High Quality vs. Low Quality

For any of you who were watching the stream Saturday night (debut of Wind Waker), you may have noticed a difference in terms of the stream broadcast. We tested the higher quality option for streaming, and while the audio/video enhancements were probably awesome, all other aspects of the stream greatly suffered. Here's my take on what I experienced.



If you have any comments or opinions on your experience as a viewer, please let us know. Information I have complied is strictly based on my point of view as a broadcaster.

I say keep high quality. I think this was one of the greatest improvements for the stream, even with a few cons, it is the best idea to keep the higher quality.

Low Quality is better for the cohosts in general, i can deal with the sound/quality being bad if it helps the cohosts.

I did enjoy HQ while it lasted though

I think the Low Quality would be better for the Wiiplays that way the cohost won't be like 9 seconds behind.

empressdonna wrote:

Low Quality is better for the cohosts in general, i can deal with the sound/quality being bad if it helps the cohosts.

I did enjoy HQ while it lasted though

I agree with you

Drag00n24 wrote:

empressdonna wrote:

Low Quality is better for the cohosts in general, i can deal with the sound/quality being bad if it helps the cohosts.

I did enjoy HQ while it lasted though

I agree with you

me too

I really liked HQ, it was nice to finally be able to read what was on the screen. I didn't mind the sound delay, but the screen had slight issues, like freezing the image for a second or so. Overall, I'd say keep the HQ.

I love High Quality....but perhaps going to low-res would be best.....I will miss high-res....damn you Internet...damn you to Hades!

High Quality for everything that doesn't involve co-hosts. Low Quality for everything that involves co-hosts. I really liked High Quality, but it was a little annoying to watch.

i say high quality for the slides, low for the gameplay :3

I prefer the high quality personally. It really brings out the vividness of the graphics in games like Wind Waker. That said, I imagine it's extremely irritating for the co-hosts, who are lagging too far behind to be able to help much unless they peer into their crystal balls to predict the future.

I love the high quality, and would like to see it stay, but it might have to go out of necessity to keep co-hosting manageable. I don't mind the lag in the view at all, so for me it's just a matter of whether or not the co-hosts can handle the lag.

High Quality was a huge improvement. Yes, it's harder for the stream to keep up, but if you're a cohost you should be able to hit the refresh button on the stream window every few minutes to keep up.

YGR wrote:

I say keep high quality. I think this was one of the greatest improvements for the stream, even with a few cons, it is the best idea to keep the higher quality.

Now I say low quality, because we are over 15 minutes behind on the stream compared to the chat. I was on at 11:53 AM EST in the chat, and all of a sudden the announcer said it's 11:30 on the stream. We need low quality for EVERYTHING now.

i haven't seen much of high quality, but i didn't really like it. i didn't really mind the sound, but having the stream hiccup every few seconds defeats the purpose of watching. we can't exactly enjoy it if we cant hear or see it. i don't know about being able to read the things on the game, i've never had a problem reading it. plus tom usually voices the dialogue anyway. i would stick with Low quality for now, to make it easier on the co-hosts and the viewers.

With the changes to ustream, there was a lot more lag last night. For now LQ is the only option unfortunately.

I still believe that all the lag and bugs of the new design will get worked out and we can go back to perhaps considering HQ in the future. It wasn't as bad as everyone made it out to be.

there should be Medium quality instead