$250 for the Wii? I'd have paid more for HD..

Moridan

So I finally got a Wii. I've wiggled and waggled and had a great time. The new control scheme is amazing, and the potential seems unlimited. However...

I look at Gears of War, and then I look at Zelda: TP. And I wince.

Now this isn't a Gameplay vs. Graphics debate. We all know the prettiest graphics don't mean squat if the game isn't fun. Likewise, mediocre graphics can be forgotten if the game sports amazing gameplay. That said, I'd have paid another $100 for a Wii that had better looking games and HD output.

Maybe I'm just spoiled by the 360, but on a big screen HDTV, the Wii games I'm seeing look worse than 90% of the late gen X-Box games. I can live with that, and I know they'll get better as the console ages, but I'd have paid for more... :?

I figure I'm in the minority, but I'm wondering if any of you feel the same way?

BTP

Component cables?

SkyGheNe

I probably would have too.

*edit* my bro had component cables and twilight princess still had jaggies...

Moridan

BTP wrote:

Component cables?

Can only do so much...
480p ain't no 1080i

Vegan

I pretty much don't care. I'm weary of spending time wondering if my game is playing at the right resolution, if the aspect ratio is set properly, etc.

Target Practice

*facepalm*

Hotlead Junkie

Don't forget though that Zelda:TP is a slightly polished up Gamecube game. The Wii will start to produce some amazing looking things soon enough, for example compare Metal Gear Solid 2 to Metal Gear Solid 3 on the PS2, one looked good, but then a few years later the sequel comes along, on the same hardware and looks freaking amazing. Fair enough about the lack of HD but just be patient.

FunkyWaltDogg

I understand the sentiment, and I might have paid for a little more, but I think in the long run the lower price will pay off in terms of greater marketshare -> greater publisher support -> more awesome games.

Moridan

Hotlead Junkie wrote:

Don't forget though that Zelda:TP is a slightly ploished up Gamecube game. The Wii will start to produce some amazing looking things soon enough, for example compare Metal Gear Solid 2 to Metal Gear Solid 3 on the PS2, one looked good, but then a few years later the sequel comes along, on the same hardware and looks freaking amazing. Fair enough about the lack of HD but just be patient.

Oh, I know. I always think of Splinter Cell vs. Splinter Cell 3 on the old X-Box. Yeah, time will make a huge difference, but it will always look really bad compared to the 360.

BiggNife

Hotlead Junkie wrote:

Don't forget though that Zelda:TP is a slightly polished up Gamecube game. The Wii will start to produce some amazing looking things soon enough, for example compare Metal Gear Solid 2 to Metal Gear Solid 3 on the PS2, one looked good, but then a few years later the sequel comes along, on the same hardware and looks freaking amazing. Fair enough about the lack of HD but just be patient.

This is truth. No console is used to its potential during launch. Hell, just compare Gears to any 360 launch title. Sure, it wont look as good as a lot of PS3/360 games, but I expect RE4-caliber graphics to become more common soon enough.

Raslin

Maybe they should have made a WiiHD, and priced it at 349.99. Its what everyone is doing anyways, right?

Really though, i would not have payed a cent extra for HD capabilities, or better looking graphics. I think its perfect how it is. It's beginning is just barely above last gen's end, graphics wise. This makes it easy for artists to go from last gen to the Wii, and there's room for improvement.

Good graphics hurt good gameplay, in general. Its sad, but true. Good looking games cost more money to make. While it would be great to have great looking, great playing games, its a business thing. Generally, one is at the expense of the other(though by no means 100%. Simply means you could get maybe 80% graphics and 95% gameplay, or 95% graphics and 90% gameplay, for example).

Basically, I prefer more games coming out where more effort/money is being spent on gameplay, and less on graphics. In general, this should make for better gameplay.

Now, online gameplay? I would have payed an extra 50 if they had somehow improved online connectivity and included a larger included storage(maybe a 2 gig or something). Or better memory management(can't swap files between seperate card and built in memory, for example. wtf?)

elkatas

Hotlead Junkie wrote:

Oh, I know. I always think of Splinter Cell vs. Splinter Cell 3 on the old X-Box. Yeah, time will make a huge difference, but it will always look really bad compared to the 360.

Yeah, but your television set does make great difference on how good Wii looks. Many HD-TVs just suck ass when it comes diplaying 480i, and with some televisions quality is very good. I have seen this myself when my friend was switching sets.

Blitz Rawket

Moridan wrote:

Hotlead Junkie wrote:

Don't forget though that Zelda:TP is a slightly ploished up Gamecube game. The Wii will start to produce some amazing looking things soon enough, for example compare Metal Gear Solid 2 to Metal Gear Solid 3 on the PS2, one looked good, but then a few years later the sequel comes along, on the same hardware and looks freaking amazing. Fair enough about the lack of HD but just be patient.

Oh, I know. I always think of Splinter Cell vs. Splinter Cell 3 on the old X-Box. Yeah, time will make a huge difference, but it will always look really bad compared to the 360.

I don't think so. When I see some 360 games, I think of all the polygons devoted to menial things that might as well not even be there. I do appreciate and respect them, but it's nice knowing that I can have a console that won't focus on those so much. Granted, that's also brought in a lot of hack-job ports, so...mixed blessing, I guess. I expect it to improve later, though.

japan

I still don't think HD is all that it's cracked up to be. Gears of War in HD vs. Gears in SD was not a huge difference.

RockinX

Try living in a country where they charge you more than three times its actual price. I'm forced to buy it online, and I have to wait until it is available online for 250 dollars.

Dareth Ram

I like to post Mario Galaxy shots every time someone whines about this.

homeobocks

japan wrote:

I still don't think HD is all that it's cracked up to be. Gears of War in HD vs. Gears in SD was not a huge difference.

I beg to differ. A while ago there was a "Gears at 480i vs. RE4" comparison pic, and the difference between them wasn't huge.

Moridan

Raslin wrote:

Good graphics hurt good gameplay, in general. Its sad, but true.

I'm calling BS on this one. Since we've been using Gears as an example, let's continue. Best graphics of any released video game to date, and has amazing gameplay.

Oblivion? Awesome graphics, awesome gameplay.
PGR?
Splinter Cell 4?
Rainbow Six: Vegas?
GRAW?

All of these games look spectacular, and their gameplay is exquisite.

There is absolutely zero reason why a game can't have good graphics AND gameplay. It's not a matter of money so much as talent/ambition on the part of the developers.

Raslin

homeobocks wrote:

japan wrote:

I still don't think HD is all that it's cracked up to be. Gears of War in HD vs. Gears in SD was not a huge difference.

I beg to differ. A while ago there was a "Gears at 480i vs. RE4" comparison pic, and the difference between them wasn't huge.

I dunno. I've played gears on a SDTV, and RE4 on an SDTV, and the difference was pretty signifigant to me, imo.

Then again, I was playing on the playstation 1.5, so... yeah.

Moridan

japan wrote:

I still don't think HD is all that it's cracked up to be. Gears of War in HD vs. Gears in SD was not a huge difference.

I've always wondered, how do blind people learn to type?
:P

OneEyedJack

japan wrote:

I still don't think HD is all that it's cracked up to be. Gears of War in HD vs. Gears in SD was not a huge difference.

Get a new tv.

JihadJesus

I won't have an HDTV for at least 5 - 10 years. I'm not alone in this. Most people in this country have perfectly functional TVs at this point. For most of them, theyll go out and buy an HDTV...once the perfectly good set they're using now stops working.

Now, for gamers this might be less true. But Nintendo is trying to reach the wider audience. And, at this point, HD is largely unncessary for that market.

Blitz Rawket

Dareth Ram wrote:

I like to post Mario Galaxy shots every time someone whines about this.

You and me both. God, I want that game. A game more accessible to the Wii remote upon first play than even the later/last builds of Twilight Princess? Fuck, I want in.

Raslin

Moridan wrote:

Raslin wrote:

Good graphics hurt good gameplay, in general. Its sad, but true.

I'm calling BS on this one. Since we've been using Gears as an example, let's continue. Best graphics of any released video game to date, and has amazing gameplay.

Oblivion? Awesome graphics, awesome gameplay.
PGR?
Splinter Cell 4?
Rainbow Six: Vegas?

All of these games look spectacular, and their gameplay is exquisite.

There is absolutely zero reason why a game can't have good graphics AND gameplay. It's not a matter of money so much as talent/ambition on the part of the developers.

Good job missing the point entirely. Infact, you summed up your error in thinking in one line.

"Its not a matter of money so much as talent/ambition on the part of the developers."

You have absolutely no idea how the industry works, do you? There's things like profit margins, deadlines, etc to worry about, you know. You gave some examples of games that had good graphics and good gameplay. Thats great, and has nothing to do with my argument. I'm looking at the bigger picture, system-wide.

Magus`

I still don't get why the Wii can't do 720p in some games. The X-Box could.

Moridan

JihadJesus wrote:

I won't have an HDTV for at least 5 - 10 years. I'm not alone in this. Most people in this country have perfectly functional TVs at this point. For most of them, theyll go out and buy an HDTV...once the perfectly good set they're using now stops working.

Now, for gamers this might be less true. But Nintendo is trying to reach the wider audience. And, at this point, HD is largely unncessary for that market.

True, but the market is shifting very fast. I suspect, in 5 years, HD will be the majority tech used by everyone under the age of 40.*

* I don't have any numbers to back that up, but it sounds right.

Hotlead Junkie

Don't forget that sometimes it is necesearry to invest in a HDTV to really get the most out of your Xbox360 games and get around issues such as the unredable text in Dead Rising and the problem with the (now fixed) multiplayer stats blocking the entire screen in that new Starship-Troopers esqe game. With the Wii you just buy it and don't think 'Oh, now I need to look into getting a HDTV or surround sound system to REALLY enjoy the games'. You know you are getting the full experience with a Wii because you don't have to buy modems, hard-drives and HDTVs to unleash it's full potential.

Neva

Hotlead Junkie wrote:

Don't forget though that Zelda:TP is a slightly polished up Gamecube game. The Wii will start to produce some amazing looking things soon enough, for example compare Metal Gear Solid 2 to Metal Gear Solid 3 on the PS2, one looked good, but then a few years later the sequel comes along, on the same hardware and looks freaking amazing. Fair enough about the lack of HD but just be patient.

I thought the hardware was almost exactly the same as the gamecube, or am I mistaken? I would imagine RE4 would be near the limit of the Wii, if that were the case.

SageinaRage

In a couple months, maybe a year, I plan on saving up for a nice HD projector, and I will convert one of my walls into a giant ass screen. At this point, I will start caring about HD at all.

mantidor

IF we are talking about prices, I consider the wii expensive for what is offering, but prices of the x360 and ps3 are simply absurd, of all three, the best deal is the wii, and even then I'm waiting for a price drop anyway. I'll probably get a ps2 or xbox first.

No Great Name

I have a 50 inch DLP HDTV capable of 1080p, I own a wii.

I never plan on buying a 360, and I won't own a ps3 for a few years to come.

I really don't understand why your tv would have any effect on your console purchase.

Could be the fact I don't give a fuck about graphics, but oh well.

TxdoHawk

Personally, based on the power of the console, I think 480p is good enough for the Wii. Giving a machine of this stature souped-up 720p/1080i HD capability probably would equate to overkill, and I'd imagine there wouldn't be many games that would be able to fluidly support such resolutions.

That said, I wish Nintendo would enact a "every game needs to support 480p" policy, much like MS did with the Xbox (with a few rare exceptions). That isn't so much to ask. Widescreen is another thing, even if some games only fill the space with wallpaper, that is better than nothing.

Hardly anyone has an HDTV, and Nintendo probably isn't going to break a lot of hearts with a lack of HD support. But they should at least do the bare minimum to appease owners of HDTV sets.

Darmak

OneEyedJack wrote:

japan wrote:

I still don't think HD is all that it's cracked up to be. Gears of War in HD vs. Gears in SD was not a huge difference.

Get a new tv.

I agree. I've seen it on a HDTV and on an SDTV and while it does look better it's nothing to get excited about.

Moridan

Raslin wrote:

Moridan wrote:

Raslin wrote:

Good graphics hurt good gameplay, in general. Its sad, but true.

I'm calling BS on this one. Since we've been using Gears as an example, let's continue. Best graphics of any released video game to date, and has amazing gameplay.

Oblivion? Awesome graphics, awesome gameplay.
PGR?
Splinter Cell 4?
Rainbow Six: Vegas?

All of these games look spectacular, and their gameplay is exquisite.

There is absolutely zero reason why a game can't have good graphics AND gameplay. It's not a matter of money so much as talent/ambition on the part of the developers.

Good job missing the point entirely. Infact, you summed up your error in thinking in one line.

"Its not a matter of money so much as talent/ambition on the part of the developers."

You have absolutely no idea how the industry works, do you? There's things like profit margins, deadlines, etc to worry about, you know. You gave some examples of games that had good graphics and good gameplay. Thats great, and has nothing to do with my argument. I'm looking at the bigger picture, system-wide.

I still disagree. Very often, good or bad gameplay is the result of a good or bad decision made from day one.

For example, using Gears again, the biggest complaint I've heard about it's gameplay is the use of the A button for nearly every action. Would this have cost a ton of development time/money if the actions had been planned to be split between a couple more buttons from day one? I seriously doubt it.

Moridan

SirToons wrote:

I have a 50 inch DLP HDTV capable of 1080p, I own a wii.

I never plan on buying a 360, and I won't own a ps3 for a few years to come.

I really don't understand why your tv would have any effect on your console purchase.

Could be the fact I don't give a fuck about graphics, but oh well.

Clearly.

JihadJesus

Neva wrote:

I thought the hardware was almost exactly the same as the gamecube, or am I mistaken? I would imagine RE4 would be near the limit of the Wii, if that were the case.

From the rumoured specs (Nintendo refuses to confirm) it seems to be about twice the RAM/CPU/GPU speeds of the 'cube. I'd expect to see better than RE4 - if anyone can be bothered to actually push the system, that is.

OneEyedJack wrote:

japan wrote:

I still don't think HD is all that it's cracked up to be. Gears of War in HD vs. Gears in SD was not a huge difference.

Get a new tv.

That's just it - 'what it's cracked up to be' is $1200 + for a new TV, when the one I have (plain old flatscreen 480i TV) works just fine and will for years. Is it better? Of course. But it's not hundreds or thousands of dollars better than what I have right now. And that, to me, means it certainly ISN'T worth all the cock-slobering praise it gets around here and most other gaming communities.

StormyWaters

He has a solid point. People paid $150+ for the Wii component cables, so clearly a lot of people would be willing to pay extra for 720p or whatever. It's too bad there couldn't be a $250 lowdef and $350 highdef Wii, it'd be a lot better scheme than no hard drive vs hard drive.

FyreWulff

Nintendo (specifically Miyamoto) has said the successor to Wii will be HD. So if you really want it, wait five years for Wii2 and when the HDTVs actualy make up a majority of the market.

Moridan

JihadJesus wrote:

Neva wrote:

I thought the hardware was almost exactly the same as the gamecube, or am I mistaken? I would imagine RE4 would be near the limit of the Wii, if that were the case.

From the rumoured specs (Nintendo refuses to confirm) it seems to be about twice the RAM/CPU/GPU speeds of the 'cube. I'd expect to see better than RE4 - if anyone can be bothered to actually push they system, that is.

OneEyedJack wrote:

japan wrote:

I still don't think HD is all that it's cracked up to be. Gears of War in HD vs. Gears in SD was not a huge difference.

Get a new tv.

That's just it - 'what it's cracked up to be' is $1200 + for a new TV, when the one I have (plain old flatscreen 480i TV) works just fine and will for years. Is it better? Of course. But it's not hundreds or thousands of dollars better than what I have right now. And that, to me, means it certainly ISN'T worth all the cock-slobering praise it gets around here and most other gaming communities.

It's a matter of preference. I spent almost $4000 on my TV, and it was worth every single penny. I don't expect that to be the case for most, but it certainly is for me.

japan

Darmak wrote:

OneEyedJack wrote:

japan wrote:

I still don't think HD is all that it's cracked up to be. Gears of War in HD vs. Gears in SD was not a huge difference.

Get a new tv.

I agree. I've seen it on a HDTV and on an SDTV and while it does look better it's nothing to get excited about.

Where do you live? I'm still putting a lot of this down to PAL's supposedly higher picture quality compared to NTSC, but I don't know if that really applies to the signal you get from consoles, because all the information I can find is about broadcast TV.

If it was true, it would go a long way to explaining why American's are cumming themselves over HD, but the European reaction is pretty much "meh."

Raslin

Moridan wrote:

Raslin wrote:

Moridan wrote:

Raslin wrote:

Good graphics hurt good gameplay, in general. Its sad, but true.

I'm calling BS on this one. Since we've been using Gears as an example, let's continue. Best graphics of any released video game to date, and has amazing gameplay.

Oblivion? Awesome graphics, awesome gameplay.
PGR?
Splinter Cell 4?
Rainbow Six: Vegas?

All of these games look spectacular, and their gameplay is exquisite.

There is absolutely zero reason why a game can't have good graphics AND gameplay. It's not a matter of money so much as talent/ambition on the part of the developers.

Good job missing the point entirely. Infact, you summed up your error in thinking in one line.

"Its not a matter of money so much as talent/ambition on the part of the developers."

You have absolutely no idea how the industry works, do you? There's things like profit margins, deadlines, etc to worry about, you know. You gave some examples of games that had good graphics and good gameplay. Thats great, and has nothing to do with my argument. I'm looking at the bigger picture, system-wide.

I still disagree. Very often, good or bad gameplay is the result of a good or bad decision made from day one.

For example, using Gears again, the biggest complaint I've heard about it's gameplay is the use of the A button for nearly every action. Would this have cost a ton of development time/money if the actions had been planned to be split between a couple more buttons from day one? I seriously doubt it.

You still don't get it. You have to pay everybody. This means artists, programmers, sound artists, testers, quality assurance, advertising, etc.

Now, when you have a game where the graphics take about twice or three times as long to create, you generally have to pay the artists about three times as much. Artists already take up huge portions of the budget, as is.

For a game like Gears of War, they poured in the cash needed to do everything. Thats great. Most companies can't afford, or won't pay, for all that. This means that in other games, it becomes decision time. Do the graphics look worse than other games, but have good enough gameplay to compete? The other way around?

Look, its great you're idealistic. Take it from someone who has actual experience making games, and knows people in the industry. When you put the capabilities for those kinds of graphics in a game, people want to see that caliber of graphics in the other ones. So, you have to spend a lot more money for the artists to make those graphics, than graphics on, say, a Wii level. That money has to come from somewhere, and most companies don't have giant coffers.

I do want to point out, this doesn't nessecarially apply to computer games, or budget games. They do things in different ways, and can justify things in different ways.