I didn't even realise that it got that long, that's pretty rediculous actually, I don't expect anyone to really read it, although it's a pretty good post :P Thanks dude.
"And I just wanna say that a HD internet browser is better for news. :)"
I'd disagree. At home with my PC I have 1080-equivalent resolution and I invariably find myself either squinting to read the text, pushing my face closer to the monitor, or increasing the font size to improve legibility.
This is on a computer monitor, where you tend to be quite close to the screen. On my HDTV I sit about 3m away, and typical screen font sizes (11pt, 12pt) cause the exact same problem I encounter with my PC, but are exacerbated by the viewing distance. Therefore, I normally increase the font size anyway.
Therefore, I find that, in terms of legibility and normal HDTV usage (read: not sitting right next to it like a monitor) having HD or SD is not the issue; it's the overall legibility; and in this case, with HD or SD, having a large, legible font is what's important, and moots HD right from the start.
In other words: HD can certainly display far more text per screen than SD can, but given normal HDTV usage you are going to boot the font size to that of SD displays anyway, hence no HD benefit.
| your mother said: "And I just wanna say that a HD internet browser is better for news. :)" I'd disagree. At home with my PC I have 1080-equivalent resolution and I invariably find myself either squinting to read the text, pushing my face closer to the monitor, or increasing the font size to improve legibility. This is on a computer monitor, where you tend to be quite close to the screen. On my HDTV I sit about 3m away, and typical screen font sizes (11pt, 12pt) cause the exact same problem I encounter with my PC, but are exacerbated by the viewing distance. Therefore, I normally increase the font size anyway. Therefore, I find that, in terms of legibility and normal HDTV usage (read: not sitting right next to it like a monitor) having HD or SD is not the issue; it's the overall legibility; and in this case, with HD or SD, having a large, legible font is what's important, and moots HD right from the start. In other words: HD can certainly display far more text per screen than SD can, but given normal HDTV usage you are going to boot the font size to that of SD displays anyway, hence no HD benefit. |
Sorry you have to squint. I've been using my res for years with no problem. One thing about HDTVs is they are generally larger than monitors (even though most can be used as such anyway), so for me having more on the screen is better. It's clearly apparent with the completely different look of the Playstation Network, like I said. Sony literally produced 2 different looks for HD and SD, and HD looks a lot more professional.
| OriGin said: LOZ: Twilight Princess. PERSONALLY I would have preferred to be able to press the A button to do normal attacks quite honestly. Shaking the remote just became exactly that after a while for me, shaking the remote to defeat baddies, I personally think this took away from some of my experience, so I was constantly Jump attacking (which is what Link does when you press A). The REAL difference that is made in this game is the aiming with the pointer, this is truly awesome... AWESOME, if you think back to the OoT in the Gerudo Valley doing the arrow aiming task with the targets while you ride around on Epona's back, that was HARDCORE hard because it was hard to aim while you were riding with a joystick, with the remote it's still hard but if you're skillful you can aim where you want and BOOM headshot (heh). The next big difference for this game was in the sword techniques that you earn and use during the game, the Wii Remote function of these is really awesome, jump flip attack, rolling behind an enemy and cutting him from behind, downward spike... all of these were good and used the Wii remote in combination with timing and button presses REALLY well. Red Steel Personally I think this game is complete arse, it's a rush job exclusive with poor controls and I don't care what anyone says about getting used to it or anything, this game sucks... I can see how FPS will work on Wii (COD3 was done right) Red Steel wasn't. Don't let playing this game set your view on the Wii |
Yeah, I've heard other people say they would have liked to just press A to attack. I really think that should have been an option considering the code was obviously there for the gamecube game and it's just a button assignment. Hopefully more games include optional controls. I would have liked to see a complete gamecube control scheme (allowing a gamecube controller) for the Wii version just so you could experience both. I can imagine the arrows are easier, though. I look forward to playing this soon.
I'm glad you are admitting Red Steel is terrible because bad controls are not something you should get used to.
Oh, all you Wii people have convinced me to try the Godfather game when I get my Wii, mainly because I just saw the movie (watching the sequel soon, maybe the third even though it's terrible I hear). I didn't want to ruin the movie for myself by playing a bad game but it sounds ok.
"Sorry you have to squint. I've been using my res for years with no problem. One thing about HDTVs is they are generally larger than monitors (even though most can be used as such anyway), so for me having more on the screen is better. It's clearly apparent with the completely different look of the Playstation Network, like I said. Sony literally produced 2 different looks for HD and SD, and HD looks a lot more professional."
I've used hi-res monitors for years now without any problems either, except when reading news on websites, but your comment about larger than monitors is completely irrelevant to the amount of "stuff" you can have onscreen.
As an example:
I have a 17" monitor with 1600x1200 resolution = 1920000 pixels.
I have a 42" HDTV with 1280x720 resolution = 921600 pixels, or less than half of the pixel count of the 17" monitor.
Therefore, I can display far more content on the monitor than the HDTV, despite the abysmal difference in screen size.
Screen size and screen resolution are completely unrelated.
BTW, if you can read 11pt text on a 32", 1080i HDTV from three meters away, then congratulations for not having to squint. Me? I have myopia, but congratulations to you for having hyperopia. 
| your mother said: "Sorry you have to squint. I've been using my res for years with no problem. One thing about HDTVs is they are generally larger than monitors (even though most can be used as such anyway), so for me having more on the screen is better. It's clearly apparent with the completely different look of the Playstation Network, like I said. Sony literally produced 2 different looks for HD and SD, and HD looks a lot more professional." I've used hi-res monitors for years now without any problems either, except when reading news on websites, but your comment about larger than monitors is completely irrelevant to the amount of "stuff" you can have onscreen. As an example: I have a 17" monitor with 1600x1200 resolution = 1920000 pixels. I have a 42" HDTV with 1280x720 resolution = 921600 pixels, or less than half of the pixel count of the 17" monitor. Therefore, I can display far more content on the monitor than the HDTV, despite the abysmal difference in screen size. Screen size and screen resolution are completely unrelated. BTW, if you can read 11pt text on a 32", 1080i HDTV from three meters away, then congratulations for not having to squint. Me? I have myopia, but congratulations to you for having hyperopia. |
Screen size matters because if you have the same resolution on 2 different size screens, you'll be able to read the text better on the larger screen because it'll be bigger. 1080p on a huge screen will look like it has larger font when compared to a 21" monitor.
About Us |
Terms of Use |
Privacy Policy |
Advertise |
Staff |
Contact
Display As Desktop
Display As Mobile
© 2006-2024 VGChartz Ltd. All rights reserved.
