AVS Forum Archive 2 - No HD for Nintendo next generation

CallMeJean

06-11-05, 08:11 AM

[QUOTE=Hatecrime69]First, it's not an interview..it was an email..seems to be mostly a commentary than anything else. Second...is hd support the end-all be-all that none of you are even considering the revloution (witch has not had anything released in any kind of final specs mind you) if this rumor proves to be true, regardless of anything that will be released a thought at all? Not meant to be a flame but i just don't under stand the mindset here..I don't have hd-anything in my house...it would be nice but i just don't have the money, and i can live without it. Are system specs the olny thing you care about? :confused:[/QUOTE]

I'm with you hatecrime. Certainly not the end-all-be-all. Sure, its slightly disappointing that it doesn't support HD, but chances are games will still be 16:9 and 480p, not to mention I would expect every game then to support 60 fps. If that's the case, it might have been a good sacrifice. Games running at a solid 60 fps in SD might be better than a game running at 30 fps(or less) in HD.

Obviously, I am waiting to hear what is so revolutionary about the console. Nintendo has already stated it will support online multiplayer and game downloads. There are even rumors circling that some of the older games may have been reworked to support online play. Still, I am certain this isn't the revolutionary concept yet. So, its exciting to know that the revolution can do all these things and the "advantage" it is supposed to have hasn't been announced yet. Depending on what it can do and how it will supposedly enhance gaming like no other will decide whether or not I pick it up.

I do find it funny that the "American mindset" is supposedly HD considering less than 20% of the homes in America have an HDTV. I personally think the American mindset is cheap cheap cheap.

Richard Paul

06-11-05, 08:17 AM

I would recommend getting both a PS3 and X-box 360 as well.

Nintendo has done some pretty stupid things before but this decision is about equal to their past decision to stick with cartridges for the Nintendo 64. It probably won't kill them but they are going to end up regretting it later. I know they wanted to aim for a smaller console size for their next console but in my opinion they gave up to much to get it.

CallMeJean

06-11-05, 08:55 AM

[QUOTE=Richard Paul]I would recommend getting both a PS3 and X-box 360 as well.

Nintendo has done some pretty stupid things before but this decision is about equal to their past decision to stick with cartridges for the Nintendo 64. It probably won't kill them but they are going to end up regretting it later. I know they wanted to aim for a smaller console size for their next console but in my opinion they gave up to much to get it.[/QUOTE]

I don't think it has as much to do with the size as the extra expense. HD chipsets and such are not huge, however, they can get pricey. Nintendo's goal is to make a cheap, sophisticated console IMO. If most consumers have SDTVs and the games look just in good in SD as they do with the 360 and PS3, I don't see the lack of HDTV support really mattering much. However, its the bad press and the lack of having buzz words like HDTV that could hurt them more with this.

CrocHunter

06-11-05, 09:44 AM

I think we have to move foward and go with the next step in gaming which is HDTV.It's a really smart decision if you ask me.I'm just not interested in the revolution now after this sad news.

HDTV is the new thing, and i'm glad sony and microsoft are doing everything they can to get people into it.

And for those who say HDTV is'nmt soo great, i dare you to see it in your home properly calibrated with good lighting conditions.I can guarantee you will not go back to SD tv after seeing the clarity of HDTV.

By not supporting HD, i think nintendo took a step backwards and shot itself in the foot in the long run.Also just from judgeing how powerful the hardware will be for xbox360 and PS3 framerate should'nt be a problem.I would'nt be surprised if all the games ran at a locked 60fps.

The hardware is powerful enough to easily do this, i think nintendo is just blowing smoke by sayining the sony and microsoft systems will have framerate issues.IMHO

NoThru22

06-11-05, 10:11 AM

I was going to break this last night, but I didn't want to be seen as anti-Nintendo :D

Does this mean the current Xbox is more advanced than the next gen Nintendo?

Yes, I know it doesn't mean that, but think about it.

CallMeJean

06-11-05, 10:12 AM

[QUOTE=CrocHunter]I think we have to move foward and go with the next step in gaming which is HDTV.It's a really smart decision if you ask me.I'm just not interested in the revolution now after this sad news.[/quote]

I too am very excited by HDTV gaming. However, how is it the next step in gaming? What all does it provide but just enhanced visual clarity. I mean, I know it will make games look better, but will it be considered the same leap forward as when games went from 2D to 3D? Will HD gaming be more "fun" than SD gaming?

And for those who say HDTV is'nmt soo great, i dare you to see it in your home properly calibrated with good lighting conditions.I can guarantee you will not go back to SD tv after seeing the clarity of HDTV.

I have a properly calibrated Pioneer in my home and it looks amazing in HD. However, the majority of the programs I watch are still only broadcast in SDTV, so somehow I manage to enjoy them ;)
Plus, my partner and I love our Tivo and since its only SDTV we use it for most of our TV watching.

By not supporting HD, i think nintendo took a step backwards and shot itself in the foot in the long run.Also just from judgeing how powerful the hardware will be for xbox360 and PS3 framerate should'nt be a problem.I would'nt be surprised if all the games ran at a locked 60fps.

We'll definitely see about that. I don't think Nintendo is the only one saying that frame rate could be difficult to lock for the next gen consoles running in HD. I thought I read an article with a few developers also having concerns, but I am not sure which article it was. If I find it, I will post a link.

The hardware is powerful enough to easily do this, i think nintendo is just blowing smoke by sayining the sony and microsoft systems will have framerate issues.IMHO

Again, every company is blowing smoke. Any company will tell you that their product is better than their competitions. I'm sure each product will definitely have its own distinct advantages. Lack of HDTV support may not be all that important if Nintendo's unique controller can somehow provide unique gaming experiences. Its just a matter of waiting and seeing whenever they get around to letting us in on their secret. I know I am intrigued, but also skeptical.

CrocHunter

06-11-05, 10:22 AM

I think it's the game that will give you a unique gaming experiance not the controller which i could give a rats ass about:D

Also HDTV will give you that immersion factor which SD will not give you in gameplay.By going HD it's one step closer of actually being there!

HD will also allow you to see things much further away.

I think IMO that HDTV "IS" the next generation in gaming.3D was good but HDTV will be that much better, it's the immersion factor that counts.

CallMeJean

06-11-05, 01:26 PM

[QUOTE=CrocHunter]I think it's the game that will give you a unique gaming experiance not the controller which i could give a rats ass about:D
[/quote]

Well, that's full of crap because the controller is every bit as important, if not moreso, as the graphics. The controller is your interface to the game. Its how you play the game and allows you to react and interact with everything. So, while you maybe take for granted the idea of a controller, deep down you do give a rats ass about it because without a good one, gaming would not be fun at all.

I agree its the game that provides the experience, but if controller A has more functionality than controller B, then it gives the game more ways to provide fun and unique interfaces to a game with the added functionality. Now, I have no clue what Nintendo will be doing with their controller. It could be way lame for all I know. But, at the same time, it could truly be something great. I'm definitely waiting to pass judgement once they show it rather than immediately denouncing their next console because of lack of HD support.

Also HDTV will give you that immersion factor which SD will not give you in gameplay.By going HD it's one step closer of actually being there!

HD will also allow you to see things much further away.

Again, I must ask, does this make a game more fun? It will certainly give the visuals a nice boost, but is that the only place where games can improve? I understand what you're saying, but surely you must see that HD support is more if a slight enhancement than the big leaps we've had in the past. Going from 2D to 3D, gamers got a huge overhaul in the way they look at and play games. Going from 3D to HD, the games will look the same in design, but just have higher resolution so there are more details. I don't see it as changing the way games are viewed and played though, simply because the overall design hasn't changed. Again, I'm not denying it will be cool to have, but I guess I just don't see it being the big leap that you do.

I think IMO that HDTV "IS" the next generation in gaming.3D was good but HDTV will be that much better, it's the immersion factor that counts.

Well, I'll have to respectfully disagree. I think games right now give a good immersion experience. I'm certain it will improve come next gen with the more powerful machines. However, I see this more as a minor upgrade than a major one.

Rakesh.S

06-11-05, 02:01 PM

Looks like a "rinse and repeat" situation for Nintendo --

Gamecube - no online gaming, which takes off on XB Live and PS2 this generation
Revolution - no HDTV, which takes off on the 360 and ps3 next gen.

It'll be funny to see all multi-platform game reviews on ign. Everytime graphics is rated, the revolution will be behind. There is absolutely no reason to own a revolution unless you want nintendo's first party games(most likely 2 zelda games, 53643563 mario games, 2 metroid games).

Safe to say, we'll be playing zelda and mario on our xbox 3 and ps4.

CallMeJean

06-11-05, 02:18 PM

[QUOTE=Rakesh.S]

It'll be funny to see all multi-platform game reviews on ign. Everytime graphics is rated, the revolution will be behind. [/quote]

Not necessarily. The Revolution could be running multiplatform games at 60 fps while the other platforms might only be running them at 30 fps. Also, Revolution might be able to cram more polys on screen at once than the other consoles that are spending their efforts rendering things in HD. I just wouldn't so quick to discount it until we know more about it.

Safe to say, we'll be playing zelda and mario on our xbox 3 and ps4.

Don't you mean the xbox 720? ;)
I don't know if I would count Nintendo out of this just yet. I thought they were crazy with their Nintendo DS idea, but I have to say I am a believer now as I have one and enjoy it very much. It really does provide some very fun and unique gaming experiences. Obviously, other people are seeing this as well as the DS is doing suprisingly well in sales. Something similar might happen with the Revolution. It could provide such a unique twist on things, that people will bite. Yeah, as usual, I have my doubts on what Nintendo is doing, but I hope they give me a pleasant suprise as they did with the DS :)

Tabasco

06-11-05, 03:15 PM

[QUOTE=nothru22]I was going to break this last night, but I didn't want to be seen as anti-Nintendo :D

Does this mean the current Xbox is more advanced than the next gen Nintendo?

Yes, I know it doesn't mean that, but think about it.[/QUOTE]

Gun-shy after being labeled a "troublemaker" ;)

Perhaps we're all missing the point. Maybe it won't support HD b/c it won't use a TV at all. Maybe VR is finally here, and it's called Revolution :D

MON3YSHOT

06-11-05, 03:48 PM

Nintendo just doesn't get it. They're a pack of fools.

(/grew-up on Sega :D )

[QUOTE=MisterMe]I'm jumping tracks . . . should it be Sony or MS?

:)[/QUOTE]

I was all about Xbox this gen but I think I may adopt a wait and see attitude for the next gen consoles..... bah, who am I trying to kid, I'll get a 360 at launch and prolly a PS3 to.

MON3YSHOT

06-11-05, 03:53 PM

Nintendo just doesn't get it. They're a pack of fools.

(/grew-up on Sega :D)

[QUOTE=MisterMe]I'm jumping tracks . . . should it be Sony or MS?

:)[/QUOTE]

Wait till they're both out to decide. I was all about Xbox this gen but I think I may adopt a wait and see attitude for the next gen consoles.

.... bah, who am I trying to kid, I'll get a 360 at launch and prolly a PS3 to.

MisterMe

06-11-05, 04:02 PM

[QUOTE=squicken]Gun-shy after being labeled a "troublemaker" ;)

Perhaps we're all missing the point. Maybe it won't support HD b/c it won't use a TV at all. Maybe VR is finally here, and it's called Revolution :D[/QUOTE]

You know something don't you?!!

:D

If so . . . Nintendo better play that card soon, because they are about to get a media lashing.

Godwolf

06-11-05, 06:42 PM

I don't get it. What is the life cycle of consoles these days? 5 years? Does Nintendo really want a flagship console on the market 3 or 4 years from now that is not capable of HD? After months of dreaming of HD Metroid Prime 3, I must say, I'm very dissappointed.

Dean Martin

06-11-05, 10:04 PM

My guess is Nintendo is probably going by how many cables were ordered for the Gamecube. I think if HD was available out of the box more people would use it.

The question is, will the revolution at least use 480p? I was under the impression that it would play DVDs?

I don't know if HD will be a deal breaker if it can play games in HD or it won't be mandatory by them? Really what does it mean? 480i is all that will be supported. This doesn't even really make sense.

CallMeJean

06-11-05, 10:42 PM

[QUOTE=Dean Martin]
The question is, will the revolution at least use 480p? I was under the impression that it would play DVDs?
[/quote]

It will play DVDs. I would say its almost certain it will do 480p in gaming.

CallMeJean

06-11-05, 10:46 PM

[QUOTE=Godwolf]I don't get it. What is the life cycle of consoles these days? 5 years?
[/quote]

for microsoft, its 4 years.

Does Nintendo really want a flagship console on the market 3 or 4 years from now that is not capable of HD?

Yeah, that is the kicker. However, we'll see how much cost this really saves nintendo. If the revolution is indeed a lot cheaper to make games for, then it could mean games cost cheaper. I, for one, am not thrilled about paying $60 for next gen games. So, if the Revolution can maintain high quality gaming still at $50 msrp, then I'll be happy.

Dean Martin

06-12-05, 12:23 AM

Well if it will at least play games in 480p that is not a total disaster. And the question is if it can play games in 480p, why COULDN'T it play games in higher resolutions. Maybe Nintendo is just not going to make it a requirement like MS or Sony. It sounds like it is dependent on the games.

Richard Paul

06-12-05, 02:30 AM

[QUOTE=CallMeJean]I don't think it has as much to do with the size as the extra expense. HD chipsets and such are not huge, however, they can get pricey. Nintendo's goal is to make a cheap, sophisticated console IMO. If most consumers have SDTVs and the games look just in good in SD as they do with the 360 and PS3, I don't see the lack of HDTV support really mattering much. However, its the bad press and the lack of having buzz words like HDTV that could hurt them more with this.[/QUOTE]Going with a smaller console though precluded the ability to include much in the way of hardware. In other words the CPU, GPU, and various other components had to be smaller and less powerful to fit in such a tiny console. In fact from the moment I saw it I presumed it would not be capable of doing HD since any HD resolution it could do would look barely better than the X-box in terms of quality.

[QUOTE=CallMeJean]Not necessarily. The Revolution could be running multiplatform games at 60 fps while the other platforms might only be running them at 30 fps. Also, Revolution might be able to cram more polys on screen at once than the other consoles that are spending their efforts rendering things in HD. I just wouldn't so quick to discount it until we know more about it.[/QUOTE]The thing is though how many people currently play computer games at VGA resolution? Though there are benefits of going lower in resolution since it takes less to do most people at a minimum play computer games at XGA or SXGA resolution. As such I don't think the idea of sticking with the equivalent of VGA is a good one for the Nintendo Revolution. Also what will happen if even at 480p the Nintendo Revolution looks worse than the other two consoles do at 720p?

[QUOTE=CallMeJean]We'll definitely see about that. I don't think Nintendo is the only one saying that frame rate could be difficult to lock for the next gen consoles running in HD. I thought I read an article with a few developers also having concerns, but I am not sure which article it was. If I find it, I will post a link.[/QUOTE]Seriously I think that both the PS3 and X-box 360 will easily be able to render the PC version of Doom 3 at 1080p with full effects at a solid 60 fps. Both consoles are really that powerful. Granted I can understand that Nintendo wants to be different but deciding not to do HD and than making up excuses about frame rate issues is rather silly.

[QUOTE=CallMeJean]Again, every company is blowing smoke. Any company will tell you that their product is better than their competitions. I'm sure each product will definitely have its own distinct advantages. Lack of HDTV support may not be all that important if Nintendo's unique controller can somehow provide unique gaming experiences. Its just a matter of waiting and seeing whenever they get around to letting us in on their secret. I know I am intrigued, but also skeptical.[/QUOTE]Why though can Nintendo not have a unique controller and a powerful console? There is no real reason for Nintendo to limit their next console besides wanting it to be really small and cheap.

[QUOTE=CallMeJean]Well, I'll have to respectfully disagree. I think games right now give a good immersion experience. I'm certain it will improve come next gen with the more powerful machines. However, I see this more as a minor upgrade than a major one.[/QUOTE]Would consider going from VGA to XGA a minor upgrade on a computer game? That is why many of use are absolutely amazed that Nintendo is going to stick with SD for the Nintendo Revolution.

[QUOTE=squicken]Perhaps we're all missing the point. Maybe it won't support HD b/c it won't use a TV at all. Maybe VR is finally here, and it's called Revolution :D[/QUOTE]That would be rather amusing. I could see an advertisement being something along the lines of "Play the NR while walking, swimming, or driving a car. Play, Live, and Die in the Nintendo NR".

5150

06-12-05, 07:16 AM

Y'all are arguing about the here and now. MS and Sony will use tomorrow to crush Nintendo, because Nintendo obviously isn't preparing for tomorrow. That'll be the marketing message.

It'll play like this: gonna buy a TV in the next five years? Uh huh. Gonna make sure it's HDTV? Uh huh! Want your games to play in HDTV? UH HUH!

It's not rocket science, but it sure is poor anticipation on Nintendo's part.

iboon

06-12-05, 05:35 PM

[QUOTE=CallMeJean]I too am very excited by HDTV gaming. However, how is it the next step in gaming? What all does it provide but just enhanced visual clarity. I mean, I know it will make games look better, but will it be considered the same leap forward as when games went from 2D to 3D? Will HD gaming be more "fun" than SD gaming?

&

We'll definitely see about that. I don't think Nintendo is the only one saying that frame rate could be difficult to lock for the next gen consoles running in HD. I thought I read an article with a few developers also having concerns, but I am not sure which article it was. If I find it, I will post a link.

Two things...Correct in saying that SMB 14 won't look any more realistic in HD is correct, so why bother. But, some games (FPS comes to mind) HD will assist with suspending disbelief that 5.1 was so successful with doing w/the Xbox.

Also, I will assume that what developers are still more concerned with is programming for the PS3. That first hurdle will have to be met before HD even comes into play. At least the Xbox is easier to program for, so that, with any luck, the developers can spend more time on the icing instead of all of their time on the cake.

CallMeJean

06-12-05, 06:07 PM

[QUOTE=5150]Y'all are arguing about the here and now. MS and Sony will use tomorrow to crush Nintendo, because Nintendo obviously isn't preparing for tomorrow. That'll be the marketing message.

It'll play like this: gonna buy a TV in the next five years? Uh huh. Gonna make sure it's HDTV? Uh huh! Want your games to play in HDTV? UH HUH!

It's not rocket science, but it sure is poor anticipation on Nintendo's part.[/QUOTE]

If I thought MS and Sony cared about Nintendo, I could see their marketing departments all over this. However, both Sony and MS seem to downplay Nintendo, so they may not even bother.

I still think a wait and see approach is in order here. The DS wasn't considered by many to be the next generation handheld everyone was hoping for, yet, here it is offering something completely different and fun and is selling well. I hope Nintendo can offer a similar pleasant suprise with the Revolution.

5150

06-13-05, 01:31 AM

They don't even have to mention Nintendo with such a message. It categorically lumps Nintendo's new system in with the old systems, which MS and Sony will be encouraging people to migrate from.

rmcgirr83

06-13-05, 08:47 AM

Correct me if I'm wrong, especially the trouble makers ;), but haven't consoles been trying to match the ability of the PC gaming world?

Don't you think they would want to expand on that base in any way they could whether it be via HD or some other technological feat? The latest and greatest in hardware design and implementation.

FWIW, I think Nintendo sees the hand writing on the wall, so to speak, with the "mature" crowd. MS and Sony have the lions share of the gaming console market (non hand held ;) ) for the "reaching over the hill age" population. Their newest, yet to see, offering does not appear to compare to the offerings from MS and sony.

It will be interesting to see what the "Revolution" is that they are speaking of.

BTW, as this is the HT Gaming Forum I would think we would want the very best in PQ possible. I say they scrap all console development and get to work on holodecks!! :cool:

allenw

06-13-05, 09:02 AM

Wait a sec. Isn't the Revolution supposed to be backward compatible with the Gamecube? How can it not have HD support if the Gamecube did? Just not make that an option?

CallMeJean

06-13-05, 09:40 AM

The Gamecube currently supports progressive scan(480p) in games. This is not HD. I'm sure the Revolution will also be support progressive scan. However, as it seems right now, the Revolution will not be supporting any higher resolution output such as 720p or 1080i. It seems odd to me that they wouldn't support this. I'm starting to wonder if this is actually entirely true. The person that gave this statement is Perrin Kaplan and she is notorious for being a complete dumbass sometimes. We'll see.

briankmonkey

06-13-05, 12:09 PM

"And for those who say HDTV is'nmt soo great, i dare you to see it in your home properly calibrated with good lighting conditions.I can guarantee you will not go back to SD tv after seeing the clarity of HDTV."

I do it all the time this gen (play Soul Calibur II 720p, xmen legens, 720p, then go back to playing 480p games) as is, I don't see why it would be any different next gen.

I do with tv viewing as well, sure I'd like all channels to be in HD but just because they all aren't doesn't limit me to only those channels, a great show is a great show regardless of HD, just as a great game is a great game regardless as well.

CallMeJean

06-13-05, 12:29 PM

[QUOTE=briankmonkey] a great show is a great show regardless of HD, just as a great game is a great game regardless as well.[/QUOTE]

well said. I completely agree :)

5150

06-13-05, 12:54 PM

No one is suggesting that quality content is secondary to a quality image. If you could experience the same content in HD as you could in SD, which would you choose? That's the issue here.

If Nintendo would just accept the reality of their situation and produce games for other system, you could experience their content in HD. Unfortunately, that's not going to be an option.

briankmonkey

06-13-05, 01:10 PM

"No one is suggesting that quality content is secondary to a quality image. "

it seems like a lot of people are writing off Nintendo if they aren't going to be HD...which to me sounds like quality of image DOES indeed comes first.. Of course I want both but if they supply a great game in 480i or p only, that will not stop me from buying a great game.

turls

06-13-05, 01:24 PM

But even the HD Tivo has been out for over a year . . . on a 4-5 year console life cycle I don't get this decision--why even come out with a successor to the GameCube? Price your games $20 less ($40 since I bet next gen games will be $60), keep a lot of good Nintendo exclusives coming, and just ride the GameCube for 2 more years or so. Then you come out with a HD box that can blow the other 2 away in the middle of their lifecycles and their will be more of an HD base to appreciate it.

[QUOTE=CallMeJean]Plus, my partner and I love our Tivo and since its only SDTV we use it for most of our TV watching.
[/QUOTE]

5150

06-13-05, 02:44 PM

[QUOTE=briankmonkey]"No one is suggesting that quality content is secondary to a quality image. "

it seems like a lot of people are writing off Nintendo if they aren't going to be HD...which to me sounds like quality of image DOES indeed comes first.. Of course I want both but if they supply a great game in 480i or p only, that will not stop me from buying a great game.[/QUOTE]

You're taking an either/or approach, where most of us here tend to take both. We can make a choice that will let us have great games and HD. Why limit yourself to only one of those, when nothing prevents you from having both?

CallMeJean

06-13-05, 02:53 PM

[QUOTE=5150]No one is suggesting that quality content is secondary to a quality image. If you could experience the same content in HD as you could in SD, which would you choose? That's the issue here.

If Nintendo would just accept the reality of their situation and produce games for other system, you could experience their content in HD. Unfortunately, that's not going to be an option.[/QUOTE]

I agree that if everything is equal, playing the same great game in HD is always the preference I choose. However, everything is not equal. Nintendo games cannot be played on any other system(legally anyway) and Nintendo games are typically known for being high quality games. Hence, if Nintendo still makes a quality product, but its only in SD, then one will have to decide if HD is really that important when buying a game.

As briankmonkey said, if they make a great game, SD or HD, I'll probably be buying it.

Automatonjohn

06-13-05, 02:57 PM

[QUOTE=5150]You're taking an either/or approach, where most of us here tend to take both. We can make a choice that will let us have great games and HD. Why limit yourself to only one of those, when nothing prevents you from having both?[/QUOTE]

I agree. It's very frustrating that certain great games of the next generation of consoles will be less great because they will appear on the Revolution.

Maybe HD won't make that much of a difference in image quality, however I doubt it. I guess it's subjective what "much of a difference" is, but I would speculate that the difference going from SD to HD (say Xbox to Xbox360) will be a larger step than going from the original Playstation to the Xbox.

Those of us who have gamed on PCs realize what a huge difference an increase in resolution makes.

briankmonkey

06-13-05, 03:00 PM

[QUOTE=5150]You're taking an either/or approach, where most of us here tend to take both. We can make a choice that will let us have great games and HD. Why limit yourself to only one of those, when nothing prevents you from having both?[/QUOTE]

I think you misunderstood me.. I meant that people are opting to not buy the Nintendo system simply due to the fact that it will not be HD.. just read the posts.. I'm not taking an either/or approach.. people are simply choosing or not choosing in this case a system for it's technology, not the potential software.. I as a gamer chose a system for it's games not technology. Choosing not to buy an Nintendo system for me would be choosing not to have some amazing software, if I didn't have a gamecube I'd be missing out on some amazing software this gen as I'm sure will the case Next gen well if history is any indication.

MisterMe's post is one example:
"No HD for Nintendo next generation

IGN confirmed it in an interview today.

Oh well . . . end of the line for Nintendo and me. I'm not going into the next generation without HD gaming."

Next post by hddiesel77
"I hate to say it, but I'm with you! I am seriously disappoint in this choice, just when things were looking good too."

I have to say that I will most likely get an Xbox, but I doubt that I will get it at launch...

Man this sux...... "

Etc., etc.

5150

06-13-05, 04:52 PM

I just think that if I'm going to purchase yet another software library, I may as well purchase something that will be different from what I already have. I can make use of HD, so I'd rather have great games that take advantage of it than great games that don't.

It's disappointing that Nintendo isn't competing for my money.

briankmonkey

06-13-05, 04:58 PM

I'd rather have HD as well, but for me having HD isn't the deciding factor on what games I buy.. for those that want to buy a console based on specs rather than software that is fine with me I could care less, to each their own..

Nintendo has always provided me with great games that I love, like Zelda, Metroid, Mario, etc.. and third party support on their system as well. I'm not going to let a lack of HD, something that I see as a nice bonus, take away from my enjoyment.

hdiesel77

06-13-05, 05:08 PM

[QUOTE=briankmonkey]I think you misunderstood me.. I meant that people are opting to not buy the Nintendo system simply due to the fact that it will not be HD.. just read the posts.. I'm not taking an either/or approach.. people are simply choosing or not choosing in this case a system for it's technology, not the potential software.. I as a gamer chose a system for it's games not technology. Choosing not to buy an Nintendo system for me would be choosing not to have some amazing software, if I didn't have a gamecube I'd be missing out on some amazing software this gen as I'm sure will the case Next gen well if history is any indication.

MisterMe's post is one example:
"No HD for Nintendo next generation

IGN confirmed it in an interview today.

Oh well . . . end of the line for Nintendo and me. I'm not going into the next generation without HD gaming."

Next post by hddiesel77
"I hate to say it, but I'm with you! I am seriously disappoint in this choice, just when things were looking good too."

I have to say that I will most likely get an Xbox, but I doubt that I will get it at launch...

Man this sux...... "

Etc., etc.[/QUOTE]

Well my dissappointment is in both the software and technology, and I believe the 2 are linked. Yeah Nintendo makes cool games and what not, i had my Cube for 2 years b4 I purchased and xbox, and I have the same amount of games for both.

In the last year and a half, my xbox has gotten more PT. I'm sure that the xbox will have killer apps just as well as nintendo, but right not I am not sure about the direction nintendo is going in.

I have an HDTV and swore that I would purchase the console(s) the would go HD. SD (even480p) leaves much to be desired on the larger screens, and if the SOFTWARE purchases I made this generation are any indication of next gen, I have about the same amount of good software to look forward to on xbox as I would nintendo.

p.s. I am hold out some hope that this nintendo decision is not set in stone.....

CrocHunter

06-13-05, 05:09 PM

Honestly i think you should just keep your original gamecube, since the revolution will do pretty much the same things as the gamecube graphic wise.

To me the revolution right now is looking to be a gamecube 1.5, not really that much of an improvement over the original gamecube.

The gamecube can already play games at 480p, if you still have one with the digital port.

I'm still curious to see what is so revolutionary about the revolution since so far it's pretty much a gamecube with some upgrades.

I think nintendo really screwed up this time, since what i they offer a multiplatform title that will go to all consoles.Would you rather play the HD version or the SD version?

It's a no brainer really, to go with the HD one,this could hurt nintendo a lot, so they must come up with some good exclusive titles.Even so i have no desire to go back to SD games.Once you see HD it's really hard to go back.

At least we can play dvd's on the revolution, but then again so can my PS2 and xbox so, they are a little behind there.

briankmonkey

06-13-05, 05:26 PM

"Honestly i think you should just keep your original gamecube, since the revolution will do pretty much the same things as the gamecube graphic wise. "

same could be said for the xbox to xbox 360.., which IMO is inaccurate in both cases.. Are you going to buy and xbox360? I will just like I will buy the next Nintendo system and the PS3.. Then again, like I said before, I buy consoles for the games, not the technology.

briankmonkey

06-13-05, 05:33 PM

[QUOTE=hdiesel77]Well my dissappointment is in both the software and technology, and I believe the 2 are linked. Yeah Nintendo makes cool games and what not, i had my Cube for 2 years b4 I purchased and xbox, and I have the same amount of games for both.

In the last year and a half, my xbox has gotten more PT. I'm sure that the xbox will have killer apps just as well as nintendo, but right not I am not sure about the direction nintendo is going in.

I have an HDTV and swore that I would purchase the console(s) the would go HD. SD (even480p) leaves much to be desired on the larger screens, and if the SOFTWARE purchases I made this generation are any indication of next gen, I have about the same amount of good software to look forward to on xbox as I would nintendo.

p.s. I am hold out some hope that this nintendo decision is not set in stone.....[/QUOTE]

I agree, I wish their was more out there for the Nintendo.. The big titles are few and far between, but there are more than enough quality titles on the gamecube to have justified my purchase.. All said, it doesn't really sound like anything is set in stone for the Revolution, so time will tell what is up Nintendo's sleave.

5150

06-13-05, 05:42 PM

Taking the line of buying consoles for the games rather than the technology is all well and good, but it's ignoring the fact that the technology makes a great many things possible that weren't possible in the past. If that wasn't the case, you'd still be happily playing a 2600 or NES. I rather doubt that one person could exhaust those game libraries in a lifetime.

briankmonkey

06-13-05, 05:44 PM

I agree..

It's not like 480i/p is maxed out on the current systems or even remotely close to being maxed out..

jonicarter

06-13-05, 07:16 PM

Nintendo quit working to earn my money as soon as they decided online was a waste of time. No, no HD. No thanks. I've still got my Cube if I need to play a Zelda, Mario, or Metroid game. Outside of those games and Resident Evil 4 and Mario Kart, my system had been pretty dormant. I'm not buying another system from a company that refuses to move forward with the rest of the gaming world just to play 4 or 5 games every 3 or 4 years. Hell, they even took the digital output out of the newer Gamecube models just because they didn't see enough people using the component cables. Nice of them to take the choice away.

The worst part is that the keep saying how innovative they are, but I don't see it. This gens Mario Kart couldn't hold a candle to the N64 version gameplay wise. Same for the Zelda games. Sure, Metroid was really awesome, and innovative, but instead of pushing it further in the sequal, they just dumped a new storyline in and that was it. No innovation at all there. Resident Evil 4 was outstanding, but it's not even going to be exclusive anymore and the PS2 version will have added extras to boot.

I used to love Nintendo, but these days, I wish they would just pack it in like Sega did and simply produce games for the other 2 systems.

Richard Paul

06-14-05, 04:30 AM

[QUOTE=briankmonkey]same could be said for the xbox to xbox 360.., which IMO is inaccurate in both cases.. Are you going to buy and xbox360? I will just like I will buy the next Nintendo system and the PS3.. Then again, like I said before, I buy consoles for the games, not the technology.[/QUOTE]Nintendo though is betting the farm on their next controller. In terms of technology their will not be a big leap from the Gamecube to the Revolution so the controller will be the only real technical difference. That may be enough if the controller is innovative but if most people find the controller to just be odd looking that will definitely cause problems.

[QUOTE=briankmonkey]It's not like 480i/p is maxed out on the current systems or even remotely close to being maxed out.[/QUOTE]If that was true than most people would play computer games at VGA (480x640) instead of SXGA (1024x1280). Resolution makes a big difference in terms of video quality and saying that games should stick with 480i/p so they can boost the effects really doesn't make sense.

CallMeJean

06-14-05, 08:58 AM

[QUOTE=Richard Paul]Nintendo though is betting the farm on their next controller. In terms of technology their will not be a big leap from the Gamecube to the Revolution so the controller will be the only real technical difference. That may be enough if the controller is innovative but if most people find the controller to just be odd looking that will definitely cause problems.[/quote]

That's not necessarily true. Nintendo has already stated that their next console would be more powerful. Just because they don't inflate their numbers as much as Sony does, doesn't mean it won't be able to crank out some nice visuals. Also, Nintendo is adding their online service to the mix as well.

I agree that the controller is a huge aspect of the Revolution, but I wouldn't say its the only one. You could say Microsoft is betting the farm on their Live service since the xbox 360 isn't as powerful as the PS3.

Each company seems to have its strengths that they are focusing on:

Playstation: powerful hardware, big name brand, blu ray
XBOX: strong hardware, robust online service
Nintendo: new interface, strong franchises, new online service

If that was true than most people would play computer games at VGA (480x640) instead of SXGA (1024x1280). Resolution makes a big difference in terms of video quality and saying that games should stick with 480i/p so they can boost the effects really doesn't make sense.

Resolution does make a difference, but I still don't see it being the only thing that can improve. 480p graphics can still improve quite a bit. Anti aliasing can be implemented while still being able to put more polys on the screen with a game running in 16:9 at 60 fps. Sure, if given the option, higher resolution is very nice to have. But, I don't see it being the only way next generation graphics can improve.

ureshii_akumu

06-14-05, 09:44 AM

[QUOTE=5150]Taking the line of buying consoles for the games rather than the technology is all well and good, but it's ignoring the fact that the technology makes a great many things possible that weren't possible in the past. If that wasn't the case, you'd still be happily playing a 2600 or NES. I rather doubt that one person could exhaust those game libraries in a lifetime.[/QUOTE]

Except, what is it that going from 480p to 720p makes possible that wouldn't be otherwise? I suppose more/smaller on screen text. More detailed character models and textures. However, it is nothing like the jump from the kind of games you'd see on a NES v SNES, or a 2d system vs a 3d system, or the play online capability adds. I love pretty pictures as much as the next guy and really do wish the Revolution had HD, but 480p v 720p really does nothing to open up new gaming experiences.

I will be interested to see how the next gen pans out for me ... currently, my most powerful console (XBox) gets by far the least amount of use (like 90 - 95% of XBox users, Live does nothing for me), my weakest gets the most use (Ps2) and the GC is a close second to PS2.

MisterMe

06-14-05, 09:45 AM

To me . . . this whole situation is three strikes you're out.

[list=1]
They clearly had a very powerful system in the N64, but they crippled themselves by using cartridge instead of CD-ROM. Imagine how much greater the games would have been had they used the 650MB of CD-ROM storage instead of limiting themselves to 8MB - 32MA. They might not have lost Square and Final Fantasy also.
No online. There was no good reason why Nintendo didn't grab a hold of online play and make it there own. We all know that they can make great multi-player games, so why not expand that into the online realm? Holding back on online made no sense.
No HD. This is the final straw. I know that people will argue that 'it's not that big of deal' . . . 'Nintendo still will make great games' . . . blah blah blah. I agree . . . Nintendo makes great games, but now I want to play great Nintendo games in HD and they are not going to let me do that when all of their competition is willing to offer games in HD. Imagine how much more immersed a person could be in a game like Zelda if it had 4 times the detail.
[/list]

As some of you know . . . I'm a huge Nintendo supporter. I've spend countless hours defending them and their questionable decisions. I've gotten to the place where I can't defend them anymore. They really do seem to have a self destructive streak in them at this point.

This is a very sad time in console gaming. Unlike others that like to go on about how Nintendo should be crushed and destroyed, I morn the loss of a great company that brought console gaming back from the brink and transformed it into a multi-billion dollar industry.

Saying all that . . . HD is the future of television and I/we have to move on and embrace those companies with a better vision of what the future of gaming is all about . . . HD graphics baby!!

:D

briankmonkey

06-14-05, 09:52 AM

well CallMeJean understands at least..

you have racers that are limited to the number to the number of cars, polygons, .. These games can easily be improved at 480i/p.. Add more cars, polygons, details to the tracks such as more shrubbery, more details, etc...Think FZero GX with 30 cars on the screen at one time but with the detail of Gran Turismo 4 or even better..All with advanced AI, etc...

Games like Halo where the terrain is huge but flat and undetailed..could be souped up to beyond Metroid Prime like details where the architecture is amazing, yes small rooms but on the next system they could be done for huge levels and even increase the geometry, details, polygons, number of enemies, etc. And instead of running at a waivering 30fps the came could be a solid 60fps which would lead to a much more enjoyable experience..

Etc, etc.. Yes Higher res is better than lower res, but a lot more can still be done at 480 i/p, like I said it isn't even close to being maxed out..

MisterMe

06-14-05, 10:00 AM

[QUOTE=briankmonkey]well CallMeJean understands at least..

you have racers that are limited to the number to the number of cars, polygons, .. These games can easily be improved at 480i/p.. Add more cars, polygons, details to the tracks such as more shrubbery, more details, etc...Think FZero GX with 30 cars on the screen at one time but with the detail of Gran Turismo 4 or even better..All with advanced AI, etc...

Games like Halo where the terrain is huge but flat and undetailed..could be souped up to beyond Metroid Prime like details where the architecture is amazing, yes small rooms but on the next system they could be done for huge levels and even increase the geometry, details, polygons, number of enemies, etc. And instead of running at a waivering 30fps the came could be a solid 60fps which would lead to a much more enjoyable experience..

Etc, etc.. Yes Higher res is better than lower res, but a lot more can still be done at 480 i/p, like I said it isn't even close to being maxed out..[/QUOTE]

I understand what your saying, but why should gamers have to compromise for greater detail at lower resolutions?

I have an HD set and I want greater resolution AND detail AND speed. MS and Sony are promising me that they will give me what I want in that regard.

briankmonkey

06-14-05, 10:07 AM

"I understand what your saying, but why should gamers have to compromise for greater detail at lower resolutions?

I have an HD set and I want greater resolution AND detail AND speed. MS and Sony are promising me that they will give me what I want in that regard.
"

I'm not disagreeing with you.. I'm just arguing the point that this type of statement is completely false, as it is false. Of course I'd prefer a higher resolution, nobody on here is arguing that..:)

"Honestly i think you should just keep your original gamecube, since the revolution will do pretty much the same things as the gamecube graphic wise. "

I don't see what is so wrong with wanting to buy a system first and foremost for software.. I know we are at an Audio/video forum but for me software is my first priority in a gaming system..

MisterMe

06-14-05, 10:18 AM

[QUOTE=briankmonkey]I don't see what is so wrong with wanting to buy a system first and foremost for software.. I know we are at an Audio/video forum but for me software is my first priority in a gaming system..[/QUOTE]

I'm going to be honest with you . . . the allure of a new Mario game or the Zelda game might just be to strong for me . . . and I will have to break down and get a Revo just for that alone, but I'm saying it shouldn't be this way . . . Nintendo should be responding correctly to the changing technologies of the home television enviroment.

briankmonkey

06-14-05, 10:23 AM

[QUOTE=MisterMe]I'm going to be honest with you . . . the allure of a new Mario game or the Zelda game might just be to strong for me . . . and I will have to break down and get a Revo just for that alone, but I'm saying it shouldn't be this way . . . Nintendo should be responding correctly to the changing technologies of the home television enviroment.[/QUOTE]

I agree with you 100% .. I've never been unsatisfied with a Zelda or metroid game..They've always exceeded my expectations and I can never get enough.. and the sequel to Mario 64 is said to be coming.. I want these games badly.. but yes they should be responding and doing things differently.. Hopefully their decisions are not final.

Shkuey

06-14-05, 10:27 AM

This whole quality of the games instead of the picture argument seems pretty moot, at least to me. I don't have anywhere near enough time to play all the good games that come out. So if I'm only going to be playing some of them anyway, I may as well be playing the ones that are in HD.

FrankJ.Cone

06-14-05, 10:41 AM

[QUOTE=MisterMe]I'm going to be honest with you . . . the allure of a new Mario game or the Zelda game might just be to strong for me . . . and I will have to break down and get a Revo just for that alone, but I'm saying it shouldn't be this way . . . Nintendo should be responding correctly to the changing technologies of the home television enviroment.[/QUOTE]

$99 Jay, wait for $99. Its not like you will be buying Nintendo exclusives for the low res graphics anyway so just wait until the system is dirt cheap, odds are the gasmes, which will be just as fun will be cheap as well.

briankmonkey

06-14-05, 10:48 AM

[QUOTE=FrankJ.Cone]$99 Jay, wait for $99. Its not like you will be buying Nintendo exclusives for the low res graphics anyway so just wait until the system is dirt cheap, odds are the gasmes, which will be just as fun will be cheap as well.[/QUOTE]

I have always bought consoles when it has had the games I've wanted

PS2 at launch, due to Tekken Tag, NHL hockey, Timesplitters
Xbox and Cube quite a bit after launch as nothing really appealed to me at the launch of either..

So if the Revolution launches with a Zelda game and or Mario game (not Party, but traditional platform style) then I will buy immediately. If not I will until it has what I want..

I'm more interested in PLAYING the games than looking at them :D

briankmonkey

06-14-05, 11:04 AM

Funny thing is that a majority of PS3, xbox360 owners will most likely be playing in 480i... yet by some peoples logic they shouldn't bother playing them then.

MisterMe

06-14-05, 11:15 AM

[QUOTE=FrankJ.Cone]$99 Jay, wait for $99. Its not like you will be buying Nintendo exclusives for the low res graphics anyway so just wait until the system is dirt cheap, odds are the gasmes, which will be just as fun will be cheap as well.[/QUOTE]

Frank . . . I have no self control . . . you should know that by now!!

:)

I have the perfect gamer life . . . no kids . . . lots of money . . . and a wife that says 'whatever makes you happy dear'

:D

I'm not going to wait to play Zelda, Mario or Metroid.

LOL

MisterMe

06-14-05, 11:17 AM

[QUOTE=briankmonkey]I'm more interested in PLAYING the games than looking at them :D[/QUOTE]

You are on the wrong forum with that kind of attitude son!! (check my sig for the right forum . . . :) )

FrankJ.Cone

06-14-05, 11:19 AM

If you have it.. spend it! AFAIK there is no bonus for taking it with you.

MisterMe

06-14-05, 11:21 AM

[QUOTE=briankmonkey]Funny thing is that a majority of PS3, xbox360 owners will most likely be playing in 480i... yet by some peoples logic they shouldn't bother playing them then.[/QUOTE]

Yeah. That actually cracks me up too.

But of course . . . this all changes 2 or 3 years down the road when HD becomes much more common and that is where Nintendo's fatal flaw is . . . they will be left out in the cold.

briankmonkey

06-14-05, 11:21 AM

[QUOTE=MisterMe]You are on the wrong forum with that kind of attitude son!! (check my sig for the right forum . . . :) )[/QUOTE]

lol, I'm there :) (well waiting for my confirmation email)

FrankJ.Cone

06-14-05, 11:27 AM

[QUOTE=briankmonkey]Funny thing is that a majority of PS3, xbox360 owners will most likely be playing in 480i... yet by some peoples logic they shouldn't bother playing them then.[/QUOTE]

The majority HERE will be playing in 720P/1080i. Therefore HERE we can and SHOULD criticize ANY company for not supporting HD.

To the tired OLD argument its about the gameplay not the graphics: Put away your Gamecube and break out the NES. Better gameplay than you will find on the GC (PS2 and Box offer online for all new types of gameplay) and a far larger library and the best third party support ever seen.

If gaming is not about the graphics as much as gameplay, the NES is the system or you.

Shkuey

06-14-05, 11:35 AM

[QUOTE=briankmonkey]Funny thing is that a majority of PS3, xbox360 owners will most likely be playing in 480i... yet by some peoples logic they shouldn't bother playing them then.[/QUOTE]

HD is a selling point, like any other feature on a console. If you dont have an HDTV it probably wont matter to you, but the consoles still have other selling points. My car can apparently tow a thousand pounds and drive 155mph, is it funny that I bought it anyway with no intention to do either?

briankmonkey

06-14-05, 11:44 AM

not at all.. but then again I wouldn't have told you not to buy your truck ;) Funny thing is, some people on these boards might tell you not to buy it if it didn't have that ability

briankmonkey

06-14-05, 11:46 AM

Dean Martin

06-14-05, 12:00 PM

[QUOTE=Shkuey]HD is a selling point, like any other feature on a console. If you dont have an HDTV it probably wont matter to you, but the consoles still have other selling points. My car can apparently tow a thousand pounds and drive 155mph, is it funny that I bought it anyway with no intention to do either?[/QUOTE]

I don't know if I agree. The capability of the unit is what is at issue here. If the Revolution is incapable (or unwilling to) of delivering HD resolutions then we have to question the quality of games that we will see as a result.
The market is moving toward better visuals from our monitors, Satellite systems, video games, computers, etc. as a way of immersing us more into the entertainment experience. Nintendo's answer to that with the DS was to touch the screen to make us use our hands to interact in new ways which is great.

But a console game needs to tickle our eyes and stir imagination to make us feel like we are a part of the action. Otherwise why have CGI, or more polygons, or things that make a game seem more real. It's all about great gaming moments.

All console games right now have a been there, done that feel and the next gen needs to captilize on the immersion experience to captivate new buyers, not try to sell them Super Mario Bros. for the 300th time.

ureshii_akumu

06-14-05, 12:13 PM

[QUOTE=FrankJ.Cone]
If gaming is not about the graphics as much as gameplay, the NES is the system or you.[/QUOTE]

So, every game play experience that you can have on modern systems you can have on the NES? You can have an identical gameplay experiece to Metroid Prime - immersive, first person adventure - the only difference being 8 bit graphics.

The flaw in your argument is that graphics and tech advances in consoles can and do lead to new gameplay experiences. 2D vs. 3D, for instance.

We are talking about a console which we know nothing about the specs, and 2 consoles that we know nothing real about the specs (as many numbers as they want to push at us, the proof will be when we have the controllers in our hands) ... the only difference we have to compare is resolution. What ground-breaking things will an increase in resolution from 480p to 720p or 1080i allow?

Now I do understand that the very nature of this forum means people's primary concern is graphics and hey we gotta choose our systems by whatever criteria we think is best. For me though, I have yet to see a first or third person adventure as entertaining as the Metorid and Zelda games on the GC replicated on any other system - why should I believe the next gen will be different?

Honestly, I am disappointed in no HD. It won't stop me from getting a Revo, but I know I will wish for the higher resolution, even if it is purely cosmetic. But, I think we are seriously over-estimating the importance, for the whole market, of HD at this time in game consoles. I think this next gen will be dead before HD has the penetration into households where it'll actually make a difference for most people buying a console.

FrankJ.Cone

06-14-05, 12:29 PM

[QUOTE=ureshii_akumu]For me though, I have yet to see a first or third person adventure as entertaining as the Metorid and Zelda games on the GC replicated on any other system - why should I believe the next gen will be different?
[/QUOTE]

for most people there has not been a zelda or mario as entertaining as the ones on n64 this generation... why should we expect that to change next gen

briankmonkey

06-14-05, 12:34 PM

[QUOTE=FrankJ.Cone]for most people there has not been a zelda or mario as entertaining as the ones on n64 this generation... why should we expect that to change next gen[/QUOTE]

ok, using your example then, I still don't see those types of experiences being done on the NES..

Shkuey

06-14-05, 12:40 PM

[QUOTE=Dean Martin]I don't know if I agree. The capability of the unit is what is at issue here. If the Revolution is incapable (or unwilling to) of delivering HD resolutions then we have to question the quality of games that we will see as a result.
The market is moving toward better visuals from our monitors, Satellite systems, video games, computers, etc. as a way of immersing us more into the entertainment experience. Nintendo's answer to that with the DS was to touch the screen to make us use our hands to interact in new ways which is great.

But a console game needs to tickle our eyes and stir imagination to make us feel like we are a part of the action. Otherwise why have CGI, or more polygons, or things that make a game seem more real. It's all about great gaming moments.

All console games right now have a been there, done that feel and the next gen needs to captilize on the immersion experience to captivate new buyers, not try to sell them Super Mario Bros. for the 300th time.[/QUOTE]

I was actually responding to the notion that you shouldn't buy an xbox360 or ps3 if you didn't have an HDTV. I, personally, do own an HDTV and will very much want to be gaming in HD. Unless Nintendo does something revolutionary (heh) with this new system, I probably will not buy it because of the lack of hd support.

I'm sure some people might of told you not to buy that truck if it didn't have that ability, regardless if you ever planned on using it or needed it.

It's a sedan, which makes its towing capacity rather moot for most people I would imagine. I thought of the car analogy and was then hard pressed to think of features I never used, to tell you the truth.

FrankJ.Cone

06-14-05, 12:40 PM

[QUOTE=briankmonkey]ok, using your example then, I still don't see those types of experiences being done on the NES..[/QUOTE]

Ok so you need two old systems to replace a Gamecube instead of one, and thats only if you require 3D...

So Resolution is unimportant, but 3D is required to be entertained? Make up your mind here.. is the software/entertainment/gameplay whats important (All available on NES) or do we need MORE than just that? (IE 3D/HD etc)?

And if we need 3D for a game to be good, why? If its so we can have new experiences, well we can have those in HD as well. If you do not understand that, WTH are you doing HERE of all places?

briankmonkey

06-14-05, 01:01 PM

I never said resolution was not important as I also did not say something had to be 3d to be fun or entertaining..

did you even read all of ureshii_akumu's post? I was referrering to your repsonse to his post..

"What ground-breaking things will an increase in resolution from 480p to 720p or 1080i allow?"

I'm here because I enjoy playing video games and talking about them

ureshii_akumu

06-14-05, 01:15 PM

[QUOTE=Dean Martin]
All console games right now have a been there, done that feel and the next gen needs to captilize on the immersion experience to captivate new buyers, not try to sell them Super Mario Bros. for the 300th time.[/QUOTE]

You have an interesting and valid point, but how does resolution get away from "been there, don that"? Halo 300 looks much crisper? Higher resolution does not necessarily mean you are pushing more polys, having better AI, having better effects, having better physics - all things that I would argue do increase immersion and affect gameplay far more than resolution increase. I just find it hard to see how the resolution will affect what can be done with the gameplay. Will resolution make me opt for a cross platform game on PS3 over Revo, if all else is equal? Sure. Will it prevent incredibly fun 1st and 2nd party titles on the Revo that are more graphically impressive than anything on the GC, and with the exception of Resolution, likely on par graphically with the other systems? Heck no.

Now, to play devil's advocate against myself, split screen gaming is one thing I see that would really benefit from higher resolution, greatly increasing the playability of 4 person games.

briankmonkey

06-14-05, 01:18 PM

CallMeJean

06-14-05, 01:32 PM

[QUOTE=briankmonkey]exactly...you're much more articulate than I am :)[/QUOTE]

Well, you both are better than I am ;)

Still, very well said. Completely agree. Resolution is certainly a welcome addition to next gen gaming, but its not a necessity to make a game great. All things being equal with the exception of resolution, then sure I'll go for the higher resolution game. However, if the revolution version of a game has a very unique use of the controller(unique in a fun way ;)) and the other versions are only offering HD, then I'd probably go for the Revolution version just because in terms of gameplay elements it would be offering more.

CrocHunter

06-14-05, 01:34 PM

All i know is that if there is going to be a lot of multi platform titles, and you have a choice of getting it for the XBOX360,PS3 and Revolution, which one are you going to get game for?

This is what's going to kill nintendo in the few years ahead where HD will be more common.

Would you really honestly play the game in 480p when you have the option of an HD resolution title?

This will be nintendo's foot in the mouth.

CrocHunter

06-14-05, 01:38 PM

[QUOTE=CallMeJean]Well, you both are better than I am ;)

Still, very well said. Completely agree. Resolution is certainly a welcome addition to next gen gaming, but its not a necessity to make a game great. All things being equal with the exception of resolution, then sure I'll go for the higher resolution game. However, if the revolution version of a game has a very unique use of the controller(unique in a fun way ;)) and the other versions are only offering HD, then I'd probably go for the Revolution version just because in terms of gameplay elements it would be offering more.[/QUOTE]

Do you spend more time looking at your hands or the actual screen when playing games?

When we play games we look at the screen not the controler.

Why would i buy a revolution if i can play the same title in HD resolutions?Why would i want to sacrifice PQ by getting a dumbed down version?

briankmonkey

06-14-05, 01:39 PM

[QUOTE=CrocHunter]All i know is that if there is going to be a lot of multi platform titles, and you have a choice of getting it for the XBOX360,PS3 and Revolution, which one are you going to get game for?

This is what's going to kill nintendo in the few years ahead where HD will be more common.

Would you really honestly play the game in 480p when you have the option of an HD resolution title?

This will be nintendo's foot in the mouth.[/QUOTE]

of course I'll buy the best version.. I don't think anybody is arguing that point.. I think we all agree that it isn't a good move for Nintendo.. Hopefully the final product isn't set in stone, but time will tell.

CallMeJean

06-14-05, 01:47 PM

[QUOTE=CrocHunter]Do you spend more time looking at your hands or the actual screen when playing games?

When we play games we look at the screen not the controler.

Why would i buy a revolution if i can play the same title in HD resolutions?Why would i want to sacrifice PQ by getting a dumbed down version?[/QUOTE]

You're right. We do look at the screen. However, we play the games with our hands, using a controller. If the Revolution version provides the exact same control scheme as the other versions, PLUS additional unique interfaces to controlling the games and the other versions just offer HD support, then I'll take the additional unique interfaces, provided they are fun. If Nintendo can provide me new ways to enjoy games and it is fun, then why choose a version that maybe has higher res but offers les options in terms of interacting with games?

rmcgirr83

06-14-05, 01:50 PM

[QUOTE=FrankJ.Cone] If its so we can have new experiences, well we can have those in HD as well. If you do not understand that, WTH are you doing HERE of all places?[/QUOTE]

Well I originally came here to learn.

Now I come here to maybe teach something to somebody, learn some more and opine....which is what I think brianmonkey was doing. Stating an opinion.

As with all things there are pluses and minuses galore. A user has to weigh the difference between the choices and then opt for what they perceive to be the better value/experience.

Very similar in choosing a display device, n'est pas?

As I stated previously, this is a HT forum first and foremost. I would think that everyone that visited here would want the absolute best gaming platform they could get at any particular point in time to match with their respective HT. IMHO, part of that equation would be the ability to display a game in HD.

Of course the game itself comes into a very large part of that decision process. How many here would be upset if all of a sudden the xbox 360 and ps3 got rid of 5.1 DD? I'm thinking quite a few. ;)

briankmonkey

06-14-05, 01:56 PM

exactly.. I would be sad if the game does not support 5.1 sound or if the sound is crappy and very compressed sounding (which some games do sound).. However having 5.1 sound or not is not going to be the deciding factor for me.. If Zelda on the Revolution only supports 2 channel stereo or even mono sound I am sure as hell still going to buy the game as I've loved every console zelda (nintendo made) game to date..

CrocHunter

06-14-05, 01:58 PM

The surround sound is'nt too important to me since i mostly play the games through my tv speakers anyway.

But it's nice to have, i played a few games in 5.1 and it's pretty immersive, but it can be too much some times.

briankmonkey

06-14-05, 01:59 PM

[QUOTE=rmcgirr83]Well I originally came here to learn.

Now I come here to maybe teach something to somebody, learn some more and opine....which is what I think brianmonkey was doing. Stating an opinion.

As with all things there are pluses and minuses galore. A user has to weigh the difference between the choices and then opt for what they perceive to be the better value/experience.

Very similar in choosing a display device, n'est pas?

As I stated previously, this is a HT forum first and foremost. I would think that everyone that visited here would want the absolute best gaming platform they could get at any particular point in time to match with their respective HT. IMHO, part of that equation would be the ability to display a game in HD.

Of course the game itself comes into a very large part of that decision process. How many here would be upset if all of a sudden the xbox 360 and ps3 got rid of 5.1 DD? I'm thinking quite a few. ;)[/QUOTE]

exactly.. I would be sad if the game does not support 5.1 sound or if the sound is crappy and very compressed sounding (which some games do sound).. However having 5.1 sound or not is not going to be the deciding factor for me.. If Zelda on the Revolution only supports 2 channel stereo or even mono sound I am sure as hell still going to buy the game as I've loved every console zelda (nintendo made) game to date.. ... Hopefully Nintendo goes along with 5.1 sound the next, PLII is very good but 5.1 is better or even better lossless 5.1, 6.1, etc..

5150

06-14-05, 02:03 PM

This idea that immersion doesn't matter strikes me as being silly. It's a poor argument to take. Graphics are important to immersion. To say that they aren't isn't being forthright. That would be like saying that surround sound doesn't improve the gaming experience over stereo. That the old CGA games were just as much fun as their EGA versions back in the day. That the same game on a Revolution and Xbox 360 will still be the same game, even though one has a considerable better image.

If that's the compromise you want to make, make it. If the emotional (and this is an argument based on emotion that people are trying to make) ties to Mario are strong, run with it. But don't lecture about gameplay. Great gameplay will be found on all three systems--two will just look better doing it.

Trying to blow smoke and say that if you want great games you have to buy Nintendo is ridiculous. In this community, here at AVS Forum, we're the high-end of the market. We spend thousands on our hardware, with the intent that we benefit from that investment. Saying that most people will play at 480i is meaningless here. We're not college kids with a 19" Sanyo. We're a little bit older than that, and many of us do have very fond memories of playing Nintendo games. Perhaps our emotional ties to the franchise aren't as strong, though. You've got them, and that's good. That is immersive for you. The rest of us want something more, or less depending on how you look at it.

CallMeJean

06-14-05, 02:06 PM

[QUOTE=rmcgirr83]Well I originally came here to learn.

As I stated previously, this is a HT forum first and foremost. I would think that everyone that visited here would want the absolute best gaming platform they could get at any particular point in time to match with their respective HT. IMHO, part of that equation would be the ability to display a game in HD.

Of course the game itself comes into a very large part of that decision process. How many here would be upset if all of a sudden the xbox 360 and ps3 got rid of 5.1 DD? I'm thinking quite a few. ;)[/QUOTE]

This is all well and good, but it doesn't mean that gameplay should take a backseat to visuals/sound. Remember, these are games first and foremost and they're ultimately about fun. Yes, this is a home theater forum, but this section of the forum is based on gaming on one's home theater. Games are played as a way of entertainment and fun. So, I think its ok that people have an emphasis on visuals/sound from their games here, but it still doesn't necessarily make a game fun to play. So, if a person chooses to purchase a game or game system based on the actual games and fun factor rather than on the technology and home theater "experience" then I think they have every right to post here as anyone else.

I love playing my XBOX on my home theater. It definitely enhances my game playing experience. Would I lose some enjoyment if the game weren't in 5.1? Sure. Would it mean I couldn't enjoy the game at all? Not at all. A good game is a good game, regardless of 5.1 or HD support.

CallMeJean

06-14-05, 02:14 PM

[QUOTE=CrocHunter]The surround sound is'nt too important to me since i mostly play the games through my tv speakers anyway.

But it's nice to have, i played a few games in 5.1 and it's pretty immersive, but it can be too much some times.[/QUOTE]

Wait a sec. you go on and on about how you need an immersive gaming experience and that you won't buy a revolution because it doesn't support HD, thus ruining your immersive experience, and you then post that you play games through your TV speakers because 5.1 games are too immersive?

Am I the only one confused here?

briankmonkey

06-14-05, 02:16 PM

[QUOTE=5150]This idea that immersion doesn't matter strikes me as being silly. It's a poor argument to take. Graphics are important to immersion. To say that they aren't isn't being forthright. That would be like saying that surround sound doesn't improve the gaming experience over stereo. That the old CGA games were just as much fun as their EGA versions back in the day. That the same game on a Revolution and Xbox 360 will still be the same game, even though one has a considerable better image.

If that's the compromise you want to make, make it. If the emotional (and this is an argument based on emotion that people are trying to make) ties to Mario are strong, run with it. But don't lecture about gameplay. Great gameplay will be found on all three systems--two will just look better doing it.

Trying to blow smoke and say that if you want great games you have to buy Nintendo is ridiculous. In this community, here at AVS Forum, we're the high-end of the market. We spend thousands on our hardware, with the intent that we benefit from that investment. Saying that most people will play at 480i is meaningless here. We're not college kids with a 19" Sanyo. We're a little bit older than that, and many of us do have very fond memories of playing Nintendo games. Perhaps our emotional ties to the franchise aren't as strong, though. You've got them, and that's good. That is immersive for you. The rest of us want something more, or less depending on how you look at it.[/QUOTE]

Of course it is emotional, video games bring up emotion while playing...
For the record, I never indicated that graphics don't add to the immersion factore, they definitely do, just as sound does... My point is, that it isn't about comprimise, and I I don't agree with Nintendo for not going with HD either.. But at the same time I'm not blowing smoke. For me personally and many others, I would be missing out on what are In my opinion great games if I didn't buy an Nintendo console.. The reason being, these games are not going to be on the PS3 or Xbox360 so the only way to play them is to play them on the Nintendo system.. Sure I would love to have Zelda in HD, Mario in HD but if they aren't available that way I will still be happy to play them at 480i/p, which will still make me very happy..

One game that is coming out later this year is Zelda:Twilight Princess, which judging off of the trailers looks to be very fun.. It doesn't boast the best graphics this gen, but it sure does look like something that I will love.. I could turn out not so good, but based off history I'm sure it will be very good at the minimum.

Resident Evil 4, is an amazing game as well and that game isn't even really 480, yet it IMO looks amazing and is one of my all time favorite games this gen. Yes, it would look much better at 720p/1080i but as is it is a great game.

ureshii_akumu

06-14-05, 02:24 PM

[QUOTE=CrocHunter]All i know is that if there is going to be a lot of multi platform titles, and you have a choice of getting it for the XBOX360,PS3 and Revolution, which one are you going to get game for?[/QUOTE]

As I mentioned earlier, if all else is equal I would obviously go for the one with better resolution. However, what if the lower res version has a consistently higher frame rate or more graphical bells and whistles? What if the control scheme was more comfortable and natural on one or the other? Actually, when it comes to cross platform, control scheme is one of my primary concerns. A good example is 2 or 3 years ago, EA would write their games with basically the PS2 in mind, and do half arsed ports. So, while GC or XBox would give me better graphics, I went with PS2 because it was more comfortable to play.

More humorously, I guess I could ask, "Who buys a Nintedo console for multi platform games?" :D

This is what's going to kill nintendo in the few years ahead where HD will be more common.
Maybe I am wrong, but I honestly don't see a level of mainstream adoption of HD by the end of the life of the next gen consoles that will really make an impact in console sales. Think of the masses buying their consoles at Walmart or Target, where they probably got their TVs as well. How many have an HD TV? How many will upgrade their TV in the next 5 or even 10 years? How many will get a TV bigger than 27 or 29", where the extra resolution really doesn't matter unless you want to sit close?

Now, because it is fun to do, I will ask myself a hard question: with what I know now if I could get only one console, which would it be? Man, that is tough. As much as I want to say Nintendo, it'd probably be PS3. Part of that is due to HD. Part due to a likelihood of more RPGs. Part due to Blu-Ray. (FWIW, I've found XBox just doesn't come out with many games I want, so unless 360 is drastically different, I can't see getting one.)

That said, I am fortunate enough (as many with $2000+ TVs, I imagine) that I can get multiple consoles. So, I can still enjoy hi-res 3rd party titles while not having to give up the great games that will be coming out for the Revo.

I guess the points I ultimately want to make in all this are:
1) I do see how HD is improtant to people on this forum, and can understand that it would affect their console buying decision.
2) I do think we have a skewed perspective of how important HD actually is to the console mass market right now and in the near future.
3) I do think HD is only a minor part of the graphics make-up of a console, and we will see some quite spectacular looking stuff on all next gen consoles, regardless of its resolution.

rmcgirr83

06-14-05, 02:32 PM

[QUOTE=CallMeJean]So, if a person chooses to purchase a game or game system based on the actual games and fun factor rather than on the technology and home theater "experience" then I think they have every right to post here as anyone else.[/QUOTE]

I don't believe I ever said anything to the contrary. What I meant was exactly what 5150 posted....most who come here are looking for the most from their HT setup with a gaming system. That system can be a console or PC.

I love playing my XBOX on my home theater. It definitely enhances my game playing experience. Would I lose some enjoyment if the game weren't in 5.1? Sure. Would it mean I couldn't enjoy the game at all? Not at all. A good game is a good game, regardless of 5.1 or HD support.

I'm not arguing that fact either but the 5.1 or HD, IMHO, definetly adds to the "good game" criteria.

BTW, are you related to MisterMe?

michaeltscott

06-14-05, 02:41 PM

BTW, there was further confirmation of Nintendo's intention to forego HD in this (http://www.gamespot.com/news/2005/06/13/news_6127435.html) news bit at Gamespot yestersday:
Following online reports, Nintendo of America confirmed to GameSpot today that it does not anticipate its next-generation console, the Revolution, to support HDTV. "There currently are no plans for Nintendo Revolution to support high-definition video output," said Perrin Kaplan, Nintendo of America's vice president of marketing and corporate affairs. While promising more Revolution details would be revealed "soon," for the moment, Kaplan would only give a vague reason for her company's decision. "We have thoroughly considered the best means of video output for the system and are dedicated to delivering the best hardware possible to meet the demands of our consumers," she said.
I personally doubt that this will harm them in the short-run. Even as we march into the DTV era, every television is not going to be an HDTV for a quite some while--not until the difference in manufacturing costs becomes inconsequential. The $200 4:3 27" NTSC television will become the $300 16:9 30" SD ATSC television, with the capability to downconvert HD resolutions.

I know a number of people who have an HDTV in their home, who also have gaming consoles, but the gaming consoles belong to their children and are never connected to their HDTV, but used with the inexpensive sets in the kids' rooms. I doubt that ubiquitous HD capabilities in gaming consoles will change that.

I think that Nintendo knows what they're doing. They not trying to appeal to all of the market and aren't afraid to lose the business of the affluent, HT-freak "hardcore" gamer. In fact, by not implementing "HD gaming", they'll only lose a portion of that minor market segment, anyway.

They've made a few mistakes in the current generation console which I'd call major, but the overwhelming success of their handhelds has kept them by far the more profitable of the "big three" console manufacturers (more than twice Sony's margins, I believe, and Microsoft doesn't forsee acheiving profitability on consoles until a year or two from now). They are going to hit the market with a console that, while not being the most powerful or most glamorous, will doubtless have some very appealing features and games and be much the least expensive of the three, and I'll bet its low price will turn a profit (on hardware) while the other two sell at a loss.

Obviously, "HD-gaming" multi-console owners won't choose to buy the Revolution version of a multi-platform title, but I'll bet that we'll remain a minority. They might as well leave competition for that to Sony and Microsoft. There are big bucks in exclusives, and Nintendo has some of the most lucrative franchises, all developed by their own studios.

I think that the biggest mistake that they need to avoid now is excluding multiplayer online gaming, but I doubt that they will, since it's being implemented for the DS this summer.

FrankJ.Cone

06-14-05, 02:41 PM

We went through this with the GC and XBox, people would go on about how we did not need DD 5.1, it was after all the gameplay.

Then they would go on about how the GC was "close enough" to XBox.. and by the way it does not matter because its all bout the gameplay.

Now we have people in a HT forum saying HD is not important (GOOD GOD!), after all its the gameplay that matters.

The large elephant these people seem to be ignoring is that the gameplay is going t be great on all three new systems. There are fantastic games on the PS2 and GC and neither looks as good as the Xbox, there are great games on the XBox and it does not look as good as PC games.

Its 2005 for crying out load. As long as you know whom to buy games from (Crappy developers abound) you are going to get amazingly entertaining experiences no matter what system you are using at the moment.

What we are facing next gen however (And I am 99% sure HD WILL be in the Revolution personally) is one system LACKING HD. Again we all spent a good chunk of change on HD and to just say its unimportant is absurd.

There are two accounts on this board that are too fanboyish to actually find great games on every platform, everyone else can and does. For those of us lack of HD will be a big deal. After all if we did not understand the benefits of extra detail then we sure as hell would not have spent the $$$ HD requires.

If you can honestly say HD does not matter for ANY console next gen please bump your monitor down to 640X480 and browse your favorite site. Then come back and tell me the site was just as entertaining as it would have been at a higher resolution. The content will not have changed so in theory some of you should not even notice the difference.

Dean Martin

06-14-05, 02:44 PM

[QUOTE=ureshii_akumu]You have an interesting and valid point, but how does resolution get away from "been there, don that"? Halo 300 looks much crisper? Higher resolution does not necessarily mean you are pushing more polys, having better AI, having better effects, having better physics - all things that I would argue do increase immersion and affect gameplay far more than resolution increase. I just find it hard to see how the resolution will affect what can be done with the gameplay. Will resolution make me opt for a cross platform game on PS3 over Revo, if all else is equal? Sure. Will it prevent incredibly fun 1st and 2nd party titles on the Revo that are more graphically impressive than anything on the GC, and with the exception of Resolution, likely on par graphically with the other systems? Heck no.

Now, to play devil's advocate against myself, split screen gaming is one thing I see that would really benefit from higher resolution, greatly increasing the playability of 4 person games.[/QUOTE]

Better screen resolution means better immersion. The more realistic a game can look along with better AI and physics, a game will make you feel more like part of the experience. Right now with HD we only have 480p and games look jaggy and not very clear compared to PC games running at high resolutions.
Compare Doom 3 on the Xbox to the PC and tell me which is the more immersive experience.

Also consoder Stereo sound. Nintendo chose Dolby Pro logic for the cube and Xbox has 5.1 Dolby Digital. All of these things play a part in giving you a more immersive gameplay experience.

CrocHunter

06-14-05, 02:47 PM

[QUOTE=CallMeJean]Wait a sec. you go on and on about how you need an immersive gaming experience and that you won't buy a revolution because it doesn't support HD, thus ruining your immersive experience, and you then post that you play games through your TV speakers because 5.1 games are too immersive?

Am I the only one confused here?[/QUOTE]

I mean the sound can be too loud sometimes, with explosions and such.Plus i like to use the tv speakers at night, because surround sound can be too much at night and i could be a little sleepy then boom! an explosion scares the crap out of you. :D

plus it sounds pretty sweet through my tv speakers which are 15wattsx2 a totla of 30 watts:)Pretty good sound quality for tv speakers espeacialy using the BBE enhancement.

No need to dis me if i sometimes don't feel like listening to my games in surround,
which you are by the way.

Point is i love surround sound for gaming, but i don't have to use it all the time.Sometimes i just feel like playing the game through the tv speakers that's all.

ureshii_akumu

06-14-05, 03:29 PM

[QUOTE=FrankJ.Cone]
Now we have people in a HT forum saying HD is not important (GOOD GOD!), after all its the gameplay that matters.[/QUOTE]
I don't think anyone has said HD is not important. I think most, if not all have said they are dissappointed the Revo will not be HD. What I've been trying to say is that it is not a make or break for me. For some people it is. Fair enough. I still fully believe that there will be Revo games that look quite stunning on my TV - resolution is just one of many parts of graphics. To give a good idea of what I mean: with PC games, I will opt for a lower resolution if it means I get more graphic bells and whistles (shadows, further clipping plane, more detailed models) and a smoother frame rate.

The large elephant these people seem to be ignoring is that the gameplay is going t be great on all three new systems. There are fantastic games on the PS2 and GC and neither looks as good as the Xbox, there are great games on the XBox and it does not look as good as PC games.
Again, I don't think anyone is denying this. I plan to get at least 2 of the next gen consoles based on past experience, and will get the third if it comes out with games I want. Not everyone likes the same kind of games, and this is ok. Some people like certain games better than others, and this is ok. Looking at my collection and seeing I have 5 or 6 games for one console where as I have over a dozen (closer to 2 dozen) each for the other consoles does not make me a fanboy - it just means one console does not cater to me with the kind of games I want. And this is ok.

If you can honestly say HD does not matter for ANY console next gen please bump your monitor down to 640X480 and browse your favorite site. Then come back and tell me the site was just as entertaining as it would have been at a higher resolution. The content will not have changed so in theory some of you should not even notice the difference.

You know, I continue to see this straw man used - I will only speak for myself, but I definitely never said resolution doesn't matter. I definitely said I am disappointed the Revo will not be HD. I just A) don't think it is as important for the mass market as some people think, B) don't think it is as important as other graphical capabilities of a system, and C) don't think it will prevent me from getting one.

FWIW, the web browser analogy is flawed as modern pages are made for higher resolutions (whereas a Revo game would be made for the Revo's capabilities). But I know what you are trying to say and don't disagree. Higher resolution is nice. It shows off our equipment more. But, I still stand by A), B), and C).

In the end, I want to play great games, and will end up with each system that provides games I want to play. And I realize this discussion is a tough sell in a forum of HT enthusiasts :p But then, that is what makes it intellectually stimulating. I just wish people could engage in these without having to break-out the oft used ad hominim of "fanboy."

MisterMe

06-14-05, 03:35 PM

[QUOTE=rmcgirr83]BTW, are you related to MisterMe?[/QUOTE]

Gosh . . . do all Nintendo supporters look the same to you people?

:)

Nope. No relationship between Jean and I . . . although I respect his/her views.

Dean Martin

06-14-05, 03:39 PM

Let's end this by saying that if screen resolution, or even size for that matter, was not a big factor they would not be so aggressively making big screen and high resolution displays.
What's really funny to me is that Nintendo would make a brand new system and have the audacity to call it revolution and then not really do anything very revolutionary. To the contrary they seem to want to bring back all of their old games.
It's almost as if they are saying they know they don't have many future games to bank on so let's tap out old library. I'm wondering why the Gamecube could not have acheived this?

Personally I see a very, very small handful of great games that came out on the Cube, which includes Eternal Darkness, Res evil 4, Zelda, and Metroid and that is pretty much it. Sure there was a Rogue squadrn and a couple of decent party games but come on. The Cube was no where near utilized to be already thinking of making new hardware.

Nintendo has cashed in big time on re-releasing classics to the Gameboy and now we have the revolution which looks uber slick but it's claim to fame is downloading OLD games. A lack of sound and HD capability tells me one thing. Nintendo, as it has been for the last few years, is primarily aimed at children.

CallMeJean

06-14-05, 04:02 PM

[QUOTE=Dean Martin]
What's really funny to me is that Nintendo would make a brand new system and have the audacity to call it revolution and then not really do anything very revolutionary. To the contrary they seem to want to bring back all of their old games.
[/quote]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but did Nintendo say that the revolutionary aspect of the Revolution was their downloadable games? I mean, they could have, but I missed it. Did they say it?

Most likely the revolutionary aspect of the revolution will lie with its interface, which I know Nintendo has stated numerous times. This interface has not been released yet. So, as it stands right now, we know very little about the revolution. This is what we know:

1) What it looks like(the console)
2) It will have wi fi out of the box
3) backwards compatible playing all old Nintendo games

That's it. I don't think its fair to ASSume that the Revolution will be for kids or that it won't have great games or anything when we know so little. That's just my 2 cents anyway :D

rmcgirr83

06-14-05, 04:02 PM

[QUOTE=MisterMe]Gosh . . . do all Nintendo supporters look the same to you people?[/QUOTE]

It's not "to you people", it's "to youse people". :)

Just curious as you seem to be saying the same thing and have very similar tastes.

I personally have nothing against Nintendo. My kids each have a gameboy advanced and I used to have a NES before it, uhmmmm, went south let's say. ;)

briankmonkey

06-14-05, 04:11 PM

Nintendo really hasn't shown what they are going to bring to the table, you can't really call them revolutionary yet, but you can't say that they will not be as well.

MS is the only one that has pretty much laid it all out or close to all of it out on the table..

MisterMe

06-14-05, 04:13 PM

[QUOTE=rmcgirr83]It's not "to you people", it's "to youse people". :)[/QUOTE]

I'm from Manhattan . . . if you acks me . . . we don't have any accent . . . a-ite!!

:D

Big John Thomas

06-14-05, 04:20 PM

[QUOTE=rmcgirr83]
Just curious as you seem to be saying the same thing and have very similar tastes.[/QUOTE]
lol, what about that 90% of the forum that speaks with a unified voice? i guess it would take too long to list them all.

seriously, though, with all due respect, if you feel your concerns about these two are vaild, shouldn't you be taking them up with these people privately?

Big John Thomas

06-14-05, 04:29 PM

as for the discussion, i think the increase in texture resolution, polygon count, frame rate, and specialized rendering techniques will be far more important than pixel density of the rendered image. if the revolution can only provide equal amounts of those elements with a lower pixel density, then there will be a visible difference that will affect how we perceive the revolution's graphics. but, saying that the pixel density alone will change everything is not really valid.

5150

06-14-05, 06:20 PM

Apparently not too many of us go back to CGA and EGA graphics. That's ok. :)

Dean, you may be onto something there. A revolution can just as easy be one time around (back to the previously published games) as it is new and different.

Really, this whole debate is simple. If you love Nintendo, buy Nintendo. You'll miss out on HD. If you want both great games and HD, buy Sony or MS. You'll miss out on Mario. It's not an argument over HD so much as it is that some people are very brand-loyal.

Nobody has said that pixel density alone will change everything, John.

briankmonkey

06-14-05, 06:35 PM

for gamers it really comes down to if you like certain games that are only on the Nintendo console, then buy it.. If you don't want those games then don't buy the Nintendo system..

Same goes for the Sony and MS consoles, this is nothing new..

Personally I love the exclusives that Nintendo has to offer wether they be 1st, 2nd or 3rd party.. I also love the Exclusives on the Sony and MS systems.. which is why I want all three..

ureshii_akumu

06-14-05, 06:44 PM

I came into computers around the time of EGA :) Man those were some sweet graphics! Heheh.

[QUOTE=5150]
Really, this whole debate is simple. If you love Nintendo, buy Nintendo. You'll miss out on HD. If you want both great games and HD, buy Sony or MS. You'll miss out on Mario. It's not an argument over HD so much as it is that some people are very brand-loyal.[/QUOTE]

You mean we can only buy one console? :p

I think a better plan for some people is to buy a Nintendo plus a Sony or MS (whichever has the exclusives you like, or both). That way you can get the best quality games regardless of system and be quite happy ^_^. My GC got me great games like Metroid Prime 1 & 2, Animal Crossing, and Wind Waker. My PS2 got me great games like Disgaea, Katamari Damacy, and Phantom Brave. My XBox got me great games like Panzer Dragoon Orta.

I guess I really don't have anything to add to this thread that hasn't been said. I accept for some people HD will be a make-or-break issue. I've accepted that all along, and am not trying to convince anyone otherwise.

It'd by nice if others could accept that some of us with nice HT setups don't see HD as a make or break on a console and have valid reasons (not "brand loyalty") for considering purchase of a console (even if they don't apply to you) - instead of resorting to calling fanboy or implying our tastes are childish. *shrug*

dresche4

06-14-05, 06:56 PM

The main thing I see is that nintendo is going to lose mindshare with this move. Right now it seems logical to not include it but hdtv sets are becoming more prevalent each day. Go into any electronics store and the SD tvs are always in the back corner, plus the cost of hdtv's has dropped dramatically. So it seems very illogical down the road to exclude this feature. Then add in the fact that the revolution is shooting for a late 2006 release date. There will be second gen xbox 360 games out by then. So the revolution will already be behind everyone else.
But then there is the arguement that graphics doesn't matter, its gameplay that matters. This may be true, but the best games combine both. Why with nintendo does it have to be one thing or the other. why can't it be both. Look at them not supporting online this generation. Online may be a small percentage of users but adding it to the games would only make them better. Most nintendo games are party and multiplayer games. Wouldn't of mario kart of benefited from online play, what about animal crossing, or mario party/tennis/golf. The same is going to be true next generation. Sure mario 128, and zelda are going to be great games, but imagine if they were 720p. Why stick with them when sony and microsoft's best games will not only incorporate great gameplay but higher resolution to go with it.

Then another arguement is since nintendo's hardware is going to be less horsepower that will affect the other areas like AI and physics. So with nintendo not only are they coming to market last but they will be behind on so many levels. So while nintendo will continue to make profit they surely will not benefit as much as they could of. Everytime I play mario kart I can only imagine how much fun online with 8 other drivers would of been. So I will probably skip the revolution since the best games sony and microsoft come out with will have the same great gameplay but the graphics to back it up.

5150

06-14-05, 06:59 PM

What is it, if not brand loyalty? You enjoy what they produce, and you want to keep enjoying what they produce.

One thing I can't see is too many people that have multiple systems buying cross-platform games for the Nintendo.

briankmonkey

06-14-05, 07:29 PM

for me it isn't about brand loyalty... I'm a fan of a good or great product regardless of who makes it or what name is on the label. Nintendo happens to have a lot of great games..as well as other developers like capcom, konami, namco, etc..

Big John Thomas

06-14-05, 08:00 PM

[QUOTE=ureshii_akumu]It'd by nice if others could accept that some of us with nice HT setups don't see HD as a make or break on a console and have valid reasons (not "brand loyalty") for considering purchase of a console (even if they don't apply to you) - instead of resorting to calling fanboy or implying our tastes are childish. *shrug*[/QUOTE]
precisely!
that's all that i ask as well.

Dean Martin

06-14-05, 08:34 PM

[QUOTE=CallMeJean]Correct me if I'm wrong, but did Nintendo say that the revolutionary aspect of the Revolution was their downloadable games? I mean, they could have, but I missed it. Did they say it?

Most likely the revolutionary aspect of the revolution will lie with its interface, which I know Nintendo has stated numerous times. This interface has not been released yet. So, as it stands right now, we know very little about the revolution. This is what we know:

1) What it looks like(the console)
2) It will have wi fi out of the box
3) backwards compatible playing all old Nintendo games

That's it. I don't think its fair to ASSume that the Revolution will be for kids or that it won't have great games or anything when we know so little. That's just my 2 cents anyway :D[/QUOTE]

No, N* didn't say that the console was even something revolutionary, that's just the name they picked. The best thing I have heard was that it could download the library of N* games from years past. I am not ASSuming that the console is for kids but one can only suspect that since once again their console is not targeted towards an older demographic one can conclude that Revolution just means coming back around to do it again.

CrocHunter

06-14-05, 08:43 PM

[QUOTE=briankmonkey]for me it isn't about brand loyalty... I'm a fan of a good or great product regardless of who makes it or what name is on the label. Nintendo happens to have a lot of great games..as well as other developers like capcom, konami, namco, etc..[/QUOTE]

Not anymore soon enough, developers will be more interested in the next gen of gaming with the xbox360 and PS3.They are starting to lose interest in nintendo all together since they feel that HD resolutions is the next big thing, along with innovative gameplay.

480i/p is old now, developers will likely go to the other two systems since nintendo is turning more and more into a niche system cattered to a select audiance.

I'll tell you one thing, since Nintendo will not do HD resolutions, they are going to lose a whole lot of third party support.Developers have had it with 480i/p they want to move on to the next best thing which is HD resolutions.

Also when the HD version of a game comes out and nintendo has the same title in SD 480p, then thewy are going to lose a lot of money since so many people have HDTV sets now anybody can buy one.

Going HD is thinking ahead, which microsoft and sony know is the future of gaming, neglecting it which nintendo did is a kick in the face in the future down the line.

Mario can only take so much untill he get's stale and old.Mario is in fact nintendo's personal Whore and nintendo is the pimp.At least that's my analogy :D

thebum123

06-14-05, 09:26 PM

While I prefer Nintendo offer HD, it's not a deal breaker for me, but I would really like for them to find better differentiation points than low cost, small size and the usual Nintendo exclusives. I'll probably buy it just for smash bros., but I'd really like to see something special that Sony and Microsoft don't have.

michaeltscott

06-15-05, 02:16 AM

[QUOTE=FrankJ.Cone] (And I am 99% sure HD WILL be in the Revolution personally).[/QUOTE]And what makes you so sure of this, when everything out of the mouths of the company's officers would contradict that? I pointed out a quote of Nintendo President Satoru Iwata in [post=5706089]this[/post] post, in which he indicates that he feels that HD resolution gaming will drive up game production costs and make the consoles more expensive while benefiting almost no one, after which he states that they want to keep their product inexpensive. In my [post=5756552]post[/post] above, I've quoted a statement by a Nintendo America VP that they have no current plans to include HD capabilities in the Revolution. (If it's not in their current design, I'd estimate that design changes required to accomodate it would push their product launch out into 2007, unless it's already overdesigned for SD resolution graphics).

What do you think, they're just trying to psych everybody out :)?

MinisterVado

06-15-05, 04:50 AM

I can understand Frank's suspicions: see, even though Crazy Old Iwata said there'd be no HD in Revo, there's this other thing, another debate, that was thrown around before - going online - and Crazy Old Iwata said something like "...Gamers don't want to play online wiffle puff nurple burp." And yet, here we are, with Nintendo about ready to roll out a free online service for the DS. as i see it; Nintendo's got time to further evaluate HD's importance, even have chats with devs to get their opinions on it, and change their stance on the matter -> which i kinda hope they do. but if they dont.......

i am one of the few wierdos here who chooses gameplay over all else. BUT! this [announcement] does not mean, by a long shot, that the Revo's going to be a slouch in the graphics department. i think its silly to assume that Revo's going to be drastically underpowered when compared to the PSx3(60) - was the cube or box any less powerful than the ps2 this generation? of course not. so the question remains; since this machine may not be using its balls for filling HD resolution, where is it going to go? it could definitely go towards filling a lower resolution with a poopload of detail. frightfully realistic physics, Skynet AI....it could definitely go into having many many more characters on screen at once...

...and this is the part where speculation begins, and ideas get thrown around, and some eyes roll, and the Minister comes off as a bit insane, and/or lofty....

we've got a free online service coming for the DS, and its crazy to think that it wont work with revo, especially since its already been announced to support wifi out of the box. what if part of the "revolution" is powerful support for MMO gaming? as in, mario 128 that launches for revo will have up to 128 simultaneous co-op players, all free of charge? just an example; but it could be a possibility. wishful thinking? definitely. borderline silly? maybe - but then again, so is believeing the performance specs being shoveled around for the other two consoles (im more or less targeting sony with that - at this point, most of us have practiced this hobby long enough to see through the horse $#!t).

regardless, im trying to say that if the goods arent working at filling up 3x the resolution, then that processing power is free to go towards everything else....network support is just one of those possibilities, but there are dozens of others, and odds are that they can all be handled simultaneously by the Revo. HD is nice, but with this in mind, i can easily forgive the exclusion.

CallMeJean

06-15-05, 07:10 AM

[QUOTE=CrocHunter]Not anymore soon enough, developers will be more interested in the next gen of gaming with the xbox360 and PS3.They are starting to lose interest in nintendo all together since they feel that HD resolutions is the next big thing,[/quote]

It is? Have any developers said this? I know many developers were saying Microsoft and their "HD Era" were full of crap at the GDC this year.

along with innovative gameplay.

Oh. HD and innovative gameplay? How does HD create innovative gameplay again? Maybe I missed the post where you said that already. Could you remind me again?

I'll tell you one thing, since Nintendo will not do HD resolutions, they are going to lose a whole lot of third party support.Developers have had it with 480i/p they want to move on to the next best thing which is HD resolutions.

wait, didn't you say this exact same thing just above?

Also when the HD version of a game comes out and nintendo has the same title in SD 480p, then thewy are going to lose a lot of money since so many people have HDTV sets now anybody can buy one.

Yes, this is true. tons of people have HDTVs out there. I think the last I read, as many as 10 million people worldwide have HDTVs right now. I'm sure every single one of these people will be passing on the Revolution for that reason alone. :rolleyes:

Going HD is thinking ahead, which microsoft and sony know is the future of gaming, neglecting it which nintendo did is a kick in the face in the future down the line.

I actually really agree with this. I do think it was neglectful that Nintendo did not include it. I just don't think its the only future in next gen gaming that you seem to. Still, I'm with frank in that I still think Nintendo will include it. As I've mentioned in past posts, Perrin Kaplan is the one who has confirmed this in the news reports. For all intents and purposes, she is a moron and is not to be trusted. She probably doesn't even know what HDTV is.

Mario can only take so much untill he get's stale and old.Mario is in fact nintendo's personal Whore and nintendo is the pimp.At least that's my analogy :D

An analogy is what you called it? I would've called it something else, but I probably shouldn't say. :p

Dean Martin

06-15-05, 08:23 AM

Mario can only take so much untill he get's stale and old.Mario is in fact nintendo's personal Whore and nintendo is the pimp.At least that's my analogy

Dude...What happens in Vegas, stays in Vegas!

hdiesel77

06-15-05, 09:14 AM

[QUOTE=CallMeJean]

I actually really agree with this. I do think it was neglectful that Nintendo did not include it. I just don't think its the only future in next gen gaming that you seem to. Still, I'm with frank in that I still think Nintendo will include it. As I've mentioned in past posts, Perrin Kaplan is the one who has confirmed this in the news reports. For all intents and purposes, she is a moron and is not to be trusted. She probably doesn't even know what HDTV is.

[/QUOTE]

After hearing the news of Nintendo's lack of HD support, I immediately wrote them an email and this is the response I recieved:

Hello,

Thank you for letting us know how you feel. We appreciate you giving us your feedback and we will be forwarding it on to the appropriate people for review.

Nintendo's focus with the Revolution is to create a gaming system that is sleek and compact in size with new types of interfaces for controlling games, has fast start-up times, entices new developers with the ease of developing outstanding games, and most importantly, offers innovative "All-Access Gaming" that is easy to use and affordable for everyone. Nintendo doesn't plan for the system to be HD compatible as with that comes a higher price for both the consumer and also the developer creating the game. Will it make the game better to play? With the technology being built into the Revolution, we believe the games will look brilliant and play brilliantly. This can all be done without HD.

Be sure to stay tuned to www.nintendo.com for the latest news on all of our current and upcoming products. We are confident that gamers and non-gamers alike will support our focus on fun, innovation, and affordability. We hope you give the Revolution a chance. We think you'll be glad you did!

Thank you for your e-mail.

Nintendo of America Inc.
Andi Anderson

Nintendo's home page: http://www.nintendo.com/
Power Line (Automated Product Info): (425) 885-7529

-----------------------------------------------------------

Now I personally hope that they change thier minds on this but this letter does not give me much hope b/c this letter makes it sound like it is not an option for 3rd party developers that may want to use HD.

Matt at IGN is encourging folks to write into Nintendo's customer service to push the point of including HD in Revolution, I would encourage others here to do the same if you haven't already, who know it can't hurt to try!

CallMeJean

06-15-05, 09:44 AM

This is the same exact statement that Perrin has stated. So, again, I think there is some hope that we can possibly change their minds. I know I will be writing in to tell them of my disappointment with this situation.

Big John Thomas

06-15-05, 11:41 AM

okay, here is a visual explanation of why i feel screen resolution is far from being the big deal that the gaming industry wants it to be. i will show a halo 2 screenshot that was captured at 1280x960 (approximately what 720p will be). now, i know this is from an xbox and not a 360, but don't forget that realtime rendering at this resultion on the 360 will leave little room for extra rendering enhancements. the next couple of images are from renders and were originally from 640x480 images (480p) that i upscaled to 1280x960, somewhat like what an hdtv with a good scaler would do to a 480p image.

1280x720 halo 2 screenshot:
http://images10.fotki.com/v191/fileprXb/c4ab2/6/649720/2312193/lo2_screenshot_source_1280x960.jpg

1280x720 renders upscaled from 640x480 source images:
http://images10.fotki.com/v191/fileFB5f/c4ab2/6/649720/2312193/der1_640x480_upscaled_1280x960.jpg
http://images10.fotki.com/v191/fileLcjy/c4ab2/6/649720/2312193/der2_640x480_upscaled_1280x960.jpg

what i am basically getting at is that at 640x480, you will be able to create far more complex renderings. these might be an exaggeration, but my point is that the number of pixes isn't as important as what you do with them. i would much prefer a slightly softer image rendered well than a higher resolution image rendered less well.

briankmonkey

06-15-05, 11:46 AM

I think with the next gen systems we will be able to have the best of both

Richard Paul

06-15-05, 12:38 PM

[QUOTE=Big John Thomas]what i am basically getting at is that at 640x480, you will be able to create far more complex renderings. these might be an exaggeration, but my point is that the number of pixes isn't as important as what you do with them. i would much prefer a slightly softer image rendered well than a higher resolution image rendered less well.[/QUOTE]If that was true than everyone would still play computer games at VGA resolution. There is a point where it is better to have processing power put into having a better resolution than it is to have more image rendering. Well for a gaming console that point has come and gone. To release a console next year that isn't capable of HD resolutions really only gurantees that the Nintendo Revolution will lose even more market share than the Gamecube did.

Here is the thing I don't understand. Everyone who is defending the Nintendo Revolution for not having HD support agrees that HD support is a beneficial feature. Does that not mean that it is a negative for the Nintendo Revolution not to have HD support? Why than is anyone trying to defend Nintendo for obviously making a bad decision for their next console?

Big John Thomas

06-15-05, 12:49 PM

Richard Paul,
firstly, i believe higher monitor resolutions were pushed primarily for the benefit of office, image, and web applications. gaming used what was there and, just like sony and ms will use it now, pc game developers use it as a way to claim better graphics without working on the core issues requiring more advanced rendering techniques. yes, there are benefits to higher resolutions. i simply believe that there are more benefits to better rendering.

i am not defending nintendo's decision on not supporting hd. i am saying that people here saying "hd or nothing" are deluding themselves thinking hd will make better graphics, thus falling for hype without real consideration. i actually believe that if sony and ms would hold off on hd, we could end up with some fantastic graphics this time around. i believe that going hd now will greatly limit that potential.

if nintendo's system is not near the power of the 360 or the ps3, then they will definitely be making a big mistake. i prefer to wait and see what they will actually offer before dismissing them.

Big John Thomas

06-15-05, 12:54 PM

[QUOTE=briankmonkey]I think with the next gen systems we will be able to have the best of both[/QUOTE]
i would hope so but,sadly, i really think we won't.

Shkuey

06-15-05, 01:46 PM

[QUOTE=Big John Thomas]...deluding themselves thinking hd will make better graphics, thus falling for hype without real consideration...[/QUOTE]

HD is just hype? I'm sorry but I've seen high quality 480p and I've seen high quality 720p. I'll take 720p every time, thanks. You're drawing a fuzzy line between graphics and picture quality I guess. The 'graphics' on the nintendo may be the same as the xbox 360 and ps3, but the picture quality will be sorely lacking.

5150

06-15-05, 01:55 PM

Scaling up small images and then telling me that there's room for improvement in them is not the way to prove a point!

I've been doing all of this stuff for a long time. Back in 1998, I got my first digital camera. 640x480. It took really good photos, but there's only so much detail you can pack into 640x480. Now I've got a 2.1MP camera. As megapixels go, that's pretty modest. It's got a world-class lens and a great image processor, however. The quality of the photos is outstanding. Better than many higher megapixel cameras. The point you're trying (in the wrong way) to make is that there's more to image quality than resolution.

A system has to have balance. Take a look at our current Xbox. 480p is the norm, even though 720p and 1080i are possibilities. Why is that? Probably because the system's best balance is found at 480p.

Your argument only has value if a person assumes that the other next-gen systems won't achieve a good balance at 720p or 1080i. That's a rather dangerous assumption to accept, as HD has been the target for these systems from the get-go. Suggesting that images won't be rendered well or look outstanding because you don't feel current systems maximize 480p don't hold water. It's not a logical argument, and operates off of a series of assumptions. Those assumptions aren't reasonable.

Nintendo has made a choice. They've decided to go after a different segment of the market than MS and Sony. They want the low end, and feel they can compete there. Their competition will be Xbox and PS2, mostly in the form of used and second-hand systems. That's a market they feel they can win in, and they're designing their system for it. In a way, that's a very smart play. It's predicated on a striation of the market that I'm not sure is there, but I'm not going to join you in making unfounded assumptions. People that obviously know the business better than I do are guiding these decisions.

Richard Paul

06-15-05, 02:09 PM

[QUOTE=Big John Thomas]Richard Paul,
firstly, i believe higher monitor resolutions were pushed primarily for the benefit of office, image, and web applications. gaming used what was there and, just like sony and ms will use it now, pc game developers use it as a way to claim better graphics without working on the core issues requiring more advanced rendering techniques. yes, there are benefits to higher resolutions. i simply believe that there are more benefits to better rendering.[/QUOTE]Okay, that is really, really far out. John, I can understand you want to defend Nintendo but have you ever actually played a game like Farcry at both VGA and SXGA resolutions? There is such a difference between them that I am rather stunned that you are arguing that resolution isn't that important. There is a point where it is better to have a higher resolution than more rendering and for most people that point on computer games is currently at SXGA.

[QUOTE=Big John Thomas]i am not defending nintendo's decision on not supporting hd. i am saying that people here saying "hd or nothing" are deluding themselves thinking hd will make better graphics, thus falling for hype without real consideration. i actually believe that if sony and ms would hold off on hd, we could end up with some fantastic graphics this time around. i believe that going hd now will greatly limit that potential.[/QUOTE]John, are seriously saying that you believe that Sony and Microsoft are making a mistake by having HD output on their consoles? You seem to even be arguing that their is no advantage to going HD with a gaming console. The thing is resolution alone is an important part of what makes a realistic image and no matter how much you render 480p it would never look realistic.

[QUOTE=Big John Thomas]if nintendo's system is not near the power of the 360 or the ps3, then they will definitely be making a big mistake. i prefer to wait and see what they will actually offer before dismissing them.[/QUOTE]I can understand wanting to wait and see but there is little doubt that the Nintendo Revolution will be the weakest console of this generation. The size of the console alone is a good indication that it will not be that powerful.

briankmonkey

06-15-05, 02:17 PM

I agree with 5150 and Richard Paul on the last two posts for the most part

"I can understand wanting to wait and see but there is little doubt that the Nintendo Revolution will be the weakest console of this generation. The size of the console alone is a good indication that it will not be that powerful."

I'm guessing it will be the weakest as well, but I doubt it will be that far off and still able to do some amazing games as well... Nintendo also places their power supply outside of the box, which can be deceiving for size.. Gamecube is much smaller than the xbox and is fairly similar in terms of power (yes their is a HD in the xbox as well)..

Dean Martin

06-15-05, 02:43 PM

There is such a difference between them that I am rather stunned that you are arguing that resolution isn't that important.
I think that's part of the problem. Many people have not seen PC games running at high resolutions. If they did, the story would be different.

CrocHunter

06-15-05, 03:43 PM

Big john, if that's the way you feel about HD resolutions then this is not the forum for you.

You do realise that we are a forum of tech junkies right?Of coarse HDTV matters to me, have you even seen HDTV?

480p is okay, but you can only do so much with that resolution since it's limited only to 480 lines of resolution.So it's hard to beleive your accusations on saying 480p can do more.

Have you played on a PC using high resolution like farcry?If you have then theres no reason to keep defending your 480p discussion.

5150

06-15-05, 04:24 PM

[QUOTE=CrocHunter]480p is okay, but you can only do so much with that resolution since it's limited only to 480 lines of resolution.So it's hard to beleive your accusations on saying 480p can do more.[/QUOTE]

I think he's thinking in terms of film, which is a wholly different animal from what we think about in this forum.

Brian, while Nintendo does usually use an external power supply (which I really, really like), when I think of this next generation of consoles I think heat. They're running at really, really high speeds and cooling has to be a significant issue. I think that plays into MS's decision to place the hard drive outside of the system (I don't for a second believe the rumors of CPU/GPU expansion), and the way they've taken to showing it vertically. The passive cooling probably works more effectively when the system is vertical. I'm not convinced that Nintendo has a leg up in heat dissipation, which leads me to the belief that they'll have less heat to deal with. They're using technologies that can't be substantially different than their competitors, which to me means they'll use significantly less power.

CrocHunter

06-15-05, 04:37 PM

I don't think cooling would be an issue with the next gen systems since they have learned from the past with overheating or freezing, espeacially sony's PS2 which would freeze a lot when the system got too hot.

I don't think you can add more effects with 480p when you are limited to that resolution.Maybe they can pull of anti- aliasing and that's pretty much it.

Well if you can play the game with no jaggies it should be a bug plus for the revolution.But the xbox360 and PS3 won't have jaggies neither so id rather take 720p or 1080i with anti-aliasing over 480p with anti-aliasing.

briankmonkey

06-15-05, 04:41 PM

Yeah, I'm not too sure if it will be too small, etc.. I'm always surprise at how small things can be and how powerful they are.. Time will tell..

Big John Thomas

06-15-05, 04:41 PM

[QUOTE=Richard Paul]There is such a difference between them that I am rather stunned that you are arguing that resolution isn't that important. There is a point where it is better to have a higher resolution than more rendering and for most people that point on computer games is currently at SXGA.[/QUOTE]
never said it was not important, just not nearly as important as a paradigm shift in rendering techniques. what does "more rendering" mean to you? not a slight, but if you were well versed in 3d rendering, i don't think you'd be using the term "more rendering".

[QUOTE=Richard Paul]
John, are seriously saying that you believe that Sony and Microsoft are making a mistake by having HD output on their consoles? You seem to even be arguing that their is no advantage to going HD with a gaming console. The thing is resolution alone is an important part of what makes a realistic image and no matter how much you render 480p it would never look realistic.[/QUOTE]

they're not making a mistake because the general population is not aware of what could be done in terms of rendering. but if they wanted to revolutionize graphics, now would be the time to start because most people likely won't see the step up in graphics to be worth their money. if developers worked with smaller resolutions but started developing, as an example, realtime global illumination rendering techniques (ray-tracing, radiosity, etc.) we would see a quantum leap in visual realism. i believe that, had this been part of the planning stages, this next generation of hardware would have been able to achieve that. in fact, even in their current states, the ps3 and 360 might be able to achieve that, or a good approximation of it. but, the speed of these techniques is completely dependent upon resolution. and these are but part of a large number of rendering enhancements that could be accimplished, but increasing resolution will reduce the resources and, hence, the ability of developers to even try to implement them.

of course far cry looks better at higher resolutions. at lower resolutions, it is rendering in exactly the same way. i am saying, more can be done on fewer pixels and will achieve results differing in the ways i showed in the images above.

so, the short answer is yes. yes, i firmly believe that more can be done with fewer pixels and it's a shame we won't get to see that until at least the next generation of systems.

it's funny that people keep assuming i'm defending nintendo's decision. i am definitely not. i am saying that, given revolution having similar specs (which we just don't know yet) i think people are assuming that lower resolution graphics cannot be as nice. i am saying they can given the right attention.

also, mr. "i don't like surround sound" crochunter, i have had enough of you saying that i don't belong in a home theatre forum. i find your attitude toward me very insulting and this is at least the third time you tell me this. i have never once attacked you and i respect your views on hi-def video. it's about time you begin to respect mine even if you don't agree with them.

CallMeJean

06-15-05, 04:54 PM

[QUOTE=CrocHunter]Big john, if that's the way you feel about HD resolutions then this is not the forum for you.[/quote]

Why is it people can dictate who should and should not be here? I think Big John has every right to be here. Just because he tends to have different priorties in gaming rather than the graphics first, everything else second stance that is popular here doesn't mean that he doesn't enjoy playing games on his home theater. This is a forum about gaming on a home theater, is it not?

Have you played on a PC using high resolution like farcry?If you have then theres no reason to keep defending your 480p discussion.

This comment sounds awfully familiar. Sounds an awful lot like this:

[QUOTE= Richard Paul]John, I can understand you want to defend Nintendo but have you ever actually played a game like Farcry at both VGA and SXGA resolutions? There is such a difference between them that I am rather stunned that you are arguing that resolution isn't that important.[/quote]

Seriously croc, you have to start thinking for yourself and stop regurgitating everyone else's opinion.

The funny thing here is that I'm not even a huge Nintendo supporter. XBOX is my preferred console of this generation. Still, it doesn't mean that I don't enjoy quality games from the big N. They've provided me some excellent games that I have loved very much. I would love it if they were in HD next gen. I emailed them earlier adding to the whole email campaign. But, I still judge a game based on how much fun I would have with it rather than how nice it looks on my home theater. If I want to maximize my home theater experience, I can watch HDTV or a DVD.

Nintendo has had a good track record with me and has provided me some quality games each generation. Enough so that its been worth the purchase of their console each time for me. I doubt next generation will be any different. So, a Nintendo Revolution will more than likely be a purchase for me.

I think its fine that people here have their preferences in which system or games they enjoy. But, lets try and keep this civil in terms of respecting other people's choices rather than saying they shouldn't post here. For a forum that is so gung ho on mature gaming, there sure are a lot of childish antics going on.

Dean Martin

06-15-05, 05:08 PM

Why is it people can dictate who should and should not be here? I think Big John has every right to be here. Just because he tends to have different priorties in gaming rather than the graphics first, everything else second stance that is popular here doesn't mean that he doesn't enjoy playing games on his home theater. This is a forum about gaming on a home theater, is it not?

I don't think anyone is 'dictating who can be here', the point is from a perspective that we are all into home theater, HD, etc so when we are discussing the importance of HD in the next generation that perspective should be remembered on this forum. No one should really be surprised when we take that stance. I guess the other factor is that if you don't care about all of that stuff and you are just going to be discussing Nintendo stuff on a regular old tv then maybe you would fit in more at a gaming purist type site.

dresche4

06-15-05, 06:27 PM

Isn't it funny that if sony or microsoft were to leave of HD support in there next console they would be hung out to dry. No one would stick up for them, but with Nintendo it is different.

Dean Martin

06-15-05, 06:39 PM

[QUOTE=dresche4]Isn't it funny that if sony or microsoft were to leave of HD support in there next console they would be hung out to dry. No one would stick up for them, but with Nintendo it is different.[/QUOTE]
Very true, especially since a few games already have that capability. That goes for the hard drive oo. I know I was pretty staunch in my stance that if they didn't have a hard drive or a similar storage device I would be dissapointed.

briankmonkey

06-15-05, 07:14 PM

[QUOTE=dresche4]Isn't it funny that if sony or microsoft were to leave of HD support in there next console they would be hung out to dry. No one would stick up for them, but with Nintendo it is different.[/QUOTE]

not for me.. I'm all about the software.. Resolution is only a small factor (as said before) in graphics and graphics don't make or break the game for me.

Automatonjohn

06-15-05, 07:42 PM

[QUOTE=Big John Thomas]
it's funny that people keep assuming i'm defending nintendo's decision. i am definitely not. i am saying that, given revolution having similar specs (which we just don't know yet) i think people are assuming that lower resolution graphics cannot be as nice. i am saying they can given the right attention.
[/QUOTE]

I think that assuming that just because Revolution won't support HD that it will have nicer low res graphics is a mistake because even though we don't know exact specs, Nintendo has stated

1) Revolution will be 2-3 times more powerful than Gamecube

2) Revolution is tiny

3) Revolution will be cheap ($200 at most at launch, maybe less) and on top of that Nintendo will be actually making money off of console sales (which is typical Nintendo philosophy) unlike MS and Sony who are taking large losses off console sales

Therefore, I am assuming that Revolution will have both inferior graphical abilities in addition to lower resolutions.

P.S. I appreciate differing opinions on this forum - if we all thought the exact same thing it would be a pretty boring place.

CrocHunter

06-15-05, 09:12 PM

[QUOTE=Big John Thomas]never said it was not important, just not nearly as important as a paradigm shift in rendering techniques. what does "more rendering" mean to you? not a slight, but if you were well versed in 3d rendering, i don't think you'd be using the term "more rendering".

they're not making a mistake because the general population is not aware of what could be done in terms of rendering. but if they wanted to revolutionize graphics, now would be the time to start because most people likely won't see the step up in graphics to be worth their money. if developers worked with smaller resolutions but started developing, as an example, realtime global illumination rendering techniques (ray-tracing, radiosity, etc.) we would see a quantum leap in visual realism. i believe that, had this been part of the planning stages, this next generation of hardware would have been able to achieve that. in fact, even in their current states, the ps3 and 360 might be able to achieve that, or a good approximation of it. but, the speed of these techniques is completely dependent upon resolution. and these are but part of a large number of rendering enhancements that could be accimplished, but increasing resolution will reduce the resources and, hence, the ability of developers to even try to implement them.

of course far cry looks better at higher resolutions. at lower resolutions, it is rendering in exactly the same way. i am saying, more can be done on fewer pixels and will achieve results differing in the ways i showed in the images above.

so, the short answer is yes. yes, i firmly believe that more can be done with fewer pixels and it's a shame we won't get to see that until at least the next generation of systems.

it's funny that people keep assuming i'm defending nintendo's decision. i am definitely not. i am saying that, given revolution having similar specs (which we just don't know yet) i think people are assuming that lower resolution graphics cannot be as nice. i am saying they can given the right attention.

also, mr. "i don't like surround sound" crochunter, i have had enough of you saying that i don't belong in a home theatre forum. i find your attitude toward me very insulting and this is at least the third time you tell me this. i have never once attacked you and i respect your views on hi-def video. it's about time you begin to respect mine even if you don't agree with them.[/QUOTE]

I never said i did'nt like surround sound, all i said was that i don't mind it with games.I'm more concerned with the graphics capability's and surround second.

How could i hate surround sound, If i use it "ALL" the time with my dvd's and movies on HD channels.

You got to get your facts straight before making me look like a total idiot.

Please don't make a statement like that in the future bacause we won't give you credit for your responses in the future.

Have you seen my settup? If i did'nt like 5.1 surround then i would'nt be a true gamer hometheater enthusiast.I just don't mind using it sparingly sometimes with games that's all.I sit 3 feet at the foot of my bed when i play my games, and since my speakers are pretty close you can see why i don't use surround all the time since it would make me def :p

Big John Thomas

06-15-05, 09:40 PM

[QUOTE=Automatonjohn]I think that assuming that just because Revolution won't support HD that it will have nicer low res graphics is a mistake because even though we don't know exact specs, Nintendo has stated

1) Revolution will be 2-3 times more powerful than Gamecube

2) Revolution is tiny

3) Revolution will be cheap ($200 at most at launch, maybe less) and on top of that Nintendo will be actually making money off of console sales (which is typical Nintendo philosophy) unlike MS and Sony who are taking large losses off console sales

Therefore, I am assuming that Revolution will have both inferior graphical abilities in addition to lower resolutions.

P.S. I appreciate differing opinions on this forum - if we all thought the exact same thing it would be a pretty boring place.[/QUOTE]
fair enough.

CrocHunter

06-15-05, 10:28 PM

Fair enough to you as well big john, you are entitled to your opinion, as am i.

Richard Paul

06-15-05, 11:18 PM

[QUOTE=Dean Martin]I think that's part of the problem. Many people have not seen PC games running at high resolutions. If they did, the story would be different.[/QUOTE]I can lose perspective on things like that at times. I have played computer games for many years at XGA and SXGA resolutions that I forget at times that many console gamers may not have played on a computer. I do not know if John Thomas has played any computers games though it would be interesting to know.

[QUOTE=Big John Thomas]never said it was not important, just not nearly as important as a paradigm shift in rendering techniques. what does "more rendering" mean to you? not a slight, but if you were well versed in 3d rendering, i don't think you'd be using the term "more rendering".[/QUOTE]A paradigm shift in rendering techniques? That is a rather obscure phrase. Also I understand the importance of rendering but I believe there is a point where resolution beats having better rendering. That point was reached several years ago on computers for VGA resolution.

[QUOTE=Big John Thomas]they're not making a mistake because the general population is not aware of what could be done in terms of rendering. but if they wanted to revolutionize graphics, now would be the time to start because most people likely won't see the step up in graphics to be worth their money.[/QUOTE]John, I disagree with this point since I have seen many of the effects that will be added to the PS3 and X-box 360 and I am sure the average consumer will notice them.

[QUOTE=Big John Thomas]if developers worked with smaller resolutions but started developing, as an example, realtime global illumination rendering techniques (ray-tracing, radiosity, etc.) we would see a quantum leap in visual realism.[/QUOTE]Perhaps, but that is completely discounting the visual effects that can be done on the PS3 and X-box 360 which could not be done with the previous generation of consoles.

[QUOTE=Big John Thomas]i believe that, had this been part of the planning stages, this next generation of hardware would have been able to achieve that. in fact, even in their current states, the ps3 and 360 might be able to achieve that, or a good approximation of it. but, the speed of these techniques is completely dependent upon resolution. and these are but part of a large number of rendering enhancements that could be accimplished, but increasing resolution will reduce the resources and, hence, the ability of developers to even try to implement them.[/QUOTE]This is all based on the idea that the increase in rendering is worth a sacrifice in resolution. John, I can see the point your trying to make but from your logic we would never go beyond 480p until the graphics were photo realistic.

[QUOTE=Big John Thomas]of course far cry looks better at higher resolutions. at lower resolutions, it is rendering in exactly the same way. i am saying, more can be done on fewer pixels and will achieve results differing in the ways i showed in the images above.[/QUOTE]John, you seem to believe that any resolution is sufficient as long as it is well rendered enough. Would it than be a good idea to lower resolution to 240x360 if we could achieve better rendering than?

[QUOTE=Big John Thomas]so, the short answer is yes. yes, i firmly believe that more can be done with fewer pixels and it's a shame we won't get to see that until at least the next generation of systems.[/QUOTE]I understand your point though I do not think you will find many who agree with you since for most people resolution is an important element of realism.

[QUOTE=Big John Thomas]it's funny that people keep assuming i'm defending nintendo's decision. i am definitely not. i am saying that, given revolution having similar specs (which we just don't know yet) i think people are assuming that lower resolution graphics cannot be as nice. i am saying they can given the right attention.[/QUOTE]VGA can look nice but only from a distance :). John, as for defending Nintendo you may not be doing it because your a fan but you are defending the idea that HD is not necessary for future game consoles.

[QUOTE=dresche4]Isn't it funny that if sony or microsoft were to leave of HD support in there next console they would be hung out to dry. No one would stick up for them, but with Nintendo it is different.[/QUOTE]Though I am a bit of a Playstation fan if the PS3 has been limited to 480p I would have had no hesitation abandoning it. I would do that partly because I would expect most RPG developers to switch to the X-box 360 if that had happened. Nintendo though is basically surviving on it's first party titles so it is a bit different than either Sony or Microsoft in terms of brand loyalty.

CrocHunter

06-16-05, 01:08 PM

It's the third party support which is going to kill nintendo since many are probably going to opt for the xbox360 and PS3 because of the "MUCH" higher processing power and graphics capabilitys.

To those developers the sky is the limit:)

Joe Redifer

06-16-05, 07:17 PM

In case anyone doesn't know, IGN has a page which they urge you to e-mail your feelings about the supposed lack of HDTV support in the Revolution. You can get to it via the link below, amazing as that is.

http://cube.ign.com/articles/625/625423p1.html

Send Nintendo a quick note on the subject.

My personal opinion is that while gameplay is definitely the most important aspect of gaming, I'd rather have great gameplay + HDTV graphics rather than great gameplay all by its lonesome. In that aspect, HDTV support does in fact make playing great games even more enjoyable.

Big John Thomas

06-16-05, 10:17 PM

[QUOTE=Richard Paul] I do not know if John Thomas has played any computers games though it would be interesting to know.[/QUOTE]
yes i have. since the validity if my input seems to be in doubt for some reason, i will add that i work with realistic realtime computer graphics that make even the best current pc games look like half-assed tripe. of course, i am not allowed to prove this , so you can believe me or not, i don't care either way.
[QUOTE=Richard Paul] Also I understand the importance of rendering but I believe there is a point where resolution beats having better rendering. That point was reached several years ago on computers for VGA resolution.[/QUOTE]
are you saying shrek quality graphics in realtime have been achieved for several years? we're not even close to that.

[QUOTE=Richard Paul]John, I disagree with this point since I have seen many of the effects that will be added to the PS3 and X-box 360 and I am sure the average consumer will notice them.[/QUOTE]
i actually don't think we'll be seeing many new effects. maybe some done better and more often than we did before, but very few new ones. that might be noticeable, so you are likely right about the average consumer seeing it. but i will be frank, i know several people who don't see much difference between n64 and xbox graphics. 3d is 3d to them.

[QUOTE=Richard Paul]This is all based on the idea that the increase in rendering is worth a sacrifice in resolution. John, I can see the point your trying to make but from your logic we would never go beyond 480p until the graphics were photo realistic.[/QUOTE]
well, that's exactly what i would like to see happen, actually. get photorealistc, then scale it up.

[QUOTE=Richard Paul]John, you seem to believe that any resolution is sufficient as long as it is well rendered enough. Would it than be a good idea to lower resolution to 240x360 if we could achieve better rendering than?[/QUOTE]
not at all. i find that, for the average home cinema (and even my projector) 480p is a very good resolution. it sits right at the comfort threshold for me and i'm sure it does for the general public as well since i cannot see how the xbox would be the home theatre system of choice here if people couldn't stand 480p. half of that resolution sits far below that threshold for me. if 480p is unwatchable for you, then i completely understand your wanting to go higher. but, i come back to dvd video which is 720x480i. you cannot tell me that 'the incredibles' does not look better than any game you have played, even at 1600x1400 + resolutions. concentrating on getting realtime in-game source content to look as good as that on lower resolutions should be the focus, and i still strongly stand by that statement.

[QUOTE=Richard Paul]I understand your point though I do not think you will find many who agree with you since for most people resolution is an important element of realism.[/QUOTE]
i believe i have made my case to the best of my abilities (and within the time i'm willing to spend on this). if they don't agree, they don't agree. there's not much more i can say.

CrocHunter

06-17-05, 12:08 AM

I don't know big john, for someone that works with computer graphics, and disagrees with saying not that much benefits with HDTV resolutions...it seems from now on your answers are not going to get much credit around here.

And you work on computer graphics and say 480p can achieve better results! :rolleyes:

With that type of input i don't think anybody's going to give you much credit now that you say you work on computer graphics and would rather see 480p with all this razzle dazzle.

your answers are now going to be officially taken with a grain of salt. :eek:

Sorry but's that's no excuse for someone that works with computer graphics and disagrees and say's lower resolutions can achieve more.

michaeltscott

06-17-05, 04:30 AM

I actually agree with Big John on the point of advanced rendering techniques. Significant advances in render technology could make games at standard definition which look better than any games which we have seen so far at high definition. Witness the animated features by Pixar and Square (Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within and the "Final Flight of the Osiris" segment of The Animatrix); though they were almost certainly originallly rendered at a much higher resolution, viewed at 480p, they blow Sony's 720p Killzone 2 out of the water. If you could do rendering of that quality in standard definition in realtime, only a few videophiles would care about the difference between that and the same quality rendering displayed in high-def.

From the "Final Flight of the Osiris" CGI clip:

http://www.dvdtoons.com/screenshots/reviews/animatrix1.jpg

From Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within:

http://static.4players.de/premium/Screenshots/60/10/12818-vollbild.jpg

CallMeJean

06-17-05, 04:52 AM

Just want to apologize in advance to people. This is my attempt to mimic Croc's posting syle.

[QUOTE=CrocHunter]I don't know big john, for someone that works with computer graphics, and disagrees with saying not that much benefits with HDTV resolutions...it seems from now on your answers are not going to get much credit around here.

And you work on computer graphics and say 480p can achieve better results! :rolleyes:
[/quote]

I completely agree with big john and think he's right on the money. Having pixar movie quality graphics at 480p in realtime would be amazing. I don't think he said anything about there being no benefits to having HDTV resolutions. He just pointed out that processing power can be better utilized to make games look/run better at 480p rather than using a lot of it to just run games at higher resolutions. I, for one, am glad we have an expert like big john on AVS to tell us more about these things so we can better understand them. :)

With that type of input i don't think anybody's going to give you much credit now that you say you work on computer graphics and would rather see 480p with all this razzle dazzle.

your answers are now going to be officially taken with a grain of salt. :eek:

I completely agree with big john and think he's right on the money. Having pixar movie quality graphics at 480p in realtime would be amazing. I don't think he said anything about there being no benefits to having HDTV resolutions. He just pointed out that processing power can be better utilized to make games look/run better at 480p rather than using a lot of it to just run games at higher resolutions. I, for one, am glad we have an expert like big john on AVS to tell us more about these things so we can better understand them. :)

Sorry but's that's no excuse for someone that works with computer graphics and disagrees and say's lower resolutions can achieve more.

I completely agree with big john and think he's right on the money. Having pixar movie quality graphics at 480p in realtime would be amazing. I don't think he said anything about there being no benefits to having HDTV resolutions. He just pointed out that processing power can be better utilized to make games look/run better at 480p rather than using a lot of it to just run games at higher resolutions. I, for one, am glad we have an expert like big john on AVS to tell us more about these things so we can better understand them. :)

Dean Martin

06-17-05, 08:30 AM

Jean, you are a valuable member here and are a good contributor but PLEASE you have to find someone else to emulate/agree with here, for the Love of Nintendo, anyone else.
:D

Richard Paul

06-17-05, 08:39 AM

[QUOTE=Big John Thomas]yes i have. since the validity if my input seems to be in doubt for some reason, i will add that i work with realistic realtime computer graphics that make even the best current pc games look like half-assed tripe. of course, i am not allowed to prove this , so you can believe me or not, i don't care either way.[/QUOTE]John, though I understand wanting to prove your case what difference would it even make if you did work with computer graphics? Also saying that you are not allowed to prove this is a rather strange statement to make.

[QUOTE=Big John Thomas]are you saying shrek quality graphics in realtime have been achieved for several years? we're not even close to that.[/QUOTE]John, you are implying we should stick with VGA resolution until we can achieve Shrek level graphics in real time. All I am going to say to that is the first thing to do once you have noticed that you have dug to deeply is to stop digging.

[QUOTE=Big John Thomas]i actually don't think we'll be seeing many new effects. maybe some done better and more often than we did before, but very few new ones. that might be noticeable, so you are likely right about the average consumer seeing it. but i will be frank, i know several people who don't see much difference between n64 and xbox graphics. 3d is 3d to them.[/QUOTE]John, this paragraph is the strangest thing you have said in this entire thread. You are actually stating that you know people who can't tell much of a difference between the N64 and the X-box in terms of graphics? All I can say is that you should not try to use the legally blind to bolster your case.

[QUOTE=Big John Thomas]well, that's exactly what i would like to see happen, actually. get photorealistc, then scale it up.[/QUOTE]John, one of the main advantages of a higher resolution is the increase of detail in the image. That is something that scaling can not increase and is why scaling can not replace having a higher resolution in a game. Detail is the reason why PC gamers choose to play at high resolutions with less effects than lower resolutions with more effects. Detail is a huge part of realism and without it you can never achieve photo realistic graphics.

[QUOTE=Big John Thomas]not at all. i find that, for the average home cinema (and even my projector) 480p is a very good resolution. it sits right at the comfort threshold for me and i'm sure it does for the general public as well since i cannot see how the xbox would be the home theatre system of choice here if people couldn't stand 480p.[/QUOTE]Just because people enjoy something does not mean that there isn't something that is better than it. Also what do you mean when you say 480p is at your comfort threshold?

[QUOTE=Big John Thomas]half of that resolution sits far below that threshold for me. if 480p is unwatchable for you, then i completely understand your wanting to go higher. but, i come back to dvd video which is 720x480i. you cannot tell me that 'the incredibles' does not look better than any game you have played, even at 1600x1400 + resolutions. concentrating on getting realtime in-game source content to look as good as that on lower resolutions should be the focus, and i still strongly stand by that statement. [/QUOTE]John, you are forgetting about the increase of detail that comes from rendering a game at a higher resolution. That is why it makes sense to go from 480p to 720p, or higher, with the next generation of consoles.

[QUOTE=Big John Thomas]i believe i have made my case to the best of my abilities (and within the time i'm willing to spend on this). if they don't agree, they don't agree. there's not much more i can say. [/QUOTE]John, I can understand differing opinions but you are making statements that are to say the least bewildering.

Big John Thomas

06-17-05, 08:42 AM

michaeltscott,
thanks.

Big John Thomas

06-17-05, 08:51 AM

[QUOTE=Richard Paul]John, one of the main advantages of a higher resolution is the increase of detail in the image. That is something that scaling can not increase and is why scaling can not replace having a higher resolution in a game.[/QUOTE]
sorry, i wasn't clear. i meant: make photorealistic graphics at 480p first, then make them at higher resolutions. that's what i meant by scaling them up. i was not referring to actual source image scaling.

Dean Martin

06-17-05, 09:11 AM

John, this paragraph is the strangest thing you have said in this entire thread. You are actually stating that you know people who can't tell much of a difference between the N64 and the X-box in terms of graphics? All I can say is that you should not try to use the legally blind to bolster your case.
Hell, I think my wife would probably fit in the category. I show her anything like games, DVD etc, and ask how much better it looks and I get the typical response...

Shkuey

06-17-05, 10:01 AM

[QUOTE=Big John Thomas]sorry, i wasn't clear. i meant: make photorealistic graphics at 480p first, then make them at higher resolutions. that's what i meant by scaling them up. i was not referring to actual source image scaling.[/QUOTE]

Well since we can't make photorealistic in realtime at any resolution, maybe you should instead look at the difference between what we can produce at 480p and 720p.

You can't compare those pre-rendered movies to what a game produces in real time, that's just crazy.

If 480p could do photorealism and 720p was what it is now, then of course I would agree 480p is better. The fact of the matter is that the difference is negligable between the two, so I want the sharper picture.

Big John Thomas

06-17-05, 11:05 AM

[QUOTE=Shkuey]Well since we can't make photorealistic in realtime at any resolution, maybe you should instead look at the difference between what we can produce at 480p and 720p.

You can't compare those pre-rendered movies to what a game produces in real time, that's just crazy.

If 480p could do photorealism and 720p was what it is now, then of course I would agree 480p is better. The fact of the matter is that the difference is negligable between the two, so I want the sharper picture.[/QUOTE]

as i mentioned earlier, with the next round of consoles i think we CAN have much more realistic graphics at 480p if that was the target resolution to build upon. just because you have not seen examples of it doesn't mean it can't be done. people are taking pc games and using them as a reference. this is not the right benchmark. pc game developers must build their games to work well at higher resolutions because it has now become the norm and gamers will not accept otherwise on a pc. that is out of habit and it is too far along to be changed. also, i will say that certain games have pretty well achieved photorealism. RTS games seen from higher up are an example of that. in this case, higher resolution is absolutely a huge factor. but for 90% of current games (especially those in immersive environments) the rendering techniques are for more important.

the chronicles of riddick on xbox is beautiful (with respects to realism). one of the stand-out titles of this generation in terms of graphics. to achieve this, compromises were made: lower resolution, (forget 720p) and aliasing. but, imo, the payoff was worth it. if they had tried the hi-res route, the game would not have succeeded on the same level graphically. they were implementing relatively new and costly rendering techniques to achieve this look.

in the next round of hardware, developers would be able to repeat this kind of work if not forced to run at higher resolutions. instead, this ability will be drastically reduced. sure, we might get a riddick-style game finally running at 720p, but what about getting one to look even better at 480p and repeating the visual phenomenon that was riddick on the xbox?

here's what i see happening: this next round, since hi-def has now been officially adopted by Sony and MS, we will see hi-def games with essentially the same graphics as in this generation. there will be improvements, for sure, but nothing mind-boggling. once the resolution is maxed out, then in the following round of consoles, we will (hopefully) finally begin to see hardware and software geared toward real photorealistic rendering.

my beef with this progression as that we will have to wait another 6 years to start seeing attempts at true photorealism when it could be starting now.

so, we will get:
hi-def -> (6 years) -> hi-def photorealism

when we could have gotten:
photorealism ->(6 years) -> hi-def photorealism

the latter would have better coincided with HD DVD content and HDTV acceptance anyway.

bash away.

CrocHunter

06-17-05, 11:07 AM

Jean, i like you, but picking to side with big john is'nt the best decision you have made!

I have nothing against you call me jean, but since big john works with computer graphics and say's it's no difference between xbox and n64 graphics and such, it's a bit hard to believe him.

That's why i said from now on whatever big john says will now be taken with a grain of salt.

Shkuey

06-17-05, 11:16 AM

Big John,

I'd simply like to reference you to two parts of your own post in an inverted order.

"this next round, since hi-def has now been officially adopted by Sony and MS, we will see hi-def games with essentially the same graphics as in this generation. there will be improvements, for sure, but nothing mind-boggling."

and

"just because you have not seen examples of it doesn't mean it can't be done"

Shkuey

06-17-05, 11:18 AM

Sort of on the same topic but not really a direct reply.

I'm tired of people telling me the next generation of console is going to be photorealistic. They've been saying it for way too long and nobody has delivered. This round of consoles will be no different.

Big John Thomas

06-17-05, 11:37 AM

[QUOTE=Shkuey]Big John,

I'd simply like to reference you to two parts of your own post in an inverted order.

"this next round, since hi-def has now been officially adopted by Sony and MS, we will see hi-def games with essentially the same graphics as in this generation. there will be improvements, for sure, but nothing mind-boggling."

and

"just because you have not seen examples of it doesn't mean it can't be done"[/QUOTE]

good point. but i will add that i HAVE seen what can be done at lower resolutions vs higher resolutions on systems close to the power of the next consoles and using a variety of rendering techniques. i know that implementing advanced techniques at higher resolutions reduces rendering speed signficantly. for gaming, this is bad and, thus, these things must be toned down or removed. hey, i would like nothing more than to have the best of both worlds and be proven completely wrong. and i will sing the praises of the xbox 360 or ps3 if they can pull it off. but all the information i have tells me otherwise and so that's why i make these claims.
i don't mind having my arguments picked apart. but let's be fair, here. nobody is offering any real counter-arguments. simply pointing out perceived contradictions or saying that i'm not believable doesn't hold much water. in fact, i don't know why i'm bothering to try and justify this anymore. i think i've put down enough info here for people to either agree or disagree with me without ambiguity, so i'm leaving it at that...again ;)

michaeltscott

06-17-05, 01:05 PM

Joe Redifer

06-18-05, 01:37 AM

I said it earlier in this thread but I still don't think some people get it.

Great gameplay is awesome. Great gameplay + HDTV resolutions = even more awesome. I don't care about photorealism in most cases, just great detail.

Yes, HDTV does make the game playing experience more enjoyable than it is without. Suck it.

I can't believe that people are arguing against this on a home theater forum. What are you doing here?

CallMeJean

06-18-05, 09:04 AM

Joe, I don't think anyone is arguing anything of the sort. We all agree HDTV is awesome. We all agree playing a great game with HDTV is preferable to playing a great game in SDTV. That being said, I think what's being said here is that HDTV does not instantly make a game great. I refer you to the screenshots of the Tiger Woods game CrocHunter posted in another thread. The game looks like a high res version of a current generation title. Obviously there needs to be more than just HDTV in next generation graphics to truly make the games look next generation.

Also, I think briankmonkey said it best in that a few of us here tend to purchase systems for software, rather than technology. Each person has what's most important to them when gaming. I tend to focus on whether or not I actually enjoy playing the game first, rather than how it looks/sounds on my home theater. Ultimately, if I feel a system is going to offer great, must-have games, I will buy the system. I won't simply pass on it because it doesn't support HDTV.

So, what it comes down to for me, at least, is will the Revolution have great games I want to play? Most likely, since each generation of Nintendo consoles has offered me great games I've enjoyed. Does the recent announcement of the Revolution not supporting HD upset me? Of course it does. I have a nice home theater and would love to use it to its fullest extent. Does that mean I won't buy the Revolution because its not going to support HD? Hell no. Nintendo makes great games and I know I will enjoy those games, whether they support HD or not.

Automatonjohn

06-18-05, 09:14 AM

[QUOTE=CallMeJean]
Also, I think briankmonkey said it best in that a few of us here tend to purchase systems for software, rather than technology. Each person has what's most important to them when gaming. I tend to focus on whether or not I actually enjoy playing the game first, rather than how it looks/sounds on my home theater. Ultimately, if I feel a system is going to offer great, must-have games, I will buy the system. I won't simply pass on it because it doesn't support HDTV.
[/QUOTE]

Where I differ from you is that I want to play the best games possible - meaning I want to play Zelda or Mario with the best graphics and sound possible for the time. So even though Zelda and Mario for the Revolution may be "great," it would only serve to remind me how great they could have been, had they appeared on a cutting edge system.

It's this sense of frustration that will keep me from getting a Revolution (unless the majority of us here are totally misguided in how technologically advanced it will be). I would much rather play Nintendo games on the PS3 or Xbox360, and so for the long term I can't support Nintendo's consoles. The only way as a consumer to show Nintendo how I feel is with my dollar. I'm hoping that enough people will feel this way to eventually make a difference.

CallMeJean

06-18-05, 11:13 AM

[QUOTE=Automatonjohn]Where I differ from you is that I want to play the best games possible - meaning I want to play Zelda or Mario with the best graphics and sound possible for the time. So even though Zelda and Mario for the Revolution may be "great," it would only serve to remind me how great they could have been, had they appeared on a cutting edge system.

It's this sense of frustration that will keep me from getting a Revolution (unless the majority of us here are totally misguided in how technologically advanced it will be). I would much rather play Nintendo games on the PS3 or Xbox360, and so for the long term I can't support Nintendo's consoles. The only way as a consumer to show Nintendo how I feel is with my dollar. I'm hoping that enough people will feel this way to eventually make a difference.[/QUOTE]

So, you want to play Nintendo's games but you don't want to buy their system. You somehow think they will get a lot better if they were provided for you on another hardware? I'm sorry but I just don't see it that way. I give Nintendo my hard earned money when they make a quality product. I will continue to do so as long as they maintain that quality. However, seeing Nintendo get out of the hardware business is something I'd rather not witness. Where would gaming be today had Nintendo not been involved in hardware? There are quite a few great hardware innovations that they introduced and continue to introduce. The latest example is Wario Ware Twisted. The cartridge has built in rumble and a gyro sensor. This added hardware makes the game completely unique and fun at the same time.

Nevertheless, to each his own. If you'd rather spend your money on other systems/games and wait for nintendo to eventually get out of the console market, then so be it. I think you'll be waiting quite a while though. I'd rather not miss out on the great quality games Nintendo is sure to crank out simply because their console isn't supporting HD or the most powerful.

SteveCallas

06-18-05, 11:46 AM

Joe Redifer, you are missing Big John Thomas's point entirely. By using the system's power to push more polygons and use better, more realistics effects, rather than using a large chunk of that power to simply increase the resolution being displayed, you can potentially get games that will look MUCH better.

It would kind of be like asking whether you would want to play a game that looks like Resident Evil Code Veronica but in 1080p, or Resident Evil 4 in 480p. I would say 99% of the game playing population would choose the latter. Whether or not the Revolution will be able to make a big jump in graphics capability in that regard remains to be seen.

Another thing that I am suprised people haven't mentioned is upscaling. Let's say that the Revolution does make a big jump in graphics capability and the Xbox 360 and PS3 only make a minor jump but have a much higher resolution. Why not just use your HDTV to upscale the resolution on the Revolution to 1080i? It won't be the same as true 1080p, but it would be damn close, and you would in turn have much better graphics. Again, this is largely dependent on whether or not the Revolution can deliver in this regard.

CrocHunter

06-18-05, 12:38 PM

480p is not a big jump in graphics capability if you ask me.480p is limiting, your not going to get that much effects than what's available currently today.

Unlsee the graphics are higher than the current consoles at 128bit.

You see that's the problem with jean,big john, they think the next gen consoles are going to stay at 128bit graphics and just higher resolution textures with HDTV.

"THAT'S NOT GOING TO HAPPEN"

Of coarse the graphics are going to be much higher than 128 bit you dopeheads, other wise it would'nt truly be a next generation console.

We went with 8 bit to 24bit, to 32 bit,to 64 bit, 128 bit this generation, now i'm guessing in the 300+bit for the next generartion of consoles.

So of coarse the games are going to blow you away, the bit's increase with each generation of consoles.If we stayed with a certain bit then we'd all still be playing nintendo graphics on the old NES system.

So while the revolution may be up their graphically with the PS3 and xbox360, it will not have the resolution though, that's it's fault.

I mean having about 300+bit system is great, but if your limited to only 480p, then your a bit restricted on how immersive the game could be, espeacially from an eye candy perspective.

CallMeJean

06-18-05, 12:54 PM

[QUOTE=CrocHunter]
You see that's the problem with jean,big john, they think the next gen consoles are going to stay at 128bit graphics and just higher resolution textures with HDTV.

"THAT'S NOT GOING TO HAPPEN"
[/quote]

I don't think that at all. I know the console's graphics will improve beyond just the HDTV resolutions. All 3 consoles will offer advanced graphics. I think the point here is that how much improvement can be made will depend on how much of a console's resources it takes to display something in HDTV. It could be that the 360 and PS3 are much more powerful than the Revolution that they can render in HD and have vastly improved graphics. Or, ir could be that the Revolution can have vastly improved graphics in 480p while the others have minor improvements with 1080i. Who knows? None of us knows. No one knows a thing about how powerful the Revolution is and what its capable of.

Of coarse the graphics are going to be much higher than 128 bit you dopeheads, other wise it would'nt truly be a next generation console.

We went with 8 bit to 24bit, to 32 bit,to 64 bit, 128 bit this generation, now i'm guessing in the 300+bit for the next generartion of consoles.

dopeheads? I think you need to check things more closely Croc. We went from 8 bit to 16 bit, then to 32 bit, then to 64 bit, then to 128 bit. Do we see a pattern here? If history is any indication, the next step is 256 bit, probably not 300+ bit.

I think what it comes down to here is that all things being equal, sure HDTV support will always be better. However, things will not be equal. Nintendo games can only be played on a Nintendo platform. The PS3 and 360 will offer some excellent exclusive games. To some, they'd just assume play those great games in HDTV rather than even deal with the Revolution games at non HDTV. However, I'm of the mind that Nintendo makes their games with a quality that tends to surpass most other developers. Its this type of quality that keeps me coming back time and again. Others can argue and say they don't, but this is all just opinion, and its pointless to argue opinion. So, it is because of that quality of gaming that will probably always have me buying Nintendo products, unless the somehow really screw up the Revolution. Its also because of that quality that will let me forgive Nintendo by deciding to not support HDTV. I enjoy great games and as long as they keep making them, I'll keep buying them.

CrocHunter

06-18-05, 01:10 PM

Just a guess at 300+ bit, but your probably right, also i forgot to mention 16bit, a little typo there:)

CrocHunter

06-18-05, 01:17 PM

Well as long as graphics improve with the resolution, like you said 256bit, then it looks like there's "IS"a reason to pick up the revolution then, only downside is the resolution won't be as high as the next gen systems.

But now that i think of it your right about that, the revolution should still look good with the 256bit graphics chip, HDTV would help too, but nintendo thought with the processing power alone with 256 bit graphics chips there's probably no need for HDTV since the graphics will be much better before with the 256bit chip.

I also agree that nintendo makes HQ titles, hence the nintendo gold seal of excellence emblem on all their games.

I bet know wone has discussed what we have discussed now about the graphics going higher than 128 bit huh.

Maybe we should make another thread about this maybe, since so many people think ther next gen systems will just be 128 bit systems with HDTV resolutions which is totlay false.Of coarse the graphics will be much better , it's only natural with each generation of consoles getting released.

SteveCallas

06-18-05, 03:02 PM

Ouch Crochunter, your spelling is just killing me. The bits of the processors are no longer the limiting factor - the gamecube was 64 bit. I would think the limiting factor nowadays is the quality and amount of RAM. And I wouldn't be suprised if all 3 of the next systems are "only" 128 bit.

Automatonjohn

06-18-05, 04:15 PM

[QUOTE=CallMeJean]However, seeing Nintendo get out of the hardware business is something I'd rather not witness. Where would gaming be today had Nintendo not been involved in hardware? There are quite a few great hardware innovations that they introduced and continue to introduce. The latest example is Wario Ware Twisted. The cartridge has built in rumble and a gyro sensor. This added hardware makes the game completely unique and fun at the same time.
[/QUOTE]

Nintendo's peripherals are hit and miss. For every great innovation that has had a lasting impact on gaming, there are many that are gimmicky and fade away after a game or two. I don't care that I miss out on the gimmicks - but you do have a point that Nintendo does innovate with their controllers.

But this is not dependent on being a console manufacturer. Nintendo could always make specialized peripherals to go along with their games for other consoles. Many other companies have been doing it for years.

Regardless of our opinions about whether it's a good thing or not, I do believe it's inevitable that Nintendo becomes a third party publisher. There will come a point when economically their current way of doing business ceases to make sense.

Richard Paul

06-18-05, 06:15 PM

[QUOTE=Dean Martin]Hell, I think my wife would probably fit in the category. I show her anything like games, DVD etc, and ask how much better it looks and I get the typical response...[/QUOTE]I would guess that though she can see the difference it just isn't considered important to her. Different people, different priorities.

[QUOTE=Big John Thomas]also, i will say that certain games have pretty well achieved photorealism.[/QUOTE]What games do you believe have achieved photorealism?

[QUOTE=Big John Thomas]in the next round of hardware, developers would be able to repeat this kind of work if not forced to run at higher resolutions. instead, this ability will be drastically reduced. sure, we might get a riddick-style game finally running at 720p, but what about getting one to look even better at 480p and repeating the visual phenomenon that was riddick on the xbox?[/QUOTE]Actually even at 1080p I think both consoles would be capable of rendering far better than in the Riddick game. In fact from the specs of the PS3 and X-box 360 I believe both consoles could render the PC version of Doom 3 at full quality at 1080p. As such there should be no doubt that they will have the ability to render far better at 720p than the X-box could at 480p.

[QUOTE=Big John Thomas]here's what i see happening: this next round, since hi-def has now been officially adopted by Sony and MS, we will see hi-def games with essentially the same graphics as in this generation. there will be improvements, for sure, but nothing mind-boggling. once the resolution is maxed out, then in the following round of consoles, we will (hopefully) finally begin to see hardware and software geared toward real photorealistic rendering.[/QUOTE]John, no offense but you are managing to both underestimate the PS3 and X-box 360 while also underestimating how hard it is to do true photo realistic rendering. Even in 10 years there is no way a console could do photo realistic rendering even at 480p. Trying to render at the same level as The Incredibles may be possible for a console in 10 years but photorealism is in a whole different league.

[QUOTE=Big John Thomas]my beef with this progression as that we will have to wait another 6 years to start seeing attempts at true photorealism when it could be starting now.[/QUOTE]Why though do you believe that photorealism can be done with current consoles? If you said 15 years I could almost believe that but there is no way any current console could do photorealism even at 480p.

[QUOTE=Big John Thomas]the latter would have better coincided with HD DVD content and HDTV acceptance anyway.[/QUOTE]Considering that HDTVs are already in over 10% of homes I think HDTV acceptance is coming along well.

[QUOTE=SteveCallas]Another thing that I am suprised people haven't mentioned is upscaling. Let's say that the Revolution does make a big jump in graphics capability and the Xbox 360 and PS3 only make a minor jump but have a much higher resolution. Why not just use your HDTV to upscale the resolution on the Revolution to 1080i? It won't be the same as true 1080p, but it would be damn close, and you would in turn have much better graphics. Again, this is largely dependent on whether or not the Revolution can deliver in this regard.[/QUOTE]Upscaling though can not add any detail to the image. It is very hard to explain the true relevance of detail in a game but I will give it a shot. Detail allows you to see and read a poster off in the distance. As such large areas suddenly take on a more realistic appearance since instead of seeing them with the equivalent of blurry glasses you can now clearly see far off objects. Up close the difference is even more noticeable since objects seem to look realer and have the presence of something that is on the other side of a window. To sum it up detail is the difference between a blurry and a clear image and upscaling can never add that detail to an image.

briankmonkey

06-18-05, 06:17 PM

"What games do you believe have achieved photorealism?"

Pit Fighter

Joe Redifer

06-18-05, 07:32 PM

[quote=Jean] I think what's being said here is that HDTV does not instantly make a game great[/quote]
Of course not! A bad game is a bad game whether it is in SD or HD. I don't really see your point, though, as Tiger Woods or whatnot will still be just as bad in SD.

[quote=Steve]you are missing Big John Thomas's point entirely. By using the system's power to push more polygons and use better, more realistics effects, rather than using a large chunk of that power to simply increase the resolution being displayed, you can potentially get games that will look MUCH better.[/quote]
I understand completely. But using that logic, then we should NEVER jump to HD because systems will ALWAYS be able to do more in lower resolutions than higher. Why not just go back to playing games in 240p on regular analog NTSC sets like the NES and Sega Master System days were (not a single interlaced game amongst them). You'll be able to push even MORE polygons and effects.

Hell, if I want real-life graphics, I'll get up off of my ass and step outside. :) <-- Note the smiley.

CallMeJean

06-18-05, 09:35 PM

[QUOTE=SteveCallas]Ouch Crochunter, your spelling is just killing me. The bits of the processors are no longer the limiting factor - the gamecube was 64 bit. I would think the limiting factor nowadays is the quality and amount of RAM. And I wouldn't be suprised if all 3 of the next systems are "only" 128 bit.[/QUOTE]

Gamecube is 128 bit system. Same with Dreamcast, PS2, and XBOX.

SteveCallas

06-19-05, 12:12 AM

No.

Joe Redifer

06-19-05, 12:14 AM

Gamecube and Xbox are 32-bit systems. PS2 is actually a 128-bit system (lot of good it does).

Only recently have they even released 64-bit Pentiums, and it was only a little bit before that that they introduced a 64-bit PowerPC (the Gamecube uses PowerPC). It looks like Revolution, Xbox360, and PS3 will all be 64-bit systems. No need to worry about bits anymore.

CrocHunter

06-19-05, 01:23 AM

No, xbox,gamecube, and PS2 are all 128 bit systems.

More than likely the next gen systems will be doubled that to 256 bits!!!

It's only natural that the bits increase for each generation of console.

Why can't you get this through your thick head!!!

Run a search for this and tell me i'm wrong!

CKYJON

06-19-05, 01:28 AM

Nintendo is ridiculous for doing this.

Joe Redifer

06-19-05, 06:52 AM

Croc, you're wrong. The number of bits in this day in age is almost irrelevant. There are no Pentium 128 bit processors. Guess what? The Xbox uses a Pentium (P3 I think). Likewise there are no 128-bit PowerPC processors. When the Xbox and Gamecube were built, it would have cost a fortune to make 128-bit versions of these processors. They run fine at 32-bit. Next gen will all be 64-bit. It's not about bits anymore. The GC *might* be 64-bit at most, but I doubt it. I can't find much info about Gecko, but PowerPC did come out with a 64-bit processor before Pentium. The GC does do 32-bit floating point operations and stuff like that.

Remember, the TurboGrafx-16 was 8-bit, even though they called it 16-bit. It had a 16-bit graphics chip, but that doesn't make it a true 16-bit computer.

NewNameGuy

06-19-05, 07:00 AM

Come on people. The PS2 can do Toy Story quality graphics in real time. Surely the next generation will be able to do true photo realism.

briankmonkey

06-19-05, 11:02 AM

[QUOTE=NewNameGuy]Come on people. The PS2 can do Toy Story quality graphics in real time. Surely the next generation will be able to do true photo realism.[/QUOTE]

according to Microsoft, Xbos is already achieving Toy Story like graphics :eek:

CrocHunter

06-19-05, 11:26 AM

[QUOTE=Joe Redifer]Croc, you're wrong. The number of bits in this day in age is almost irrelevant. There are no Pentium 128 bit processors. Guess what? The Xbox uses a Pentium (P3 I think). Likewise there are no 128-bit PowerPC processors. When the Xbox and Gamecube were built, it would have cost a fortune to make 128-bit versions of these processors. They run fine at 32-bit. Next gen will all be 64-bit. It's not about bits anymore. The GC *might* be 64-bit at most, but I doubt it. I can't find much info about Gecko, but PowerPC did come out with a 64-bit processor before Pentium. The GC does do 32-bit floating point operations and stuff like that.

Remember, the TurboGrafx-16 was 8-bit, even though they called it 16-bit. It had a 16-bit graphics chip, but that doesn't make it a true 16-bit computer.[/QUOTE]

Wrong again, nice try buddy :D

Automatonjohn

06-19-05, 12:33 PM

Croc is right. The bits of each console double each new generation, regardless of the actual hardware specs.

The N64 is easy to remember - since it's called the N64 we know it was 64 bit.

That makes the Gamecube-PS2-Xbox 128 bit.

So therefore the 360-PS3-Revolution will be 256 bit. You cannot defeat this logic.

SteveCallas

06-19-05, 12:51 PM

At this point, I can no longer determine whether you are being sarcastic or you are just uneducated on this topic.

CrocHunter

06-19-05, 01:46 PM

All i know is that i know i'm right, prove me wrong or show me a link if they are not 128 bit systems.

NoThru22

06-19-05, 04:57 PM

The processor in the Xbox is 32 bits but I'm not sure how many "bits" the graphics card would be considered. I know the graphics processor in the Dreamcast was 128 bits but they abondoned numbering it like that after that.

Joe Redifer

06-19-05, 06:24 PM

[QUOTE=Automatonjohn]Croc is right. The bits of each console double each new generation, regardless of the actual hardware specs.

The N64 is easy to remember - since it's called the N64 we know it was 64 bit.

That makes the Gamecube-PS2-Xbox 128 bit.

So therefore the 360-PS3-Revolution will be 256 bit. You cannot defeat this logic.[/QUOTE]
Oh. I had not considered that!

Richard Paul

06-19-05, 07:26 PM

[QUOTE=CrocHunter]All i know is that i know i'm right, prove me wrong or show me a link if they are not 128 bit systems.[/QUOTE]It is important though to distinguish between the CPU and GPU. For instance both the PS3 and X-box 360 use 64-bit CPUs and 256-bit GPUs. As for the older consoles I believe the PS2 and X-box used 32-bit CPUs and 128-bit GPUs while the Gamecube used a 64-bit CPU and a 128-bit GPU. Doubling the bits though is not necessary to increase processing power and I do not see CPUs increasing in the number of bits they can handle for at least the next 20 years. GPUs on the other hand may continue to increase in the number of bits they can handle.

SteveCallas

06-19-05, 08:04 PM

Here you clown.

http://gear.ign.com/articles/306/306374p1.html

http://www.nintendo.com/techspecgcn

http://hardware.gamespot.com/Microsoft-Xbox-C-9399-x-4-4

I really hope that your "logic" wasn't simply based on doubling the bits on every new console. Bits means nothing nowadays - Xbox was 32 bit and had better graphics than the 128 bit PS2. Make sure you know what you're talking about before arguing about something, it makes you look like an idiot.

Richard Paul

06-19-05, 10:52 PM

Double checked and the CPU in the PS2 is 128-bits. It was the PS1 that used a 32-bit CPU.

5150

06-21-05, 03:37 AM

Oh god. Please, make them stop.

Guys, you're arguing about something without first defining what that something is. I feel like slapping all of you.

All of your bits are belong to us.

Joe Redifer

06-21-05, 03:55 AM

Ummm... it's pretty clearly defined, 5150. The bits of the CPU; 16-bit, 32-bit, etc.

CallMeJean

06-21-05, 08:43 AM

[QUOTE=5150]

All of your bits are belong to us.[/QUOTE]

LOL. Nice.

CrocHunter

06-21-05, 09:06 AM

Yes please stop! it's 128 get over it!!!

5150

06-21-05, 09:48 AM

[QUOTE=Joe Redifer]Ummm... it's pretty clearly defined, 5150. The bits of the CPU; 16-bit, 32-bit, etc.[/QUOTE]

Maybe you should tell me about "the bits of the CPU," then, Joe. For instance, why don't you tell me how many "bits of the CPU" a 386sx had. Sure, it was a 32-bit address bus, but as opposed to a 386dx it only had a 16-bit data bus vs a 32-bit data bus. Do you know what a bit is, Joe? Do you know you and our other wonderful AVS friends have managed to toss out numbers without any qualifiers in this discussion, therefore completely mangling any definition they might be trying to reach?

Tell me all about how clearly defined "the bits of the CPU" are, Joe. I could use some entertainment! :D

Shkuey

06-21-05, 10:06 AM

If I had to guess I would say they're either referring to the address or data bus, though it is also correct terminology to be referring to the registers. What they clearly fail to understand is where this has relevance, because it's not here.

Automatonjohn

06-21-05, 12:31 PM

[QUOTE=5150]Maybe you should tell me about "the bits of the CPU," then, Joe. For instance, why don't you tell me how many "bits of the CPU" a 386sx had. Sure, it was a 32-bit address bus, but as opposed to a 386dx it only had a 16-bit data bus vs a 32-bit data bus. Do you know what a bit is, Joe? Do you know you and our other wonderful AVS friends have managed to toss out numbers without any qualifiers in this discussion, therefore completely mangling any definition they might be trying to reach?

Tell me all about how clearly defined "the bits of the CPU" are, Joe. I could use some entertainment! :D[/QUOTE]

How wrong you are. Each respective console maker's marketing dept. decides how many bits their console is. ;)

If the N64 had sold a decent number of consoles, you can bet we'd still be hearing about how many bits the next generation would be... :rolleyes:

Joe Redifer

06-21-05, 06:01 PM

Well 5150, tell me what Sega and Nintendo are referring to when they say their machines are 16-bit. What is Intel referring to when they say their CPU's are either 32-bit or 64-bit? What is IBM referring to when it says the G5 is 64-bit? What is Nintendo referring to when it says the Nintendo64 is 64-bit? And the NES is 8-bit? Yeah, discussing things is stupid. If you don't like it, don't read it. Nobody is forcing you. Don't whine without qualifying what you are whining about. This thread was dormant for over 24 hours yet you bumped it back up just to whine about it, saying "please stop or I'll whine harder". Likely it would have continued to sink in the forum had you not bumped it, and if it would have been bumped up, it probably would have been by somebody who wanted to discuss Nintendo HD and not if the system is 128-bit or not. I think all has been said on that issue for now. Now come down off your high horse.

5150

06-21-05, 07:17 PM

So in other words, you didn't know what you were talking about. That was my point. Why not just admit that plainly? I can respect a person when they do that, but when they simply can't admit that they have no idea what "the bits of the CPU" means... that's sad.

What's worse as trying to paint me as some kind of bad guy for commenting on a thread. What's a reasonable time frame to say, "hey, what the heck are you guys arguing about?!" An hour? Maybe six? But certainly not 24, according to you, Joe. Thanks for that meaningful contribution.

Seriously, relax. If you don't know, that's ok. Nobody knows everything. You don't need to get huffy.

Richard Paul

06-21-05, 08:08 PM

[QUOTE=CrocHunter]Yes please stop! it's 128 get over it!!![/QUOTE]For the PS2 it is but for the X-box the CPU was 32-bits and for the Gamecube it was 64-bits. Also both the PS3 and X-box 360 use a 64-bit CPU so the number of bits the CPU can handle is no longer a concern and does not really describe how fast the CPU is, which is why the 32-bit P4 from the X-box can outperform the 128-bit Emotion Engine. In fact the computer industry would have probably kept on using 32-bit CPUs for a while longer except for the fact that it limits the amount of usuable RAM to 4 GB.

Joe Redifer

06-21-05, 08:17 PM

I agree that it is no longer important when considering the performance of a system these days. As an aside, it is interesting that initial reports are that Apple will not use 64-bit Intel CPU's. What is the max usable RAM for 64-bit CPUs? Is it only 8GB?

Richard Paul

06-21-05, 10:48 PM

[QUOTE=Joe Redifer]I agree that it is no longer important when considering the performance of a system these days. As an aside, it is interesting that initial reports are that Apple will not use 64-bit Intel CPU's. What is the max usable RAM for 64-bit CPUs? Is it only 8GB?[/QUOTE]The amount of physical RAM that can be used is based on CPU addressing, which for a 32-bit CPU is 2 to the 32nd power (4 GB). For a 64-bit CPU it is 2 to the 64th power which increases the limit by over 4 billion times. Granted that limit is for hardware and an OS like Windows XP x64 is actually limited to 32 GB of RAM as seen in this article (http://support.microsoft.com/kb/888732). As for why Microsoft decided to limit the amount of RAM to 32 GB for Windows XP x64 it is basically because they decided that was enough for consumers.

Haven't been keeping up on Apple's decision to use Intel CPUs and I am rather surprised they would switch to 32-bit CPUs after using 64-bit CPUs for so long. I would guess that they are trying to keep prices down. Still I think they will have to change to 64-bit CPUs by 2007 or their customers would begin to complain.

5150

06-22-05, 12:03 AM

Apple will use Intel's x86 64-bit implementation, just not in the first part of the product line that transitions to Intel. That'll be the low-end consumer stuff and portables. When the pro line switches over it'll use whatever Intel's top end x86 processors are at the time. If I recall, the developer systems have P4 660s, which do have the 64-bit extensions. They just won't be using those.

It's not much of a step backwards. There aren't too many (any?) apps that are PPC970-specific. The real beneficiaries are those that require massive amounts of RAM.

Wasn't the N64's processor a PPC603e derivative? I'm not sure what the marketing people were referring to when they said 64-bit, but it wasn't the CPU. In the same way, I really, really doubt the statement that the Emotion Engine is a 128-bit CPU. I haven't read any white papers on it, but I'm almost positive that would be a marketing ploy rather than anything meaningful.

Richard Paul

06-22-05, 01:49 AM

Have read up on the PS2's Emotion Engine and it appears to have two vector units that can use 128-bit registers. Besides that though it is not a real 128-bit CPU since it can not address more than 32-bit memory spaces or directly work with registers larger than 32-bits. As for the N64's CPU it was a R4300i CPU, which was also called the "Reality Engine". It too was not a true 64-bit CPU but it could directly work with 64-bit registers as seen in this document (http://www.mips.com/content/PressRoom/TechLibrary/RSeriesDocs/content_html/documents/R4300i%20Product%20Information.pdf).

5150

06-22-05, 02:03 AM

Now that you mention the R4300, my memory is beginning to jog. I'm not sure where I thought it was based on a 603e. I remember thinking at the time how cool it was to have a MIPS chip. I worked on Sunstations at the time, and was amazed to think I had something in that same class from SGI running Mario around on my TV. Last year I did a lot of work with SGI O2s. The R12Ks and R10Ks were still capable machines, but the R5000s I'd come across now and then were just painfully slow.

Completely off topic, but were O2s used as development systems for the N64?

Shkuey

06-22-05, 09:06 AM

[QUOTE=Joe Redifer]Well 5150, tell me what Sega and Nintendo are referring to when they say their machines are 16-bit. What is Intel referring to when they say their CPU's are either 32-bit or 64-bit? What is IBM referring to when it says the G5 is 64-bit? What is Nintendo referring to when it says the Nintendo64 is 64-bit? And the NES is 8-bit? Yeah, discussing things is stupid. If you don't like it, don't read it. Nobody is forcing you. Don't whine without qualifying what you are whining about. This thread was dormant for over 24 hours yet you bumped it back up just to whine about it, saying "please stop or I'll whine harder". Likely it would have continued to sink in the forum had you not bumped it, and if it would have been bumped up, it probably would have been by somebody who wanted to discuss Nintendo HD and not if the system is 128-bit or not. I think all has been said on that issue for now. Now come down off your high horse.[/QUOTE]

Discussing things that you know nothing about can, in fact, make you come off as "stupid." Saying that the processor is going to be 128-bit or even, god help me, 256-bit because "it seems like they double every generation" is making an assumption based on some very poor deductive reasoning. Take a look at processor trends; in fact, here is an excerpt from the wikipedia article on 128-bit processors:

"There are currently, no mainstream processors built to facilitate 128-bit instruction sets and operations, as 128-bit requires a buffer memory size and throughput width, double the size of 64-bit processors, and 128-bit capable processors far exceed practical needs."

Joe Redifer

06-22-05, 06:51 PM

Saying that the processor is going to be 128-bit or even, god help me, 256-bit because "it seems like they double every generation" is making an assumption based on some very poor deductive reasoning.I completely agree! That's exactly what I was arguing against. I just don't want people to think that since you quoted me that I was the one who said that. Oy!

Richard Paul

06-22-05, 07:39 PM

[QUOTE=5150]Completely off topic, but were O2s used as development systems for the N64?[/QUOTE]I would guess not but that is just a hunch.

Skuey, Joe was never the one who was arguing that CPUs would double in bits. And there is no need for insults even for those who were arguing that. People have different areas of knowledge and one way you learn is by discussing things you are not knowledgable about. That in fact is one of the main reasons that forums like this exist.

Shkuey

06-23-05, 09:57 AM

[QUOTE=Joe Redifer]I completely agree! That's exactly what I was arguing against. I just don't want people to think that since you quoted me that I was the one who said that. Oy![/QUOTE]

Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that you were. My main intention was to defend 5150 abit in the fact that much of that n-bits discussion came off as uninformed.

joerod

12-12-05, 08:26 AM

The bottom line is if they aren't going to be able to put HD on their box then they are already starting the next gen wars behind. It is like bringing a knife to a gun fight. They will be following sega real soon...The plumber will be unemployed...

CallMeJean

12-12-05, 08:51 AM

[QUOTE=joerod]The bottom line is if they aren't going to be able to put HD on their box then they are already starting the next gen wars behind. It is like bringing a knife to a gun fight. They will be following sega real soon...The plumber will be unemployed...[/QUOTE]

I think Nintendo's new controller is underestimated at this point.
You say that Nintendo is starting behind Sony and MS for not supporting HD. However, you could say that Sony and MS are starting behind Nintendo for not having a new interface for gaming. Just different points of view.
Sony and MS are in this market to provide a media hub in your living room(games, music, movies, etc.). Their next gen consoles are traditional upgrades in that its more evolutionary than anything else. Nintendo is trying something completely new and completely changing the way games are played on their system. Whether its any good for games remains to be seen since we haven't played any of them. However, they're the ones taking the biggest gamble next gen by trying this. So, while you look at it as them showing up to a gunfight with a knife, I'd like to think that if indeed the controller is every bit as fun as it claims to be, it would be more like showing up to a gun fight with a bazooka.

joerod

12-12-05, 08:58 AM

How well did the gamecube do? Do you know hard hard it is to lift a bazooka? By the time they lift it and try to aim, the others will have shot them many times (with there guns)...Face it, mario will appear on both Sony and Microsoft in 3 or 4 years...Without HD its over...

Red Nightmare

12-12-05, 09:03 AM

CallMeJean

12-12-05, 09:12 AM

Yes, you make a good point. The Gamecube didn't do any better than the XBOX did. However, the Gamecube was also offering the same kinds of experiences as both Sony and Microsoft. It didn't differentiate itself from the competition. However, the Revolution is completely different than the XBOX 360 and the PS3. Game experiences will be completely different. More fun? Again, I can't say since we haven't played it. But the point being is that the Revolution stands out from the competition. There's a good chance it will do better than the Gamecube for that reason alone.

While I would love to see the Revolution support HD, I hardly think it will be the thing that kills it this next gen. Do you know the percentage of HDTV owners out there? Do you know what the projections are in the coming years for HDTV to expand? Its not a big percentage and it will still be in the minority 4 years from now. The Revolution is betting that their new controller will be a huge hit in terms of playing games. If not, that's what will cause Nintendo to get out of the console market. So, let's hope that it is because the gaming industry could use some innovation at this point.

joerod

12-12-05, 09:12 AM

Last time I check the majority of people without HDTVs is decreasing quite a bit. Everyone at the 360 launch was excited about getting a HD gaming system. It will be the same for the PS3. I know after playing games in 720p (as well as countless others) there is no way I would go back to 480p gaming. Especialy people with bigger tvs that can notice a difference. Mommy's will be buying these revolutions for their 7-10 year old kids. Even the 12 year olds are wanting PS3 and 360s. The only reason Nintendo is turning any kind of profit is because of their handhelds. After this system loses them as much money as the gamecube did, they won't make another game console...And for as far as their controller goes, who cares. If it is not going to do anything in High Definition, I don't want it...Analog games, been there done that...

CallMeJean

12-12-05, 09:26 AM

[QUOTE=joerod]Last time I check the majority of people without HDTVs is decreasing quite a bit. Everyone at the 360 launch was excited about getting a HD gaming system. It will be the same for the PS3. I know after playing games in 720p (as well as countless others) there is no way I would go back to 480p gaming. Especialy people with bigger tvs that can notice a difference. Mommy's will be buying these revolutions for their 7-10 year old kids. Even the 12 year olds are wanting PS3 and 360s. The only reason Nintendo is turning any kind of profit is because of their handhelds. After this system loses them as much money as the gamecube did, they won't make another game console...And for as far as their controller goes, who cares. If it is not going to do anything in High Definition, I don't want it...Analog games, been there done that...[/QUOTE]

Umm, check your facts bud. HDTV owners out there are a very small percentage. You also don't want to confuse HDTV with DTV.

Also, Nintendo profited off the GC, unlike Microsoft who lost over 4 billion dollars on the XBOX.

Finally, lest we forget, the gaming you currently enjoy couldn't have happened without Nintendo. Do you like that D pad and analog stick on your XBOX 360 controller? That's good cause Nintendo came up with that. What about the rumble in the controller? Yep, they came up with that too. So, before you're quick to dismiss this new controller is nothing but a gimmick, you might want to appreciate that many of those "gimmicks" of the past have gone on to become staples in the gaming industry.

xxThe Deanxx

12-12-05, 09:34 AM

[QUOTE=Red Nightmare]Not really. Just because HD is an important feature to people like you and people on this forum, I'm guessing it won't be a selling point to the majority of people who don't actually have HD sets, and they certainly won't be in every home any time soon.[/QUOTE]
But what Jean and many others fail to realize, and it really escapes me why this is their forum of choice, is that this *IS* a forum comprised of people who are very focused on having the best hardware choices available to them. This is a forum of people striving for more and interested in high def and improved peicture quality.
This is not a typical gaming board like IGN or any of those run of the mill places. This is a place to discuss game consoles in a home theater environment.
Why argue with a group of people that those features ARE going to be important too?
Doesn't it seem in the least bit silly to come to a place where people are focused on hardware advances and talk about how HD is a minority and it just doesn't matter?

MisterMe

12-12-05, 09:35 AM

Interesting little article . . .

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20051209-5724.html

joerod

12-12-05, 09:44 AM

Well Jean (BUD), did Nintendo not learn anything from ATARI? If you are going to start looking at the past and giving credit then you already lost. Cowards live in the past. BTW, I was the first to flip Pacman on the Atari 2600 in my neighborhood. Also to beat Mike Tyson on the NES. Yes, Nintendo has always been innovative, I just think they are hurting themselves for not making the HD move...I ultimately think it will lead to their demise in the console market. And check your facts, gamecube DID NOT make them any money...And for as HDTV owners or lack their of, give me a break. They are selling record HDTVs as I type this. The majority of owners who have kids are going to want a game system that says HD on it just like their TV. The revolution is anything but that since it is in 480p!!!

xxThe Deanxx

12-12-05, 09:48 AM

Interesting yes, but what that basically says is that there are a large number of people buying HD TV's who see an improved picture and 'think' they have HD automatically.
While that may be the case for a lot of people in the mainstream, that is not the case for the members here on this forum. Those who come here to seek out information are on more of the cutting edge when it comes to this stuff.

Now I can only guess as to why you posted that link here in this thread since you didn't elaborate but I would assume to make a case for HD not being widely used at this point. I can see where you are going but I still say on a forum like this you will not convince the members that HD is not an important feature for a game console to support.
We have members actually upset that the DVD player on the 360 doesn't upconvert DVD's!

xxThe Deanxx

12-12-05, 09:49 AM

[QUOTE=joerod]Well Jean (BUD), [/QUOTE]

I wonder if Jean's use of the term 'Bud' was meant to be passive, or aggressive here?
:);)
English class is way behind me as you can probably tell from my posts.

CallMeJean

12-12-05, 10:02 AM

No one is trying to convince anyone here that HDTV is not important to other people here. I would assume anyone who posts here has an HDTV, so obviously it has some importance. What people are saying here though is that the Revolution is doomed because of no HD support. I'm sorry but that just aint true. It might be doomed on this board, but not to the majority of people out there that don't own HDTVs. And there are plenty of people that will own HDTVs that will want a Revolution. So, lack of HD support is only a major factor to a small percentage of people(mostly people on this forum or others like it).

Oh, and can someone post some sales figures that say the GC did not make Nintendo any money? I couldn't find anything. The only thing I could find is that Nintendo lost money in one quarter over the last several years, and that was due largely to conversion rates. Nintendo.

daschrier

12-12-05, 10:18 AM

[QUOTE=MisterMe]Interesting little article . . .

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20051209-5724.html[/QUOTE]

I'd believe it....the average person gets bought up by all the hub bub and buzzwords. My friends roommate has some crappy LCD widescreen TV and everyone just saw the tv and thought it was the bees knees. It wasn't even turned on, just for the fact that it was thin and 16:9 it was great.

While HD is cool, most people won't care.
Not going HD with the revo. is a gamble, but from a financial standpoint it makes sense. Nintendo won't need all the processing power that the 360 and ps3 will need to render at 720p and higher, allowing them to make more money and sell cheaper hardware.

MisterMe

12-12-05, 10:18 AM

[QUOTE=xxThe Deanxx]Now I can only guess as to why you posted that link here in this thread since you didn't elaborate but I would assume to make a case for HD not being widely used at this point. I can see where you are going but I still say on a forum like this you will not convince the members that HD is not an important feature for a game console to support.
We have members actually upset that the DVD player on the 360 doesn't upconvert DVD's![/QUOTE]

I posted that because I think it's very funny that a large group of people can't see the damn difference SD to HD. That's funny!!

I love that some people install a HD television and think that it actually improves SD to the point that they are happy with their upgrade . . . Now that is really funny!!

Anyway . . .

I agree that some people on this forum naturally feel that HD gaming is important . . . duh!! . . . but I think there are also a lot of people come here because it's not loaded down with tons of kids like some other forums. To that end . . . I don't think it's a bad thing to talk about systems that might not do HD.

You're right about the upscaling DVD comments . . . those crack me up. The x360 is a game machine . . . plain and simple . . . and people expect it to be as good as a dedicated DVD player? . . . too funny!!

Red Nightmare

12-12-05, 10:18 AM

[QUOTE=xxThe Deanxx]But what Jean and many others fail to realize, and it really escapes me why this is their forum of choice, is that this *IS* a forum comprised of people who are very focused on having the best hardware choices available to them. This is a forum of people striving for more and interested in high def and improved peicture quality.
This is not a typical gaming board like IGN or any of those run of the mill places. This is a place to discuss game consoles in a home theater environment.[/QUOTE]
So when the more powerful and 1080p capable PS3 comes out, and the 360 and its 720p is no longer the best hardware choice, people shouldn't care about the 360, since it has lesser picture quality? If this is a place to discuss "game consoles in a home theater environment," why are Xbox, GC, and PS2 even discussed, if aren't "true" hi-def machines? I'm not sure I understand you. And I don't think HD isn't unimportant, I just don't think it matters much compared to the actual game.

MisterMe

12-12-05, 10:32 AM

[QUOTE=daschrier]While HD is cool, most people won't care.
Not going HD with the revo. is a gamble, but from a financial standpoint it makes sense. Nintendo won't need all the processing power that the 360 and ps3 will need to render at 720p and higher, allowing them to make more money and sell cheaper hardware.[/QUOTE]

Not only that . . .

Consider this . . .

Even if the Revolution is only 3 times more powerful then the Cube, that will mean a lot at 480p. You can almost guaranty that all games will be 60 fps, as well as, being able to push a lot more information around the television.

Also Consider that developers will be able to use lower resolution textures then MS or Sony which will allow Nintendo to put a lot of content on a 9GB disc. The Cube only has 1.5GB storage, so the Revolution will now have 6 times the storage to play with.

MisterMe

12-12-05, 10:34 AM

FrankJ.Cone

12-12-05, 10:45 AM

[QUOTE=MisterMe]You're right . . . this is going to be a very interesting place if Sony manages to 'out gun' the x360.

:D[/QUOTE]

I think thats a given. If the PS3 does not I expect Sony fans to rise up and roast Sony over an open fire. The promised technology in the PS3 certainly places it above the 360 to even the most faithful supporter.

xxThe Deanxx

12-12-05, 10:51 AM

[QUOTE=Red Nightmare]So when the more powerful and 1080p capable PS3 comes out, and the 360 and its 720p is no longer the best hardware choice, people shouldn't care about the 360, since it has lesser picture quality? If this is a place to discuss "game consoles in a home theater environment," why are Xbox, GC, and PS2 even discussed, if aren't "true" hi-def machines? I'm not sure I understand you. And I don't think HD isn't unimportant, I just don't think it matters much compared to the actual game.[/QUOTE]

The better question is how much of a leap 1080p will be from 720p?
I *can* tell you this, 480p is not high def and 720p and 1080p are.
Now, you are putting words in my mouth as I never said people should not 'care' about any console. I never suggested anything of the sort. What I'm saying is that it seems strange for people to argue that HD picture quality is not important on a board where people think that it most certainly is.
If you fine ME saying that 1080p is not necessary then you have a solid case, especially if you see me arguing using statistics to show there are fewer 1080p owners than any other resolution (which there are) then you have another case.
I have said it before & I'll say it again. People want the highest resolution their display is capable of accepting to produce a superior picture.

You're right . . . this is going to be a very interesting place if Sony manages to 'out gun' the x360.

I'm not sure of the point of this comment. I will most certainly own a PS3 and if it graphically bests the 360 than so be it. I think because you are a Nintendo fan you may not understand someone like me who is a GAMER first and a console loyalist, second. I will take the best machine of the group and that is the one I will favor. It's about honesty, not loyalty to a video game system.
If people cannot be honest if the PS3 is a better system it will be because they cannot afford to buy all of them.

Monger

12-12-05, 10:58 AM

[QUOTE=xxThe Deanxx]But what Jean and many others fail to realize, and it really escapes me why this is their forum of choice, is that this *IS* a forum comprised of people who are very focused on having the best hardware choices available to them. This is a forum of people striving for more and interested in high def and improved peicture quality.
This is not a typical gaming board like IGN or any of those run of the mill places. This is a place to discuss game consoles in a home theater environment.
Why argue with a group of people that those features ARE going to be important too?
Doesn't it seem in the least bit silly to come to a place where people are focused on hardware advances and talk about how HD is a minority and it just doesn't matter?[/QUOTE]

Well Dean, you have to take things in context. Joerod was saying Nintendo would fail and be making games for the other consoles in 3 years due to lack of HD.

MisterMe

12-12-05, 11:02 AM

[QUOTE=xxThe Deanxx]The better question is how much of a leap 1080p will be from 720p?[/QUOTE]

Just as big a leap as it is from 480p to 720p . . . in my opinion.

640 to 1280 = 640

1280 to 1920 = 640

480 to 720 = 240

720 to 1080 = 360

So . . . actually . . . 720p to 1080p is more of a jump then 480p to 720p

xxThe Deanxx

12-12-05, 11:06 AM

[QUOTE=Monger]Well Dean, you have to take things in context. Joerod was saying Nintendo would fail and be making games for the other consoles in 3 years due to lack of HD.[/QUOTE]

Ok, in that context I would ask what the meaning of failure is?
Failure would be based on goals and of course bottom line profit.
What is Nintendo's stratgey for success? It would appear from their decision making their goal is not to be number 1 & I think they are fine with it. As long as they stay profittable and sell their machines without huge losses like Microsoft they are fine. They seem pretty content with the path they have chosen.

A lot of gamers define failure as not being number one in sales. Was Xbox a complete failure, or just a huge undertaking ina first wave that would lead them to the 360? What percentage does Microsoft need for themselves to look at the 360 as a success? They must know the chance of beating Sony this round will be a longshot so why bother? Obviously there is a goal strategy and a certain amount of market penetration to be considered a success.

I don't think the Gamecube has been a failure when you look at the numbers for Nintendo and I doubt the Revolution will be any different, in fact, with the attention the new controller will get I bet most people won't even care about 720p.

Monger

12-12-05, 11:08 AM

[QUOTE=joerod]How well did the gamecube do? Do you know hard hard it is to lift a bazooka? By the time they lift it and try to aim, the others will have shot them many times (with there guns)...Face it, mario will appear on both Sony and Microsoft in 3 or 4 years...Without HD its over...[/QUOTE]

Isn't this just trolling? What is the point?

Nintendo has a bazooka and ms and sony have guns? That's super.

xxThe Deanxx

12-12-05, 11:12 AM

[QUOTE=MisterMe]Just as big a leap as it is from 480p to 720p . . . in my opinion.

640 to 1280 = 640

1280 to 1920 = 640

480 to 720 = 240

720 to 1080 = 360

So . . . actually . . . 720p to 1080p is more of a jump then 480p to 720p[/QUOTE]

That may be. I haven't had much time to do comparitive screens between those resolutions. To be honest, I have 3 high def displays in my house and none of them are 1080p.
I have done comparisons of game systems between 480p and 720p and there is quite a difference. Since I have a large display I want higher resolutions to make up for it.
Now as a PC gamer as well I know that the higher resolutions are going to look much better so as I said before, I want the highest resolution a display is capable of. If that is 1080p then that's what I would want. Personally though I feel that 1080i, 720p, and 1080p are all high def resolutions. 480p is not.
I'm already getting spoiled by HD on my Tivo compared to DVD.

So really to compare 1080p to 720p and make a case that we should not argue for HD support for Nintendo because later we will argue we don't need 1080p because we favor Xbox is a huge stretch around the mulberry bush, don't ya think?

Monger

12-12-05, 11:15 AM

[QUOTE=xxThe Deanxx]Ok, in that context I would ask what the meaning of failure is?
Failure would be based on goals and of course bottom line profit.
What is Nintendo's stratgey for success? It would appear from their decision making their goal is not to be number 1 & I think they are fine with it. As long as they stay profittable and sell their machines without huge losses like Microsoft they are fine. They seem pretty content with the path they have chosen.

A lot of gamers define failure as not being number one in sales. Was Xbox a complete failure, or just a huge undertaking ina first wave that would lead them to the 360? What percentage does Microsoft need for themselves to look at the 360 as a success? They must know the chance of beating Sony this round will be a longshot so why bother? Obviously there is a goal strategy and a certain amount of market penetration to be considered a success.

I don't think the Gamecube has been a failure when you look at the numbers for Nintendo and I doubt the Revolution will be any different, in fact, with the attention the new controller will get I bet most people won't even care about 720p.[/QUOTE]

Failure in Joerods words was Mario on MS and Sony platforms.

I agree with you that I believe the controller will be a success, it was your tangent about this forum and how it is an HD forum that I talking about the context of. People were responding to Joerod saying revo would fail due to lack of hd, not that hd was entirely unimportant to people or people here.

xxThe Deanxx

12-12-05, 11:32 AM

[QUOTE=Monger]Failure in Joerods words was Mario on MS and Sony platforms.

I agree with you that I believe the controller will be a success, it was your tangent about this forum and how it is an HD forum that I talking about the context of. People were responding to Joerod saying revo would fail due to lack of hd, not that hd was entirely unimportant to people or people here.[/QUOTE]

I understand. I just think it's silly to keep posting that HD does not matter for the Revolution on a forum where it matters to most everyone.
So far we have cited statistical data on how many people own HD sets, how many people even KNOW they are getting HD sets, and argued that since the 360 is not doing 1080p and the PS3 is, then no one should argue that the Revolution should do more than 480p. That's not even a valid argument for those of us who just want HD resolution support on ALL of the consoles all on a forum called AUDIO VIDEO SCIENCE. Think about it.