http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.video.nintendo.wii
rec.games.video.nintendo.wii@googlegroups.com
Today's topics:
* Nintendo President Iwta: Next Console will Probably be HD - 11 messages, 6
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 11 ==
Date: Tues 9 Jun 2009 16:50
From: jt august
In article <h0mgid$cjs$2@news.eternal-september.org>,
Les Steel <a@aolnot.com> wrote:
> >> No, it wouldn't. It would still suck.
> >
> > An illogical statement to make.
>
> Of course it isn't. A shit game is a shit game regardless of the
> graphics. Better graphics certainly don't make experiencing a shit game
> less shit.
Acrtually, better graphics would probably make a shit game shittier.
jt
== 2 of 11 ==
Date: Wed 10 Jun 2009 11:32
From: "Michael C"
"Miles Bader" <miles@gnu.org> wrote in message
news:87ski93tcq.fsf@catnip.gol.com...
> Winfield <doghouse@operamail.com> writes:
>> Everything else being equal -- sure, better graphics sparkle. But
>> everything else is never equal. You can't seem to wrap your tech-frozen
>> mind around this concept.
>
> He's not interested in having a meaningful conversation, he's interested
> in feeling like he "won".
On the contrary. I made a simple statement - "A better picture will always
provide a better experience than a poorer
picture" - and some people have tried to argue AGAINST that.
== 3 of 11 ==
Date: Wed 10 Jun 2009 11:32
From: "Michael C"
"jt august" <starsabre@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:starsabre-19D52F.18502609062009@inetnews.worldnet.att.net...
> In article <h0mgid$cjs$2@news.eternal-september.org>,
> 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.
You have a very flawed sense of logic.
== 4 of 11 ==
Date: Wed 10 Jun 2009 11:40
From: "Michael C"
"jt august" <starsabre@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:starsabre-9D3852.18455009062009@inetnews.worldnet.att.net...
> In article <797gu0F1p7phuU1@mid.individual.net>,
> "Michael C" <jjjh@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.
== 5 of 11 ==
Date: Wed 10 Jun 2009 11:41
From: "Michael C"
"flyinghippo" <flyinghippodod@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:2OdXl.986$tr5.449@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.
== 6 of 11 ==
Date: Wed 10 Jun 2009 12:14
From: Howard Brazee
On Wed, 10 Jun 2009 19:32:27 +0100, "Michael C" <jjjh@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.
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.
--
"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
== 7 of 11 ==
Date: Wed 10 Jun 2009 12:30
From: Winfield
Michael C wrote:
> "Miles Bader" <miles@gnu.org> wrote in message
> news:87ski93tcq.fsf@catnip.gol.com...
>> Winfield <doghouse@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.
"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
== 8 of 11 ==
Date: Wed 10 Jun 2009 12:30
From: WDS
Howard Brazee wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Jun 2009 19:32:27 +0100, "Michael C" <jjjh@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.
== 9 of 11 ==
Date: Wed 10 Jun 2009 14:18
From: "[ste parker]"
WDS wrote:
>
> 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]
== 10 of 11 ==
Date: Wed 10 Jun 2009 14:21
From: "[ste parker]"
Winfield wrote:
> Michael C wrote:
>> "Miles Bader" <miles@gnu.org> wrote in message
>> news:87ski93tcq.fsf@catnip.gol.com...
>>> Winfield <doghouse@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.
>
>
> "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 ;~)
>
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]
== 11 of 11 ==
Date: Wed 10 Jun 2009 17:01
From: jt august
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? 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
==============================================================================
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/
