Wii without Dolby Digital

[bapenguin]

Some bad news now for the technically inferior Wii as IGN (http://revolution.ign.com/articles/709/709823p1.html) has learned there will be no outputs on the Wii capable of producing Dolby Digital 5.1 sound.

"Optical digital output is not supported," reads official Wii documentation supplied to studios creating games for Nintendo's new consoles.

There is a single proprietary audio/video jack on Wii and users have the option to plug in different cables depending on their preference. According to developer documentation, Wii owners will be able to insert a composite, S-video or component audio/video cable into the jack, but all three come standard with stereo left and right channel audio cables.
Well boo! With no HD and no Dolby Digital the Wii is closer to a stand Stand Alone TV Game (http://www.circuitcity.com/ssm/Ms-Pac-Man-5-in-1-Video-Game-58303-/sem/rpsm/oid/131918/catOid/-13378/rpem/ccd/productDetail.do) than a new console. At least...in A/V input/output terms it is. Don't get all worked up.

Source: Joystiq (http://www.joystiq.com[/url)

[Varsity]

It still produces regular 5.1, right? Just not digital.

[bapenguin]

It still produces regular 5.1, right? Just not digital.

There's no such thing as regular 5.1. There's a Matrixed 5.1 sound like pro-logic but that's no where near as good as true 5.1.

[Savok]

Well that's just a crap decision. No HD, I can understand, but when you put so much importance on the sound, to the point of sticking a speaker in the controller, THEN not giving your console 5.1, it's just stupid.

[Varsity]

Let's put it this way: I've got 5.1 without anything remotely resembling "Optical digital output". ;)

[bapenguin]

Let's put it this way: I've got 5.1 without anything remotely resembling "Optical digital output". ;)

Is it over Digital Coax?

If not then it's not really 5.1.

[Dabombpizza]

Well...kinda sucks...but not really. I'm pretty sure nintendo looked at the majority of who they are targetting (like your mom) and realized that they don't have a 5.1 surround sound system. So, cut the cost a little more.

Not that I'm liking it, as I have 5.1 and I would like to use it, but it is a good business decision for their current tactic.

[Zeal]

Not even digital sound? This is truly pathetic.

[Grimgrock]

This is not good. I have HD. I can live without it, if it looks good. But I agree with the OP, no 'quality' sound on a console where sound is alledged to be important, is a strike against it.

[Savok]

See? We told that other asshole we didn't ban Zeal.

[AversionFX]

yawn.

buying a Wii, anyway. I'm perfectly happy with my "regular" sound and "regular" video. You spoiled bitches should stop being whiny.

[Abednigo]

I personally don't care. Did the GC have this? RE4 sounded great on my 5.1 system. If it wasn't true dolby digital I couldn't tell.

[thFOOL]

Well boo! With no HD and no Dolby Digital the Wii is closer to a stand Stand Alone TV Game than a new console.

Or maybe closer to a current gen console? Oh wait, that is exaggeration as flamebait, isn't it?

Did anyone consider that the reason why they did this might also have something to do with the speaker in the controller?

[Savok]

yawn.

buying a Wii, anyway. I'm perfectly happy with my "regular" sound and "regular" video. You spoiled bitches should stop being whiny.
While HD is just a better picture, sound actually adds to the game itself by adding a lot more awareness.

Still, add 5.1 with the Wiimote speaker, what a coding nightmare that'd be.

[Serapth]

As a non cube owner, I cant comment, but didnt it have a hiDef pack with an optical out option??? Has Nintendo taken a step back here?


Plus, I know... I know, its not all about the graphics. And I know, I know... its not all about the sound... but come on, it is about the experience, and this is showing its going to have inferioir picture and sound. Thats getting a bit depressing, I mean its almost to the point why didnt the just release a remote for the Game Cube with a ram upgrade accesory.

[Mike Jones]

"NEXT GEN" does not require good graphics or sound all it requires is a new controller. Didn't you guy's get the memo?

[Jack B]

I think it's right in line with Nintendo's positioning.

Low cost hardware for the "fun, casual gamer".
Easy to develop "last Gen" type development tools to get more titles made by publishers.

They focus on game play, lot's of titles at low cost. Sound and picture quality are the trade off.

If I buy a Wii, it's for non-gamers at parties, Thanksgiving, or for 30 minutes of fun once in a while. For serious sit down for 5 hours at a time gameplay. I want great graphics, great sound, more in depth topics/titles/sims, and I want to sit with the controller on my lap moving as little as possible, except to grab some chips and salsa or a drink as needed.

To me the Wii is more like XBL Arcade. It will be fun in 50 years from now weak graphics, sound and all..., but it's not the main course. Lack of Dolby 5.1 makes no difference to my decision to purchase or not. I like the Wii for other reasons.

[AversionFX]

While HD is just a better picture, sound actually adds to the game itself by adding a lot more awareness.

Still, add 5.1 with the Wiimote speaker, what a coding nightmare that'd be.

Of course it's better. But the HD-crowd is making it out that games on the Wii will be absolutely abyssmal without HD support.

Seriously, just... no. Games have been played for the last 18(?) years without HD, you can survive without it.

[Serapth]

Seriously, just... no. Games have been played for the last 18(?) years without HD, you can survive without it.

Dont have an HD tv yet do you? Not only is it like 4 times more detail, but old Standard Def stuff tends to look blocky and distorted. For most people that have moved on to HD, it is a big deal ( not the most important, but definatly big ).

[Borys]

$200 ($250?) for a second (I already own one) GameCube with a fancy controller?

...

Goddamn you Mario and your goddamned Galaxy! Day one purchase.

[Savok]

Of course it's better. But the HD-crowd is making it out that games on the Wii will be absolutely abyssmal without HD support.

Seriously, just... no. Games have been played for the last 18(?) years without HD, you can survive without it.
That's what I was saying, jesus.

My point was sound does actually add to a game's design, HD does not.

And if you can't live without HD there's something wrong with you. I have a HD TV, doesn't stop me from using a N64.

[DirtyChimp]

i'm sure it will still have the gamecubes dolby prologic 2, which works just fine for reproducing 5.1. theres no need to worry.

[Achilles]

Not a surprise. It won’t support HD either as many have pointed out. I’d be surprised if they even make component cables for it.

[bapenguin]

Or maybe closer to a current gen console? Oh wait, that is exaggeration as flamebait, isn't it?

Did anyone consider that the reason why they did this might also have something to do with the speaker in the controller?

Current gen consoles (with the exception of the cube) both support Dolby Digital, and in the case of the PS2 DTS as well.

[agentgray]

Gamecube didn't have 5.1. It had Dolby Prologic II.

Is this any surprise? Moore hit it on the head, we're all going to have 360s for adult games, and Wiis for party novelties and pure unadulterated fun.

[NoName]

Gamecube didn't have 5.1. It had Dolby Prologic II.

Is this any surprise? Moore hit it on the head, we're all going to have 360s for adult games, and Wiis for party novelties and pure unadulterated fun.
Nope, no big surprise. I'll be quite content having "fake" 5.1. Plus the speaker on the wiimote :D.

[EternalGamer]

Dont have an HD tv yet do you? Not only is it like 4 times more detail, but old Standard Def stuff tends to look blocky and distorted. For most people that have moved on to HD, it is a big deal ( not the most important, but definatly big ).


HD really is just not that important or not that great. I bought a brand new Sony 34" HDTV last year, spending nearly $2,000 (I bought a CRT due to better picture quality) and while it's nice, it is nowhere near a paradigm shift, in my opinion. If I had it to do over again, I'm not sure i would make the same decision to buy one, even being a big film guy. Actually one of the most annoying things is how standard def stuff looks so much worse, which is a pretty big deal considering way more than half of the things I use the TV for are in standard definition (90% of the satellite channels, current gen and older consoles, and older/rare films). This seems to be good evidence for the idea that HD is still well ahead of the technology curb, as Nintendo argues.

I have a similar experience with my surround sound. I bought a pretty good one, and while I appreciate it, it's easy to forget it's there. And when I use it with programs that are not in surround sound (again 90% of the stuff I use it for: standard broadcast TV, games, and older/rarer films) I don't even notice the difference.

I dunno, I guess I'm just not a tech guy. For me the tech is just a medium in order to enjoy entertainment, not an end in and of itself. As a result, I have little need for the latest technical "bling" even if i buy into it long enough to purchase it every few years anyway.

In a way, I am also glad the Wii doesn't use digital because my surround sound system only has room for 3 digital inputs and I am already using them all.

[AversionFX]

Dont have an HD tv yet do you? Not only is it like 4 times more detail, but old Standard Def stuff tends to look blocky and distorted. For most people that have moved on to HD, it is a big deal ( not the most important, but definatly big ).

I've played plenty of games on a HD tv. It didn't impress me. Same game albeit a sharper image. Whoop-tee doo.

That's what I was saying, jesus.

My point was sound does actually add to a game's design, HD does not.

And if you can't live without HD there's something wrong with you. I have a HD TV, doesn't stop me from using a N64.

I know :P The sound is a big deal, but. The first Playstation wasn't a powerhouse of sound/graphics, and games still managed to pull it [sound] off brilliantly. Metal Gear Solid and Silent Hill immediately come to mind. So, I have no doubts that the Wii will do just fine.

oh well. Guess I'll just have to wait until I get one and hook it up.

[Stormwatcher]

The Fake 5.1 sound on the GC sounded pretty much like the Real 5.1 sound on my PS2. And I have the PS2 plugged to the AV receiver with fiber.

[torrefaction]

HD really is just not that important or not that great.


You have GOT to be kidding me. There is such a huge difference between HD and Standard, that I barely watch shows in Standard anymore. When I originalyl hooked up my 360, I didn't realize there was an HD switch. I noticed a VAST improvement.

Regardless of whether it matters for games as far as the Wii is concerned, it is that great. And looking at these games is SD is gonna hurt a little inside.

[torrefaction]

I should note after my last post, that I fully intend on buying a Wii.

But the lack of 5.1 still sucks, and I think it's a poor decision.

[*Legion*]

Or maybe closer to a current gen console?

Not even. I have digital audio on the PS2 and Xbox.
The Wii's lack of it is very disappointing.

[Guy Mariano]

No HD who cares, No Dolby Digital who cares, Bad Graphics who cares, sitting on a couch or standing up swinging a controller looking foolish.....that's priceless. Nintendo is a joke selling 4 year old technology for 2-3 X the price.

[Serapth]

HD really is just not that important or not that great. I bought a brand new Sony 34" HDTV last year, spending nearly $2,000 (I bought a CRT due to better picture quality) and while it's nice, it is nowhere near a paradigm shift, in my opinion. If I had it to do over again, I'm not sure i would make the same decision to buy one, even being a big film guy. Actually one of the most annoying things is how standard def stuff looks so much worse, which is a pretty big deal considering way more than half of the things I use the TV for are in standard definition (90% of the satellite channels, current gen and older consoles, and older/rare films). This seems to be good evidence for the idea that HD is still well ahead of the technology curb, as Nintendo argues.

I have a similar experience with my surround sound. I bought a pretty good one, and while I appreciate it, it's easy to forget it's there. And when I use it with programs that are not in surround sound (again 90% of the stuff I use it for: standard broadcast TV, games, and older/rarer films) I don't even notice the difference.

I dunno, I guess I'm just not a tech guy. For me the tech is just a medium in order to enjoy entertainment, not an end in and of itself. As a result, I have little need for the latest technical "bling" even if i buy into it long enough to purchase it every few years anyway.

In a way, I am also glad the Wii doesn't use digital because my surround sound system only has room for 3 digital inputs and I am already using them all.

I find a pretty big difference going from a HD signal to a SD signal, but that really comes down to the person. The biggest thing about not supporting HD, and you said it in your response, is once you have gone HD, SD content looks really crappy. You atleast bought a CRT, so it doesnt look horrible, but SD content on most plasmas and LCDs looks pretty blocky and distorted.

[Mr.Green]

HD really is just not that important or not that great. I bought a brand new Sony 34" HDTV last year, spending nearly $2,000 (I bought a CRT due to better picture quality) and while it's nice, it is nowhere near a paradigm shift, in my opinion.
I own a Panasonic AE700 HD projector that shoots a 106" image. An HD "signal" is a pretty big fucking deal to me. Regular TV is barely watchable and ex-gen games look okay but nowhere near as good as in 720p.

[Lord Dongkey]

http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/surround-sound6.htm

http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/framed.htm?parent=surround-sound.htm&url=%20http://www.dolby.com/assets/pdf/tech_library/208_Dolby_Surround_Pro_Logic_Decoder.pdf

In short: not a big deal. You're losing the fidelity of a digital signal, but you're not losing the surround.

Is there a huge difference in quality? In some people's opinions, yes. Is it enough to potentially jeapordize Nintendo's market positioning as the low-cost solution for home gaming and introduce a new barrier to entry for casual gamers?

Um, no.

[Zaro]

Dolby Pro Logic II will be fine.

I know HD is better than standard, but one thing i wonder. Why people have play last gen console instead of PC game who is HD.

[didragondi]

I think it's right in line with Nintendo's positioning.

Low cost hardware for the "fun, casual gamer".
Easy to develop "last Gen" type development tools to get more titles made by publishers.

They focus on game play, lot's of titles at low cost. Sound and picture quality are the trade off.



You know, I think this is a big contributing factor but not the whole picture. It seems to me that certain people at sites like this that cater to hardcore gamers forget families and children play lots of games, and spend money and well, Nintendo maybe criticized by many for catering too much to that crowd, but at least they have not forgotten the people are out there. Also, todays beginning gaming child is tomorrows hardcore. My little boy (6) going by hours played, is hardcore already..just doesnt always know what to do. My point in relation to the HD pictures and dolby 5.1 sound, is most families live on middle class incomes, or maybe a little more like we do, and with the cost of raising a family, higher def and digital sound are less of a priority. We will probably buy a Wii at launch for them; I have already showed him the trailer for SSMB for Wii and he is stoked; whereas when 360 comes out without games and specialized for a format I do not have..I will wait til a few RPG's come out and see if the price drops. As for the Sony PS 3, at that price, fugattaboutit

[Serapth]

I've played plenty of games on a HD tv. It didn't impress me. Same game albeit a sharper image. Whoop-tee doo.


Guess this is a matter of opinion then. I started gaming at 320x200 on the PC, then when I went to 640x480 everything I played before at that lower resolution looked like ass. Then when I went to 1024x768 from 640x480, wow the pic became so much more lifelike. After that it curbed off a bit.

Stil HD is equivalent to going from running your games at 640x480 to running your games at 1280x720. Perhaps not a big deal to you, but obviously a big deal to a number of people. Im not saying games aint still fun at 640 but no where near as immersive.

[Lord Dongkey]

Now, in response to the HD vs. SD debate, again, same thing. Is it worth it to me if they released a $150 more expensive Wii so I could have Hi-Def? Probably. Would it be worth it to me to have each game cost $10 to $20 more due to having hi-def content and taking longer to develop for? Um.... not as likely.

Is it worth it to me to alienate 3rd party/indie devs that look at this system as (again) a path-of-least-resistance low-barrier-to-entry solution to develop games for?

Fuck no.

[Cool AN]

Damn, this seems like a really bad decision. I can some what understand HD tv's, but no Dolby?

[Mike Jones]

Hmm... is Wii really revolutionary or did Nintendo just swipe the idea from Dreamcast?

http://www.kotaku.com/images/2006/05/dreamcastwiimotemag.jpg

[phantomhitman]

mike jones
who?!
mike jones
who?!
mike jonnnneeesssss!
/rappercomparison

nice find though

[bapenguin]

http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/surround-sound6.htm

http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/framed.htm?parent=surround-sound.htm&url=%20http://www.dolby.com/assets/pdf/tech_library/208_Dolby_Surround_Pro_Logic_Decoder.pdf

In short: not a big deal. You're losing the fidelity of a digital signal, but you're not losing the surround.


As long as the use ProLogic II (http://www.dolby.com/consumer/technology/prologic_II.html) for it. Otherwise it's 4.0 (L, R, C and S)

What does the GCN use?

[Achilles]

Damn, this seems like a really bad decision. I can some what understand HD tv's, but no Dolby?It would require a new plug. They don't even have an ethernet port on the thing, it's WiFi only, last time I heard. Plugs cost money.

[bapenguin]

why did my original post get delted bap?!

Which one?

[phantomhitman]

nevermind, too many windos open at once

[crashedout]

I find this one hard to swallow. 5.1 IC's are not the expensive anymore and if you are going through the trouble to mix surround sound you can do 5.1. I am more ticked off on using analog for the audio, I like the simplicity of one cable with a low loss digital signal. It is looking more and more like Gamecube 1.5 to me. I will hold my purchase until the community has decided on whether or not this is a gimmick or a real innovation. 250? It better be much lower than that.

[EternalGamer]

As long as the use ProLogic II (http://www.dolby.com/consumer/technology/prologic_II.html) for it. Otherwise it's 4.0 (L, R, C and S)

What does the GCN use?

I know that the Gamecube uses ProLogic 2. I don't know if it does anything besides, that though. Since the hardware is basically a pumped up Gamecube, it makes sense the Wii would use the same.

[GunnyMo]

Wow, what a step backward for Nintendo if this turns out to be true. With the proliferation of surround sound systems this type of thing should be standard. If you can get it on a $40 DVD player it should certainly be on a $200 gaming console.

I can see a lot of people picking up the Wii just for the game downloads and nothing more.

[Morangie]

Hmm... is Wii really revolutionary or did Nintendo just swipe the idea from Dreamcast?

http://www.kotaku.com/images/2006/05/dreamcastwiimotemag.jpg

WOW, Sega had a concept lightgun controller! Nintendo are such THIEVES.
Of course, they did already have a one handed controller back in the NES days.
Nintendo will even stoop so low as to steal from themselves :(

http://www.1up.com/do/imageDisplay?id=2839422

[AversionFX]

Stil HD is equivalent to going from running your games at 640x480 to running your games at 1280x720. Perhaps not a big deal to you, but obviously a big deal to a number of people. Im not saying games aint still fun at 640 but no where near as immersive.

I suppose it comes down to the person. It's not like I'm living in the stone age, or anything. I play my games at 1280x1024, high graphical settings. But HD is just not reall a big deal.

I subscribe to the ideology that if you need HD to make your games fun, then you deserve to lose the "next gen," console war. The huge push to make gameplay secondary to graphics is just depressing. What is so fun about a gorgeous game if the gameplay mechanics and story are completely bland and lifeless?

[Cool AN]

It would require a new plug. They don't even have an ethernet port on the thing, it's WiFi only, last time I heard. Plugs cost money.

Yeah but still.

[Serapth]

I suppose it comes down to the person. It's not like I'm living in the stone age, or anything. I play my games at 1280x1024, high graphical settings. But HD is just not reall a big deal.

I subscribe to the ideology that if you need HD to make your games fun, then you deserve to lose the "next gen," console war. The huge push to make gameplay secondary to graphics is just depressing. What is so fun about a gorgeous game if the gameplay mechanics and story are completely bland and lifeless?


See, and I appreciate what Nintendo is doing, but this is where I disagree with you. See, I think games now are fun, in the current generation with the same controls that worked for 20 years. I think games are fun now ( in the next generation on my 360 ), with the same controller from the last 20 years, plus a much higher resolution image.

Im interested in the Wii, and if it reviews well, ill get one. But frankly, I am happy with games as they are.

[EternalGamer]

How is it a step "backwards"? The Gamecube did not have digital output. Neither did the Xbox, for that matter (you had to buy the HD pack to get digital out). I think it's a smart decision, as most consumers would not be able to tell the difference between the two anyway. Go try and watch TV with a digital cable, and then try it over a normal pair of stereo cables. I'm willing to bet you'd have at least a slightly difficult time telling which one was which.

These technological advancements are nice for tech heads to geek out on, but for the average consumer, they really don't make a big difference. I can certainly tell the difference between digital output and standard stereo jacks when they are run through my system, but I have to try to notice the difference. When you are engaged in the experience, you are unlikely to notice the difference, which makes it pretty pointless. Plus, how many people do you think would actually go to the trouble to buy a $20-30 ditigal cable to hook up to it, even if it had the cable. I'm willing to bet the vast majority would not. And anyone that would not buy the Wii because of it's lack of technological sophistication in this area, well, they are probably people that would not have bought it anyway. The hardware is utilitarian, it's not tech bling.

[Cubfan]

You won't hear sound anyway, you'll be too busy doing somersaults and jumping around and whatnot with the fancypants controller.

[Zeal]

Hmm... is Wii really revolutionary or did Nintendo just swipe the idea from Dreamcast?

http://www.kotaku.com/images/2006/05/dreamcastwiimotemag.jpgNice try, Pretendo. Sega owns thee from the grave.

[Mr.Green]

The huge push to make gameplay secondary to graphics is just depressing.

You mean it works like this ?

[Gameplay]<======================||==>[Graphics]

:rolleyes:

[Citizen Philip]

I don't think HD or full digital sound is a real issue. I'm not saying I'm getting a Wii, but I play older games sometimes.

Yes, they are more pixelated and sometimes the sound is midi or sythesized but.. if the gameplay is good... all of that eye and ear candy fluff just fades into the background of an excellent game experience.

Like Alpha Centauri.

[OrangePulp]

As has already been stated, "real" 5.1 sound only matters to the hardcore, and not even all of them (I would probably be considered a hardcore gamer, and I really don't care about it), and this isn't nintendo's target audience.

And as far as HD picture goes, it's great for TV shows and the like. When I'm at my parents' watching a game on my dad's 40" HD, it's a big step up from regular. But when it comes to games, from what I've seen at least, it's not that big of a deal.

[didragondi]

Werent some of you the same ones bashing the DS before it really took off? "Inferior technology, Nintenodo is crazy, graphics are more important " and so on. If their lack of advanced outputs for audio and video saves me fifty dollars, when the outputs arent something I (and many many families who are not hardcore gamers) would use, that is a good thing. thanks Nintendo.

[EternalGamer]

Also for the guy that said he doesn't trust, Wifi, the Wii has 2 USB ports, and they have confirmed a USB based Ethernet adaptor for those that did not have or want to use a WiFi connnection.

[Norse]

I appreciate Nintendo's focus on revolutionary gameplay and not just graphics. But what I don't like is that it seems like they didn't even make an effort to improve graphics and audio. I guess I'm a graphics whore, but after getting used to HD, I don't care much for SD anymore. Besides SD signals don't look very good on my LCD HDTV, actually it looks rather bad in comparison. Going from X360 to the Wii will be like going from XGA to VGA. So Wii have to have some truely great games to convince me.

For those of you who don't care much for HD, do you still run your PC games at 640*480??

[midrael]

Interesting, I didn't know until this thread that getting HD means that viewing SD stuff on HD makes the SD content look worse.

That actually talks me out of getting HD at the moment because so much content still isn't designed for it. I'll wait til the content catches up to the technology.

[[Jez]]

I have neither a HD TV nor a surround sound system so this is fine with me

OT: Anyone know if you can use the Wii as a access point for the DS?

[EternalGamer]

Interesting, I didn't know until this thread that getting HD means that viewing SD stuff on HD makes the SD content look worse.

That actually talks me out of getting HD at the moment because so much content still isn't designed for it. I'll wait til the content catches up to the technology.

It's not all that dramatic, but it is an issue. My old games/movies/TV certainly do look better to me on my old Sony Wega (which I have now retired to the backroom). It makes a lot less difference in games, though, compared to TV. Standard definition games still look pretty good. But standard definition TV looks kinda bad mainly because of the aweful compression and poor quality of the signals.

[crashedout]

Interesting, I didn't know until this thread that getting HD means that viewing SD stuff on HD makes the SD content look worse.

That actually talks me out of getting HD at the moment because so much content still isn't designed for it. I'll wait til the content catches up to the technology.

That is an excellent point you have to consider if you want to go HD. It was a no brainer for me...all the network shows I watch are HD. Add in HBO, Discovery and TNT and I can put up with the SD for the few left-over shows I like. If you have a very clean SD signal a tv with a good de-scaler can make it look okay.

Garbage in = Garbage out.

[EternalGamer]

']I have neither a HD TV nor a surround sound system so this is fine with me

OT: Anyone know if you can use the Wii as a access point for the DS?

I assume that's a given. What I really want, though is DS playback on the TV via the Wii.

[phantomhitman]

Of course, they did already have a one handed controller back in the NES days.
Nintendo will even stoop so low as to steal from themselves :(

http://www.1up.com/do/imageDisplay?id=2839422

1-that was not made by nintendo
2-that does not resemble the new wii controller by any means
3-omgwtfbbq

[TheBrainKills]

When the next 3d consoles and meet the quality of graphics of a DVD movie at 480p then you graphics whores can bitch about HD. When you crank your home theatre above 120 spdbl's and want nothing but silence, well you are probably going deaf so who cares anyways.

Whiners.

[crackeriah]

Meh. Perhaps my surround speakers aren't optimally placed, but I seldom notice the difference between the optical 5.1 from my 360 and the ProLogic II from my GameCube.

Can anyone recommend a game that will really blow me away with 5.1 sound?

[Samo Umer]

Oh... nintendo....

Just replace the ethernet connector with a 14.400 modem (you'll save a few bucks). In the end we know it all about the game right?

[Kelegacy]

HDTV is nice, but it isn't the end-all. It's a higher resolution. Big deal. I have an HDTV and while at first games looked good, you definitely get used to it fast. And the emphasis on graphics is why we have new consoles every couple years, 60 dollar games and expensive hardware. Gameplay can grow with graphics, but it shouldn't be dragged along miles behind. I have yet to play anything on the 360 that couldn't be done on the Xbox. Besides graphics, that is.

You are all graphics whores.

[xcalibur]

Not a big deal to me. I am not an audio-phile. I don't have surround sound setup in my house. Too much trouble. Stereo sound is fine with me.


-X

[Worldcrafter]

Doesn't affect me, I only have a stereo setup. I've never been much of an audiophile, so I tend to focus more on the equipment producing the visuals than my audio hardware. My computer has 5.1 and I can't say I've ever played a game where the surround sound really made the game for me. I think my 2 tower speakers will serve me just fine.

Edit: xcalibur, that's creepy. Let's agree to never do that again.

[Norse]

You guys would be happy to play your games in black & white with mono sound. Gameplay is all that matters, right? :)

[Mr.Green]

Interesting, I didn't know until this thread that getting HD means that viewing SD stuff on HD makes the SD content look worse.

That actually talks me out of getting HD at the moment because so much content still isn't designed for it. I'll wait til the content catches up to the technology.
The issue here is screen size. A SD signal will look just about the same on a SDTV and an HDTV of the same size. The thing is, when you buy a brand new HDTV or projector, chances are it'll have a bigger screen than your old TV, and stretching a crappy image to huge sizes will make the flaws more apparent.

[DoubleUranium]

The Nintendo fanboys bag of excuses grows one deeper.

[thecrazyd]

For those of you who don't care much for HD, do you still run your PC games at 640*480??
If there were a lot of awesome PC games that ran in 640*480 and nothing higher, then yes I would.

[Kelegacy]

If there were a lot of awesome PC games that ran in 640*480 and nothing higher, then yes I would.
Pretty crap is still crap. You can marry the prettiest girl in the world but it is a waste if she has no substance, no brains or personality. A girl that doesn't look drop-dead gorgeous can stimulate you to no end if she has the goods under the hood.

[Kelegacy]

I still think that the Wii should launch for no more than 200 bucks. You can get a 360 for 299, and since the Wii isn't exactly up to the specs of a 360, a technologically inferior Wii should not cost just 50 bucks less. 199 and I'm buying right away.

[EternalGamer]

You guys would be happy to play your games in black & white with mono sound. Gameplay is all that matters, right? :)


A very poor example. Place people in a room and 10 out of 10 will notice the difference between color TVs and black and white TVs. 8 or 9 out of 10 could notice th difference between mono sound and surround sound.

But how many people could tell the difference between digital surround and non-digital surround? My guess is not many. Everyone has different preferences, certainly. But there certainly is law of diminishing returns where audio and video technology is concerned. For most people, the types of advancements we are talking about in the latest console gen in these are areas is well beyond the sweet spot in this regard.

[EternalGamer]

I still think that the Wii should launch for no more than 200 bucks. You can get a 360 for 299, and since the Wii isn't exactly up to the specs of a 360, a technologically inferior Wii should not cost just 50 bucks less. 199 and I'm buying right away.


And $199 is still a distinctive possibility given that, as someone else pointed out, the announced Japanese price of the Wii is the same as the Japanese launch price of the Gamecube (which went on to launch in the U.S. for $199). However, I think when you add all things up, the Wii really is a pretty decent deal even at $250. It has the 512MB of flash memory built in, so, unlike the core 360, you don't have to buy a memory card. And we still don't know what the pack ins will be. Iwata has stated in an interview that they were considering packing 2 remotes in with the system. It must have been a pretty heavy consideration for him to openly discuss that possiblity in an interview.

[Kamalot]

I have a sweet surround sound system, but if Wii has Dolby Pro Logic II, like the GameCube, then everything will be fine.

Additionally, the controller's speaker will act like a surround sound system, even if you only have stereo speakers. I did a little writeup on how it will work on my blog. Feel free to check it out, complete with diagram.

http://kamalot.blogspot.com/2006/05/wii-has-3d-sound.html

By balancing the timing and volume of a sound, the Nintendo Wii could trick the human ear into thinking a particular noise is coming from someplace between the TV and the Wii controller. Imagine, hitting a baseball; the crack of the bat, followed by a woosh as the ball flies away. By using nothing more than simple stereo speakers and the Wii controller, the game could balance the sound experience to make it sound as if the ball traveled from the bat (the controller) into the screen itself. If you hit it to left field, the sound will travel to the left.

[ChaosDent]

A very poor example. Place people in a room and 10 out of 10 will notice the difference between color TVs and black and white TVs. 8 or 9 out of 10 could notice th difference between mono sound and surround sound.

But how many people could tell the difference between digital surround and non-digital surround? My guess is not many. Everyone has different preferences, certainly. But there certainly is law of diminishing returns where audio and video technology is concerned. For most people, the types of advancements we are talking about in the latest console gen in these are areas is well beyond the sweet spot in this regard.

This is true, and is reflected in consumer's buying habits. The average consumer seems to rank products in terms of convenience, then features then quality. This is why the HD-DVD and Blu-Ray technologies will not take off in my opinion: they offer no advancements in convenience and features, the segment which favors quality will adopt them but I think it will amount to a Laserdisc sized blip on the market.

[Zaro]

I just wrote an article about how the Wii will be able to do surround sound with only a stereo setup. It is a good read!

http://kamalot.blogspot.com/2006/05/wii-has-3d-sound.html

Interresting. I like your idea.
It sure the quality of the speaker in the controller do not compete with a stereo, but the feeling can be really good.

[Opty]

On "Do you play PC games at 640x480 still?" No. But here's why: my face is a foot from the screen and the screen is 17". With a TV I'm a yard or more from the screen and it's 20"+ so I don't feel the need to increase the resolution. Plus on the PC side I'm fine with 1024x768 whereas others (no doubt the HDTV lovers) need to crank it up higher.

[theguido]

Disappointing, I guess, but I've never made my console decisions based on this sort of thing.

[Mr.Green]

Pretty crap is still crap. You can marry the prettiest girl in the world but it is a waste if she has no substance, no brains or personality. A girl that doesn't look drop-dead gorgeous can stimulate you to no end if she has the goods under the hood.
So it works like this for women too huh?

[Personality]<=================||==>[Beauty]

:rolleyes:

[ChopFoo]

For those asking, The Cube started out with 2 ouputs on the back, one analouge and one digital. The digital output was video ONLE - you bought a special cable and it plugged into that port which gave you component out. The analouge port had left/right audio, along with composite (and/or) s-video (depending on the cable that you bought). This meant that you could buy the digital video cable, but you *always* had to have the analouge one plugged in for sound - there was no was to get digital sound.

Nintendo then did away with the digital port. So, if you go buy a cube today you will only be able to have analouge video.

I have an HD TV and though I was disappointed when I heard the revolution wouldn't support it, I understood the decesion. No true 5.1? That's just stupid - that technology is pretty much a given for many (if not most) people right now. And that's something that *really* adds to the game experience (as opposed to HD - which is just nicer looking).

Will it keep me from buying the system? Hell no.

[thecrazyd]

So it works like this for women too huh?

[Personality]<=================||==>[Beauty]

:rolleyes:
You seem to think he said they cannot be both. You seem to be making a lot of assumptions in this thread.

[Kelegacy]

So it works like this for women too huh?

[Personality]<=================||==>[Beauty]

:rolleyes:
I try to find cute/pretty girls that have brains. I can be a superficial asshole, but I admire the inside qualities as well. A good balance of both is key. Right now I'm trying to muster the guts to ask out a girl at the bank I frequent. She's blonde, very pretty, and quiet/nice. I think I'm a good judge of character, and her outside appearance is as brilliant as her demeanor.

Now where did I place my courage....?

[thecrazyd]

I try to find cute/pretty girls that have brains as well. I can be a superficial asshole, but I admire the inside qualities as well. A good balance of both is key. Right now I'm trying to muster the guts to ask a girl out at the bank I frequent. She's blonde, very pretty, and quiet/nice. I think I'm a good judge of character, but her outside appearance is as brilliant as her demeanor.

Now where did I place my courage....?
That is the hardest thing in the world to do. Best of luck.

[dimsumx]

I wonder if Nintendo's choice of no HD and DD going to hurt their sales. HD support I can understand, but digital audio output should be standard IMO.

For me at least, it'll be a tough buy since I bought a DLP last year and afraid that not having 720p output will produce videolag when I play games.

[Kelegacy]

I wonder if Nintendo's choice of no HD and DD going to hurt their sales. HD support I can understand, but digital audio output should be standard IMO.

For me at least, it'll be a tough buy since I bought a DLP last year and afraid that not having 720p output will produce videolag when I play games.
420p isn't horrible. You'll be just fine. I promise.

[torrefaction]

I try to find cute/pretty girls that have brains. I can be a superficial asshole, but I admire the inside qualities as well. A good balance of both is key. Right now I'm trying to muster the guts to ask out a girl at the bank I frequent. She's blonde, very pretty, and quiet/nice. I think I'm a good judge of character, and her outside appearance is as brilliant as her demeanor.

Now where did I place my courage....?

This is simpler than it sounds. Think long and hard, and realize if you don't do it, you'll never have the chance. Which is scarier?

To me, it always ends up with me realizing I'd be more frightened to miss the opportunity than just to go ahead and fuckin do it :)

[pacmanfever]

Current gen consoles (with the exception of the cube) both support Dolby Digital, and in the case of the PS2 DTS as well.

But the PS2 can't do 5.1 during gameplay, only during cut-scenes and when playing a DVD. Only the Xbox can do 5.1 while you're actually playing the game.

Honestly, this is a non-issue. It would be nice, but Pro Logic II is close enough.

[Bushido]

Am I the only person who could care less about boated specs you have all been brainwashed into believing. Seriously Dolbi digital is about as hard to prove as the existence of God. Its there.....in the room, in the air, invisible. Get over it.

[Kamalot]

I try to find cute/pretty girls that have brains. I can be a superficial asshole, but I admire the inside qualities as well. A good balance of both is key. Right now I'm trying to muster the guts to ask out a girl at the bank I frequent. She's blonde, very pretty, and quiet/nice. I think I'm a good judge of character, and her outside appearance is as brilliant as her demeanor.

Now where did I place my courage....?
Jumping out of an airplane is easier to do than asking out a girl.

Good luck man! Send me a message to let me know how it goes. :D

[Speed_D]

I appreciate Nintendo's focus on revolutionary gameplay and not just graphics. But what I don't like is that it seems like they didn't even make an effort to improve graphics and audio.
Yeah: they made an effort to keep their price reasonable. At the same time, I can't say for sure, but I'd bet that developing games for their system is also probably easier.

But from the sales standpoint, Nintendo understands that a huge segment of console consumers does not have HD or digital surround. And many people don't have surround sound at all.

If you fall into one of those groups, which console would you be more inclined to purchase? The one with $600 of junk that you're never going to use?

A similar comparison is World of Warcraft. They went for a particular artistic style, using relatively low poly counts. It runs on LOTS of hardware. And they've captured a huge market. Many of those people wouldn't even be able to play EQ2 on their systems because it'd be a slideshow.

I wonder if Nintendo's choice of no HD and DD going to hurt their sales.
I'm going to say no on that one (see above).

[torrefaction]

Am I the only person who could care less about boated specs you have all been brainwashed into believing. Seriously Dolbi digital is about as hard to prove as the existence of God. Its there.....in the room, in the air, invisible. Get over it.

Uh...You don't make any sense.

[SMES]

No HD who cares, No Dolby Digital who cares, Bad Graphics who cares, sitting on a couch or standing up swinging a controller looking foolish.....that's priceless. Nintendo is a joke selling 4 year old technology for 2-3 X the price.
If a washed up skateboarder thinks so, it MUST be true!

[SMES]

Oh... nintendo....

Just replace the ethernet connector with a 14.400 modem (you'll save a few bucks). In the end we know it all about the game right?

The difference between Pro Logic II and Digital is almost unnoticable, in my opinion. The difference between a 14.4 (no redundant zeros? oh noes!) and a DSL line is huge.

The difference between you and Nintendo is that Nintendo knows what they are doing. And just to be fair that is the difference between myself and Nintendo, as well. You don't see me making billions of yen in profit.

[Lister]

HDTV is nice, but it isn't the end-all. It's a higher resolution. Big deal. I have an HDTV and while at first games looked good, you definitely get used to it fast. And the emphasis on graphics is why we have new consoles every couple years, 60 dollar games and expensive hardware. Gameplay can grow with graphics, but it shouldn't be dragged along miles behind. I have yet to play anything on the 360 that couldn't be done on the Xbox. Besides graphics, that is.

You are all graphics whores.

QFT

Didn't we have tons of threads on how we all lament the death of gameplay, how EA (not this site!) is turning the next generation of gamers into drooling morons needing their "graphics" fix? Seems a lot of people here have fallen for it...

[Heretic Machine]

Here is where the HD argument falls apart for me...

Which would I rather have? A good game in HD, or a good game in SD? A bad game in HD, or a bad game in SD? Nothing about the Wii guarantees a good game, shitty games can and will be made for it. It looks like it is going to have some awesome games too, which would be even better in HD, and I would rather have it. I'm still going to buy it without HD, it isn't a game-breaking flaw for me... but I'm damn happy my 360 supports HD, and I'm also happy that it has a library of great games.

HD doesn't make games bad or good, it makes games LOOK BETTER! That is a plus, people. Yes, it costs money to do so, but it isn't going to have a significantly bad effect on the gameplay. It's not like the people who program the game mechanics are the same people who make textures and meshes. It just means that the developer will have to invest more money and man hours into it's art department.

[miah]

I still dont have HD, or 5.1. I bought my TV almost 6 years ago.. I wish I had 5.1, because my TV kinda sucks for DVDs (gotta crank the volume). Someday I'll get one..

[Norse]

Here is where the HD argument falls apart for me...

Which would I rather have? A good game in HD, or a good game in SD? A bad game in HD, or a bad game in SD? Nothing about the Wii guarantees a good game, shitty games can and will be made for it. It looks like it is going to have some awesome games too, which would be even better in HD, and I would rather have it. I'm still going to buy it without HD, it isn't a game-breaking flaw for me... but I'm damn happy my 360 supports HD, and I'm also happy that it has a library of great games.

HD doesn't make games bad or good, it makes games LOOK BETTER! That is a plus, people. Yes, it costs money to do so, but it isn't going to have a significantly bad effect on the gameplay. It's not like the people who program the game mechanics are the same people who make textures and meshes. It just means that the developer will have to invest more money and man hours into it's art department.

You just earned yourself $0.02 for speaking the truth...

[thecrazyd]

It just means that the developer will have to invest more money and man hours into it's art department.
Exactly. Which is why it is cheaper to make games in SD, meaning we will see more wacky, indyish games, which is cool with me.

[cppcrusader]

I wonder if Nintendo's choice of no HD and DD going to hurt their sales. HD support I can understand, but digital audio output should be standard IMO.


Yes, because we should make something standard that isn't the common standard in every home. :rolleyes:

[Yeti2005]

HD doesn't make games bad or good, it makes games LOOK BETTER!

I would add that Dolby Digital doesn't make a game good or bad either but it makes them sound better. In the end, if two games are exactly the same in gameplay (and story, etc) but one has HD and Dolby Digital and the other one doesn't, I'm going with the HD/DD version. HD and DD can seriously help immerse you in a game.

[midrael]

Here is where the HD argument falls apart for me...

Which would I rather have? A good game in HD, or a good game in SD? A bad game in HD, or a bad game in SD? Nothing about the Wii guarantees a good game, shitty games can and will be made for it. It looks like it is going to have some awesome games too, which would be even better in HD, and I would rather have it. I'm still going to buy it without HD, it isn't a game-breaking flaw for me... but I'm damn happy my 360 supports HD, and I'm also happy that it has a library of great games.

HD doesn't make games bad or good, it makes games LOOK BETTER! That is a plus, people. Yes, it costs money to do so, but it isn't going to have a significantly bad effect on the gameplay. It's not like the people who program the game mechanics are the same people who make textures and meshes. It just means that the developer will have to invest more money and man hours into it's art department.

My only problem with this logic is that all I've heard in this thread states that content not supporting HD looks definitively worse simply because it's running on the HDTV. I have a ton of stuff that is not HD and I do plenty of things with my TV that is not in HD nor supports HD. As far as HD goes, I think Nintendo hit the nail on the head that the technology is only for early adopters at this stage. There's simply not enough HD content for me to justify the enormous price of the buy-in to the technology. I love me some good graphics, but I'm a miser when it comes to spending money. :)

[Lister]

I would add that Dolby Digital doesn't make a game good or bad either but it makes them sound better. In the end, if two games are exactly the same in gameplay (and story, etc) but one has HD and Dolby Digital and the other one doesn't, I'm going with the HD/DD version. HD and DD can seriously help immerse you in a game.

I will make you a $5 bet you can't tell the difference between the two if the sounds were mixed identically

[Wedge]

She's blonde, very pretty, and quiet/nice.

Oh, the quiet ones. They are the ones with the most skeletons in the closet. Or so someone told me.

[EternalGamer]

Here is where the HD argument falls apart for me...

Which would I rather have? A good game in HD, or a good game in SD? .


The difference to me is pretty much like a hot fudge sundae with nuts and a hot fudge sundae with no nuts. I like the nuts, but they aren't really that important nor do they add a lot to the sundae for me. Now if you want to charge me $.50 per sundae for nuts, they, I'm going to tell you to leave them off.

The Wii is cheaper and the games are (most likely) going to be cheaper. Give me the option of the same game for $60 in HD and $40 (or even $50) for Standard Definition and I'm probably buying the Standard Definition version. Because it comparitively means I can buy 4 SD games for around the price of 3 HD games. You might say the problem with the Wii is that it lacks the "option" for HD content or Digital Audio, but you could also say the PS3 and Xbox 360 lack the option of paying less than $60 for most new releases.

Whether or not this price hike comes obligatory with the HD territory is certainly up for debate, but, obligatory or not, it is a reality thus far and looks to be for the near future. A 20% price hike just for higher resolutions that I only notice if I walk over and stick my nose up to the TV is a complete rip off, in my opinion.

[bapenguin]

I have a sweet surround sound system, but if Wii has Dolby Pro Logic II, like the GameCube, then everything will be fine.

Additionally, the controller's speaker will act like a surround sound system, even if you only have stereo speakers. I did a little writeup on how it will work on my blog. Feel free to check it out, complete with diagram.

http://kamalot.blogspot.com/2006/05/wii-has-3d-sound.html

While your idea is technically right, you can "simulate" surround sound with a single speaker in actuality. But there's a big difference in spatial recognition with a true surround setup.

With simulated surround you can sense stuff is behind, side or front etc.

With true surround you can actually hear the difference in depth away from you. And that's the big deal.

In your example it works from the user forward. But it doesn't work from the back wall to the user. Also, to truly trick the user the sound needs to be properly balanced between the Wii speaker and the TV/front speakers.

Have you ever heard the difference between a properly calibrated audio system and one that's not calibrated? The proper one usually sounds so natural that the other one sounds to forced and fake. You can hear where audio is wrong.

Maybe I'm just fussy, I spent hours upon hours and test scene upon test scene in my theater room tweaking speaker placement, refelectors and audio levels.

[EternalGamer]

While your idea is technically right, you can "simulate" surround sound with a single speaker in actuality. But there's a big difference in spatial recognition with a true surround setup.

With simulated surround you can sense stuff is behind, side or front etc.

With true surround you can actually hear the difference in depth away from you. And that's the big deal.

In your example it works from the user forward. But it doesn't work from the back wall to the user. Also, to truly trick the user the sound needs to be properly balanced between the Wii speaker and the TV/front speakers.

Have you ever heard the difference between a properly calibrated audio system and one that's not calibrated? The proper one usually sounds so natural that the other one sounds to forced and fake. You can hear where audio is wrong.

Maybe I'm just fussy, I spent hours upon hours and test scene upon test scene in my theater room tweaking speaker placement, refelectors and audio levels.

I spent quite a few hours with Avia and another performance optimization disc (which I forget the name of at the moment) and I still can't tell much difference between the digital optical sound on my Xbox and the ProLogic II sound on my Gamecube.

I also hooked up my Satellite box via both Digital Optical and standard Stereojacks so I could amaze myself and others at the difference. But when I flipped back and forth between the two, I really had a hard time identifying which was which, other than the fact that the stereo cables were slightly quieter. Rather than patting myself on the back for biting the bullet and buying the $30 digital optical cable, I found I felt more like kicking myself for being suckered into believing it really was going to make a huge difference.

[Jack B]

Dont have an HD tv yet do you? Not only is it like 4 times more detail, but old Standard Def stuff tends to look blocky and distorted. For most people that have moved on to HD, it is a big deal ( not the most important, but definatly big ).

I'll back Serapth, on the "it doesn't matter so much until you have HD and then don't want to go back...".

Still think none of this matters much to Wii buyers. If you can't tell the difference looking at a Wii vs a 360 or PS3, then you probably wouldn't notice the missing high def Dolby 5.1 either.

Different market focus. Nintendo is trying to make this a cheaply as possible to maximize profits and just focus on gameplay, gameplay and more gameplay.

Still think the games will look even older a couple of years into this Gen as more people get HDTV's, that's why I believe Nintendo could be the first with the Wii Too or whatever their next Next Gen console will be called. The Wii is the least future proofed of the 3 consoles.

[Zurik]

Also for the guy that said he doesn't trust, Wifi, the Wii has 2 USB ports, and they have confirmed a USB based Ethernet adaptor for those that did not have or want to use a WiFi connnection.

Thank god! I was worried that I'd have to use WiFi. Its nice not to have cords, but the loss of bandwith is still too low for me to use for any kind of gaming.

[DaedalusFolly]

Is it over Digital Coax?

I prefer to think of Digital Coax as a more expensive Composite Cable.

[Jack B]

Here is where the HD argument falls apart for me...

Which would I rather have? A good game in HD, or a good game in SD? A bad game in HD, or a bad game in SD? Nothing about the Wii guarantees a good game, shitty games can and will be made for it. It looks like it is going to have some awesome games too, which would be even better in HD, and I would rather have it. I'm still going to buy it without HD, it isn't a game-breaking flaw for me... but I'm damn happy my 360 supports HD, and I'm also happy that it has a library of great games.

HD doesn't make games bad or good, it makes games LOOK BETTER! That is a plus, people. Yes, it costs money to do so, but it isn't going to have a significantly bad effect on the gameplay. It's not like the people who program the game mechanics are the same people who make textures and meshes. It just means that the developer will have to invest more money and man hours into it's art department.

Perigon,

Couldn't agree more. At times, it seems there is an assumption that good graphics have killed good gameplay. You can and do have both in some games. They are not mutually exclusive.

The Wii hasn't cornered the market on good gameplay. Unfortunately, Nintendo has limited the Wii with poorer quality sound and graphics. They need good gameplay or they are sunk.

They'll probably deliver and it's cheaper, but I'd still take good gameplay with Dolby 5.1 sound and great HD graphics any day. :)

[bapenguin]

I spent quite a few hours with Avia and another performance optimization disc (which I forget the name of at the moment) and I still can't tell much difference between the digital optical sound on my Xbox and the ProLogic II sound on my Gamecube.

Did you compare the same game on both systems when you did that? Something like Prince of Persia probably makes pretty good use of the surround channels.

[EternalGamer]

No, I didn't compare the same game, for the obvious reason that I didn't have any titles for both platforms. The thing that convinced me the most that there wasn't a huge difference was the standard satellite TV over both types of signals. Admitedly most TV programs are not broadcast in surround sound, but I thought the fact that I could not really tell much of a difference still said a lot.

[Kelegacy]

Jumping out of an airplane is easier to do than asking out a girl.

Good luck man! Send me a message to let me know how it goes. :D

I picked your post to reply to, but there are many others here, too. I am amazed that my little comment about dating was actually read and replied to with such positivity. Amazed, in this context, means pleasantly surprised. See, when we aren't bashing games or machines, you can be quite a civilized bunch of people that I enjoy spending time with.

[TheDancinMan]

Is it a little disappointing? Yeah, sure. But does it matter to me? No. Good god no.

I'm in college. I'll be lucky to afford any next-gen systems for a long time right about now, much less some 5.1 sound-ness. That's why I never really bothered with HD tech stuff, I can't afford it now, so why bother? Games look and sound great to me right now, so I have no standing concerns.

[bapenguin]

No, I didn't compare the same game, for the obvious reason that I didn't have any titles for both platforms. The thing that convinced me the most that there wasn't a huge difference was the standard satellite TV over both types of signals. Admitedly most TV programs are not broadcast in surround sound, but I thought the fact that I could not really tell much of a difference still said a lot.

You really need to use a better source than TV. Even HD that is broadcast over Cable/Sat is so compressed it barely reaches the bandwidth of standard cables.

If you have access to OTA HD it's a much better judge.

DVDs or Games are much better for source material to compare. Heck just hook your DVD player up via both methods and switch back and forth and let the receiver do the decoding on both. You should hear a substantial difference. Heck IMO there's a big difference between Dolby Digital 5.1 and DTS 5.1. DTS is far superior IMO.

[resikel]

If you have access to OTA HD it's a much better judge.

Heck IMO there's a big difference between Dolby Digital 5.1 and DTS 5.1. DTS is far superior IMO.

1. Yup.

2. Yup.

[trip1eX]

Much ado about nothing. No one sits in their room and says hey that sound was PL2 and not DD unless they have too much time on their hands.

[EternalGamer]

You really need to use a better source than TV. Even HD that is broadcast over Cable/Sat is so compressed it barely reaches the bandwidth of standard cables.

If you have access to OTA HD it's a much better judge.

DVDs or Games are much better for source material to compare. Heck just hook your DVD player up via both methods and switch back and forth and let the receiver do the decoding on both. You should hear a substantial difference. Heck IMO there's a big difference between Dolby Digital 5.1 and DTS 5.1. DTS is far superior IMO.


Ok baps, I just ran a new experiment. I plugged the component stereo cables on my 360 (I usually leave them unhooked) and played the HD "Making of the Titanic" clip that came with the 360. I figured this is as good of a source as any, as MS included it to show off how good non-compressed HD signals look/sound. So, I hit play and throughout the segement flipped back and forth between the optical cable and the stereo plugs.

As before, I admit I can tell a big difference, but the biggest difference just comes from volume level. The optical cable sounds much louder and definitely has less white noise. Where there is just a single voice or quiter sound being broadcast, the optical sounds a hell of a lot better. In quiter scenes with the stereo cables the white noise is considerably noticable, but still not so much that it would be a deal breaker. But the segments that had fuller sound, I found it much harder to tell the difference (aside from volume level). I even walked over to the individual speakers and put my ear to them while flipping back and forth. It was pretty hard to tell the difference even in terms of white noise level when there was booming audio coming out.

My test revealed there being a larger difference than I remembered the last time I directly compared the two, but still nothing that would be any kind of deal breaker. I certainly don't have an expert ear when it comes to audio, I can only describe the difference from the laymen's point of view, which probably puts me in the same category as about 95% of the public. So I would still argue that, unless you are an audiophile, the difference is pretty negligible. This is especially true when you consider that (1) the vast majority of the time you are not going to be consciously analyzing the sound quality coming out of the system and (2) the vast majority of the signals your TV recieves are not high quality enough for the difference to be truly appreciated.

[AversionFX]

You mean it works like this ?

[Gameplay]<======================||==>[Graphics]

:rolleyes:


Wow, how retarded.

It works like, "Hey, let's make the most beautiful game ever and tell people it'll be fucking awesome! Tell them it'll be so good otherwise YOU'LL KICK THEIR ASS."

And then people are super excited (Doom 3 comes to mind)!!! Then everyone realizes the game sucks. It looks nice, but the game is identical to the first Doom 20 years ago.

To be short: Graphics do not make games more fun. You could have the most amazing looking game ever (Doom 3) and it could still be the most uninspired, boring game ever.

[SMES]

I prefer to think of Digital Coax as a more expensive Composite Cable.
I'm using a free yellow video wire that came with some VCR or something I had lying around. That's my digital coax cable. Is there actually any benifit to using a $10+ shielded monster cable for digital? It sounds pretty crisp and clear over the free POS cable I'm using.

[EternalGamer]

I know nothing about digital coax. I assumed it was a significant step down so I have nothing plugged up to it at all on my system. None of the consoles (as far as I know) have Digital Coax on them, anyway, so I had little use for it.

As a side note, does anyone else find it annoying how loose the digital optical cable on the 360 is? Everytime I reposition or rewire anything, that damn cable falls out of its socket.

[jonat3]

*shrugs*

I don't see how this will affect Nintendo. This won't have any significant impact at all, if you ask me. I didn't see alot of people gripe about the GC's sound, so i reckon i won't see them griping about it during the wii's lifetime. If it's immersion with sound you want, it seems to me that having the speaker on the wiimote is more effective than a 5.1 surround system, but that's just my opinion.

[torrefaction]

*shrugs*

I don't see how this will affect Nintendo. This won't have any significant impact at all, if you ask me. I didn't see alot of people gripe about the GC's sound, so i reckon i won't see them griping about it during the wii's lifetime. If it's immersion with sound you want, it seems to me that having the speaker on the wiimote is more effective than a 5.1 surround system, but that's just my opinion.

Yeah, because I'm sure the speaker embedded in the HANDHELD REMOTE will be of the utmost quality. Much better than my 5.1 surround system, that's for sure. :rolleyes:

[Achilles]

Wow, how retarded.

It works like, "Hey, let's make the most beautiful game ever and tell people it'll be fucking awesome! Tell them it'll be so good otherwise YOU'LL KICK THEIR ASS."

And then people are super excited (Doom 3 comes to mind)!!! Then everyone realizes the game sucks. It looks nice, but the game is identical to the first Doom 20 years ago.

To be short: Graphics do not make games more fun. You could have the most amazing looking game ever (Doom 3) and it could still be the most uninspired, boring game ever.I disagree, graphics do make games more fun, for me anyway, and I'm guessing for most people given that games with great graphics sell better than ones without them.

An uninspired game will be uninspired whether or not it's got good graphics, a great game will be great whether or not it's got great graphics. But if it has great graphics, it'll look amazing and have great gameplay, which will make it much more compelling than a game with just great gameplay and 5 year old graphics.

Think about all the 'wow' moments you've had in gaming, like the striders in HL2, or the Golden Dragon in NG, etc. If it had the same gameplay and 4-bit color would it have had as much impact? Would that scene have been as fun if you were playing it at a super low-res on an EGA monitor? I don't think so. That's why people upgrade their computers constantly, and why new consoles get made. It's more fun to play something that looks great than it is to play the same thing that looks bad.

[Kamalot]

I picked your post to reply to, but there are many others here, too. I am amazed that my little comment about dating was actually read and replied to with such positivity. Amazed, in this context, means pleasantly surprised. See, when we aren't bashing games or machines, you can be quite a civilized bunch of people that I enjoy spending time with.
I like spending time with just about everyone here. If I didn't, well, I wouldn't BE here! :D

[Tohoya]

I don't have surround, so it's not a huge deal to me. But I could see this pissing me off if I did drop a bunch of cash on a surround sound system.

[EternalGamer]

Yeah, because I'm sure the speaker embedded in the HANDHELD REMOTE will be of the utmost quality. Much better than my 5.1 surround system, that's for sure. :rolleyes:


Well, to be fair to his argument, it is much more localized sound. It is literally coming from your hands so I imagine the sound will be a lot more highlighted. Imagine, the bow and arrow dynamic in Zelda, where you are pulling back, and the speaker is literally inches from your ear so that you can hear distinctively when the string becomes taut.

And the coolest thing is that it will be the same for people that have both no surround sound, and people with surround sound. A rather neat little addition to the controller, in my opinion.

[Kamalot]

Yeah, because I'm sure the speaker embedded in the HANDHELD REMOTE will be of the utmost quality. Much better than my 5.1 surround system, that's for sure. :rolleyes:
It isn't that the speaker is of amazing quality, it is what the speaker can do that your schmancy 5.1 system can't do that will make it more immersive (http://kamalot.blogspot.com/2006/05/wii-has-3d-sound.html).

[jonat3]

Yeah, because I'm sure the speaker embedded in the HANDHELD REMOTE will be of the utmost quality. Much better than my 5.1 surround system, that's for sure. :rolleyes:

You misunderstand. The quality of the speaker on the wiimote isn't even what's important. Just the sensation of sound traveling from the TV to your remote already does the trick. Read up on the impression's of Link using his bow. That effect seems more noticable to me than a 5.1 surround system, regardless of sound quality.

[thecrazyd]

Yeah, because I'm sure the speaker embedded in the HANDHELD REMOTE will be of the utmost quality. Much better than my 5.1 surround system, that's for sure. :rolleyes:
Don't be dense. He is saying it is more immersive, not a better quality speaker.

[scott5834]

I'm using a free yellow video wire that came with some VCR or something I had lying around. That's my digital coax cable. Is there actually any benifit to using a $10+ shielded monster cable for digital? It sounds pretty crisp and clear over the free POS cable I'm using.
No, not at all.

[DoubleUranium]

So I've got the real graph here:

Graphics
........................||...................Y = Best 360/PS3 games in 2011
........................||
........................||
........................||
........................||
........................||
........................||
======================= gameplay
........................||........................ X = Best Wii game in 2011
........................||
........................||
........................||
........................||
........................||

Say you love gameplay over graphics all you want, but in 5 years you'll be wishing you could use that Wii controller with a 360.

Edited to prevent space crushing.

[EternalGamer]

You misunderstand. The quality of the speaker on the wiimote isn't even what's important. Just the sensation of sound traveling from the TV to your remote already does the trick. Read up on the impression's of Link using his bow. That effect seems more noticable to me than a 5.1 surround system, regardless of sound quality.


I don't think it is the speaker itself that is responsible for this, but more the fact that it is universal. Most games don't really build around a surround sound experience because those without it would be significantly handicapped. For example, you can't really design a game where you need to listen to direction of the sound alone to know where the enemy is coming from because not everybody has surround sound. However everybody that has a Wii will have that built in speaker, so developers can use it for whatever they see fit and can really emphasize the sound coming from it in gameplay.

[jonat3]

So I've got the real graph here:

Graphics
|| Y = Best 360/PS3 games in 2011
||
||
||
||
||
||
======================= gameplay
|| X = Best Wii game in 2011
||
||
||
||
||

Say you love gameplay over graphics all you want, but in 5 years you'll be wishing you could use that Wii controller with a 360.

Yup, and on the flipside, the 360 could also wish it had that controller. Each console has it's advantages.

I don't think it is the speaker itself that is responsible for this, but more the fact that it is universal. Most games don't really build around a surround sound experience because those without it would be significantly handicapped. For example, you can't really design a game where you need to listen to direction of the sound alone to know where the enemy is coming from because not everybody has surround sound. However everybody that has a Wii will have that built in speaker, so developers can use it for whatever they see fit and can really emphasize the sound coming from it in gameplay.

Good point. It also has to be noted that the effect is more powerful with the wiimote, cause you are in fact holding it right in your hand. Sound coming from there would seem to be really noticable, compared to sound coming from the sides.

[EternalGamer]

So I've got the real graph here:

Graphics
........................||...................Y = Best 360/PS3 games in 2011
........................||
........................||
........................||
........................||
........................||
........................||
======================= gameplay
........................||........................ X = Best Wii game in 2011
........................||
........................||
........................||
........................||
........................||

Say you love gameplay over graphics all you want, but in 5 years you'll be wishing you could use that Wii controller with a 360.

Edited to prevent space crushing.

I hope that was suppose to be parody.

[EternalGamer]

On second,thought, perhaps this type of chart really can help us read the future. Let me try one:


Lamborghini
........................||...................Y = Most Wavvy Around Wii game in 2011
........................||
........................||
........................||
........................||
........................||
........................||
======================= Chocolate Sauce
........................||............X = Most Wavvy Around 360/PS3 game in 2011
........................||
........................||
........................||
........................||
........................||

As you can see by my chart, it is clear that if you buy a 360 or PS3 you will not have as many Wavvy around games, you will also find yourself severely depleted in terms of Lamborghinis but only somewhat depleted when it comes to Chocolate Sauces. Also note how having the maximum amount of chocolate sauce is the equivalent of having only a moderate amount of Lamborghinis.

[tombofsoldier]

There's reducing cost, and then there is stupid. Nintendo has to appeal to a wide audience, including those that have 5.1 audio. No HD is fine, so long as the support 852x480 with progressive scan and digital 5.1, I would be quite happy. Unless this things is going to cost $100-150 at launch, at least give us something for our money.

[EternalGamer]

There's reducing cost, and then there is stupid. Nintendo has to appeal to a wide audience, including those that have 5.1 audio. No HD is fine, so long as the support 852x480 with progressive scan and digital 5.1, I would be quite happy. Unless this things is going to cost $100-150 at launch, at least give us something for our money.


It will have 5 speaker surround sound support. It just won't have digital surround sound support.

[SMES]

I know nothing about digital coax. I assumed it was a significant step down so I have nothing plugged up to it at all on my system. None of the consoles (as far as I know) have Digital Coax on them, anyway, so I had little use for it.

As a side note, does anyone else find it annoying how loose the digital optical cable on the 360 is? Everytime I reposition or rewire anything, that damn cable falls out of its socket.

Digital Coax is, as far as I know, just as good as optical. I've heard some people say that optical is less likely to be corrupted by noice, cause the optical light is pure and holy or something. I think it's a bunch of crap.

I prefer the coax cause, like you said, optical connections are poorly made.

[SMES]

On second,thought, perhaps this type of chart really can help us read the future. Let me try one:


Lamborghini
........................||...................Y = Most Wavvy Around Wii game in 2011
........................||
........................||
........................||
........................||
........................||
........................||
======================= Chocolate Sauce
........................||............X = Most Wavvy Around 360/PS3 game in 2011
........................||
........................||
........................||
........................||
........................||

As you can see by my chart, it is clear that if you buy a 360 or PS3 you will not have as many Wavvy around games, you will also find yourself severely depleted in terms of Lamborghinis but only somewhat depleted when it comes to Chocolate Sauces. Also note how having the maximum amount of chocolate sauce is the equivalent of having only a moderate amount of Lamborghinis.

Actually it looks like the Wii will have most wavy around games, most chocolate sause, AND the most lamborghinis. Isn't the upper right quadrant the only one where both values are positive? Or am I remembering my graphing skillz wrong?

[dimsumx]

Have you ever heard the difference between a properly calibrated audio system and one that's not calibrated? The proper one usually sounds so natural that the other one sounds to forced and fake. You can hear where audio is wrong.

Maybe I'm just fussy, I spent hours upon hours and test scene upon test scene in my theater room tweaking speaker placement, refelectors and audio levels.

I just recently calibrated my new set of Polk speakers, and I'll have to agree... that the difference is tremendous. It's really tough for people to realize this unless they've actually heard it. Definately improves on the immersion of a movie/game that uses all the speakers.


(For those people that's only seen the Halo 3 Trailer on your PC, you really haven't experienced anything till you watch it on an HDTV with a good speaker system. And I do mean experience :P)

[EternalGamer]

Digital Coax is, as far as I know, just as good as optical. I've heard some people say that optical is less likely to be corrupted by noice, cause the optical light is pure and holy or something. I think it's a bunch of crap.

I prefer the coax cause, like you said, optical connections are poorly made.


Well, if that is the case, how come none of the consoles support digital optical? It would be significantly useful to me as I only have 2 digital plugs on my surround system (one being used by the 360 and one being used by the Satellite reciever) so my PS2 goes w/o digital. However, I have an open digital coax which isn't being used because I have nothing to plug into it.

[SMES]

Well, if that is the case, how come none of the consoles support digital optical? It would be significantly useful to me as I only have 2 digital plugs on my surround system (one being used by the 360 and one being used by the Satellite reciever) so my PS2 goes w/o digital. However, I have an open digital coax which isn't being used because I have nothing to plug into it.
Hey, like I said it's only as far as I know. That is not actually very far, I must remind you. I have a pretty nice Denon DVD player that has both optical and coax. I use the coax cause I had that spare yellow "video" wire. Don't tell my equipment that it's actually getting it's sound from a video cable! What a scandal!

In truth though, maybe optical is higher quality? I thought that digital was digital was digital, though. I can play DTS through the coax line and it sounds pretty nice, so if I'm missing anything by not having optical, sucks to be me.

edit: also, I assume you meant "how come none of the consoles support digital coax"

[EternalGamer]

Actually it looks like the Wii will have most wavy around games, most chocolate sause, AND the most lamborghinis. Isn't the upper right quadrant the only one where both values are positive? Or am I remembering my graphing skillz wrong?


You are correct, sir. And it just goes further to show what an incredible bargain the Wii really is.

[ShooterMcgavin]

Not sure if this has been said before, but Nintendo's target audience at this point is not the same audience that has a nice home theater system. To all of you complaining about this, don't worry. Nintendo is not targeting you. They know that those of you who want a fun and unique gaming experience will still buy the Wii anyway. I doubt this has really changed anyone's stance on whether or not they'll be getting a Wii.

[Kamalot]

Choosing Between Coaxial and Optical

Practically speaking, there's no difference in sound quality between the two formats; both transfer the same number of digital bits. There are differences between the formats, however, which could sway your decision:

Optical cables are less susceptible to electrical interference; they're a good choice if you have a lot of "noisy" electrical devices or poorly shielded cables in the same area.

Coaxial cables are a bit more rugged and provide a more snug fit, thanks to the use of RCA jacks; use coaxial when you have to make tight bends around corners.

Coaxial cables are less expensive than optical cables.

Optical cables are slimmer than coaxial cables, which might matter if space is at a premium.

Optical cables have less signal loss, and are better for longer runs; if you have to run cable over 50 feet or so, definitely go with optical.

Bottom line, you're good to go with either type of cable. Optical cable is probably the better choice for most installations, however, due to the benefits of optical transmission—if you don't mind the extra cost. Otherwise, stick with digital coaxial, which works just fine over normal distances.

Source: http://www.samspublishing.com/articles/article.asp?p=349880&seqNum=4&rl=1

[Mozgus]

Doesn't effect me. I prefer stereo tower speakers over 5 tiny speakers. Humans have 2 ears, not 5. I won't be buying a digital reciever anytime soon, and I have heard digital recievers and there is no difference in clearity, when compared to a good old brand name analog unit.

[SMES]

I doubt this has really changed anyone's stance on whether or not they'll be getting a Wii.
Au contraire, I think the revelation that the Wii will bring the sauce is going to open many new markets for Ninty.

[crashedout]

Hey, like I said it's only as far as I know. That is not actually very far, I must remind you. I have a pretty nice Denon DVD player that has both optical and coax. I use the coax cause I had that spare yellow "video" wire. Don't tell my equipment that it's actually getting it's sound from a video cable! What a scandal!

In truth though, maybe optical is higher quality? I thought that digital was digital was digital, though. I can play DTS through the coax line and it sounds pretty nice, so if I'm missing anything by not having optical, sucks to be me.

edit: also, I assume you meant "how come none of the consoles support digital coax"

My asumption has always been: the signal is digital thus the reciever either gets it or it does not. Optical uses pulses of light and coax uses electrical pulses but it is still the same set of bits underneath. I have used some pretty crapy cables for my coax usage and seen no issues. There are some audiophiles who argue about jitter and such, but I just don't see merit in their arguments. I have noticed that the industry tends to favor optical over coax, that may be a cost issue.

[SMES]

Otherwise, stick with digital coaxial, which works just fine over normal distances.

Source: http://www.samspublishing.com/articles/article.asp?p=349880&seqNum=4&rl=1

Also, stick with coax if you're like me and you spend thousands of dollars on audio equipment but you're so cheap that a 20 year old VCR wire is "good enough" fer ya!

[dimsumx]

Say you love gameplay over graphics all you want, but in 5 years you'll be wishing you could use that Wii controller with a 360.

Edited to prevent space crushing.

But with the high standards that we'll be expecting in graphic in 5 years, maybe you'll be wishing that Wii had a little be more juice to it. :)

And it's not to say that I'm a complete graphics whore. It's just that we're getting more and more accustomed to good graphics in games that when they don't meet the standards we expect, they sometimes end up being more distracting if anything.

For example, stick in that old copy of the PS1 Metal Gear Solid, then go play with the GC Metal Gear Solid and tell me which version you enjoyed more.

[Busted_Astromech]

Seconding your annoyance with the 360 optical out. I wondered if the cords themselves were broken until I realized that the 360 input just didn't "click" like all others do.

I think that a larger factor in sound quality than whether it has true seperation of rear channels or not is how powerful the sound engine will be in the Wii. If you turn EAX on and off on a PC game there's a huge difference (of course, you get used to it after 10 seconds and it no longer matters, but still...). I'd imagine that a bigger difference than using PL2 over DD will be how many channels of sound the systems simultaneously support.

Of course, stating that, I must admit that while I own a $500 surround sound set of computer speakers and appreciate the clarity of sound, it's something that's much more difficult to be unimpressed with. I might be wowed by a remarkably clear sound effect, but I've never felt disappointed with sound--it's something that gets pushed to the background of my brain very quickly. I haven't been able to notice much difference in sound quality between an optically hooked up 360 and the GameCube running PL2. They're both surround.

To a much greater degree than graphics I think sound is limited more by the talent of the sound designer than the technology behind it. To this day the game with the best sound design by far, in my opinion, is System Shock 2. Any quality difference in sound was made up 10 times over by how great all the sounds were designed. Scariest game I've ever played, too, by the way. At least for the first 4 levels.

[crashedout]

Not sure if this has been said before, but Nintendo's target audience at this point is not the same audience that has a nice home theater system. To all of you complaining about this, don't worry. Nintendo is not targeting you. They know that those of you who want a fun and unique gaming experience will still buy the Wii anyway. I doubt this has really changed anyone's stance on whether or not they'll be getting a Wii.

I thought their audience was everyone. Surround sound systems don't cost what they used to. A lot of people have the integrated DVD/Surround sound systems. I don't think it will hurt them that much, but it has moved me from early-adopter to wait and see. How long I wait will be based on their delivery of the next big thing or just another gimmick. I really hope it is the former....

[serion]

Nice, PCs win the console war. If sound and graphics are all that matter to you, you might as well buy that new 600 dollar video card every 6 months and play uber-hi-def on what will always be the best looking system....the PC

ouch, burninated

[Kelegacy]

Would I be out of line if I said I don't like chocolate sauce?

I mean, what does one use chocolate sauce on? Iced cream? Milk? And I don't like sugary stuff when I'm indulging in foreplay, so that's out.

Didn't we already have a thread about condiments and the merits of bologna vs. prime rib?

[SMES]

For example, stick in that old copy of the PS1 Metal Gear Solid, then go play with the GC Metal Gear Solid and tell me which version you enjoyed more.

To be honest I frankly enjoyed the PS1 version more.

Also, I personally feel that the jump from PS1 to PS2/Xbox/GC was much more noticable than the jump from Xbox to 360/PS3.

The main point is that I enjoyed the original MGS more than the remake. This is due to a lot more reasons than just the graphics. When MGS first came out it was... wow. Hard to put into words. By the time I played the remake, MGS2 had come and gone, along with a number of other games, and I was flat out disapointed with it.

All of this to say that side by side graphic/audio comparisons are not realistic ways to guage the enjoyment or quality of a game. Sure, maybe a game will look better in HD, all else being equal. But the Wii doesn't cost $600 so it isn't equal! By that logic, the Playstation 6 in 2045 will be awesome, but will the eighth remake of MGS where you play through the game in a life-like holodeck really be "more fun" than the original PS1 version? Well... yes, probably, but um.... I have to eat a burger now.

[Busted_Astromech]

I think it's important to note that this really isn't anything good for the consumer, and no one is arguing that. It's not going to lead to a cheaper console or anything. Nintendo is only saving a few bucks at most. But what it is is understandable. It fits with Nintendo's entire concept of building for the majority, not exceeding it. Nintendo only implemented online recently, because although it would have been great for some people, they only care when it's enough people to justify a cost to Nintendo.

Digital surround sound, as opposed to analog surround sound, is a good thing. But it's also not something that's anywhere near universal adoption. Nintendo won't put in a high-end option, because that's Nintendo. Smart business sense, sort of bad for some consumer.

But all that matters to Nintendo is that it works on their abacus: they save money, likely no one decides not to buy a Wii because it doesn't have digital audio.

[dimsumx]

To be honest I frankly enjoyed the PS1 version more.
...

The main point is that I enjoyed the original MGS more than the remake. This is due to a lot more reasons than just the graphics. When MGS first came out it was... wow. Hard to put into words. By the time I played the remake, MGS2 had come and gone, along with a number of other games, and I was flat out disapointed with it.



SMES you misread my meaning. I would have to agree with you that I was more wowed when I played the original than I was with the remake.

However, when I used this as an example, I meant as if you were to replay both games now, as opposed to comparing how each game made you feel at the time of play. Or say if for the uninitated MGS player...if they were to play either one without prior experience with the series. Being pretty much the same game gameplaywise, the point that I was trying to make is that I would imagine that most people would probably enjoy the remake more.

[Skjef]

I think it's important to note that this really isn't anything good for the consumer, and no one is arguing that. It's not going to lead to a cheaper console or anything. Nintendo is only saving a few bucks at most. But what it is is understandable. It fits with Nintendo's entire concept of building for the majority, not exceeding it. Nintendo only implemented online recently, because although it would have been great for some people, they only care when it's enough people to justify a cost to Nintendo.

Digital surround sound, as opposed to analog surround sound, is a good thing. But it's also not something that's anywhere near universal adoption. Nintendo won't put in a high-end option, because that's Nintendo. Smart business sense, sort of bad for some consumer.

But all that matters to Nintendo is that it works on their abacus: they save money, likely no one decides not to buy a Wii because it doesn't have digital audio.Well said. Nintendo's the only company that's going to be making a profit from launch this generation, and this mentality is why.

Personally, digital vs analog 5.1 makes not a whit of difference to me. The Wii looks like 100% distilled fun from where I sit, and you can't measure that in resolution or clockspeed.

[Kamalot]

The Wii looks like 100% distilled fun from where I sit, and you can't measure that in resolution or clockspeed.
Quoted for truth.

[Phanto]

So a console now need HD and dolby digital so it can be a real console... :confused:

[dimsumx]

The Wii looks like 100% distilled fun from where I sit, and you can't measure that in resolution or clockspeed.

So would that make the PS3 the O'Doul's of consoles? :D

[SMES]

Or say if for the uninitated MGS player...if they were to play either one without prior experience with the series. Being pretty much the same game gameplaywise, the point that I was trying to make is that I would imagine that most people would probably enjoy the remake more.
True, that's completely fair. I do think most new players would probably enjoy the remake more. I didn't mean to sound as though I disagreed.

Even though I said my "main point" was that I enjoyed the original more than the remake, my *actual* main point was that although HD is better all else being equal, that all else isn't equal. The price is a big difference, for one. Also, although it is hard to quantify, companies like Apple have proven that it is possible to penetrate the consumer world with a product that is simple and stylish. There is a reason that people like ipods, even though other products have more features and flexibility. I'm not the first to compare this "new nintendo philosophy" with apple, and there are some flaws with comparing a product that plays MP3s to a proprietary format game machine. But when it comes to appealing to mass consumer conciousness, there is something to be said for what apple has done and what nintendo seems to be trying to emulate.

[shnastybiznastic]

Would I be out of line if I said I don't like chocolate sauce?
Yes. Put you some chocolate sauce in your next bottle of beer and tell me if it dosent trip your trigger.

[SMES]

So would that make the PS3 the O'Doul's of consoles? :D
If O'Doul's costs six hundred dollars where you live, then yes.

[Achilles]

Even though I said my "main point" was that I enjoyed the original more than the remake, my *actual* main point was that although HD is better all else being equal, that all else isn't equal. The price is a big difference, for one. Also, although it is hard to quantify, companies like Apple have proven that it is possible to penetrate the consumer world with a product that is simple and stylish.Don't forget expensive. The iPod was also more expensive than its competition, and had better performance in the form of a huge storage capacity, great screen, and a unified music download service.

[SMES]

Don't forget expensive. The iPod was also more expensive than its competition, and had better performance in the form of a huge storage capacity, great screen, and a unified music download service.
I would count the unified music service as part of the "simple and stylish," but yes you're right. If the Playstation name can manage to maintain it's momentum there is little doubt that the PS3 will do very well despite it's cost. The question is, can it maintain it's momentum? No way to tell the future. It has a good shot at it, thats for sure. But I think the Wii does as well.

Also, the ipod built its brand awareness in it's first few generations, when it had a kind of crappy B+W screen. Now it has color and even more market penetration, but it didn't use to.

[Pumped'Up]

wow, for twice the cost of the Wii, $500 for PS3 seems like a bargain after all.

I just hope Nintendo gives us component video with the Wii...

[jonat3]

Yeah, the wii looks to be a bargain too. I wouldn't be surprised if it turned out to be the fastest selling machine during launch ever.

[Kelegacy]

wow, for twice the cost of the Wii, $500 for PS3 seems like a bargain after all.

I just hope Nintendo gives us component video with the Wii...
They have to. They HAVE to. All my bitching about gameplay over graphics still holds true...but this isn't the dark ages. And give us progressive scan for crying out loud!

[thecrazyd]

wow, for twice the cost of the Wii, $500 for PS3 seems like a bargain after all.

I just hope Nintendo gives us component video with the Wii...
Why? You aren't going to buy one anyway. I would figure you would want it to come without, so you would have more fuel for your flames.

[EternalGamer]

They have to. They HAVE to. All my bitching about gameplay over graphics still holds true...but this isn't the dark ages. And give us progressive scan for crying out loud!


Both of those things have always been confirmed.

[Draft]

I don't know how you can defend this. I mean, jesus, wasn't true 5.1 sound a fairly standard, cheap technology before the GCN came out?

It's almost like Nintendo is leaving shit out just to make a point.

[Megalith]

Joke time.

[Mr.Green]

Wow, how retarded.

It works like, "Hey, let's make the most beautiful game ever and tell people it'll be fucking awesome! Tell them it'll be so good otherwise YOU'LL KICK THEIR ASS."

And then people are super excited (Doom 3 comes to mind)!!! Then everyone realizes the game sucks. It looks nice, but the game is identical to the first Doom 20 years ago.

To be short: Graphics do not make games more fun. You could have the most amazing looking game ever (Doom 3) and it could still be the most uninspired, boring game ever.
Did I say graphics made games more fun? That slidebar was meant as sarcasm to those who seem to think that great graphics and good gameplay are mutually exclusive. I think most people got that. So who were you calling retarded again?

[EternalGamer]

I don't know how you can defend this. I mean, jesus, wasn't true 5.1 sound a fairly standard, cheap technology before the GCN came out?

It's almost like Nintendo is leaving shit out just to make a point.


I'm certainly not arguing that removing the digital is a good thing. I'm just saying it is, for the most part, fairly inconsequential. I don' think it is that Nintendo is removing hardware options, since the Gamecube didn't have digital output either. Nevertheless I agree that it seems like they are just unnecessarily penny pinching, but I think this shows how careful they are attempting to be in terms of micromanaging costs versus utility.

[RMan]

Although it's likely already been said, the average consumer would have a problem identifying the difference between DPLII and digital if they were actively listening for it, much less be impacted by it under normal play conditions. The average consumer doesn’t care that the sound doesn’t use the newest connector possible, unless it was impacting their experience (a seemingly difficult concept for tech heads to understand). I’m sure before this thread even the people calling it completely unacceptable didn’t bitch about the lack of it on the Gamecube, but now all of the sudden it’s some kind of major shortcoming. People are so funny sometimes.

[SMES]

People are so funny sometimes.
I saw the newest episode of Penn and Teller's show, which was about manners or something. Anyway, there was this guy they interviewed with this ridiculous social theory about how everyone thinks they're the center of the world... at least I thought it was ridiculous until I remembered 99% of the people who post on the internet. Including myself usually, I might add.

Everyone gets so wrapped around their limited view of things like, for example, their home audio setup, they forget there's a whole world of people who just don't give a crap about things like HDTV and 5.1 sound.

People I know who are into cars froth at the mouth over tech innovations in valve timing, fuel regulation, and composite materials. All I care about is how much does it cost and how many miles to the gallon does it get. How it accomplishes price and fuel efficiency, I really don't care. Most people are the same when it comes to things like how the image gets on their TV screen and how the sound gets to their ears.

[feeble]

i have no problem with high quality 2.1 system

infact i prefer over 5.1 as its alot more tidy

have this in open space areas, since there will be no speakers behind the seats

[shnastybiznastic]

i have no problem with high quality 2.1 system
Hell, I don't have a problem with a simple stereo system with no subwoofer at all. Although my "simple stereo system" has ten inch drivers, so the lack of a sub is largley inconsequential.

For the record, I can't fathom how a perfectly set up 5.1 system makes Panic! At the Disco any more talented, Armageddon any less hamfisted, or Burnout: Revenge a sequel that adds to the franchise.

Like the man said, garbage in, garbage out. ;)

[51|RandoM]

I am an audiophile, fyi.

My opinion on dolby digital for games? who gives a shit. DPL II is enough for any game, imho.

I know I'm coming across as a nintendo apologist, but honestly, anything beyond dpl II is just wasted on games.

[Draft]

I know I'm coming across as a nintendo apologist, but honestly, anything beyond dpl II is just wasted on games.You're absolutely wrong, and yes, you do sound like a Nintendo apologist.

It's ok to criticize them, you know! This isn't like being a red stater and supporting President Bush. It shouldn't obliterate your world view to take a step back once and while and just say, "Damn, that was stupid, Nintendo."

[MrMeatshake]

yawn.

me too. slightly disappointing. but i want that bargain basement price, so hey.

[jonat3]

You're absolutely wrong, and yes, you do sound like a Nintendo apologist.

It's ok to criticize them, you know! This isn't like being a red stater and supporting President Bush. It shouldn't obliterate your world view to take a step back once and while and just say, "Damn, that was stupid, Nintendo."

It depends on your definition of stupid. If Nintendo saves 1 dollar by not including Dolby Digital in every console made, they would save themselves 20 MILLION dollars worth of cash in the event they sell 20 million consoles. And it seems to me, that the wii will be an even greater hit than that, regardless of techinical excellence.

[RMan]

Is it over Digital Coax? If not then it's not really 5.1.
I think this quote sums it up nicely. If this makes sense to you, or the statement "The 360 is not HD because it doesn't support 1080p, the 'true' HD standard", then perhaps it’s a problem for you. Some people just have to have the best of something, regardless of whether or not that improvement is significant, noticeable, or even if they’ll freaking use it. That’s just what super geeks do.

Likely none of us know what the cost of adding the digital output really is (licensing and manufacturing) but it will likely be a fairly static throughout the product’s life. Adding anything to some degree restricts their ability to make it cheaper in the future, so to make a blanket statement that they should do it because the other two systems do it is shortsighted, they’re not trying to cater to super geeks and they don’t have a digital receiver to sell you. More than likely they just didn’t see a significant upside to adding it, how smart a move it is I couldn’t say, I don’t know what the cost is. I do know the difference in quality is insignificant for most consumers and their setups, which is why you won’t see Nintendo haters arguing it on that point.

[Achilles]

It depends on your definition of stupid. If Nintendo saves 1 dollar by not including Dolby Digital in every console made, they would save themselves 20 MILLION dollars worth of cash in the event they sell 20 million consoles. And it seems to me, that the wii will be an even greater hit than that, regardless of techinical excellence.It's smart in that way, Nintendo makes an extra ~$1 out of every system they sell (because it's not going to lower the price you pay any). But it'll hurt the system's chance to be taken seriously as a game console by all gamers, not as bad as some of their other decisions, but it's another stick to toss on that fire. Now Nintendo doesn't care about that I guess, that's the argument anyway. But they probably should, the market that the PS2 captured was pretty damn big.

Throw a bone to the crowd with the good home entertainment gear, they're be the ones that buy the most newly released games, and disruptive development or not, Nintendo probably wants their money.

[torrefaction]

You're absolutely wrong, and yes, you do sound like a Nintendo apologist.

It's ok to criticize them, you know! This isn't like being a red stater and supporting President Bush. It shouldn't obliterate your world view to take a step back once and while and just say, "Damn, that was stupid, Nintendo."

No, it's exactly like that.

I voted for Bush, I regret it (probably not for the reasons you'd like me to regret it for.)

And I live in Florida.

Also, no 5.1 is stupid.

[RMan]

But it'll hurt the system's chance to be taken seriously as a game console by all gamers, not as bad as some of their other decisions, but it's another stick to toss on that fire.
As if the anti-Nintendo camp needs actual reasons, and I'd suggest taking a random sampling of gamer friends of yours that actually have the optical system in use, it’s likely pretty a pretty low percentage. Certainly to say it hurts it’s chances among all gamers is a crazy statement, as I’m sure you’ve seen plenty statements from gamers here that don’t care.
But they probably should, the market that the PS2 captured was pretty damn big.
Not sure what point you’re trying to make, PS2 was still the weakest system, unless you’re saying that the reason for it’s success was the inclusion of digital dolby (which I seriously doubt). The market the PS2 captured was quite clearly uninterested or undeterred by a lack of technical prowess, so it’d be wise not to bring it up unless you’re supporting Nintendo’s decisions.
Throw a bone to the crowd with the good home entertainment gear, they're be the ones that buy the most newly released games, and disruptive development or not, Nintendo probably wants their money.
And they’ll get it anyway. Still, it’s getting pretty annoying that the idea among the anti-Nintendo crowd is that without DD the sound will be bad. I don’t recall gamers or reviewers expressing dissatisfaction regarding the quality difference between the Gamecube and PS2/Xbox. Why? Because they weren’t dissatisfied. Want to know why it’s different this generation than the last? It’s not.

[RMan]

Also, no 5.1 is stupid.
Read the article, it has 5.1, just not what some call 'true' 5.1, PRECISELY like Sony saying 1080i is not 'true' HD because it's not 1080p.

[Achilles]

And I'd suggest taking a random sampling of gamer friends of yours that actually have the optical system in use, it’s likely pretty a pretty low percentage. Certainly to say it hurts it’s chances among all gamers is a crazy statement, as I’m sure you’ve seen plenty statements from gamers here that don’t care.Even if it's 2%, it's going to be a wealthy 2%, the sort of 2% that will buy a lot of games the day they come out. Why alienate them? And as for the quick poll, 4 of the 6 people I game with frequently, including myself, have surround sound setups. The two that don't buy less than one game every 2 months. The ones that do buy more than 3 games per month. Now I'm in the middle of a core of gamers, but it's only common sense that people who spend $2000+ on their entertainment center will also buy more games, and damn well want those games to flex their expensive equipment.Not sure what point you’re trying to make, PS2 was still the weakest system, unless you’re saying that the reason for it’s success was the inclusion of digital dolby (which I seriously doubt). The market the PS2 captured was quite clearly uninterested or undeterred by a lack of technical prowess, so it’d be wise not to bring it up unless you’re supporting Nintendo’s decisions.You and others have claimed that people with expensive set-ups are not the Wii’s market (“they’re not trying to cater to super geeks”). Well they were the PS2s target market, and they touted themselves as a feature-loaded super-computer. They ended up with the biggest market in the history of game consoles. They also were not the weakest system when they came out, and they never claimed that graphics, sound, etc, didn’t matter, they claimed they had the best even when they didn’t. They were also on the cutting edge of technology, with USB, firewire, DVD, and other techs which were not commonplace 6 years ago. The PS2 came out 6 years ago, and did support surround sound.And they’ll get it anyway. Still, it’s getting pretty annoying that the idea among the anti-Nintendo crowd is that without DD the sound will be bad. I don’t recall gamers or reviewers expressing dissatisfaction regarding the quality difference between the Gamecube and PS2/Xbox. Why? Because they weren’t dissatisfied. Want to know why it’s different this generation than the last? It’s not.You think the Hi-def crowd with surround sound setups is a lock for the Wii? I disagree. Nobody is saying that it'll make the games sound bad, they're saying that it'll make the games sound worse than they would if they had surround sound. If it didn't make the games sound better, either by adding positional stuff, or just making the sound have more kick, than shouldn't the 360 and PS3 drop it?

I also like how if you disagree with Nintendo, you’re “anti-Nintendo”, as if you’d never buy their products, or be interested in a Wii regardless of what they do. If Nintendo’s plan for the Wii was different, I’d be in line on day one. I still may be, but their lack of support for high-end TV and sound setups isn't helping.

[jonat3]

Soooo...basically you are saying that Nintendo pissed off a theoretical 2% and that the loss of that 2% will result in profits that will be lower than the theoretical 20 million dollars? Highly unlikely.

Like was said before, people were hardly griping about the GC's sound. Obviously, people didn't care enough to gripe about it. In light of that, i think this 2% is a gross overestimation. People that are turned off by the lack of digital sound and refuse to buy a console (or games) for that reason are a minority of a minority. Extremely rare. So rare in fact, that i doubt the losses of these kind of people will result in a number higher than 20 million dollars.

[Achilles]

Soooo...basically you are saying that Nintendo pissed off a theoretical 2% and that the loss of that 2% will result in profits that will be lower than the theoretical 20 million dollars? Highly unlikely.2% of the PS2's market of 100 million is 2 million. If that's the 2 million that's keeping the 360's attach rate at over 4, than they would make the money back easily.

Again, it's not this move alone, alone this move would have no impact, I agree. It's the combination of this move, the marketing focus, the lack of HD support, the positioning as a weak, cheap system, etc. that will build a perception that'll move users with high-end tastes away from the system.

Edit: the only reason I'm debating this at all is because this news is almost off the main page.

[jonat3]

2% of the PS2's market of 100 million is 2 million. If that's the 2 million that's keeping the 360's attach rate at over 4, than they would make the money back easily.

Again, it's not this move alone, alone this move would have no impact, I agree. It's the combination of this move, the marketing focus, the lack of HD support, the positioning as a weak, cheap system, etc. that will build a perception that'll move users with high-end tastes away from the system.

Well, the wii will be the weakest console around. I would say that that fact alone would be a more important reason for people with high-end tastes to stay away. Sound takes one big ass backseat when compared to that. But anyone that purchases the wii knows that the wii doesn't stand for technical excellence.

Bottomline, is that if people with high end tastes chose to disregard the weak graphics and buy the wii despite of this, than i doubt the loss of dolby digital will suddenly chase those people with high end tastes away. Because most likely, they already know that the wii's strength lies in different areas if they chose to buy the wii. There may be a few that are chased away by the combination of the loss of great graphics and sound, but it will be likely only a small number.

[RMan]

And as for the quick poll, 4 of the 6 people I game with frequently, including myself, have surround sound setups.
Now try asking the right question, the system will support surround sound with DPLII, it doesn’t support the newest standard for output. As to why not alienate them, the people that would be alienated by it would not be happy unless the system had every bell and whistle available, and that costs money.
You and others have claimed that people with expensive set-ups are not the Wii’s market (“they’re not trying to cater to super geeks”).
They are not the ‘new’ market that the Wii targets, and they are not trying to cater to them, no. But, they are not actively alienating them as you seem to suggest, they just know that with the cool controller and a few cool games they’ll get the rich people anyway, so why make the system cost so much that they alienate the new market that’s not an automatic sale.
Well they were the PS2s target market, and they touted themselves as a feature-loaded super-computer.
Yea, and apparently the consumer couldn’t tell the difference or didn’t care. If you’re suggesting that the people bought the system in high volume because of Sony’s false claims, then I think you’re very wrong, and even if you were right, then the customer’s stupid and it’s better to put money into marketing lies than the hardware anyway.
They also were not the weakest system when they came out, and they never claimed that graphics, sound, etc, didn’t matter, they claimed they had the best even when they didn’t.
Hehe, again, are you saying that they shouldn’t bother with the technology and should improve their lying to compete? You are still dancing around the fact that the weaker system stomped the stronger systems, you can guess all day about the motives of the buyer but if the PS2’s sales prove anything at all, it’s that the system’s technical prowess is not a barrier to the system’s success.
The PS2 came out 6 years ago, and did support surround sound.
READ THE ARTICLE, try to understand what is being said, it is really quite simple. I’ll say it even simpler, but only one more time because it shouldn’t have to be said this many times. The Wii supports surround sound, just like the Gamecube did. The only way someone will not buy the thing because of a lack of surround sound is if liars like you can get the word out that it doesn’t have it. Apparently you have great respect for Sony’s lying strategies (this has been said too many times for you to have just overlooked it).
I also like how if you disagree with Nintendo, you’re “anti-Nintendo”, as if you’d never buy their products, or be interested in a Wii regardless of what they do.
If only that was what you were doing, but by saying it doesn’t have surround sound you are intentionally misrepresenting the product, in exactly the same way I would be anti-MS if I said the 360 is not a hidef system.

[blackzc]

It doesnt matter what sound N uses them not using digital is what hurts. All the different version of dolby are really indistingquishable*(lol) from the others if you are using an optical plug.

Ive got a now 2 year old onkyo (the next to the best one) and infiinity speakers. the sound bleedover is bad with the RCAs, With the optical you get perfect channle seperation but there are times when i run the RCAs because i the ambeint noise is better if you have a little bleeding. Its all just splitting hairs and taste at this point. I like a little ambience(bleedover) so the wii will be fine for me.

[SMES]

If Nintendo’s plan for the Wii was different, I’d be in line on day one. I still may be, but their lack of support for high-end TV and sound setups isn't helping.
I am inclined to agree with most of your argument about the attach rate of hi-def gamers and the average interests of those gamers in systems that flex their expensive hi-def equipment. But in the end, I really think the Wii only will appeal to two groups: the Nintendo hardcore (which includes anyone who considers themselves as fans of Mario and Zelda, as well as people who like to own everything such as your friends who spend $2000+ on home audio), and the "new gamer" market which is made up of god-knows-who. But Nintendo is trying to appeal to these people. Grandmas? Little kids and first time parents? People who liked Atari but never got into the "newfangled" consoles? Who knows.

The point is that I think people with expensive home theaters are going to snap up the Wii if they like Mario and Zelda, or weird games like Warioware and Trauma center. Nintendo faithful will buy it.

Sega made the mistake of trying to keep up with Sony in the "cool, high power, high tech" market of gaming. Nintendo is trying to define it's own market. Only time will tell if this is a successful strategy.

Dolby Digital seems like an obvious inclusion in this day, but maybe Nintendo has a ton of gamecube AV connectors sitting in boxes and they want to save costs by using them for the Wii. Since those old GC connectors only support PLII, that's what the Wii gets. If Nintendo saves money by rolling the same cables, connectors, etc over from the GC, that could add up to quite a bit of cash.

And if the Wii launches at $199, or maybe even $150 (!), then maybe it's worth it.

[EternalGamer]

What I don't understand is why Nintendo doesn't just do what MS does. Neither the Xbox nor the 360 has an optical digital outlet on the system. If you want that, you have to PAY for it (it comes on the composite videogame cable for both). If Nintendo were to implement a similar strategy they could satisfy everyone w/o any extra costs to them.

[Achilles]

I really think the Wii only will appeal to two groups: the Nintendo hardcore (which includes anyone who considers themselves as fans of Mario and Zelda, as well as people who like to own everything such as your friends who spend $2000+ on home audio), and the "new gamer" market which is made up of god-knows-who. But Nintendo is trying to appeal to these people.
And if the Wii launches at $199, or maybe even $150 (!), then maybe it's worth it.I agree with you, it's just disapointing that they're not trying to throw more bones to that market. I think it would give them more of an advantage than they realize. Perception does sell consoles. I'm not saying Nintendo should lie about their capabilities, but they need to control the perception of their console among the crowd that buys a lot of games or they'll end up on the fringe of that group as you describe (a console that pretty much only appeals to Nintendo fans in that market and people who collect consoles).

About the Wii's price, I can only assume that they're going to get through with trying to reduce the Wii's size, and then charge ~$50 more than whatever it costs them to make the system. So the reason they haven't anounced it yet is because they themselves don't know what it'll be. I agree with you though that if it launches at $150-$175 or maybe $200 it'll fall into the impulse-buy range, and they'll get good penetration. However if they charge more they'll fall outside that range and lose a lot of sales.What I don't understand is why Nintendo doesn't just do what MS does. Neither the Xbox nor the 360 has an optical digital outlet on the system. If you want that, you have to PAY for it (it comes on the composite videogame cable for both).That's a very good point Eternal Gamer. I wonder why they didn't do that. Maybe they'd have to use a different sound chip in order to output the audio in optical?