Topic: This whole HD era confuses me.

Ok I'm changing this first post cause I thought of a better way to put this:

Ever since this generation started, it seems a greater emphasis has been made on making games prettier, more realistic, and more cinematic. Gameplay is now an afterthought. Most developers seem to think it's ok to play the same games as last gen, as long as they look nicer. I don't want a cinematic game with dozens of cutscenes interrupting the gameplay. The whole point of a video game is how it PLAYS, not how many textures you can cram in your character model or how dynamic the cutscene is.

I don't care how nice a game looks, if it resembles something I've played before, then I probably won't like it. Gameplay must ALWAYS take precedence over graphics. Yes graphics are important, but you should also pay attention to making sure the game controls smoothly. Because a game with clumsy controls is a bad game overall, regardless of how nice it looks.

And stop with this goal for cinematic realism. I want to play a game, not watch a bunch of cutscenes with bits of gameplay here and there.

Wait until Ultra HD is common.
HD allows for better textures and more to be displayed on screen (Depending on how it's used).

HD allows for better textures and more pixels, and that's it. I could take GTA 3 and give it HD textures, without changing anything else about it. Would that still be considered an HD game? PS2 graphics with HD textures?

What about Super Mario 64? If I simply bumped up the texture resolution while keeping everything else the same (same number of polygons, same level designs, etc.) would that be considered an HD game?

No, most SD consoles have less textures and shaders too. Just another reason I can't wait for Wii U. And a NES game can't look better without smoothing out the sprites. A N64 game can look smoother, and you can add textures and reflection in the water. HD consoles generally have better CPUs w/ more power to render bigger worlds. However, it's the game experience that matters. But better graphics and bigger worlds can immerse you better and open more complex worlds and possibilities.

But if all you're doing is updating the textures without increasing the polygon count, then the game will still look pretty much the same, just with a nicer coat of paint, so to speak.

It's like taking an old car and repainting it. It's still the same car as before, it just looks more shiny.

Now companies are getting into the habit of taking old games and making them look "HD", and the only thing that's changed is the resolution.

EDIT: Okay, I'm gonna muster up a few brain cells to add my 2 cents.

HD isn't just a nice coat of paint. Graphics pay as much importance to a game as gameplay. Nobody likes an ugly game, full stop. HD is more of an enhancement to the visual experience of a video game, and it adds further and deeper to the overall game than many people care to realise.

Take a sci-fi space shooter, for a random example. Sure, pixelised in a sort of 8-bit style is classic, and very retro, which is enjoyable for some. But picture it in advanced graphics. You're journeying through space, the stars twinkle around you. Bright flashes of laser shots blaze around you, as you speed your way through the atmosphere. What's the first thing that hit you? The latter example is going to strike you as more vivid. It adds to the realism of the game, and immerses you deeper.

In a nutshell, the eyes need candy too. Still confused? Great, go figure why consoles nowadays need more powerful processors and bigger tech. Really, this is all just... I can't even find a word for this.

Clicks on Tendoboy thread

But the term "HD" just means a higher resolution, it has nothing to do with increasing the number of polygons, more characters to interact with, better AI, better physics, etc. There's more to this gen than simply making the graphics "high definition." That term is being thrown around far too often, and is misleadingly used to define what the entire game is.

A game can't be "HD." It can be displayed on an HDTV with HD resolutions, but the actual game itself can't be called "HD." That's like saying the GameCube's main focus was "SD" games.

this is why tendoboy is my new favorite user... HE MAKES SENCE AND THINKA A BIT LIKE ME!

And what's with Wii having a "motion controller"? The lazy thing just sits perfectly still until I pick it up and swing it around myself. I must research this further.

@tendoboy - My point was that HD calls for better graphics and excellent visualisation. Yes, more pixels do this.

And yes, a game can be HD. It's called the game's graphics and pretty much everything that structures it.

Me too.

And yeah man, I'm with you. Why would people want bigger, sharper, clearer pictures? It's absolutely baffling.

Does played Mega Man 2 or 3 in HD make the experience that much better?

There's a difference between displayed in HD and made for HD. It's like saying The Dark Knight Rises in IMAX is pointless because watching Casablanca on an HDTV doesn't change anything.

yeah I dont get HD either (I cant even tell the difference)
3D on the other hand is indeed different

Lol'd.

I played trough this gen of consoles most on a SD tv,i can see the difference but i don't really care for slightly better graphics.

HD is just that, a way to display graphics in a higher resolution. Nothing more, nothing less. In order to really make a game seem more advanced, you need shaders, better texures, more polygons, better AI, better controls, more immersive surround sound, etc.

And that's another thing. Games are becoming more cinematic with each new generation. It's like we're playing interactive movies now. What happened to games just being games: Fun little diversions from everyday life.

It kills me when people say this. If you can't see a difference you might need glasses. I'm not just talking games but TV and movies as well.

I desperately need to see Waveboy and Tendoboy team up to finally get those punk kids to stay off their lawn.