f13.net

http://arstechnica.com/journals/thumbs.ars/2007/03/09/yesterday-the-wii-is-excrement-today-the-wii-is-quite-nice

Good for him. The turnaround is typical mealymouthed forced-by-my-boss apology crap, so the point stands.

Actually, I think it's kind of lame that he took it back.

His 'art' argument was kind of silly.

I accidentally read the first blog comment and it kind of explains the whole thing.

I still don't get the beef with the system. Nintendo went for something other than graphical superiority. I don't understand why this guy has to come out and bitch about it - is EA holding a gun to his head and forcing him to develop for it? I doubt it, and even if they are (figuratively or literally), if it's just "2 Gamecubes stuck together with duct tape," that should make it easy to program for, right?

Context > All

I understand that it was in a "Rant Forum," but that still doesn't take away from the fact that I think his whole rant was silly and off-base. It's like bitching that a Camry isn't more like a Corvette.

To me its more like bitching that a Dune Buggy isnt like a Corvette. You just cant do the same shit with ether of them, but they both have their place. Just dont try and make one do the job of the other.

Yes, I believe your analogy is more apt than my own. Good Show.

What a fuckhead. Either be a dick and stick by your comments or shut the fuck up.

Because he's working on Spore, and can't treat Wii users to it.

His main beef wasn't with graphics either, but with AI.

People who only own a Wii are not very likely to ever want to play Spore, or even know about it.  Financials aside, that is.  I'd say it's as likely as people who bought a DS to play Brain Age or Nintendogs are to play Spore.

Anyway... what a dumbass.  The Wii is not where you're going to try to put hardcore games.  It's where you put "casual" and "family" games, not a FPS with Deep-Blue AI bots.  The mass of Wii-owners are not looking to be pwned, they want to play shiny and fun things, like fake bowling.

Also: dumbass!  Lern 2 publik-speek, lolz!  Or: Way to retract your "hardcore" rant when Zee Boss comes down on you, lolz!

See, this is an internet forum, so saying that is OK.

Will Wright is pretty much the King of Casuals. 50 million housewives and schoolgirls say so. ;)

I think Spore would have it's audience just as much as that new Wii Sims game that's being brewed up.

And either way, the more games the better. That's the important thing. It's just a shame if you can't even have more games because the system is incapable of it. It's already hard enough to secure good games as it is (on the business side). The least they could have done is make the system technically capable of certain things.

Even more retarded is Nintendo defends their crippled hardware by saying "THIS SYSTEM IS ONLY FOR FUN". As if it's some either/or situation. Like having up-to-date technology in a console means it detracts from having fun games.

Posts above too contradictory. Hurts.

The Wii appeals to the same people The Sims does. They will know about Spore.

The Wii is also a piece of shit when it comes to processing power for things like graphics AND AI.

His boss or/and EA did make him apologize, pretty obvious.

Truths all around. World turns.

That guy needs to get with the times. Sticking two things togather with duct tape and calling it new is all the rage.

Hyperthreading. Dual core. Dual video cards. Dual monitors. Dual band phones. Dual band wifi. Dual core 2. Dual channel ram. Double boxing. Dual accounts. CD/DVD drives. Dual CD/DVD drives.

Spore is coming out for the DS IIRC...so yeah...

I have no problem with him saying the Wii isn't powerful but his argument about Nintendo not being interested in art is just silly. Processing power = art?

I guess you could say AI could contribute to art. The same with physics.. That is, if you consider emergence and improvisation to be contributers to art in games.

Doesn't necessarily mean Nintendo isn't concerned with art though. They're just shutting themselves out of a few avenues for it (ones that will be proven to be very important though).

Yes, you recall correctly.  There has also been interest given to all three console platforms, but nothing confirmed.  For kicks, there was a comment about concern about the cost of PS3 development, linked off the Spore home page press releases.  Aside from that, this guy didn't say that Wii couldn't or wouldn't have Spore released on it, just that he didn't like the Wii.

And, imo, Spore suits the DS/Wii market better than the rest of the consoles or the PSP.  If it's released for all three I'm willing to bet that you see much better market penetration into the Nintendo line. 

I don't agree.  I have a working counterexample living in my house; actually since she knows about the existence of other gaming platforms and plays The Sims on a jacked-up Dell XPS, she should know about Spore before your average Brain-Ager.  We will see once Spore hits how it all falls out.  I could be totally off base here, but I can't see it being the next Sims.  The next Sims but for Gamers, maybe.  And if it is, I suggest everyone steer well clear of it, since you'll be hooking up to an endless train of buggy expansions.

I agree with the rest, though.

Also, I was just using Spore as an example.  Feel free to pick some other EA box of shit, with or without Will Wright's greasy fingerprints on it.

When did I equate Spore to Brain Agers? No, I simply equated it to fans of The Sims. And you can be damn sure that the Sims expansion closest to the release of Spore will have some kind of forced to watch Spore trailer or some informational bits on the disk.

I don't agree either. The Sims is a socially-acceptable way for younger women (70% of the people who play The Sims are women under 25) to play "virtual Barbie". Spore is nothing like that. Yes both are "sandbox" games but that doesn't mean people who like playing with their virtual dolls will like playing Spore.

Edit: what the heck is a "sanbox"?

Spore seems to appeal to nerds and people who long for the days of more interesting PC games when novel things came out on a regular basis. I don't see the crossover with The Sims. None of the people I know who play The Sims seem like they'd have any interest in Spore, and conversely Spore sounds interesting to me but I have no interest in The Sims.

Look at say Sim Earth or Sim City - not the huge appeal of The Sims. I agree that The Sims is a grown up way to play house that doesn't require much imagination. Spore is more of a flight of fancy.

Anyone ever play Cubivore? Always wanted to give that a whirl.

It's exactly what he's implying, given his pedigree and his particular complaints. He's Will Wright's co- designer, and more than likely, living and breathing Spore right now. I doubt this is just stemming from a vague sense of general criticism for the Wii. Most developers in his position would be speaking from experience.

[EDIT] Sim City was popular. Not Sims, of course, but not necessarily just gamer territory either.

Because they hadn't figured out their target market yet, and when they realized who it was, they also got the fringe benefit of it being largely untapped.

And The Sims is of a different sort of God-mode esoterica than alien-based Spore. There'll be SOME crossover, sure. But it's not the budding-Mom or young-professional escapist crowd by and large.

Finally, Wii sales, still hot. They'll argue until the PS5 why it was popular, but that's how things go. Pundits, whether reporters or creators, react to things other people go off and do, with never the same exposure to the same reasons they went off and did it.

He's not a pundit. He's a game designer, only reacting to how the Wii doesn't live up to certain specifications. Not to what "other people" do. What the fuck do sales have to do with anything?

I hate to say it, but ask Blizzard.

I don't think that was you, just the general conversation was getting Sporey.  Also, the scope of my opinion did not include any inevitable marketing spam... however I can already hear my wife complaing "what's this shit?" as she loads up the expansion.  If Spore has a dollhouse component or allows you to genetically engineer metrosexuals, you might get some synergy there.  I know it's hard to imagine people that don't think about games the way I do, but I married one.

Spore is the version of the Sims for science and sci-fi geeks. It's a niche game. The Sims will ALWAYS have more mass market appeal, because it's more understandable than "put 3 protozoa together for sweet monkey sex and build the creature of your dreams." Why anyone would think because it's a sandbox-y type game that Spore would have the same market potential as the Sims is beyond me.

As for the Wii's processing power on AI... Pika? Resident Evil 4 did pretty fucking good with AI AND Graphics on the Cube, and the Wii is a souped-up Cube. Why anyone would think it can't handle AI is again, beyond me. The only thing that much more processing power such as with the 360/PS3 would give you is MORE AI on screen at once. It's like some of you hate the Wii so much you are making shit up.

I want to reply to this, but I munnah do it in the Spore thread (http://forums.f13.net/index.php?topic=9379.0).

You know what's really a piece of shit, is how if, in Twilight Princess, you save and quit after you cross the Eldin Bridge and it is destroyed but before you enter the twilight, you bone your game because you reload in the middle of Hyrule Field and cannot cross the bridge.  I'd like to blame this on the controller, but I can't figure out how.  Must be Miyamoto's fault.

I own RE4 for the Cube, and you either have rather low graphical expectations or are overstating your case.

RE4 is by far the best looking Gamecube game. Through anything other than component cables piped into a hi-def screen running at 480p and widescreen though, it looks like dogshit. And I only know of one other person on this board with component cables for the cube.

To tell the truth it looked like ass on my HDTV (without component cables) and on my SD bedroom TV (where the cube is currently exiled.  My bedroom is the console gulag where unorthodox consoles go so they cannot contaminate the revolutionary purity of my vanguard consoles.)

Now granted, it looks great considering it's running on a Gamecube, but that's kind of the point...  The nextgen successor is essentially just the same thing, but in an overclocked variety.

The difference between component cables and av/s-video on the gamecube is more than night and day. It changes EVERYTHING. Same with the Wii. It's so radically different looking that I don't really have an apt cliche phrase to use on it.

That said, still kinda looks like shit, particularly compared to the REALLY late game PS2 stuff (FF12, Magna Carta.. ok that's kinda old, God of War 2, Shadow of the Colossus, etc).

I haven't used composite or s-video since the Dreamcast, on which I used a video processor to get it up to VGA.

I own the component cabling for the Gamecube and it honest to god makes a world of difference on games it supports. On even a shitty HDTV like mine it makes a game go from that vaguely blurry N64+lots of polys look to damn fine. Smash Brothers, REmake, RE:0, RE4, PSO, all look MUCH better.

You were the one person I thought who had it. Heh.

No. It really is one of the best looking games I've ever seen, and does a fuckload better with a Brown Palette(TM) than any Quake game ever did. That's on a cheap 27" TV with composite cables. What kind of a graphics whore snob do you have to be to think RE4 is not awe-inspiring?

Definitely a nice looking game, but it's very inferior to what can be done now. Simply recognizing the difference and wanting to see games achieve more than that doesn't mean anyone's a snob. It's just the truth.

This isn't a knock on the Wii either. The same could be said for God of War, SotC, or late period cel-shaded games like DQ and Okami.

As for the AI, I disagree. Not to say it wasn't good, but the normal opponents didn't do much but rush you headlong like madmen/women. Secondly, it was a Capcom game. Which means bosses galore. Which means encounters more heavily based around scripted scenarios and puzzles, not AI.

We don't know the future, but it's safe to say that's not even close to what a 360 or PS3 could do with AI...Systems that are basically capable of devoting entire processors to it.

I would be that other other guy with component cables for the Cube.  I'd say that the aforementioned difference on the Wii is even more noticeable than on the Cube... well, with Zelda anyway.  Wii Bowling looks more or less the same, I think, maybe with more aliasing on my Mii.

GoWII looks great but I am going to have to hand out a demerit for tearing.  Zelda looks like it was programmed through gauze in comparison, which isn't necessarily a bad thing since it doesn't have tearing.  Of course, it's also a Cube game ported to the Wii.

You notice funny things when you rotate between Twilight Princess and God of War II.

Please reread that statement aloud to yourself to try to figure out why it sounds so stupid.

Never mind, I'll explain. The game is 3 years old. Of COURSE stuff built today will look "better" if by better you mean sharper textures, less aliasing, lighting, shadows, etc. You know, the technical shit Microsoft and Sony are trying to sell consoles on. Your statement makes it sound like I'm comparing Everquest 1 with Lord of the Rings Online and saying they are technically equivalent.

But as we've all said before, tech isn't the only thing that makes good graphics. RE4 was fantastically art-directed, and it's graphics will stand up against some of the best things out there today, IMO, because it's not just technically impressive (considering the hardware it was created on) but overall just an impressive-looking game.

February sales:

http://www.forbes.com/digitalentertainment/2007/03/19/cx_bf_0319varietybiz.html

January:

http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/20070221/wii-playstation-xbox.htm

Why do you hate fun, Schild?   :cry:

That idiot reporter is definitely trying to get some new words into the dictionary.

Like a profound sense of frustration at not being able to rip Ganon's arms off and beat him with them?

No, what's stupid is you trying to turn this into an argument about art direction now. Which no one was talking about.

If we were talking about art direction, then sure, that's all fine and dandy. I could say that Strider and Grim Fandango are some of the best games I've seen too.

I think the overall point here is that a lot of Wii games have crap graphics and there isn't an excuse other than rushed games and low budgets.

I need more component inputs. My TV has one set, and I already have a 3-into-1 switchbox into which the PS2/XBox/DVD are plugged..

What are you still playing on the XBox?

This (http://www.psyclonegamer.com/products/index.asp?id=1004) is a pretty nice little unit if yer not looking to drop a serious amount of cash (~$90) and only need component/composite switching.  Alternately, pick up a decent surround AV receiver with a good number of component inputs - most decent low-mid range standalone receivers in the $250-400 range will have at least 3.

That's a good one, but actually it's frustrating me that Link cannot jump up ladders.

Is it possible to daisy-chain these kind of input switchers?

Yes but every device you stick in the "path" may degrade the signal to a certain extent.

No, I'm talking about the game having great fucking graphics. Which RE4 did, but apparently you, BigGulp and schild don't think it did, because it's not hi-def, 1080p on a goddamn Blu-Ray disc.

The Wii is perfectly capable of producing great graphics, they just don't happen to be in hi-def.

No, that's not what I, or anyone else said here.  The art direction for RE4 was very good, and they made the best with what they could do with limited hardware.  This is the same principle that WoW works under, which to my POV is much better looking than either EQ2 or Vanguard which are technically graphically better games.

The problem is that studios capable of transcending hardware limitations through stellar art direction are damned few and far between, and you holding up RE4 as the baseline for GC games is utter bullshit.  It's an anomaly, a fluke.  It's the same with God of War or Shadow of the Colossus for the PS2.  Are they great looking games?  Yep, but that's not because of the PS2's hardware, it's in spite of it.

And once again, I'd like to point out that your disdain for all things HD sounds an awful lot like financially-based sour grapes.

Incredibly, I have to agree with Haemish on this one.  The anti-HD bile, to the extent it exists on the site, is because of the non-stop goddamn griping about ANYTHING that doesn't work with HD.  If people had said "HD is cool, things look better, I like it" and left it at that nobody would have a problem.  If Schild/you/whoever didn't mention HD every single thread there wouldn't be problem, its the delusional insistence that everything non-HD SUX FOREVER that is the irritant. 

Nonsense.  HD is the future, and there's no real argument about that.  Hell, I wouldn't even say it's the future, so much as it's the present, but we've got a lot of stragglers.  How many old style CRT TV's do you see stores devoting shelfspace to nowadays?  Oh sure, maybe you'll see the smallish 13-19" kitchen models still, but the 30"+ models for living rooms?  They're an anachronism.

Consoles that don't future proof themselves against this (and actually look like ass on the sizeable minority's televisions) deserve the lambasting they get.

If you don't have good art direction your game isn't going to look good, regardless of hardware.

HD is just higher res, it's not comparable to previous video revolutions like the move to VGA or SVGA.

I already have a 3-input one that I got off our defunt friends at Lik-Sang some time ago, and while the one these guys have is more aesthetically pleasing, it's still only got 4 inputs, so unfortunately not really worthwhile. I'd be interested in one that has at least 6 inputs, and also had a low price tag. And US$90 would be aboutat least double what I'm willing to spend on a switch box.

You keep saying that, and all I hear is "'Cos you're on welfare, you're on welfare, and your father is an alcoholic." I will kindly direct you to my anus, Eddie Murphy, which you can lovingly tongue-kiss along with the other early adopters.

See, as I've explained before, I've done the research on HD. I've looked at prices and I've kept a continual eye on prices. And while it's true I can't afford an HDTV right now, even if I could, it would be a SHITTY SHITTY VALUE because of where I live, which is apparently the goddamn HD ghetto.

Both DirecTV and Dish offer HD satellite stuff. Neither of them will offer me local channels in HD, which means 90% of the football I watch won't be in HD despite the network providing it. DirecTV would in fact give me a grand total of 7 channels in HD, with only 2 of those channels being things I watch on any sort of regular basis (ESPN and ESPN2). Dish offers a few more channels, but doesn't offer any of the soccer channels I can no longer live without. Comcast Cable is my only cable option in this area, and its HD offerings are similarly shitty. I think 20 channels at the most is what I could manage to get in HD where I live.

And what do I have to do to get this grand offering of 20 channels? I have to pay at least $600 for a new HDTV (just assuming a 32" inch, when I finally buy one next year it'll likely be 37" or larger). Then, I'll have to buy all new cables (HDMI) which appear to be running me anywhere from $60-$100, so we'll just say $70. I have to pay more for an HDTV receiver, probably around another $100. I can't even find a price on DirecTV's HD DVR, but last I heard I'll just say another $300. Don't forget the extra $10 a month I'll need to pay for HD service, and I won't even count what is likely to be some charges for a guy to come out and install that equipment.

So for around $1000, I can get AT BEST around 6 channels I'll watch regularly in HD. Oh and my games and DVD's will be in 480p until I get a 360 with the HD DVD drive, which will run me around $600 not to mention the privilege of replacing my DVD's with HD-DVD's.

Why is that in anyway considered a sensible thing for me to do? It isn't about not having the money for HD, it's about not seeing the value in HD. Where I live is an HD ghetto, and there's just not enough content there to justify the cost. You may live in an area with golden HD rainbows being handed out like mana from the heavens, where all your locals are in HD and you aren't charged out the ass just to get HD. I DON'T LIVE THERE. I would be a fucking ignoramus who shouldn't be trusted with holding a nickel were I to get HD, because it's not supported.

HD IS the future. But for some of us, it ain't the right now, and spending money on it because it looks better is retarded in the extreme.

I could go out and buy 150 HDTVs tomorrow if I felt like it.

Both plasma and LCD have issues, that is the main reason I'm not interested. Bad pixels, dimming over time, input lag, ghosting, etc.

Unless you plan on stress testing a TV in a lab, both LCD and Plasma would more than likely last through the time you're waiting for a new technology to come out... And then some.

Besides that, there are DLPs. No burn in problems, still lighter than CRT, available with a variety of sizes and options, capable of 1080p, more servicable, and cheap to boot.

Or if even that isn't good enough, there are CRT's as well. Granted, they're 10 ton bricks, but whatever issue you might have with the others doesn't apply to them. You couldn't even really complain about it's main fault either (weight and size), because you're already dealing with a heavy CRT anyways.

Not saying you should buy an HDTV or anything, but your excuse is pretty silly. Surely you have better reasons.

Leaving the rest alone, but your cable or satellite receiver will come with a set of component cables, which will look fine - most people can't tell the difference between component vs DVI/HDMI, and even if you decide to use HDMI, you're out at most $10 (http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&DEPA=0&Description=hdmi+cable&x=0&y=0).  Anyone that actually spends $60-100 for an HDMI cable needs to have their credit cards taken away from them for their own safety, and should probably be shot just to keep manufacturers from thinking that they can get away with pricing bits of wire and plastic like that.

I like the look of video over component more than HDMI actually.

Also, go buy a Vizio. They're cheap as fuck and top notch.

The HDMI cable spec sucks major big time. The standard is twisted pair with no error correction which is far far worse as a signal transport than the standard coxial that's used by pretty much everything else in the broadcast world. Those of you who think that because it's a digital signal that the physical transport doesn't matter need to do some studying.

Getting a giant CRT HDTV is too much of a pain in the ass.

Viiiizzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzio.

No, it doesn't really matter. Sooner or later, there's a going to be a lot of stuff we couldn't view/use unless we're using hdmi anyways. It's already that way to an extent, with BD and HD-DVD @ 1080p. Also with digital delivery if I'm not mistaken. Component doesn't have a future in this respect.

Besides that, hdmi is also an audio spec. That's one convenient type of cable handling digital-to-digital audio and video, without wasting time converting anything. Whatever downsides there are to twisted pair, I'm sure it makes up for it. Also, in most typical setups, cables are a meter length from device to device at best. No one's suffering from using it.

Currently, pretty much nothing. I do have a big bunch of unfinished games that go with it though along with all the non-transferrable XBL content I downloaded to it. Console-wise I finally started playing X-Men: Legends and also of course there's Guitar Hero/2. Both on PS2.

I'm not sure I follow, but are you saying that (barring actual physical breaks/defects in the wire itself) that one company's $100 collection of wire and plastic will perform better than another company's $10 collection of wire and plastic when connected in the same configuration to the same dongle or are you just noting that HDMI is not all it's cracked up to be (in which case I agree with you - HDMI has known issues)?  I mean - I'm using my $8 HDMI cable and it delivers an excellent picture from my cable receiver to my set (though audio is routed separately to my receiver via optical).  I could have achieved the exact same result by spending $70 more at Best Buy, but instead I bought Crackdown and lunch.  It's not that I wish high end vendors ill will, but damn - there's a difference between positioning yourself as a premium product and just raping the consumer because they don't know any better.

Both, though without testing it's impossible to say if the $100 cable is any better than the $10 one or if you are just paying for a thicker jacket with no additional shielding and a fancy connector.


Yes most audiophile/videophile cable marketing is snake oil but the fact remains that any signal will degrade when traveling over metal wiring. It's just a question of by how much and whether or not it's enough to degrade the output to a noticeable effect. The one nice thing about a digital video signal is that it's more obvious when too many errors are happening -- you tend to get "sparklies" on the screen -- which is sign for you to get a better quality HDMI cable.

No argument re:  degradation/impedance and greater impact on digital signals v. analog (esp. having had to report data on local impact on QAM changes and digital service expansions on formerly analog freqs for a cable provider for the last few years).  That said, I am firmly of the opinion that you aren't getting any improvement on those fronts re: HDMI cabling by multiplying the price you pay by a factor of 6-10 and you're certainly not getting a cable or picture that is 6-10 times better by doing so.  Save the money by either using component or buying your HDMI from Newegg for $10.  Buy two (or even 4) if you're worried about getting a 'bad one' that fucks your picture up and you still come out ahead.

That $80 Monster 3' cable is no better than the 2m OKGEAR(?) cable you'll buy at Newegg, and if you pay the $80 or more for it, you're encouraging bad vendor/retailer behavior, just like those people that buy Madden every year despite knowing that it's just a roster update and a slight gfx update.

You are just assuming that the cables are built and tested to the same spec. The problem is that all of these cables are built in China and it's basically a crapshoot what sort of quality comes out of there. Buying lots of cheap cables is certainly one option to try and solve this problem if you don't mind the hassle of returning the ones you don't need.

There's also the problem that the spec might not be good enough for the conditions that the cable is being used under and you need something that has tighter tolerances. It's like using Cat 5 cables for Gigabit Ethernet. In theory it's supposed to work but given the variances in manufacturing (again mostly coming from China) you are better off spending a little extra money to go to Cat 5e or Cat 6. HDMI 1.3 has a similar problem in that it can use far more bandwidth than the earlier versions but without requiring an upgraded cable spec to match it.

Considering that they're quite likely to be coming out of the same factories in China regardless of price/brand, it's not too much of a stretch to assume that QC is similar regardless of price.  And yea - I don't mind returning defective products regardless of price.  ;)  I'm not saying that you're guaranteed to have great results with an $8 cable - I just think you're highly likely to have the same results with an $80+ cable, and that continuing to shell out that kind of money for them only encourages that sort of exploitative pricing.

Look up process variation and six sigma.  Generally what happens is that everything comes off the same line and the ones that fit the higher tolerances and specs get the expensive labels and price tag and the rest get dumped into the bargain bin.  You're pretty much guaranteed not to be getting the same quality because they select it out.

Here I thought DRM was the only complaint someone could come up with about hdmi. That would make sense.

As for signals, unless you plan on setting up some double stage circular multimedia kiosk, degradation shouldn't even register to you. Watching TV and playing games in your living room is nothing to get all obsessive compulsive about. It's bullshit.

As for cable prices, sure it's snake oil. Doesn't hurt to pay *a little* extra for well protected cabling/connectors though. That, I suppose, would be a practical concern. Whether it's gold plated or whatever though is a definitely a waste. Mr. Noisy has the right plan: Just spend the money on another game.  :-)

Yeah, I wasn't clear when I was talking about process.  I wasn't defending Monsters prices, I was just pointing out that the cables probably ARE better even from the same plant and production line.  Better in this case being an almost worthless metric when there is no difference between good enough and the best to the point of view of the equipment your using.

I can tell you, based on disassembly of a Monster component cable, that it's a hair-thin wire with foil shielding.  The sheathing is enormous, but the wire itself looks like an excercise in materials conservation.

EDIT: Our gigabit network connections are largely fibre.  Just saying, but I think it bears out your comment on cable quality.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't all the signals digital? The signal either gets there or it doesn't, right? There's no snow or degradation. The only reason why you'd want to upgrade to 'premium cables' is if the crappy cable you purchased is cutting in and out, like if you're trying to do a really long run or if there's interference.

I don't think it's correct to think of the entire signal as either 1 or 0. Could be possible that bad cables will drop bits and pieces of the picture.

But who knows. I just take the cable from the wall and plug it into the back of my 24 year old TV, and it works.

If a bit gets corrupted in a data stream you either have to re-request the bit causing a time delay or fudge it and use an interpolated value or the previous value or some such if that's allowable.

Either way you end up with a performance issue.

At the software level things are 1s and 0s but that's just a mathematical abstraction. We live in an analog world which means that at the hardware level those 1s and 0s have to be represented by something physical. In electronic circuits if you need to pass those bits between two places that's typically done by changing the voltage on an electrical signal. So for example just to make up some numbers, 1 volt might represent "on" or "1" and 0 volts "off" or "0". So if you need to represent 1 1 0 1 1 0, you send 1V down the line for 2 time periods and then switch it to 0V for 1 time period then back to 1 V, etc.

Now when you send one of these signals down a metal wire the "shape" of the signal you get at the receiving end may not be exactly what it was at the source end. So maybe what you get using the above example is 1V, 0.5V, 0V, 1V, 0.5V, 0V so now the hardware on the receiving end has to figure out what that means. Is that supposed to be 1 1 0 1 1 0 or is it 1 0 0 1 0 0 (1 SOS)? If it guesses wrong then the data on the receiving end is no longer what it was at the source end. And in fact if you make enough wrong guesses or enough bits get munged you get the digital version of snow (aka the "sparklies") or even worse things like seeing large blocks on your screen or even complete picture drop outs. People who have digital satellite TV in places with lots of bad weather (rain and snow) are very familiar with these sorts of problems.

Now one way to fix this problem is to have some sort of error correction protocol whereby the receiving end can 1) tell that the data it has received is bad and 2) somehow get the correct data. Standard Ethernet today, for example, uses just about as poor a wiring spec as you could possibly invent (unshielded twisted pair) but it compenstates for that by having a error correction protocol that's built into every Ethernet device so when bits get munged (and they do get munged) the data at the software level is not corrupted (unless you unplug things, cut the wire, or do something else extreme in which case all bets are off). Music CDs have an error correction protocol as well so that the CD player is able to recreate the data even if there are small scratches on the disc which essential "hide" the bits underneath them. Large circular scratches, however, would be like unplugging the wire temporarily with Ethernet, it just gives up, plays some noise or no sound at all and then moves on to the next part of the song if it can.

Unfortunately HDMI does not have an error correction protocol and the cabling spec is only slightly better than Ethernet (still twisted pair but the outer jacket is shielded, somewhat) even though it's carrying as much or even more data down the wires as Ethernet does. And so that's the problem. Depending on your setup, you may be corrupting enough of the bits going down the HDMI cable that the image is noticeably affected. Or not. It depends on a lot of different things. But the problem does exist. Hence the market for upscale cables which may or may not actually be better than cheaper ones but they are, at least at the superficial level, addressing a need for some customers. There are of course other customers who buy those sorts of things because they have to have the bestest of everything even though a cheaper cable may in fact give them the exact same picture with their particular setup.

I guess my question would be 'does anyone have any pictures of what a corrupted image looks like, and stages of gradual corruption?' I know the theory, but not being familiar with the HDMI link state protocol, whatever it is, makes me have no knowledge of how bad the picture might be. I guess what I'd be worried about is corruption that I did not notice as such. If it's obvious, like blocks, black squares on the screen, or something like that, that's no issue. You'd know you need to get a better cable. If it's more subtle, blurs, colors that aren't quite correct, something that you may think is the broadcast or camera, or display lag, that is when I'd be interested in a higher quality cable 'just in case'.

I've never seen sparklies in person but I gather from descriptions it would look something like this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JsFb3Msd0n8

and it just gets worse from there including complete drop outs of frames.

Edit: while searching for a sample video I found this blog comment somebody posted which explains the cable problem very well:

http://www.engadget.com/2006/07/08/hdmi-port-coming-to-the-xbox-360/comments/1816516/

So it's pretty obvious when there are issues, and you can buy a cheap cable because you'll see immediately if there are any defects.

That is what I had with my PS2 cable, the red was missing.  A dab of solder fixed that, though.  Still using that cable with the PS3, looks fine.

Sparklies? I see green sparklies on hi-res CG (not in game) and static images.

I assume this is through HDMI. I don't even feel the need to read the post. Any other 1080p source looks fine on my tv, particularly through component. This is only through the PS3.

In an odd bit of Wii (and DS) news Mario and Sonic will be co-starring in a game together (http://www.gamespot.com/news/6168192.html?om_act=convert&om_clk=newstop&tag=newstop;title;7).  The odd part is that instead of being a platformer, it's Mario and Sonic at the 2008 Olympic games in Beijing.  So basically Track N' Field featuring Mario and Sonic.

Sounds like an ideal Wii-mote party game.

You know what the Wii needs.

More minigames.

Christ. Mario Party was enough to begin with.

Mate, that's what the Wii IS. Party games and Sports games.

I like the thing, but I ain't playing no Hitman or Splinter Cell with that fucking TV remote.

If people start thinking that way, my argument that the Wii isn't competing with the gaming industry, but rather the board game industry, will rule the day.

Someone at Nintendo obviously has it out for Milton Bradley.

Well, that's how I see the conslole as well as Ninty's strategy (seemingly) this-go-round. After all, the thing's been out for months now, and like someone else in one of these threads that I read today. I've bought more PS2 games than Wii games since the Wii came out.

For that matter, I bought more PC games today than Wii games in the last nearly-4 months.

I'm treating the thing essentially the same as I do/did my GC. As a cheap-ish platform to play Mario Party, Mario Golf (with extra arm-waving!) and anything that looks great and is somehow exclusive for whatever reason, or "fits" the Wiimote (Rogue Squadron, Cooking Mama). Anything more traditional I'll play on the PC/PS2 and later 360/PS3. Wiimote for driving games? No thanks.

Oh, and when Spore comes out, it'll be a PC purchase. Not a magic-wand-waving Wii purchase.