User blog:Mental Skillness/the "HD" rant.

HD normally insinuates something very high quality. HD normally suggests some really high quality imagery, or something along those lines. but here's the thing, it's one thing to have something high quality and large in image size...and having cropped picture with transparent backgrounds. look, i dislike pvz2 textures being used to rebuild plants and zombies, and i think those can't be called HDs, but i might be called a hypocrite because i condone rebuilding 1.0 textures into HDs. you know why? let me show you a few things.



You see, the "Rolling Stone HD"is simply cropped from the game. How is that considered an "HD"? HDs, as I said earlier, suggest high quality imagery over a transparent background. You can even see the quality saturation on the Wiki "HD".



And, I really dislike the no fanart rule, I've seen people recreate PvZ2 HDs amazingly well, I feel like it should be judged by accuracy, than allowing 100 pixel "HDs" made using pvz2's godawful texture quality.



Not to mention, I can't really blame this on the wiki, but I feel like we should use 1.0 Texture Quality to get that "HD" quality well. Though, Basic 1/1s may not exist, but HDs with these newly discovered things are really quite a need nowadays.



I'm not really a fan of cropped HDs. Let me continue from earlier, cropping anything from anything does not make it HD. There are VERY VERY few cases where this is done correctly, but almost every time, it's done terribly.

I honestly think any instance of this (it's done a lot of pvzh articles by Whatevvzz, but also the creator of the rings for PvZH Articles, so don't hate on him) should be not allowed on mainspace.

The last thing I can say is that I feel like if there were to be a vote on this kind of stuff, I feel like HDs that are 400-500 Pixels or less, then they should really be considered "HDs". They could be called In-Game with transparent background, but HDs is too strong a word for these things.