I don't thing gamers care about HD graphics. It is not like MS rebuilt non-launch 360 models with a HDMI port something like that.

Wait a second...

had my tv about a month and it makes cod 4 look a lot better than it did in SD so and ps3 is a dvd upscaler but the difference is almost nothin but when u play a blu ray it looks fantastic eg heroes....so what about when they done the cod4 comparisons between the two systems if the 360 didnt have hdmi back then how could they looked identical and gta4 and any other multiplat game for that matter.....

HD televisions are so cheap these days that it's hard to understand why people spend $199 plus games on a console that supports HD and not another $499 on a nice 32 inch HD television. I couldn't live without HD anymore now that I have had it for so long.

I don't think they matter, if they did then the the amount of sales for the Wii, 360, and P3, would be reversed seeing as how the Ps3 has the best quality, followed by the 360 and then lost in the distance is the Wii. However, the Wii and handhelds easily sell more than the giant HD systems.

Now a XBOX 360 fanboy cant get a game like Killzone 2 on XBOX 360, so he says that they dont need it. Just because they cant fuking get it.

When they cant get something they say they dont need it. What a bunch of fake, two faced people.

Ofcourse the graphics matter !! Who said that graphics dont matter ????

If graphics didnt matter noone would buy the next generation console, and stay with their PS2s.

I can see where they are coming from with this question but if you were to ask this to me personally I would give a definitive yes, they do matter.

I bought a next gen console with HD capabilities and a 1080p LCD TV, I want to feel the benefit of those purchases as I'm sure many more would too.

Not everything has to be of Killzone 2 quality but it's nice to have games with great graphics in even 720p resolution.

im a gamer.does graphic matter? no only the game cause im a gamers. gameplay first graphic after. Some people like gfx better.I dont have a problem with that cause that their opinion. I remember the day when the use to review game base on gameplay not gfx heck there were not even score for gfx...
my opinion gfx does not make the game. yeah its does something to the game, but its like the sound effect its make something to the game. gameplay is the thing that does it cause you play game not gfx

yeah we do, at least i do, and the most gamers will agree with me, why? because everything is so much sharper and more detailed, and also...there can be more icons on the screen if it's HD, console owners will know what i am talking about ;)

if it didnt matter i would have a xbox360 instead of a Ps3.

But they sure do matter to me and my ps3.

it makes no sence to have a ps3 without a hd television.
its just not made for the type of money X-BUMS have or should i say the money they dont have.

yes HD tv's really do make a big difference
i had my ps3 for a couple months b4 i got my 1080p tv and i was just wowed my the graphics (this was right when it came out and didnt buy 3600) But when i hooked up that hd cable i counldnt believe the difference i mean it made call of duty 4 look soooo much better

Everyone should buy an hd tv at least a 720 cause tvs are getting cheaper and you'll notice the diference right away

You can say graphics don't matter until you see Uncharted with rgb full and super white output turned on.

The Wii being #1 says no

hd gaming been on PC for many years lol

new for consoles, most games like gta iv claim 1080p when on PC at 1600 by 1200 wich is worse than 1920 by 1080 the PC res looks better.
most consoles games cant achieve 1080p because they would kill the console

Sure it is. so whats make next genration consoels better than Atari ?

graphics are 4th on my list behind, story, game play & length. That is why I find this gen very disappointing so far. Take KZ2, 4 years for a 10 hour campaign? WTF is that about? I'll tell you it was all about graphics. A single player campaign should last at least 20-25 hours and even longer for a RPG imho. That is why the days of the PS1 & PS2 will always be the best of the best when you look at it from a pure gaming aspect, because it took to account all the parts that make a game great not just the graphics and MP.

lol man of course it does to a point.....

....if I truly didn't care about HD graphics, me and I guess most people would have just kept playing their PS2 which had a stellar lineup which will probably not be surpassed.

you can have all the 1080p and hdmi you want, but if the art director and artists on the dev team don't have a clue then it will all still look rubbish.

play okami on ps2 (or wii) and you will see that HD is not always needed. Obviously, the games that are going for realism (crysis) need as much resolution and bells & whistles as possible to get the right look.

loot ninja is a 360 bias website, and want to talk against the PS3 and killzone 2. Poor xbots

i can still play games on atari and still have fun.i can still play tetris or ms pac man and still have fun.but even then,atari was bought because it had better graphics than pong.

nes and the master system were bought because they produced graphics better than atari.genesis and Snes were bought because they produced better graphics than nes and the master system.ps1,n64,saturn,dreamcas t,etc,etc,etc....they were bought because THEY WERE NEW AND COULD PRODUCE BETTER GRAPHICS.stop lying to yourselves and let the truth be revealed.

to 360 fans,it was all about graphics until ps3 showed that it can produce BETTER HD graphics than 360.coming off of xbox,(and i still have my xbox 1 because it produced better graphics than ps2)microsoft fans were graphics whores.playstation fans like graphics.360 fans love graphics.because part of the 360 community are PC gamers that got tired of upgrading their graphics cards on their PC.360 gave the 360 community shooters without that annual card upgrade.

that's the truth.and these same gamers expected 360 to keep producing better graphics than sony with ps3.microsoft put out papers telling its fanbase that 360 was more powerful.they brought on graphics whore developers like itagaki(doa,ninja gaiden-jumped from saturn to ps1 to dreamcast to ps2 to xbox to 360 because of graphics)that believed 360 could do better.but itagaki's own co-worker showed him up with a ps3 port of ninja gaiden sigma that was 1080p/60fps.and ninja gaiden 2 was 720.

360 fans spewed FUD about Cell not being for games,bluray not being necessary for games,ps3 having less ram for games,installs not being necessary for games,hdmi not being necessary for games.

but killzone2 showed ps3 produces better HD games.GT5:p showed that it could produce better visuals compared to forza.mgs4 showed that a whole HD experience can be produced on bluray all the way down to sound of the game.and it's necessary to have that extra space for it.

hdmi for higher resolution,bluray for more content in higher resolution,a large hard drive for extra content in higher resolution.sony knew all this and made ps3 the full HD experience system.even when microsoft and its fans were knocking them.

so,now that ps3 is starting to bring better full HD games,360 fans have fallen back on to gameplay and sales,because 360 is just not able to keep up like the wii.backpeddling on digital downloads because of hd-dvd's failure.falling back on gameplay when ps3 shows its power.and not even 60% power.that's only for big fights in killzone2.that's not all the time.

graphics matter.and ps3 leads the way in graphics.microsoft has the money but hasn't produced ANY next gen graphically impressive games THEMSELVES.buying exclusive rights is not producing.it's relying on someone else to help you out.you want MORE full HD games?buy a ps3.

apocalypse................

Next topic please.

It's these articles that keep the hype and buzz alive.

Meh, gfx matter but when we are talking about realism and stuff like that, not really, i don't think so.
There are enough games on the handheld or old console that i enjoy far more than most games of today.

If it's fun to play HD gfx won't matter in most cases.

once you see HD games on a 50" plasma screen, then absolutely yes, they matter.

my friend plays on a 36" crt tube tv, and his text is slightly blurred and games don't look very sharp...he thought that was normal until he saw the same games on my 50" panny plasma...now he is saving up to get one too...

I just spent the last two hours playing one of my all time favorite role playing games, Shining Force, and I had an absolute blast.

Now, some might argue it was just nostalgia, but trust me it wasn't. Some games just don't need HD graphics. Have you ever played Hot Shots on the PS3? It looks pretty stupid with all the HD graphics and being able to see every blade of grass. It really does not suit the style of the game at all.

Not to me. I still enjoy my PS2 games in standard definition just fine, despite having an HDTV and PS3 and 360. The graphics are nicer but its not a drastically different experience.

I feel Hd graphics matter but are put to much emphasis on.I feel devs are actually abusing hd graphics meaning that we are hitting the ceiling to early to fast with graphics and there wont be much else left to do to make things look better down the road this gen.Alot of games right now on hd consoles and pc's honestly look great but lack art design.Even most scifi type games look bland Resistance and Killzone are 2 og these games.They both are bland games in art design.Killzone obviously has great features though from its destructible environments to like everyone is saying...the graphics but you notice how bland the level design is?Everything is grey.I feel that right now we are hitting the ceiling with graphics and most of the devs knwo tech but might struggle later down the road when the only thing left is art design which i feel Bioshock had alot of.When we say graphics as well we are not talkign about extra memory for such things as advanced AI and physics im strictly talking about the way things look.

Until I bought my first HD television. There's definitely no going back after you experience high def gaming. I own a 32 inch Samsung 1080p and a 46 inch Samsung 1080p. I will buy another bigger television as soon as I have the money.

Does that game use low detail high res textures or hi res low detail textures?

The game looks great but I am curious if this is a full 1080p game or the work of really clever programming (ala cod4).

My expectations are full 1080p detail and texture res at solid 60fps. Is that to much to ask for?

You can ask if anything replacing existing technology really matters, and still not be able to get a definitive answer. They should really change this question to "would you go back to SD?" and in this case EVERYONE would say no they would not. You cant really comment on being happy with SD until you've experienced HD, i mean come on. Thats like saying do people really need a better treatment for cancer? Erm no thanks, ive got this existing one and it does the job but i dont really need a better one. Idont think so somehow.

Yah is it 30 FPS or is it 60...I want smooth first, pretty second-
Great Games need only to be fun, My Philips 42in disagrees with me-

Has got to be one of the most stupidest questions I have ever heard at this day and age. Are you freaking kidding me? I bet you were one of those idiots back in the SNES era asking if 3D games were important...

What a dumbass

i like NES graphics. Seriously.

It does matter. so does gameplay, and sound. I just feel games should be the complete package and not just all gameplay with ass graphics. Gameplay is very important but when you got the gaphics and sound to enhance the experience, the game itself becomes more fun. at least to me.

all three of you are annoying

cant tell the difference between HD and SD television NOT games. you are quoting from a video point of view not a games point of view. there is a huge difference between the two. i switched from a 32" CRT to a 42" 1080 Plasma and the difference is a lot more for games than TV broadcasts. Plus it all depends on the game. i play battlefield BC quite a bit online and can say the switch has made a huge difference to my performance where as forza 2 not at all - but it sure looks better.

As long as I can tell what it is i am looking at im good.

Do HD graphics matter to me? Not in any positive way, no. Do they matter to other people? Sure.

That's all fine because after all, I'm a market too.

But the question is not really whether they objectively matter or who they matter to, but whether or not they matter enough and to enough people to sustain a business model or to drive sales of HD platforms.

Looking at things in terms of consoles and their sales, the answer would certainly seem to be No. Otherwise, the handheld market would be virtually non-existent instead of a cash cow, ditto for the Wii, most gamers would be on the PC with the latest in graphics cards installed, and we'd all be playing Crysis instead of every game on a console currently available -- and would have been doing this for several generations.

Fine, maybe Killzone 2 will change this when it comes out, but as of now, if the term "amazing graphics" is only reserved for the best looking game of the generation... then no console game warrants it.

Granted, one-and-a-half million units moved is not an insubstantial number, but the major HD game that's sold software in North America this year was GTA IV, which sold only slightly more across two systems than Mario Kart sold on one and slightly less than Wii Play.

The article's probably right about its whole 'average gamer' point.

metroid proves you can have good graphics without HD.

And for the guy who says people switch consoles for graphics, no we go there cause its the next gen and if we wanna continue gaming we have to buy the new games. Heck GB and GB color barely had an upgrade in graphics, but it still sold, cause people had to get it to get the new games. The upcoming DSi. no graphic improvement, but addded features. And People will buy it cause they'll eventually make DSi only games. Graphics don't matter, but more memory for bigger better games and functions does. Thats why I can enjoy Heavenly Guardian on the Wii. though it looks 16 bit at first glance, some of the features, and the length of the game wasn't possible on SNES.

Thats all I'm saying.

PS. I wanna see you guys praise HD when the new format comes and kills it off, especially if it comes in the next 3 years. You would have wasted so much money on being a graphics whore. LOL Even funnier if Big N has best graphics and gameplay next gen.

Half these people didn't even read the freaking article. This is why i hate retarded N4gers. How about this proposal... Read the article, then comment on the article. Rinse and repeat. This article made fine points and while they are obvious points to make at least their valid points. The fact is it will be another 3 or 4 years before hd is fully adopted and HD graphics DO matter. Now they only matter apparently to jackasses who reply to titles not articles.

FTW!

It's common sense. We are visual creatures by nature anyway. When you first look at a game what do you evaluate first? Graphics of course. So if you own a HD capable console and a HD television you owe it to yourself to experience HD games in that format. Now the comparison between 1080p and 720p I cant vouch for. Because my hd only goes to 1080i which I know a lot of games do not support. Regardless my games look damn good running 720 so I am satisfied. I will make the jump to hdmi in the future of course. By that time I'm sure that LCD's and plasmas will be much cheaper. If your hobby is gaming then why not enjoy it to the fullest?

I see the graohics, true. but the first thing i take note of is the gameplay footage. if it looks meh. I'll probably ignore the game.

It's not important if your game runs at 30fps.