as it is now.
 
Cheapest,

Just admit you're wrong and be done with it. You said in one post that you don't need a TV, then you said you do. I think you just like to argue.

HD graphics are not just for videophiles, regular people can appreciate crisp looking graphics (otherwise, HD would have gone nowhere).

Also, since you don't have an HDTV, how can you really have an opinion about it?
 
[quote name='Dr Mario Kart']The bar for what is awesome graphics will always move forward, so even if you jump to the front of the line now, you will at some point be disenchanted with it (as long as you continue to care that is)

In the short term you'll be fine, but 10 or 20 years from now a lot of people will look back at todays games and wonder how they were playable, which is mind boggling.

I wasnt spoiled by blu-rays ;)[/QUOTE]

10-20 years? I don't see how most Wii and PS2 games are viewed as playable RIGHT NOW.
 
[quote name='jh6269']Cheapest,

Just admit you're wrong and be done with it. You said in one post that you don't need a TV, then you said you do. I think you just like to argue.

HD graphics are not just for videophiles, regular people can appreciate crisp looking graphics (otherwise, HD would have gone nowhere).

Also, since you don't have an HDTV, how can you really have an opinion about it?[/QUOTE]

How am I 'wrong'? Please tell me this. It's not that I like to argue, but when people are saying you're 'blind' for not noticing the difference between HDtv's and SDtv's, I'm not going to sit idly by and be insulted.

As for how I can have an opinion on HDtv's, I've seen 'digital cable' on an HDtv as well as Blu-Ray movies on said HDtv, that's how I formed my opinion that for the added price they are not worth it to me.

As for me saying I don't need a tv and then saying I do, I currently have a tv and I do use it, but the amount that I use it makes it really almost to where I don't need one if that makes any sense. I only really need a tv to play my games on right now and for that I'm fine with SDtv.

As for HD graphics being something EVERYONE can enjoy, again that is a subjective OPINION on your part. Personally, I wouldn't care if we're still using rabbit ear antennas to bring in the 4-6 local stations and those were the only ones we had to watch.

But the few programs I do watch(Venture Brothers & Robot Chicken on Adult Swim) are readily available on their website or on Youtube, so again my TV would only serve as my gaming display and as long as I can see the visuals on the screen without having to squint to make them out then that's all that matters to me.
 
These people fail to realize that HD does nothing for the game. It stretches the images and makes them grainy. Why subject my consoles to this? The PS3 came with composite cables and so did all the rest of my consoles. Out of the box this is how it was intended to be used and hyping HD is an incorrect 'opinion'.

It's a safe bet the people trying to fool us are those who didn't pay for it. Maybe the TV was a gift, or it belongs to the parents. If you had to pay $2000 or even $1000 for a TV I'm sure you'd understand the games are exactly the same and the TV doesn't matter.

*For those who will argue, I've seen the gimmick before. The store displays aren't that impressive and I saw a friend playing PS2 and watching TV on a large HD projection set. Also not impressed. In other words I've seen it and it wasn't what these kiddies claim.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='IAmTheCheapestGamer']How am I 'wrong'? Please tell me this. It's not that I like to argue, but when people are saying you're 'blind' for not noticing the difference between HDtv's and SDtv's, I'm not going to sit idly by and be insulted.

As for how I can have an opinion on HDtv's, I've seen 'digital cable' on an HDtv as well as Blu-Ray movies on said HDtv, that's how I formed my opinion that for the added price they are not worth it to me.

As for me saying I don't need a tv and then saying I do, I currently have a tv and I do use it, but the amount that I use it makes it really almost to where I don't need one if that makes any sense. I only really need a tv to play my games on right now and for that I'm fine with SDtv.

As for HD graphics being something EVERYONE can enjoy, again that is a subjective OPINION on your part. Personally, I wouldn't care if we're still using rabbit ear antennas to bring in the 4-6 local stations and those were the only ones we had to watch.

But the few programs I do watch(Venture Brothers & Robot Chicken on Adult Swim) are readily available on their website or on Youtube, so again my TV would only serve as my gaming display and as long as I can see the visuals on the screen without having to squint to make them out then that's all that matters to me.[/QUOTE]

Ok, you're wrong because you're complaining about a price difference that isn't really real (as others have noted, myself included). When people prove you wrong, you don't admit it or even concede their points.

Also, you have to not only have the digital cable, but also be on one of the HD channels, otherwise you won't notice any difference. The person has to be subscribed to HD (which is usually $5 - $10 extra). Also, they're broadcasting in either 720p or 1080i; it's pretty clear but not as sharp as 1080p.

As for watching Blu-rays on the TV, was it hooked up to the TV via HDMI? If not, you won't get the best resolution. I rented Serenity on Blu-Ray (kind of a weird movie) and it looked very clear and crisp. There are also other movies, Planet Earth, that are a showcase for HD. It also depends on the actual source material. Some movies don't look any better because they're on Blu-ray.

Anyway, I don't see a reason for you to be insulted. The original guy asked if the novelty wore off after you've gotten used to awesome graphics, and then you come in and complain about games in HD.

You've reiterated several times that you're fine with SD and you have an SD TV--so what's your beef--you don't have anything to complain about IMO... You got the connectors to hook it up to your SDTV, so it should be OK.

Right now, HD is still in the early adopter phase (albeit near the end hopefully), you still have to put up some investment to have it (subscribe to HD channels, use the right input cable, etc). It's becoming more mainstream, more stations are going HD, LCD and other HDTV prices are falling to near-affordable prices. I think it's good that this generation of consoles were forward-thinking and put HD capability in now so we can get more bang for our buck (instead of having to buy yet another upgrade later for HD games).

So, we get it, you're a minimalist; but don't begrudge us for being more progressive, or for appreciating the experience of gaming in HD.
 
[quote name='DPsx7']These people fail to realize that HD does nothing for the game. It stretches the images and makes them grainy. Why subject my consoles to this? The PS3 came with composite cables and so did all the rest of my consoles. Out of the box this is how it was intended to be used and hyping HD is an incorrect 'opinion'.

It's a safe bet the people trying to fool us are those who didn't pay for it. Maybe the TV was a gift, or it belongs to the parents. If you had to pay $2000 or even $1000 for a TV I'm sure you'd understand the games are exactly the same and the TV doesn't matter.

*For those who will argue, I've seen the gimmick before. The store displays aren't that impressive and I saw a friend playing PS2 and watching TV on a large HD projection set. Also not impressed. In other words I've seen it and it wasn't what these kiddies claim.[/QUOTE]

Ok, I realize this is flame bait but anyway here it goes.

The PS3 and 360 come with composite cables because they want to sell you an HDMI cable for $80 or more. Smart people are wise to this and find the same cables on the Internet for $2.50 - $9.99. (It's the same thing when you buy a SATA hard drive and it doesn't come with the cable; again, the store wants to sell you some expensive cable).

The PS2 is not capable of HD, and that is why it is grainy and stretched out on your HD projection set.

If your friend's set has an HDMI input, buy an HDMI cable (if he does not have one) and bring your PS3 over to his house and plug it in; you should see a drastic difference (some configuration may be required).

Also, projection TVs aren't that great IMO. You have to have a plasma or LCD to get the best picture.
 
[quote name='SynGamer']I'd just like to add that Time Warner Cable offers HD for free (just gotta swap out cable boxes with them).[/QUOTE]

HD cable channels or just local? You can get HD through rabbit ears right? I would be upset if you had to pay for local HD if that is what they are offering at least.
 
[quote name='NamPaehc']HD cable channels or just local? You can get HD through rabbit ears right? I would be upset if you had to pay for local HD if that is what they are offering at least.[/QUOTE]

HD cable channels. TBS, TNT, SPEED, USA, etc., etc. and some local too. Something like 100-150 HD channels last I checked.
 
[quote name='jh6269']Ok, I realize this is flame bait but anyway here it goes.

The PS3 and 360 come with composite cables because they want to sell you an HDMI cable for $80 or more. Smart people are wise to this and find the same cables on the Internet for $2.50 - $9.99. (It's the same thing when you buy a SATA hard drive and it doesn't come with the cable; again, the store wants to sell you some expensive cable).

The PS2 is not capable of HD, and that is why it is grainy and stretched out on your HD projection set.

If your friend's set has an HDMI input, buy an HDMI cable (if he does not have one) and bring your PS3 over to his house and plug it in; you should see a drastic difference (some configuration may be required).

Also, projection TVs aren't that great IMO. You have to have a plasma or LCD to get the best picture.[/QUOTE]

It's not flame bait, it's just tiring to see so many uninformed people claim HD is so great and that it's not worth owning a PS3 if you don't have HD. Those noobs to gaming haven't played as much as I have. When you grow up with classic consoles and aren't thrown into the HD gimmicks you learn it's about the gameplay first and foremost. Graphics aren't meant to be the focal point or at least they shouldn't be.

If HD was required it would have included the wires. But it didn't so HD isn't necessary. Small text just means the devs were lazy not that SD isn't good enough.

It doesn't matter, if HD sets were worth the money they'd be better compatible with existing sources. I'm to believe HD is good if it actually makes 90% of my viewing look worse?
 
[quote name='DPsx7']It's not flame bait, it's just tiring to see so many uninformed people claim HD is so great and that it's not worth owning a PS3 if you don't have HD. Those noobs to gaming haven't played as much as I have. When you grow up with classic consoles and aren't thrown into the HD gimmicks you learn it's about the gameplay first and foremost. Graphics aren't meant to be the focal point or at least they shouldn't be.

If HD was required it would have included the wires. But it didn't so HD isn't necessary. Small text just means the devs were lazy not that SD isn't good enough.

It doesn't matter, if HD sets were worth the money they'd be better compatible with existing sources. I'm to believe HD is good if it actually makes 90% of my viewing look worse?[/QUOTE]

I have been playing for 30+yrs like many others here and yes, like it or not graphics are as much a part of the games today as the gameplay is. If graphics werent a concern to developers we would still be putting carts into our Atari's. When the systems went to DVD's the whole game changed and now HD is here and its fantastic. I almost feel sorry for people like you who fear these great leaps in tech, it's such a fantastic time to be alive.
 
[quote name='DPsx7']It's not flame bait, it's just tiring to see so many uninformed people claim HD is so great and that it's not worth owning a PS3 if you don't have HD. Those noobs to gaming haven't played as much as I have. When you grow up with classic consoles and aren't thrown into the HD gimmicks you learn it's about the gameplay first and foremost. Graphics aren't meant to be the focal point or at least they shouldn't be.

If HD was required it would have included the wires. But it didn't so HD isn't necessary. Small text just means the devs were lazy not that SD isn't good enough.

It doesn't matter, if HD sets were worth the money they'd be better compatible with existing sources. I'm to believe HD is good if it actually makes 90% of my viewing look worse?[/QUOTE]


I like the classic consoles, in even back then, gameplay is important, but with each and everygame that came out people wanted to see the improvements that could be made graphically. Graphics are just as important as gameplay imo. Also, HD is not a gimmick, it looks great, and plays great. Yes you can enjoy a game without HD, but honestely, a true next gen game needs to have great gameplay, great graphics in HD.. (ex. Uncharted 2). One thing about todays games, is that all of them to a degree have pushed the level graphically, but still to this day we're seeing games with camera issues, and the same old gameplay problems of yesterday. Which to mean says that devs know that a game needs to look nice and in some case it looks prettier than it plays. But for a game to be truly great, it needs to have great graphics, and great gameplay. You take a game like Street Fighter III Third Strike, it has great gamplay and great graphics and it always will. But if you you at the level of detail in SF Turbo HD Remix... then you'll understand how HD can make a game better. But still even wit the great graphics the gameplay has to be there.
 
[quote name='gindias']I have been playing for 30+yrs like many others here and yes, like it or not graphics are as much a part of the games today as the gameplay is. If graphics werent a concern to developers we would still be putting carts into our Atari's. When the systems went to DVD's the whole game changed and now HD is here and its fantastic. I almost feel sorry for people like you who fear these great leaps in tech, it's such a fantastic time to be alive.[/QUOTE]

I've been a gamer for nearly 30 years myself, but to me gameplay trumps pretty pictures every time. A game could look like shit but be fun to play and I'll play it tons more than I would play a pretty game.
 
@DPsx7

Several parts of your post don't make any sense.

I'll just say a few things to clarify. Sony puts the lowest common denominator cables in the box to cover any display you may have. However, most games for the PS3 say that their supported resolution is 720p (HD). You need 2 things to see the HD guaranteed, an HDTV, and an HDMI cable (sold seperately). There are notices in the manual for the PS3 disclaiming this.

If you want to know for sure if it's better or not, rent a flatscreen LCD or plasma at one of those rent-a-center places and see for yourself.

Graphics do not make shitty games good; nobody claimed such a thing. HD Graphics make the experience of playing good games even better because you can see all the fine details in the game that you can't see in SD.
 
Oh, and one more thing (maybe a real videophile can answer this). I know the movies now are filmed in HD ( at least that's what I thought); however, when movies are remastered onto Blu-Ray, can't you see extra detail from the original film that you couldn't see in SD? Maybe it's just me, but I bought the Princess Bride on Blu-Ray, and I think you can see more detail.
 
Graphics in games now a days has almost killed enjoyable games since developers sink more into graphics then overall gameplay. Maybe its because I grew up with a commodore 64 and nes that I have this opinion. I just felt those games to be more enjoyable. The "great" games became more rare as the years passed after PS1 (for me). I would rather have great gameplay and a fun experience over graphics anyday (hence why some of my current gen favs play like old school games i.e. Shadow Complex and Braid).

As for HDTV, I for one am a fan. I notice a huge difference between SD vs HD. Most shows (on major channels) are shot on HD. The grains go away. If you are a sports fan, it is like a whole another world. It is hard for me to watch SD nowadays since I easily notice grains.

For Blu-ray, I am also a fan. Though, I will only watch something on blu-ray if it was originally shot in HD. The re-releases of old classics on Blu-ray I haven't really seen a difference between their SD version.

HDMI (1080p) vs Component (720p/1080i) - Personally, I see virtually no difference between the two. Tested vs my 50 inch plasma using a Bluray movie from PS3. Also, majority of HD programming is only in 720p anyways.
 
I agree with great gameplay > great graphics.

I don't agree with the stance that focus on graphics is a recent trend that is hurting the industry. Developers since Atari have touted sexy graphics as a way to sell games because, let's face it, it's easier to sell with pretty pictures. Especially during the SNES/Genesis days, I can remember titles hyped for their enhanced graphics then turned out to be turds.

Just a bit of perspective for all of us old farts who are one step away from starting posts with "Back in my day, ..."
 
I game on a 24" HD monitor w/ 2ms using a HDMI cable, but so far, I am not impressed with any of the graphics for PS3 games. This is probably cuz i'm more biased towards 2d than 3d.
 
[quote name='darkarcon']I game on a 24" HD monitor w/ 2ms using a HDMI cable, but so far, I am not impressed with any of the graphics for PS3 games. This is probably cuz i'm more biased towards 2d than 3d.[/QUOTE]

Play Uncharted 2. It trumps everything I have seen. Don't just look at screenshots, because it's even better in motion. I have a high end gaming PC and it still tops everything I have seen so far, on consoles or PC. I game on a 24" monitor too, but used my brothers 46" LED LCD tv and I was amazed. KZ2 looks great too.

Graphics are like icing on the cake, but that is all. It's extra. Pixel Junk games are great, and those are all 2D. If graphics is all that matter, why is DS/Wii selling so much? All that matters is gameplay. I would say gameplay first, then performance (like at least 30fps or 60fps), then graphics lastly.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
But are non HD games any less fun than HD ones? Of course not, that's why I say gameplay is always the most important. Looking back how many games do you recall that were fun to play? Now how about ones that just looked good? Gameplay is what stands up over time. Graphics can't be muddy of course, however HD is not required. And if you ask me the money wasted on graphic gimmicks and workstations to produce them is why games cost $60 instead of $40 or $50.
 
[quote name='DPsx7']But are non HD games any less fun than HD ones? Of course not, that's why I say gameplay is always the most important. Looking back how many games do you recall that were fun to play? Now how about ones that just looked good? Gameplay is what stands up over time. Graphics can't be muddy of course, however HD is not required. And if you ask me the money wasted on graphic gimmicks and workstations to produce them is why games cost $60 instead of $40 or $50.[/QUOTE]

"Graphics can't be muddy of course" When you say that then that's means that graphics are important. I just think that they are just as important as Gameplay. Its give in take, if you have a game that has great graphics but just okay gameplay then fine. The game can still be good. Or vice versa, gameplay great but graphics meh, the game can still be enjoyed. I'm greedy, I want the best of both, especially since I'm know being asked to pay 60 dollars for the new releases. But even when games (price) was at 40 or 50, we still wanted the best of both worlds (graphics and gameplay).
 
When I say muddy I mean you need to be able to interpret what's going on. You can't make all games look like Legos. Yet graphics truly aren't as important as gameplay. If this was true then nobody would play PS1 and PS2 games anymore. We replay them because they're fun not because of what they look like. Who else goes further back, Dreamcast, NES, maybe even arcade games? I do and frankly I like they way they look. Detail is useful only to a certain point, beyond that it's somewhat useless eye candy with no affect on the gameplay.

Even current games aren't trying to be photorealistic. Some of the best games use cell shading, cartoony graphics, watercolor (Okami), hell even black and white. They aren't HD but they're certainly good games. I think that if HD wasn't pushed on us they could still sell games at a price point below $60. Maybe I'm just too much of a classic gamer and look past the polish at the real work and entertainment of a game.
 
DPsx7,

Seen the screenshots & videos of 3D Dot Game Heroes?

In my opinion, that's what you get when you cross classic gaming and HD.

It looks freaking kick ass, and it looks completely better than those old 8-bit games, yet that's what those games looked like my mind when I played them 25 years ago.

That's what I mean when I say that HD can enhance the experience.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top