Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

Hawkeye_a · Dec 1, 2006, 01:54 AM

Originally Posted by Dark Helmet

Up-converting looks no where near as good as the real thing. Not to mention it won't add better textures. Also you don't need any "Frame buffer tricks" to fool the game, my TV up-converts any signal it gets to 720p and it involves no tricks or buffers. Even though my TV is up-converting the Wii to 720p it still looks like a total blur.

Stop coming off as such an expert on HD when you don't own a single peace of anything HD.

Dont you think the game would look better on your TV if you programmed your TV to 480p for the Wii ?

Just a thought cause i would imagine it would look like a total blur if you tried to "upscale" the Wii's output, but i wonder what it would looked like if you set ur TV's resolution to 480p instead ? it might actually turn out clearer ? worth a shot i reckon.

Dark Helmet · Dec 1, 2006, 02:01 AM

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a

Just a thought cause i would imagine it would look like a total blur if you tried to "upscale" the Wii's output, but i wonder what it would looked like if you set ur TV's resolution to 480p instead ? it might actually turn out clearer ? worth a shot i reckon.

With most if not all HDTV"s you can't adjust their resolution. If something comes in to it at a lower or higher signal it upconverts/downcoverts everything to it native rez. In my case 720p.

On some older sets it either does 1080i or 480p.

Eug Wanker · Dec 1, 2006, 02:02 AM

Originally Posted by goMac

It's not the same up-converting as what your DVD player does. Your DVD player is up-converting a bitmap. I'm talking about up-converting 3D graphics, which are vectors. This is somewhat similar to how resolution independent UI's work. The program doesn't know it's rendering it's UI at a different resolution, but yet the interface is rendered at a higher resolution.

720p is not sufficient. 1080i is necessary.

Even the PS3 can't do it.

goMac · Dec 1, 2006, 02:03 AM

Originally Posted by Eug Wanker

720p is not sufficient. 1080i is necessary.

Even the PS3 can't do it.

1080i could happen too. I just didn't want to go as far as saying 1080p. Even the PS3 1080p games have trouble maintaining a good framerate.

Eug Wanker · Dec 1, 2006, 02:07 AM

Originally Posted by Dark Helmet

With most if not all HDTV"s you can't adjust their resolution. If something comes in to it at a lower or higher signal it upconverts/downcoverts everything to it native rez. In my case 720p.

On some older sets it either does 1080i or 480p.

Note that CRTs don't have a native resolution. I'd say that most HDTVs in existence are CRTs. Well, if not most, then a very large minority.

icruise · Dec 1, 2006, 02:11 AM

With regard to re-downloading Virtual Console games, I just deleted Zelda from my Wii, then went into the Virtual Console screen and looked at the downloaded items screen. It had the option re-download it and I did so. Painless. The only problem is if you had a catastrophic failure of your Wii (why don't I like the sound of that?) you would have to contact Nintendo to get them to transfer your account to the new machine.

Chuckit · Dec 1, 2006, 02:11 AM

Most of the HDTVs I see are LCD. Why do you think most are CRT?

goMac · Dec 1, 2006, 02:12 AM

Originally Posted by Chuckit

Most of the HDTVs I see are LCD. Why do you think most are CRT?

The old ones were all CRT. I still see an entire shelf of CRT HDTV's at Best Buy. They're pretty cheap.

Dark Helmet · Dec 1, 2006, 02:17 AM

Originally Posted by goMac

1080i could happen too. I just didn't want to go as far as saying 1080p. Even the PS3 1080p games have trouble maintaining a good framerate.

Have trouble? They do get a lower frame rate sometimes but always a "Good framerate".

goMac · Dec 1, 2006, 02:24 AM

Originally Posted by Dark Helmet

Have trouble? They do get a lower frame rate sometimes but always a "Good framerate".

http://www.gamespot.com/ps3/sports/nba2k7/review.html

"NBA 2K7 is one of the few PS3 launch games that supports 1080p. The game looks nice in "true HD," but you're more likely to notice the aliasing around players' bodies, as well as blurry names and numbers on their jerseys. All of this extra resolution comes at the expense of the frame rate, though even in 720p, the action gets choppy. The frame rate's not too bad when you're playing from the default camera angle, but it isn't as smooth as on the Xbox 360. The frame rate really becomes erratic if you play using the baseline camera. It's not all bad news--there seems to be less clipping in the PlayStation 3 version."

It's dependent on the game, but still it shows that 1080p isn't "easy" on the PS3.

Eug Wanker · Dec 1, 2006, 02:28 AM

Originally Posted by Dark Helmet

Have trouble? They do get a lower frame rate sometimes but always a "Good framerate".

Not so much. The reason why some games like Resistance are limited to 720p in the first place is because of frame rate issues.

Originally Posted by Chuckit

Most of the HDTVs I see are LCD. Why do you think most are CRT?

Originally Posted by goMac

The old ones were all CRT. I still see an entire shelf of CRT HDTV's at Best Buy. They're pretty cheap.

Yup, for many years, almost all HDTVs were CRT direct view or CRT rear projection. (I'm ignoring plasma, cuz nobody had them. They were like $10000-15000.)

Think of it this way: All new Macs on store shelves are Intel Macs, yet the vast majority of Macs in people's homes are PowerPC.

Dark Helmet · Dec 1, 2006, 02:30 AM

Originally Posted by goMac

http://www.gamespot.com/ps3/sports/nba2k7/review.html

"NBA 2K7 is one of the few PS3 launch games that supports 1080p. The game looks nice in "true HD," but you're more likely to notice the aliasing around players' bodies, as well as blurry names and numbers on their jerseys. All of this extra resolution comes at the expense of the frame rate, though even in 720p, the action gets choppy. The frame rate's not too bad when you're playing from the default camera angle, but it isn't as smooth as on the Xbox 360. The frame rate really becomes erratic if you play using the baseline camera. It's not all bad news--there seems to be less clipping in the PlayStation 3 version."

It's dependent on the game, but still it shows that 1080p isn't "easy" on the PS3.

Good they should get better programmers. And not the ones who made some of those N64 looking Wii games.

On another note.. seems that the PS3 will be getting DVD upscaling which is my one last major problem with the system... SOLVED!

http://www.engadgethd.com/2006/11/30...1080p-24-sacd/

Hope it is true.

Dark Helmet · Dec 1, 2006, 02:32 AM

Originally Posted by Eug Wanker

Not so much. The reason why some games like Resistance are limited to 720p in the first place is because of frame rate issues.

I wouldn't call 720p limited to begin with. It looks better than 1080i for games and not many see a big quality leap at 1080p.

Anyway, it is first gen games. If the PS2 can do 1080i the PS3 is 40 times more powerful so it is only a matter of time developers figure out how to do it smoother.

goMac · Dec 1, 2006, 02:35 AM

Originally Posted by Dark Helmet

If the PS2 can do 1080i the PS3 is 40 times more powerful...

Someones been in the koolaid.

Eug Wanker · Dec 1, 2006, 02:35 AM

Originally Posted by Dark Helmet

I wouldn't call 720p limited to begin with. It looks better than 1080i for games and not many see a big quality leap at 1080p.

Your TV is not 1080p, or 1080i for that matter.

There is a huge difference in quality on a 50"+ TV when going to 1080p, if you sit close to the TV, assuming the TV supports 1080p in the first place.

However, the vast majority of 50" TVs are 720p or 768p, like yours.

Anyways, I actually do think rendering at 720p is fine. It's Sony who was pushing 1080p. And it bit them in the azz, because it just couldn't be done (quickly enough) with some of their games, and they can't upscale them to 1080i properly either.

Microsoft did the right thing by targeting 720p. I think the only reasons they added 1080p support were for:

1) To make Sony shut up about it.
2) Movies
3) To make Sony shut up about it.

Dark Helmet · Dec 1, 2006, 02:38 AM

Originally Posted by Eug Wanker

Your TV is not 1080p, or 1080i for that matter.

Did I say it was?

Some people see huge differences at 1080p, some don't.

icruise · Dec 1, 2006, 02:40 AM

Originally Posted by Dark Helmet

Anyway, it is first gen games. If the PS2 can do 1080i the PS3 is 40 times more powerful so it is only a matter of time developers figure out how to do it smoother.

You ever find that link that told how to run all PS2 games in HD?

Or are you still talking about Gran Turismo 4?

itai195 · Dec 1, 2006, 02:54 AM

Originally Posted by Jawbone54

You can buy an official play and charge kit for your 360 that takes the place of your battery pack and charges back up while hooked up to a USB port. This is what you're looking for. It costs $20.

<rant>I really don't see why people like these play and charge kits. Personally I find having a bunch of rechargeable AAs much more convenient. Never have to break out a stupid cord to keep playing. </rant>

Jawbone54 · Dec 1, 2006, 03:02 AM

Originally Posted by itai195

<rant>I really don't see why people like these play and charge kits. Personally I find having a bunch of rechargeable AAs much more convenient. Never have to break out a stupid cord to keep playing. </rant>

The point is never having to pop open the battery case, change the batteries, and then resync the controller. The play and charge kit makes the transition back to playing as quick as possible.

I preferred having the play and charge kit. I'd just hook it up when it got low (which took forever) and play with it hooked up to the very lengthy cord until the light turned green.

To each his own though.

goMac · Dec 1, 2006, 03:04 AM

Originally Posted by Jawbone54

The point is never having to pop open the battery case, change the batteries, and then resync the controller.

The Wii controllers don't have to resync after a battery change. The Wii remembers their Bluetooth address.

itai195 · Dec 1, 2006, 03:05 AM

I never have to resync my 360 controllers when changing batteries. And I'd rather do that than have to deal with cords all the time. If I'm paying $50 for a wireless controller I'm gonna keep the damn thing wireless!

So there!

Jawbone54 · Dec 1, 2006, 03:16 AM

Originally Posted by itai195

I never have to resync my 360 controllers when changing batteries. And I'd rather do that than have to deal with cords all the time. If I'm paying $50 for a wireless controller I'm gonna keep the damn thing wireless!

So there!

Bloody, decades-long wars have been started over less than this.

Hawkeye_a · Dec 1, 2006, 03:53 AM

GameTrailers.com Player Window

Visual comparison of XB360/Wii/PS3 .....

best one imo is the XB360.... smooth and detailed.
PS3: high detail... very chopy framerate
Wii: smooth framerate...lower resolution textures...and blurry.

In all honest the "Wii" version, looks like a GameCube game...no really. there dont seem to be any added visual candy for the Wii verion of this game. keep your eye on spidey...he looks shrinkwrapped with real-time lighting o nthe XB360/PS3 versions...on the Wii...he looks cell shaded.

goMac · Dec 1, 2006, 03:56 AM

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a

In all honest the "Wii" version, looks like a GameCube game...no really. there dont seem to be any added visual candy for the Wii verion of this game. keep your eye on spidey...he looks shrinkwrapped with real-time lighting o nthe XB360/PS3 versions...on the Wii...he looks cell shaded.

I have a feeling for most of the launch game dev cycle, most the dev units *were* Gamecubes. This would explain the Gamecube looking games, despite the Wii being more powerful.

That said, the XBox 360 version looks the best and has the best frame rate.

goMac · Dec 1, 2006, 04:03 AM

I thought this was interesting too:

http://www.gametrailers.com/player.p...e=mov&id=15400

Gamoe · Dec 1, 2006, 06:37 AM

Originally Posted by Dark Helmet

It has pro's and cons.

As already mentioned, I see many cons outweighing the "pros". The biggest one, in my opinion, doesn't have to do with games per se, but rather with the owners' rights which till now most companies so cheerily disregard and eliminate once you've bought a download. Suddenly, we can't sell anything, even though we "own" it (if even that). I've got a bunch of Dreamcast games that, although not worth much anymore, I've been able to sell and actually re-coup some money off of in order to purchase the Wii.

As of now, that doesn't seem possible with VC games. I can buy 1,000 worth of games (or songs in the case of iTunes, for instance), but I'll never be able to get a dime for it if I ever want or need to sell it. That's a very good business model for companies (essentially gets rid of, and makes illegal, the used market and gives the producing/distribution company full control over price and availability), but very bad for us consumers, and I'd say quite unfair and unethical.

Apart from that, I find the prices a bit high and I feel like we're getting shafted as consumers as well. I don't understand how a downloaded game for $5 can be a better deal than a physical copy of the game for $5, with an instruction booklet.

Originally Posted by Jawbone54

I am convinced now more than ever that the Playstation 2 is the best console ever made. I don't know why I just had to blurt that out (or type it out really quickly)...

But for the price, options, library, controller, etc., it is unbeatable.

I've never had a PS2. What I most envy about it is indeed, it's huge library of games. I also never had a GameCube, but now that I have a Wii, I've decided to check the GameCube library, and found that it is indeed more limited. Still, I've found a handful of gems at great prices, and that's all I need, really.

Nonetheless, I'm none too sure the PS2 was the best console ever, especially with the introduction of extraordinarily long load times to it's (and the PS1's) credit.

Originally Posted by jokell82

Dreamcast was better.

I'd tend to agree.

If only it hadn't been axed before its time.

Originally Posted by Jawbone54

I'm selling my Wii.

Sorry it didn't work out for you. At least you gave it a chance. Can't bash you for that. Maybe in a year you can pick up an updated Wii with a larger and more varied game library to choose from and it'll work out for you then.

Dakar² · Dec 1, 2006, 09:16 AM

I see Jawbone basically expressed what some of us were predicting this summer. Mainstream gamers will lose interest in the Wii because of gimmicky controls and poor support for sports games.

No comment on the graphics thing.

goMac · Dec 1, 2006, 12:14 PM

Originally Posted by Dakar²

I see Jawbone basically expressed what some of us were predicting this summer. Mainstream gamers will lose interest in the Wii because of gimmicky controls and poor support for sports games.

No comment on the graphics thing.

I don't think this is what's going to happen. It's one person so far, it's definitely not a trend yet. Plus, he's selling his Wii to someone else who will be interested in it. So it's not like interest in the Wii is declining.

If he was unable to sell it on Ebay, I'd say that's a warning sign.

Dakar² · Dec 1, 2006, 12:22 PM

Originally Posted by goMac

I don't think this is what's going to happen. It's one person so far, it's definitely not a trend yet. Plus, he's selling his Wii to someone else who will be interested in it. So it's not like interest in the Wii is declining.

If he was unable to sell it on Ebay, I'd say that's a warning sign.

Yeah... I don't think you get what I'm saying.

Chuckit · Dec 1, 2006, 12:29 PM

Originally Posted by goMac

It's not the same up-converting as what your DVD player does. Your DVD player is up-converting a bitmap. I'm talking about up-converting 3D graphics, which are vectors. This is somewhat similar to how resolution independent UI's work. The program doesn't know it's rendering it's UI at a different resolution, but yet the interface is rendered at a higher resolution.

To wit: Upscaling a game the way goMac is suggesting, in the rendering engine, is similar to resizing a PDF graphic in Illustrator. The textures might not look as crisp as if they were designed for a higher resolution, but overall, the game will look like it was designed for that resolution. Upscaling on an HDTV, as SWG is talking about, is more like resizing a picture in Photoshop.

goMac · Dec 1, 2006, 12:41 PM

Originally Posted by Chuckit

To wit: Upscaling a game the way goMac is suggesting, in the rendering engine, is similar to resizing a PDF graphic in Illustrator. The textures might not look as crisp as if they were designed for a higher resolution, but overall, the game will look like it was designed for that resolution. Upscaling on an HDTV, as SWG is talking about, is more like resizing a picture in Photoshop.

Right, this is the only catch. The textures would not magically become higher quality, which is why I gave a few ways Nintendo could get around this, but mainly an HD Wii would just be to get rid of the jaggies.

It's possible that Nintendo has been holding back an HD Wii software update, but they would have had to instructed all their dev's to leave about half the Wii's processing power alone, which would have been leaked by now.

Dakar² · Dec 1, 2006, 12:45 PM

Maybe they'll release a platinum HD Wii in 2 years.

Jawbone54 · Dec 1, 2006, 03:01 PM

Originally Posted by Gabriel Morales

I've never had a PS2. What I most envy about it is indeed, it's huge library of games. I also never had a GameCube, but now that I have a Wii, I've decided to check the GameCube library, and found that it is indeed more limited. Still, I've found a handful of gems at great prices, and that's all I need, really.

Nonetheless, I'm none too sure the PS2 was the best console ever, especially with the introduction of extraordinarily long load times to it's (and the PS1's) credit.

Extraordinarily long load times? Did you even play a game on the PS2 during the second half of it's life span? I really can't comment on its lifespan yet, either, considering that it's still going to be around in a significant way for as long as another year.

I think the focus should remain on...

I've never had a PS2.

The Dreamcast got off to a good start and had the privilege of introducing the NFL2K and NBA2K series to the masses. I salute it for that (and Shenmue), but it was an underpowered system meant to beat the PS2 to the shelves and grab market share, and it had a very uncomfortable controller.

It's not in contention.

jokell82 · Dec 1, 2006, 03:05 PM

Originally Posted by Jawbone54

but it was an underpowered system meant to beat the PS2 to the market and grab market share, and it had a very uncomfortable controller.

It's not in contention.

It was hardly underpowered - in fact it looked a lot better than the PS2 when it was released. The PS2 did mature to be a more powerful system, and later titles did look better, but in the beginning the Dreamcast had the edge.

And I would say the Dreamcast's controller was one of the most comfortable controllers I've ever used. And the VMU itself was quite innovative and often used quite well in games.

Jawbone54 · Dec 1, 2006, 03:15 PM

Originally Posted by jokell82

It was hardly underpowered - in fact it looked a lot better than the PS2 when it was released. The PS2 did mature to be a more powerful system, and later titles did look better, but in the beginning the Dreamcast had the edge.

And I would say the Dreamcast's controller was one of the most comfortable controllers I've ever used. And the VMU itself was quite innovative and often used quite well in games.

I remember being very impressed with my Dreamcast until I actually played the PS2 when I got it home. I sold the Dreamcast within a week for some more PS2 games.

Dakar² · Dec 1, 2006, 03:18 PM

Originally Posted by Jawbone54

I sold the Dreamcast within a week for some more PS2 games.

Hey with your track record on selling systems...

Jawbone54 · Dec 1, 2006, 03:21 PM

Originally Posted by Dakar²

Hey with your track record on selling systems...

Surprisingly, I've only had one Dreamcast.

I think I had 3 PS2's though. [/SHAME]

Dakar² · Dec 1, 2006, 03:25 PM

Sell & rebuy? Because them breaking down isn't out of the question...

Jawbone54 · Dec 1, 2006, 03:27 PM

The first one broke down after a year and a half. The second I sold because I temporarily decided Halo was the best thing ever and I didn't need anything else. Then I borrowed one from my brother for a while (doesn't count). The third was a slimline that I bought around the time the slimlines made their appearance. I used it until about 2 or 3 months ago.

Dark Helmet · Dec 1, 2006, 03:43 PM

Honestly Jawbone54. I think you need some Ritalin as you have an incredibly short attention span with these things.

The Wii is in many ways worse than I expected and I was considering selling it but a week isn't much of a chance you are giving it.

Jawbone54 · Dec 1, 2006, 03:50 PM

Originally Posted by Dark Helmet

Honestly Jawbone54. I think you need some Ritalin as you have an incredibly short attention span with these things.

The Wii is in many ways worse than I expected and I was considering selling it but a week isn't much of a chance you are giving it.

I know. It's a bad weakness. I'm trying to resolve the problem by figuring out which console I should settle on, and then say, "Okay, that's it. No more." I do everything in spurts. I've just now, at 23 years old, been diagnosed with ADD by a psychologist. It's not a massive problem in every other area of my life, but it shows up big-time as far as gaming is concerned.

A week definitely isn't much of a chance, but one of the reasons I was excited about the Wii was the possibility of sports games, such as Madden, being incredibly innovative and fun. The Madden is a bit of a disappointment to me, and that alone was enough to send me BACK over the fence. Even Zelda, which is incredible, isn't enough to cure my sports game craving.

goMac · Dec 1, 2006, 03:54 PM

Originally Posted by Dark Helmet

The Wii is in many ways worse than I expected...

Someone needs to find some sort of "Saw this coming" graphic...

Dakar² · Dec 1, 2006, 03:56 PM

Hehehe

...I didn't think it was possible

Dark Helmet · Dec 1, 2006, 04:27 PM

Originally Posted by goMac

Someone needs to find some sort of "Saw this coming" graphic...

At least I made the commitment with spending the time and money to actually try it out objectively rather than being a Pro on a system and not even using it.

But ya, I do need that graphic for your reaction to it. Funny how I also said "CONSIDERED" but I wanted to give it more of a chance.

DuckRacer1 · Dec 1, 2006, 05:58 PM

Originally Posted by Gabriel Morales

Apart from that, I find the prices a bit high and I feel like we're getting shafted as consumers as well. I don't understand how a downloaded game for $5 can be a better deal than a physical copy of the game for $5, with an instruction booklet.

Well, I think it's worth it, considering you don't have to keep around an old console hooked up to your TV to play those old games. Or if you don't have a NES, or N64, or whatever, you can still play those games without having to buy a system.

Dakar² · Dec 1, 2006, 06:00 PM

I wonder if they'll support the VC next gen...

icruise · Dec 1, 2006, 06:07 PM

Originally Posted by goMac

Someone needs to find some sort of "Saw this coming" graphic...

A couple of possibilities...

Dark Helmet · 06:30 PM

Now we need a graphic that says "At least I tried it" which is more than GoMac can say for the other systems he is such a pro on.

Oh and I am NOT actually selling it right now. I said I considered it because it didn't make as strong as an impression on me as I thought it would.

Right now I am thinking it is just because of the meh launch titles and that Zelda feels so dated.

icruise · Dec 1, 2006, 06:41 PM

You really can't make judgments about a system from its launch titles in most cases. I'm not ecstatic about the Wii -- in fact, I was more impressed with the Xbox 360 despite not having high hopes for it. But I can see that the Wii has a lot of potential. If you're financially only able to keep one system, that does make things a little more complicated, of course. As I have said before, the Wii would not be my choice in that case. In the previous generation, my choice would've been the PS2, hands-down. This generation it's too early to tell what the PS3 will really be like, so I don't think you can make that call. But if you're getting a system to play *right now* instead of looking for potential, the Xbox 360 is the way to go IMHO.

Dark Helmet · Dec 1, 2006, 06:49 PM

Originally Posted by icruise

You really can't make judgments about a system from its launch titles in most cases. I'm not ecstatic about the Wii -- in fact, I was more impressed with the Xbox 360 despite not having high hopes for it. But I can see that the Wii has a lot of potential. If you're financially only able to keep one system, that does make things a little more complicated, of course. As I have said before, the Wii would not be my choice in that case. In the previous generation, my choice would've been the PS2, hands-down. This generation it's too early to tell what the PS3 will really be like, so I don't think you can make that call. But if you're getting a system to play *right now* instead of looking for potential, the Xbox 360 is the way to go IMHO.

I agree 100%.

I am going to keep the Wii for now even though I get the feeling it will have 1-2 must have games a year at best.

The rest will be casual stuff but considering the games are pretty much the same as the HD systems i feel a bit ripped off.