Those that felt that HD was unnecessary or over-hyped simply felt there were other things that were more
important than how video games look. Commonly cited reasons included: a
need for more innovation and better gameplay, the fact that PCs already
have HD displays, and the expense in both developer and consumer
dollars of HD.
HD
is what broadband was 10 years ago. Everybody wants it, no one can
afford it, and it's overpriced. Too bad the cost hurdle is so high.
It's going to take some commoditization for HD to trickle in,
especially since HD broadcasting isn't that commonplace. Standards and
compatibility are issues too... it's sad when you spend $3 grand on a
HDTV only to find (as a friend did recently) that your new Xbox 360
insists it's 480i. It'll be nice to see PC resolutions finally hitting
the living room, though.
-Anonymous
Not
really. I think there are quite a few items on the wish list way before
HD. In fact, if Microsoft hadn't brought it up, I don't think the
developers would have considered it a missing necessity for quite some
time. 'Why does a dog lick itself between the legs? Because it can.'
Why does Microsoft impose costly new standards which will further
escalate the content explosion, which developers fear? Well, let's put
it this way. I don't think they share the financial concerns with the
studios out there in the field. Wasn't it Seamus Blackley's vision that
the Xbox was going to free developers up to just practice their art?
Help them focusing on making the things they always just wanted to? A
console to be on the developers' side. Those aspirations should go
beyond the API. Is the HD era just another "my dad can beat up your
dad" aimed at Sony? Because I don't see how developers are to benefit
from adding more costly polish into the equation, and as for consumers,
I doubt they'll even notice (see Jason Rubin's talk about graphics
saturation from GDC 2003). The more you look at the HD idea, the more
it looks like another way of increasing the entry barriers to games
development. Important to the future of video games? Important as
another little bullet point on a marketing brief, perhaps, but not to
the future of video gaming.
-Marque Pierre Sondergaard, Heroes Team
I
would say “not necessarily.” While improved graphics have often been
the impetus for the growth of the gamer population, video games (during
actual gameplay at least) have never been able to match regular
television broadcast quality (even the horrible FMV "games" of the
"Night Trap" ilk). When and if HD becomes the standard, as the
corporate flacks have been proclaiming for years, why should we expect
things to be any different? If video games can somehow make the quantum
leap in graphics and actually take advantage of HD's capabilities,
great. But if not, I doubt it will bring the industry to its knees.
-Eric Braxton
Honestly,
the entire push for HD has always seemed to be driven more by
manufacturers than by consumer demand. HD television, next-generation
optical discs, and even HD games - they seem like a want that has been
created for consumers, rather than by consumers. I think this is borne
out by a recent study that shows most people don't have any idea
whether they're watching HDTV or not; if it was a feature that people
wanted, they'd care enough to know. However, recently it's been made
another box on the feature checklist for games, much like past
graphical technologies. Whether or not people actually know what it
will look like, the box of the game or system they're buying had better
say "HD!" on it. This despite the fact that it hardly changes the
appearance of games at all, much less the gameplay. So, is it really
important to the future of games, themselves? I don't think so. PCs
have been high-resolution for a long time, and people have been more
willing to play games on their consoles regardless. And of course
gameplay beats graphics, etc. But is it important to the future of game
marketing? As much so as any other buzzword of the past.
-Anonymous
It's
certainly important as a sales pitch, which can help improve sales of
hardware and accordingly software. To consumers, it will be as
important as the prevalance of HD displays, meaning it is bound to
become continually more important. For console developers, it carries
importance mostly because it forces - perhaps for the first time - you
to create two levels of detail; one for low-def, which the additional
rendering power exposed by the much lower resolution, another for
high-def. As recent blunders show, failure to appreciate that both
non-HD and HD consumer segments exist can make a game almost unplayable
in either mode.
-Anonymous
Actually
I think that video games are important to the future of HD. Video games
are fast becoming the primary form of entertainment for most
households. With the Xbox 360 and the PS3 supporting high definition
resolutions, I believe that most households will finally make the leap
into HDTV. In short, games will be the catalyst that will drive more
people to upgrade. I don't believe that this relationship works the
other way around however. Grand Theft Auto is not the first
thing that comes to your mind when coming up with a list of beautiful
games. Solid gameplay and/or themes that gamers find accessible or
intriguing will always have higher priority than high definition
visuals.
-Carlo Delallana, Ubisoft
HD
is simply a higher resolution. PC's have offered higher resolution
gaming for years, so why should consoles in the year 2005-2006 be left
behind, resolution-wise? I don't see it as a revolutionary change or
anything, but as simply an expected graphical improvement for any
modern gaming device.
-Jason Alexander, Terminal Reality
God,
I hope this isn't all we have up our sleeve. HD looks good when you're
up close to your TV. If you're sitting back on a couch with your
glasses off, it really doesn't matter. Is HD an improvement?
Absolutely. Is it the future of videogames? Of course not.
-Matthew Freedman, Electronic Arts Canada
Yes
and no. HD won't really make our games better, but it may distract us
from the important parts enough to make them worse. It reminds me a lot
of the FMV wave in the wake of the first CD-ROM drives.
-Caliban Darklock, Darklock Communications
Not
overly so. From a graphics point of view, there are far more important
things than high resolutions. Scene complexity, and lighting effects
are far more important visually. And improvements to AI, physics and
sound (like adaptive soundtracks, better sound filtering and occlusion,
and sound effect modeling, all of which are not "HD" sound) are likely
to add more to player experience than HD will.
-Anonymous
Not
really. As more and more households get HDTVs, games that run on those
TVs will of course support that format. But games will survive and
thrive regardless what format they're output to. What's more important
are technologies that allow new types of gameplay, and freedom to
implement creative vision: cheaper RAM, more widespread broadband
distribution, larger, faster storage media, new types of controllers,
and better developer tools. Look at the jumps between the Atari 2600,
the Genesis, the PS1, and the Xbox. Those leaps were astounding and all
ran on regular TVs. What changed was processor speed and power, cheaper
RAM, increased storage, Internet connectivity, etc. HD games do look
awesome, and eventually that will be the standard for all games. But
higher res graphics aren't what will take games forward.
-Anonymous
HD is quickly becoming the new catch phrase. It's good that the
industry has grown to the point where HD is even an option but it's not
an option that should make or break the industry. Innovative gameplay
should be the driving force for industry growth. Upgrades in technology
are always good but it seems that some marketing schemes suggest that
HD support is enough to justify a purchase. Also considering what is
required by the consumer to support HD and we are looking at an expense
that many people just simply cannot afford. I have played many games in
HD for the Xbox 360 and I can't be that impressed because I have also
played Unreal Tournament 2004, Half Life 2, and Quake3: Team Arena
in resolutions higher than what HD has to offer at the moment. Ideally,
HD support would have to go hand in hand with great, innovative
gameplay, presentation, smooth frame rates, etc., to really excite the
more informed gamer. But then, you're talking about a total package and
not just one aspect of it. Keep that same equation but remove HD
support and you still have a great game that just plays in a lower
resolution. Make a terrible game with HD support and you still have a
terrible game.
-Victor Bunn, Solo Mission Studios
HD isn't important at all. Computer's have had high definition (high
resolution) screens for a really long time now, so HD is really a thing
of the past. While the newer consoles will look better on HDTVs, how
many gamers really own one? Gameplay is far more important than
graphics anyways. If your game is relying on being the best looking, or
the highest resolution, then you are in trouble in a week when the next
slightly better looking game comes along. Upping the number of pixels
on the display isn't going to improve how fun a game is, just try
cranking down/up the resolution a notch in your favorite game and
you'll find that it really isn't that different at all.
-Anonymous
People
who believe that high definition graphics are going to solve
everything, are quite simply wrong. People are making too big a deal
about it. Is that all there is to the next generation of games
consoles? Support for something most of us don't have (HDTVs)? More
expensive development costs? More development time? All this for an
unrecognizable improvement of graphics (to the mass public's eyes)? It
seems silly to me, there are far more important things for developers
to think about, like originality and innovation in games. HD is
expensive, is it worth the money? I don't think so. Is it important to
the future of computer games? I don't think so. I think what is
important the future of video games is developers finding new ways to
interest players, before everyone gets fed up with the same old ideas
being repeated. As a true enthusiast of video games and games
development, I am really concerned about the way the industry is going.
All this talk of HD as if it is going to change the face of gaming
forever. Well it isn't. I have lost any faith that I had in Sony and
Microsoft's priorities and I embrace Nintendo's direction. I think that
the Revolution is more important to the future of video games than HD
technology and the costs that come with it.
-Matthew Hazlehurst, DSF
I want to say yes because of the impetus Sony and Microsoft are placing
on HD, but in actuality HD doesn't hold a great deal of significance to
the future of gaming. Sure, HD will most likely pick up in popularity
once the 360 is readily available, the PS3 launches, and HD sets drop
in price, yet this has negligible effects on the industry as a whole.
What is happening in the industry now is the formation of a schism
between the massive, multi-million corporations and the independent
developers who are finally finding a voice via digital distribution.
The market is expanding enough that a viable indie solution is becoming
attainable; most likely the majority of innovation will come out of the
developers not tied down to budget pressures and parent publishers.
With the Revolution, Nintendo may retreat from the mainstream and help
shepherd a new school of gaming not focused on graphical power; and
there's always the burgeoning mobile and portable markets that will
never sport HD capabilities in a true sense. So, although it may not
fade away like so many gimmicks, HD is not the true next step in
gaming—the games are.
-Ben Serviss, Creo Ludus Entertainment
When it comes to the beauty and aesthetic quality of games, my mind plays tricks on me. I think about games like The Ocarina of Time ,
and I see the visuals flow as flawlessly as if they were completely
pre-rendered in CG, for an HD system. Is it pure nostalgia? I was
eleven when I played Ocarina for the first time, but the truth
is; I know it can't be just nostalgia. The scene that, at this moment,
I recall as enhanced beyond its means, happens to be one that I had
completely forgotten until I had the chance to play Ocarina
again this past June. Hell no, HD isn't the end-all be-all future of
games. First, the casual market is huge, and I don't think any soccer
moms are sitting around on Sunday afternoons wondering when they're
getting high-definition jewels. Casual gamers play to fill time, to
have fun. They play games to play games. In my opinion, this type of
gamer may be closer to hardcore than any other type. They're not
interested in bragging rights, playing every title, owning every title,
or beating every title. All they want is for a game to be worth their
time. Tetris is still selling. San Andreas ignored graphic updates. The Sims is The Sims. Millions still play Starcraft and Half Life. I just played through Super Mario World last weekend. And I would have bought a PlayStation 2 just to play Katamari.
The fans are the future of gaming. Sales are our future. Truly, HD is
but one bullet point on a list of what can make a good game great.
-Anonymous
_____________________________________________________
Printer-Friendly Version
