Dr Mario Kart
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 6 (100%)
vgcharts says 44 million PS2s have been sold in the U.S. Assuming one per household ever with no defectives, thats almost 15%
360s at under 4 million U.S.
360s at under 4 million U.S.
Let's paint a dystopian future: What if the Wii reaches PS2 levels?
[quote name='sblymnlcrymnl']What is HDTV saturation at now, anyway? It can't be more than 30% or so. Probably less.
Of course, gamers make up a large portion of that I'm sure. But there aren't enough of them to matter.[/quote]
I mentioned that in a post on page 4 - as of January 2007, only 17% of US households had HDTV, and most of them were in the upper income ranges. Many of those households buy more than one HDTV, though, which is helping to drive sales.
Source:
http://www.avrev.com/news/0107/11.hdtv_research.shtml
Edit: Heh, looks like Dr Mario Kart referenced this article too.
Of course, gamers make up a large portion of that I'm sure. But there aren't enough of them to matter.[/quote]
I mentioned that in a post on page 4 - as of January 2007, only 17% of US households had HDTV, and most of them were in the upper income ranges. Many of those households buy more than one HDTV, though, which is helping to drive sales.
Source:
http://www.avrev.com/news/0107/11.hdtv_research.shtml
Edit: Heh, looks like Dr Mario Kart referenced this article too.
[quote name='dallow']I'm glad they've stopped selling TVs without digital tuners already. They're now banned.[/quote]
Remember that a digital tuner doesn't necessarily mean HD content. SDTV is now also transmitted digitally.
[quote name='dallow']Whoa whoa whoa.
No freakin' way. Maybe you haven't seen real HD programming before?
I now have two HDTVs, and one is a tiny 27" LCD. There's a huge difference between HD and 480SD. It doesn't matter where you are in the room.
Not to mention that wide factor.[/quote]
You're wrong, it matters quite a bit where you're sitting. The human eye is limited in its ability to resolve detail, and how well it does so is a matter of distance from the viewing material. Here's an article with a pretty good chart explaining the relationship:
http://www.carltonbale.com/2006/11/1080p-does-matter/
I sit about 12 feet away form my TV, and I'm considering buying a 42" flat panel. At that distance, I won't likely be able to discern the difference between 480p and 720p. In fact, I'm just barely inside the max recommended viewing distance for 480p. Here's a viewing distance calculator, with a link to a university website about human visual acuity if you want more detailed information.
http://www.myhometheater.homestead.com/viewingdistancecalculator.html
[quote name='Dr Mario Kart']vgcharts says 44 million PS2s have been sold in the U.S. Assuming one per household ever with no defectives, thats almost 15%
360s at under 4 million U.S.[/quote]
That's 15% based on population (300 million). There are 111 million households in the US as of the 2005 census. That's some pretty astounding sales, even assuming that some of them replaced defective units.
Remember that a digital tuner doesn't necessarily mean HD content. SDTV is now also transmitted digitally.
[quote name='dallow']Whoa whoa whoa.
No freakin' way. Maybe you haven't seen real HD programming before?
I now have two HDTVs, and one is a tiny 27" LCD. There's a huge difference between HD and 480SD. It doesn't matter where you are in the room.
Not to mention that wide factor.[/quote]
You're wrong, it matters quite a bit where you're sitting. The human eye is limited in its ability to resolve detail, and how well it does so is a matter of distance from the viewing material. Here's an article with a pretty good chart explaining the relationship:
http://www.carltonbale.com/2006/11/1080p-does-matter/
I sit about 12 feet away form my TV, and I'm considering buying a 42" flat panel. At that distance, I won't likely be able to discern the difference between 480p and 720p. In fact, I'm just barely inside the max recommended viewing distance for 480p. Here's a viewing distance calculator, with a link to a university website about human visual acuity if you want more detailed information.
http://www.myhometheater.homestead.com/viewingdistancecalculator.html
[quote name='Dr Mario Kart']vgcharts says 44 million PS2s have been sold in the U.S. Assuming one per household ever with no defectives, thats almost 15%
360s at under 4 million U.S.[/quote]
That's 15% based on population (300 million). There are 111 million households in the US as of the 2005 census. That's some pretty astounding sales, even assuming that some of them replaced defective units.
V
Virtua
Guest
Lots of good points being made here, but we don't really need to turn this into a general "validity of the Wii" thread, there have been a ton of those.
Listening to some podcasts today, I had a thought. A thought of how things could and are working themselves out.
PS2/Wii- for lighter gaming experiences, easier development, with Wii getting more unique 3rd party fare.
PC/360/PS3- your traditional gamer demographic that wants pretty, flashy, and online.
Those two distinctions are going to very clearly define themselves, I think. I also think that they can exist side by side, without necessarily having to "win" over each other. However, in this scenario, either the PS3 or the 360 is going to fall behind. There's just no need for and no room for three options in this lesser, more niche market.
And to those of you who are still bemoaning the Wii's ability to be a "real" system, please, wake up. It has more than established itself and it is not going anywhere soon, and you'd better learn to live with it. I'd almost say that if you're still pushing that stale point, your opinion is irrelevant. There is a market for this thing, Nintendo is succeeding with it, and 3rd parties are intrigued.
To whomever said that Wii sports didn't interest his casual friends, they'd rather play guitar hero. Which system do you suppose your casual gamer friends will want to play guitar hero 3/Rock Band on? Might be a stretch, but those people are probably not thinking of a $400/600 multimedia box for their rhythm game fix.
Listening to some podcasts today, I had a thought. A thought of how things could and are working themselves out.
PS2/Wii- for lighter gaming experiences, easier development, with Wii getting more unique 3rd party fare.
PC/360/PS3- your traditional gamer demographic that wants pretty, flashy, and online.
Those two distinctions are going to very clearly define themselves, I think. I also think that they can exist side by side, without necessarily having to "win" over each other. However, in this scenario, either the PS3 or the 360 is going to fall behind. There's just no need for and no room for three options in this lesser, more niche market.
And to those of you who are still bemoaning the Wii's ability to be a "real" system, please, wake up. It has more than established itself and it is not going anywhere soon, and you'd better learn to live with it. I'd almost say that if you're still pushing that stale point, your opinion is irrelevant. There is a market for this thing, Nintendo is succeeding with it, and 3rd parties are intrigued.
To whomever said that Wii sports didn't interest his casual friends, they'd rather play guitar hero. Which system do you suppose your casual gamer friends will want to play guitar hero 3/Rock Band on? Might be a stretch, but those people are probably not thinking of a $400/600 multimedia box for their rhythm game fix.
[quote name='elmyra']
Remember that a digital tuner doesn't necessarily mean HD content. SDTV is now also transmitted digitally.[/quote] I'm fully aware of that.
[quote name='elmyra'] You're wrong, it matters quite a bit where you're sitting. The human eye is limited in its ability to resolve detail, and how well it does so is a matter of distance from the viewing material. Here's an article with a pretty good chart explaining the relationship:
http://www.carltonbale.com/2006/11/1080p-does-matter/
I sit about 12 feet away form my TV, and I'm considering buying a 42" flat panel. At that distance, I won't likely be able to discern the difference between 480p and 720p. In fact, I'm just barely inside the max recommended viewing distance for 480p. Here's a viewing distance calculator, with a link to a university website about human visual acuity if you want more detailed information.
http://www.myhometheater.homestead.com/viewingdistancecalculator.html[
[/quote]
Ugh, I hate people that go by these stupid charts.
Put one in your home, you'll see the difference.
You will be able to make out the difference in details from a standard DVD at 480p and a 1080p HD movie.
Whether your viewing distance is optimal for max effect is up to you, but anyone can clearly see the difference.
If my mother can, everyone can.
I remember one clear example in my case.
I fell in love with the season opener of 24 this season. Watching it in 720p (Fox standard) was amazing.
They released the DVD the following Tuesday (since it was like a 4 hour premier) and I couldn't even watch it all the way through. The clarity just wasn't there. The smaller things were fuzzy when I know they weren't in the HD broadcast.
I ended up just downloading a copy of the HD broadcast and rewatching it with family from the computer (gotta love vga)
Do yourself the favor and upgrade.
Remember that a digital tuner doesn't necessarily mean HD content. SDTV is now also transmitted digitally.[/quote] I'm fully aware of that.
[quote name='elmyra'] You're wrong, it matters quite a bit where you're sitting. The human eye is limited in its ability to resolve detail, and how well it does so is a matter of distance from the viewing material. Here's an article with a pretty good chart explaining the relationship:
http://www.carltonbale.com/2006/11/1080p-does-matter/
I sit about 12 feet away form my TV, and I'm considering buying a 42" flat panel. At that distance, I won't likely be able to discern the difference between 480p and 720p. In fact, I'm just barely inside the max recommended viewing distance for 480p. Here's a viewing distance calculator, with a link to a university website about human visual acuity if you want more detailed information.
http://www.myhometheater.homestead.com/viewingdistancecalculator.html[
[/quote]
Ugh, I hate people that go by these stupid charts.
Put one in your home, you'll see the difference.
You will be able to make out the difference in details from a standard DVD at 480p and a 1080p HD movie.
Whether your viewing distance is optimal for max effect is up to you, but anyone can clearly see the difference.
If my mother can, everyone can.
I remember one clear example in my case.
I fell in love with the season opener of 24 this season. Watching it in 720p (Fox standard) was amazing.
They released the DVD the following Tuesday (since it was like a 4 hour premier) and I couldn't even watch it all the way through. The clarity just wasn't there. The smaller things were fuzzy when I know they weren't in the HD broadcast.
I ended up just downloading a copy of the HD broadcast and rewatching it with family from the computer (gotta love vga)
Do yourself the favor and upgrade.
[quote name='dallow']Put one in your home, you'll see the difference.[/quote]While I tend to agree with you on the validity or lack there of re: those charts, there's also something to be sad for psychosomatic appreciation of an HDTV. I've been to homes that drastically go against that chart and the people who just shelled out a ton of money for that 1080p set will be showing the difference between certain aspects, yet not being the one who put up the cash for it, I don't see it at all. But at some point you have to justify your purchase.
It's not all that different from someone who buys a PS3, 360, or Wii and will defend it against any complaints, valid or not, because it's the machine they've put their money on.
And dallow, I feel really bad for you that you've not experience a good Wii Sports party. I've had quite a few and they've been some of the best game experiences I've ever had. Give it another shot sometime--maybe get some new friends.
It's not all that different from someone who buys a PS3, 360, or Wii and will defend it against any complaints, valid or not, because it's the machine they've put their money on.
And dallow, I feel really bad for you that you've not experience a good Wii Sports party. I've had quite a few and they've been some of the best game experiences I've ever had. Give it another shot sometime--maybe get some new friends.
The Wii is just a cheap video game system with a couple of fun games... and a lot of popularity. Video game consumers (the serious ones) own at least two systems. By no means do I expect people to have the Wii as their primary gaming system. Buying a wii is basically the equivalent of buying a handheld system. Its almost in a different market, and Nintendo themselves admit that they aren't trying to compete agains the ps3 and 360. But nevertheless it is a console and its winning - that's some trojan horse you got there Nintendo!
Markets change... and they accomodate, and they can alienate... the ps3 and the 360, are high end gaming machines.... right now there's a market for both high end and low end(Wii) consoles. In the ps2's case, it was the highend machine, it was the best the market had to offer, xbox came in and took some of the share but the market was strong enough for all 3 (xbox, Gamecube, and ps2) then as well. Problem with the Wii is that being on the low end may come back to haunt you, and then later if you release a high end system, it will have to compete with well established ps3, and 360 consoles.. Or if Nintendo stays the course w/ the Wii, then are people going to be willing to play games that aren't next gen.... All products are going High Def..
When mainstream games start to come out, like Madden, and other sports titles, the basic games that appear on all systems. I think that the Wii is going to be alienated.
Only time will tell,
Markets change... and they accomodate, and they can alienate... the ps3 and the 360, are high end gaming machines.... right now there's a market for both high end and low end(Wii) consoles. In the ps2's case, it was the highend machine, it was the best the market had to offer, xbox came in and took some of the share but the market was strong enough for all 3 (xbox, Gamecube, and ps2) then as well. Problem with the Wii is that being on the low end may come back to haunt you, and then later if you release a high end system, it will have to compete with well established ps3, and 360 consoles.. Or if Nintendo stays the course w/ the Wii, then are people going to be willing to play games that aren't next gen.... All products are going High Def..
When mainstream games start to come out, like Madden, and other sports titles, the basic games that appear on all systems. I think that the Wii is going to be alienated.
Only time will tell,
[quote name='Thomas96']The Wii is just a cheap video game system with a couple of fun games... and a lot of popularity. Video game consumers (the serious ones) own at least two systems. By no means do I expect people to have the Wii as their primary gaming system. Buying a wii is basically the equivalent of buying a handheld system. Its almost in a different market, and Nintendo themselves admit that they aren't trying to compete agains the ps3 and 360. But nevertheless it is a console and its winning - that's some trojan horse you got there Nintendo!
Markets change... and they accomodate, and they can alienate... the ps3 and the 360, are high end gaming machines.... right now there's a market for both high end and low end(Wii) consoles. In the ps2's case, it was the highend machine, it was the best the market had to offer, xbox came in and took some of the share but the market was strong enough for all 3 (xbox, Gamecube, and ps2) then as well. Problem with the Wii is that being on the low end may come back to haunt you, and then later if you release a high end system, it will have to compete with well established ps3, and 360 consoles.. Or if Nintendo stays the course w/ the Wii, then are people going to be willing to play games that aren't next gen.... All products are going High Def..
When mainstream games start to come out, like Madden, and other sports titles, the basic games that appear on all systems. I think that the Wii is going to be alienated.
Only time will tell,[/quote]
Are you serious? Have you played Madden on the Wii and played it on the 360? It is better than or equal to on the Wii in a lot of reviews and from personal experience. Im not going to speak for others but I have a feeling that a lot feel the same who have played it.
I think this whole "serious" gamer nonsense really does need to stop. What is a serious gamer? A person who plays RPG's? A person who plays Shooters? What is a serious gamer? Is a serious gamer defined by someone who plays lots of games? If so, I have seen TONS of younger kids who play a TON during the summer and weekends. Does this qualify them as a "serious" gamer, and if so, does that make the Wii for serious gamers? It is a subjective term that really is meaningless.
Not really sure why I am responding to your post though as it is complete nonsense. The PS2 a high end machine? Not at all compared to the cube and xbox. Buying a wii is NOTHING like buying a handheld system for obvious reasons. I'll stop now and stop responding to useless posts.
Markets change... and they accomodate, and they can alienate... the ps3 and the 360, are high end gaming machines.... right now there's a market for both high end and low end(Wii) consoles. In the ps2's case, it was the highend machine, it was the best the market had to offer, xbox came in and took some of the share but the market was strong enough for all 3 (xbox, Gamecube, and ps2) then as well. Problem with the Wii is that being on the low end may come back to haunt you, and then later if you release a high end system, it will have to compete with well established ps3, and 360 consoles.. Or if Nintendo stays the course w/ the Wii, then are people going to be willing to play games that aren't next gen.... All products are going High Def..
When mainstream games start to come out, like Madden, and other sports titles, the basic games that appear on all systems. I think that the Wii is going to be alienated.
Only time will tell,[/quote]
Are you serious? Have you played Madden on the Wii and played it on the 360? It is better than or equal to on the Wii in a lot of reviews and from personal experience. Im not going to speak for others but I have a feeling that a lot feel the same who have played it.
I think this whole "serious" gamer nonsense really does need to stop. What is a serious gamer? A person who plays RPG's? A person who plays Shooters? What is a serious gamer? Is a serious gamer defined by someone who plays lots of games? If so, I have seen TONS of younger kids who play a TON during the summer and weekends. Does this qualify them as a "serious" gamer, and if so, does that make the Wii for serious gamers? It is a subjective term that really is meaningless.
Not really sure why I am responding to your post though as it is complete nonsense. The PS2 a high end machine? Not at all compared to the cube and xbox. Buying a wii is NOTHING like buying a handheld system for obvious reasons. I'll stop now and stop responding to useless posts.
Gentlegamer
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 5 (100%)
[quote name='Thomas96']the ps3 and the 360, are high end gaming machines.... [/quote]I think the issue is that they are actually Sony's and Microsoft's trojan horses to get a "do it all" multimedia machine into your living room.
Nintendo just wants to sell you games.
Nintendo just wants to sell you games.
[quote name='schuerm26']Are you serious? Have you played Madden on the Wii and played it on the 360? It is better than or equal to on the Wii in a lot of reviews and from personal experience. Im not going to speak for others but I have a feeling that a lot feel the same who have played it.
I think this whole "serious" gamer nonsense really does need to stop. What is a serious gamer? A person who plays RPG's? A person who plays Shooters? What is a serious gamer? Is a serious gamer defined by someone who plays lots of games? If so, I have seen TONS of younger kids who play a TON during the summer and weekends. Does this qualify them as a "serious" gamer, and if so, does that make the Wii for serious gamers? It is a subjective term that really is meaningless.
Not really sure why I am responding to your post though as it is complete nonsense. The PS2 a high end machine? Not at all compared to the cube and xbox. Buying a wii is NOTHING like buying a handheld system for obvious reasons. I'll stop now and stop responding to useless posts.[/QUOTE]
A serious gamer is someone who knows what the hell they're talking about when it comes to games. A casual gamer -- the target market of the Wii -- is satisfied bhy something like Red Steel that's clearly garbage on every level. A serious gamer is someone with actual standards for the stuff they play.
And the PS2 being a high end machine simply means that it's competitive with the Gamecube and Xbox... it's not like Sony threw out another PS1 and said "okay, now you use these gimmicks and... it'll be fun guys!"
I think this whole "serious" gamer nonsense really does need to stop. What is a serious gamer? A person who plays RPG's? A person who plays Shooters? What is a serious gamer? Is a serious gamer defined by someone who plays lots of games? If so, I have seen TONS of younger kids who play a TON during the summer and weekends. Does this qualify them as a "serious" gamer, and if so, does that make the Wii for serious gamers? It is a subjective term that really is meaningless.
Not really sure why I am responding to your post though as it is complete nonsense. The PS2 a high end machine? Not at all compared to the cube and xbox. Buying a wii is NOTHING like buying a handheld system for obvious reasons. I'll stop now and stop responding to useless posts.[/QUOTE]
A serious gamer is someone who knows what the hell they're talking about when it comes to games. A casual gamer -- the target market of the Wii -- is satisfied bhy something like Red Steel that's clearly garbage on every level. A serious gamer is someone with actual standards for the stuff they play.
And the PS2 being a high end machine simply means that it's competitive with the Gamecube and Xbox... it's not like Sony threw out another PS1 and said "okay, now you use these gimmicks and... it'll be fun guys!"
[quote name='Chacrana']A serious gamer is someone who knows what the hell they're talking about when it comes to games. A casual gamer -- the target market of the Wii -- is satisfied bhy something like Red Steel that's clearly garbage on every level. A serious gamer is someone with actual standards for the stuff they play.
And the PS2 being a high end machine simply means that it's competitive with the Gamecube and Xbox... it's not like Sony threw out another PS1 and said "okay, now you use these gimmicks and... it'll be fun guys!"[/quote]
As stated before, Im done responding to posts that clearly have zero substance. I'll let someone else take a stab at this one.
And the PS2 being a high end machine simply means that it's competitive with the Gamecube and Xbox... it's not like Sony threw out another PS1 and said "okay, now you use these gimmicks and... it'll be fun guys!"[/quote]
As stated before, Im done responding to posts that clearly have zero substance. I'll let someone else take a stab at this one.
[quote name='schuerm26']As stated before, Im done responding to posts that clearly have zero substance. I'll let someone else take a stab at this one.[/QUOTE]
Because yours had that much more substance with factual evidence like "I like Wii Sports... its funner than Madden on the 360 lawl!" There are no facts to argue over here, and you never had a legitimate argument the entire time.
Because yours had that much more substance with factual evidence like "I like Wii Sports... its funner than Madden on the 360 lawl!" There are no facts to argue over here, and you never had a legitimate argument the entire time.
[quote name='Chacrana']A casual gamer -- the target market of the Wii[/quote]
Incorrect.
The casual gamer is but one of many target audiences for Nintendo. Zelda, Super Paper Mario, and Excite Truck were all released by Nintendo, and are all targeted toward the more "serious gamer".
Wii Sports and Wii Play, also both released by Nintendo, are targeted toward the more "casual gamer".
Then there are games like Warioware, which find a happy medium between the two.
You can't really pigeonhole the Wii into any one particular category.
Incorrect.
The casual gamer is but one of many target audiences for Nintendo. Zelda, Super Paper Mario, and Excite Truck were all released by Nintendo, and are all targeted toward the more "serious gamer".
Wii Sports and Wii Play, also both released by Nintendo, are targeted toward the more "casual gamer".
Then there are games like Warioware, which find a happy medium between the two.
You can't really pigeonhole the Wii into any one particular category.
1. HDTV won't matter outside of tech crowd... general public see HDTV has big, cool and thin TV..
2. it's costly to 'replace' old tv...
3. wii graphic is satisficing (good enough for most people, less learning curve; again less costly)
4. Wii is (supposely) cheaper..
5. Other countries (could) pirate the heck out of the wii game (see PS2)
6. Mom and wife effects ... they are the one 'greenlight' the spending and wii is a very good gateway for them to 'open up' or 'connect' with family members...
and on and on..
good thing is PS3 will be forced to cut down in price..maybe i can afford it in 3-4 years with tons of great game..
2. it's costly to 'replace' old tv...
3. wii graphic is satisficing (good enough for most people, less learning curve; again less costly)
4. Wii is (supposely) cheaper..
5. Other countries (could) pirate the heck out of the wii game (see PS2)
6. Mom and wife effects ... they are the one 'greenlight' the spending
and wii is a very good gateway for them to 'open up' or 'connect' with family members...and on and on..
good thing is PS3 will be forced to cut down in price..maybe i can afford it in 3-4 years with tons of great game..
[quote name='evilmax17']Incorrect.
The casual gamer is but one of many target audiences for Nintendo. Zelda, Super Paper Mario, and Excite Truck were all released by Nintendo, and are all targeted toward the more "serious gamer".
[/QUOTE]
Right, so there's been two good games for serious gamers and... hmm... what's on the release schedule for serious gamers? Nothing until November or so unless I'm mistaken. Nintendo's saying that they're trying to cater to hardcore gamers, but I look at the release schedule and the games and that is absolutely not the case.
The casual gamer is but one of many target audiences for Nintendo. Zelda, Super Paper Mario, and Excite Truck were all released by Nintendo, and are all targeted toward the more "serious gamer".
[/QUOTE]
Right, so there's been two good games for serious gamers and... hmm... what's on the release schedule for serious gamers? Nothing until November or so unless I'm mistaken. Nintendo's saying that they're trying to cater to hardcore gamers, but I look at the release schedule and the games and that is absolutely not the case.
[quote name='Chacrana']Right, so there's been two good games for serious gamers and... hmm... what's on the release schedule for serious gamers? Nothing until November or so unless I'm mistaken. Nintendo's saying that they're trying to cater to hardcore gamers, but I look at the release schedule and the games and that is absolutely not the case.[/quote]
Godfather, Trauma Center, Super Paper Mario, Zelda, Madden 07, Ultimate Alliance, Call of Duty 3, Prince of Persia Rival Swords,, Metal Slug. You are correct, absolutely nothing for your so called "serious" gamer.
This is completely getting off topic though. I think I have come to this conclusion. People like Chacrana and people that just make completely ridiculous comments feel threatened by the WIi for some reason, as if it is going to take away their "traditional" gaming forever.
Which I think in some aspects it will, as I think motion sensing is here to stay, but in others it won't as there will always be traditional controlled games.
Godfather, Trauma Center, Super Paper Mario, Zelda, Madden 07, Ultimate Alliance, Call of Duty 3, Prince of Persia Rival Swords,, Metal Slug. You are correct, absolutely nothing for your so called "serious" gamer.
This is completely getting off topic though. I think I have come to this conclusion. People like Chacrana and people that just make completely ridiculous comments feel threatened by the WIi for some reason, as if it is going to take away their "traditional" gaming forever.
Which I think in some aspects it will, as I think motion sensing is here to stay, but in others it won't as there will always be traditional controlled games.
[quote name='daroga']While I tend to agree with you on the validity or lack there of re: those charts, there's also something to be sad for psychosomatic appreciation of an HDTV. I've been to homes that drastically go against that chart and the people who just shelled out a ton of money for that 1080p set will be showing the difference between certain aspects, yet not being the one who put up the cash for it, I don't see it at all. But at some point you have to justify your purchase.
It's not all that different from someone who buys a PS3, 360, or Wii and will defend it against any complaints, valid or not, because it's the machine they've put their money on.
And dallow, I feel really bad for you that you've not experience a good Wii Sports party. I've had quite a few and they've been some of the best game experiences I've ever had. Give it another shot sometime--maybe get some new friends.[/quote]
Haha, I know what you're mean.
But the difference is drastic if you have a true HD source.
I hope whatever you saw on those TVs are connected properly. I have everything set up to have the best possible picture.
When you watch something that's still SD on an HD set, then yeah, it looks like crap, or equal to a regular set.
It's double the resolution, double the detail! If you can't see that, I don't know what to tell you.
Everyone comments on the pic quality when they see it at my home. I don't even actively show it off, I let whatever we watch or play show the difference.
Eh, don't worry about Wii Sports. At least my little sister likes it.
We had more fun with other games. Smash Bros. Melee still rules all.
It's not all that different from someone who buys a PS3, 360, or Wii and will defend it against any complaints, valid or not, because it's the machine they've put their money on.
And dallow, I feel really bad for you that you've not experience a good Wii Sports party. I've had quite a few and they've been some of the best game experiences I've ever had. Give it another shot sometime--maybe get some new friends.
[/quote]Haha, I know what you're mean.
But the difference is drastic if you have a true HD source.
I hope whatever you saw on those TVs are connected properly. I have everything set up to have the best possible picture.
When you watch something that's still SD on an HD set, then yeah, it looks like crap, or equal to a regular set.
It's double the resolution, double the detail! If you can't see that, I don't know what to tell you.
Everyone comments on the pic quality when they see it at my home. I don't even actively show it off, I let whatever we watch or play show the difference.
Eh, don't worry about Wii Sports. At least my little sister likes it.
We had more fun with other games. Smash Bros. Melee still rules all.
[quote name='Chacrana']Right, so there's been two good games for serious gamers and... hmm... what's on the release schedule for serious gamers? Nothing until November or so unless I'm mistaken. Nintendo's saying that they're trying to cater to hardcore gamers, but I look at the release schedule and the games and that is absolutely not the case.[/quote]
The following is a list of Nintendo-published Wii games, all scheduled to be released in 2007 in the US, not including VC releases. Granted this is IGN's list, and not all of these have been confirmed for 2007 release (although many have been). Also keep in mind that this is a pre-E3 list.
[quote name='"IGN"']
Mario Party 8
Big Brain Academy: Wii Degree
Pokemon Battle Revolution
Project H.A.M.M.E.R.
Animal Crossing Wii
Battalion Wars 2
DK Bongo Blast
Fire Emblem: Goddess of Dawn
Forever Blue
Mario Strikers Charged
Metroid Prime 3: Corruption
Super Mario Galaxy
Super Smash Bros. Brawl[/quote]
The following is a list confirmed by Nintendo JP, for Japanese Wii releases. Again, this is for the Japanese market, so it's not fully relevent to us, but relevent none the less.
[quote name='"Nintendo JP Press Release"']
Dairantou Smash Brothers X (Super Smash Bros. Brawl)
Disaster: Day of Crisis
Donkey Kong Taru Jet Race (DK Bongo Blast)
Doubutsu no Mori [Animal Crossing]
Forever Blue
Hoshi no Kirby (Kirby Adventure)
Mario Party 8
Mario Strikers Charged
Metroid Prime 3: Corruption
Project H.A.M.M.E.R.
Super Mario Galaxy
Totsugeki Famicom Wars (Battalion Wars II)
Wii Health Pack
Wii Music [/quote]
These are all titles published by Nintendo themselves, the same company who has designed and marketed the Wii console. Without being subjective, and whether or not certain titles appeal to you specifically, do you see any bias that Nintendo is trying to cater to one market over another? If anything, I see more "serious games" than "casual games". If Nintendo games don't appeal to you specifically, then that's fine, but it would be inaccurate to generalize that across the entire "serious gamer" population.
Again, these are only the Nintendo published games slated for 2007. There are a lot of big titles in there, and I don't think the Wii is doing too bad for it's first official year. I think people are expecting too much, too quickly, and too consistently. You can't have a AAA game being released every weekend. It just doesn't work that way, for any console.
The following is a list of Nintendo-published Wii games, all scheduled to be released in 2007 in the US, not including VC releases. Granted this is IGN's list, and not all of these have been confirmed for 2007 release (although many have been). Also keep in mind that this is a pre-E3 list.
[quote name='"IGN"']
Mario Party 8
Big Brain Academy: Wii Degree
Pokemon Battle Revolution
Project H.A.M.M.E.R.
Animal Crossing Wii
Battalion Wars 2
DK Bongo Blast
Fire Emblem: Goddess of Dawn
Forever Blue
Mario Strikers Charged
Metroid Prime 3: Corruption
Super Mario Galaxy
Super Smash Bros. Brawl[/quote]
The following is a list confirmed by Nintendo JP, for Japanese Wii releases. Again, this is for the Japanese market, so it's not fully relevent to us, but relevent none the less.
[quote name='"Nintendo JP Press Release"']
Dairantou Smash Brothers X (Super Smash Bros. Brawl)
Disaster: Day of Crisis
Donkey Kong Taru Jet Race (DK Bongo Blast)
Doubutsu no Mori [Animal Crossing]
Forever Blue
Hoshi no Kirby (Kirby Adventure)
Mario Party 8
Mario Strikers Charged
Metroid Prime 3: Corruption
Project H.A.M.M.E.R.
Super Mario Galaxy
Totsugeki Famicom Wars (Battalion Wars II)
Wii Health Pack
Wii Music [/quote]
These are all titles published by Nintendo themselves, the same company who has designed and marketed the Wii console. Without being subjective, and whether or not certain titles appeal to you specifically, do you see any bias that Nintendo is trying to cater to one market over another? If anything, I see more "serious games" than "casual games". If Nintendo games don't appeal to you specifically, then that's fine, but it would be inaccurate to generalize that across the entire "serious gamer" population.
Again, these are only the Nintendo published games slated for 2007. There are a lot of big titles in there, and I don't think the Wii is doing too bad for it's first official year. I think people are expecting too much, too quickly, and too consistently. You can't have a AAA game being released every weekend. It just doesn't work that way, for any console.
Ah, so now we're back to the "serious" or "hardcore" gamer argument.
The definition of "hardcore gamer" I use is "Anyone who agrees with the opinions of the person using the term." Thus, no true serious gamer could ever garner any fun out of Red Steel, could they? No, because someone has said they wouldn't. No "serious" gamer would ever have the Wii as their primary gaming machine, would they? Of course not, because the forum posters have spoken!
I guess because I had some fun with the (admittedly flawed) Red Steel and the Wii is the primary gaming machine in my home, I will never be considered a "serious" gamer. But wait! I could just use the term myself and modify it!
The definition of "hardcore gamer" I use is "Anyone who agrees with the opinions of the person using the term." Thus, no true serious gamer could ever garner any fun out of Red Steel, could they? No, because someone has said they wouldn't. No "serious" gamer would ever have the Wii as their primary gaming machine, would they? Of course not, because the forum posters have spoken!
I guess because I had some fun with the (admittedly flawed) Red Steel and the Wii is the primary gaming machine in my home, I will never be considered a "serious" gamer. But wait! I could just use the term myself and modify it!
V
Virtua
Guest
This "serious" gamer argument is moot. The Wii is a serious console, it is real, it is here, and it is not going anywhere, when will you guys realize that?
It's nearly outsold the 360's year and a half in 6 months, and it's destroying the PS3 everywhere. Marginalizing it by saying "oh it's waggle with soccer mom games" is not contributing anything. Stop being stuck in the past, it is not 2001. The market has said that they are not ready for HD/Multimedia hub consoles, similar to, but not as severely as when the 3DO and CDi came out.
By the way, I had some fun with Red Steel too(gotta give daroga some support). On a rental. Would I buy it? No way.
It's nearly outsold the 360's year and a half in 6 months, and it's destroying the PS3 everywhere. Marginalizing it by saying "oh it's waggle with soccer mom games" is not contributing anything. Stop being stuck in the past, it is not 2001. The market has said that they are not ready for HD/Multimedia hub consoles, similar to, but not as severely as when the 3DO and CDi came out.
By the way, I had some fun with Red Steel too(gotta give daroga some support). On a rental. Would I buy it? No way.
[quote name='dallow']Ugh, I hate people that go by these stupid charts.[/quote]
Facts are threatening!
[quote name='dallow']Put one in your home, you'll see the difference.[/quote]
I've already got one, thanks. I'm just looking to upgrade to a larger size.
Facts are threatening!
[quote name='dallow']Put one in your home, you'll see the difference.[/quote]
I've already got one, thanks. I'm just looking to upgrade to a larger size.
[quote name='dallow']
Whoa whoa whoa.
No freakin' way. Maybe you haven't seen real HD programming before?
I now have two HDTVs, and one is a tiny 27" LCD. There's a huge difference between HD and 480SD. It doesn't matter where you are in the room.
Not to mention that wide factor.[/QUOTE]
He said beyond 720p, which I agree with. I see very few people buying TVs larger than 42", and at 42" the difference between 720 and 1080 is extremely hard to notice. I don't see how that fits into his anti-HD argument, though.
It's also true that the improvement from 480p to 720p is negligible in smaller televisions. I know there are a ton of gamers who live with their parents and only play video games in their room, where they have a sub-30" TV. 480i/p looks just fine on these smaller TVs. The lower resolution doesn't hurt it much at all. You say there's a huge difference between SD and HD on your 27" LCD, but that's far from a fair comparison, since your LCD is surely native 720 or 768, which either way is going to make the non-native 480i/p look a lot worse than it would on a CRT. That SD signal would look a lot better on a 27" CRT, or 480p LCD. You're comparing a native image to a scaled image.
For reference, I own a 30" CRT (480i/p/720p/1080i native), 56" DLP (720p native) and 37" LCD (1080p native).
Whoa whoa whoa.
No freakin' way. Maybe you haven't seen real HD programming before?
I now have two HDTVs, and one is a tiny 27" LCD. There's a huge difference between HD and 480SD. It doesn't matter where you are in the room.
Not to mention that wide factor.[/QUOTE]
He said beyond 720p, which I agree with. I see very few people buying TVs larger than 42", and at 42" the difference between 720 and 1080 is extremely hard to notice. I don't see how that fits into his anti-HD argument, though.
It's also true that the improvement from 480p to 720p is negligible in smaller televisions. I know there are a ton of gamers who live with their parents and only play video games in their room, where they have a sub-30" TV. 480i/p looks just fine on these smaller TVs. The lower resolution doesn't hurt it much at all. You say there's a huge difference between SD and HD on your 27" LCD, but that's far from a fair comparison, since your LCD is surely native 720 or 768, which either way is going to make the non-native 480i/p look a lot worse than it would on a CRT. That SD signal would look a lot better on a 27" CRT, or 480p LCD. You're comparing a native image to a scaled image.
For reference, I own a 30" CRT (480i/p/720p/1080i native), 56" DLP (720p native) and 37" LCD (1080p native).
Ok, that's right.
He did say beyond 720p. It takes a larger television and good eyes to notice the difference between 720 and 1080. (and even more so between 1080 i and p).
And yeah, doesn't fit with his anti-HD argument.
720p is still a drastic improvement from 480p.
It's not just the fact that you're playing in 480SD with far less pixels (ie. clarity), it's the wide aspect ratio that you're also missing out on that you get with 720p and above.
Nice TVs you have there. HD has penetrated your houshold three-fold.
Take a lesson from him you guys.
EDIT: And you are correct, It's not fair to compare the SD signals on my HD set. Which is why I try to limit all the SD sources as I can on it. This TV dosen't scale SD signals that well. I would need a higher quality set. But I don't want to spend even more money to make sure my SD signals look decent when we all know what the future is.
He did say beyond 720p. It takes a larger television and good eyes to notice the difference between 720 and 1080. (and even more so between 1080 i and p).
And yeah, doesn't fit with his anti-HD argument.
720p is still a drastic improvement from 480p.
It's not just the fact that you're playing in 480SD with far less pixels (ie. clarity), it's the wide aspect ratio that you're also missing out on that you get with 720p and above.
Nice TVs you have there. HD has penetrated your houshold three-fold.
Take a lesson from him you guys.
EDIT: And you are correct, It's not fair to compare the SD signals on my HD set. Which is why I try to limit all the SD sources as I can on it. This TV dosen't scale SD signals that well. I would need a higher quality set. But I don't want to spend even more money to make sure my SD signals look decent when we all know what the future is.
Reality's Fringe
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 8 (100%)
Dr Mario Kart
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 6 (100%)
I'm glad my vision blows, I dont have to go around worrying about nitpicking details!
Derrick1979
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 92 (100%)
I don't know if the Wii will levels like the PS2.. Just look at the ammount of people tracking these things down and then a month later or so turning around and selling them.. I was one of those people.
PS2 had one hell of a life span and is still living pretty good.. I don't think the Wii will have nearly the support the PS2 got over the years and the lack of support will hurt the ammount of games and then leads to death in a game systems life..
PS2 had one hell of a life span and is still living pretty good.. I don't think the Wii will have nearly the support the PS2 got over the years and the lack of support will hurt the ammount of games and then leads to death in a game systems life..
[quote name='dallow']Ok, that's right.
He did say beyond 720p. It takes a larger television and good eyes to notice the difference between 720 and 1080. (and even more so between 1080 i and p).
And yeah, doesn't fit with his anti-HD argument.
720p is still a drastic improvement from 480p.
It's not just the fact that you're playing in 480SD with far less pixels (ie. clarity), it's the wide aspect ratio that you're also missing out on that you get with 720p and above.
Nice TVs you have there. HD has penetrated your houshold three-fold.
Take a lesson from him you guys.
EDIT: And you are correct, It's not fair to compare the SD signals on my HD set. Which is why I try to limit all the SD sources as I can on it. This TV dosen't scale SD signals that well. I would need a higher quality set. But I don't want to spend even more money to make sure my SD signals look decent when we all know what the future is.[/QUOTE]
I've noticed most people [the ones who don't care about HD at all] do notice the difference in screens on their cell phones. They love their RAZR screen compared to their old Nokia screen, when they buy a new phone with an 320 resolution screen, they automatically see the jump in resolution. Yet when it comes to TV, many can't see the difference between 480i and 1080i.
Of course, there's people who choose NOT to see the difference, I dare any of you HD doesn't matter people to hook your PC up to your TV via an S-VIDEO cable.
Here's what you don't realize, when you are typing your post, telling me how pointless HD is or how cool the Wii is, you're VIEWING AN HD SCREEN from 1-2 feet viewing distance..so I dare you to do what I say, get a 20 inch SD TV and put it in place of your monitor, hook it up to your video card via S-VIDEO and then try reading CAG and going online and ediitng photos with it....
That's when you'll realize, the DIFFERENCE between SD and HD, when your eyes hurt and you can't even read CAG and every single task is nearly impossible..you'll realize that's how many of us feel about SDTVs for viewing ANYTHING at ANY distance.
He did say beyond 720p. It takes a larger television and good eyes to notice the difference between 720 and 1080. (and even more so between 1080 i and p).
And yeah, doesn't fit with his anti-HD argument.
720p is still a drastic improvement from 480p.
It's not just the fact that you're playing in 480SD with far less pixels (ie. clarity), it's the wide aspect ratio that you're also missing out on that you get with 720p and above.
Nice TVs you have there. HD has penetrated your houshold three-fold.
Take a lesson from him you guys.
EDIT: And you are correct, It's not fair to compare the SD signals on my HD set. Which is why I try to limit all the SD sources as I can on it. This TV dosen't scale SD signals that well. I would need a higher quality set. But I don't want to spend even more money to make sure my SD signals look decent when we all know what the future is.[/QUOTE]
I've noticed most people [the ones who don't care about HD at all] do notice the difference in screens on their cell phones. They love their RAZR screen compared to their old Nokia screen, when they buy a new phone with an 320 resolution screen, they automatically see the jump in resolution. Yet when it comes to TV, many can't see the difference between 480i and 1080i.
Of course, there's people who choose NOT to see the difference, I dare any of you HD doesn't matter people to hook your PC up to your TV via an S-VIDEO cable.
Here's what you don't realize, when you are typing your post, telling me how pointless HD is or how cool the Wii is, you're VIEWING AN HD SCREEN from 1-2 feet viewing distance..so I dare you to do what I say, get a 20 inch SD TV and put it in place of your monitor, hook it up to your video card via S-VIDEO and then try reading CAG and going online and ediitng photos with it....
That's when you'll realize, the DIFFERENCE between SD and HD, when your eyes hurt and you can't even read CAG and every single task is nearly impossible..you'll realize that's how many of us feel about SDTVs for viewing ANYTHING at ANY distance.
A
Apossum
Guest
[quote name='sarausagi']I've noticed most people [the ones who don't care about HD at all] do notice the difference in screens on their cell phones. They love their RAZR screen compared to their old Nokia screen, when they buy a new phone with an 320 resolution screen, they automatically see the jump in resolution. Yet when it comes to TV, many can't see the difference between 480i and 1080i.
Of course, there's people who choose NOT to see the difference, I dare any of you HD doesn't matter people to hook your PC up to your TV via an S-VIDEO cable.
Here's what you don't realize, when you are typing your post, telling me how pointless HD is or how cool the Wii is, you're VIEWING AN HD SCREEN from 1-2 feet viewing distance..so I dare you to do what I say, get a 20 inch SD TV and put it in place of your monitor, hook it up to your video card via S-VIDEO and then try reading CAG and going online and ediitng photos with it....
That's when you'll realize, the DIFFERENCE between SD and HD, when your eyes hurt and you can't even read CAG and every single task is nearly impossible..you'll realize that's how many of us feel about SDTVs for viewing ANYTHING at ANY distance.[/QUOTE]
The Wii has an option to hurt your eyes with the internet.
Of course, there's people who choose NOT to see the difference, I dare any of you HD doesn't matter people to hook your PC up to your TV via an S-VIDEO cable.
Here's what you don't realize, when you are typing your post, telling me how pointless HD is or how cool the Wii is, you're VIEWING AN HD SCREEN from 1-2 feet viewing distance..so I dare you to do what I say, get a 20 inch SD TV and put it in place of your monitor, hook it up to your video card via S-VIDEO and then try reading CAG and going online and ediitng photos with it....
That's when you'll realize, the DIFFERENCE between SD and HD, when your eyes hurt and you can't even read CAG and every single task is nearly impossible..you'll realize that's how many of us feel about SDTVs for viewing ANYTHING at ANY distance.[/QUOTE]
The Wii has an option to hurt your eyes with the internet.
[quote name='sarausagi'] Here's what you don't realize, when you are typing your post, telling me how pointless HD is or how cool the Wii is, you're VIEWING AN HD SCREEN from 1-2 feet viewing distance..so I dare you to do what I say, get a 20 inch SD TV and put it in place of your monitor, hook it up to your video card via S-VIDEO and then try reading CAG and going online and ediitng photos with it....
That's when you'll realize, the DIFFERENCE between SD and HD, when your eyes hurt and you can't even read CAG and every single task is nearly impossible..you'll realize that's how many of us feel about SDTVs for viewing ANYTHING at ANY distance.[/quote]Wow, can I point out how flawed that little argument is?
I'm not in the camp of "HD doesn't matter." HD stuff is very cool. BUT, to say that you should hook a computer up to an SD TV to understand the difference is hardly a good way to go about it. That video signal was never, ever designed to go to an SD screen. The video-outs on video cards are for playing a game or, most often, watching some video clips via the computer, not for surfing the web with. That's just like hooking an NES up to an LCD TV and saying "LOOK HOW CRAPPY THAT LOOKS!" That TV isn't designed to make that type of archaic video signal look good at all, now was that game system ever designed to output to a screen with that many pixels.
And yet, your comparison fails again when the Wii, outputting in 480i/p, can surf the web just fine when the brower is designed for it.
A far better comparison would be to take a game, designed to be played in HD or SD (so, not Dead Rising I guess) and switch back and forth and see how the text becomes smaller, yet easier to read on an HD set. How little details pop out. But as stated above, depending on how the arrangement in the room is set, the differences between 480p and 720p or 1080p might be negligible.
Of course, the part of the HD vs SD argument that is being ignored is "Is HD actually benefical to gaming?" That's not to say "Does it make games look better?" I think there most people can agree that yes it does. But if a developer has to devote extra money or resources to a creating high resolution artwork for a game, that may rob from whole other levels being created, does that really benefit the experience? If they have to spend a ton of time working to get that frame rate steady at that high resolution, does that help?
I don't have an answer for that, but it's something to consider. Add to the questions, is the adaptation of the Wii controls and time/money spent on that beneficial? I would say yes, more so than the HD visuals. But I love the Wii, and my favorite game on the 360 is just a bunch of little lines that benefits not-at-all for the HD console.
That's when you'll realize, the DIFFERENCE between SD and HD, when your eyes hurt and you can't even read CAG and every single task is nearly impossible..you'll realize that's how many of us feel about SDTVs for viewing ANYTHING at ANY distance.[/quote]Wow, can I point out how flawed that little argument is?
I'm not in the camp of "HD doesn't matter." HD stuff is very cool. BUT, to say that you should hook a computer up to an SD TV to understand the difference is hardly a good way to go about it. That video signal was never, ever designed to go to an SD screen. The video-outs on video cards are for playing a game or, most often, watching some video clips via the computer, not for surfing the web with. That's just like hooking an NES up to an LCD TV and saying "LOOK HOW CRAPPY THAT LOOKS!" That TV isn't designed to make that type of archaic video signal look good at all, now was that game system ever designed to output to a screen with that many pixels.
And yet, your comparison fails again when the Wii, outputting in 480i/p, can surf the web just fine when the brower is designed for it.
A far better comparison would be to take a game, designed to be played in HD or SD (so, not Dead Rising I guess) and switch back and forth and see how the text becomes smaller, yet easier to read on an HD set. How little details pop out. But as stated above, depending on how the arrangement in the room is set, the differences between 480p and 720p or 1080p might be negligible.
Of course, the part of the HD vs SD argument that is being ignored is "Is HD actually benefical to gaming?" That's not to say "Does it make games look better?" I think there most people can agree that yes it does. But if a developer has to devote extra money or resources to a creating high resolution artwork for a game, that may rob from whole other levels being created, does that really benefit the experience? If they have to spend a ton of time working to get that frame rate steady at that high resolution, does that help?
I don't have an answer for that, but it's something to consider. Add to the questions, is the adaptation of the Wii controls and time/money spent on that beneficial? I would say yes, more so than the HD visuals. But I love the Wii, and my favorite game on the 360 is just a bunch of little lines that benefits not-at-all for the HD console.
[quote name='daroga']Wow, can I point out how flawed that little argument is?
[/QUOTE]
Well, it IS flawed, but that's the thing, there's no perfect way of describing it. The viewing distance argument is true, however, it's pretty much an optical ilusion. SD at 12 feet may look clear, but won't contain no where near the detail or clarity of HD at 12 feet. Color saturation, contrast levels, and aspect ratiio make it even more obvious.
However, as for whether or not making high resolution artwork takes time from the actual game making process. That can be debated. If it is hand drawn artwork or computer graphics, in most cases it is starting at a high resolution, meaning that when it gets ported to PSP or Wii or PS2, that artwork is degraded. Like scanning a comic book page into a 20 KB file, it'll become a bluiry pixelated mess compared to the paper media. I mean, it's all left to opinion or wonder. I can imagine that when you're at a workstation modeling polygons, they look a lot better than they look once you have to bring it down to 640 x 480
We can ask ourselves all day, how much longer would Gears of War be if it was a Wii game, would it have better AI? Would Forza 2 have 2000 more cars and 100 more tracks if it used PSONe level graphics? Would Twilight Princess be 10 hours shorter if it had Lair or Heavenly Sword graphics?
In the end...it would be a matter of preference. I am sure lots of people would trade in 10 hours of Zelda if it meant it looked just as good as Lair or Heavenly Sword. I am pretty sure most Forza/Gran Turismo fans wouldn't trade in the graphics for 2000 more cars. And I am pretty sure, most people wouldn't want Gears of War as a Wii game. However, there'd be some who would take the 2000 cars over the graphics, and there'd be some who would never give up the 10 hours of Zelda even if they have to stick with N64 textures, and as crazy as it seems, I'm sure some people would prefer Gears of War to play like Red Steel.
[/QUOTE]
Well, it IS flawed, but that's the thing, there's no perfect way of describing it. The viewing distance argument is true, however, it's pretty much an optical ilusion. SD at 12 feet may look clear, but won't contain no where near the detail or clarity of HD at 12 feet. Color saturation, contrast levels, and aspect ratiio make it even more obvious.
However, as for whether or not making high resolution artwork takes time from the actual game making process. That can be debated. If it is hand drawn artwork or computer graphics, in most cases it is starting at a high resolution, meaning that when it gets ported to PSP or Wii or PS2, that artwork is degraded. Like scanning a comic book page into a 20 KB file, it'll become a bluiry pixelated mess compared to the paper media. I mean, it's all left to opinion or wonder. I can imagine that when you're at a workstation modeling polygons, they look a lot better than they look once you have to bring it down to 640 x 480
We can ask ourselves all day, how much longer would Gears of War be if it was a Wii game, would it have better AI? Would Forza 2 have 2000 more cars and 100 more tracks if it used PSONe level graphics? Would Twilight Princess be 10 hours shorter if it had Lair or Heavenly Sword graphics?
In the end...it would be a matter of preference. I am sure lots of people would trade in 10 hours of Zelda if it meant it looked just as good as Lair or Heavenly Sword. I am pretty sure most Forza/Gran Turismo fans wouldn't trade in the graphics for 2000 more cars. And I am pretty sure, most people wouldn't want Gears of War as a Wii game. However, there'd be some who would take the 2000 cars over the graphics, and there'd be some who would never give up the 10 hours of Zelda even if they have to stick with N64 textures, and as crazy as it seems, I'm sure some people would prefer Gears of War to play like Red Steel.
Dr Mario Kart
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 6 (100%)
I'd totally buy Twilight Princess with the Ocarina of Time engine or Red Steel with the Shadow Warrior engine provided they could come in at a budget price.
I keep reading that the general public isn't ready for HD yet. Wasn't it in 1 out of every 5 homes last fall. I am fairly sure that the HD tv market had a good holiday season. Everytime I go to bestbuy/circuit city (which is weekly), I see people loading up big HD tv's. I agree that the using the wii isn't for the serious gamer is a bad argument, but I also think that the penetration of HD Tv's as being used by the majority is coming sooner then some are saying. No it isn't there yet, it is even possible that it might not be in the majority of US homes by the end of this generation. But HD tv's have come down a LOT in price from where they were a couple of years ago, and to dismiss HD this generation so early is also a poor argument.
As for the argument is HD beneficial to gaming, I would say yes. Right now it may hinder it as it cost a lot time and resources to make game look great and run smoothly, but the key imo, is that the system makers need to have good toolsets in place. Allegedly XNA is a good/great toolset for developers. IMO you could say that 3rd party developers are wasting time/money into the wii control set isn't beneficial to gaming. How many 3rd party games have had good use of the wii controllers? I would imagine that nintendo will show of proper use of the controlls with there big developed for the wii titles due this fall or next year. Yes, that will help developers see what they could do, but why don't we hear stories of Nintendo really helping a 3rd party implement proper control setups on the wii. Maybe they are, I have no idea, but you would think you would nintendo would help out the 3rd parties more in the use of wii controls. (I am not saying that msft and sony don't do this, as it looks like msft held off on the matchmaking system to use in there big 07 release, halo 3) The general consensus I pick up from news stories, and podcasts is that msft is very open and helpful with developers, sony gives them tools but doesn't give much support, and nintendo has a very stand off approach. IMO, if nintendo really wants 3rd parties to help them out in the sucess of there system, they should be very supportive/helpful in getting the developers to make great exclusive titles. IMO, if nintendo is really going to be the ps2 of this generation they need to have a lot of 3rd party exclusive titles that sell systems. Not only does the game have to play good, imo it needs to have a good control setup and it is Nintendo responsibilty to assist the developers in nailing down a good control scheme
As for the argument is HD beneficial to gaming, I would say yes. Right now it may hinder it as it cost a lot time and resources to make game look great and run smoothly, but the key imo, is that the system makers need to have good toolsets in place. Allegedly XNA is a good/great toolset for developers. IMO you could say that 3rd party developers are wasting time/money into the wii control set isn't beneficial to gaming. How many 3rd party games have had good use of the wii controllers? I would imagine that nintendo will show of proper use of the controlls with there big developed for the wii titles due this fall or next year. Yes, that will help developers see what they could do, but why don't we hear stories of Nintendo really helping a 3rd party implement proper control setups on the wii. Maybe they are, I have no idea, but you would think you would nintendo would help out the 3rd parties more in the use of wii controls. (I am not saying that msft and sony don't do this, as it looks like msft held off on the matchmaking system to use in there big 07 release, halo 3) The general consensus I pick up from news stories, and podcasts is that msft is very open and helpful with developers, sony gives them tools but doesn't give much support, and nintendo has a very stand off approach. IMO, if nintendo really wants 3rd parties to help them out in the sucess of there system, they should be very supportive/helpful in getting the developers to make great exclusive titles. IMO, if nintendo is really going to be the ps2 of this generation they need to have a lot of 3rd party exclusive titles that sell systems. Not only does the game have to play good, imo it needs to have a good control setup and it is Nintendo responsibilty to assist the developers in nailing down a good control scheme
V
Virtua
Guest
The wii still plays on HDtvs.
the 360 and PS3 however are borderline retarded on SDtv.
the 360 and PS3 however are borderline retarded on SDtv.
A
Apossum
Guest
[quote name='jer7583']The wii still plays on HDtvs.
the 360 and PS3 however are borderline retarded on SDtv.[/QUOTE]
my 360 and ps3 looked fine on a 17 year old TV in s-video. They looked "next-gen" still. the upgrade to HD was nice, but I wouldn't suffer too much if I had to go back.
by your logic, the Wii looks borderline retarded on any TV. cheers.
the 360 and PS3 however are borderline retarded on SDtv.[/QUOTE]
my 360 and ps3 looked fine on a 17 year old TV in s-video. They looked "next-gen" still. the upgrade to HD was nice, but I wouldn't suffer too much if I had to go back.
by your logic, the Wii looks borderline retarded on any TV. cheers.
[quote name='sarausagi']Color saturation, contrast levels, and aspect ratiio make it even more obvious. [/QUOTE]
All of your arguments are rather ridiculous, but I'm only going to bother wasting my time correcting the most erroneous part - the above quote only holds true when there's a bitrate limitation (be it source, cable, whatever). The -only- difference up in the air here is resolution. Every other aspect of Wii's video quality can match that of HD.
All of your arguments are rather ridiculous, but I'm only going to bother wasting my time correcting the most erroneous part - the above quote only holds true when there's a bitrate limitation (be it source, cable, whatever). The -only- difference up in the air here is resolution. Every other aspect of Wii's video quality can match that of HD.
[quote name='Koggit']All of your arguments are rather ridiculous, but I'm only going to bother wasting my time correcting the most erroneous part - the above quote only holds true when there's a bitrate limitation (be it source, cable, whatever). The -only- difference up in the air here is resolution. Every other aspect of Wii's video quality can match that of HD.[/QUOTE]
I was strictly speaking of HDTV in general, not the Wii.
However, the Wii's graphic unit color depth is strictly 32 bit..meaing 24 bit...."Deep Color" would be quite impossible on the Wii, while on the PS3 it is quite possible [especially with firmware upgrades]
of course, you can have fun believing that SDTVs look the same as HDTVs because of viewing distance and that there's no advantage to HD in gaming or media in general, and that there's no difference between 480p and 720p...
I was strictly speaking of HDTV in general, not the Wii.
However, the Wii's graphic unit color depth is strictly 32 bit..meaing 24 bit...."Deep Color" would be quite impossible on the Wii, while on the PS3 it is quite possible [especially with firmware upgrades]
of course, you can have fun believing that SDTVs look the same as HDTVs because of viewing distance and that there's no advantage to HD in gaming or media in general, and that there's no difference between 480p and 720p...
Dr Mario Kart
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 6 (100%)
The gamecube was in the power race. If they're going to get beat because it turned out power did matter after all, it doesnt quite matter if the Wii is maxed out or not, because it is still outclassed.
There is no longer a need to use all of what minimal power they do have.
There is no longer a need to use all of what minimal power they do have.
[quote name='Dr Mario Kart']The gamecube was in the power race. If they're going to get beat because it turned out power did matter after all, it doesnt quite matter if the Wii is maxed out or not, because it is still outclassed.
There is no longer a need to use all of what minimal power they do have.[/QUOTE]
So essentialy, what you're saying is...
A runner should not try to run as fast as he can, because the other runners are way faster than him even if they're just jogging..?
How is that beneficial to the consumer at all? I would believe in the case of the runner...his sponsors would want him to get the best lap time he can get, even if he gets beat by the faster runners....in gaming terms....you're saying it's okay for Nintendo to give fans the short end of the stick, pretty much crippling their own hardware, just because it won't look as good as the 360 or PS3 anyways?
I'd love to hear what you all would be saying if Sony was releasing PS2 level graphics on the PS3...it'd be all "
, Sony's so full of shit, $600 for a console and it looks the same as a PS2!"
There is no longer a need to use all of what minimal power they do have.[/QUOTE]
So essentialy, what you're saying is...
A runner should not try to run as fast as he can, because the other runners are way faster than him even if they're just jogging..?
How is that beneficial to the consumer at all? I would believe in the case of the runner...his sponsors would want him to get the best lap time he can get, even if he gets beat by the faster runners....in gaming terms....you're saying it's okay for Nintendo to give fans the short end of the stick, pretty much crippling their own hardware, just because it won't look as good as the 360 or PS3 anyways?
I'd love to hear what you all would be saying if Sony was releasing PS2 level graphics on the PS3...it'd be all "
, Sony's so full of shit, $600 for a console and it looks the same as a PS2!"
Dr Mario Kart
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 6 (100%)
I'm saying there is no footrace. Or if there is, it is between Sony and Microsoft, so Nintendo DOESNT need to run. They'd be gimped if they tried. There is a good enough amount of power if you want to use it. But you dont have to.
Punk_Raven
Banned
The 360 amd PS3 don't look borderline retarded on SDTVs, thank you very much.
Oh, and supposedly the gamecube was the most powerful system, they just didn't make good use of it at all.
Oh, and supposedly the gamecube was the most powerful system, they just didn't make good use of it at all.
Dr Mario Kart
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 6 (100%)
Look at the DS. Both a lot of games out currently AND a lot of UPCOMING games are graphically on the level of the GBA. That is all that was required of their particular design.
Then you have games that push the hardware (like some of those from Square-Enix). However, they still arent in a position to compete with what the PSP can do. Thats not the point.
Then you have games that push the hardware (like some of those from Square-Enix). However, they still arent in a position to compete with what the PSP can do. Thats not the point.
[quote name='Dr Mario Kart']Look at the DS. Both a lot of games out currently AND a lot of UPCOMING games are graphically on the level of the GBA. That is all that was required of their particular design.
Then you have games that push the hardware (like some of those from Square-Enix). However, they still arent in a position to compete with what the PSP can do. Thats not the point.[/QUOTE]
I don't think we can look at DS success and see it replicated with the Wii, simply because both systems went for 'innovation over power'. I really believe the success of the DS was not because of its 'innovative' touch screen. It's hard not to succeed when you dominate the market for more than a decade. The Wii, unfortunately, does not have that benefit.
Then you have games that push the hardware (like some of those from Square-Enix). However, they still arent in a position to compete with what the PSP can do. Thats not the point.[/QUOTE]
I don't think we can look at DS success and see it replicated with the Wii, simply because both systems went for 'innovation over power'. I really believe the success of the DS was not because of its 'innovative' touch screen. It's hard not to succeed when you dominate the market for more than a decade. The Wii, unfortunately, does not have that benefit.
Dr Mario Kart
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 6 (100%)
[quote name='dpatel']It's hard not to succeed when you dominate the market for more than a decade.[/quote]
Sony? ho ho ho
Sony? ho ho ho
[quote name='sarausagi']
I'd love to hear what you all would be saying if Sony was releasing PS2 level graphics on the PS3...it'd be all ", Sony's so full of shit, $600 for a console and it looks the same as a PS2!"[/quote]
That would be a perfectly acceptable comment since the PS3 is advertised as a graphics powerhouse. The Wii is not.
I'd love to hear what you all would be saying if Sony was releasing PS2 level graphics on the PS3...it'd be all "
, Sony's so full of shit, $600 for a console and it looks the same as a PS2!"[/quote]That would be a perfectly acceptable comment since the PS3 is advertised as a graphics powerhouse. The Wii is not.
[quote name='schuerm26']Godfather, Trauma Center, Super Paper Mario, Zelda, Madden 07, Ultimate Alliance, Call of Duty 3, Prince of Persia Rival Swords,, Metal Slug. You are correct, absolutely nothing for your so called "serious" gamer.
[/QUOTE]
This is exactly the point. You resort to bringing up games like Prince of Persia RS, Call of Duty 3, a broken version of Metal Slug, etc. The Wii has games aimed at the hardcore, it's just that few of them have any effort put into them whatsoever.
[/QUOTE]
This is exactly the point. You resort to bringing up games like Prince of Persia RS, Call of Duty 3, a broken version of Metal Slug, etc. The Wii has games aimed at the hardcore, it's just that few of them have any effort put into them whatsoever.
bread's done