Poll: Is HD Capability Important When Chosing your Next Gen System?

Ecofreak

Ecofreak

CAGiversary!
Feedback
24 (100%)
In light of all of these threads around the support and indifference with high definition output for next generation systems, I wanted to create a poll to see if there was a general consensus among CAGers about this issue.

Vote Away!
 
I've seen the difference, seen the game game side-by-side HD vs. non-HD. At this point, it's a non-issue. Maybe about the time the NEXT generation of consoles come out, it'll be utliized well enough and be affordable enough to matter.
 
HD is the new graphics whoring. It won't affect gameplay and will make gamers buy crappy games just cause they look pretty on the HD screen.
 
[quote name='Scrubking']HD is the new graphics whoring. It won't affect gameplay and will make gamers buy crappy games just cause they look pretty on the HD screen.[/QUOTE]
It affects gameplay when you can see things at greater distances that might be too small to notice on a regular TV. Widescreen also affects gameplay, you can see more of whatever you're doing.

I expect progressive scan (480p) as a bare minimum for any next gen console. Thats what the last gen had, and $20 DVD players do it.

I see HDTV's catching on when digital TV becomes mandatory in 2009.
 
[quote name='Scrubking']HD is the new graphics whoring. It won't affect gameplay and will make gamers buy crappy games just cause they look pretty on the HD screen.[/QUOTE]


LOL pretty much dead on. The HD gamer whores will try and tell you differently though.
 
I'm heavily in favor of HD, but I'm going to buy the Revo anyway. I don't feel any of the choices acurately describe how I feel about the situation, so I'm not going to vote.
 
[quote name='Blitz']LOL pretty much dead on. The HD gamer whores will try and tell you differently though.[/QUOTE]

Brilliant post. No. Just kidding.
 
[quote name='shipwreck']I'm heavily in favor of HD, but I'm going to buy the Revo anyway. I don't feel any of the choices acurately describe how I feel about the situation, so I'm not going to vote.[/QUOTE]

Well...

Just how DO you feel about the situation then? Just curious.
 
I voted the last one.
I want HDTV down the road, but for now I am ok without it.
Once I can grab a nice 27 inch LCD-TV or real good flat screen 27" with HD READY for $300 or less, then I'll start doing that. I just don't have the money right now, and I expect by this or next christmas I'll have an HD-Ready TV.
 
[quote name='Dr Mario Kart']Well...

Just how DO you feel about the situation then? Just curious.[/QUOTE]

I feel that Hi-Def really enhances games and I'd rather play in hi-def if I have the choice. Unfortunately, I like a few of the Nintendo franchises, so I will have no choice but to play them in standard def. This pretty much guarantees that I will buy any multiplatform games on the X360 or the PS3. It severs the high end market from Nintendo and makes it so you have another GameCube situation (where most people buy the third-party games on a different system).
 
[quote name='dafoomie']It affects gameplay when you can see things at greater distances that might be too small to notice on a regular TV. Widescreen also affects gameplay, you can see more of whatever you're doing.[/QUOTE]

Yeah... but that's kind of a stretch. A long stretch. I mean, seriously, how many games will actually play better just you can see an enemy or place from a farther distance?

I honestly wouldn't mind HD TV but it's not really necessary. I mean, sure, it's a nice feature and every system that supports it will be hooked to via component. But even though we're getting a brand new TV (Plasma or LCD), I honestly don't think HD is at that point where it really matters to gaming.
 
[quote name='dafoomie']I see HDTV's catching on when digital TV becomes mandatory in 2009.[/QUOTE]

I'm not holding my breath on that one.
 
and a lot of money is supposed to be going into subsidizing the to SD converters when they stop PUSHING BACK (over and over again) the date for switching to DIGITAL signals.
 
Even though I have an HDTV, I'd still rather play my NES, SNES, or N64 then an Xbox or Xbox 360, Playstation 2, ...

I like games because their fun. I find that for me, I really could care less about graphics and any type of enhancements. I just don't care. I'll take Super Mario Bros. over Halo or whatever the hot HD game is currently.

After the initial wow factor, I didn't care anymore. A good movie or TV show is good regardless whether it is in HD or not. Seeing it in higher resolution looks better, but that is about it. The surround sound that comes with most HD channels on TV is a nice bonus which I like, but again I'm not going to pay thousands of dollars for an HD set that satisfies me and I won't spend hundreds on an HD set I don't want. I used to have 3 HD sets, I have sold 2 of them and took in a 15 year old GE TV that I do 99% of my viewing on for free, even though I have an HD set still. I have spent so much on HD sets and receivers I cringe to think about it. Thank goodness videogon does not charge listing or selling fees.
 
My Nes and Genesis didn't have HD and I loved them. It's all about the games for me not the graphics. EGM just had a top 200 games of all-time and the top five were:

5. The Legend Of Zelda (NES)
4. Tetris (All platforms)
3. Street Fighter II (Arcade)
2. Pac-Man
1. Super Mario Bros. (NES)

By todays standards the graphics on all of these games are pure shit. However they stand the test of time. I think too many gamers nowadays are more audio\video techies more than they are gamers.

My vote was for I could care less about HD.
 
[quote name='b3b0p']After the initial wow factor, I didn't care anymore. A good movie or TV show is good regardless whether it is in HD or not. Seeing it in higher resolution looks better, but that is about it. The surround sound that comes with most HD channels on TV is a nice bonus which I like, but again I'm not going to pay thousands of dollars for an HD set that satisfies me and I won't spend hundreds on an HD set I don't want. [/QUOTE]

My sentiments exactly. Classic movies like Star Wars are fantastic regardless of whether you watch the original grainy versions or the new digitally remastered versions.

In fact, watching the old cuts are very nostalgic and give off a feeling that digitally remastered prints cannot reproduce. Like coming home to and old friend, instead of the same friend with a face lift.
 
I'd fall between 1 and 2, so I just went with 1. HD support will be one of my deciding factors.

[quote name='jkam']My Nes and Genesis didn't have HD and I loved them. It's all about the games for me not the graphics. EGM just had a top 200 games of all-time and the top five were:[/QUOTE]

It was actually the top 200 games of THEIR time. (Big difference.)

SMB was freaking amazing for a home console when it came out. I remember that game blowing me away on Xmas morning. A game with the same gameplay but 2600 era graphics would not have had the same impact.
 
I have a hdtv and surround sound set up in my living room and I want it put to good use. HD gaming is an important deciding factor for me.
 
It's nice to see games running on HD. I was pretty happy to see a game like Condemned: Criminal Origins run so nice on my HD set. Though it is nice, it is definitely not a deciding factor in buying next gen systems. The 360 had games I liked so I bought it, having it run in HD was just a bonus.

The Revolution won't run on HD, but it is probably my most anticipated system of the next-gen lineup.
 
[quote name='asianxcore']It's nice to see games running on HD. I was pretty happy to see a game like Condemned: Criminal Origins run so nice on my HD set. Though it is nice, it is definitely not a deciding factor in buying next gen systems. The 360 had games I liked so I bought it, having it run in HD was just a bonus.

The Revolution won't run on HD, but it is probably my most anticipated system of the next-gen lineup.[/QUOTE]

i thought the revolution was supporting 480p?
 
[quote name='Dr Mario Kart']and a lot of money is supposed to be going into subsidizing the to SD converters when they stop PUSHING BACK (over and over again) the date for switching to DIGITAL signals.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, but all new TV's sold at that point will be digital, most likely EDTV (480p) as a minimum.

(to Scrub)
Its easy to say that its just "graphics whoring" when you don't have an HDTV. If you do, then it seems like something is missing when its not at least in progressive scan. Nintendo's selling point was graphics until Gamecube anyway.

I like having my graphics sharper and clearer. I like to see detail. Graphics aren't the most important thing, but I've appriciated having sharper, clearer, higher resolution images on my monitor or HDTV since the Dreamcast days. If even the Dreamcast could do it, I fully expect a next gen console to throw me a bone. 480p or 640x480 VGA would be just fine from Rev, and since I'm fairly sure it will do 480p, I don't have an issue with it.
 
[quote name='shipwreck']I feel that Hi-Def really enhances games and I'd rather play in hi-def if I have the choice. Unfortunately, I like a few of the Nintendo franchises, so I will have no choice but to play them in standard def. This pretty much guarantees that I will buy any multiplatform games on the X360 or the PS3. It severs the high end market from Nintendo and makes it so you have another GameCube situation (where most people buy the third-party games on a different system).[/QUOTE]
I feel the exact same way. I have a 60 inc LCD and 360 games look amazing on it. I would love for every system to take advantage of HD. But I also love Nintendo so I will be buying a Revolution anyway.
 
Absolutely not. I still think Chrono Trigger and FF3 (along with some others) are pretty much as beautiful as games can get, artistically, and they run at 256 x 256. I can live without HD.
 
[quote name='CoffeeEdge']Absolutely not. I still think Chrono Trigger and FF3 (along with some others) are pretty much as beautiful as games can get, artistically, and they run at 256 x 256. I can live without HD.[/QUOTE]

I still think FF3 and Chrono and Super Mario World have the most beautiful graphics I have ever seen even to this day.

I voted I could care less.
 
[quote name='Ecofreak']23 votes in the first 14 hours - not bad.

Let's see if we can't get 100 by the start of next week.[/QUOTE]
Congratulations :)
 
[quote name='gaelan']isn't 480p technically high definition? in that case all 3 next gen systems will be high def.[/QUOTE]
480p is Enhanced Definition Television (EDTV), it is not considered HDTV.
 
If the next gen lasts 4-5 years, I think not supporting HD is shortsighted.
There is a difference between non-HD and HD, and surely some people will be buying HD games/console simply because they look great, but in my case, while I'm interested in games that are fun, I also don't mind them looking as great as possible.
HDTVs aren't the majority yet, but it won't be too long--you're hard pressed to buy a >30 inch non-HDTV, and with Bluray and HDDVD coming out very soon, it is possible they'll be within reach of the average consumer by Christmas-after-next, if not earlier.
I've had a widescreen/bigscreen HDTV for about two years, and I don't watch HDTV just because it's HD, in fact, I watch very little actual HDTV content--but what I do watch, can look incredible. I would like for quality games to take advantage of that as well.

But re: console, it won't be a deciding factor, it'll be a minor factor that goes into the decision. Question 1, as always, is "how are the games". I don't have an Xbox 360 yet, because there are no games that appeal to me yet.
 
lol at everyone calling people "whores." It's like Jerry Springer in here.

HD is nice but it won't sway me, since I don't plan on having my own HDTV until I get my own place. In a way I'm relieved that Nintendo won't support it, since I know I won't be missing out on anything. But obviously this reasoning won't apply to everyone.
 
[quote name='Vinny']Yeah... but that's kind of a stretch. A long stretch. I mean, seriously, how many games will actually play better just you can see an enemy or place from a farther distance?

I honestly wouldn't mind HD TV but it's not really necessary. I mean, sure, it's a nice feature and every system that supports it will be hooked to via component. But even though we're getting a brand new TV (Plasma or LCD), I honestly don't think HD is at that point where it really matters to gaming.[/QUOTE]


Maybe I've been spoiled with my tv, but it was a challenge playing Burnout 3 on my parents'27 inch SDTV when I went to visit them. It was difficult to see any useful distance away.

Remastering old movies/games in HD--To an extent, I agree. Sometimes either the HD remaster points out flaws you didn't originally notice, or the relatively poor picture quality is part of the ambience. As a scifi buff, I don't think Dr. Who or Red Dwarf would be the same in 'high definition'. Part of the appeal is the 'low budget' feel. If those programs, or if the Star Wars movies, had originally come out in HD,it would be a different story. A colorized Citizen Kane is not an improvement.

My vote would be "Heck yea! but not a deciding factor", at least not *the* deciding factor.
 
This is a major reason why Microsoft will struggle for at least one more generation. I love my Xbox and I will get a 360, but they are too ahead of their time right now. Most people do NOT have an HD TV and can't afford to get one anytime soon. Most people do NOT play games online. For now, Microsoft has decided to forgo software for online components and expensive requirements in order to enjoy games to their fullest. Sony is doing similar things, but their game library is massive so it doesn't affect them as much. Just because people that are playing online and using HD functionality are louder doesn't mean they are in the majority or in the "right". If "loud" equals majority then everyone in the country is a Democrat, right? LoL
 
Its no big deal to me, I have a standard TV and I don't plan on upgrading to a HDTV until my current TV dies. Which I don't see happening for awhile. I figure I won't be getting a HDTV until near the end of this next gen of systems.
 
[quote name='shipwreck']I feel that Hi-Def really enhances games and I'd rather play in hi-def if I have the choice. Unfortunately, I like a few of the Nintendo franchises, so I will have no choice but to play them in standard def. This pretty much guarantees that I will buy any multiplatform games on the X360 or the PS3. It severs the high end market from Nintendo and makes it so you have another GameCube situation (where most people buy the third-party games on a different system).[/QUOTE]

My thoughts exactly. I'm still buying the Revolution because Nintendo games are still my favorite but I will always buy third party non exclusives for my 360 or PS3. Sucks for Nintendo in that regard and if they don't see this coming a mile away they are morons.

If you had an HDTV you would want everything to support it because it makes everything better.
 
I'll be making my first large TV purchase soon. It's a shame that 1080p Plasma's aren't out on the market yet. Are there any flat panels capable of doing 1080p out on the market yet?
 
There are a few I think but they are quite expensive. 1080i looks sweet though and the tvs are pretty cheap now (the 42" panasonic plasma is under $3,000 now) and they can hold you over until the price comes down on the 1080ps. I'm planning to buy a 1080p plasma in 5 years or so...
 
[quote name='dafoomie']

(to Scrub)
Its easy to say that its just "graphics whoring" when you don't have an HDTV. If you do, then it seems like something is missing when its not at least in progressive scan. Nintendo's selling point was graphics until Gamecube anyway.

I like having my graphics sharper and clearer. I like to see detail. Graphics aren't the most important thing, but I've appriciated having sharper, clearer, higher resolution images on my monitor or HDTV since the Dreamcast days. If even the Dreamcast could do it, I fully expect a next gen console to throw me a bone. 480p or 640x480 VGA would be just fine from Rev, and since I'm fairly sure it will do 480p, I don't have an issue with it.[/QUOTE]


It's actually really easy to say its just "graphics whoring" when you don't have an HDTV. I'm sure almost everyone like myself who doesn't have an HDTV has seen one. I've gone into best buy seen an HDTV playing real video and also playing games (XBOX360). I pretty much said "That looks good" and walked away. I didn't feel the NEED to buy one. I find it weird you backed up your statement with you like having your graphics clearer and shaper with more detail. As for the dreamcast it did a lot of things before its time and in the end it didn't help the system one bit.
 
Well, after my first extended look at HD, I'm secure in my lack of need for it, for now ;) [hence my vote "don't plan on buying an HDTV anytime soon"] Watched the Superbowl on a 30-some inch widescreen LCD for some 4 hours, thought it looked great (especially when we flipped it back over to non-HD ABC, it looked hideous). Went back home to my non-HD TV, and didn't notice a thing. So unless I'm unlucky enough to be playing games on my non-HDTV while someone is sitting next to me playing games on an HDTV, I won't be missing much, or at least won't notice that I am.
 
It also makes me mental when people say graphics don't matter and it's the gameplay that counts so therefore HD doesn't matter. I've said it before - good graphics can't save a crappy game but they can make a great game even better. What would you rather play: Twin Snakes (GCN) or MGS (PS1)? Resident Evil (GCN) or Resident Evil (PS1)? Mario (NES) or Mario All-Stars (SNES)? If all things are equal 99% of people would rather play the better looking game so therefore better graphics do matter and do make a game more enjoyable.
 
[quote name='javeryh']It also makes me mental when people say graphics don't matter and it's the gameplay that counts so therefore HD doesn't matter. I've said it before - good graphics can't save a crappy game but they can make a great game even better. What would you rather play: Twin Snakes (GCN) or MGS (PS1)? Resident Evil (GCN) or Resident Evil (PS1)? Mario (NES) or Mario All-Stars (SNES)? If all things are equal 99% of people would rather play the better looking game so therefore better graphics do matter and do make a game more enjoyable.[/QUOTE]
And if the cost was equal, no one would argue.
 
[quote name='javeryh']It also makes me mental when people say graphics don't matter and it's the gameplay that counts so therefore HD doesn't matter. I've said it before - good graphics can't save a crappy game but they can make a great game even better. What would you rather play: Twin Snakes (GCN) or MGS (PS1)? Resident Evil (GCN) or Resident Evil (PS1)? Mario (NES) or Mario All-Stars (SNES)? If all things are equal 99% of people would rather play the better looking game so therefore better graphics do matter and do make a game more enjoyable.[/QUOTE]
Well, in all those cases, the gameplay was tweaked quite a bit.

Twin Snakes gave you the stun dart gun and allowed for First Person shooting
Super Mario All Stars gave you much better control over the original games
Res Evil was completely redesigned from the ground up.

That being said, So long as the graphics aren't completely wretched, I'm quite content. I'm still playing my PS2 and Gamecube on subpart S-video cables through a 20 something inch CRT fishbowl with a blue-ish blob on the bottom left hand corner that gets bigger every week. If I DO get HD or prog scan capabilities anytime soon, it's going to be through an LCD screen on top of an overhead projector.
 
[quote name='javeryh']My thoughts exactly. I'm still buying the Revolution because Nintendo games are still my favorite but I will always buy third party non exclusives for my 360 or PS3. Sucks for Nintendo in that regard and if they don't see this coming a mile away they are morons.[/QUOTE]

Nintendo isn't counting on people buying straight up ports for the Revolution and may even discourage it. That is, unless, companies take that extra step and work in some new functionality via the controller. And yes, the argument of "work the lowest common denominator" will apply. But if the market shows that gamers will respond to such additions I see little reason why companies wouldn't make the extra effort.

I also doubt that ports have a high place in terms of Nintendo's priorities. They would much rather have unique games and are more than likely working with companies to make such aspirations a reality.

And here's a quote from a member of the Joystiq forums about this issue, which I find helpful based on the circumstances mentioned below:

[quote name='Post']I have a 360 and a 62" HD television. I think Nintendo is making the correct business move to not support HD.

When I first plugged in my 360, I didnt flip the switch on the A/V cable to HD. Before I realized I was only playing games in 480p, I was still impressed by the steller graphics. Once I changed over to HD, the graphics did mprove some. Mostly in clarity and sharpness. But it was a minor improvement. The graphics were great, regardless of HD.

If the revolution can match the graphics that the 360 puts out at 480p, then this whole HD issue is a non-issue. With the exception of those with monster sized high-def sets, I doubt people will see much difference between the two systems.[/QUOTE]

It's just one person's opinion, but sentiment seems to be pretty common within the gaming community.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top