Some guy from Maxis calls the Wii "a piece of shit"

[schild]

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

[HaemishM]

Resident Evil 4 did pretty fucking good with AI AND Graphics on the Cube

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

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?

[stray]

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.

[Yegolev]

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.

[HaemishM]

Definitely a nice looking game, but it's very inferior to what can be done now.

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.

[Triforcer]

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?  

[Miasma]

February sales:

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

Vidgame industryites expect the PS2 to have a boffo March

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

[Merusk]

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

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

[stray]

Definitely a nice looking game, but it's very inferior to what can be done now.

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

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.

[Margalis]

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.

[Azazel]

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..

[stray]

What are you still playing on the XBox?

[MisterNoisy]

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..

This 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.

[Yegolev]

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

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

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

[Strazos]

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

[Trippy]

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.

[HaemishM]

Definitely a nice looking game, but it's very inferior to what can be done now.

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

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

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.

[Big Gulp]

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.

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.

[Triforcer]

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. 

[Big Gulp]

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.

[Margalis]

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.

[Azazel]

This 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.

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.

[HaemishM]

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.

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.

[Margalis]

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.

[stray]

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.

[MisterNoisy]

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.

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.  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.

[schild]

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.

[Trippy]

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.  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.

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.

[Margalis]

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

[schild]

Viiiizzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzio.

[stray]

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.  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.

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.

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.

[Azazel]

What are you still playing on the XBox?

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.

[MisterNoisy]

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.  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.

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.

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.

[Trippy]

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.  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.

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.

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)?

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.

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.

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.

[MisterNoisy]

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.