No HDTV, for the Wii

Look, I know this is old news, but would anyone care to share their ideas on why the Wii idn't going to have HD? I personally can't think of a reason why. Even though it doesn't really need to have, what with great games (TP, SMG, MP3, SSBB) that don't need it. However, from a financial standpoint, this may have been a mistake. These days, poeple are attracted to realism and more people would buy the Wii that reason. Then again, the Wii will also attract people in another way, via the Wii-mote, the interactiveness, and the awsome launchtittles. I don't know all of them, but the ones I do know, are awsome. So, why do you think the Wii won't support HD?

P.S. From what I remember from an article somewhere, the Wii is going to suppot ED (enhanced definition). Which is, to those who don't know, just one step below HD.

I don't, quite frankly, care if Wii doesn't support HD. As you said, the fact that Wii doesn't have HD is propably not going to attract gamers that insist great graphics. But then again, i think that Nintendo is trying to expand their fanbase, they're trying to get ppl who wouldn't normally play games, to play games. They already won women gamers (and women that don't play games) over with Nintendogs, now they're going to get the rest with Wii's excellent playability and entertainment value. And no-one should judge the big N just yet, it's the games that make the console, not the other way around...


P.S. Don't know anything about that:embrsd:

MMM... I don't really mind if there is or ISN'T a HDTV for a Wii. I mean, usually people get HDTV with a plasma TV or LCD. And if not, they use a HD box. Or something to that accord. Anyhow, even if they don't use HD, what's the big difference? You can't play on Plasma/Rear Projection TV's which is annoying. If I do get a Wii, and it's not looking likely right now, it's gonna havta go downstairs, on the non plasma or thingy a mah jiggy mah bob tv.

It lies not in my interest whether the HDTV option is available or not for the Wii, but I can assure you Nintendo did the wrong thing by ignoring it.

I mean, first, they make the thing probably a little better than the Gamecube (power-wise) and then they don't even let people enjoy HDTV with it. It's almost as if they do not care for visuals at all anymore, and HDTV is going to be a big thing, just like PS2 having a DVD-player and the Gamecube not was.

I don't quite see why Nintendo had to make the Wii that much of a little budget console. I suppose they're going for a new approach, but I think they're taking it a little too far. It's like they have gone mad and think they can get away with anything, as long as they're different. Don't forget the battery problem either, another thing they could've done right.

For me though, no HDTV and things like that just mean a cheaper console, because I use good old ghetto TVs that make odd noises, TVs that were around before]me. It's better for me, but for a different and possibly larger crowd, that might be what could drive them away from the Wii. It must be annoying to have a big fat HDTV and not be able to take advantage of it.

Originally Posted by Fate!

P.S. From what I remember from an article somewhere, the Wii is going to suppot ED (enhanced definition). Which is, to those who don't know, just one step below HD.

More like two steps.

Originally Posted by KaRath

You can't play on Plasma/Rear Projection TV's which is annoying.

What are you trying to say?

And Nintendo could have easily added HD support while still keeping the prices down. You don't HAVE to have super duper processors and GPUs to support stunning full out HD like the PS3 and 360. Nintendo could have just gone and made the console somewhere more in between. The system's main resolution could have been 480p, but it could also do some games in 720p, much like the PS2 and 480p. Another option Nintendo could have easily done is having 540p incluided as another optional resolution. 540p has the same timings as 1080i, and many 1080i HD sets (which are getting less common these days) upscale all 480p to 540p because of that. As for fixed pixal displays like Plasmas and LCDs, not all can accept every resolution (only doing the main ones), but the ones that could would have a signifigantly less amount of upscaling to do to get it to 720p, or better yet, 1080p, which would only involve line doubling in some scenarios (for the lack of not getting more in depth).

And the whole cost of the console being the reason: Forget about it. Nintendo is already going to be making a HUGE profit with every Wii sold, since the thing uses old technology, and the only thing Nintendo is really taking a hit for is the new controller, which too, doesn't cost much to produce after R&D costs. Nintendo could have made the system a little stronger AND still have the same price. No worries there.

I don't know. If high quality graphics, which are eventually going to become game graphics, like The Incredibles, Shrek, or Final Fantasy VII- Advent Children (Which, it was often discouraged to be put up in movie theaters or big screens), can look good on normal televisions, why does Nintendo need that extra boost? Don't get me wrong, HD can make something look pretty good. But, Nintendo believes that they can pull through without HD. HD isn't a necessity, I believe that is why they are trying to say. And, I don't think we have reached our maximum graphical capabilities for normal televisions, either...

Originally Posted by Andross

I don't know. If high quality graphics, which are eventually going to become game graphics, like The Incredibles, Shrek, or Final Fantasy VII- Advent Children (Which, it was often discouraged to be put up in movie theaters or big screens), can look good on normal televisions, why does Nintendo need that extra boost? Don't get me wrong, HD can make something look pretty good. But, Nintendo believes that they can pull through without HD. HD isn't a necessity, I believe that is why they are trying to say. And, I don't think we have reached our maximum graphical capabilities for normal televisions, either...

The graphics on the Wii are most likely going to be capped by the resolution, not the actual hardware this time around. To make the graphics any better, you do need a higher resolution. You can't increase detail and screen information with out it, no matter how much power a machine has.

I'm somewhat displeased with the lack of HD support for the Wii. I enjoy the increase in lines of resolution, and the difference in quality between ED and HD is very noticeable (well, for me it is). It makes my gaming experience just that much more enjoyable. HD will be standard in the not to distant future. Nintendo should have taken the opportunity to take advantage of HD. The lack of HD support also limits developers.

The 'interesting' gameplay and controler for the Wii should make up for the lack of HD.

Originally Posted by Mr. Wonderful

The graphics on the Wii are most likely going to be capped by the resolution, not the actual hardware this time around. To make the graphics any better, you do need a higher resolution. You can't increase detail and screen information with out it, no matter how much power a machine has.

I don't agree. Computer graphics have not reached some kind of saturation point where only increased resolution can improve it further. If you ask me what piece of technology that truly defines next-generation graphics, it's not HD-support, it's shaders. And it doesn't take a sharper image to see what I mean.

Not that it's got anything to do with Wii since it's got neither.

Originally Posted by Stuit

I don't agree. Computer graphics have not reached some kind of saturation point where only increased resolution can improve it further. If you ask me what piece of technology that truly defines next-generation graphics, it's not HD-support, it's shaders. And it doesn't take a sharper image to see what I mean.

Not that it's got anything to do with Wii since it's got neither.

Computers are a completely different story. For one, though slightly irrelevant, you can upgrade the shading and lighting effects on a computer by firmware, software, or a new component for your computer.

You can't tell me Oblivion at the lowest resolution has as much shading, lighting, and texture details as a higher resolution. Even if you have those properties all the way up, you still have to have the resolution to show them.

But I agree, the next generation is defined by shading and lighting. That and physics, along with HD, though physics is less seen.

Thank god, William. I was wondering if anyone would come in this thread and do something other than brush this off. It was a bad decision and should be recognized as such.

Don't get me wrong, HD can make something look pretty good. But, Nintendo believes that they can pull through without HD. HD isn't a necessity, I believe that is why they are trying to say.

The conversion from lousy, interlaced analog to HDTV has been described as a bigger shift than the transition from black and white to color TV. This is what will soon be the standard as analog is phased out, and Nintendo, by ignoring HDTV, hasn't shunned indulgence but has rooted themselves to a dying technology.

P.S. From what I remember from an article somewhere, the Wii is going to suppot ED (enhanced definition). Which is, to those who don't know, just one step below HD.

ED is some sort of middle transition between SD and HD. It's not an alternative format, it's a discount format. I don't believe it can hope to persevere as a standard.

Originally Posted by Mr. Wonderful

What are you trying to say?

He's referring to etching.

Originally Posted by Mr. Wonderful

Computers are a completely different story. For one, though slightly irrelevant, you can upgrade the shading and lighting effects on a computer by firmware, software, or a new component for your computer.

You can't tell me Oblivion at the lowest resolution has as much shading, lighting, and texture details as a higher resolution. Even if you have those properties all the way up, you still have to have the resolution to show them.

But I agree, the next generation is defined by shading and lighting. That and physics, along with HD, though physics is less seen.

I was actually talking about console graphics, I used the term computer graphics because it sound cooler.

Of course there's a difference. But as I said, I don't think we have reached the point where we can only spot the graphical gap between two generations through upping resolution. Many first-gen 360 games relied alot on HD resolution because the developers were still new to the hardware but after the E3 that just passed it was made clear that it wont stay that way.

Originally Posted by Stuit

Of course there's a difference. But as I said, I don't think we have reached the point where we can only spot the graphical gap between two generations through upping resolution.

I do agree. Look at the Wii. What I'm actually saying though is once the developers get a good feel for the Wii, it will be the first console who's graphics are limited by resolution and not actual power. In other words, no matter how much Mhz or Ghz or power you have for the GPU and CPU, you can only display so much in the resolution.

Unless the Wii ends up being a extremely weak, as in not much better than this generation, that's likely how it's going to be.

Originally Posted by Mr. Wonderful

The graphics on the Wii are most likely going to be capped by the resolution, not the actual hardware this time around. To make the graphics any better, you do need a higher resolution. You can't increase detail and screen information with out it, no matter how much power a machine has.

I don't know. I was doubting the Wii's graphical capabilities as well. Then I saw Super Mario Galaxy. Sure, it isn't the same thing as the 360 or the PS3. But it definitely doesn't look bad, either. It looked pretty good, in my opinion. It looked like a leap from the Gamecube, at least for me...

I don't think the Wii graphics will be terrible... Just not as strong as the PS3 or Xbox 360. Also, I've yet to use high definition mode for my 360, for I haven't taken the time to move my TV out of the way, and get to the input which accepts the high def mode . But I was still wowed by the graphics, even on normal mode... Heheh...

I don't know. I was doubting the Wii's graphical capabilities as well. Then I saw Super Mario Galaxy. Sure, it isn't the same thing as the 360 or the PS3. But it definitely doesn't look bad, either. It looked pretty good, in my opinion.

Metroid Prime 2's graphics were awesome. Sure, I like photorealism, but that doesn't mean I want to pay hundreds of dollars more for it. MP2's graphics are probably similar to the Wii's worst looking game that will come out (because there's always that game...), and I can handle that. I don't have to have a 62" Plasma screen tv running an XBox360 at high-def to enjoy playing a good game. There are few games I could note that I wouldn't enjoy playing as much if the graphics were only as good as the GameCube could put out. That at least gives me confidence that the Wii didn't screw me over when they decided to leave HD unsupported.

seeing as how video games cannot come close to reality right now, I see now problem with nintendo's choice not to utilize HD TV, I don't have HDTV, and I don't plan to have it any time soon, so I'm not at a loss.

Most games that we play use alot of movement, so much so that we aren't really given the chance to look at the small details of the world, even in our own world we don't sit there and look at the small grooves in the walls while shooting terrorists. I see no reason to further sharpen games because in reality, most of what we see in unfocused anyways.
What really matters is well smart graphical developers are, if they choose better animation over texture detail, if they choose atmospheric realism over photorealism.