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 - 13 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 13 ==
Date: Tues 9 Jun 2009 05:12
From: Abo
Michael C wrote:
> "WDS" <Bill@seurer.net> wrote in message
> news:h0jcui$oaf$1@news.eternal-september.org...
>> Michael C wrote:
>>> A better picture will always provide a better experience than a poorer
>>> picture.
>> Only if all else remains the same. Unfortunately in games that is often
>> not the case.
>>
>> The game racks in stores are riddled with HD games for XBox 360 and PS/3
>> that have amazing graphics yet are sucky games.
>
> Even a sucky game would be a better experience with better graphics...
>
>
No it wouldn't. Not here anyway, it wouldn't get played. So it could
have the best graphics of any game ever, but I wouldn't see them...
== 2 of 13 ==
Date: Tues 9 Jun 2009 09:28
From: "Michael C"
"jt august" <starsabre@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:starsabre-36F679.21291908062009@inetnews.worldnet.att.net...
> In article <7953stF1nmcsoU1@mid.individual.net>,
> "Michael C" <jjjh@lkio.netx> wrote:
>
>> "WDS" <Bill@seurer.net> wrote in message
>> news:h0jcui$oaf$1@news.eternal-september.org...
>> > Michael C wrote:
>> >> A better picture will always provide a better experience than a poorer
>> >> picture.
>> >
>> > Only if all else remains the same. Unfortunately in games that is
>> > often
>> > not the case.
>> >
>> > The game racks in stores are riddled with HD games for XBox 360 and
>> > PS/3
>> > that have amazing graphics yet are sucky games.
>>
>> Even a sucky game would be a better experience with better graphics...
>
> No, it wouldn't. It would still suck.
An illogical statement to make.
Why have you not responded to my latest reply?
== 3 of 13 ==
Date: Tues 9 Jun 2009 09:29
From: "Michael C"
"Abo" <no@spam.thanks> wrote in message
news:h0ljjk$qsb$1@news.albasani.net...
> Michael C wrote:
>> "WDS" <Bill@seurer.net> wrote in message
>> news:h0jcui$oaf$1@news.eternal-september.org...
>>> Michael C wrote:
>>>> A better picture will always provide a better experience than a poorer
>>>> picture.
>>> Only if all else remains the same. Unfortunately in games that is often
>>> not the case.
>>>
>>> The game racks in stores are riddled with HD games for XBox 360 and PS/3
>>> that have amazing graphics yet are sucky games.
>>
>> Even a sucky game would be a better experience with better graphics...
> No it wouldn't. Not here anyway, it wouldn't get played. So it could have
> the best graphics of any game ever, but I wouldn't see them...
To someone who played it the experience would better.
== 4 of 13 ==
Date: Tues 9 Jun 2009 09:51
From: Winfield
Michael C wrote:
> "Abo" <no@spam.thanks> wrote in message
> news:h0ljjk$qsb$1@news.albasani.net...
>> Michael C wrote:
>>> "WDS" <Bill@seurer.net> wrote in message
>>> news:h0jcui$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...
>> No it wouldn't. Not here anyway, it wouldn't get played. So it could have
>> the best graphics of any game ever, but I wouldn't see them...
>
> To someone who played it the experience would better.
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
== 5 of 13 ==
Date: Tues 9 Jun 2009 10:13
From: "Michael C"
"Winfield" <doghouse@operamail.com> wrote in message
news:_uadnUTjQYCZDrPXnZ2dnUVZ_vOdnZ2d@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.
== 6 of 13 ==
Date: Tues 9 Jun 2009 13:23
From: Les Steel
Howard Brazee said the following on 08/06/2009 17:13:
> On Sun, 07 Jun 2009 11:06:19 +0900, Miles Bader <miles@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
== 7 of 13 ==
Date: Tues 9 Jun 2009 13:26
From: Les Steel
Michael C said the following on 09/06/2009 17:28:
> "jt august" <starsabre@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:starsabre-36F679.21291908062009@inetnews.worldnet.att.net...
>> In article <7953stF1nmcsoU1@mid.individual.net>,
>> "Michael C" <jjjh@lkio.netx> wrote:
>>
>>> "WDS" <Bill@seurer.net> wrote in message
>>> news:h0jcui$oaf$1@news.eternal-september.org...
>>>> Michael C wrote:
>>>>> A better picture will always provide a better experience than a poorer
>>>>> picture.
>>>> Only if all else remains the same. Unfortunately in games that is
>>>> often
>>>> not the case.
>>>>
>>>> The game racks in stores are riddled with HD games for XBox 360 and
>>>> PS/3
>>>> that have amazing graphics yet are sucky games.
>>> Even a sucky game would be a better experience with better graphics...
>> No, it wouldn't. It would still suck.
>
> An illogical statement to make.
Of course it isn't. A shit game is a shit game regardless of the
graphics. Better graphics certainly don't make experiencing a shit game
less shit.
>
--
Les
== 8 of 13 ==
Date: Tues 9 Jun 2009 14:11
From: "Michael C"
"Les Steel" <a@aolnot.com> wrote in message
news:h0mgid$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.
== 9 of 13 ==
Date: Tues 9 Jun 2009 16:00
From: Miles Bader
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".
-Miles
--
Religion, n. A daughter of Hope and Fear, explaining to Ignorance the nature
of the Unknowable.
== 10 of 13 ==
Date: Tues 9 Jun 2009 16:45
From: jt august
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.
> 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
== 11 of 13 ==
Date: Tues 9 Jun 2009 16:47
From: jt august
In article <797jgvF1otu0rU1@mid.individual.net>,
"Michael C" <jjjh@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
== 12 of 13 ==
Date: Tues 9 Jun 2009 16:48
From: jt august
In article <797jgvF1otu0rU1@mid.individual.net>,
"Michael C" <jjjh@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
== 13 of 13 ==
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
==============================================================================
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/
