No HD support in the Rev a big mistake?

[Hellstorm]

Matt at IGN.cube thinks so (http://cube.ign.com/mail/):

The Big N's decision to stick with carts over CDs during the N64 era remains its biggest mistake, in my book. But its refusal to make Revolution an HD-ready console during an era when analog TVs are slowly being phased out comes in at a very close second. This shows an unparalleled lack of foresight and it's a decision that I think will ultimately come back and bite the company in the ass -- deservedly so.
I'll think I'll keep my comments to myself on this one and let you guys have at it.

[Heretic Machine]

I have an HDTV (finally)... Still don't care about the Revolution not supporting. Looks to be an awesome console, and I'll attempt to get it launch day.

[DigitalFirefly]

Well, since the Revolution is barely better graphically than the Gamecube why would they need HD? The reason's why carts were bad is because CD's were so much cheaper and CD's could hold more data and good audio and video. Does every game for the PS2 and Gamecube automatically suck because they weren't in HD? By the end of this Gen (2010) I can see about 50% of homes with HD sets. I don't think HD gaming is such a big deal yet.

[sickfallout]

I just got an HDTV too, but I don't even need to play games in HD to be impressed. I just started playing through my older gamecube games on Component Input (Red / Blue / Green / Orange / White) and it's enough of a leap to keep me happy for a long time.

[Taco]

It'll look like ass on an HDTV and passable elsewhere. Seems like the right decision to me.

[kizke]

Speaking as someone who won't be able to afford a new TV for at least three-four years, I don't give a rat's ass whether consoles support HD or not. In fact, having played Perfect Dark Zero on a non-HD TV, I really found myself convinced that the graphics on the Xbox360 are only really striking when they're on a high quality TV (and in that case, they're quite brilliant) but when you're stuck with an older TV...it really makes little difference.

[Murat]

I have to wonder if it really is true that analogs will be phased out so quickly. I live in Japan and even though HD tvs are all the rage in stores, I only know about five families that have an HD TV.

Also I think that it is possible for a non HDTV focussed console to still look great on an HD tv in an Analog mode.

That being said, I wouldn't mind an HDTV but there are about a billion formats being made atm and I'd like to wait a few years to see which ones have the best color and brightness, etc. Projected lifespan is one thing, but I think I will wait for a bit.

I dont think its a bad idea for a console to have a dvi connection on it though. My computer monitor is itching for a little official support. Hdmi connector to DVI is a nice bonus for a 360 I guess though. Oh well.

[FunkyPoopMonkey]

What's wrong with carts? I still prefer them over discs. 15% of the used disc-based games I have bought have had issues, or flat out won't boot up. But I can't remember ever buying a defective cart in my whole life! Sometimes they need the crud cleaned off the contacts, but they always work after that. I don't care if the carts cost a little more to produce then discs. They last forever, and so long as there is a quality game on it, it's worth it.

This comes from someone who considers the N64 to be one of the worst consoles ever, not because of the carts, but because most of the third parties games had unplayable frame rates.

[MajSheppard]

How many times can it be said, the decision to stick with the Cartridge was not a choice. The courts decided since Sony signed a contract to develop a CD-rom attachment to the SNES (simularly to the sega cd), that Nintendo could not develop it's own cdrom because it would be in breach of contract with sony. They had to go that route.
I really hate the concept of not getting use out of my nice tv. Yet it isn't that big a deal. What will really hurt is the people who will make it a big deal when explaining it to simpletons. I can already hear sales reps telling people that the picture isn't as good as a 360, without even asking them if they have an HDTV or explaining anything further.
They should just make it HD, the extra cost in hardware will not be enough to get the Rev anywhere near the overpriced compettors.

[Sazime]

Don't have an HD tv, don't care. Gameplay still matters most to me.

[RMan]

Putting the N64 cart fiasco in the same paragraph as the lack of HD support is insane. I’ve yet to see a product suffer badly because it didn’t support the full fidelity of the newest technology, and I don’t think the Revolution is going to set a new standard there. I mean, much of what people watch on their HDTVs isn’t going to be HD anyway, what makes them think they’re going to be uncompromising tech whores about the Revolution’s lack of HD just because some things can use the higher resolution? Meh, consoles have proven time and time again that the tech isn’t close to a deciding factor, it’s like these guys were born yesterday (literally, if they were born last year they’d have seen the DS/PSP war).

[MajSheppard]

Don't have an HD tv, don't care. Gameplay still matters most to me.
Don't you think that punishing somebody who has spent the green on a HDTV, just because you do not have one, wrong?

[JazGalaxy]

I wish people would stop with the "barely better than gamecube" nonsense. The revolution has already released tech demos for the Revolution, and while it doesn't look anything like Sony's fake movie demos or EAs fake "madden next gen" movies, it looks every bit like it could handle the likes of Perfect Dark Zero with ease.

Graphics, if they're not being used to enhance gameplay, really don't matter one bit. I was bored with Project Gotham in about 3 minutes. The graphics were great but as soon as you start playing the gamea nd stop looking at hte backgrounds, and no different than Forza or the original Project Gotham.

[zeeeg]

Lack of HD may make it a failure to the pseudo-hardcore-gamer crowd, but will absolutely not matter to the everyday person Nintendo wants to sell to (and real gamers).

[Beelzebud]

HD is a non-issue right now for most people, and it will be non-issue for years to come.

I know 3 people with HDTV. I know a lot more than 3 people...

[Syl]

I'm still trying to figure out why the revolution won't support "HD" if it apparently has a DVI (or VGA) out for PC monitors.

[Beelzebud]

Don't you think that punishing somebody who has spent the green on a HDTV, just because you do not have one, wrong?

LOL punished?

:rolleyes:

[Ph00p]

Maybe the technology they're using for the motion sensing shit isn't compatible in HD? Why aren't they mentioning that in anything? Maybe thats the reason? I dunno just a guess.

[Darkman]

I have to agree its a bit short sited. Adding HD seems like a value added proposition, and lets them cater to both the HD and NTSC crowd without loosing face to either of the other 2 competitors. As a game developer if you haven't seen what next gen can do in HD I think when you get the chance to you will be pleasantly surprised. Having said that to most hard core gamers it is about the gameplay and not necessarily the graphics. To the average consumer, well you do have to keep up with the Jones's.

So to wrap up can this decision hurt Nintendo? Probably
Would just adding the support for HDTV hurt Nintendo? No

It seems like making sure it supports HD as well as NTSC seems a no brainer.

[aversion2k]

By the end of this Gen (2010) I can see about 50% of homes with HD sets.

Thats an incredibly unrealistic goal.
Perhaps in 4 years 50% of console gamers will have HD tvs.

[RMan]

Maybe the technology they're using for the motion sensing shit isn't compatible in HD?
Although I don't know the technology, I'll go out on a limb and say not a chance. I think the real reason is supporting HD means supporting the resolution, which takes more than twice the pixel pushing power and more memory. Personally, I think that's the bulk of the reason, they just don't feel it's worthwhile since most people won't care. I mean, in the end, I seriously doubt that 2 of 100 people that would buy the system would decide not to because of this, but FAR more would if the price had to move by $50.

[Deadend]

Are we sure this means IT DOES NOT have HD support, or just that it's not REQIURED? Like things are in the current gen, the Xbox can put out to 1080i in a game... but no one did.

If they mean that no game will eer be able to be in HD, then Nintendo is being assholes. If they are not requiring HD, then more power to them, as that means that more power can go into things than just higer rez.

[JazGalaxy]

Are we sure this means IT DOES NOT have HD support, or just that it's not REQIURED? Like things are in the current gen, the Xbox can put out to 1080i in a game... but no one did.

If they mean that no game will eer be able to be in HD, then Nintendo is being assholes. If they are not requiring HD, then more power to them, as that means that more power can go into things than just higer rez.

That's a really good point. I have a few regular xbox games that are HD ready...

[rein]

I could give a flying hump about HD support. It's not like I can't see the images through component cables. Hell.. ..even standard composite can look pretty good. If Nintendo sells their system $100 cheaper than everyone else I say good for them.

[Montgomery_Python]

Don't you think that punishing somebody who has spent the green on a HDTV, just because you do not have one, wrong?

HAH.

Yeah, punished. Because you won't be able to play Revolution games. At all. Ever.

/boohoo

[Pumped'Up]

At the end next year, HD will be standard for gaming. Why? PS3 and 360 will be the driving forces in the console market (anyone who thinks otherwise is a nut case)...pushing and out-doing each other in HD striving to capture market share, while Nintendo sputters along in substandard low res. So why would anyone want to start off with a next gen console that does less then the competition?

Another note, the majority of TVs sold at any electronics store are HD capable...all at affordable prices nowadays.

[Uncle Ben]

Are we sure this means IT DOES NOT have HD support, or just that it's not REQIURED? Like things are in the current gen, the Xbox can put out to 1080i in a game... but no one did.

If they mean that no game will eer be able to be in HD, then Nintendo is being assholes. If they are not requiring HD, then more power to them, as that means that more power can go into things than just higer rez.

I don't think it's as simple as Nintendo putting a switch in the box labeled "HD/NOT HD." HD output isn't just really pretty, it's tons more pixels than regular output. All those pixels have to be rendered, and they have to be rendered just as fast as if it was standard def. No HD will mean the cost of the Rev can be cut quite a bit I would imagine, and still leave plenty of processing power for all the other aspects of gameplay and production.

--

At the end next year, HD will be standard for gaming. Why? PS3 and 360 will be the driving forces in the console market (anyone who thinks otherwise is a nut case)...pushing and out-doing each other in HD striving to capture market share, while Nintendo sputters along in substandard low res. So why would anyone want to start off with a next gen console that does less then the competition?

Another note, the majority of TVs sold at any electronics store are HD capable...all at affordable prices nowadays.


A console that does less graphically anyway. If that's all that matters anymore gaming is dead already, and I'll leave it to the graphics whores.

And HD ready televisions are not so much HD ready as they are HD capable after you buy another two hundred dollar item. I don't understand all of it, and I only have the word of a salesman to go by, but you can't hook any kind of HD input into an HD ready TV without first buying some piece of hardware that I cannot remember the name of.

[Sazime]

Don't you think that punishing somebody who has spent the green on a HDTV, just because you do not have one, wrong?

No, but I also don't think HDTV is the high point to gaming. I can understand wanting it, but unless there's no other innovation to happen in gaming, I could live without it. And yes, I have an HDTV.

Are we sure this means IT DOES NOT have HD support, or just that it's not REQIURED? Like things are in the current gen, the Xbox can put out to 1080i in a game... but no one did.

True, but damn if the new XBox game won't be pretty. I just don't see it as a selling point I care too much about.

[JazGalaxy]

IF the revolution bursts onto the scene and makes gamers out of everyone who's not a gamer, you're going to see the entire market change in less than a flash. Anyone who thinks the market will still be chasing preteen male fantasy games when the market is made up of women, the young, and old people is a nut case.

Look at the demographic for a unit like the GBA. A great deal of those people don't ever play console games. Look at the demographic for online gamesites like Shockwave or YahooGames. A great deal of those people don't play consoles either. If Nintendo could get those people playing, the market would wind up chasing those people as well.

[lazydestroyer]

I really hope the revolution has HD and NON-HD support. My XBOX360 supports hd, and non hd, why shouldn't my revolution?
My 30" tube hdtv looks great in 1080i, but crappy in NTSC. Hell, if the rev drew 480i worth of pixels and just upconverted it to 1080i i'd be happy as all hell. My tv dosen't deal with low-def inputs too well.

[Jaded Fool]

So why would anyone want to start off with a next gen console that does less then the competition?

Cheaper system, better games, unique technology, better advertising. There's plenty of reasons to choose one system over another. I pity anyone that will look at full res, HD screenshots and go "I'm buying this console" purely because the other consoles screenshots aren't as sharp and pretty.

[abso]

Don't you think that punishing somebody who has spent the green on a HDTV, just because you do not have one, wrong?

Depends... Did you buy an HDTV JUST for gaming? It's not like your tv becomes useless because you can't play games in hi def. Noone was complaining about the PS2/XBOX when they came out and weren't at PC resolutions. It really irks me how people jump headlong into a marketing campaign. HD just is NOT a big deal yet. Just because there are a bunch of hardcore gamers with hd tvs, doesn't mean that ALL gamers have them.

I wish gamers would stop being so goddamn impressed with visuals and address the gameplay issues that are clearly being glossed over on a majority of titles. If this keeps up, the gaming industry is going to end up like Hollywood. Big budget titles that people only buy because the commercials tell them to.

[Mr.Green]

I have a projector and a 106" screen. HD makes a huge difference at that size. Night and day.

Come on Nintendo, show me love. :(

[Darkman]

I want to respond to 2 points here. The first.


I don't think it's as simple as Nintendo putting a switch in the box labeled "HD/NOT HD." HD output isn't just really pretty, it's tons more pixels than regular output. All those pixels have to be rendered, and they have to be rendered just as fast as if it was standard def. No HD will mean the cost of the Rev can be cut quite a bit I would imagine, and still leave plenty of processing power for all the other aspects of gameplay and production.

--
While this does make sense and is true in the most technical sense, if your are rendering 480i which is probably 640x480 you can render 480p at 640x480. The only difference is the output that you are sending to the TV. One is interlaced and the other isn't. While 480p isnt' technically HD, it is supported by HD tv's and does look better than 480i. Also most if not all DVD's are progressive scan and can be had for $50 to $60 retail. So adding this tech might cost what? Not a whole lot, maybe a couple bucks at best.

Second Point.

IAnd HD ready televisions are not so much HD ready as they are HD capable after you buy another two hundred dollar item. I don't understand all of it, and I only have the word of a salesman to go by, but you can't hook any kind of HD input into an HD ready TV without first buying some piece of hardware that I cannot remember the name of.

Not true. HD ready televisions will display any HD signal that is plugged into them. IE Xbox360, HD Cable or Satelite recievers. What they can't do is recieve over the air HD and display it without getting a HD tuner. I so wish these sales people were properly trained in this stuff.

[trip1eX]

I don't think it's a biggie. Standards aren't quite set yet on hdtv. The technology itself is still maturing.

Most households have 2 or 3 or more analog TVs, but most households don't even have 1 hdtv.

Besides it's not like having a machine that's 3 or 4 times or more as powerful as the Gamecube with more memory is going to be a bad thing.

I also have to ask hasn't that guy played a pc game? Anyone that has played a pc game lately knows what hdtv looks like.

Also recognize that guy plays his games on a 50" Plasma TV. I don't think most folks have that setup. The hardcore do, but not most folks.

[Kagger]

What's wrong with carts? I still prefer them over discs. 15% of the used disc-based games I have bought have had issues, or flat out won't boot up. But I can't remember ever buying a defective cart in my whole life! Sometimes they need the crud cleaned off the contacts, but they always work after that. I don't care if the carts cost a little more to produce then discs. They last forever, and so long as there is a quality game on it, it's worth it.

This comes from someone who considers the N64 to be one of the worst consoles ever, not because of the carts, but because most of the third parties games had unplayable frame rates.


I've worked with broken carts. My brother's friend lent us one, and it never worked. Also, it depends on the system. Stuff like the original NES were horrible for using carts. And more used games for my SNES, I had to hold into place as I turned it on, and it ended up formatting my cart. I've complete game data (minus all bombs and arrows) lost data on LoZ: A Link to the Past twice.

And...My Super Metroid just broke down...but I played it in a questionable SNES. I guess....my point with that part is...don't go sticking your cartridge into any old system, you don't know what else has been in there or what kind of condition it was kept in. The particular machine that messed my Super Metroid one was found in the back of our Student Council Office, was a 2nd gen model.

[JazGalaxy]

I have a projector and a 106" screen. HD makes a huge difference at that size. Night and day.

Come on Nintendo, show me love. :(

I hate to break it to you, but you're probably going to have a hard time playing the revolutoin on a screen that size anyhow...

[Babbster]

If Nintendo doesn't provide HD output on the Revolution it both is and isn't a bad mistake. Yes, I'm straddling the fence but I'm feeling pretty secure in that position on this issue.

It is a mistake for a couple of reasons, as I see it. First, they would presumably be upping the power of their console by quite a lot with diminished returns. By that, I mean a console capable of pushing serious pixels and polygons at high resolutions ought to be able to send those pixels to a high-resolution monitor. Even if the console can "only" handle resolutions of, for example, 1024x768 it would still be better to upconvert that to 720p/1080i than to downconvert to 480i/480p (while offering both options, of course) - this is old tech that has become very cheap (see the rapidly falling prices of upconverting DVD players for evidence). They would also be unnecessarily irritating people with high-resolution displays. It's the one thing that really irritated me about Diablo 2: Here was a game coming out at a time when just about everyone had a PC display that could at least do 1024x768 and they capped the game at 800x600. This situation, from the start, was only going to get worse as time went by and better graphics tech became available and common. Of course, I still bought D2 and enjoyed it which leads me to...

It isn't a big mistake because people are still going to buy the system. Gamers are going to buy the system because Nintendo's treated them well with great games over the years and parents are still going to have a preference for Nintendo because the word is still - for many people - synonymous with fun for kids. The day will come when folks won't bother with a non-HD videogame console but that day isn't here yet.

So, I don't think it's at all smart for Nintendo to ignore HD but they're probably not going to suffer much if they make that decision.

[Neverborne]

I don't believe HD will be a big factor in the next generation, only the really hardcore have them right now.

Also, we all have to remember that Nintendo's strategy is different this time around: they want to be #2. Everyone's SECOND console.

I'll bet dollars to donuts that everyone that has a high-end HDTV has a second TV in the bedroom or somewhere else in the house.

[Pumped'Up]

Cheaper system, better games, unique technology, better advertising. There's plenty of reasons to choose one system over another. I pity anyone that will look at full res, HD screenshots and go "I'm buying this console" purely because the other consoles screenshots aren't as sharp and pretty.
Obviously the majority of games will be available on all 3 consoles and if I had to choose, I'd pick PS3 or 360 to play this multi-platform game in HD. This will be the deciding factor for MANY people. Better advertising? Nintendo sucks ass in this field and is clearly the weakest of the big 3.

Sadly, Nintendo just doesn't have it any more to compete against the giants that MS and Sony are. They really should stick to the handheld market only.

[Pumped'Up]

I don't believe HD will be a big factor in the next generation, only the really hardcore have them right now.

Also, we all have to remember that Nintendo's strategy is different this time around: they want to be #2. Everyone's SECOND console.

I'll bet dollars to donuts that everyone that has a high-end HDTV has a second TV in the bedroom or somewhere else in the house.
LOL, if this was Nintenod's strategy, then they are seriously DOOMED. Companies strive to be the best they can be, not just simply good enough to be second. If this was the case, who the hell would want to invest in this company when obviously, the competition is better to invest in?

As well, anyone who owns a HDTV and several old tvs obviously would NOT use their "worse" TVs to play their next gen games on. Think about it.

Btw, every kid who knows what a 360 is wants a freakn HD LCDTV for Christmas.

[amusedtoe]

I'm not about to read all these comments so forgive me if I'm repeating someone. Personally I don't care since I won't be getting an HD TV until you can get one of good quality for the same you can get an analog tv of similar quality for today. Unlike the CD vs cartridge debacle that seriously hamstrung the N64 this isn't something that has any direct bearing on gameplay. "Oh no, my game's a little less crisp! That's so much worse then when I wasn't getting as much content because of media limitations." :p

[rein]

Obviously the majority of games will be available on all 3 consoles and if I had to choose, I'd pick PS3 or 360 to play this multi-platform game in HD. This will be the deciding factor for MANY people.

But.. what if the Revolution controller really does add something to game play that is not available on the other two? Will you still pick the other two with HD or will you pick the one with superior game play?

[Sazime]

Anyone catch the fake Nintendo commercial a while back? Best N advertising never made by someone else.

http://www.1up.com/do/feature?cId=3141783&pager.offset=2#v1.1

Nintendo On media link.

[copasetic]

Where am I? This is like attack of the noobs. No one here knows what they are talking about and it seems like they havn't been following news at all. This is really old news and everyone is so unrealistic about consumers and their expectations. Where are the regulars?
I feel like I'm on the Gamespot forums.

[Neosho]

LOL, if this was Nintenod's strategy, then they are seriously DOOMED. Companies strive to be the best they can be, not just simply good enough to be second. If this was the case, who the hell would want to invest in this company when obviously, the competition is better to invest in?

As well, anyone who owns a HDTV and several old tvs obviously would NOT use their "worse" TVs to play their next gen games on. Think about it.

Btw, every kid who knows what a 360 is wants a freakn HD LCDTV for Christmas.

In case you didn't notice, nintendo has enough profit margin in consoles to invest in themselves. I don't know where you learned buisness concepts, but damn son. Considering that *** is richer than sin, they don't exactly have to worry about financial hits on the console side of things. Nintendo is the only company actually concerned with making a profit, which would actually make them the far superior company to invest in. Sony's just in the corner slowly shooting themselves in the foot, over and over.

your second point is the good one, and the 3rd one is drivel because last time i checked most kids didn't get a grand to blow every christmas.

[Neosho]

Obviously the majority of games will be available on all 3 consoles and if I had to choose, I'd pick PS3 or 360 to play this multi-platform game in HD. This will be the deciding factor for MANY people. Better advertising? Nintendo sucks ass in this field and is clearly the weakest of the big 3.

Sadly, Nintendo just doesn't have it any more to compete against the giants that MS and Sony are. They really should stick to the handheld market only.

Actually, chances are most won't be available on all 3 systems, considering that apparently both the 360 and the PS3 are going to be a complete bitch to program for. Also, given that the revolution is the only one actually bringing a new dimension to the field, there's a lot more to offer there to real gamers, if it's well implemented. It's (mostly) the frat boys that are waiting for the latest recycling of madden that are out there for the xbox 360 with their super hd set that they've bought with their parents money. The hardcore gamers don't give a shit because they're picking up all 3 anyways and already know it.

Also, last time i checked, nintendo was the only company that was actually profiting on console sales.

Edit: Had to be slightly more insulting.

Double Edit: Xbox360 is the programming with easy. My bad. The rest though, about the dimensions and that crap, that's for real though.

[The Iron Weasel]

Actually, chances are most won't be available on all 3 systems, considering that apparently both the 360 and the PS3 are going to be a complete bitch to program for. Also, given that the revolution is the only one actually bringing a new dimension to the field, there's a lot more to offer there to real gamers, if it's well implemented. It's (mostly) the frat boys that are waiting for the latest recycling of madden that are out there for the xbox 360 with their super hd set that they've bought with their parents money. The hardcore gamers don't give a shit because they're picking up all 3 anyways and already know it.

Also, last time i checked, nintendo was the only company that was actually profiting on console sales.

Edit: Had to be slightly more insulting.

Last time I checked the 360 was the easiest thing to develop for...ever...

[Neosho]

If that's true, my bad. I just thought that the whole 3 processor thing made life less than optimal. The rest of my point stands though. Then again, when everyone is owned by EA i guess that production costs don't really matter, :: sigh ::.

(Hmm, interesting pun)

Edit: Yeah, looks like you're right, people don't seem to be bitching about it. I'll fix that post.

[The Iron Weasel]

If that's true, my bad. I just thought that the whole 3 processor thing made life less than optimal. The rest of my point stands though. Then again, when everyone is owned by EA i guess that production costs don't really matter, :: sigh ::.

(Hmm, interesting pun)

Edit: Yeah, looks like you're right, people don't seem to be bitching about it. I'll fix that post.

Yeah, I can see how you could get confused on that, I figured it would be a complete bitch with 3 cores aswell, but Carmack made it clear that its a dream to develop for with his QuakeCon speach. Apparently the PS3 on the other hand....well....is beyond complex.

[JazGalaxy]

A point for you guys to concider:

If Nintendo succeeds in being EVERYONES "second console"... Both Sony users AND MS users... aren't they then 1st place?

Arguing about HD or non HD is just stupid. It's like the argument about the revolution controller not being able to play you old favorite games. People are missing the point that the revolution is aiming to be something entirely new. If the revolution catches on, and frankly I'm not sure how it could not, the PS3 and XBox will just look antiquated. Arguing about HD vs. non HD is like arguing about what color ball should go with your cup and ball game. "red is the best! Nintendo doesn't have red, so their cup and ball game sucks!" WHen the Revolution comes out, if it does what it's supposed to do, you'll forget all about your cup and ball.

[Neosho]

I was going to make a generic joke about wondering who bill gates stole this bit of ingenuty from, but maybe this is just his 2nd great gift to mankind.

That is kinda cool though, maybe there's hope for one day having massive multicore computer gaming systems.

[Neosho]

A point for you guys to concider:

If Nintendo succeeds in being EVERYONES "second console"... Both Sony users AND MS users... aren't they then 1st place?

Arguing about HD or non HD is just stupid. It's like the argument about the revolution controller not being able to play you old favorite games. People are missing the point that the revolution is aiming to be something entirely new. If the revolution catches on, and frankly I'm not sure how it could not, the PS3 and XBox will just look antiquated. Arguing about HD vs. non HD is like arguing about what color ball should go with your cup and ball game. "red is the best! Nintendo doesn't have red, so their cup and ball game sucks!" WHen the Revolution comes out, if it does what it's supposed to do, you'll forget all about your cup and ball.

I don't think it really matters if the controller catches on entirely. All you need is one game that sells the console early on, and you're set...a new goldeneye anyone?

Jesus, i feel like such a goldeneye whore though, i can't think of any other games that i loved on N64.

(i wonder how long it is before someone says that there were no good games on n64...lol)

[The Iron Weasel]

A point for you guys to concider:

If Nintendo succeeds in being EVERYONES "second console"... Both Sony users AND MS users... aren't they then 1st place?

Arguing about HD or non HD is just stupid. It's like the argument about the revolution controller not being able to play you old favorite games. People are missing the point that the revolution is aiming to be something entirely new. If the revolution catches on, and frankly I'm not sure how it could not, the PS3 and XBox will just look antiquated. Arguing about HD vs. non HD is like arguing about what color ball should go with your cup and ball game. "red is the best! Nintendo doesn't have red, so their cup and ball game sucks!" WHen the Revolution comes out, if it does what it's supposed to do, you'll forget all about your cup and ball.

I WILL NEVER FORGET THE CUP AND BALL! Although I am curious how fps's will be...it could either be very good or very bad.

[Neosho]

Did you see that bit about the guy that rigged the gyration optical mouse up? That was pretty freaking sweet, he was playing CS:S with it. Had some videos and stuff, it looked pretty intuitive, and you know that nintendo's going to have a better setup than a gyration mouse ducttapped to some other crap.

[grammatoncleric]

I wonder if Matt wrote that insightful piece about HD gaming before or after this (http://cube.ign.com/articles/670/670078p1.html) journalistic gem.

I want HD gaming. I'm sad it isn't on the cube. No it isn't going to kill the system. No 3rd parties, lacking a killer ap, the controller not functioning would hurt the system. That could kill the system. Graphics, not as important. For further evidence, see PS2 graphics versus GC/Xbox. To know more, check Gameboy versus Gamegear.

But hey rampant speculation about unreleased consoles in the weeks following a successful launch is really really easy and we should all do it!

[The Iron Weasel]

Did you see that bit about the guy that rigged the gyration optical mouse up? That was pretty freaking sweet, he was playing CS:S with it. Had some videos and stuff, it looked pretty intuitive, and you know that nintendo's going to have a better setup than a gyration mouse ducttapped to some other crap.

I dunno, we'll see, I just don't know. Something about it just doesn't feel right about playing an FPS like that....we'll see when I buy my rev.

I wonder if Matt wrote that insightful piece about HD gaming before or after this (http://cube.ign.com/articles/670/670078p1.html) journalistic gem.

Please don't talk about that article it makes me feel ashamed for having a gamecube.

[Neosho]

Oh shit, matt is that guy? damn.

Well. Yeah. He's a moron. I think we can leave it at that...and that title makes me laugh too....Xbox360 not a revolution. Ha, that's a cleavar pun.

[Nintendo Revolution]

Matt from IGN, you either love him or hate him.

[Pantsmonkey]

He was playing HL2 DM and it did look sweet didnt it =)
http://files.nrupdates.qj.net/cgi-bin/cfiles.cgi?0,0,0,0,1,36 <<< Go take a peak :D

I don't want to rile anyone up over this pre release debate I think the best thing that comes out of all this Fact Free Dream Arguining are some good ideas for what we might end up with.

Im am excited by new things yet to be tried (en mass) as ive stated since they released there tv remote controller. If anyone is qualified to drag human interface to a place its never been its Nintendo is this a good place? We have NFI.

Think of the HD free Nintendo as sleeping with a really sexy girl but the lights are off. It's going to be very good you just won't see as much.

/home time.

[TheBrainKills]

This thread is funny, all Nintendo has to do is put a label on their games saying they are progressive scan widescreen HDTV ready, and 90% of people wouldn't know any better and the other 10% would be having too much fun to care.

[Achilles]

Where am I? This is like attack of the noobs. No one here knows what they are talking about and it seems like they havn't been following news at all. This is really old news and everyone is so unrealistic about consumers and their expectations. Where are the regulars?
I feel like I'm on the Gamespot forums.I think most of the regulars got burned out on this topic when it first hit the news 3 or 4 months ago.

Now I’m just trying to figure out if Pumped’Up works for Sony. He mentioned LCDTVs by name, and is a Sony booster, hmm...

[Lizard Dude]

You know how Nintendo eventually removed the component video cable output from GameCubes? Maybe they'll do the reverse with Revolution (and give free replacements if you want the new one, like they do now with Cube).

[The Iron Weasel]

My friend has that type of mouse, it was hard as hell to do stuff with, I have alot more confidence in nintendo to make something better.

[TheBrainKills]

Now I’m just trying to figure out if Fumped’Up works for Sony. He mentioned LCDTVs by name, and is a Sony booster, hmm...

He is a joke, that is for sure.

PS3 and 360 will be the driving forces in the console market (anyone who thinks otherwise is a nut case)...pushing and out-doing each other in HD striving to capture market share, while Nintendo sputters along in substandard low res.



Classic stuff there.

[Player 1]

How many times can it be said, the decision to stick with the Cartridge was not a choice. The courts decided since Sony signed a contract to develop a CD-rom attachment to the SNES (simularly to the sega cd), that Nintendo could not develop it's own cdrom because it would be in breach of contract with sony. They had to go that route.

Hmm. I'd like to see a reliable source for that. (Not something spouted at some n-blog).

Seeing as the SNES / 64 was in Yamauchi's era and, at that time, Nintendo pretty much dictated the cost of RAM chips the it has been common understanding throughout the industry that, with Yamauchi's legendary stubborness and business acumen that there was absolutely no way he was going to relinquish control of those chip prices.

Still, if it does happen to be true it certainly shows why you shouldn't rub another man's rhubarb. PWEI

[TKO]

I don't think it really matters if the controller catches on entirely. All you need is one game that sells the console early on, and you're set...a new goldeneye anyone?

Jesus, i feel like such a goldeneye whore though, i can't think of any other games that i loved on N64.
<drool> ...Mmmmmm, Goldeneye. Yeah, that game seriously rocked. So did you try Perfect Dark too then? That had all the goodness of Goldeneye + more. Imagine those two remade and using the new controller. Awesome. :D

In addition to those games I was a complete WaveRace whore though. Oh, and F-Zero.. Banjo.. Mario Kart. There was some brilliant stuff on the N64 it has to be said. That console had some good potential. Shame it was never quite realised.

[TKO]

Hmm. I'd like to see a reliable source for that. (Not something spouted at some n-blog).
Yeah, I would too. My understanding of the whole affair had been that Nintendo had commissioned Sony to develop the CD-ROM hardware for their new console but then did the oft-documented Nintendo(tm) screw-you-over maneuver and left them hanging. Thus Sony trying out this whole console lark themselves.

Makes for a great story. (whether it's true, or whatever.) :) Like the US and Saddam, they created their own enemy. Nintendo's screwing everyone over trick had to come back and bite them one day, yeah? Who would have thought Sony's console wing could grow up to be the bigger asshole. :D

I thought the whole cartridge idea wasn't such a bad one. I mean, heck, it is the *ideal* console to leave with a kiddie. No nasty CD-scratching to worry about. ..Sony did a damn good job of capitalizing on the size-advantage of their optical drives though. And their less restrictive development model was a very good thing. They deserved to win that round.

[MrMeatshake]

slightly over-the-top. it's pretty obvious that N are going for playability and fun games. most people they're trying to attract won't have played quake 12 and seen the gradual improvements in graphics over the years... they will care much less what a game looks like, and more how much fun it is. it's a pretty good decision IMHO.

[AlmostSente]

One thing perhaps not mentioned is the fact that any store that sells all three consoles will probably have salespeople smacktalking the only console that doesn't support HD... This could seriously affect sales in my mind at least.

Well, I hope Nintendo stays strong, I've had lots of fun on my GC as well as the other two consoles.

[AversionFX]

Thats an incredibly unrealistic goal.
Perhaps in 4 years 50% of console gamers will have HD tvs.

I hate to break it to you, but by his estimate, the end of the generation (2010), is in 4 years (and 1 month).

As for me? Big deal. I don't care if Nintendo isn't going the HD route. GameCube games look quite nice on my non-HD tv. I'm sure Revolution games will look great, too.

On the topic of "so it's okay to punish people who spent the green on HD tvs for the Revolution not supporting HDTV?" Grow the fuck up.

[bapenguin]

It pisses me off the Rev most likely won't work on front projection screens. HD is important to me, and important to a lot of gamers. (http://www.avsforum.com) Will it make a difference in the next 2 years? Probably not....but if you look at the "hot items" for this holiday season, an HDTV/Flatscreen HDTV is usually #2 or #3 right behind an iPod or XBox 360. There's going to be a lot more people with HDTVs this year...hell you can get a 32" flatscreen HDTV for 1500 bucks. I paid 1500 bucks for my 32" 4:3 CRT HDTV 3 years ago. Now that TV is 600-700 bucks.

[Kamalot]

Matt does the best job of trashing the consoles he is supposed to cover for a living. It is like he wants to trash-talk himself out of a job.

[DigitalFirefly]

Thats an incredibly unrealistic goal.
Perhaps in 4 years 50% of console gamers will have HD tvs.

That's what I meant.

[JazGalaxy]

My dad got an 50 inch flat widescreen TV a few months ago and has been happily enthralled with it for a good long while. My brother and I found out over Thanksgiving that he hasn't even been acutally watching it in HD. He was just watching the regular def channels not knowing there were other HD channels.

So... yeah. HD is a lot of hype.

[Taco]

My dad watched his HD 63" television for over two years before I clued him in to what HD actually meant and what it was.

[Blade]

It's an appalling decision by Nintendo. It's not like CD-vs-cart where there.. there were benefits to using carts. Far better load-times leading, larger areas..

The lack of HD when "2006" has been set as a date for full HD integration.. though it's bound for delays.. is just appalling.

[Kamalot]

I would rather see outstanding games in standard definition, with all of the effects cranked up and buttery smooth anti-aliasing instead of jittery, low-frame-rate slideshows with shimmering textures in HD.

And Blade, the date for DIGITAL TV (Not HDTV) has been pushed back to 2009. By that time, all broadcasts should be digital, requiring everyone to pick up a digital adapter for their TV. Mark my words, it will be pushed back again before 2009.

[Taco]

Now pardon my ignorance, since consoles and TV are not something I'm knowledgeable about. Does this actually prevent you from using the Rev with a HDTV or does it mean it just won't play at an HDTV resolution?

[Taco]

I agree with Kamalot, I just wanted to make sure this meant what I thought it did.

Not a shot against the PS3 or 360, it just seems clear now the Rev won't have the juice to run in HD.

[jacktion]

Here is the matter summed up succinctly.

If you are a hardcore gamer with a lot of money and a 50" plasma tv, then HD matters a lot and is necessary.

If you are like the other 95% of the population who enjoy games and have a regular tv then it is not necessary. discuss.

[Taco]

Why does it matter a lot, it'll look far worse on HDTV than a regular TV.

[MosBen]

Much like the "Rev will only be slightly better than GC at graphics" post, I think this is something that won't be a big deal for the next year or two, but is going to be more and more important the further out we go and towards the end of the console's lifecycle it's going to be a big deal.

[Kamalot]

I thought it was determined that the "Rev will only be slightly better than GC at graphics" referred to the early dev kits without the new Broadway chipset.

If that's the case, then what does it matter how fast early dev kits run? Xbox 360 early dev kits were extremely slow too if I remember correctly.

Me? I'll wait to see the movies from E3 before I complain.

And Taco, it won't look worse on an HDTV. This isn't like a regular TV signal on an HDTV. The Revolution, like the GameCube will use 480P, a signal quality already much nicer than standard broadcast TV.

[ChaosDent]

The original article and some of the posts here are confused about the distinction between digital and high defenition. They are totally independent standards, you can broadcast digital SDTV, and the Xbox 360 features only analog video outputs, even the ones that support higher resolutions... The FCC's requirements for full power digital broadcasing in 2006 makes no demands on high defenition content, consumer electronics manufacturers and content producers are taking the opportunity to transition HDTV, which has been talked about since the mid 80s. Regardless, many stations won't make the cutoff and so many TV owners won't have TVs or tuners ready to recieve the digital broadcast that both the dates for full power digital transmission and the shut down of analog transmission are bound to be extended again.

So about the Revolution? I don't really care as long as the minimum-maximum resolution is 480p through component cables and widescreen output is a system-wide standard option.

[31 Flavas]

It pisses me off the Rev most likely won't work on front projection screens.And why wouldn't the Rev not work on front projection? If its about "Zapper" fuctionality, forget it, Nintendo already said it'll work for you, regardless of your TV type.

[bapenguin]

And why wouldn't the Rev not work on front projection? If its about "Zapper" fuctionality, forget it, Nintendo already said it'll work for you, regardless of your TV type.

It's not so much of the TV type as the setup that comes along with front projection. You need to have little sensors for the Rev sitting under or on your tv screen. In my case, my console would be around 15-20 feet from where these sensors would go. So unless they release some huge ass long cables I don't see me being able to utilize it. Most people with front projection (ie Projectors) have a setup similar to this. There are some people that have their equipment in a totally different ROOM all together. Who knows...maybe the littl esnesors will be wireless. That would rock.

[trip1eX]

Yeah if you laid down $4k on a plasma 50" tV then you'll probably want something that will drive it to its full potential.

Anyway Nintendo's next gen move is geared towards next-gen controls. Like it or not. Take it or leave it. That's what they are doing.

And that doesn't mean the graphics won't be improved. The Revolution is slated to be at least 3 or 4 times as powerful as the Cube. That definitely won't be a bad thing.

It will catch flak because the controller is something new and it's a change. And no one has used it. Plus it's a much harder sell than pretty pictures. But ultimately it very well could very much put existing controllers to shame for many genres. And thus make the 'powerful' next-gen consoles feel a bit old.

[Karmakin]

Damn. None of you guys, pro or con, get it. None of you even come close.

This isn't about Nintendo.

This is about 3rd parties. Development costs on the 360 are through the roof. The cost of games is sky high. It's not a good situation for anybody, because sales of individual games are going to drop.

What Nintendo is offering, is a place for both developers and producers to retreat to and bring out high-quality products at a reasonable price, and allow them to make a profit out of it. That it's the whole story, period. And why full HD support (It's going to support higher resolutions, to a degree, but it won't be forced on game makers) won't be included like the other two systems.

Notice that the only real criticism coming for the Revolution comes from Epic? Who really makes their money off the escalation of the technology war? Right. Nintendo is offering a way out of the swamp. And to be honest, I highly expect quite a few companies to walk down the path..oops! We've created better, more innovative offerings for the Rev than the other two systems...now how did that happen? Oh look. Everybody is buying a Revolution. We can make more games...Oh noes! We're making a profit! How did that happen?

If you think that there's not a ton of money people who want the Revolution to succeed, and by succeed, I mean literally crush the competition, you're deluding yourself.

[Mr.Green]

I hate to break it to you, but you're probably going to have a hard time playing the revolutoin on a screen that size anyhow...
I'm a little late but anyway...

You're not breaking anything. I've been playing the Xbox and Gamecube on it for months. Generally it looks pretty good but the Xbox 360 image is a hell lot better in 720p. Jaggies are not even an issue.

[Player 1]

Damn. None of you guys, pro or con, get it. None of you even come close.

This isn't about Nintendo.

This is about 3rd parties. Development costs on the 360 are through the roof. The cost of games is sky high. It's not a good situation for anybody, because sales of individual games are going to drop.

I think this is where MS have played their trump card. LIVE marketplace could usher in a generation of budget-concious console game development for a hell of a lot of developers. I don't know how MS are pimping this from a developer angle but if I were them I'd be doing all I can to get people like Reflexive, Popcap and the like to support this. The financial model for these little games is remarkable and extremely lucrative. Yes, it may not be hardcore but, as the PC market has already shown, there's a huge amount of success to be gained serving the casual gamer and if you can bring that to a whole new [console] audience then it's just another string to your bow. I think that LIVE Marketplace will show that console development doesn't HAVE to be costing you millions in order for you to get your game to it's market. I simply can't see this failing for MS or the consumer or the developer. Your typical hardcore/dedicated gamer won't take much notice of it - but it shouldn't be overlooked - particularly when the comedy tone of "Nintendo = developer's friend" is rolled out.

What Nintendo is offering, is a place for both developers and producers to retreat to and bring out high-quality products at a reasonable price, and allow them to make a profit out of it.

And Sony and MS aren't offering this? Are they prohibiting development of creative and exciting titles? I think not. Additionally which EVER console sells the most units into homes is going to get the developer support. A developer will take a smaller cut on a PS2 game than a Gamecube one because they know they'll still earn more money as the fucker will actually sell more copies.

Notice that the only real criticism coming for the Revolution comes from Epic? Who really makes their money off the escalation of the technology war? Right. Nintendo is offering a way out of the swamp. And to be honest, I highly expect quite a few companies to walk down the path..oops! We've created better, more innovative offerings for the Rev than the other two systems...now how did that happen? Oh look. Everybody is buying a Revolution. We can make more games...Oh noes! We're making a profit! How did that happen?

You can think what you like. Here's what happens: everybody gushes publicly over Nintendo. Developers swoon and say how impressed they are.

NOBODY publicly criticises them. Why? Because ignorant gamers flame them to hell and may statements about boycotting products.

Developers SAY lovely things about the N64. Developers SAY lovely things about the Gamecube.

Developers then bugger off to whatever platform(s) will make them the most money for the least aggro.

Want to question that? I suggest you check your history around the reception and subsequent launch of the last couple of Nintendo consoles (and that delightful "we don't talk about it much" Virtualboy) for the historical facts.

Talk is cheap.

If you think that there's not a ton of money people who want the Revolution to succeed, and by succeed, I mean literally crush the competition, you're deluding yourself.

Oh - there's a ton all right. But they're all working for/hold shares/invest in Nintendo. If sheer "loyalty" meant anything then Atari and Sega would still be making consoles.

If you think there's a ton of money people who want the Revolution to succeed purely out of love of Nintendo and not because they have some financial interest then you're deluding yourself.



Why, when discussing matters of Nintendo, do simple reasoning and logic always get eclipsed by presumptions and skewed history?

[RMan]

You need to have little sensors for the Rev sitting under or on your tv screen.
My bet is that they just need to be in different positions, their relation to the TV was likely just because that's the common place people would put them, not a requirement. They've stated that it's a full 3D and positioning system, that type of equiptment generally has no requirements on the positioning of sensors, just that they be far enough apart to get proper triangulation. IOW, if full 3D then you don't have to point it towards anything and there'd technically be no "front" thus no requirement on sensor positioning.

[bapenguin]

Karmakin - Supporting a higher resolution does not mean higher development costs. PC games have supported HD resolutions for years and years.

[Shifteh]

And as we've seen, the 64 did terrible. I don't know a single human who owns one, let alone played Goldeneye for entire summers.

[Magnanimous Gnome]

Karmakin - Supporting a higher resolution does not mean higher development costs. PC games have supported HD resolutions for years and years.


Really? So those higher resolution art assets don't cost anymore to make than smaller ones? Wow, that's news to me.

This should be pretty obvious, but it is a fact that games that look super-pretty cost more to make than games that don't look super pretty.

Developers have been going under more and more in the last several years - condensing and condensing the pool until pretty soon only EA, Ubisoft, Activision, Square, and a few other powerhouses will be around. This is only fuled by making games more and more expensive to develop as hardware gets more powerful. As someone stated earlier, if this isn't slowed down then gaming will become just like Hollywood. Big budget flicks, ironically most of which are bombing hard.

[RMan]

Really? So those higher resolution art assets don't cost anymore to make than smaller ones? Wow, that's news to me.
Umm, he said supporting higher resolutions, not making higher resolution artwork, those are two very different things. What he said was absolutely correct.

[Neosho]

Umm, he said supporting higher resolutions, not making higher resolution artwork, those are two very different things. What he said was absolutely correct.

Ahh, so you'll have a high res game with low res textures? That sounds span-fucking-tabulous.

Actually, it's retarded. If you're going to be using the higher power and outputs of the xbox360/ps3, you better be pushing the additional pixels to make it look that much better.

Edit: Also, i'd be curious to know just how many of the current xbox360 games are using the full power of HD.

[JazGalaxy]

I'm a little late but anyway...

You're not breaking anything. I've been playing the Xbox and Gamecube on it for months. Generally it looks pretty good but the Xbox 360 image is a hell lot better in 720p. Jaggies are not even an issue.

No, I just meant with the revolutions controller being based on the size of your screen... you're will be too big to play it on. While one action might require a normal person to flick their wrist, you'll have to swing your entire arm...

[Neosho]

No, I just meant with the revolutions controller being based on the size of your screen... you're will be too big to play it on. While one action might require a normal person to flick their wrist, you'll have to swing your entire arm...

I don't think that the controller will be based on the size of your screen. Think of it like a mouse, it's not a 1/1 ratio of how much your mouse moves to what happens on the screen. Same thing with the rev controller.

Edit: If you're thinking of that promo vid that nintendo released with the dude swinging around like crazy, it's already been stated that it doesn't work like that, that it's smaller movement. I really don't want to dig up the article, but i'm sure someone has it.

[Mr_Snuffle]

No, I just meant with the revolutions controller being based on the size of your screen... you're will be too big to play it on. While one action might require a normal person to flick their wrist, you'll have to swing your entire arm...

I dont' think you understand how the controller works. Movement will be the same regardless of the TV

[Neosho]

Ahh, let's not jump him too quickly, yeah?

[JazGalaxy]

Well... not to be rude here... I'm not sure YOU understand how the controller works. It works in a variety of different ways, sensing the distance from the controller to the television, it's positioion in relation to the television's size, as well as it's gyroscopic tilt.

That means for games like Pilotwings, you will have to do nothing but tilt the controller. This will be the same on all consoles. But in games where you acutally have to interact with the information that is being given to you on screen, you will havea much greater workout on a huge screen.

I mean think about playing Duck Hunt on a screen that big?

Do you see my point?

[Neosho]

Where do you get the bit about television size? It's probably all set up in some sort of calibration setting like the old super scope was. IE, point it at the center of the screen, hit the button, point it at the corners, and then it uses that to triangulate what part of the screen you're hitting. Either that or it's using some sort of next gen lightgun tech, which i find less than likely.

Also, having to swing about widely would get tiresome after a little while. You have to think in terms of user comfort here...who wants to wheel about, swinging an imaginary sword for 2 hours. Your arm would get crazy tired. Lemme see if i can find that damn article.

http://cube.ign.com/articles/651/651275p1.html

There. Read that.

Edit: Also given the nature of gaming, most people want to sit down while playing. That's going to prohibit full movement in most cases.

[Achilles]

Ahh, so you'll have a high res game with low res textures? That sounds span-fucking-tabulous.

Actually, it's retarded. If you're going to be using the higher power and outputs of the xbox360/ps3, you better be pushing the additional pixels to make it look that much better.

Edit: Also, i'd be curious to know just how many of the current xbox360 games are using the full power of HD.Just so you know most textures are created in photoshop and scaled down to fit on the console's RAM or look good on their screen. But instead of scaling them down the developers could just use the high res version and they'd have high-res textures in a high-res game without any trouble. The reason newer games that really push the art curve take so many more resources is because of all the surface shaders and 2 million polygon models.

You could still make a great looking classic game in HD, it would just wouldn't have the same complex surface textures (specular maps, normal maps, procedural maps, etc.). And really you'd probably still get some of that stuff (specular in particular) because it's fairly easy to add.

[Neosho]

Edit: ok, yeah, i'm fucking tired. You're right, i mis-read your post. Either way, there will be increased costs for producing games in HD.

[RMan]

Ahh, so you'll have a high res game with low res textures? That sounds span-fucking-tabulous.
Ok, here's a quick lesson in how 3D works. Texture resolution is completely independent of the screen resolution. The resolution of the game, regardless of the texture quality, will make the images sharper. Now, it’s easy to talk about screen resolutions and it’s effect on quality, but you take a shot at telling me what qualifies as a low res texture, and what qualifies as a high res texture. Even if you can nail that one down for yourself, it won’t be nearly universally accepted, so in the end it’s pointless to discuss it since it’s insanely subjective.
If you're going to be using the higher power and outputs of the xbox360/ps3, you better be pushing the additional pixels to make it look that much better.
And you would be. Again, what you’re talking about is the quality of the art assets, which technically has NOTHING to do with HD displays. And here is where the marketing and discussion from big publishers has made things confusing. HD, by it’s nature, doesn’t make the content cost more. What makes it cost more is having to make art assets that look way better than the Xbox and your current competition, that’s what costs more. Technically, the complaint is that the bar for graphical content has been raised by the biggest publishers and developers, if people were spending $30M on Xbox1 games then the same problem would exist. HD display and greater levels of RAM makes higher quality content more possible, not required.
Edit: Also, i'd be curious to know just how many of the current xbox360 games are using the full power of HD.
There’s no such thing as “full power of HD” (at least not relatively speaking, they're all using the full power), you may as well ask how many painters are using the full potential of their canvas.

[Verocity]

You want games to look good? Play them on a PC at 1600x1200 with 8x AA/AF. Who cares if a console supports HD or not. It's a marketing gimmick - pure and simple.

[Neosho]

Ok, here's a quick lesson in how 3D works. Texture resolution is completely independent of the screen resolution. The resolution of the game, regardless of the texture quality, will make the images sharper. Now, it’s easy to talk about screen resolutions and it’s effect on quality, but you take a shot at telling me what qualifies as a low res texture, and what qualifies as a high res texture. Even if you can nail that one down for yourself, it won’t be nearly universally accepted, so in the end it’s pointless to discuss it since it’s insanely subjective.

Thanks for the lesson. It's been a long time since i've even remotely messed with textures and modeling. As i recall, low detail was around 64*64, and high was around 256*256...lol.


And you would be. Again, what you’re talking about is the quality of the art assets, which technically has NOTHING to do with HD displays. And here is where the marketing and discussion from big publishers has made things confusing. HD, by it’s nature, doesn’t make the content cost more. What makes it cost more is having to make art assets that look way better than the Xbox and your current competition, that’s what costs more. Technically, the complaint is that the bar for graphical content has been raised by the biggest publishers and developers, if people were spending $30M on Xbox1 games then the same problem would exist. HD display and greater levels of RAM makes higher quality content more possible, not required.

Indeed. You're entirely right. I guess that's something along the lines of what i was trying to say, but failed miserably. Too tired, once again.


There’s no such thing as “full power of HD” (at least not relatively speaking, they're all using the full power), you may as well ask how many painters are using the full potential of their canvas.
What i meant there though was that i was wondering how many xbox360 games are looking significantly better in HD, as opposed to using some tech magic to shove a lower quality output up to HD quality. Having not seen an xbox360 game on HD versus one on non-HD, i was just wondering if there was even a noticeble difference between the 2 yet. The whole 480i etc thing is just freaking confusing. I'm a PC gamer at heart, i just console at my friends houses.

[peeweejd]

you guys have to remember who nintendo is targeting with the revolution (hint: its not us rabid gamers). For another clue, look at the ads and interviews.

- Its non gamers.
- Grandmothers.
- Children (small ones).
- Non gamer parents.
- Its the people who are buying those $15 all-in-one joystick games that run on batteries and are perfectly happy with them.
- People who will happily pay money for old SNES games.

They are the ones they are targeting. It may be true what the one dude said about 50% of gamers having HDTVs in the next 4 years (which I would agree with) But gamers like that are only a small protion of the target audience of revolution. They are going after the crowd that has a TV/VCR combo in the living room hooked up to a DVD player via an RF adaptor.

not supporting HD makes perfect sense if you remember that.

[JazGalaxy]

that is the dumbest most anti nintendo nonsense I have ever heard.

Most of the peopl who would happily pay money for old SNES games ARE hardcore gamers. The ones who don't care about graphics, and know the quality of gams used to be better.

Do you know that during the best days of the gaming industry, there used to be arcade games everywhere? On friday nights the arcades were bursting at the seams. Men, women, children, everyone was playing videogames. They were on airplanes, outside bathrooms, in the lobbies of resturaunts, in the waiting rooms of doctors offices... everywhere. And then games turned from being enjoyable by everyone into being preteen fantasy. Power fantasies about some "badass" guys and his "badass sword". That appeals to very very very few people, and the people it does appeal to started calling themselves "hardcore gamers". Just because a few people are dedicated to something everyone else thinks is stupid does not make them hardcore. There were people who would play a stand up pacman unit for 8 hours or more. THAT is hardcore. Nintendo isn't trying to reach any other customer than people who actually likes GAMES as opposed to people who want to be told a "story" which frankly isn't gaming at all.

I keep re-reading what you wrote and I just have to decide upon that you just must be very young. The videogame industry is not as you probably think it is. It has turned into something that it is not, and Nintendo is trying to turn it back again for the people who love games.

The people who love interactive entertainment and preteen fantasies can still have their Xboxs and PS3s but Nintendo will be there for them to play games on again.