Huh, they're cheaper than I thought... but what are the current stats about how many people have HDTV? I know that the thing about stopping analog signals probably won't happen soon because we haven't reached some percentage of digital penetration...
S-Video is just less signal loss. It is EFFECTIVELY 0 loss though, which is fine. But, there are better standards. I'm just waiting for the PC Moniter type to become the standard. It's already taken hold in Japan anyway, but here in America...
Also, wow the prices have gone down quite a bit since I last checked. At this rate I'll actually be getting one eventually. Not now, or next year even, but in a few years I'll have one. There's also part of me waiting for PC moniter standard to take hold. It's either that, or a standard that beats both of them hands down, but as it stands, currently HDTV really doesn't offer more than PC moniters do (except size obviously).
Quote:Huh, they're cheaper than I thought... but what are the current stats about how many people have HDTV?
At the moment, it's around 11 million with about 18.5 million more expected this year and next. Also, it probably wouldn't be a stretch to say that most of the people who have HDTVs also have at least one current-gen console.
A Black Falcon Wrote:Yeah... is anyone actually hyped for the X-Box 2? It seems so early for the next console generation...
Visit
GAF or
TXB and you'll see a lot of people excited about it. There's a lot of people at GAF who desperatly want this generation to end. They want the new hardware NOW.
Honestly I really am not that hyped... Lemme scan my heart a bit... nope... Truly, about all I care about is criticizing what they don't have, but I'm really not excited about it at all. For the first time, this gen, when I see a game I say "that's good enough for me" when it comes to graphics. I never said that in any previous generation. Seeing some concept renders for the next generation, if it really can get true to life, I really think the next generation might be the last new consoles people are going to want for a long while. If it's really that much better, then I think companies are going to have a hard time convincing anyone they should get something more powerful. They may have to actually come up with some real innovations that make for a gaming experience that's impossible at that time to get people's attention...
That's what Nintendo is trying... but I don't think people are quite at that point yet. It's a good idea, and I agree about the "good enough", but will it work? At this point, doubtful.
Nintendo keeps saying "it'll be a revolution", but I can't get hyped about it until I see some PROOF of their claims. We got a touch screen on the DS, and we got a frickin' water pack in Mario Sunshine (yes, I AM going to keep using that as an example of what Nintendo calls innovation). That system doesn't exist to me until they tell us what's so special about it. Just promising it'll be special isn't enough. For all we know, they only said that and their guys are scrambling to come up with something to give us at E3 postactively, like they gave the claim first and are struggling to make good on it after the fact. Sometimes I wonder if that's what they did with some past innovations at least :D.
Quote:Xbox 360 it is. At least, if the latest news is true. Gamesindustry.biz seems to confirm the name of the device, along with providing further info on what the console may look like.
White
Simple logo
Concave shape (like it’s “sucking in its cheeks”)
Possible skinning feature on the console
Hard drive module placement is unclear
Bit by bit. Like Chinese water torture…
Source:
Joystiq
Full article:
GamesIndustry.biz
You're right, DJ... if it's just "innovation" like Mario Sunshine, it'll be pretty dissapointing and Nintendo better hope it can sell on conventional improvement qualities... but I am hoping for more. Graphics obviously aren't as good as they possibly can be, but they're good enough that you can do just about anything you want... just better graphics won't sell me a console. Exclusive games? Now that will. Same for my PC -- I'm not thinking of improving the graphics card because I really want the features newer cards offer, it's just because new games aren't scalable down far enough... sure, part of it is 'what you haven't seen you don't miss', but... this isn't N64 to GC. The difference is less.
And the difference will become less with each new generation. At least until there's some new breakthrough in processors on the same level as silicon.
It'd be like torture if anyone actually cared.
Smoke, there is a new breakthrough in the works. Basically, it's needed for nanotechnology to ever really work. It involves using carbon molecules shaped like tubes as conductors, and the trick is making the conduction... semi...
DJ, if you want the best possible picture you have to get a digital projector, they're better than computer monitors as well. Well, they are computer monitors, but the color detail and the contrast ratio is just beautiful, it's the closest you can get to a real life image. Unfortunately they're upwards of 10 grand for the projector alone.
"skinning feature on the console"?
haha DJ that would never happen in our life times. :D
Actually the technical leap is greater from generation to generation, ABF. If you look at the NES hardware specs to the SNES hardware specs to the N64 hardware specs to the GC hardware specs... the leaps have been greater each time than the last. And it the early XB2 specs have some truth to them then this new leap will continue that trend. In terms of pure processing power, in terms of how many polys can be drawn, in terms of how high the texture resolution will become, in terms of everything else (lighting, particle effects, etc.), the leap will be very large.
The thing is, though, that it's easier to tell the difference between a 100-poly model and a 10,000-poly model than it is a 10,000-poly model and a 1,000,000-poly model. As they say, you can put a billion polys into a ball but it won't look any better than a one million poly ball. I don't think we're quite there yet, but we will be pretty soon. The gen after this, I'd say. And games are just going to become more and more expensive to make until there's only the big guy and the (very) little guy. You'll be seeing a new EA Bond game that looks exactly like a movie that costs more than five Bond movies to make, and you'll see innovative little games like Katamari Damashii that cost barely anything in comparison to produce (I don't know if that's actually true, but it's certainly the type of game that could fairly easily be done by a nobody developer). Some people think that the rising costs of games are going to make it so that no one but the big dogs will be able to make a living off of games, but I feel the exact opposite. Because games will cost so much to make, studios will be even more afraid to take risks. And the public will eventually get bored of the same kinds of games. Then they'll look for innovation, and you don't need billion-dollar budgets to make innovative games. Graphics are going to become less and less important, I think.
Private Hudson Wrote:Meh, I wouldn't really agree with RE4 being comparable to HL2. It's definately behind it, just not that far.
The amazing thing about RE4 is that it doesn't use normal mapping and various other technical "cheats" to make it look good. When you see a baddie that looks like he was made out of a bajillion polys, that's because he
was made out of a bajillion polys, not using normal mapping to look good. Doom 3 uses a lot of that (as do most great-looking games right now), and while it is effective it does look weird. Shadowing is odd, everything looks like it's made out of plastic, etc. Wood in RE4 looks like wood. And it's because they didn't use bump mapping and all kinds of shaders. That's the amazing thing about RE4.
Quote:The thing is, though, that it's easier to tell the difference between a 100-poly model and a 10,000-poly model than it is a 10,000-poly model and a 1,000,000-poly model. As they say, you can put a billion polys into a ball but it won't look any better than a one million poly ball. I don't think we're quite there yet, but we will be pretty soon. The gen after this, I'd say. And games are just going to become more and more expensive to make until there's only the big guy and the (very) little guy. You'll be seeing a new EA Bond game that looks exactly like a movie that costs more than five Bond movies to make, and you'll see innovative little games like Katamari Damashii that cost barely anything in comparison to produce (I don't know if that's actually true, but it's certainly the type of game that could fairly easily be done by a nobody developer). Some people think that the rising costs of games are going to make it so that no one but the big dogs will be able to make a living off of games, but I feel the exact opposite. Because games will cost so much to make, studios will be even more afraid to take risks. And the public will eventually get bored of the same kinds of games. Then they'll look for innovation, and you don't need billion-dollar budgets to make innovative games. Graphics are going to become less and less important, I think.
And this is what's important, not the pure numbers. It's definitely true... now, graphics won't be finished advancing until they look exactly like real life, and that requires more than just polygons. Who knows what is needed to do THAT... but there definitely are diminishing returns, and there definitely is a point where you just can't tell the difference between poly counts and we need more than that (like EverQuest II, high poly counts but "plastic" people...).
I just can't very excited about the Xbox 360, and I think this is mainly because I never really liked the first Xbox that much. It had a few really good games like Burnout 3, KOTOR, and some decent games like Halo and Fable. Other than those and maybe one or two more, there weren't that many Xbox games that really held my attention for very long.
A Black Falcon Wrote:And this is what's important, not the pure numbers. It's definitely true... now, graphics won't be finished advancing until they look exactly like real life, and that requires more than just polygons. Who knows what is needed to do THAT... but there definitely are diminishing returns, and there definitely is a point where you just can't tell the difference between poly counts and we need more than that (like EverQuest II, high poly counts but "plastic" people...).
The plastic look is a problem with textures and lighting. That will get better.
If movie CG isn't quite photo-realistic in all respects just yet, games still have a
long way to go.
Yeah, it's really a much larger leap than the last generation, that is, the power level jump from N64 to GCN is beyond the comprehension of the SNES :D. But still, it's getting less noticable :D.
Yeah, and that's a good thing, because it's becoming less about how many polygons you're pushing and more about how you're using them. That's basically what Jason Ruben (sp?) said would happen shortly after the PS2 came out.
Pushing more polys does still matter, though.
Of course push more polys matter, but going to matter less and less as the hardware become more powerful.
Right. Again ABF fails to understand my simple comment.
What I said: The number of polys you're pushing will become less important than how you use them.
What ABF sees: OMGWTFBBQ POLYs arenb't gooD Theye'r Not IMRPTNATANT!!!
*sigh*
Quote:Of course push more polys matter, but going to matter less and less as the hardware become more powerful.
Of course. I think I've said so three or four times in this thread.
OB1: I have no idea where you get these ideas of what you think I say, but as usual it has almost no relation to what I actually was saying...
My point was that though we definitely are at a point of diminishing returns, we aren't quite at the point where improved graphics don't matter yet. That should be pretty obvious... it'll be intresting to see how long people maintain 'graphics first', though (because, as my last post was supposed to indicate, as important as the actual technical improvement is people's perceptions of that...), given those diminishing returns.
Isn't that exactly what OB1 said already, like a hundred times?
Quote:Pushing more polys does still matter, though.
That suggests someone was trying to say otherwise which, to my knowledge, no one was doing in the least.
I just want 60fps on every game. If developers do that, I'll be happy.
Early word is that you won't be seeing XB2 games running at more than 30fps for a while...
Because people expect a certain level of graphics quality...
Well people are idiots then.
Quote:Isn't that exactly what OB1 said already, like a hundred times?
Yes. My point was that it was weird for OB1 to act like I was disagreeing with him when it should have been quite clear I wasn't.
Quote:That suggests someone was trying to say otherwise which, to my knowledge, no one was doing in the least.
It was a reply to this quote, and as such seems quite appropriate. (that is, this guy wasn't completely correct)
Quote:Yeah, and that's a good thing, because it's becoming less about how many polygons you're pushing and more about how you're using them. That's basically what Jason Ruben (sp?) said would happen shortly after the PS2 came out.
Quote:Well people are idiots then.
Well yes, but developers know that and try their hardest to tailor their games to what sells... and graphics sell, more than framerates, unless they're really bad. And 30 isn't bad.
Dark Jaguar Wrote:Smoke, there is a new breakthrough in the works. Basically, it's needed for nanotechnology to ever really work. It involves using carbon molecules shaped like tubes as conductors, and the trick is making the conduction... semi...
Carbon nanotubes? I know they want to use them for TVs. Nano emissive displays are supposed to have better image quality then the current flat screen televisions and be cheaper as well. I think they're supposed to come out this year.
Motorola press release
AV Forums thread about NEDs
lazyfatbum Wrote:haha DJ that would never happen in our life times. :D
I wouldn't be so sure about that. Unless you're planning on not living very long? ;)
Found another article on the subject:
Ready For Some Carbon Nanotubing? March 17, 2005
Quote:Consumer electronics and homeland defense: next up, a smooth shave
Carbon nanotubes are definitely not limited to lending a helping hand to atomic force microscope users. In the future you may want to toss that "crummy" $5,000 plasma TV into your kid's room to make way for Motorola's nano emissive display. The nano emissive display is Motorola's name for a large flat-panel display based on carbon nanotubes. They aren't available yet, but Motorola claims that they have better image quality and can be produced at lower cost than plasma or LCD screens.
A Black Falcon Wrote:Yes. My point was that it was weird for OB1 to act like I was disagreeing with him when it should have been quite clear I wasn't.
It was a reply to this quote, and as such seems quite appropriate. (that is, this guy wasn't completely correct)
Well yes, but developers know that and try their hardest to tailor their games to what sells... and graphics sell, more than framerates, unless they're really bad. And 30 isn't bad.
You are so detached from reality that I don't even know why I bother reacting to you.
OB1 Wrote:You are so detached from reality that I don't even know why I bother reacting to you.
Because you love it and you know it. Now kiss and make up. *taps foot* I don't see any kissing.
Private Hudson Wrote:I just want 60fps on every game. If developers do that, I'll be happy.
That's so unnecessary. The only games that really benefit from anything above 30fps are racing and FPS games. Maybe fighting games too...
<--- That is the cutest smilie I have ever seen!
Paco!
Let me think. Nearly every game I own would benefit from a beautiful frame rate.
Besides, I'm at a stage where I think the graphics are fine enough as is, and I'd prefer a super smooth frame-rate over some slightly better models/textures.
Paco Wrote: <--- That is the cutest smilie I have ever seen!
I know, don't you just want to rape him?
...What?
Private Hudson Wrote:Paco!
Let me think. Nearly every game I own would benefit from a beautiful frame rate.
Besides, I'm at a stage where I think the graphics are fine enough as is, and I'd prefer a super smooth frame-rate over some slightly better models/textures.
Final Fantasy, or any other RPG for that matter, would not benefit from a higher frame rate. You wouldn't be able to tell the difference.
Every game would benefit from a solid 60 fps framerate. Not everyone would be able to tell the difference, but that doesn't mean there wouldn't be one. Any of the Final Fantasies would have benefited from a better framerate. The benefit would be small, but you were talking in absolutes, no?
What's the use of having hyper-advanced hardware if you're only going to run the games at 30FPS?
![[Image: 20050413l.jpg]](http://img.penny-arcade.com/2005/20050413l.jpg)