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 - 5 messages, 2
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 5 ==
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
== 2 of 5 ==
Date: Thurs 11 Jun 2009 09:35
From: "Michael C"
"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?
> 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.
== 3 of 5 ==
Date: Thurs 11 Jun 2009 09:39
From: "Michael C"
"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.
> 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.
== 4 of 5 ==
Date: Thurs 11 Jun 2009 09:40
From: "Michael C"
"Howard Brazee" <howard@brazee.net> wrote in message
news:h81035dh38vmhsko2ruqcd00p74iq23ltp@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 10 Jun 2009 19:32:27 +0100, "Michael C" <jjjh@lkio.netx>
>>
>>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.
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.
== 5 of 5 ==
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
==============================================================================
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/
