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 - 19 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 19 ==
Date: Fri 5 Jun 2009 16:11
From: jt august
In article
<6198b85d-3b1f-400b-b10c-dd04d575a93c@q14g2000vbn.googlegroups.com>,
parallax-scroll <parallaxscroll@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 don¹t 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
== 2 of 19 ==
Date: Sat 6 Jun 2009 04:40
From: "Michael C"
"jt august" <starsabre@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:starsabre-1B812F.18115105062009@inetnews.worldnet.att.net...
> In article
> <6198b85d-3b1f-400b-b10c-dd04d575a93c@q14g2000vbn.googlegroups.com>,
> parallax-scroll <parallaxscroll@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 don¹t 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.
A better picture will always provide a better experience than a poorer
picture.
== 3 of 19 ==
Date: Sat 6 Jun 2009 04:53
From: jt august
In article <78v2stF1o1o44U1@mid.individual.net>,
"Michael C" <jjjh@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
== 4 of 19 ==
Date: Sat 6 Jun 2009 07:35
From: "Michael C"
"jt august" <starsabre@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:starsabre-E8AD84.06540206062009@inetnews.worldnet.att.net...
> In article <78v2stF1o1o44U1@mid.individual.net>,
> "Michael C" <jjjh@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.
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?
== 5 of 19 ==
Date: Sat 6 Jun 2009 09:37
From: jt august
In article <78vd6jF1o7eq9U1@mid.individual.net>,
"Michael C" <jjjh@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
== 6 of 19 ==
Date: Sat 6 Jun 2009 10:06
From: "Michael C"
"jt august" <starsabre@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:starsabre-57B57A.11370806062009@inetnews.worldnet.att.net...
> In article <78vd6jF1o7eq9U1@mid.individual.net>,
> "Michael C" <jjjh@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.
== 7 of 19 ==
Date: Sat 6 Jun 2009 12:12
From: jt august
In article <78vm06F1mqe10U1@mid.individual.net>,
"Michael C" <jjjh@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
== 8 of 19 ==
Date: Sat 6 Jun 2009 12:36
From: "Michael C"
"jt august" <starsabre@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:starsabre-A88FAB.14124106062009@inetnews.worldnet.att.net...
> In article <78vm06F1mqe10U1@mid.individual.net>,
> "Michael C" <jjjh@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.
== 9 of 19 ==
Date: Sat 6 Jun 2009 13:10
From: jt august
In article <78vuqbF1obnpsU1@mid.individual.net>,
"Michael C" <jjjh@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
== 10 of 19 ==
Date: Sat 6 Jun 2009 13:56
From: Winfield
jt august wrote:
> In article <78vuqbF1obnpsU1@mid.individual.net>,
> "Michael C" <jjjh@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
== 11 of 19 ==
Date: Sat 6 Jun 2009 13:56
From: "Michael C"
"jt august" <starsabre@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:starsabre-1940F8.15104106062009@inetnews.worldnet.att.net...
> In article <78vuqbF1obnpsU1@mid.individual.net>,
> "Michael C" <jjjh@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.
== 12 of 19 ==
Date: Sat 6 Jun 2009 19:06
From: Miles Bader
"Michael C" <jjjh@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.
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.
== 13 of 19 ==
Date: Sat 6 Jun 2009 19:13
From: jt august
In article <7903fjF1nalgdU1@mid.individual.net>,
"Michael C" <jjjh@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
== 14 of 19 ==
Date: Sun 7 Jun 2009 01:31
From: "Michael C"
"Miles Bader" <miles@gnu.org> wrote in message
news:87iqj83ihw.fsf@catnip.gol.com...
> "Michael C" <jjjh@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.
== 15 of 19 ==
Date: Sun 7 Jun 2009 01:36
From: "Michael C"
"jt august" <starsabre@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:starsabre-91AF54.21140306062009@inetnews.worldnet.att.net...
> In article <7903fjF1nalgdU1@mid.individual.net>,
> "Michael C" <jjjh@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?
== 16 of 19 ==
Date: Sun 7 Jun 2009 02:34
From: Miles Bader
"Michael C" <jjjh@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.]
> 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]
== 17 of 19 ==
Date: Sun 7 Jun 2009 03:04
From: "Michael C"
"Miles Bader" <miles@gnu.org> wrote in message
news:87k53o1j70.fsf@catnip.gol.com...
> "Michael C" <jjjh@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.
== 18 of 19 ==
Date: Sun 7 Jun 2009 03:25
From: Miles Bader
"Michael C" <jjjh@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.
-Miles
--
Vote, v. The instrument and symbol of a freeman's power to make a fool of
himself and a wreck of his country.
== 19 of 19 ==
Date: Sun 7 Jun 2009 03:26
From: "Michael C"
"Miles Bader" <miles@gnu.org> wrote in message
news:8763f81gu2.fsf@catnip.gol.com...
> "Michael C" <jjjh@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.
==============================================================================
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/
