http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.video.nintendo.wii
rec.games.video.nintendo.wii@googlegroups.com
Today's topics:
* Zelda Wii slated for 2010-2011 will *require* the Motion Plus add-on - 1
messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.video.nintendo.wii/t/7256ab82a5499535
* Nintendo President Iwta: Next Console will Probably be HD - 7 messages, 4
authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.video.nintendo.wii/t/50ff590452c60855
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Zelda Wii slated for 2010-2011 will *require* the Motion Plus add-on
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.video.nintendo.wii/t/7256ab82a5499535
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sat 13 Jun 2009 22:50
From: parallax-scroll
http://www.wired.com/gamelife/2009/06/zelda-wii-motionplus/
http://www.destructoid.com/new-zelda-in-2011-wii-motionplus-required--136071.phtml
http://www.mynintendo.de/miyamoto-interview-5/
http://www.cubed3.com/news/12564
http://www.kotaku.com.au/2009/06/new-zelda-will-require-motionplus/
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Nintendo President Iwta: Next Console will Probably be HD
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.video.nintendo.wii/t/50ff590452c60855
==============================================================================
== 1 of 7 ==
Date: Wed 17 Jun 2009 08:26
From: Morgan
On Tue, 09 Jun 2009 16:50:26 -0700, jt august <starsabre@sbcglobal.net>
wrote:
> 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
Agreed.
Ponder this: Superman 64 in glorious HD. :-) Did the game suddenly become
better? Or is is just a prettier-yet-still-sucky game?
Better graphics doesn't improve story. Better graphics doesn't improve how
the game plays (how well it responds to what you're telling it to do via
the controls). Better graphics doesn't change the difficulty (unless the
problem is with seeing what you're doing). Better graphics doesn't improve
the sound (though I'll admit that developers who improve the visuals
usually also improve the audio).
Better graphics improves how the game *looks*. Nothing more, nothing less.
Morgan /|\
I'd have removed the cross-posting, but I don't know which group the
participants are mostly reading this in
== 2 of 7 ==
Date: Wed 17 Jun 2009 08:41
From: "[ste parker]"
Morgan wrote:
>
> Agreed.
>
> Ponder this: Superman 64 in glorious HD. :-) Did the game suddenly
> become better? Or is is just a prettier-yet-still-sucky game?
<snip>
Whilst the game is still unarguably poor, surely the fact that you've
termed it prettier is an improvement? An improvement is an improvement
no matter how fractional, and saying it's "just a
prettier-yet-still-sucky game" agrees with that assessment. Which is
kind of the point of this whole ridiculous argument.
--
[ste]
== 3 of 7 ==
Date: Wed 17 Jun 2009 09:13
From: Howard Brazee
On Wed, 17 Jun 2009 08:26:01 -0700, Morgan
<ljw-motzarella@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>Better graphics doesn't improve story. Better graphics doesn't improve how
>the game plays (how well it responds to what you're telling it to do via
>the controls). Better graphics doesn't change the difficulty (unless the
>problem is with seeing what you're doing).
Better graphics *can* mean a wider screen to show us more of the
action. Better graphics *can* mean my eyes don't get tired.
>Better graphics doesn't improve
>the sound (though I'll admit that developers who improve the visuals
>usually also improve the audio).
Implying that better sound creates a better experience. Odd that
better sound helps, but better video doesn't.
>Better graphics improves how the game *looks*. Nothing more, nothing less.
Which is an improvement, all by itself. Looks matter. I have
pictures on my wall because they look good. One criterion in buying
clothes is looks. I prefer a barber who makes my hair look better.
--
"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
== 4 of 7 ==
Date: Wed 17 Jun 2009 11:28
From: Morgan
On Wed, 17 Jun 2009 09:13:06 -0700, Howard Brazee <howard@brazee.net>
wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Jun 2009 08:26:01 -0700, Morgan
> <ljw-motzarella@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>> Better graphics doesn't improve story. Better graphics doesn't improve
>> how
>> the game plays (how well it responds to what you're telling it to do via
>> the controls). Better graphics doesn't change the difficulty (unless the
>> problem is with seeing what you're doing).
>
> Better graphics *can* mean a wider screen to show us more of the
> action. Better graphics *can* mean my eyes don't get tired.
>
>> Better graphics doesn't improve
>> the sound (though I'll admit that developers who improve the visuals
>> usually also improve the audio).
>
> Implying that better sound creates a better experience. Odd that
> better sound helps, but better video doesn't.
>
>> Better graphics improves how the game *looks*. Nothing more, nothing
>> less.
>
> Which is an improvement, all by itself. Looks matter. I have
> pictures on my wall because they look good. One criterion in buying
> clothes is looks. I prefer a barber who makes my hair look better.
Pictures are ALL about the looks. Games aren't. Haircuts are about looks
and upkeep, so it's a bit closer. It all depends on what's important to a
given gamer: Looks, gameplay, story, music, characters, etc.
Looks can matter, but for a great many people, the primary criteria for
whether they want to buy and play a game isn't the looks, it's the
gameplay. And the best looks in the world don't improve bad gameplay. So,
if a game is deemed bad because of things other than the looks, then
improving the looks doesn't fix it.
As has been said, IF ALL OTHER THINGS ARE EQUAL, good graphics are better
than less-than-good graphics. Duh.
But when all other things AREN'T equal, good graphics won't make a bad
game into a good game. They might make it "better," but only in the sense
that it might add .1 or .2 on a 10 point scale. Yeah, it's "better," but
it still sux. "Better" does not equal "good."
Of course, this is all subjective. Some people won't buy something with
the best story and gameplay ever if it's not 1080p with 60 frame/s. That's
their choice. Many other people are willing to forgive graphics issues if
the game plays well and has a good story/characters/etc. It's all a matter
of which elemets of the game are more important to a given person. From
what I'm seeing here, looks isn't on the top of most people's list :-).
YMM (and apparently does) V.
Morgan /|\
== 5 of 7 ==
Date: Wed 17 Jun 2009 11:28
From: "Michael C"
"Morgan" <ljw-motzarella@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:op.uvoc5nrj6isimy@phoenix.mshome.net...
> On Tue, 09 Jun 2009 16:50:26 -0700, jt august <starsabre@sbcglobal.net>
>>
>> Acrtually, better graphics would probably make a shit game shittier.
>>
>> jt
>
> Agreed.
>
> Ponder this: Superman 64 in glorious HD. :-) Did the game suddenly become
> better? Or is is just a prettier-yet-still-sucky game?
If it is prettier then it is better. If you had to play the game would you
choose the HD version or the non-HD version?
> Better graphics doesn't improve story. Better graphics doesn't improve how
> the game plays (how well it responds to what you're telling it to do via
> the controls). Better graphics doesn't change the difficulty (unless the
> problem is with seeing what you're doing). Better graphics doesn't improve
> the sound (though I'll admit that developers who improve the visuals
> usually also improve the audio).
>
> Better graphics improves how the game *looks*. Nothing more, nothing less.
The better a game looks the better the experience you get from it. To argue
otherwise is complete nonsense.
== 6 of 7 ==
Date: Wed 17 Jun 2009 12:21
From: Howard Brazee
On Wed, 17 Jun 2009 11:28:32 -0700, Morgan
<ljw-motzarella@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>Of course, this is all subjective. Some people won't buy something with
>the best story and gameplay ever if it's not 1080p with 60 frame/s. That's
>their choice. Many other people are willing to forgive graphics issues if
>the game plays well and has a good story/characters/etc. It's all a matter
>of which elemets of the game are more important to a given person. From
>what I'm seeing here, looks isn't on the top of most people's list :-).
>YMM (and apparently does) V.
I don't think it's at the top of anybody's list here. Maybe it's on
the bottom of the list. But it's on the list, because it is a
criterion that does matter.
--
"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 7 ==
Date: Wed 17 Jun 2009 12:39
From: Morgan
On Wed, 17 Jun 2009 12:21:32 -0700, Howard Brazee <howard@brazee.net>
wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Jun 2009 11:28:32 -0700, Morgan
> <ljw-motzarella@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>> Of course, this is all subjective. Some people won't buy something with
>> the best story and gameplay ever if it's not 1080p with 60 frame/s.
>> That's
>> their choice. Many other people are willing to forgive graphics issues
>> if
>> the game plays well and has a good story/characters/etc. It's all a
>> matter
>> of which elemets of the game are more important to a given person. From
>> what I'm seeing here, looks isn't on the top of most people's list :-).
>> YMM (and apparently does) V.
>
> I don't think it's at the top of anybody's list here. Maybe it's on
> the bottom of the list. But it's on the list, because it is a
> criterion that does matter.
Just not very much (especially if it's on the bottom of the list), which
is what many of us have been trying to say :-).
Morgan /|\
==============================================================================
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/
