rec.games.video.nintendo.wii
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.video.nintendo.wiirec.games.video.nintendo.wii@googlegroups.com
Today's topics:
* Nintendo President Iwta: Next Console will Probably be HD - 10 messages, 4
authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.video.nintendo.wii/t/50ff590452c60855
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Nintendo President Iwta: Next Console will Probably be HD
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.video.nintendo.wii/t/50ff590452c60855
==============================================================================
== 1 of 10 ==
Date: Thurs 11 Jun 2009 19:08
From: jt august
In article <79cq9nF1pnluiU1@mid.individual.net>,
"Michael C" <jjjh@lkio.netx> wrote:
> "jt august" <starsabre@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:starsabre-DB4037.19011110062009@inetnews.worldnet.att.net...
> > In article <79ach2F1pebcrU1@mid.individual.net>,
> > "Michael C" <jjjh@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
== 2 of 10 ==
Date: Fri 12 Jun 2009 09:52
From: Winfield
Michael C wrote:
> "Winfield" <doghouse@operamail.com> wrote in message
> news:vpSdnYPu7oZIlK3XnZ2dnUVZ_rudnZ2d@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
== 3 of 10 ==
Date: Fri 12 Jun 2009 11:38
From: "Michael C"
"Winfield" <doghouse@operamail.com> wrote in message
news:3qydnST65eJ5Gq_XnZ2dnUVZ_g-dnZ2d@giganews.com...
> 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.
== 4 of 10 ==
Date: Fri 12 Jun 2009 11:46
From: "Michael C"
"jt august" <starsabre@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:starsabre-A2EE2F.21081711062009@inetnews.worldnet.att.net...
> In article <79cq9nF1pnluiU1@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.
== 5 of 10 ==
Date: Fri 12 Jun 2009 14:57
From: Les Steel
Michael C said the following on 09/06/2009 22:11:
> "Les Steel" <a@aolnot.com> wrote in message
> news:h0mgid$cjs$2@news.eternal-september.org...
>> Michael C said the following on 09/06/2009 17:28:
>>> 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.
>
> Of course it does. The difference may be minimal but to argue otherwise 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.
--
Les
== 6 of 10 ==
Date: Fri 12 Jun 2009 15:17
From: "Michael C"
"Les Steel" <a@aolnot.com> wrote in message
news:h0uj16$899$1@news.eternal-september.org...
> Michael C said the following on 09/06/2009 22:11:
>>
>> Of course it does. The difference may be minimal but to argue otherwise
>> 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.
== 7 of 10 ==
Date: Fri 12 Jun 2009 15:20
From: jt august
In article <79fm4cF1qb6epU1@mid.individual.net>,
"Michael C" <jjjh@lkio.netx> wrote:
> "jt august" <starsabre@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:starsabre-A2EE2F.21081711062009@inetnews.worldnet.att.net...
> > In article <79cq9nF1pnluiU1@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
== 8 of 10 ==
Date: Fri 12 Jun 2009 15:27
From: jt august
In article <3qydnST65eJ5Gq_XnZ2dnUVZ_g-dnZ2d@giganews.com>,
Winfield <doghouse@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
== 9 of 10 ==
Date: Fri 12 Jun 2009 15:29
From: jt august
In article <h0uj16$899$1@news.eternal-september.org>,
Les Steel <a@aolnot.com> wrote:
> Michael C said the following on 09/06/2009 22:11:
> > "Les Steel" <a@aolnot.com> wrote in message
> > news:h0mgid$cjs$2@news.eternal-september.org...
> >> Michael C said the following on 09/06/2009 17:28:
> >>> 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.
> >
> > Of course it does. The difference may be minimal but to argue otherwise 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.
> --
> Les
Thank you, Les, for pointing that out so eloquently.
jt
== 10 of 10 ==
Date: Fri 12 Jun 2009 15:35
From: "Michael C"
"jt august" <starsabre@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:starsabre-5409FA.17204212062009@inetnews.worldnet.att.net...
> In article <79fm4cF1qb6epU1@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.
==============================================================================
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "rec.games.video.nintendo.wii"
group.
To post to this group, visit http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.video.nintendo.wii
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rec.games.video.nintendo.wii+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
To change the way you get mail from this group, visit:
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.video.nintendo.wii/subscribe
To report abuse, send email explaining the problem to abuse@googlegroups.com
==============================================================================
Google Groups: http://groups.google.com/
