-Aaron said:
Psychonaut said:
David said:
Quoting limited to 4 levels deep
oh boy tye making a comment sure is gonna be a flame war.
you'd better prepare your enthralling one liners, tye might have his flaming ammunition loaded for just the occasion.
if a flame war starts about a component cable making or breaking the Wii being HD, you guys are just itching to flame tye.
we all know it doesn't make up for the wii's way below next-gen graphics, tye even said so himself in that post, but it does make the output much crisper, which is a large step up, HD or not.
but eh.
all about them HDMI cables, mirite?
I'm not itching to flame Tye. I respect his opinion, but he's clearly *censored.3.0*ing wrong. The Wii has the *censored.2.0*tiest graphics this gen. Why it wasn't HD, I don't know. Hey, maybe the next generation of the Wii will have HD, while the others will probably have glorious 3D. ;-)
It's clear that you, along with others, are in fact just itching to start a flame war with me, because you're changing the subject, purposely trying to tick me off and get me on a rant. I entered this thread replying to Psychonaut's comment about the graphics of the game, stating that they don't look awful, as he said, and that they looks very near HD with component cables. I was not in any way trying to ignite any kind of war, I was merely agreeing with Psychonaut. But then Pear and David had to call me off and tell me that component cables don't do *censored.2.0*, which is completely wrong, so I corrected them. Again, still not trying to start a flame war. But now you go and change the subject to flat out bashing the Wii, which you know will piss me off.
I shouldn't have to say anything in response, because you all should know my stance on the matter by now, but because I know you'll only keep egging me on, I might as well give my two cents. The Wii, while not being able to output at true HD, is still capable of some pretty damn good looking graphics (Super Mario Galaxy, Metroid: Other M, Kirby's Epic Yarn...just to name a few), and whether a game is in HD or not should not affect how fun or enjoyable a game is. Of course, looking nice is always a plus, but I'm sure plenty of you guys play some oldschool games from time to time, and even though the graphics are vastly inferior to today's games, they're still every bit as fun to play, right?
As for why the Wii doesn't support HD... There's a simple explanation for it. For one, at the time of the Wii's development, HDTV wasn't even near as standard as it is today. Also, Nintendo was taking a huge risk with Wii. They were afraid that the idea of motion control in video games wouldn't take off very well with consumers, and that they would be facing another Virtual Boy-like flop. So, they did everything they could to make the console more appealing and affordable to everyone, which means they had to cut costs. By excluding HD output, they were able to cut costs of both the console itself and the development costs of the games. A smart move to make if you're unsure if your next big thing might be a total failure. Better to lose less money than more, right? But, of course, the Wii was a huge success, even without HD support, which goes to show that resolution isn't everything. And you might want to rethink your little comment about Nintendo being behind in graphics on the next generation of consoles, too, because Nintendo has made it clear that whatever their next console may be, it will support the standards of the time, even if that means skipping the HD stage altogether.
And, no, you're not getting any more out of me than that, so don't bother. If I'm gonna post in this thread again, it will be about the subject of the thread, Kirby's Epic Yarn, not arguing over video game console graphics.
