[Dark Helmet]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

I haven't noticed this phenomenon. The PS2 didn't even kill the GameCube graphically except in a few games where devs sacrificed texture quality in order to fit a DVD-sized game on a GameCube-sized disc. For the most part, the PS2 was pretty clearly inferior to the GameCube, and the Wii is more powerful than the GameCube.

Show me a good looking Wii game. Zelda is understandable but they are not ALL ports nor did they have to make a tough call of "Graphics or gameplay".


Show me one game that looks better than GT4 in 1080i on the PS2. Don't say RE4 cuz on widescreen it was still letterboxed and looked like crap on 30" + TV's.

Show me any Wii game that has better audio than the PS2's.

[Calimus]

Originally Posted by icruise 

Red Steel? Pretty?

Well I haven't played it to be honest, but from the screen shots, it seems to be the only Wii game that tried to have "fancy" graphics. I didn't like the art style though, and from the reviews of the controls didn't want to get it.

[icruise]

Yeah, from the screen shots I thought it was going to be good. That's why I bought it. Big mistake.

[Dark Helmet]

Originally Posted by icruise 

Yeah, from the screen shots I thought it was going to be good. That's why I bought it. Big mistake.

Same with me and raving rabbits. Even though the manual says you can set it to 480p.... you cannot.
Result... the game has an uneven black border around it and displays only 480i making it look pretty gross on a HD set.

[Calimus]

Originally Posted by Dark Helmet 

Show me a good looking Wii game. Zelda is understandable but they are not ALL ports nor did they have to make a tough call of "Graphics or gameplay".


Show me one game that looks better than GT4 in 1080i on the PS2. Don't say RE4 cuz on widescreen it was still letterboxed and looked like crap on 30" + TV's.

Show me any Wii game that has better audio than the PS2's.

We get it. You're a high end kinda guy that cares about every last ounce of quality.

For the rest of us, the 12% difference in pixels between 480p and 1080i isn't that big a deal, the analog vs digital of dobly pro logic II vs dolby digital isn't discernible on our sub $1000 surround setups.

Some people spend $30 on a bottle of wine and are perfectly happy. Others wouldn't want anything under $90 a bottle.

[zerostar]

Originally Posted by Dark Helmet 

Same with me and raving rabbits. Even though the manual says you can set it to 480p.... you cannot.
Result... the game has an uneven black border around it and displays only 480i making it look pretty gross on a HD set.

yes that sucked, says widescreen too, but I think the game looks pretty good on my TV :-D and its hella fun, but will get old in a few months, then time to trade-in hahah

[zerostar]

Originally Posted by Calimus 

Some people spend $30 on a bottle of wine and are perfectly happy. Others wouldn't want anything under $90 a bottle.

Dude, Rabbit Glenn on sale $4.25 at Walmart! Got 12 bottles and its not bad stuff!

But yeah, 720p (the max I can see on my TV) and 480p is a WORLD of difference, watching the game in 720p 16:9 is AMAZING to everyone not just my tech-geek friends.

[zerostar]

So Circuit City says 1/15 for Wii Play and is taking pre-orders? Wonder if that should be 2/15

Buy the Wii Play with Wii Remote and other Wii Accessories at circuitcity.com

[Calimus]

Originally Posted by zerostar 

Dude, Rabbit Glenn on sale $4.25 at Walmart! Got 12 bottles and its not bad stuff!

But yeah, 720p (the max I can see on my TV) and 480p is a WORLD of difference, watching the game in 720p 16:9 is AMAZING to everyone not just my tech-geek friends.

720p does look much better, 1080i is effectively 540p, so not that much better than 480p. Still waiting for HD TV's to come down a bit, but looking forward to getting one.

[zerostar]

I *originally* scored a 46" Grand Wega for $1100. Then I was fed up with amazon.com and eventually got it for $800 at Circuity City since I had a gift card from a friend.

Dark Helmet recommended it to me and I couldn't be happier with it!

[Dark Helmet]

Originally Posted by Calimus 

For the rest of us, the 12% difference in pixels between 480p and 1080i isn't that big a deal

You think there is a 12% difference?
Also remember there are more HDTV owners in the US than there are gamecube owners worldwide so don't make it sound like there is no market for Nintendo and HD.

Originally Posted by Calimus 

the analog vs digital of dobly pro logic II vs dolby digital isn't discernible on our sub $1000 surround setups

Oh yes it is. The problem is it is DD2 is pretty new so most of us with $1000+ receivers that are a few years old don't even support it. The new LOW end stuff supports DD2.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Dark Helmet 

Show me one game that looks better than GT4 in 1080i on the PS2. Don't say RE4 cuz on widescreen it was still letterboxed and looked like crap on 30" + TV's.

Hang on. Is this about PS2 vs. Wii or GT4 vs. the handful of Wii games that have been released? Because those aren't close to the same thing.

[Dark Helmet]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Hang on. Is this about PS2 vs. Wii or GT4 vs. the handful of Wii games that have been released? Because those aren't close to the same thing.

VS whatever you like.

The PS2 is DD 5.1 and 1080i.

The Wii AND Cube do neither yet are "more powerful".

Unless you show me something with Nintendo saying the Wii does 5.1 audio or 1080i the argument is over and the Wii is underpowered more than they want you to think.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Dark Helmet 

The PS2 is DD 5.1 and 1080i.

No, the PS2 is 480i/480p system which one game bent to do 1080i. Those aren't the same thing at all.

[Calimus]

Originally Posted by Dark Helmet 

You think there is a 12% difference?
Also remember there are more HDTV owners in the US than there are gamecube owners worldwide so don't make it sound like there is no market for Nintendo and HD.




Oh yes it is. The problem is it is DD2 is pretty new so most of us with $1000+ receivers that are a few years old don't even support it. The new LOW end stuff supports DD2.

Pixel wise, 480p and 1080i have a difference of 12% in each frame. I can't say that I've sat and looked at a 480p & 1080i shot of a same/similar scene side by side. I'm sure the 1080i looks better, but how much in the real world?

As for the DD2, I'm in that boat, I have a harmon kardon receiver that I bought 4-5 years ago that doesn't do DD2 or DTS. I really don't have many chances to play with the sound cranked up and no background noise(kids, other tvs, computers, etc), so it hasn't really been a big deal for me.

[icruise]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

No, the PS2 is 480i/480p system which one game bent to do 1080i. Those aren't the same thing at all.

I know that. You know that. But SWG will never admit this, so I guess there's no point in arguing it with him.

Originally Posted by Calimus 

Pixel wise, 480p and 1080i have a difference of 12% in each frame. I can't say that I've sat and looked at a 480p & 1080i shot of a same/similar scene side by side. I'm sure the 1080i looks better, but how much in the real world?

In the real world, 1080i looks WAY WAY better than 480p.

[zerostar]

yeah everything I see broadcast in 1080i looks incredible and almost as good as 720p HD
Whereas 480p does not, so that supposed 12% is a LOT, especially on broadcast though since it usually isn't compressed as much as the SD stuff.

[Dark Helmet]

Originally Posted by Calimus 

I'm sure the 1080i looks better, but how much in the real world?

Night and day difference from across a room even. It easily looks 4x better.

12% Pfff

[Calimus]

I found this comparison:

Fellowship of the Ring - HD vs DVD

Does look quite a bit better.

But really I don't think the argument here is that HD isn't better than SD, the argument is whether or not you need it or want to pay extra for it.

[icruise]

Originally Posted by Calimus 

I found this comparison:

Fellowship of the Ring - HD vs DVD

Does look quite a bit better.

And that's just taken from an HD broadcast of the movie. Presumably an actual HD-DVD or Blu-ray version would look even better.

[ink]

Originally Posted by Calimus 

Pixel wise, 480p and 1080i have a difference of 12% in each frame. I can't say that I've sat and looked at a 480p & 1080i shot of a same/similar scene side by side. I'm sure the 1080i looks better, but how much in the real world?

High-definition television - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It's quite a difference. Also note that most displays on the market only have 1200x700-ish resolutions, which means that the next gen displays will look even better (when they can actually display 1920x1080).

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by ink 

High-definition television - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It's quite a difference. Also note that most displays on the market only have 1200x700-ish resolutions, which means that the next gen displays will look even better (when they can actually display 1920x1080).

That's 1080p. Pixel-wise, he's right. The "i" in "1080i" indicates that it is interlaced. A 1080i frame only includes 540 pixel rows, while a 480p includes 480 pixel rows. Of course, humans can't really see the pixels in each individual frame.

[ink]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

That's 1080p. Pixel-wise, he's right. The "i" in "1080i" indicates that it is interlaced. A 1080i frame only includes 540 pixel rows, while a 480p includes 480 pixel rows. Of course, humans can't really see the pixels in each individual frame.

Naw, interlaced screens still have the same number of pixels. It's just that every nth row is updated on each cycle. With HD, it is an odd/even update cycle. The point is to reduce the required bandwidth, while retaining a lot of the quality:

Interlace - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Which is why it's funny when websites offer "1080i content" for download. It's meaningless on a modern computer.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by ink 

Naw, interlaced screens still have the same number of pixels. It's just that every nth row is updated on each cycle. With HD, it is an odd/even update cycle.

So, like I said, only half the vertical pixels are drawn at a time?

[Hawkeye_a]

Just downloaded the original "Super Mario Brothers".... 8-bit graphics, stereo sound.... amazing game.

Cheers

[lavar78]

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a 

Just downloaded the original "Super Mario Brothers".... 8-bit graphics, stereo sound.... amazing game.

We know. We played it.

What you need to do is download The Legend of Zelda.

[ink]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

So, like I said, only half the vertical pixels are drawn at a time?

I'm simply saying that 1,080 pixel rows are still drawn, and as long as the on-screen action is tame, it is indistinguishable from 1080p. When the action heats up, you can tell its interlaced because of the tearing that may be noticed. 1080i is superior to 720p almost all of the time, and better than 480p all the time.

It's disingenuous to compare 480 to "540" as if they were really close to each other.

Not to mention the width differences between the two (720 vs. 1920).

[MaxPower2k3]

Originally Posted by ink 

I'm simply saying that 1,080 pixel rows are still drawn, and as long as the on-screen action is tame, it is indistinguishable from 1080p. When the action heats up, you can tell its interlaced because of the tearing that may be noticed. 1080i is superior to 720p almost all of the time, and better than 480p all the time.

It's disingenuous to compare 480 to "540" as if they were really close to each other.

Not to mention the width differences between the two (720 vs. 1920).

I assume you mean 1280 vs. 1920. (edit: although i just realized you're probably comparing 1080i to 480p, not 720p)

And it depends on the content, which you kind of said. For sports and things like that, 720p's doubled framerate really shines. Like you said, however, for "tamer" programming like dramas and sitcoms, 1080i will display more detail. How much more is noticed depends on the display (most, especially of the flat panel variety, are still 720p or 768p, meaning 1080i is displayed just like 720p, but at half the framerate) and the viewer/viewing conditions.

Another factor that pertains mostly to TV but also in a limited way to HD-DVD/Blu-Ray is bandwidth. a 720p stream is smaller than a 1080i stream, and so needs to be compressed less to fit in a given amount of bandwidth. A 720p stream at 15mbits will look better (compression-wise) than a 1080i stream at 15mbits. This is one factor that led some TV networks to choose 720p over 1080i.

[ink]

Originally Posted by MaxPower2k3 

especially of the flat panel variety, are still 720p or 768p, meaning 1080i is displayed just like 720p, but at half the framerate) and the viewer/viewing conditions

Yep, I'm gonna wait until next fall, and if the LCD displays are still at around 700 pixels high, I'll pick one up -- but I'm trying to hold back for something better. It's pathetic that a "1080p" screen only has 768 pixels down.

[Kenneth]

Originally Posted by ink 

High-definition television - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It's quite a difference. Also note that most displays on the market only have 1200x700-ish resolutions, which means that the next gen displays will look even better (when they can actually display 1920x1080).

I thought most of the 720p-class panels offer 1366 x 768 resoultion. However, those full HD panel yields at 1920x1080.

[Dark Helmet]

My thoughts exactly on the virtual console:

the 16-bitter: Why the Wii Virtual Console is a scourge

[ink]

Originally Posted by Kenneth 

I thought most of the 720p-class panels offer 1366 x 768 resoultion. However, those full HD panel yields at 1920x1080.

Check the specs on the screen before you buy. You'll be surprised.

[icruise]

Originally Posted by Dark Helmet 

My thoughts exactly on the virtual console:

the 16-bitter: Why the Wii Virtual Console is a scourge

I couldn't disagree more. I cannot believe that someone who legitimately loves classic games would be upset that these games are getting reviewed in mainstream magazines again, or that people are getting excited about playing them again. He reminds me of the kind of person who gets upset when a minor band that he likes hits it big -- it's no longer "his" band. He's saying that these games have been playable in emulation for years and the gaming press didn't get all excited about it. Well of course they didn't. Emulation is pretty sketchy from a legal standpoint (and I say this as someone who uses it). Nintendo has actually gotten the rights to use these games, so people are getting compensated when you purchase them. That's not a minor issue. Emulation also a bit arcane for the average user.

This guy is also fooling himself if he thinks most people still have their 8 or 16-bit systems around to play them, as he does. The fact of the matter is that for most people, these systems are ancient history. They were sold at a garage sale or thrown out long ago. And even for the people who still have them, connecting them to an HDTV and actually playing them is a big pain in the ass. Plus, as I have mentioned before, the VC versions are generally better than the actual cartridges when viewed on an HDTV, at least. I think the pricing is a little questionable, but aside from that the Virtual Console is a great idea and a great way for people play the games they used to love. I for one plan to have my son play a lot of the old classics via the VC once he gets old enough.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Dark Helmet 

My thoughts exactly on the virtual console:

the 16-bitter: Why the Wii Virtual Console is a scourge

The gist of that article seems to be "My penis is big because I steal games rather than buy them. Don't you want to have a big penis too?"

Wait, I just noticed the part where he asserts that "the average consumer" already downloads games and plays them in emulation. Mofo is off his rocker IMO.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by Dark Helmet 

My thoughts exactly on the virtual console:

the 16-bitter: Why the Wii Virtual Console is a scourge

"You know, I'm partially playing devil's advocate here. I'm going to argue the converse in another post.

Posted by Rayek | 12/19/2006 12:26 PM"

[Kenneth]

Originally Posted by ink 

Check the specs on the screen before you buy. You'll be surprised.

Really, any specific case scenario? Since I'm kind of in the market.

[Dark Helmet]

YouTube - Twilight Princess: Killing the Postman

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Dark Helmet 

YouTube - Twilight Princess: Killing the Postman

Hee, that's awesome. He falls to the bottom of the world and still delivers his letter!

[Millennium]

Originally Posted by Dark Helmet 

My thoughts exactly on the virtual console:

the 16-bitter: Why the Wii Virtual Console is a scourge

What? This is just another entitlement-whore whining that the major argument in favor of emulation -that it was the only way to play these games- no longer holds, and so he is nothing but a common thief.

If you don't want to play old games on your Wii, don't buy them. Nothing is forcing you to do so. But that is not a license to steal games.

[Dark Helmet]

Originally Posted by Millennium 

What? This is just another entitlement-whore whining that the major argument in favor of emulation -that it was the only way to play these games- no longer holds, and so he is nothing but a common thief.

Actually I don't see it encouraging stealing at all. If anything Nintendo is robbing you by selling you a 20 year old game you have already bought 4 times already for each of their systems. In fact IGN said the same thing in a couple of their VC reviews.

This guys concern is also how to properly review these titles.

[Hawkeye_a]

So im through CoD3..... it was ok, nothing special. the graphics in parts of the game were shockin (poor software development).

Soim ready to play Mario64, my options are ... NDS or VC. what do you guys recommend ? (ive never played this game before)

Cheers

[icruise]

The DS version has some additional things (don't recall exactly what they were, but look it up). On the other hand, I think the Wii version looks better.

[Dark Helmet]

My lord another game released by Nintendo with only 4:3 aspect:
Wii's Wario wary of widescreen - Joystiq

I mean no HD support is one thing but even the N64 had widescreen games. Why give the Wii component, 16:9 and 480p support but not the games?

Raving rabbits really got me upset as it says 480p in the manual but it doesn't actually support it. That aside you get this black uneven border around your screen when playing it on HD-TV's.
It seriously looks like a N64 game as it is blurry as hell.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by Dark Helmet 

My lord another game released by Nintendo with only 4:3 aspect:
Wii's Wario wary of widescreen - Joystiq

It's freakin Wario Ware. It's not exactly a graphical expose to begin with.

Originally Posted by Dark Helmet 

Raving rabbits really got me upset as it says 480p in the manual but it doesn't actually support it. That aside you get this black uneven border around your screen when playing it on HD-TV's.
It seriously looks like a N64 game as it is blurry as hell.

I was running Raving Rabbids on a 42" Plasma widescreen over Christmas and it was just fine. Widescreen and all. It wasn't 480p but it wasn't noticeable. No uneven black border.

[Dark Helmet]

Originally Posted by goMac 

It's freakin Wario Ware. It's not exactly a graphical expose to begin with.

Doesn't matter, If I am ask to draw a square in this game I will end up having to draw a rectangle etc.. Why stretch things out when every developer has said adding widescreen support is the easiest thing in the world and 10 year old systems can do it.

And you don't have a HD-TV typically but yes there is a VERY noticeable difference between 480i and p.

[Jim Paradise]

"As a single-player game it's worth a rental, because you'll blow through it in a couple hours. You'll have a blast while you do, though."

"This is actually the first Wario Ware game made specifically for a home console, and so it's the first time we get to see the crazy world and awesome characters rendered on the big screen. I can't believe it took them this long. The results are great -- the animated sequences that begin and end each set of microgames are uniformly hilarious, and the stylistic artwork gets to shine."

Cry me a ****ing river.

I played Rayman on a 52" inch Sony back in November, and it was bloody fun as hell and didn't look bad.

[Dark Helmet]

Damn, 2 hour game for $50.

People shouldn't complain about Gears of War being 12 hours long for the same cost.

[Jawbone54]

SWG...please....I'm just asking (begging, really)....

Please, come up with THREE things that you like and appreciate about the Wii and post it in this thread. If you do this, and don't include any "but" or "however" statements in the post, it would literally make my day.

[Dark Helmet]

Originally Posted by Jawbone54 

SWG...please....I'm just asking (begging, really)....

Please, come up with THREE things that you like and appreciate about the Wii and post it in this thread. If you do this, and don't include any "but" or "however" statements in the post, it would literally make my day.

I like the Blu-light
I like the design of the unit and remotes
I like the accelerometers (not the IR though)

BONUS: I like the includes Wifi, Mii's, DVD media and GC: BC.

Can't include any games yet though as Sports wore thin fast and Zelda is ok but dated.

But at the end of the day the Wii has way way more cons for me than the other systems.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by Dark Helmet 

Damn, 2 hour game for $50.

People shouldn't complain about Gears of War being 12 hours long for the same cost.

Do you not understand the concept of a party game?