Nintendo President Iwta: Next Console will Probably be HD
parallax-scroll
http://news.softpedia.com/news/Miyamoto-Says-New-Technology-Might-Force-The-Wii-to-Go-HD-97580.shtml
Iwata:
"If we have an opportunity to make a new console, it will probably
support HD because it is now common throughout the world. However, as
far as the Wii is concerned, we have not found a significant reason to
make it HD-compatible at this time. What is the significant meaning to
the users? I don’t think we should do it unless we find that reason.
If we decide for other reasons to make new hardware, then HD is one of
the things we would naturally add."
'Wii HD' expected in 2011
:http://www.whattheyplay.com/blog/2008/09/30/new-wii-due-by-2011/
jt august
<6198b85d-3b1f-400b...@q14g2000vbn.googlegroups.com>,
parallax-scroll <paralla...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Iwata:
>
> "If we have an opportunity to make a new console, it will probably
> support HD because it is now common throughout the world. However, as
> far as the Wii is concerned, we have not found a significant reason to
> make it HD-compatible at this time. What is the significant meaning to
> the users? I don�t think we should do it unless we find that reason.
> If we decide for other reasons to make new hardware, then HD is one of
> the things we would naturally add."
Makes sense to me. I haven't wasted the money on an HD TV because I
haven't found anything to justify the expense. Is a comedy any funnier
just because I can see the skin tone of the actor speaking the lines?
Is sports more exciting because I can see the bubbles in the pitcher's
spit?
Wii games won't be any more fun just because the display has nearly 4
times as many pixels. Wii games are already very fun, and look just
fine on my in-laws 64 HDTV. But in its day, the Atari 2600,
Intellivision and Odyssey 2 were plenty fun with their horrendously
coarse resolution. What matters is what Nintendo is concentrating on,
games that are fun to play.
jt
Michael C
news:starsabre-1B812...@inetnews.worldnet.att.net...
A better picture will always provide a better experience than a poorer
picture.
jt august
"Michael C" <jj...@lkio.netx> wrote:
> A better picture will always provide a better experience than a poorer
> picture.
Wrong again! - Rafiki; Lion King
That's the whole point. The "better picture" does not equate to a
better experience. Comedies are just as funny. Musicals and music
videos are equally harmonic. Dramas are still as serious. And games
are just as challenging.
The only game play I can think of that might benefit from HD is a flight
simulator, where the pilot needs to identify something distant on the
radar by eyesight as soon as possible. Or other sims where that fine,
distant object needs to be seen early. But that is a niche, not an
everyday game scenario.
jt
Michael C
Don't be so absurd. Would you rather watch a comedy, drama or musical on
black & white or colour? How about if the picture is compressed and blocky?
All these things lessen the experience no matter what you are watching or
playing.
Do you prefer listening to music in stereo or mono?
jt august
"Michael C" <jj...@lkio.netx> wrote:
> Don't be so absurd. Would you rather watch a comedy, drama or musical on
> black & white or colour? How about if the picture is compressed and blocky?
> All these things lessen the experience no matter what you are watching or
> playing.
Actually, I have a little 5 inch b/w telly in the garage. Have an R/F
feed from the DVR to it, and it is fine for how I use it. Works great
to watch the Cards when I'm out there. The game is as engaging on it.
> Do you prefer listening to music in stereo or mono?
Well, at work, I have a boom box that has only one speaker left on it
(the other fell off and the plastic case shattered, ripped the cone in
the process). Set it to mono and I still have tunes at my work station,
and even one speaker is loud enough to be heard nicely over the machines
(I work in a production machine shop). Music is music. Yeah, I enjoy
stereo when I can sit and take the surround aspect in, but just having
music is what counts.
It's the content that matters. The fidelity is bonus.
Oh, and I still love my blocky Atari and Odyssey^2. Then there are my
30+ pong clones.
jt
Michael C
> In article <78vd6jF...@mid.individual.net>,
> "Michael C" <jj...@lkio.netx> wrote:
>
>> Don't be so absurd. Would you rather watch a comedy, drama or musical on
>> black & white or colour? How about if the picture is compressed and
>> blocky?
>> All these things lessen the experience no matter what you are watching or
>> playing.
>
> Actually, I have a little 5 inch b/w telly in the garage. Have an R/F
> feed from the DVR to it, and it is fine for how I use it. Works great
> to watch the Cards when I'm out there. The game is as engaging on it.
You didn't actually answer the question, merely stated that you sometimes
watch things on a small TV.
Would you rather watch a comedy, drama or musical on black & white or
colour? How about if the picture is compressed and blocky?
>> Do you prefer listening to music in stereo or mono?
>
> Well, at work, I have a boom box that has only one speaker left on it
> (the other fell off and the plastic case shattered, ripped the cone in
> the process). Set it to mono and I still have tunes at my work station,
> and even one speaker is loud enough to be heard nicely over the machines
> (I work in a production machine shop). Music is music. Yeah, I enjoy
> stereo when I can sit and take the surround aspect in, but just having
> music is what counts.
>
> It's the content that matters. The fidelity is bonus.
So your answer to my question is that you prefer listening to music in
stereo than mono, which proves the point that a better picture and sound
improves the overall experience.
jt august
"Michael C" <jj...@lkio.netx> wrote:
> You didn't actually answer the question, merely stated that you sometimes
> watch things on a small TV.
>
> Would you rather watch a comedy, drama or musical on black & white or
> colour? How about if the picture is compressed and blocky?
I did, you just didn't want to accept the answer. I have no problems
watching a b/w tv, so the answer is color vs. b/w is irrelevant. Small
IS compressed, so it doesn't matter. Blocky, well that is NTSC compared
to HD. My point is that the picture quality (fidelity, applies to video
as well as audio) is not important, the content is.
> So your answer to my question is that you prefer listening to music in
> stereo than mono, which proves the point that a better picture and sound
> improves the overall experience.
My answer is the "quality" isn't what matters to me, I can enjoy it
regardless. Hell, I used to listen to FM on my grandparents old, 16's
vintage tube radio with one small speaker. So what if it wasn't a
Kenwood Amp driving Bose 901 Direct/Reflect speakers. It was music, and
I still liked it.
As to how that applies to the Wii, I don't give a harry rats ass that
the Wii is not in HD. The games are fun, most are better than most of
the PS3 and 360 libraries, all of which are HD. The fun factor trumphs
the picture quality factor. And for most casual gamers - the Wii's
target audience - the same holds true, which is in part why the Wii
outsells the PS3 and 360.
I was at a local TRUs yesterday, and I observed that the Wii selection
was twice as big as each of the PS3 and 360. I asked about it and the
salesthing told me that Wii titles outsell the others by almost double.
That says much about HD enhancing game play. IT IS NOT IMPORTANT!
jt
Michael C
> In article <78vm06F...@mid.individual.net>,
> "Michael C" <jj...@lkio.netx> wrote:
>
>> You didn't actually answer the question, merely stated that you sometimes
>> watch things on a small TV.
>>
>> Would you rather watch a comedy, drama or musical on black & white or
>> colour? How about if the picture is compressed and blocky?
>
> I did, you just didn't want to accept the answer. I have no problems
> watching a b/w tv, so the answer is color vs. b/w is irrelevant. Small
> IS compressed, so it doesn't matter. Blocky, well that is NTSC compared
> to HD. My point is that the picture quality (fidelity, applies to video
> as well as audio) is not important, the content is.
Once again you are not answering the question I put to you. I did not ask
if you had a problem with watching or playing something on a small TV, I
asked whether you preffered a better picture or a worse picture.
The question I am asking is very simple - would you rather watch a comedy,
drama or musical in black & white or colour? You only need to respond with
either of the following answers:
- Colour
- Black and white
>> So your answer to my question is that you prefer listening to music in
>> stereo than mono, which proves the point that a better picture and sound
>> improves the overall experience.
>
> My answer is the "quality" isn't what matters to me, I can enjoy it
> regardless. Hell, I used to listen to FM on my grandparents old, 16's
> vintage tube radio with one small speaker. So what if it wasn't a
> Kenwood Amp driving Bose 901 Direct/Reflect speakers. It was music, and
> I still liked it.
So you would enjoy your favourite song in exactly the same way whether
someone hummed it down a phone line, you listened to it on an expensive
stereo system or watched the artist live in concert? And given the option
of experiencing one of them you would have no preference at all?
> As to how that applies to the Wii, I don't give a harry rats ass that
> the Wii is not in HD. The games are fun, most are better than most of
> the PS3 and 360 libraries, all of which are HD. The fun factor trumphs
> the picture quality factor. And for most casual gamers - the Wii's
> target audience - the same holds true, which is in part why the Wii
> outsells the PS3 and 360.
>
> I was at a local TRUs yesterday, and I observed that the Wii selection
> was twice as big as each of the PS3 and 360. I asked about it and the
> salesthing told me that Wii titles outsell the others by almost double.
> That says much about HD enhancing game play. IT IS NOT IMPORTANT!
Of course it is important - it just isn't the single most important factor
in a game.
jt august
"Michael C" <jj...@lkio.netx> wrote:
> The question I am asking is very simple - would you rather watch a comedy,
> drama or musical in black & white or colour? You only need to respond with
> either of the following answers:
>
> - Colour
> - Black and white
>
You keep omitting the real answer, I don't care, it doesn't matter! Why
can't you understand that?
> So you would enjoy your favourite song in exactly the same way whether
> someone hummed it down a phone line, you listened to it on an expensive
> stereo system or watched the artist live in concert? And given the option
> of experiencing one of them you would have no preference at all?
Where did humming it on a phone come from? That would be a cover
version, and given your circumstances offered, a likely poor cover
version. Now if you mean listening to the original over a phone line on
a vintage 80's SoundDesign landline, well I actually did that yesterday,
while in Holding Hell. One of the songs was Hannah Montana's The Climb
from her new movie. Good song, and I did enjoy listening to it. Better
than that non-descript pseudo-jazz a lot of place play. I can enjoy
good music, regardless the source. I'll admit I have a .wav track from
a friend's long defunct garage band in my iTunes and have burned it to
CD to listen to in the car. I'd love to have a CD quality original, but
my friend died in a car accident in 1999, and the only samples I have of
his music are these .wav files. And I still love listening to his music
despite the sound quality. Why, because the content is important.
Fidelity is bonus.
> > As to how that applies to the Wii, I don't give a harry rats ass that
> > the Wii is not in HD. The games are fun, most are better than most of
> > the PS3 and 360 libraries, all of which are HD. The fun factor trumphs
> > the picture quality factor. And for most casual gamers - the Wii's
> > target audience - the same holds true, which is in part why the Wii
> > outsells the PS3 and 360.
> >
> > I was at a local TRUs yesterday, and I observed that the Wii selection
> > was twice as big as each of the PS3 and 360. I asked about it and the
> > salesthing told me that Wii titles outsell the others by almost double.
> > That says much about HD enhancing game play. IT IS NOT IMPORTANT!
>
> Of course it is important - it just isn't the single most important factor
> in a game.
Then why did people buy the Atari Flashback 1 & 2 in droves when it hit,
even though those graphics were blocky? Because those games were fun.
And if you talk with anyone who has Namco Museum Remix, very few like
the remix games, preferring the older, lower resolution originals.
If the game is fun, the picture quality does not matter.
jt
Winfield
> In article <78vuqbF...@mid.individual.net>,
> "Michael C" <jj...@lkio.netx> wrote:
>
>> The question I am asking is very simple - would you rather watch a comedy,
>> drama or musical in black & white or colour? You only need to respond with
>> either of the following answers:
>>
>> - Colour
>> - Black and white
>>
> You keep omitting the real answer, I don't care, it doesn't matter! Why
> can't you understand that?
I was assembling a jigsaw puzzle out of sight of the television -
someone was watching "Coach" on the T.V. I laughed at the banter and
plot. It seemed really funny.
I took a break and actually watched a bit of the show. Boring and
stupid as all get-out.
I was amazed.
(JT, you're full of baloney with your crusty claims. Hold on -- you're
half-dead, right? Bonus points for you, then.)
winfield :~P
Michael C
> In article <78vuqbF...@mid.individual.net>,
> "Michael C" <jj...@lkio.netx> wrote:
>
>> The question I am asking is very simple - would you rather watch a
>> comedy,
>> drama or musical in black & white or colour? You only need to respond
>> with
>> either of the following answers:
>>
>> - Colour
>> - Black and white
>>
> You keep omitting the real answer, I don't care, it doesn't matter! Why
> can't you understand that?
Why can you not answer the question? If you really do not care about the
picture then I can only assume that every single TV you have ever bought has
been a 9" black & white one and that you have never bought a camera because
you can just sketch what you see on a bit of paper with a stick of charcoal.
Is this the case?
If someone offered you the chance to play, say, the sequel to Mario Galaxy
on either a 21" colour TV in a room with perfect lighting levels or in a
murky basement on a small black and white screen are you saying that you
would have no preference at all?
Given how dismissive you seem to be of the value of viewing things in colour
would you accept $100 to be made colour blind?
>> So you would enjoy your favourite song in exactly the same way whether
>> someone hummed it down a phone line, you listened to it on an expensive
>> stereo system or watched the artist live in concert? And given the
>> option
>> of experiencing one of them you would have no preference at all?
>
> Where did humming it on a phone come from? That would be a cover
> version, and given your circumstances offered, a likely poor cover
> version. Now if you mean listening to the original over a phone line on
> a vintage 80's SoundDesign landline, well I actually did that yesterday,
> while in Holding Hell. One of the songs was Hannah Montana's The Climb
> from her new movie. Good song, and I did enjoy listening to it. Better
> than that non-descript pseudo-jazz a lot of place play. I can enjoy
> good music, regardless the source. I'll admit I have a .wav track from
> a friend's long defunct garage band in my iTunes and have burned it to
> CD to listen to in the car. I'd love to have a CD quality original, but
> my friend died in a car accident in 1999, and the only samples I have of
> his music are these .wav files. And I still love listening to his music
> despite the sound quality. Why, because the content is important.
> Fidelity is bonus.
In that paragraph you have said "I'd love to have a CD quality original" so
you quite clearly acknowledge that better sound quality is prefereable to
low sound quality - so it stands to reason that you would also prefer a good
quality picture over a bad quality picture which is in direct contradiction
to what you have been saying.
>> > As to how that applies to the Wii, I don't give a harry rats ass that
>> > the Wii is not in HD. The games are fun, most are better than most of
>> > the PS3 and 360 libraries, all of which are HD. The fun factor trumphs
>> > the picture quality factor. And for most casual gamers - the Wii's
>> > target audience - the same holds true, which is in part why the Wii
>> > outsells the PS3 and 360.
>> >
>> > I was at a local TRUs yesterday, and I observed that the Wii selection
>> > was twice as big as each of the PS3 and 360. I asked about it and the
>> > salesthing told me that Wii titles outsell the others by almost double.
>> > That says much about HD enhancing game play. IT IS NOT IMPORTANT!
>>
>> Of course it is important - it just isn't the single most important
>> factor
>> in a game.
>
> Then why did people buy the Atari Flashback 1 & 2 in droves when it hit,
> even though those graphics were blocky? Because those games were fun.
> And if you talk with anyone who has Namco Museum Remix, very few like
> the remix games, preferring the older, lower resolution originals.
They enjoyed the games in spite of the blocky graphics and not because of
them. There are a couple of reasons that some people would prefer the
originals over the 'remixed' versions - one being that they were immense
fans of the original games when they first came out and another being that
the 'remixed' versions were poorly done.
An example of a good 'remix' would be Rez HD on Xbox Live Arcade because the
improved graphics make for a better experience.
> If the game is fun, the picture quality does not matter.
This is an utterly illogical and absurd statement to say especially when you
have already admitted to preferring CD quality sound over lower quality
sound. Good graphics do not automatically make a game fun but they make a
fun game even better.
Miles Bader
> A better picture will always provide a better experience than a poorer
> picture.
In many cases it's true ("always" is a bit of a stretch, and of course
"better" is pretty damn vague) ... all else being equal.
But of course in the real world, all else _isn't_ equal.
HD hardware/content comes with costs too, and it's certainly not a given
that the end result is really a win...
For instance, if the additional costs associated with HD result in fewer
games being made, fewer companies able to make them, and fewer risks
being taken, it may very well be worse for gamers.
-Miles
--
Cat, n. A soft, indestructible automaton provided by nature to be kicked when
things go wrong in the domestic circle.
jt august
"Michael C" <jj...@lkio.netx> wrote:
> Why can you not answer the question?
I have. Why can't you accept the answer. The answer is that content is
what I value. Yes, I have a color TV in the Living Room, and yes, I
just got a 30 inch TV for my video playground in the Family Room, and
yes it is color also. And yes, I have a surround sound system for my
movie watching, and yes I have a stereo amp set-up for my games.
But if I could not have those, I would not lose sleep, as long as I can
still watch the movies I like, the shows I like, listen to the music I
like and play the games I like. I have not pissed the money needed to
upgrade to HD because I don't see the value in spending anywhere from
$1000 to $3500 for a TV. The higher definition picture quality does not
improve the content. If I can get what I want affordably, fine. I was
able to afford a Wii, whereas the PS3 is still too expensive, and the
360 saw the reality that is price matters, but I haven't seen content to
lure me to that. Hell, today I finally took the plunge on an original
XB because I got it at a garage sale for $20.
I don't care about high end sound and picture. I like music. I like
movies. I like games. As long as I can get the content, I don't give a
flip if it is the latest in fidelity. And yes, I can take these in b/w
and mono if that is what the situation dictates. Big deal.
And obviously for you, it is a big deal. You have to have a yes or no
to make you happy. I don't care isn't an option for your. For most
people, it is. Get over it. The Wii is not HD, and it is currently the
most popular system, because most people don't give a flying flip.
Hell, most people who have HD don't know how to set it so it doesn't
stretch SD pictures too wide (SD should be center boxed with black areas
on both sides so the aspect ration is unchanged).
My answer remains, "I don't care." Yes and no are too restrictive.
jt
Michael C
news:87iqj83...@catnip.gol.com...
> "Michael C" <jj...@lkio.netx> writes:
>> A better picture will always provide a better experience than a poorer
>> picture.
>
> In many cases it's true ("always" is a bit of a stretch, and of course
> "better" is pretty damn vague) ... all else being equal.
In what cases is it not true? And how is 'better' in any way vague?
> But of course in the real world, all else _isn't_ equal.
> HD hardware/content comes with costs too, and it's certainly not a given
> that the end result is really a win...
>
> For instance, if the additional costs associated with HD result in fewer
> games being made, fewer companies able to make them, and fewer risks
> being taken, it may very well be worse for gamers.
That is a seperate argument altogether.
Michael C
> In article <7903fjF...@mid.individual.net>,
> "Michael C" <jj...@lkio.netx> wrote:
>
>> Why can you not answer the question?
>
> I have. Why can't you accept the answer.
The 'answer' you have given is complete nonsense - you may as well be
replying with what your favourite flavour crisps are.
> The answer is that content is
> what I value. Yes, I have a color TV in the Living Room, and yes, I
> just got a 30 inch TV for my video playground in the Family Room, and
> yes it is color also. And yes, I have a surround sound system for my
> movie watching, and yes I have a stereo amp set-up for my games.
Which ultimately means that you prefer having a large, decent picture over a
small, black and white one. Why can you not just say this?
> But if I could not have those, I would not lose sleep, as long as I can
> still watch the movies I like, the shows I like, listen to the music I
> like and play the games I like. I have not pissed the money needed to
> upgrade to HD because I don't see the value in spending anywhere from
> $1000 to $3500 for a TV. The higher definition picture quality does not
> improve the content.
So why did you buy a 30" TV then? Why did you buy a colour TV for the
living room? If these extras do not improve the content in any way, why
bother spending extra money on them?
> If I can get what I want affordably, fine. I was
> able to afford a Wii, whereas the PS3 is still too expensive, and the
> 360 saw the reality that is price matters, but I haven't seen content to
> lure me to that. Hell, today I finally took the plunge on an original
> XB because I got it at a garage sale for $20.
>
> I don't care about high end sound and picture. I like music. I like
> movies. I like games. As long as I can get the content, I don't give a
> flip if it is the latest in fidelity. And yes, I can take these in b/w
> and mono if that is what the situation dictates. Big deal.
I did not ask if you could play it like that, I asked which one you
preferred.
> And obviously for you, it is a big deal. You have to have a yes or no
> to make you happy. I don't care isn't an option for your. For most
> people, it is. Get over it.
An utterly ridiculous thing to say. If most people really did not care they
wouldn't be buying larger TVs, they wouldn't be replacing VHS players with
DVD/Blu-Ray players and they wouldn't be buying new graphics cards.
> The Wii is not HD, and it is currently the
> most popular system, because most people don't give a flying flip.
> Hell, most people who have HD don't know how to set it so it doesn't
> stretch SD pictures too wide (SD should be center boxed with black areas
> on both sides so the aspect ration is unchanged).
>
> My answer remains, "I don't care." Yes and no are too restrictive.
So why did you buy a 30" TV then? Why did you buy a colour TV for the
living room? If these extras do not improve the content in any way, why
bother spending extra money on them?
Miles Bader
>>> A better picture will always provide a better experience than a poorer
>>> picture.
>>
>> In many cases it's true ("always" is a bit of a stretch, and of course
>> "better" is pretty damn vague) ... all else being equal.
>
> In what cases is it not true?
For instance, if the frame rate suffers because of the extra demands of
supporting something like HD resolution. [That was the point I was
trying to make -- many improvements involve tradeoffs.]
> And how is 'better' in any way vague?
People like different things -- "better" involves judgement. So two
people may disagree whether one thing is "better" than another, even if
both are being rational.
-Miles
--
Love is the difficult realization that something other than oneself is real.
[Iris Murdoch]
Michael C
> "Michael C" <jj...@lkio.netx> writes:
>>>> A better picture will always provide a better experience than a poorer
>>>> picture.
>>>
>>> In many cases it's true ("always" is a bit of a stretch, and of course
>>> "better" is pretty damn vague) ... all else being equal.
>>
>> In what cases is it not true?
>
> For instance, if the frame rate suffers because of the extra demands of
> supporting something like HD resolution. [That was the point I was
> trying to make -- many improvements involve tradeoffs.]
That is quite clearly a seperate issue and not what was being discussed.
>> And how is 'better' in any way vague?
>
> People like different things -- "better" involves judgement. So two
> people may disagree whether one thing is "better" than another, even if
> both are being rational.
Either way they would prefer the better one over the poorer one.
Miles Bader
>> For instance, if the frame rate suffers because of the extra demands of
>> supporting something like HD resolution. [That was the point I was
>> trying to make -- many improvements involve tradeoffs.]
>
> That is quite clearly a seperate issue and not what was being discussed.
Hmm, doesn't seem so clear to me. It looked like the topic was "would
an HD wii be better than a non-HD wii" -- and such tradeoffs would
certainly be involved in making an HD wii.
-Miles
--
Vote, v. The instrument and symbol of a freeman's power to make a fool of
himself and a wreck of his country.
Michael C
> "Michael C" <jj...@lkio.netx> writes:
>>> For instance, if the frame rate suffers because of the extra demands of
>>> supporting something like HD resolution. [That was the point I was
>>> trying to make -- many improvements involve tradeoffs.]
>>
>> That is quite clearly a seperate issue and not what was being discussed.
>
> Hmm, doesn't seem so clear to me. It looked like the topic was "would
> an HD wii be better than a non-HD wii" -- and such tradeoffs would
> certainly be involved in making an HD wii.
That is the case for any game on any console whether it can do HD
resoloutions or not.
WDS
> A better picture will always provide a better experience than a poorer
> picture.
Only if all else remains the same. Unfortunately in games that is often
not the case.
The game racks in stores are riddled with HD games for XBox 360 and PS/3
that have amazing graphics yet are sucky games.
Games have budgets and doing HD graphics will take up more of the budget
for new games. So either the budget grows or, more likely, corners
get cut elsewhere. The level design suffers. The AI sucks. Things are
left out completely or just not finished. Repetitive grinding is stuck
in to pad the gameplay time. The game isn't polished in many ways. The
FUN is left out somehow. And on and on.
Howard Brazee
wrote:
>Makes sense to me. I haven't wasted the money on an HD TV because I
>haven't found anything to justify the expense. Is a comedy any funnier
>just because I can see the skin tone of the actor speaking the lines?
>Is sports more exciting because I can see the bubbles in the pitcher's
>spit?
>
>Wii games won't be any more fun just because the display has nearly 4
>times as many pixels. Wii games are already very fun, and look just
>fine on my in-laws 64 HDTV. But in its day, the Atari 2600,
>Intellivision and Odyssey 2 were plenty fun with their horrendously
>coarse resolution. What matters is what Nintendo is concentrating on,
>games that are fun to play.
Even if you don't care for high fidelity, wide screen offers
advantages in viewing - and in playing split screen video games.
--
"In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found,
than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace
to the legislature, and not to the executive department."
- James Madison
Howard Brazee
>In many cases it's true ("always" is a bit of a stretch, and of course
>"better" is pretty damn vague) ... all else being equal.
>
>But of course in the real world, all else _isn't_ equal.
>HD hardware/content comes with costs too, and it's certainly not a given
>that the end result is really a win...
>
>For instance, if the additional costs associated with HD result in fewer
>games being made, fewer companies able to make them, and fewer risks
>being taken, it may very well be worse for gamers.
Those costs seem unlikely to me. Right now Wii has a variety in how
detailed games show things. Just having the capability of high end
resolution doesn't mean the companies will stop using the variety of
resolutions that they use now.
Howard Brazee
>Games have budgets and doing HD graphics will take up more of the budget
> for new games. So either the budget grows or, more likely, corners
>get cut elsewhere. The level design suffers. The AI sucks. Things are
>left out completely or just not finished. Repetitive grinding is stuck
>in to pad the gameplay time. The game isn't polished in many ways. The
>FUN is left out somehow. And on and on.
I suspect the HD budget isn't the reason for the poor designs, but I
haven't looked into it.
I got my Wii because we like to entertain our grandchildren. I have
ordered Tiger Woods 10 (with the new dongle) on the basis of reviews.
That will be for me. Tiger Woods 9 doesn't work like real golf, and
it will be nice to have the Wii knowing when it is raining at Bethpage
Black.
My old TV died a year ago - just when it made sense to go HD with its
replacement. I bought a new Wii cord to increase my fidelity a bit
(and make the screen a bit wider for games that support it).
I don't watch much TV, but got my Blu-ray player for Christmas. DvDs
are much better, and so are Blu-rays. We got each other the Wii for
Christmas, just as we got each other Thomas Train three years ago
(grandchildren grow so fast) - but the Blu-ray is mine.
What is interesting is how sports improve. My local NBA team was in
the playoffs, so I watched them through the Western finals.
Basketballs are big, not like hockey pucks - but that wide screen made
watching the game more enjoyable. I watch major golf tournaments, as
well as my local teams in post season.
My wife would like a Blu-ray for her small TV next to her computer -
or on her computer (24" iMac). This isn't because she could see the
resolution of the Blu-ray - it is so she can watch the movies we have
on Blu-ray but not on DVD, without going downstairs.
Michael C
news:h0jcui$oaf$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> Michael C wrote:
>> A better picture will always provide a better experience than a poorer
>> picture.
>
> Only if all else remains the same. Unfortunately in games that is often
> not the case.
>
> The game racks in stores are riddled with HD games for XBox 360 and PS/3
> that have amazing graphics yet are sucky games.
Even a sucky game would be a better experience with better graphics...
flyinghippo
> http://news.softpedia.com/news/Nintendo-The-Wii-and-DS-Won-039-t-Last-Forever-New-Consoles-Will-Arrive-112406.shtml
>
> http://news.softpedia.com/news/Miyamoto-Says-New-Technology-Might-Force-The-Wii-to-Go-HD-97580.shtml
>
> http://venturebeat.com/2009/06/04/nintendo-ceo-wii-care-about-your-heartbeat-but-not-your-iphone-the-recession-or-free-games/
>
> Iwata:
>
> "If we have an opportunity to make a new console, it will probably
> support HD because it is now common throughout the world. However, as
> far as the Wii is concerned, we have not found a significant reason to
> make it HD-compatible at this time. What is the significant meaning to
> If we decide for other reasons to make new hardware, then HD is one of
> the things we would naturally add."
>
>
> 'Wii HD' expected in 2011
> :http://www.whattheyplay.com/blog/2008/09/30/new-wii-due-by-2011/
whether or not HD is necessary. It's not. However, people are
practically trolling over whether or not a person prefers HD.
Sure, if I had the choice between a 13" TV and a 50" Plasma screen, I'd
choose the plasma screen. That is naturally anyone's preference. The
point is that the Wii does not need HD features, because its games do
not focus on having realistic textures for WWII scenes, or whatever crap
gets shoveled into the 360/PS3 library.
When it comes to cost, I can guarantee that many Nintendo fans wouldn't
see a need to spend $1,000+ on a HDTV, because there's no need for one.
If they could get a free HDTV, of course they would take it.
It's really hard to make any sort of post here that isn't an argument,
so this thread won't be of any productive discussion.
jt august
"Michael C" <jj...@lkio.netx> wrote:
No, it wouldn't. It would still suck.
jt
Abo
have the best graphics of any game ever, but I wouldn't see them...
Michael C
An illogical statement to make.
Why have you not responded to my latest reply?
Michael C
news:h0ljjk$qsb$1...@news.albasani.net...
To someone who played it the experience would better.
Winfield
Speak for yourself, please. And stop being so narrow-minded and
obstinate. "Golden Eye" on my Nintendo 64 and "Banjo-Ka-zooie" give me
a better adventure experience than similar games on my Game Cube.
Everything else being equal -- sure, better graphics sparkle. But
everything else is never equal. You can't seem to wrap your tech-frozen
mind around this concept.
If that's you, great. Graphics are the cat's pajamas for you. But why
get so preachy if you can't relate to what others experience?
Have a nice day,
Winfield
Michael C
news:_uadnUTjQYCZDrPX...@giganews.com...
> Michael C wrote:
>>
>> To someone who played it the experience would better.
>
>
> Speak for yourself, please. And stop being so narrow-minded and
> obstinate.
Narrow minded about what? Are you actually trying to argue that a better
picture would NOT make the experience better?
> "Golden Eye" on my Nintendo 64 and "Banjo-Ka-zooie" give me a better
> adventure experience than similar games on my Game Cube.
What does that prove? Comparing games from different consoles is not what
this discussion is about.
Would you have preferred to have played Goldeneye and Banjoe Kazooie with a
good picture or a bad picture?
> Everything else being equal -- sure, better graphics sparkle. But
> everything else is never equal. You can't seem to wrap your tech-frozen
> mind around this concept.
What do you mean? Surely everything else being equal is taken as a given in
this sort of discussion.
> If that's you, great. Graphics are the cat's pajamas for you. But why
> get so preachy if you can't relate to what others experience?
I am not being preachy in the slightest - my first post on this topic was
just "a better picture will always provide a better experience than a poorer
picture". How anyone can actually try and argue against that is ridiculous.
Les Steel
> On Sun, 07 Jun 2009 11:06:19 +0900, Miles Bader <mi...@gnu.org> wrote:
>
>> In many cases it's true ("always" is a bit of a stretch, and of course
>> "better" is pretty damn vague) ... all else being equal.
>>
>> But of course in the real world, all else _isn't_ equal.
>> HD hardware/content comes with costs too, and it's certainly not a given
>> that the end result is really a win...
>>
>> For instance, if the additional costs associated with HD result in fewer
>> games being made, fewer companies able to make them, and fewer risks
>> being taken, it may very well be worse for gamers.
>
> Those costs seem unlikely to me. Right now Wii has a variety in how
> detailed games show things. Just having the capability of high end
> resolution doesn't mean the companies will stop using the variety of
> resolutions that they use now.
>
The PC has had better than HD resolutions since long before HDTVs were
available. Back in the old square CRT days I always played games at
1600x1200, well before even the PS2 or xbox.
I guess the only extra costs involved in making "HD" games now is
pushing the weak gpus to the limits and perhaps the cost of 3d
modelling, although do they to have to constantly reinvent the wheel in
every new game?
--
Les
Les Steel
Of course it isn't. A shit game is a shit game regardless of the
graphics. Better graphics certainly don't make experiencing a shit game
less shit.
>
--
Les
Michael C
news:h0mgid$cjs$2...@news.eternal-september.org...
> Michael C said the following on 09/06/2009 17:28:
>>
>
> Of course it isn't. A shit game is a shit game regardless of the graphics.
> Better graphics certainly don't make experiencing a shit game less shit.
Of course it does. The difference may be minimal but to argue otherwise is
wrong.
Miles Bader
> Everything else being equal -- sure, better graphics sparkle. But
> everything else is never equal. You can't seem to wrap your tech-frozen
> mind around this concept.
He's not interested in having a meaningful conversation, he's interested
in feeling like he "won".
-Miles
--
Religion, n. A daughter of Hope and Fear, explaining to Ignorance the nature
of the Unknowable.
jt august
"Michael C" <jj...@lkio.netx> wrote:
> >> Even a sucky game would be a better experience with better graphics...
> >
> > No, it wouldn't. It would still suck.
>
> An illogical statement to make.
No matter how pretty a game looks, if it sucks, it sucks.
> Why have you not responded to my latest reply?
It's become clear to me reading your responses to both me and others in
this thread that you are obsessed with HD video, and trying to get you
to recognize that for me and a large number of people in this world, HD
video doesn't matter. I abandoned the debate. I have also watched you
try to counter a couple other posts that likewise point out that not
everyone cares about HD video.
If HD is to precious to you, play the PS3 or 360 and be happy.
jt
jt august
"Michael C" <jj...@lkio.netx> wrote:
> > "Golden Eye" on my Nintendo 64 and "Banjo-Ka-zooie" give me a better
> > adventure experience than similar games on my Game Cube.
>
> What does that prove? Comparing games from different consoles is not what
> this discussion is about.
He sited and example of blockier graphics, and that despite said lower
resolution, the games are in his opinion better.
jt
jt august
"Michael C" <jj...@lkio.netx> wrote:
> What do you mean? Surely everything else being equal is taken as a given in
> this sort of discussion.
If everything were equal, then there wouldn't be any point in debating
which consoles are better. Everything has been unequal since the days
of pong machines.
jt
jt august
Les Steel <a...@aolnot.com> wrote:
> >> No, it wouldn't. It would still suck.
> >
> > An illogical statement to make.
>
> Of course it isn't. A shit game is a shit game regardless of the
> graphics. Better graphics certainly don't make experiencing a shit game
> less shit.
Acrtually, better graphics would probably make a shit game shittier.
jt
Michael C
> Winfield <dogh...@operamail.com> writes:
>> Everything else being equal -- sure, better graphics sparkle. But
>> everything else is never equal. You can't seem to wrap your tech-frozen
>> mind around this concept.
>
> He's not interested in having a meaningful conversation, he's interested
> in feeling like he "won".
On the contrary. I made a simple statement - "A better picture will always
provide a better experience than a poorer
picture" - and some people have tried to argue AGAINST that.
Michael C
You have a very flawed sense of logic.
Michael C
> In article <797gu0F...@mid.individual.net>,
> "Michael C" <jj...@lkio.netx> wrote:
>
>> >> Even a sucky game would be a better experience with better graphics...
>> >
>> > No, it wouldn't. It would still suck.
>>
>> An illogical statement to make.
>
> No matter how pretty a game looks, if it sucks, it sucks.
Correct. However 'sucks' is not a defined state but a sliding scale.
>> Why have you not responded to my latest reply?
>
> It's become clear to me reading your responses to both me and others in
> this thread that you are obsessed with HD video, and trying to get you
> to recognize that for me and a large number of people in this world, HD
> video doesn't matter. I abandoned the debate. I have also watched you
> try to counter a couple other posts that likewise point out that not
> everyone cares about HD video.
>
> If HD is to precious to you, play the PS3 or 360 and be happy.
At no point have I even hinted that HD video is something that is overly
important to me. You are one of those people who feels the need to loudly
bang a drum and shout "ME NOT CARE ABOUT GRAPHICS ONLY GAMEPLAY" like a
distressed harpee whenever someone dares to even think about complimenting
how a game looks.
The fact that you can't even admit to preferring a colour TV over a black
and white one shows how desperate you are to cling to your fabricated
identity.
Michael C
news:2OdXl.986$tr5...@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
> parallax-scroll wrote:
>>
>> 'Wii HD' expected in 2011
>> :http://www.whattheyplay.com/blog/2008/09/30/new-wii-due-by-2011/
> I'm not replying to any of these, because they're all arguing over whether
> or not HD is necessary.
If you are referring to the thread as a whole then you quite clearly haven't
actually read it. No-one has said that HD is necessary.
Howard Brazee
wrote:
>>> Of course it isn't. A shit game is a shit game regardless of the
>>> graphics. Better graphics certainly don't make experiencing a shit game
>>> less shit.
>>
>> Acrtually, better graphics would probably make a shit game shittier.
>
>You have a very flawed sense of logic.
It could be - if he cared about graphics. For instance, some people
are turned off by realistic gore - or shit. If I were turned off by
a game of throwing cow-pies, I suppose I would be more turned off if
they were realistic looking. But it wouldn't matter - I wouldn't be
watching it.
On the other hand, if a game has background music that I detest -
making it low fidelity won't help one bit.
I don't like the playing mechanics of Tiger Woods 9 for the Wii
(version 10 is on its way). But I like being able to see the courses
- better graphics will improve that part without changing the playing
mechanics.
Winfield
"Better experience", to use your own words "... is a sliding scale".
You trip over your own shoelaces when you inject the term "better
experience" into your golden rule. You start off stating the obvious,
correctly. Then you shot yourself in the foot with an ambiguous term.
But wait, I feel a (hidden, as-yet-unknown) Michael ASSUMPTION coming
on. Fine, you argue like a girl (hippity-hop unknown assumptions
logic). Let's hear your assumption.
But first... please clearly define "better experience". Demonstrate
your definition with *real-world examples*, please.
Otherwise, you are simply stating the obvious. A better picture is a
better picture. It looks better than a non-better picture.
Further, by stating the obvious, you bring nothing of value into the
real world of video gaming. Sure, a person can always imagine something
more better, more knarly or even beyond-HD virtual-reality Michael C.
metaphysical existentialism.
I am looking forward to Nintendo Wii HD. It may bomb. It might be
wildly successful. And yes, it will have a better picture than a
non-better picture. And yes, when I'm playing this wondrous console, I
will be able to imagine something even 'mo-betta.
you're one heavy thinker, Michael ;~)
Winf
WDS
> On Wed, 10 Jun 2009 19:32:27 +0100, "Michael C" <jj...@lkio.netx>
> wrote:
>
>>>> Of course it isn't. A shit game is a shit game regardless of the
>>>> graphics. Better graphics certainly don't make experiencing a shit game
>>>> less shit.
>>> Acrtually, better graphics would probably make a shit game shittier.
>> You have a very flawed sense of logic.
>
> It could be - if he cared about graphics. For instance, some people
> are turned off by realistic gore - or shit. If I were turned off by
> a game of throwing cow-pies, I suppose I would be more turned off if
> they were realistic looking. But it wouldn't matter - I wouldn't be
> watching it.
>
> On the other hand, if a game has background music that I detest -
> making it low fidelity won't help one bit.
Nor would making it higher fidelity make it better.
My point when I started this is perhaps summed up by that odd adage
about putting lipstick on a pig. It's still a pig.
[ste parker]
>
> Nor would making it higher fidelity make it better.
>
> My point when I started this is perhaps summed up by that odd adage
> about putting lipstick on a pig. It's still a pig.
But, I'd have to take that as you mean a slightly better looking pig as
a result. If you had to pick a pig or a slightly better looking pig,
which would you take? If the former, why? Saying you'd leave it
regardless is completely missing the blindingly obviously point.
--
[ste]
[ste parker]
You post reads to me exactly like you're agreeing with him. It is
simple, and it is obvious. Simple, with no heavy thinking required.
--
[ste]
jt august
"Michael C" <jj...@lkio.netx> wrote:
> On the contrary. I made a simple statement - "A better picture will always
> provide a better experience than a poorer
> picture" - and some people have tried to argue AGAINST that.
Because that simple statement is not always correct. In watching a
baseball game, is it really better if you can see the bubbles in the
spit? I have watched quite a bit and friends' HD TVs, and the higher
def did nothing for me. I played Soul Caliber 4 first on SD, then HD (I
wanted to see Darth Vader in action). The HD was clearer, but
everything else was the same, and having the HD didn't make the game any
better (despite the Star Wars bonus, the game did nothing for me).
So, NO, the better picture did NOT provide an any better experience.
You just can't seem to understand that not everyone feels like you do.
jt
Michael C
> Michael C wrote:
>>
>> On the contrary. I made a simple statement - "A better picture will
>> always provide a better experience than a poorer
>> picture" - and some people have tried to argue AGAINST that.
>
>
> "Better experience", to use your own words "... is a sliding scale".
>
> You trip over your own shoelaces when you inject the term "better
> experience" into your golden rule. You start off stating the obvious,
> correctly. Then you shot yourself in the foot with an ambiguous term.
I don't follow you. What is ambiguous about it?
> But wait, I feel a (hidden, as-yet-unknown) Michael ASSUMPTION coming on.
> Fine, you argue like a girl (hippity-hop unknown assumptions logic).
> Let's hear your assumption.
Your name sounds girly.
> But first... please clearly define "better experience". Demonstrate your
> definition with *real-world examples*, please.
Erm, better than the alternative.
> Otherwise, you are simply stating the obvious. A better picture is a
> better picture. It looks better than a non-better picture.
Correct. I have indeed stated the obvious yet several people have felt the
need to disagree anyway.
> Further, by stating the obvious, you bring nothing of value into the real
> world of video gaming.
I was unaware that discussions in newsgroups brought anything of value into
the real world of video gaming.
> Sure, a person can always imagine something more better, more knarly or
> even beyond-HD virtual-reality Michael C. metaphysical existentialism.
>
> I am looking forward to Nintendo Wii HD. It may bomb. It might be wildly
> successful. And yes, it will have a better picture than a non-better
> picture. And yes, when I'm playing this wondrous console, I will be able
> to imagine something even 'mo-betta.
>
> you're one heavy thinker, Michael ;~)
You seem to be trying to read too much into what I was saying. Let's go
back to my first post which was nothing more than "A better picture will
always provide a better experience than a poorer
picture".
I never claimed to be unveiling a brand new idea or philosophy, I was just
disagreeing with what Jt August was saying.
Michael C
> In article <79ach2F...@mid.individual.net>,
> "Michael C" <jj...@lkio.netx> wrote:
>
>> On the contrary. I made a simple statement - "A better picture will
>> always
>> provide a better experience than a poorer
>> picture" - and some people have tried to argue AGAINST that.
>
> Because that simple statement is not always correct. In watching a
> baseball game, is it really better if you can see the bubbles in the
> spit?
The overall improved picture makes watching the game better, yes.
> I have watched quite a bit and friends' HD TVs, and the higher
> def did nothing for me. I played Soul Caliber 4 first on SD, then HD (I
> wanted to see Darth Vader in action). The HD was clearer, but
> everything else was the same, and having the HD didn't make the game any
> better (despite the Star Wars bonus, the game did nothing for me).
>
> So, NO, the better picture did NOT provide an any better experience.
You are contradicting yourself again. If you can see that the HD picture
was clearer then it quite clearly DID provide a better experience.
Your example above is like saying "yes the sauce made the meat taste nicer
but it didn't improve the meal".
> You just can't seem to understand that not everyone feels like you do.
The problem here is that you do feel the same way that I do but you for some
reason you refuse to accept it.
Michael C
news:h81035dh38vmhsko2...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 10 Jun 2009 19:32:27 +0100, "Michael C" <jj...@lkio.netx>
>>
>
> It could be - if he cared about graphics. For instance, some people
> are turned off by realistic gore - or shit. If I were turned off by
> a game of throwing cow-pies, I suppose I would be more turned off if
> they were realistic looking. But it wouldn't matter - I wouldn't be
> watching it.
You are the first person to mention realistic-looking graphics.
> On the other hand, if a game has background music that I detest -
> making it low fidelity won't help one bit.
>
> I don't like the playing mechanics of Tiger Woods 9 for the Wii
> (version 10 is on its way). But I like being able to see the courses
> - better graphics will improve that part without changing the playing
> mechanics.
If it improves that part of the game then your experience was better.
jt august
"Michael C" <jj...@lkio.netx> wrote:
> "jt august" <star...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:starsabre-DB403...@inetnews.worldnet.att.net...
> > In article <79ach2F...@mid.individual.net>,
> > "Michael C" <jj...@lkio.netx> wrote:
> >
> >> On the contrary. I made a simple statement - "A better picture will
> >> always
> >> provide a better experience than a poorer
> >> picture" - and some people have tried to argue AGAINST that.
> >
> > Because that simple statement is not always correct. In watching a
> > baseball game, is it really better if you can see the bubbles in the
> > spit?
>
> The overall improved picture makes watching the game better, yes.
No. It doesn't.
> > I have watched quite a bit and friends' HD TVs, and the higher
> > def did nothing for me. I played Soul Caliber 4 first on SD, then HD (I
> > wanted to see Darth Vader in action). The HD was clearer, but
> > everything else was the same, and having the HD didn't make the game any
> > better (despite the Star Wars bonus, the game did nothing for me).
> >
> > So, NO, the better picture did NOT provide an any better experience.
>
> You are contradicting yourself again. If you can see that the HD picture
> was clearer then it quite clearly DID provide a better experience.
No. A clearer picture does not equate to a better experience. That is
the fallacy in your way of thinking. A clearer picture is only a
clearer picture. What makes a better picture is subjective to each
individual. What makes a better experience is likewise subjective. You
keep attempting to mandate what you feel is better on everyone else, and
not everyone feels the same way. It is not a matter of contradiction,
it is a matter of personal interest.
> Your example above is like saying "yes the sauce made the meat taste nicer
> but it didn't improve the meal".
But what if the sauce had to much rosemary in it? Then it might make
the sauce more flavorful, but if the person eating dislikes rosemary, it
does not make it better. You keep misunderstanding concepts, and then
try to force others to accept your way of thinking as the only right
way. But you are not dealing in facts, you are dealing in opinions, and
with opinions, there is NO ONE ANSWER.
> > You just can't seem to understand that not everyone feels like you do.
>
> The problem here is that you do feel the same way that I do but you for some
> reason you refuse to accept it.
You really are clueless. I don't feel as you do. I don't give a shit
about high def video for TV. I like games that keep me entertained, and
some of those games are on older game consoles that have even lower
resolution. What I do in the game counts much more than super high
definition graphic (HI-RES, to you ancient vernacular).
jt
Winfield
> "Winfield" <dogh...@operamail.com> wrote in message
> news:vpSdnYPu7oZIlK3X...@giganews.com...
>> Michael C wrote:
>>> On the contrary. I made a simple statement - "A better picture will
>>> always provide a better experience than a poorer
>>> picture" - and some people have tried to argue AGAINST that.
>> "Better experience", to use your own words "... is a sliding scale".
>>
>> You trip over your own shoelaces when you inject the term "better
>> experience" into your golden rule. You start off stating the obvious,
>> correctly. Then you shot yourself in the foot with an ambiguous term.
>
> I don't follow you. What is ambiguous about it?
You can enjoy the better graphics of a newer console video game, and
have a worse overall gaming experience compared to an older console.
Since you're stuck on using "better experience" to ONLY refer to better
graphics, please give us your term for [better graphics / worse total
gaming experience].
I enjoy "Wave Racer" on my Nintendo-64 more than I do "Wave Racer" on my
GameCube.
Yes, the graphics are better on the 'Cube. The total gaming
experience for me is worse on GameCube, much more enjoyable on the
Nintedo-64.
Funny thing is, when I was really into this game I was using a 27" TV
monitor. The Nintendo-64 graphics were plenty spectacular and
shimmering enough. Just-the-right sweet spot between textures/details
and that "surrealistic" feeling when video-game doesn't try and get too
close to movie / real-life video. Maybe that was part of my
disappointment with the 'Cube version. When you're at a "sweet-spot",
and resolution is plenty good-enough ... even more resolution is ---
hmmm, what was that song "The Thrill is Gone".
[I have run the GameCube on my 36" Sony TV. Things start to get grainy.
I have a 40" wide-screen LCD panel now, but I haven't bothered hooking
up any consoles to it yet. However, point well-taken by Howard Brazee
about wide-screen and side-by-side gaming competition. Seems like it
should be much better.]
[ big snip]
> You seem to be trying to read too much into what I was saying. Let's go
> back to my first post which was nothing more than "A better picture will
> always provide a better experience than a poorer
> picture".
>
> I never claimed to be unveiling a brand new idea or philosophy, I was just
> disagreeing with what Jt August was saying.
I also disagree with Jt August about television viewing. I wish every
tv channel was in HD. No matter how good/bad the plot, boring or
exciting cinematography ... give me HD over SD anytime, anyhoo ...
* Video gaming for me is NOT the same experience as watching television
programming. I think this distinction got mixed up in this thread at
some point. *
cheerio,
(my skirt's too tight) Winfield
Michael C
> Michael C wrote:
>>
>>> You trip over your own shoelaces when you inject the term "better
>>> experience" into your golden rule. You start off stating the obvious,
>>> correctly. Then you shot yourself in the foot with an ambiguous term.
>>
>> I don't follow you. What is ambiguous about it?
>
>
> You can enjoy the better graphics of a newer console video game, and have
> a worse overall gaming experience compared to an older console.
>
> Since you're stuck on using "better experience" to ONLY refer to better
> graphics, please give us your term for [better graphics / worse total
> gaming experience].
I believe I can see the crux of the misunderstanding now.
> I enjoy "Wave Racer" on my Nintendo-64 more than I do "Wave Racer" on my
> GameCube.
>
> Yes, the graphics are better on the 'Cube. The total gaming experience
> for me is worse on GameCube, much more enjoyable on the Nintedo-64.
I too had far more fun on my N64 than I did on my GC and I am not
necessarily talking about different games on different consoles with my
comment about graphics - it was directed at Jt August who was saying that
Wii games wouldn't be more fun just because they have better graphics, which
is false.
Given the choice between a particular game having good graphics or poor
graphics any sane person would choose the version with the better graphics.
> Funny thing is, when I was really into this game I was using a 27" TV
> monitor. The Nintendo-64 graphics were plenty spectacular and shimmering
> enough. Just-the-right sweet spot between textures/details and that
> "surrealistic" feeling when video-game doesn't try and get too close to
> movie / real-life video. Maybe that was part of my disappointment with
> the 'Cube version. When you're at a "sweet-spot", and resolution is
> plenty good-enough ... even more resolution is ---
> hmmm, what was that song "The Thrill is Gone".
You are referring to the concept of diminishing returns I believe.
Michael C
> In article <79cq9nF...@mid.individual.net>,
>>
>> The overall improved picture makes watching the game better, yes.
>
> No. It doesn't.
And yet you have already told us that you have a 30" TV so one way or
another you are clearly telling fibs here.
>> > I have watched quite a bit and friends' HD TVs, and the higher
>> > def did nothing for me. I played Soul Caliber 4 first on SD, then HD
>> > (I
>> > wanted to see Darth Vader in action). The HD was clearer, but
>> > everything else was the same, and having the HD didn't make the game
>> > any
>> > better (despite the Star Wars bonus, the game did nothing for me).
>> >
>> > So, NO, the better picture did NOT provide an any better experience.
>>
>> You are contradicting yourself again. If you can see that the HD picture
>> was clearer then it quite clearly DID provide a better experience.
>
> No. A clearer picture does not equate to a better experience. That is
> the fallacy in your way of thinking. A clearer picture is only a
> clearer picture. What makes a better picture is subjective to each
> individual. What makes a better experience is likewise subjective. You
> keep attempting to mandate what you feel is better on everyone else, and
> not everyone feels the same way. It is not a matter of contradiction,
> it is a matter of personal interest.
I am not and you are just being obtuse. If you think that the picture is
clearer then the experience is better.
>> Your example above is like saying "yes the sauce made the meat taste
>> nicer
>> but it didn't improve the meal".
>
> But what if the sauce had to much rosemary in it? Then it might make
> the sauce more flavorful, but if the person eating dislikes rosemary, it
> does not make it better. You keep misunderstanding concepts, and then
> try to force others to accept your way of thinking as the only right
> way. But you are not dealing in facts, you are dealing in opinions, and
> with opinions, there is NO ONE ANSWER.
If the person eating it doesn't like rosemary then they wouldn't be in a
position to say that the sauce made the meat taste nicer in the first place.
You thick cunt.
>> > You just can't seem to understand that not everyone feels like you do.
>>
>> The problem here is that you do feel the same way that I do but you for
>> some
>> reason you refuse to accept it.
>
> You really are clueless. I don't feel as you do. I don't give a shit
> about high def video for TV. I like games that keep me entertained, and
> some of those games are on older game consoles that have even lower
> resolution. What I do in the game counts much more than super high
> definition graphic (HI-RES, to you ancient vernacular).
As it does to me but given the option in that same game between good
graphics or a blocky mess I know which option I would go for.
Les Steel
You are arguing that your *opinion* is right and we're are wrong for
believing otherwise. You are not making logical statements, you are
stating your opinion.
--
Les
Michael C
> Michael C said the following on 09/06/2009 22:11:
>>
>> is wrong.
>
> You are arguing that your *opinion* is right and we're are wrong for
> believing otherwise. You are not making logical statements, you are
> stating your opinion.
Oh do fuck off. I am stating a fact and anyone who thinks it is merely some
pie-in-the-sky opinion is a spastic.
jt august
"Michael C" <jj...@lkio.netx> wrote:
> "jt august" <star...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:starsabre-A2EE2...@inetnews.worldnet.att.net...
> > In article <79cq9nF...@mid.individual.net>,
> >>
> >> The overall improved picture makes watching the game better, yes.
> >
> > No. It doesn't.
>
> And yet you have already told us that you have a 30" TV so one way or
> another you are clearly telling fibs here.
You are mother fucking crazy. What does the fact that I have a 30 inch
television have to do with how good a game is? A game is just as fun on
ANY fucking TV. The picture is bigger on bigger TVs, it is in color on
color TVs, and it is more detailed on HD TVs provided the console in
question supports HD, but it is still the same fucking game, and is just
as fun regardless the TV. The fact that you keep trying to read into
the fact that I have a 30 inch color TV means I require it to play my
games is so fucking ludicrous, as is all your responses. I have a 19
inch TV I got for free as my main game TV. I use my 30 inch as my TV
watching TV (because my wife likes to watch TV), and yes, I do hook up
systems to it on a regular basis. But playing games on the smaller,
older TV is not a problem for me, at all, whatsoever.
Get over it, the games are not better just because they are on a bigger
TV. You are obsessed and pathetic.
jt
jt august
Winfield <dogh...@operamail.com> wrote:
> I also disagree with Jt August about television viewing. I wish every
> tv channel was in HD. No matter how good/bad the plot, boring or
> exciting cinematography ... give me HD over SD anytime, anyhoo ...
I didn't say everyone feels like me, that HD isn't a big deal. I did
say that there are people like me. How large a percentage, I cannot
say, but there are some. I know at least 12 people in my circle of
friends that do not have HD and have no desire to go HD. I know more
how have gone HD already, and I know quite a few who want to go HD but
cannot afford it. But of the people I know, I don't know how most of
them feel.
If Mr. Winfield like HD for telly viewing, more power to him. There are
plenty who feel as he does, and I have no problem with that.
jt
jt august
Les Steel <a...@aolnot.com> wrote:
Thank you, Les, for pointing that out so eloquently.
jt
Michael C
> In article <79fm4cF...@mid.individual.net>,
>>
>> And yet you have already told us that you have a 30" TV so one way or
>> another you are clearly telling fibs here.
>
> You are mother fucking crazy. What does the fact that I have a 30 inch
> television have to do with how good a game is? A game is just as fun on
> ANY fucking TV. The picture is bigger on bigger TVs, it is in color on
> color TVs, and it is more detailed on HD TVs provided the console in
> question supports HD, but it is still the same fucking game, and is just
> as fun regardless the TV. The fact that you keep trying to read into
> the fact that I have a 30 inch color TV means I require it to play my
> games is so fucking ludicrous, as is all your responses. I have a 19
> inch TV I got for free as my main game TV. I use my 30 inch as my TV
> watching TV (because my wife likes to watch TV), and yes, I do hook up
> systems to it on a regular basis. But playing games on the smaller,
> older TV is not a problem for me, at all, whatsoever.
>
> Get over it, the games are not better just because they are on a bigger
> TV. You are obsessed and pathetic.
And yet again you contradict yourself. If playing the games on the bigger
TV was not better YOU WOULDN'T WASTE TIME DOING IT IN THE FIRST PLACE.
Morgan
wrote:
Agreed.
Ponder this: Superman 64 in glorious HD. :-) Did the game suddenly become
better? Or is is just a prettier-yet-still-sucky game?
Better graphics doesn't improve story. Better graphics doesn't improve how
the game plays (how well it responds to what you're telling it to do via
the controls). Better graphics doesn't change the difficulty (unless the
problem is with seeing what you're doing). Better graphics doesn't improve
the sound (though I'll admit that developers who improve the visuals
usually also improve the audio).
Better graphics improves how the game *looks*. Nothing more, nothing less.
Morgan /|\
I'd have removed the cross-posting, but I don't know which group the
participants are mostly reading this in
[ste parker]
>
> Agreed.
>
> Ponder this: Superman 64 in glorious HD. :-) Did the game suddenly
> become better? Or is is just a prettier-yet-still-sucky game?
Whilst the game is still unarguably poor, surely the fact that you've
termed it prettier is an improvement? An improvement is an improvement
no matter how fractional, and saying it's "just a
prettier-yet-still-sucky game" agrees with that assessment. Which is
kind of the point of this whole ridiculous argument.
--
[ste]
Howard Brazee
<ljw-mot...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>Better graphics doesn't improve story. Better graphics doesn't improve how
>the game plays (how well it responds to what you're telling it to do via
>the controls). Better graphics doesn't change the difficulty (unless the
>problem is with seeing what you're doing).
Better graphics *can* mean a wider screen to show us more of the
action. Better graphics *can* mean my eyes don't get tired.
>Better graphics doesn't improve
>the sound (though I'll admit that developers who improve the visuals
>usually also improve the audio).
Implying that better sound creates a better experience. Odd that
better sound helps, but better video doesn't.
>Better graphics improves how the game *looks*. Nothing more, nothing less.
Which is an improvement, all by itself. Looks matter. I have
pictures on my wall because they look good. One criterion in buying
clothes is looks. I prefer a barber who makes my hair look better.
Morgan
wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Jun 2009 08:26:01 -0700, Morgan
> <ljw-mot...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>> Better graphics doesn't improve story. Better graphics doesn't improve
>> how
>> the game plays (how well it responds to what you're telling it to do via
>> the controls). Better graphics doesn't change the difficulty (unless the
>> problem is with seeing what you're doing).
>
> Better graphics *can* mean a wider screen to show us more of the
> action. Better graphics *can* mean my eyes don't get tired.
>
>> Better graphics doesn't improve
>> the sound (though I'll admit that developers who improve the visuals
>> usually also improve the audio).
>
> Implying that better sound creates a better experience. Odd that
> better sound helps, but better video doesn't.
>
>> Better graphics improves how the game *looks*. Nothing more, nothing
>> less.
>
> Which is an improvement, all by itself. Looks matter. I have
> pictures on my wall because they look good. One criterion in buying
> clothes is looks. I prefer a barber who makes my hair look better.
Pictures are ALL about the looks. Games aren't. Haircuts are about looks
and upkeep, so it's a bit closer. It all depends on what's important to a
given gamer: Looks, gameplay, story, music, characters, etc.
Looks can matter, but for a great many people, the primary criteria for
whether they want to buy and play a game isn't the looks, it's the
gameplay. And the best looks in the world don't improve bad gameplay. So,
if a game is deemed bad because of things other than the looks, then
improving the looks doesn't fix it.
As has been said, IF ALL OTHER THINGS ARE EQUAL, good graphics are better
than less-than-good graphics. Duh.
But when all other things AREN'T equal, good graphics won't make a bad
game into a good game. They might make it "better," but only in the sense
that it might add .1 or .2 on a 10 point scale. Yeah, it's "better," but
it still sux. "Better" does not equal "good."
Of course, this is all subjective. Some people won't buy something with
the best story and gameplay ever if it's not 1080p with 60 frame/s. That's
their choice. Many other people are willing to forgive graphics issues if
the game plays well and has a good story/characters/etc. It's all a matter
of which elemets of the game are more important to a given person. From
what I'm seeing here, looks isn't on the top of most people's list :-).
YMM (and apparently does) V.
Morgan /|\
Michael C
news:op.uvoc5...@phoenix.mshome.net...
>>
>> jt
>
> Agreed.
>
> Ponder this: Superman 64 in glorious HD. :-) Did the game suddenly become
> better? Or is is just a prettier-yet-still-sucky game?
If it is prettier then it is better. If you had to play the game would you
choose the HD version or the non-HD version?
> Better graphics doesn't improve story. Better graphics doesn't improve how
> the game plays (how well it responds to what you're telling it to do via
> the controls). Better graphics doesn't change the difficulty (unless the
> problem is with seeing what you're doing). Better graphics doesn't improve
> the sound (though I'll admit that developers who improve the visuals
> usually also improve the audio).
>
> Better graphics improves how the game *looks*. Nothing more, nothing less.
The better a game looks the better the experience you get from it. To argue
otherwise is complete nonsense.
Howard Brazee
<ljw-mot...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>Of course, this is all subjective. Some people won't buy something with
>the best story and gameplay ever if it's not 1080p with 60 frame/s. That's
>their choice. Many other people are willing to forgive graphics issues if
>the game plays well and has a good story/characters/etc. It's all a matter
>of which elemets of the game are more important to a given person. From
>what I'm seeing here, looks isn't on the top of most people's list :-).
>YMM (and apparently does) V.
I don't think it's at the top of anybody's list here. Maybe it's on
the bottom of the list. But it's on the list, because it is a
criterion that does matter.
Morgan
wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Jun 2009 11:28:32 -0700, Morgan
> <ljw-mot...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>> Of course, this is all subjective. Some people won't buy something with
>> the best story and gameplay ever if it's not 1080p with 60 frame/s.
>> That's
>> their choice. Many other people are willing to forgive graphics issues
>> if
>> the game plays well and has a good story/characters/etc. It's all a
>> matter
>> of which elemets of the game are more important to a given person. From
>> what I'm seeing here, looks isn't on the top of most people's list :-).
>> YMM (and apparently does) V.
>
> I don't think it's at the top of anybody's list here. Maybe it's on
> the bottom of the list. But it's on the list, because it is a
> criterion that does matter.
Just not very much (especially if it's on the bottom of the list), which
is what many of us have been trying to say :-).
Morgan /|\