On Tue, 15 Apr 2008 11:07:15 -0700, "khee mao"
<badunkadunkdunk> wrote:

[..]
>>================================================ ==============
>
>there's been a huge jump in resolution between last generation (minus a
>handful of 720p/1080i games) and this. since current console hardware can
>output at current hd specs, I'd expect this hardware generation to have a
>relatively long lifespan. I can't imagine what they'd have to add to next
>gen consoles to make them a compelling buy.
>
they'll just get more detailed.

resolution isn't the only factor, after all.

if it was, we'd have seen graphics akin to 360 and PS3 games years
ago, since theyve been capable of similar resolutions for over a
decade.

"Zomoniac" <the_proper_one> wrote in message
news:luu1
> On 2008-04-15 19:07:15 +0100, "khee mao" <badunkadunkdunk>
> said:
>>
>> there's been a huge jump in resolution between last generation (minus a
>> handful of 720p/1080i games) and this. since current console hardware
>> can output at current hd specs, I'd expect this hardware generation to
>> have a relatively long lifespan. I can't imagine what they'd have to add
>> to next gen consoles to make them a compelling buy.
>
> And oddly enough this doesn't in any way help in this case as GT4 on PS2
> ran at 1080i :)
>
in your rush to try to make a point, you completely glossed over this
crucial nugget:

"minus a handful of 720p/1080i games"

fact of the matter is that _this_ generation of consoles mainstreamed hd.

"Chris F" <chris> wrote in message
news:g47a
> they'll just get more detailed.
>
> resolution isn't the only factor, after all.
>
> if it was, we'd have seen graphics akin to 360 and PS3 games years
> ago, since they've been capable of similar resolutions for over a
> decade
> --
>
I can always count on Chris Flunky to come up with some hairbrained
assertion, this time that game consoles have been able to output hd
resolutions for 'over a decade' while being completely oblivious to the fact
that the current hd spec, you know, the one the ps3 and 360 output at, will
be the standard for decades to come as NTSC/PAL were before it.

khee mao wrote:
>
> "Zomoniac" <the_proper_one> wrote in message
> news:luu1
> in your rush to try to make a point, you completely glossed over this
> crucial nugget:
>
> "minus a handful of 720p/1080i games"
>
> fact of the matter is that _this_ generation of consoles mainstreamed hd.

Yes I know that, but we were talking about GT5 losing content because of
going up in resolution, when in reality it's not, it's just gaining
progressive scan.

On Tue, 15 Apr 2008 21:25:19 -0700, "khee mao" <asdf> wrote:

>
>"Chris F" <chris> wrote in message
>news:g47a
>I can always count on Chris Flunky to come up with some hairbrained
>assertion, this time that game consoles have been able to output hd
>resolutions for 'over a decade' while being completely oblivious to the fact
>that the current hd spec, you know, the one the ps3 and 360 output at, will
>be the standard for decades to come as NTSC/PAL were before it.

i changed what i was typing half way through and forgot to correct
myself. Originally i'd referred to PCs in the first sentence, but then
had removed it (oops)

i was intending to point out that PCs have been able to output at
similar resolutions for over a decade.

so are you insinuating that 360 and PS3 games look no better than 10
year old PC games running at 1024x768?

i'm sure you'll still disagree with me, purely because you're an
argumentative fuckwit, but i maintain my assertion that resolution
isn't the be all and end all when it comes to graphical complexity.

"Zomoniac" <the_proper_one> wrote in message
news:aqu1
>> Yes I know that, but we were talking about GT5 losing content because of
> going up in resolution, when in reality it's not, it's just gaining
> progressive scan.
>you think GT5 is 'just' GT4 with progressive scan?!?!?

HA!

gt5: cars average 200,000 polygons
gt4: cars average 4000 polygons

and that's just for starters...

On Wed, 16 Apr 2008 11:19:27 -0700, "khee mao"
<badunkadunkdunk> wrote:

>
>"Zomoniac" <the_proper_one> wrote in message
>news:aqu1
>you think GT5 is 'just' GT4 with progressive scan?!?!?
>
>HA!
>
>gt5: cars average 200,000 polygons
>gt4: cars average 4000 polygons
>
>and that's just for starters...
>
you do know you've just answered your own question as to what the next
generation of consoles will have to offer over 360 and PS3, right?

"Chris F" <chris> wrote in message
news:ive9
> On Wed, 16 Apr 2008 11:19:27 -0700, "khee mao"
> <badunkadunkdunk> wrote:
>
> you do know you've just answered your own question as to what the next
> generation of consoles will have to offer over 360 and PS3, right?
>>
uhm...better than photorealistic graphics? better than Dolby TrueHD? the
ability to magically multiply an HDTVs total pixel count by a factor of 10
with a corresponding increase in occular acuity?

On Wed, 16 Apr 2008 11:44:04 -0700, "khee mao"
<badunkadunkdunk> wrote:

>
>"Chris F" <chris> wrote in message
>news:ive9
>uhm...better than photorealistic graphics? better than Dolby TrueHD? the
>ability to magically multiply an HDTVs total pixel count by a factor of 10
>with a corresponding increase in occular acuity?
>
if you think anything is photorealistic this current gen, you need
your eyes checking.

"Chris F" <chris> wrote in message
news:l8jd
> On Wed, 16 Apr 2008 11:44:04 -0700, "khee mao"
> <badunkadunkdunk> wrote:
>>
> if you think anything is photorealistic this current gen, you need
> your eyes checking.
>I need my eyes checking a lot less than you need your grammar learning.

On Wed, 16 Apr 2008 15:44:55 -0700, "khee mao"
<badunkadunkdunk> wrote:

>
>"Chris F" <chris> wrote in message
>news:l8jd
>> On Wed, 16 Apr 2008 11:44:04 -0700, "khee mao"
>> <badunkadunkdunk> wrote:
>>>
>> if you think anything is photorealistic this current gen, you need
>> your eyes checking.
>>
>>
>I need my eyes checking a lot less than you need your grammar learning.
>
well, on that note, i shall end my participation in this thread as it
is clear you have no fallback argument, resulting in your descent to
grammar flame depths of desperation.

my grammar is fine btw, i just don't give a shit about it on usenet,
nor do i feel any compulsion to justify my linguistic skills to
yourself.

photo-realism in games is a long way off. yes it is closer, but
advances have to be made above and beyond mere display resolution to
achieve this. your assertion that future generations of consoles would
have nothing to offer over the current generation because they have
reached the 'HD plateau' in regards of resolution is a ludicrous as
you are deluded.

when you can come up with a well-reasoned argument related to the
points made, i may pay attention.

however, as you seem to be a bit of a cock who just likes disagreeing
with people for the hell of it, i bid you good day.

khee mao <badunkadunkdunk> wrote:

I need my eyes checking a lot less than you need your grammar learning.



Grammar learning? (pot calling the kettle black)

I will have to side with Chris F on the fact that you just tanked the
debate since you have no legitimate retort. (Right or wrong)


Good day.

Chris F wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Apr 2008 11:44:04 -0700, "khee mao"
> <badunkadunkdunk> wrote:
>
> if you think anything is photorealistic this current gen, you need
> your eyes checking.

The car models in GT5 are pretty much photorealistic. The game as a
whole isn't, as the tracks most certainly aren't, but in the dealership
just looking at the car on its own you could easily be forgiven for
thinking it was real.

khee mao wrote:
> "Zomoniac" <the_proper_one> wrote in message
> news:aqu1
>>
>> Yes I know that, but we were talking about GT5 losing content because of
>> going up in resolution, when in reality it's not, it's just gaining
>> progressive scan.
>>
>>
> you think GT5 is 'just' GT4 with progressive scan?!?!?
>
> HA!
>
> gt5: cars average 200,000 polygons
> gt4: cars average 4000 polygons

Are you aware that polygons and resolutions aren't related? Evidently not...

On Thu, 17 Apr 2008 09:41:38 +0100, Zomoniac
<the_proper_one> wrote:

>Chris F wrote:
>
>The car models in GT5 are pretty much photorealistic. The game as a
>whole isn't, as the tracks most certainly aren't, but in the dealership
>just looking at the car on its own you could easily be forgiven for
>thinking it was real.

hence me saying it's closer.

a solid object will always be easier to make appear realistic, it's
when it gets to making people or other natural objects look realistic
where the problems lie.

there's probably more detail on a square inch of human skin than there
is on the whole surface of one of the cars in GT5.

as we've both been pointing out, the display resolution isn't the
single defining factor in graphical quality, despite what he may be
thinking.

if it were, then the PS2 and Xbox games must've looked no better than
PS1, N64 and Saturn games.