"HD Gaming starts at 299 Euro" blares out the posters in the shop window of my local Gamestop store, advertising Microsoft's Xbox 360 console. Have you noticed that the magic formula, 'HD', just has to preface everything about both the Xbox 360 and the forthcoming PlayStation 3? Well, I certainly have. And I'm more than a little teed off with the frenzy surrounding what is merely just another in a long line of increases in screen resolution.

The aggressive and incessant push for High Definition by both Microsoft and Sony is something of a smokescreen- a desperate and shrill effort to convince Joe Public that their new consoles have something revolutionary to offer. In my opinion, it's the surest sign yet that much of the games industry has run out of ideas, and instead of turning their attention towards addressing fundamental questions about gameplay, have reverted to technical mumbo-jumbo.

In all of this nonsense about how HD is going to change your life forever, let's just remember that the jump from standard definition (SD) to high definition (HD) is roughly comparable to the jump in resolution between Nintendo 64 and GameCube games. Sure, it's a nice upgrade, and yes, visuals do look considerably sharper- but that didn't stop Super Mario Sunshine being less entertaining and less ground-breaking than Super Mario 64. And what about the fact that PC games have been offering High Definition capabilities for years now? The only reason why this never became much a of a selling point for the PC sector is that they didn't have a snappy title for it. Microsoft and Sony now have that snappy title, and they're milking it for all its worth.

The main reason why HD has become the must-have acronym of the year is because it has a certain ring to it. Sky Sports HD. BBC HD. Gran Turismo HD. It just sounds good. The fact that those two letters refer to a dull technical specification about the number of lines on the screen is entirely irrelevant. You just need it. HD will make your life better. The hype fuels more hype. The HD gravy train is a-movin' and woe betide anyone who misses it. Take, for example, the announcement of Gran Turismo HD for the PS3. Not Gran Turismo 1080p. Surely this is a first- a game title with an addendum referring to the screen resolution. Not only is this frankly ridiculous, it's downright terrifying, because if this is what counts for innovation these days, then perhaps the games industry really has lost it. Even more bewildering is 'Hexic HD', the simple puzzler bundled with the Xbox 360's hard drive. The fact that the game's (basic) graphics appear in a higher resolution means absolutely nothing, yet it is adjudged a big enough leap to warrant inclusion in the name.

Only a fool would claim that better graphics makes for a better game, yet far too much of the gaming community has bought into the HD myth. The wide-spread condemnation of Nintendo following their decision not to incorporate 720p and 1080i/p HD graphics capabilities into the Wii's innards is testament to this. Yet, far too often, the pitfalls associated with HD are forgotten.

Whilst the advent of High Definition is probably the single biggest step forward in television technology since colour, when it is applied to games it becomes something of a double-edged sword. The first problem is the undeniable link between HD graphics and spiraling development costs. HD resolution necessitates massively powerful processors. This has led to the development of complex, multi-core processors as seen in the Xbox 360 and most infamously, the Cell chip in Sony's PlayStation 3. Producing games to take advantage of these processors is exorbitantly expensive- developers require more staff, more expertise, and more time- all of which has pushed development costs through the roof. HD had been one of the biggest drivers of this process.

What does this mean for the average gamer? Less risk-taking, certainly. Publishers, seeking to tighten their belts and reign in costs, will be much less likely to sanction development of niche, original titles. The bottom line? Less Katamari Damacys and more Maddens. And that's a prospect that nobody wants.

What nags me more than anything else, though, is the fact that Microsoft and Sony are heralding HD technology as a revolution in gaming and the defining aspect of this generation. Evidently, this is codswallop- though few have seen fit to say it.

I'm not anti-technology. I love technology, and I agree that HD pictures bring extraordinary clarity to a TV screen. But I think that we need to distinguish between game-orientated technology and graphics-orientated technology. HD is nothing to do with gaming. HD is a means to end, not the end itself- although it is being marketed very differently. I think that the obsessive focus on HD by both Sony and Microsoft reveals a certain cynicism about what gaming is all about. It's about the allure of graphics, a shiny front-end, expensive, glamorous technology- but with no fundamental changes to gameplay, which, handily enough, is the only thing that actually matters in the first place.

Particular criticism is due for Sony, who are blatantly using the vehicle of Blu-Ray Discs in an attempt to win the forthcoming format war with HD-DVD. Blu-Ray cannot deliver gameplay enhancements. Blu-Ray cannot do anything, from a gaming perspective, that standard DVDs can't do- as evidenced by the Xbox 360. This is purely about putting Sony's format into the marketplace quicker than their competitors. Gamers don't benefit- because this isn't about gaming. In fact, it's us gamers who are going to have to pick up the tab, because the inclusion of the Blu-Ray drive on the PS3 is the main reason why the system is going to cost 600 Euro. Yet, millions of us will obligingly give in to temptation and fall to the undeniable allure of these new and exciting technologies- despite the fact that they have nothing to do with gaming.

Finally, I've attempted to put forward the argument that HD isn't the whole solution to bring about better games, but I'm also firmly of the belief that it isn't even the solution to bringing about 'better' graphics. In terms of judging the aesthetic appeal of games, art style occupies a far more important position than polygon count and screen resolution. This was an argument well made recently by a Ubisoft programmer who argued that many Xbox 360 games look visually dull and lifeless despite the impressive 'number-crunching' of the graphics processor. He went on to argue that the Wii can play host to many beautiful games by virtue of their art style, as opposed to other technical indicators championed by Sony and Microsoft. Anyone who's played the SNES classic, Yoshi's Island will know that aesthetic beauty relies principally on art style. This fact is becoming lost in the HD fever.

Many in the Nintendo fan community have been hard on the company for deciding not to take part in the HD circus just yet. I think that they deserve praise and admiration for sticking to their guns and focusing on game-orientated technology (most notably the Wii-mote) over superfluous graphical bells and whistles.

Those who doubt Nintendo's strategy should take a quick gander at the Japanese all-format software charts. Nintendo's DS console, which deliberately shunned elaborate graphics in favour of innovative control mechanics, recently held all ten of the top ten chart places. An awesome achievement.

The DS' worldwide success has surprised a lot of people, many of whom thought that the superior graphical abilities of the PlayStation Portable would be enough to end Nintendo's dominance in the portable sector. It wasn't. Similarly, HD won't be the deciding factor in determining the winners and losers in this next round of the console war.

Let's just acknowledge that HD is indeed the future. It looks great, and will undoubtedly become standard in most people's homes in the coming years. Now, let's shut up, move on and start talking about gaming again.

Mark Cullinane
[email protected]