Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
You guys are lucky, well, I guess. :) It's not a Mass Effect 2 as an example, so I can wait a few days.

Of course I game at my current PC screen's native resolution (1600x900), because I can :) , but when it comes down to it, it's not that important for me. Just like when I watch a SD version of something I've viewed in HD, I can see it's marginally worse, but if it's a good movie/show, my mind tends to blocks it out right away.

If a game is immersive, it will be so at almost any resolution. Of course if that game offers a higher rez, I'll jump on it, but I won't go as far as to plug my PC into my HD 30" to run it as high as my equipment will allow, as it's no longer a novelty for me.

I know from my own experience, that higher-detailed visuals aren't what makes a game immersive... Well, at least for a good story driven game. Simulations are a different matter. I also prefer a higher-rez GUI for obvious reasons.

A pretty picture is good for that initial grab, but it's not what holds me in the game. Story telling and sound -- especially sound -- are way more important in my book for creating a more immersive world, and for me at least, the controls play a much bigger role than visuals when first getting into a game. I can't leave this out, but the level of world sophistication and balance also have to be there, or else the game will never pull me in. Shallow games that look pretty are never that immersive beyond a gander.

Just like a good book is always way better than its movie counterpart, I've noticed that my favorite games required I rely more on my imagination to fill in the visual voids, but they really didn't seem limit my options. Now with these newer games that try to show me everything, they generally limit what I can do, so I end up focusing more on their flaws than how real their water looks.

Anyways, what I was trying to get at earlier, is that RE5's "HD" didn't make it a better game for me, let alone help to make the experience more immersive, mainly because the developers dropped the ball in so many other areas that RE4 handled well.

Ok, I'm tired. Trying to wrangle my rambling tangents has fried my brain, so I probably rambled endlessly. :eek:
 
I can see your point. To me, RE4 was the more intense and immersive experience than RE5, simply because the main character wasn't a grotesque caricature. :)

But that said, the level of immersion of an already good game can always be enhanced by better visuals.
 
That guy Chris looks like a monkey! :]

For me it's the constant action and the over use of scenes that break up the action, so the scenes that go on to show Chris and Sheva doing the action, that really kills the game's immersion for me. So too much action. :p And never was there a time that I felt that oh crap I'm going to die moment, which true survival horror games have all managed to convey with their lesser visuals.

Anyways...

I'm still waiting for that enhanced game to come along. I have nothing against great visuals, as long as they don't mess up the core game, which apparently happened with RE5 and its Gears of War loving producers... =[


++++++++

OK,

This RAIL shooter is starting to pick up. I've only played into the 3rd mission, but it has some things I do enjoy -- like killing necros. I really did not like the first level and I'm still not happy with their choice of direction. :( Freaking being locked to a rail with absolutely no control most of the time sucks. I hear someone else talking as me, and looking and moving where they want, not me me me me...

Anyways, it's just a interactive movie so far... I only paid $37 something for it, since my friend got me a discount, but this game so far feels like it should have been priced as a DVD, not even a Blueberry disc.

Bleh...

+++++++

I saved out a screen shot of the Wii version running through Dscaler via my WinTV 1250 card.(So it's 480i via S-Video into my PC. Also, the screen shot does not reflect the proportion of the window that runs on my desktop, which is 854x480 manually adjusted for square pixels. (720x480 1.66 widescreen NTSC for MRU's sake. :] ))

I also took a direct screen shot of my PC version of Dead Space set to 640x480(Can't choose a widescreen 480p rez.with this monitor) all detail max of course. I don't have Photoshop on my PC, so as I'm too lazy to pull out my MacBook Pro, which is in its bag, sp I used a horrid program called Paint.NET, which I suck with, so excuse the sloppiness.

Anyways, the Wii looks pretty good in my book. I just thought it was an interesting comparison to share...
 

Attachments

  • ds_pc_wii.jpg
    ds_pc_wii.jpg
    80.8 KB · Views: 109
Wow, I really liiked this game once it got going. :) The ending was highly predictable, but that's a given.

IMO, this game was a proof of concept that DS is completely possible on the Wii. The areas that are recreated on the Wii, look very similar to what I'm seeing on my PC and the frame rate was smooth most of the time. Visually they really hit the mark.

Anyways, I started up a new game on the PC again. This game did get me in the mood to play again.
 
I havent gotten my hands on this game as yet but I'll check it out soon...I was thinking about picking this up and Curse Mountain around November with Silent Hill SM.

If JackAxe approves then its all good with me:)


Bless
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.