Nintendo knows best when it comes to HD?
by Erik Hanson 
posted Jul 24th 2006 at 1:10PM
Here's a quick summary of an opinion piece passed on to us from one of our eagle-eyed readers:
Of course, by that definition HD Beat caters to the early adopter crowd too, according to the market research quoted in the piece not many people have the technology to view high definition, so it doesn't make sense to produce anything relating to it. Yet for the past few years, all the major television networks have -- with the exception of reality and news programming -- produced their programming in HD. Satellite, cable, and phone distributors have spent billions of dollars launching new satellites and building new infrastructure to provide for it. All the movie studios are picking sides in a major format war to get revenue from it. And every electronics manufacturer has built or licensed new products to extract profits from it.
So, welcome yourself to our "exclusive" club, and ponder this: Does HD matter when it comes to the big picture of console sales, and entertainment in general? Or do things like cost, gameplay, and content matter more than high definition?
[ Thanks Jason Unger ]
While this is little surprise from a Nintendo fansite, it does bear looking into. Nintendo has publicly stated that they don't care about HD, and they think gameplay trumps graphics. Some of the other blogs on this network might have more to say about the gameplay side; we'll focus a little on the high-def issue here: Does HD have any affect on console sales? Assuming that Microsoft's console was bundled by default with an HD DVD add-on, the cost would be about the same for both the PS3 and the Xbox 360. Both of these consoles also tout their high-resolution games as a selling point. According to the article, Nintendo made the right choice by completely bowing out of the competition to create higher-resolution gaming. Naysayers claim that not many people own HDTVs anyway, and so why add the cost of the hardware to the console price.Nintendo knows better than both Sony and Microsoft when it comes to high definition: HD is a failure, and Sony will lose because of it.
Of course, by that definition HD Beat caters to the early adopter crowd too, according to the market research quoted in the piece not many people have the technology to view high definition, so it doesn't make sense to produce anything relating to it. Yet for the past few years, all the major television networks have -- with the exception of reality and news programming -- produced their programming in HD. Satellite, cable, and phone distributors have spent billions of dollars launching new satellites and building new infrastructure to provide for it. All the movie studios are picking sides in a major format war to get revenue from it. And every electronics manufacturer has built or licensed new products to extract profits from it.
So, welcome yourself to our "exclusive" club, and ponder this: Does HD matter when it comes to the big picture of console sales, and entertainment in general? Or do things like cost, gameplay, and content matter more than high definition?
[ Thanks Jason Unger ]
Filed under: Industry
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Sean @ Jul 24th 2006 1:39PM
As an open-minded Nintendo fan (i.e. not privy to flame others) I am more for gameplay over graphics. I love good graphics as much as the next person but I would much rather play a game with depth such as Zelda or Metroid rather than play something that looks really good but has no substance. Take Killer7 for instance. A game like that has no use for HD graphics because the art style of it doesn't require it. It plays really differently, looks beautiful, and has an awesome story. I think this is a turning point for video games and we could see a whole new renaissance on the horizon.
Travis Bell @ Jul 24th 2006 1:54PM
Here's my take.
I DID buy an Xbox 360 for in part, it's HD capabilities. I have long been two things; an HD fanatic and an HTPC enthusiast. When I got tired of having a whole computer sitting in my living room, guess where I turned? The Xbox 360. Since 95% of my TV watching experience happens with pre-recorded programs, and I am able to record in HD, and the Xbox will play 1080i/720p right in it's native format I lost nothing by making this switch.
I understand that the average user buys an Xbox 360 for gaming, so let's take a look from that perspective. What did buying an Xbox 360 do to a guy who hasn't bought a console since the N64? Turned him into a bit of a gamer, that's what. And do you really think I would have accepted anything less than 720p on my nice 46'' TV? Hells no.
Now, Sony CANNOT replicate this experience for me so I would never consider buying a PS3. Neither can Nintendo. So it looks like Microsoft certainly won this battle for me, but at the end of the day only 2 friend of mine have HDTV's... so how important is HD? Well, I know lots of people who while they might not have an HDTV right now, are certainly planning on it besides you can't even buy a TV bigger than 34'' that is not HD ready these days and trust me, the graphics are noticeable sharper.
Did I even consider the HD-DVD or Blu-Ray stuff? Nope. Why? 'Cause it's gonna be a while before what I watch (TV SHOWS!) will be available in these formats anyways. If Microsoft releases a $100 HD-DVD add-on player, sure I might buy it to keep things consistently high def, but at this point the Xbox 360 is purely an HD experience for me anyways.
Big Sam @ Jul 24th 2006 2:02PM
I agree with Mr. Bell. Part of the reason I bought an Xbox 360 was for its HD media capabilities. I would not have purchased it if it was just a video game console. The fact that the games are in HD made it an even more compelling purchase.
I wonder if Nintendo will at least make 480p widescreen games? It's bad enough that they refuse to embrace HD, but I would never buy a new game system that can't at least take advantage of my 16x9 aspect ratio.
Steve J @ Jul 24th 2006 2:03PM
Sony will sell to Playstation fanboys, blu-ray fanboys, HD fantics, people in their twenties with plenty of disposable income.
Microsoft will sell to Xbox fanboys, HD-DVD fanboys ... etc etc.
Nintendo will sell to children who have parents willing to buy them a games console from Christmas.
Will the console be able to stand on the merits of gameplay alone? I'm not sure about that. I just feel that they are excluding too much of the games console market with what they are doing.
Robin @ Jul 24th 2006 2:10PM
I bought an XBox 360, not because of the HD, but because of the games available. Having played it though, the HD is certainly a nice feature to have (especially the 720p trailers I can download through the Xbox live marketplace.)
The 360 and the wii aren't in the same league as one is trying (and successfully I might add) to be the central hub of media experience whereas the other is simply a console and nothing more. I'm sure the wii will be fun to play, and I doubt any games will suffer by not being in HD.
Project Z @ Jul 24th 2006 2:17PM
I think HD makes content more compelling and visually appealing, but I'm going out on a limb and saying it's not a requirement for the target audience. Would I have purchase an Xbox 360 had it not supported HD? Probably so. I'm also going out on a limb with thinking many people who may have a 360 may not necessarily have a HDTV. I know my friends don't. Course, they all want one though.
So while I believe it's great, and I think it'll certainly help the HD effort and eventually everyone will have HD, I don't think one of those factors where I wouldn't buy a game because it wasn't in HD. I buy a game because of the content, subject matter, or gameplay. That is may support HD is a bonus.
Nintendo is all about gameplay and having fun. Look at their handhelds. They simply dominate that field, and their graphics on the units have never been what would be considered cutting edge.
Popstand @ Jul 24th 2006 2:20PM
The thing that is so ridiculous about this is that it is clear that the new Nintendo Wii will be a vastly superior experience on a large format display. I think you'd feel like a bit of a jackass waving that controller around playing virtual tennis on a 13" television screen. The larger the screen the more immersive this experience would be, but the worse the low resolution graphics will look. That being said, the ideal setup for the Wii has got to be a large projector based home theater. I was really looking forward to playing a FPS on my 12' HD projected screen. However, at that size, anything in standard def will look like crap, so it might be a deal breaker for me.
Jordan @ Jul 24th 2006 2:24PM
Yes, HD does matter for console sales.
Not so long ago, all the Xbox 360s were sold out. Xbox 360s were not selling because they offered a must have game. 360s sell because they offer HD gaming, which, in my eyes, is part of your gaming experience. Personally, I think Microsoft's lack of units was done purposely to generate hype, good for them.
In the long run, Nintendo will still sell. They have a large fan base of gamers who understand that great graphics do not necessarily mean great game. Those who aren’t necessarily into gaming, but are into HD, will purchase HD gaming systems. Sam, Travis and I are examples.
Sales wise, I think Nintendo is making a mistake by ignoring the HD demographic. If a Nintendo HD gaming system was on the market when I decided to get a new video game system to compliment my new HDTV, I would have given it some consideration.
Eric Carroll @ Jul 24th 2006 2:24PM
Gameplay is first and foremost for me when buying a console. And although there are platform specify titles I would still buy a console for (Zelda for example), if I had to chose between a system that DOES do HD, and one that DOESN'T but play 75% of the same games, I'm going to end up with the HD ready one... Yes We are early adopters, and no, I don't really know many other people with HDTVs, but for me it IS a factor. That being said I will end up with a Wii either way. I think it WILL support 480p, as the Gamecube does, and honestly if the gameplay is good enough, then yes, after getting past the Nintendo logo and being sucked into the GAME, I will stop caring that it is NOT in HD. I already have an XBOX 360 and any title available for both I will most likely buy for the 360 since it will look best on my 720p Projector and 1080p capable CRT, but I won't turn my nose up at the Wii since it ISN'T HD, I'll just play Wii only title on the Wii and everything else in HD. It pains me to say this since I both a) work for Apple and thusly have a healthy distrust/contemt for Micro$oft, and b) I am and always have been a Nintendo Fanboy, with every Nintedo System available in the U.S. (yes, including the VirtualBoy)... Honestly, I dislike most things M$, but the XBOX 360 (except for having to pay for the right to play games online) seems to be a superior platform...
So is the lack of HD a deal breaker? No, but it will put the Wii as my 'specialty' or 'second string' system.
Tommy Grooms @ Jul 24th 2006 2:28PM
Steve J, what do you mean, "the merits of gameplay alone?" That's what made people play games in the first place! That's the reason that I play games; for the gameplay. What a concept.
You also say that you think Nintendo is excluding too much of the game console market. How so? Most of the game console market does not have an HDTV. Plus, Nintendo is trying to pull in the non/casual gamers as well. Most of them also do not own HDTVs.
I predict Nintendo will come out on top with thier "merits of gameplay", followed by Microsoft(because HD on the 360 is optional), and Sony will either barely survive or go out of the console industry altogether.
Paul A. Houle @ Jul 24th 2006 2:29PM
You're looking at different market segments.
The Xbox360 and PS3's are largely aimed at the 20-something male "gamer" market. These people play games like Madden NFL, Halo 2 and Grand Theft Auto. Both consoles are pretty expensive, and likewise the games. Not everybody is going to see enough value in that ecosystem to want to participate.
Nintendo is more interested in other markets. Yes, there is the children's market, but there's also the 30-something dad (me) who likes to play Mario with his son. The Nintendo DS has games like "Brain Age" which are aimed at older people. Half of the population is female: the women of the world could drop a lot of change on video games if they see games that appeal to them.
A cheaper console and cheaper games could draw in new gamers that aren't committed enough to buy a PS3. Nintendo hasn't forsaken HDTV alltogether, they've just passed it for this console generation. Four years from now they'll come out with another console: the HDTV market will be more mature then, the hardware will be cheaper then, and Nintendo may decide to enter the HDTV market until then.
For now it's smart thinking -- Nintendo avoiding a fratricidal Blu-Ray vs HD-DVD (ugh, PS3 vs XBox 360) battle and instead offering customers a real choice: good games at a great price. Sure, the graphics aren't so great, but I'd rather play a fun game with lousy graphics than a boring game in HDTV.
BRYAN @ Jul 24th 2006 3:29PM
It’s all about the games. HDTV represents a minority of TV owners, and nintendo is wise not to waste their resources this round. If this system lives up to the hype, it’s the HD systems that will be playing catch up. Nintendo has already stated that their next console, in about 5 years, will support HD. In 5 years, HD will likely be normal, and not just for early adopters.
Rymix @ Jul 24th 2006 3:45PM
All I know is that for the past month my 360 has been left untouched while I played on my N64 and my SNES. Mock all you will, but I'm yet to find a 360 game that gets you hooked as much as Super Mario 3 does. Sure, some 360 games look mighty purdy, even on my SDTV. Live! is neat, as is its Media Extender capabilities. I'm sure the PS3 will rock in many ways too. But Ninty is on to something, I tell thee...
Alex @ Jul 24th 2006 3:49PM
Sean (#1), I agree that I would rather play a game like Metroid or Zelda than a game with just good graphics, but man would I love to play Metroid and Zelda in HD!
I'm a long-time gamer, and I've come to realize that a big part of the appeal of video games is the graphics. Why should I feel guilty about that? I want to pop in a new game and be amazed by the graphics. Then, I want to be sucked into the gameplay. Having gameplay without graphics or graphics without gameplay results in a game I won't play very much.
Oblivion is a perfect example of a game that has both gameplay and graphics. The game itself is so huge and fun to play, and the graphics still astound me every time I play. It's beautiful!
One more thing... for an HDTV owner, it's a huge drawback to play non-widescreen games. The worst-case scenario happened when I bought my HDTV. I'd been playing Resident Evil 4 on the Gamecube when I got the TV, and I was psyched to use the progressive scan cables to play the game in 480p. Unfortunately, the Gamecube version of the game is letterboxed (not widescreen), and my TV's game mode doesn't work when you use zoom. In other words, I had to play the game with grey bars on the sides, and black bars on the top and bottom. It sucked!!!
Lobato @ Jul 24th 2006 4:05PM
Well... I recently bought an Xbox 360 and a LCD HDTV. Before that I was strongly inclined to wait for Wii and buy it.
But since I know now that the Nintendo console won't be able to take full advantage of my HD setup, I simply don't care about it anymore... If I need "casual gaming" I'll just get my live arcade running.
Tinn @ Jul 24th 2006 4:08PM
Let's just say, the most graphically powerful consoles in history never made their generation's best seller. In fact the best selling machine usually had the worst graphics. Clear enough?
Sare @ Jul 24th 2006 4:26PM
Just about everyone would agree that gameplay is more important than graphics but it is fallacious to imply, as they have done, that HD capability = worse gameplay.
Until they someone demonstrates that better graphics = worse gameplay, what they are suggesting is *not* :
Gameplay > Graphics
but rather that :
Low Price > Graphics.
smorty71 @ Jul 24th 2006 4:32PM
I have both a 360 and a DS Lite. I've had more fun with my DS Lite in the 6 weeks it has been out than I have with my 360 which I got in December.
Sure, the graphics on the 360 are great; however, most of the games (so far) have not been.
Like others, I bought the 360 as much as an HD media center extender as I did for a gaming console.
With all of that said, if a game is available on multiple platforms, like Madden 07, I will choose the higher res version. However, if it has Mario in it, SD will do just fine.
JA @ Jul 24th 2006 4:43PM
I'm a huge Nintedo fan, and recently got the DS Lite even though I already have the original DS. But to me personally (as a twenty-something male with disposable income), their strategy with Wii really turn me off.
The idea that we have to choose between HD or gameplay is BS. Why can't we have both? *jumping up and down and screaming like a child* ;P
And are they implying that just because PS3 and 360 support HD, thus they will lack gameplay quality? That's BS. Metal Gear Solid 4 will show us that HD graphich and gameplay can co-exists.
Travis Bell @ Jul 24th 2006 4:47PM
"Like others, I bought the 360 as much as an HD media center extender as I did for a gaming console."
Ya, it's funny. 2 years ago if someone would've said people would spend $400.00 for a Media Center extender, you would have been called crazy. INSANE. But here we are, and I am saying to myself it's some of the best money I've spent this year.
When I think of it that way, I realize why I never even thought about waiting for any other console. I just don't care if it doesn't connect in with my "total home" experience.
Steve J @ Jul 24th 2006 5:07PM
Tommy,
Perhaps my statement about the "merits of gameplay" wasn't clear. Of course gameplay is incredibly important, but the point I was trying to make is that people WANT to see amazing graphics while they play the games.
As Alex says above, there's nothing wrong with that. So when you look at all three consoles, and consider that both the 360 and PS3 will offer good gameplay as well as astounding graphics, there will be a lot of people out there who will choose one of those over the Wii (assuming they can afford it of course).
Wii is going to sell amazingly well in Japan, as will the PS3.
Personally, HD/graphics quality is important to me...and combine that with the fact that I like many of the games Playstation has to offer, I will probably end up buying a PS3...and an HD ready TV if I have enough £££ left!
Tim Jansen @ Jul 24th 2006 5:16PM
I think if HD makes sense for any kind of content, then for games. When I see movie trailers in HD resolution (apple.com/trailers), the difference between 480p and the HD resolutions are often hard to tell. The cameras (HD and 35mm) are not good enough yet, some shots are intentionally unsharp or just too dark, and whatnot. But I can easily see the difference between a computer game running in 640*480 and one running in 1024*768 or higher. The HDTV effect is much more dramatic for artificially created graphics.
Having said that, I think that Nintendo made the right decision anyway. People will buy that console because of the controller, the games and possibly the cheaper price. (Almost) no one will refuse to buy the Wii just because it is not HDTV-capable.
DJ @ Jul 25th 2006 7:04AM
I think HD matters... but at this point, the current technology requirements to make games run smoothly in HD vs regular TV format are astronomical.
When you have to move 4x the pixels (at a minimum. If you go to 1080p, it's many times more pixels), that's a huge load on your CPU and graphics. If you've ever played in photoshop or 3DMax with graphics files that are 4-6x as large as what you normally work with, and you're pushing hardware limits, the development time doubles and triples.
HD = longer development times for the game-makers = more expensive games + more expensive hardware + less interesting games.
The BIG joke is that PS3 and XBox 360 are not rendering enough polygons and smoothly enough to make figures LOOK realistic on HD anyway. Nobody can, not even PCs.
To me, the whole point of HD is to show us the DETAILS that are normally lost and make it more lifelike. On PS3 or XBox360, all the HD does is allow us to see the polygons and texture map flaws more clearly and slow the game down and add to the cost...
NARSTI @ Jul 25th 2006 8:21AM
Travis Bell wrote:
2. Here's my take.
I DID buy an Xbox 360 for in part, it's HD capabilities. I have long been two things; an HD fanatic and an HTPC enthusiast. When I got tired of having a whole computer sitting in my living room, guess where I turned? The Xbox 360. Since 95% of my TV watching experience happens with pre-recorded programs, and I am able to record in HD, and the Xbox will play 1080i/720p right in it's native format I lost nothing by making this switch.
I understand that the average user buys an Xbox 360 for gaming, so let's take a look from that perspective. What did buying an Xbox 360 do to a guy who hasn't bought a console since the N64? Turned him into a bit of a gamer, that's what. And do you really think I would have accepted anything less than 720p on my nice 46'' TV? Hells no.
Now, Sony CANNOT replicate this experience for me so I would never consider buying a PS3. Neither can Nintendo. So it looks like Microsoft certainly won this battle for me, but at the end of the day only 2 friend of mine have HDTV's... so how important is HD? Well, I know lots of people who while they might not have an HDTV right now, are certainly planning on it besides you can't even buy a TV bigger than 34'' that is not HD ready these days and trust me, the graphics are noticeable sharper.
Did I even consider the HD-DVD or Blu-Ray stuff? Nope. Why? 'Cause it's gonna be a while before what I watch (TV SHOWS!) will be available in these formats anyways. If Microsoft releases a $100 HD-DVD add-on player, sure I might buy it to keep things consistently high def, but at this point the Xbox 360 is purely an HD experience for me anyways.
This guy works for Microsoft! No fucking question, it's an advert in the guise of a forum comment.
Beware people
Larry @ Jul 25th 2006 10:50AM
Many of you are buying the Nintendo line that gameplay beats visual. The problem with this theory is assumes the Xbox 360 and/or the PS3 will not have fun games to play. That is just not the case. There will be a ton of great games available for the both consoles. On top of those great games you will get increased visuals and 5.1 sound. Nintendo is aiming for a different market which doesn't include traditional gamers. The novelty of waving your arms around while playing games maybe short lived. The ability to stream music and videos will become more important down the line.
Travis Bell @ Jul 25th 2006 11:23AM
NARSTI:
Ha! I am actually one of the most loyal Apple fans you could probably ever meet. I hadn't used a single MS product in over 5 years until Media Center 2005 came out. It's probably the only well made product in their entire lineup. So, no. I am not a MS employee OR even an MS user.
Cheers!
Idiot @ Jul 25th 2006 11:34AM
The only thing that will really matter this generation is whether all Wii games support 16:9. If the games support an anamorphic presentation, they will look good on any TV. Otherwise it will be a repeat of the gamecube when they go to show off their new games on flat wide screen displays all stretched out and fugly.
Majam @ Jul 25th 2006 11:47AM
I don't get why people are so bashful of each and other console.. truth be told... each console has certain features that "click" with certain people. Sony is banking on its multimedia hub features for people big on all-in-one devices; Microsoft is about the online experience; and Nintendo is all about the gameplay experience.
Personally, I have playing games since the atari and coleco vision days so i am more into gameplay than fancy visuals so I am more leaning towards gameplay experience and rolling with nintendo. Don't get me wrong! As a hdtv owner with a wireless high-speed setup i will eventually get the ps3 but more for its other non-gaming features cuz truth be told... thats what people are paying 600$ for (and Sony clearly said it)!
I admit i have issues with sony's take on things but when you put it in perspective... they are RIGHT about their console being cheap! Cuz the truth is... u r not paying for a console but an all-in-one entertainment device with gaming capabilities for 600$ cdn! Its a good deal when u think about it. However, I just want a game console so i am all about the Wii for now....
adaplat3 @ Jul 25th 2006 12:14PM
Straight up I can tell you, I don't care about HDTV... I'm looking to buy one, but I don't care what console plays what format... its about the games, and every system will have their good games... eventually we will all probably own all 3 but for now Wii is the perfect choice this year, for this poor college student.
Mkaz @ Jul 25th 2006 2:04PM
DJ
Your comment:
"To me, the whole point of HD is to show us the DETAILS that are normally lost and make it more lifelike. On PS3 or XBox360, all the HD does is allow us to see the polygons and texture map flaws more clearly and slow the game down and add to the cost..."
Have you actually played a game in HD??? For the longest time I've been playing Fight Night round 3 on a nice SD set. Thought it looked great. BTW, it was a 36" 4:3 set with a decent 16:9 mode that looked really good. I loved the game.
This past Saturday I bought a brand new 42" Plasma. Plugged in my 360, popped in FNR3....Ho-ly Crap! It was beautiful. The high resolution, the size, everything. It changed the game in every way. From graphics to gameplay. It's a more immersive experience now, I can read their faces better, everyhthing is...better! I'm a true believer now!
jdb @ Jul 25th 2006 5:19PM
Nintendo will certainly sell. It'll sell to the Japanese market, which is probably the most important (and something 360 still fails at). It'll sell to children (brand + price). It'll sell to many hardcore gamers (many Nintendo fans; many just want two consoles, and the Wii makes the best "second console"). It might even sell to casual non-gamers, if Nintendo's hopes in that area are fufilled.
I'd love HD outputs on the Wii, but it's not a deal breaker for me. Deinterlacing SD video is what makes most SD television feeds horrid. Upconverted DVD or even progressive-scan DVD sent to a TV with a decent scaler (most thesedays) is very tolerable, and in fact something many people build their HDTV around.
The Gamecube had a number of 480p titles, and a few 16:9. More than the PS2 did. With the Wii, Nintendo is even more commited on this front. It's already been stated that Zelda Twilight Princess on the Wii will be 16:9, 480p (the GC version will be 4:3, 480p). And all things considered, that game has some amazing visuals even the lackluster horsepower under the hood. HD or not, I'll still be buying a Wii on day one, and playing Twilight Princess on my 720p Panny projecting onto a 100" screen. I bet I'll still be stunned.
Chris @ Jul 26th 2006 9:36AM
"Yet for the past few years, all the major television networks have -- with the exception of reality and news programming -- produced their programming in HD. Satellite, cable, and phone distributors have spent billions of dollars launching new satellites and building new infrastructure to provide for it. All the movie studios are picking sides in a major format war to get revenue from it. And every electronics manufacturer has built or licensed new products to extract profits from it."
You forgot to add:
'And with all of this, DVD's are expected to still dominate the home movie market for players and movies for the next 4-5 years'
And this:
'Plus, nobody even dares to touch the subject of the miniscule European and Japanese HD penetration rates and how they are even way behind the U.S. market'
Or how about:
'systems that have DOMINATED in their respective generations without being the most powerful:
NES over Sega Master System
Gameboy over GameGear
PS1 over N64
PS2 over GCN/Xbox
DS over PSP
Consoles over PC gaming
It just goes to show that not only do you not need a more powerful system to be successful, but it's almost like having a developer friendly, user friendly, affordable and simplistic approach is what makes your system mainstream. It's because the more you go towards particular high end items, you are selectively seeking out a smaller niche base of people, instead of appealing to the lowest common denominator.
In other words, the 360 and PS3 will really just appeal to older people who are tech savvy, have good careers, or are early adopters that care enough about gaming to invest thousands into it. The PS3/360 have put themselves in a position to be ignored by the masses, instead blurring the line between consoles and high end PC gaming. Go look at some of the poor parts of Europe and how popular the PS2 is there because it's such a cheap system and has a ton of games. The PS3 won't be that system this next gen. The Wii will be.
Caleb Vlahos @ Jul 26th 2006 11:13PM
What I don't get is why no one is commenting on the fact that Gameplay is directly affected by how good the graphics are. You can do far more things in the N64 than the Super Nintendo because the graphics were better....furthermore, you can do more things GAMEPLAY related on the gamecube than on the N64. Now with HD, there will be precision details in the game that make the gameplay more unique, it will be more exciting, and Nintendo introduced something new with their Arcade style remote...but they Completely lost their chance to become part of a revolution in gaming because they sacrificed a new Wiimote for new graphics...in-game physics...etc.
Daniel LaRoche @ Jul 27th 2006 12:09AM
As a strong believer in the proliferation of high definition content AND Nintendo's new console, the Wii, I feel comfortable in saying that my HDTV and Wii will get along just fine. Nintendo and many other 3rd party software developers (EA, Ubisoft, etc.) have been telling us for months that the Wii can and will do 480p in a 16x9 format. This means that Red Steel, Twilight Princess, and Madden 07 are sure to support HDTV content over component cables. Last I checked, that counts as HD content, albeit the lowest form. On my 30" HDTV, little difference is seen between 480p and 720p from 6 feet away. That's my thoughts.
Wryker @ Sep 1st 2006 3:28PM
People have we lost our minds? The Wii is targeted (as some have rightly stated) to casual gamers, families, and children. They've learned who their market-share is and it's not the hard-core gamers. It's the boy or girl who has a 20"tv in their bedroom. For me, HD is necessary for games that deserve/need it: sports, action, etc. For 'fun'/'family' games (see NINTENDO) then the Wii is for you. The 360 is designed to play games- period. Wanna watch a movie? - buy an external player. PS3 is aimed at hard-core gamers and comes w/Blu-Ray built-in. This is a bold move to retain their share of the industry while trying to stomp out HD-DVD. Either Microsoft is afraid that Blu-Ray will win (thus no bundled HDDVD player) or they want to keep the cost of their 'game box' lower than Sony. Either way - in about 3 years we'll be using one 'computer' hooked to our TV as our DVD player, game-box, media server, etc etc...
PS - I love HD on my 62" HDTV. I want more and more content in HD and I abhor having to watch a digital show or worse, analog.
Cheers