Nintendo better off without HD?!

[Eclipse]

I suppose you're right, particularly on that last mark, but when you're coming from my perspective it might make a little more sense.

At the end of the day, I don't consider the flaws of the other consoles nearly as obvious or asinine as Nintendo. For me it's all about flexibility; I don't care about HDTV support either way, or Ram, or any of that crap, but I think from a developer's standpoint they'd like the options. ESF is a perfect example of that--stuck ont he Half Life engine, the dev team hits limits constantly that ruin or severely compromise their vision of what they game was originally intended as.

That aside, I don't even really care about the Revolution specs, Cuc. Yeah, I haven't seen them. You know why I haven't seen them? Because the other machines blew it out of the water so bad that revealing their own specs was too much of a suicide dive at E3. In fact, I wager they will be pulling a throwback to the Dreamcast days where they let the other big machines come up, analyze what they did, and copy it...badly.

I can argue the Ram thing, but it's not worth really getting into. If the PS3's visual processor doesn't need a gig of ram for overhead...why put a gig of ram in the damn thing? Microsoft's graphics tech in the 360 (lamest name ever, by the way) is not as powerful as the PS3's, so it stands to reason that the 360 would want more ram for overhead than the PS3 would.

Nintendo simply does not have the resources to do the kind of development Sony and Microsoft can. Nintendo is not a technologically savvy company, and that will be its undoing. Come on, these are people who had to put out a Ram pack for the 64 to get a game to play properly. They haven't the slightest idea how to create a machine that is top tier technologically, because that simply isn't their thing.

There are other things to consider as well; for example, the fact that the company is in the financial ****ter. They can't afford things like online server maintenance, and if you think for one second that you won't be paying for your old games YET A FIFTH TIME to play them on the Revolution, think again. I guaran-damn-tee you will be paying for that, because there is money to be made and they need a massive profit margin. You will also be paying for that Hard Drive everyone's so hard up about, too; if not, you'll be paying for an add-on for it because the default one will probably suck or have piddlesome storage.

This is of course all irrelevant because they will continue to market for grade schoolers in order to avoid having to directly deal with Microsoft and Sony's ownage of the industry. Which means that it doesn't matter how strong the machine is; 9/10s of the games are going to look like a ****ing coloring book anyway.

Wow....you really believe the BS coming out your mouth O_O ...thats funny as all hell! Why don't you do some research, clear out all the hate, then take a look at the situation again .

 

[Jesus]

how about we all cut the arguing? this is meant to be about whether the revolution was right or wrong to not put HD support on their console, not to beat the crap out of it, and every other console.

 

[Robby]

^^^^^^ Agrees (But... a nintendo fanboy has to do something right now :/)

Alright... I have HDTV cant hook anything up to it so no big deal. Got that away now this:

The Revolution is... always gonna be in secret until November and/or December because the Revolution is going to be out sometime in June/July. This is about 1 month later of The 360 (Which won't have Xbox support and all "good" games will be remade.) and 1 month later of the PS3 (Cell shading?).

The Revolution has more features than the 360 by far. PS3... is going to be the next Home Entertainment Center and blah blah BLAH. I am not certainly interested in Sonys crap since it will moreover stink. It's contoller is shaped like a boomerang (Literally). I don't know about the 360's and the Revolution is stuck in no wheres land.

Well enoug of my ranting...

 

[Majin_You]

Whoa....when did this become a bloody console war? Last I checked, this was a thread collecting opinions about Nintendo's decision to not use HD.

Can you people not live with the fact that other people are going to prefer different consoles and games?

This is the last reminder: stay on topic (Revolution's lack of HD support). This means no, "Well, Sony and MS are going to be using it, so...", and no, "Well, the Revolution will be better than PS3 and the 360 since...".

 

[SSJ Puppy]

Ok here we go...Nintendo isn't having a harddrive or supporting HD because they don't want their new system to be really expensive..PS3 will cost about $400...the 360 will cost $299....and the revolution will be $199...hmm which would you choose..also HD isnt a big prob...i think nintendo will have great great graphics...they said at e3 when you turn on the revolution you will be like wow!!! And the Revoution also has things comming for it new type of controllers....download old games from every geneation of nintendo... backwards compatibility with GC games..also DVD player and Wi Fi connection which will work with the DS...can you ask for anything more!

 

[Eon]

Ok here we go...Nintendo isn't having a harddrive or supporting HD because they don't want their new system to be really expensive..PS3 will cost about $400...the 360 will cost $299....and the revolution will be $199...hmm which would you choose..also HD isnt a big prob...i think nintendo will have great great graphics...they said at e3 when you turn on the revolution you will be like wow!!! And the Revoution also has things comming for it new type of controllers....download old games from every geneation of nintendo... backwards compatibility with GC games..also DVD player and Wi Fi connection which will work with the DS...can you ask for anything more!

hehe, yea, it's also a b onus that the system I want won't cost me my manhood

 

[SSJ Puppy]

manhood....what are you talking about...so you say when you were younger you never played nintendo....you say you didnt want a gamecube to play Resident Evil 4...or the new Zelda game....look at your signature man..ZELDA! SSB: Melee is one of the best games i've ever played come on! Nintendo is not just for kids its for adults!

 

[Chakra-X]

Well I don't really care if a system uses HD or not... I mean if you lived in the not so far future when HD is default, then yeah, maybe you would have a problem. But I'm alright with both, what bothers me is, I don't know if a HD-only game will run on a regular t.v...But Nintendo seems to know what they are doing, I just wish they would give out a little more information on their console.

 

[Eon]

manhood....what are you talking about...so you say when you were younger you never played nintendo....you say you didnt want a gamecube to play Resident Evil 4...or the new Zelda game....look at your signature man..ZELDA! SSB: Melee is one of the best games i've ever played come on! Nintendo is not just for kids its for adults!

It was a freaking joke geared towards how expensive the next gen consoles will be... >_>

 

[SaiyanPrideXIX]

No worries. Magus probabbly just did what I did earlier and forgot that the average birthdate of members on this forum is in 1989.

Either way, like I said before, I'm sure that the desperate cash whores at that company will put out some tacky useless 100 dollar add on that does do HDTV, but it will probably be limited in development to a handful of games with one being the 'premier' game (probably another resident evil game).

 

[Promiscuous Girl]

Even though im an HDTV owner, if it's not essential, then i could seriously care less since the point is, that nintendo isn't supporting HD as a way of keeping game prices down, then that's all the better for me the way i see it. If they keep prices at a current gen level while their competitors prices increase then the ommision of HD will be worth it.

If you give developers the option of making HD games they may take it then the game will have to be priced higher. But i think average consumer may just see a higher priced game and say no im not going to buy that, leading to poor sales meaning developer loses their investment, meaning they might not make another game on revolution if they were too support it and that goes for the other two consoles as well.

Since, no HD means in theory that all games will be at the same price, i guess that of course doesnt stop developers from wasting money on other parts of a game. The lack of HD only works out if they can truly keep game prices lower than their competitors which is what nintendo is planning to do.

Is HD fundamental to gameplay, no so it dosen't really matter. While in some ways it can enhance gameplay, but is that enhancement worth an extra $20, i don't think so. The graphics won't be any better either its only the resolution that improves, things are clearer to see but hey its not like 480i is like trying to see through a vaseline smeared television or something.

Finally revolution will still work on HDTVs, it just won't be in HD so what is the issue? Just as PS3 / 360 games will still work on your SDTV.

 

[SailorAlea]

Even though im an HDTV owner, if it's not essential, then i could seriously care less since the point is, that nintendo isn't supporting HD as a way of keeping game prices down, then that's all the better for me the way i see it. If they keep prices at a current gen level while their competitors prices increase then the ommision of HD will be worth it.

If you give developers the option of making HD games they may take it then the game will have to be priced higher. But i think average consumer may just see a higher priced game and say no im not going to buy that, leading to poor sales meaning developer loses their investment, meaning they might not make another game on revolution if they were too support it and that goes for the other two consoles as well.

Since, no HD means in theory that all games will be at the same price, i guess that of course doesnt stop developers from wasting money on other parts of a game. The lack of HD only works out if they can truly keep game prices lower than their competitors which is what nintendo is planning to do.

Is HD fundamental to gameplay, no so it dosen't really matter. While in some ways it can enhance gameplay, but is that enhancement worth an extra $20, i don't think so. The graphics won't be any better either its only the resolution that improves, things are clearer to see but hey its not like 480i is like trying to see through a vaseline smeared television or something.

Finally revolution will still work on HDTVs, it just won't be in HD so what is the issue? Just as PS3 / 360 games will still work on your SDTV.

I'm sorry to say that your opinion is baseless. "HD will make games cost more." Yes, they may make games cost more to make. But developers and publishers know how much gamers are willing and able to pay. Why do you think the price of games has not changed from around 50$ for almost twenty years, despite the rising cost of production assosciated with OTHER technologies?

This is, as Pride said, pro-Nintendo propaganda to make people feel less badly about a poor, backwards thinking decision.

 

[~*Logan*~]

However, its also a damn shame that everyone is assuming so much in regards to its graphics when they've never seen hide nor hair of screenshots from the revolution games.

Way to go, people! :yes:



Nintendo isn't the only company with fans spreading propoganda. But it seems nintendo bashing is the "cool" thing to do these days among gamers. Immaturity at its finest.

I love being unbiased. Makes me open and flexible rather than putting down a system or company just because of one little thing.

"OH NOES! NO HD! JUST LIKE ALL THE CONSOLES FROM EVERY COMPANY BEFORE!!!!" *shivers and shakes*

I posted that article in hopes to shed some light on what Nintendo may be thinking. Not for everyone to say "Dur nintendo suks lolz no HD = bad games dur!"

Let me make one thing perfectly clear. Some of the best games we ever played were Pixelated and on the SNES and NES. Were they HD? No. Were they fun? **** yeah they were. Those "Kiddy games" you all bash were the very games you enjoyed when you were a kid. Now all everyone seems to care about is "better graphics, better games!" Oh and lets not forget my favorite..."No blood? No death? THIS GAME SUCKS!"

Gameplay pwns the **** out of graphics. Thats why big time "kiddy game" Wind Waker sold so well and was so successful, dispite its silly cel shade graphics that no one liked.

Its high time everyone remembers where they came from, because the future is clouding the past. Nintendo will always be around. They're still running strong. And no die hard Sony and Xbox fans with a burning hatred for Nintendo is going to stop it.

Rant Over.

 

[Chakra-X]

Though Logan's rant was pretty true/humorous, I havn't seen much Nintendo bashing (in this topic). At least Alea can carry out a 'non nintendo friendly' statement in a reasonable way...I may be wrong, but I remeber N64 games costing 30-40 dollars, and then gamecube knocked it up 50.

I just think if any develpoer is smart enough that pricing a game over 60 dollars is a bit too ridiculous. Not only is that reaching the price of a small television, but even more future console games could reach $90 per game, unless they are wise to attempt to keep games within the $50 range.

I also must agree on Logan's statement that making fun of nintendo and its games is "in". Because for some people, blood, cussing, and guns is a must have for every game. If those properties are not present, it is dubbed 'kiddy'.

 

[SailorAlea]

However, its also a damn shame that everyone is assuming so much in regards to its graphics when they've never seen hide nor hair of screenshots from the revolution games.

Way to go, people! :yes:

Let me make one thing perfectly clear. Some of the best games we ever played were Pixelated and on the SNES and NES. Were they HD? No. Were they fun? **** yeah they were. Those "Kiddy games" you all bash were the very games you enjoyed when you were a kid. Now all everyone seems to care about is "better graphics, better games!" Oh and lets not forget my favorite..."No blood? No death? THIS GAME SUCKS!"

Gameplay pwns the **** out of graphics. Thats why big time "kiddy game" Wind Waker sold so well and was so successful, dispite its silly cel shade graphics that no one liked.

Rant Over.

I've never assumed what kind of games the Revolution will have.. Thank you. Nintendo hasn't released screenshots for a reason, be it their confidence or their intimidation. I have never said graphics were the most important aspect of any game.

In any case, your argument that "the original games were fun, but pixelated" is meaningless because all games were pixelated--Nintendo wasn't "behind the curve, but somehow favored because of superior gameplay." Nintendo was keeping up, and the developers were doing a good job.

Gameplay vs. Graphics has absolutely no bearing on whether HD is a good or bad thing. Just because a game is developed in HD, doesn't mean the developers must concentrate any less on the gameplay, nor that gamers will somehow not realize a game has horrible mechanics if it has fancy graphics.

Though Logan's rant was pretty true/humorous, I havn't seen much Nintendo bashing (in this topic). At least Alea can carry out a 'non nintendo friendly' statement in a reasonable way...I may be wrong, but I remeber N64 games costing 30-40 dollars, and then gamecube knocked it up 50.

Nintendo 64 games were 50$, some of them going higher--Pokemon Stadium was 79.99$. I believe SM RPG when it originally came out was 69.99--though not 100% sure on that one.

 

[~*Logan*~]

I've never assumed what kind of games the Revolution will have.. Thank you. Nintendo hasn't released screenshots for a reason, be it their confidence or their intimidation. I have never said graphics were the most important aspect of any game.

In any case, your argument that "the original games were fun, but pixelated" is meaningless because all games were pixelated--Nintendo wasn't "behind the curve, but somehow favored because of superior gameplay." Nintendo was keeping up, and the developers were doing a good job.

Gameplay vs. Graphics has absolutely no bearing on whether HD is a good or bad thing. Just because a game is developed in HD, doesn't mean the developers must concentrate any less on the gameplay, nor that gamers will somehow not realize a game has horrible mechanics if it has fancy graphics.

I didn't mention your name once. I was talking about the public in general. Your post just kinda pushed me along a bit.

Nintendo hasn't released screenshots because they wanna keep things a surprise. Thats why the only thing we know about the revolution are what the system looks like, the internet capabilities, and a single game...the next Smash Bros. Thats about it. We know nothing else. So whether its confidence or intimidation, all we know is...is its going to be a surprise.

My comment about pixelated games was in regards to the fact that people are more worried about what game has better graphics rather than the game content. I was simply reminding everyone that at one point, pixelated was all we had, and we enjoyed it anyway because of....what? THE GAMEPLAY! OMGWTF!?

And you're right. HD or not, the focus on gameplay should be the same. What my point is though...is that people these days are complaining about Nintendo not using HD support. They're ignoring gameplay. Its HD or a no go. Period.

And here's a little note. These people probably don't even have HDTV in the first place. only about 20% of americans own HDTVs. So if you don't own an HDTV and you don't plan on getting one...yet you bash Nintendo for not supporting it, then you're nothing more than a biased fool who's just looking for something to blame on Nintendo.

By the way Alea...by "you" I meant "You, the one reading this at this moment." So don't reply saying "I never said that, you cad!" *glove slap*

Rant Over....again...

 

[SaiyanPrideXIX]

I don't really see how rabidly defending Nintendo makes anyone any more of a neutral party here.

The facts, I think, are at base a perfect example. No HD support is obviously not better than optional HD support; I don't understand why there's even an argument.

 

[~*Logan*~]

I don't really see how rabidly defending Nintendo makes anyone any more of a neutral party here.

The facts, I think, are at base a perfect example. No HD support is obviously not better than optional HD support; I don't understand why there's even an argument.

*turns it right back on you*

I don't see how rabidly bashing nintendo makes anyone more of an intellegent party here.

*looks at your sig*

I rest my case on that.

And, while I'm at it, you're obviously someone who thinks graphics > gameplay. Otherwise HD wouldn't matter. I don't understand why there's even an argument.

 

[Majin_You]

Whoa.

Whoa whoa whoa.

This is worse than a console war, now. Any argument that becomes this personal is not meant to continue. I think enough points have been made here, not to mention that this is the second thread about the Revolution's exclusion of HD support.

I'm sorry, but if it has to come to this kind of debate, then I think the thread has run its course.