How Mario Galaxy Looks In 720p

@Slagathorian:Higher resolution will require more processing power, which means that cuts will have to be made elsewhere for the visuals.
So if the console renders at 720p, the games will have less graphical effects or fewer polys than with 480p (although the difference isn't that substantial). Worse, downscaling will degrade the picture, as Microsoft and Sony customers have found out.

480p: optimal for most sets. Looks good on 1080p TVs. Loses quality on 720p sets.

720p: Looks crap on the majority of TVs. Looks better than 480p on a a specifically 720p set, but not that much better on a FullHD 1080p set.

1080p: Big leap in resolution. Downscaling is less of an issue. Pixel-perfect display on a 1080p set produces an optimal picture.

The higher you go the less impressive your games will look with regards to other grapphical features.
Nintendo decided for option 1, MS and Sony went for option 2. Most developers thin 1080p is a waste of resources.

Considering that 720p is a standard which will soon be history, I think Nintendo made a wise choice.

Kotakufan777

@headcase:

Well if I were Nintendo I'd be relying on hardware emulation for this task. The Wii's CPU's is pretty basic, so it shouldn't be too difficult to design a 3-4 core equivalent that can deactivate cores and clock down as necessary to mimic the Wii CPU.

That leaves the Wii GPU. Shouldn't be a big deal to throw that onto the motherboard of Nintendo's next machine. Should only cost a few dollars per chip and can be deactivated when not in use to save what meager power it would drew. It would make the design slightly more complex, but as an added value to the customer it would be well worth it.

Course, keeping full backwards compatibility going each and every generation does become increasingly difficult with time. As evidenced by Sony and the PS3.

On a final note

Even if Nintendo is once again making the weakest of the three consoles, I wouldn't expect as big a disparity next time around. Even if Sony and Microsofts hardware ends up being a fair deal more powerful, Nintendo can make up for that to an extent by limiting output to 720p and including a decent upscaler. This is what most X-box or PS3 games do now, but I suspect that'll be the first thing to change once developers have more powerful hardware to worth with again.

WolvenOne

@JGab:
The GameCube came out over a year after PS2, so it had better, cheaper tech. Also, no DVD playback (except for in the Panasonic Q), so there's some money saved there, too.

The problem with Xbox was how they had almost no control over the pricing of their CPU and GPU. They, more or less, took stock Intel CPUs and Nvidia GPUs, and had no control over the patents, blueprints, etc... They had to struggle with them to get the prices to drop. Even at $300, the Xbox was a huge loss.
360 was a hugely different case. While IBM made the CPU and ATI made the GPU, Microsoft owned the designs and such, making it easier for them to adjust the prices on components.

@everyone: Again, to repeat my point, I do notice the improvement, I'm just not really impressed by it at all.

-Resolution difference between Atari 2600 and NES: Impressive.
-Resolution difference between NES and SNES: Impressive.
-Resolution difference between 480p Mario Galaxy and 720p Mario Galaxy: Not impressive.

Going from SD to HD is obviously a difference, and better, so I have no problem with people switching over. I just don't like how much stores are pushing it, when it's really not a big deal as they make it out to be. And no attacks on my eyesight, I wear glasses of the right prescription and see fine. There's an increase, but it feels about as impressive as the jump from like 60fps to 70fps.
Perhaps part of my argument stems from perspective. In my above examples, that was earlier, when the technology was so primitive that each improvement was leaps and bounds graphically. Like when modern medicine first developed, the life expectancy in developed nations increased far more dramatically than it has in say, the last decade.

And this kind of exercise in particular seems pointless. Ooh, look, Mario Galaxy at a higher resolution. OK, there's less "jaggies." But look at the grass in the second pic, for christ's sake.
"Sweet, now I can see the low detail textures in stunning 720p!!1!"
It's like running Ocarina of Time on an emulator at really high resolution.
"Sweet, now I can see the 100 polygon model of Link in stunning 1900x1200!!11!"

I just don't find that improvement in resolution very impressive when the underlying graphics were never meant to be detailed enough to be seen at that resolution.

nworobes

@gold163: On another note, HD Galaxy looks beautiful. Though, I have to admit that playing the Wii on a SD TV is more attractive than putting it on a 40" widescreen TV in 480p. The colors are brighter in SD too, I think. XD

I came across this:

[www.giantbomb.com]

Just thought that it was interesting. I didn't own an Xbox, so can anyone tell me if Ninja Gaiden Black really output in 720p?

Hey Reggie. Rather than spend time developing another Team Ninja / Nintendo mash-up or something of the sort, put out something that will make the existing games look like this. This dude did it. If you make it, here's my wallet.

Arsenal

@Malaysia Isachargin: Coming from the non-hd-TV generation yes, not a big difference. However those that have been using PCs for many many years now look at 480i and snear.

MrFatalistic

But nintendo just loves HD right? damn nintendo, most of us have HDTVs why didnt they think of that before releasing the wii.

btw I think there's a gigantic difference between this and 480p, almost as much as the difference between 480p and 480i. I got the component cables for the GameCube just to get Metroid Prime in 480p, and as my friend (who recommended that I get them) had said, 2002 was the year I first creamed my jeans.

x_x

I can easily tell the difference in 480p vs 720p. 720p vs 1080p, not as much, but I would easily take anything as low as 720p over anything in interlace, even 1080i.

It's a big deal when the camera perspective's constantly moving around.

@KingSeafoam:
Graphics only matter if they allow a game to achieve ideas that it couldn't have done otherwise. I really don't see the point in graphics solely for the sake of being prettier.

The idea of graphics increasing immersion is kind of an illusion. As soon as more advanced graphics come out, the immersion of previously "realistic appearing" games is lost, as it's visuals flaws become apparent against technologically superior game engines.

2c-b

@Kyuu: I'll have to politely disagree with this. For me, I was shocked at how much better Super Mario 64 looked emulated in a higher res, so much so that I plugged in my old n64 just to compare. Sure, everything 2D looks extra jagged on an LCD, but 3D is much better.

Also, the N64 is only capable of a maximum resolution of 640x480, the game was not meant to be played at 800x600. At a guess I'd say the addition of AA would be the reason for the extra clarity.

That said, doing tv-out to an old CRT and running the emulator on that produces the best results for me. There are no jagged edges on anything 2D at all, and you get the benefits of smoother polygons.

2c-b

im sorry, but HD is like going from black and white to color. If you say you don't care and you don't see the difference, you're wrong. go play your wii on a B/W Zenith then. Just don't sit there on your mario bean bag chair drinking your Koopa Kool Aid and tell me a 1080p output Wii wouldn't be the bees knees.

its not even that the wii can't handle great graphics, its that everything looks GREAT high def. those pixeljunk games on the PS3 are low end graphics, but because its HD, it looks fabulous. super crisp HD, not a pixel in sight (ironically).

Wii had me at launch, i loved it, but since trying out what the xbox and ps3 have, the wii is clearly lagging behind in quality games and quality graphics. On a 50 inch HDTV, the wii looks... muddy.

Noodle-Works

@brainFUBAR: And the PS3 is nothing but a PS2 with blu-ray.

Ferkner

@Antiterra:
Considering the amount of panties that were in a bind over Nintendo charging 20 dollars for Wii Motion+,
I speculate the reaction to the release of Nintendo Wii HD would be nothing short of a ritualistic mass suicide.

@clammy: The lack of 720p whatever it is support means that Wii games look BETTER on a crap tv!
I dont mind saying I have a 42" Pioneer Kuro, and the Wii looked absolutely hideous on it :(

@slight: I think you need a better tv mate.

Maybe next time, you shouldnt buy something just because it's "bigger" - and actually get something which displays images properly...

clammy

@Antiterra: Hi-def graphics improve how mario galaxy plays ... how exactly?

Also - i can see no difference between these and the up-scaled image on my tv anyhows.

People claiming they can, either have a crp tv - or havent played the original.

clammy

@tim rogers:

Course the TV's cost what, 1000 bucks? I would love to drop 1000 bucks on a new tv. Only I like, you know. Want to eat. Have internet. Have running water. You know. Important stuff.

Lonesnipa

@pslong9: Yes I'd agree that some games simply don't age much because of their style, althought those are rare indeed.
And I kinda like the first 3d consoles, gives me warm fuzzy feelings inside :)

@TearsandScreams: And half of those are probably just running SD cable signals through their sets, thinking they just needed to buy the TV to get HD.

Stop buying TVs with crappy scalers out of the 'box damage' aisle at Wal Mart and maybe your crappy 'Hanasonic' TV's shitty scaler won't eat game images alive.

Note how the higher res didn't really do anything, because Nintendo has excellent art direction that does not rely on the amount of verticle pixels as a crutch.

@iknowkungfu:

Bitter sweet is what this is.

U R MR GAY

@WolvenOne: Yeah, it will be interesting to see if they can retroactively make Wii games display in HD on the new console. If an emulator can do it, Nintendo might have a shot.

Then again, they've failed miserably with memory paks and rumble where unofficial N64 emulators have succeeded.

headcase

@Maximillion: Yeah, SD looks pretty crappy on a lot of HDTVs. Some of them lag a lot too. Hopefully the laser TVs can handle SD a little more gracefully, because I have yet to see an HDTV that can show SD even nearly as well as an SDTV.

headcase

@Paradox me: 90% of what I want on the 360 is XBLA stuff, so while I don't want to pay more than $200, I also need a harddrive (but hey, I'd settle for 16GB flash instead). I think it's kind of strange that the 360 "Arcade" is crippled when it comes to XBLA content.

@zach a mac rack alack: A lot of people don't have HD.

headcase

@stop2: Well im glad for him, cos the 'blocky' ones are definitely the best :)

@slight: I play my Wii on an 80" screen (projector) and the resolution doesn't bother me. I watch DVDs on it too. We used to have an HD-DVD player; the difference between SD and HD is obvious, but it didn't change our appreciation of the movies, so we got rid of it. I think if we watched more sports (e.g., any at all), it might have been different.

As for these SMG screens, they definitely look better, but since the geometry and textures are the same, it's not a difference I care much about. The impression I get from the high res screen shots is that the textures are muddy and the geometry is simple; of course, at 480p the resolution isn't high enough to see these shortcomings.

Lol at those who didnt play Galaxy. Galaxy is a beautiful game and acutally, believei t or not, does not look significantly worse than these shots.

orenn

@TearsandScreams: I think that's taking it a bit to the extreme. I think most everyone is saying that better graphics and more power can improve the experience of already great games. I love Smash Bros. and Galaxy and they already look great, but what would you say to having more objects/enemies on the field, larger stages, higher resolution textures, more polygons all-around *drools*

and maybe, if the system was more widely known to produce higher quality graphics, certain developers wouldn't take the lazy route in developing games...maybe...probably not though.

BinaryReaver

honestly, i dont really see a difference. i have a 42inch tv and playing mario galaxy on 480P is already pretty crisp even when i go quite close to the tv. ok maybe 720P can make a bit of better difference, but when you are sitting around 5meters away from the tv or so,it doesnt really make a difference.

@Paradox me: Honestly, I think the low-res blur does the game a favour. HD crispness just reveals the polygon shapes, and how cruddy the textures are on far away objects. HD looks good on games that are made to be HD, but doesn't really suit the Wii releases.
This just reminds me of when I tried out an N64 emulator, playing Mario64 in high resolution. It looks horrid. Then I switched to 800x600 resolution and maximum AA instead. MUCH nicer, because that's how the game was designed to look.

Kyuu

@N●Gage Croal: Yep. It's a shame though that people don't realize this. My cousin is one of those people, who look at the wall of crappy Wii games and go "I've never seen so much crap in my life." I then remind him that the PS2 has just as much crap last gen, and he swears he doesn't remember that.

But this is what kills me. If Nintendo was able to create the N64 and Gamecube with top notch graphics and still make a profit with a low selling point, how were they unable to create something more powerful and still keep a low price point? While claims are that it would cost more to go into HD or do higher end graphics, how were they able to do them the generations before and still create a profit?

The original Xbox and PS2 had Microsoft and Sony losing money, if I'm not mistaken. But the Gamecube made money off every system sold and had better tech than the PS2. How can Sony lose money on something with less tech than the Gamecube while Nintendo made money? I'm assuming that Nintendo was simply more efficient than Sony was with the tech. I then question again: if they were able to be more efficient than Sony was, how are they unable to at the very least make a platform that sells for low with a profit and has the horsepower and output that the other systems have? Is the tech that Sony and Microsoft used for the systems so pricey that the fact the companies used it in the first place was to try to destroy Nintendo once and for all? And if this is true, if the two push the graphics even farther with an even bigger financial loss, and include motion controllers- how will Nintendo ever be able to compete again without completely changing the game once more? Their strategy may only work for a generation, because they should've known competitors would be doing something similar fairly soon.

@Gyaruson: Unfortunately, the Wii hardware is not capable of HD resolutions because Nintendo didn't put enough video RAM in the device. Technically there is enough for 720p if you don't mind horrible tearing, but even with that, many older HDTV's can't display 720p at all (only 480p and 1080i), so that would have been a bad idea to only support that.

It would probably have taken all of $5 in parts to allow developers to use HD resolutions if they desired, but Nintendo didn't want developers to lower their game's SD graphic quality so they could try and make the game look good in HD, so they didn't even make it possible.

Dreamwriter

The water looks so gorgeous.

@RockyRan:

In the same way me not caring about HD makes me a fanboy you mean? Awesome isn't it.

Lozmaster

@KingSeafoam: No, you are right, graphics don't matter ... if you game with your eyes closed.

@nworobes: Wait a minute, are you saying you are a PC gamer but don`t care about resolution when PC games have been going OVER HD resolutions for awhile now ? (for example i game on 1920x1200 by default)
You are a pretty weird one.

As a general point, not only does a good game become a great game with better graphics, but a crappy game can garner interest from enthusiasts especially BECAUSE of stunning graphics.

I never really understood people that are vehement against graphical evolution, whether it`s a good or bad game, better graphics enhance it.

@theclaw: it's true. the old 360s can output noticable 1080p with just component.

@njd09:
I think it's highly likely that the majority of people who own a copy of super mario galaxy own a wii, yes.

Lozmaster

@MellowJade: if you were a pc gamer youve had hd gaming for a long time. the effects of sd to hd gaming are more noticeable than the effects of sd to hd movies.

its nothing game breaking. personally im more appalled by how most nintendo games lack proper widescreen support. but its more than a little backwards for a game system to lack hd this day in age. nintendos own poll showed that more wii owners have hd tvs than sd tvs.

and if you cant tell the difference between 480p and 720p i would strongly suggest you get your eyes checked.

abort_user

@jbiller: Haha, i think you "hd naive" people finally pissed him off.

@hamzahfukasurnameu+aintgotclearence:
Meh, not so mean actually. A Core2Duo, some 2Gb of ram or more and a 8800GTS and it runs flawlesly (with the supported games). So i'd say a medium rig.

Just for the record.

By the time Nintendo needs to release a Wii successor, components capable and competent at HD visuals should be dirt cheap. Heck, even a Wii style low-ball spec should still be more powerful than the current HD hardware at a $250 launch price.

I mean, I'm expecting something along the lines of a 3-4 core CPU, a GPU with fifty or so stream processors, and two GB's or RAM. Even by now a PC with those sorts of specs wouldn't cost too much to throw together, so by 2012 or so they should be dirt cheap.

WolvenOne

There is the video version. It is not perfect, though. Some of the textures do not load, and the atmospheric glow is opaque instead of translucent.

@santasassassin: There's no way you can't see the difference. Instead of making a statement that makes you look like an idiot, come up with a real argument.

The fact of the matter is that if you could play a great game with blurry graphics or the same game with crisp graphics, you'd pick the latter every single time. Super Mario Galaxy is a great game on the Wii, but I'd love the opportunity to play it in HD.

kylenalepa

@Creasy: Graphics shouldn't matter nearly as much as they do. Especially when people are getting to a point where "jaggies" are the reason a game sucks.

Mario Galaxy looks GREAT even on my old CRT TV. But the most important part is the game is friggin' FUN.

God. Apparently enjoyment is also "so last gen".

@slight: Thank god 60+ inch screens aren't the norm. At least not where I've been.

I've played several Wii games on 50+ inches, and have had no issue with the graphics.

Wii HD in 2010, PLEASE!!!!

tommyscomics

@brainFUBAR: Nintendo choosed "waggle" instead of HD and it was a inteligent choice: new gamers and lots of revenue. The only reason they have to launch a HD Wii right now is to please the core gamers, which most already have a Wii. It makes no sense.

Besides, it's kind of ironic to see a core gamer calling "niche" to the first mainstream home console since the NES.

xupaxupa

so... beautiful

doughboyx

the lack of 720p on the Wii is honestly the #1 reason it's gathering dust in the closet. I just can't handle switching from the PS360 to the grainy muddy mess that is 480p on my HDTV.

Really. If they cleared that up I'd be back.

Maximillion

@RockyRan: Then again, it might have to do with the fact that the game still isn't emulated all that well on the Dolphin.

RockyRan

If you look at the last screenshot, you'll notice that the planets that are far away lack textures and are generally ugly as sin. I never noticed it when playing the game on SD.

RockyRan

@Nslick: I like how wishing for HD automatically makes you a shallow graphics whore.

Such is the line of logic from blind Nintendo apologists.

RockyRan

@Slagathorian: I'm fine with SD games, I don't particularly like Nintendo. Honestly if a game is shit once the HD graphics are taken away, the game is shit to begin with. There is just some pretty wrapping there. It's like dressing up Hitler in Scarlett Johansson's skin.

@Crash__Man: ... which I got for $100 from a friend.

Crash__Man

@nworobes: I totally agree with you, man.

HD is more "trendy" than people say the Wii is.

not that it's going away or anything. it will eventually be the standard.

but I've been to the store and seen "HD sunglasses" and "HD nailpolish"!! our consumer mentality has been infected with the idea that HD = better.

don't be such sheep!

PS - I have a big honkin' HDTV.

Crash__Man

@njd09:
Which is unnoticeable at a normal resolution.

@Malaysia Isachargin: Hey, it ain't my fault you're blind.

RockyRan

@njd09:
A game can outperform a piece of hardware?
Marvelous!

@Antiterra: Those screens look fine to me. They may not be PS3/360 quality, but they are more than good enough.

Besides, I don't play these kind of games for the graphics. I play them because they are fun.

Ferkner

@njd09:
"How many third party games on the Wii got over a 90 overall? "

The highest scoring games are by far not my favorite. Usually the lower scoring games are much, much more interesting.

stop2

@Zorantor:
I never got the whole "if you don't like it move on" thing.

yea, that honestly doesn't look that much better...

I've played Mario galaxy and it doesn't look NEARLY as bad in-game as that first "side-by-side" image.

I have an HD tv, and I still think "HD" is a hoax.

yes, it's better quality, but not enough to merit the price tag, hype and elitist mentality that comes along with it (especially in the gaming culture).

"well if it's not worth the price why did you buy it!? huh!? huh!?"

because my friend was getting a much slimmer HDTV for a wedding gift and sold me this one for $100 (cables included!).

Crash__Man

@sugardeath: Yeah, standards change, pal. I can also play old games with extremely low resolutions as well, but I sure as hell wouldn't pay $50 for them at this day and age.

I'm really going to have to facepalm at your "nostalgic" bit. That's as ridiculous as those people who say the iPhone's flaws are "features".

RockyRan

@( shake cows, win a ) Milkshake!:
My 6 year old son likes old school games just as much as the current gen. In fact, he may even like them more. He calls them "blocky games". As is, "Hey let's play the blocky zelda game!"

stop2

Holy sex. But that out of maybe a few others are the only Wii games that'll actually show some nice definition at 720p.

Mearns

YEAH NINTENDO, everyone knows how good a game is doesn't have anything to do with gameplay or fun or anything like that...but just graphics.

All good games ever made are in HD, the rest are trash!

Nslick

@Slagathorian:

It's less expensive to develop games for a lower def system. That's why making a lower def system makes more sense.

stop2

@Ueziel: This may be true of you and your nephew (I doubt it) but it CERTAINLY is not a majority opinion. I have every SNES game on my PSP, and aside from having a good time with the systems RPG's like secret of Mana, FF3, the games are crap compared to today's offerings. If you released Super Metroid on the PS3 today for 70$ and it was exactly the same game, how much people do you think would enjoy it? It would probably be hailed as the worst game ever made.

But anyways that isn't what this thread is about. This thread is about how wii games would look better in HD. And anyone who says they are fine being in SD and don't need to change, is a rabid Nintendo fanboy, and shouldn't even be addressed. I may as well go around saying how the 360 never fails, and the PS3's Home is the coolest thing this gen.

@Slagathorian: Your problem is that you're thinking like a consumer. It makes more sense if you're trying to maximize profits and offer a system incapable of rendering in a higher resolution (because higher resolutions require more processing power).

However, to anyone who owns an HDTV or who has moved into the HD-era, catering to last gen resolutions makes little sense at all.

Guitarzan2k5 - Bad puns are my business, and business is good!

@Antiterra: But this isn't a reason for the Wii HD, or at least not one that surpasses the reason for them not to do it: cost.

santasassassin

@Malaysia Isachargin: actually u would if the tv is 35+ inches the jaggies start coming in even on 480p, that is why its better to have it be in that resolution so it doesnt stretch the image. but if ur running on a 30inch tv that sports 720p/1080i like i have the difference is barley noticable.

Merch Wnek

@Invisible-Echidna: Yyyes I'll concede that, in many cases. Not all, but certainly most.

santasassassin

*yells curse words at my inferior wii*

@( shake cows, win a ) Milkshake!: I think you do have a valid argument. However, I think art style transcends graphics. Something like Super Mario Bros 3, or Super Metroid, or X-Com on PC, still hold up very well because they have excellent gameplay and while the graphics aren't outstanding compared to today, they aren't ever going to be really bad. Gamers who didn't grow up with those games are still likely to enjoy them because the graphics, while dated, aren't horrible to look at.

However, the games where 3D models were first used look really, really bad now. I could see new gamers having a difficult time playing through some of those games because they look so bad in comparison to today's graphics.

pslong9

@Kotakufan777: What does that mean when you say that it made more sense to concentrate on 480P?

I don't see why it makes more sense.

@Zorantor: Dead Rising looks just fine on a CRT that is HD.

@N●Gage Croal:

Well said wise Jedi.

@( shake cows, win a ) Milkshake!: I know its a bit of a wall of text, but I'd really appreciate it if you guys could read it through, ok :)

@njd09: How in the hell did you ever play 2D games then? And any argument that accuses the opposing voice of being 'retarded' is as redundant as it gets. If you mean how many third party games got a 90 overall on metacritic, I don't know and care. But I can enjoy games without having to look at an arbitrary number to justify my enjoyment. Can you no longer play last gen games? Is the entire PS2 library automatically shit, because the world is no longer 'believable'? How about any further back than that? Not all games are even about total immersion. To automatically dismiss the history of an entire medium is just ignorant. But then your post did little to suggest you're anything but.

@lucasreis - I want a twitter-less world...:
Ok first, since im being attacked for saying this, I just feel that I should defend my own point of view by saying that many games that I played generations ago still appeal to me today, some more than many present day games.
But I also accept that fact that many people (read: the younger generations) do not share MY opinion, and I do not simply call people 'Wrong' because of it ( thats directed at you, Ace11 ).
The thing is though, that the current generation of new gamers will hold these generations games in their memories, the same way that we have held them in ours from previous generations. There will always be that memory of your first console and its games etc, and they will most likely regard these gens as better than the next. Its not like the quality has been declining each gen, it's just a fact that people generally rose-tint the past, something I'm all too guilty of doing.
The point I'm trying to make, is that the qualities of older games that someone might find appealing, simply won't matter to a younger generation, and the lack of certain factors (graphics etc) will put some people off entirely.
It is very possible for everyone to enjoy old games, but the fact is much (read : not all!) of the younger generation (or new gamers no matter what their age) can't stomach them.

@Lemming: Did you see the jaggies in the first picture?

....I don't get you people.

njd09

@Cavefish: "The people I know with no lcd or plasma hd sets are a minority."

That's all he said. The people HE knows. I don't think he's lying.

By the way, if you don't have an HDTV by now, what are you, some fun-hating Nazi? Really, indulge, it's not that expensive for a smaller one, and it looks MUCH better than 480i.

njd09

@Lozmaster: Then you sir, own a Wii! And a PS2 that has games that can outperform it. Well done.

njd09

It CAN handle HD. If the PS2 can output in HD, so can the Wii.

@chamoo232: Yeah dude.. Nintendo has been rather financially successful for quite some time. WTF are you talking about?

d1gw33d

@Antiterra: Seriously. My PC could run Mario Galaxy better than the Wii, and it's a piece of crap. To those of you saying "The Wii has great games, grafix sux", you're retarded. How many third party games on the Wii got over a 90 overall? Like four, if that? Before you tell me the first-party games are great, I don't like their legacy titles and I never will. Hell, I don't even like Galaxy, but now that I've seen that comparison picture, my god. Is there any antialiasing at all going on with the Wii? Cause that jaggy screenshot looks like it's at maybe 2x, where the 720p screenshot looks like it's at 8x. Ridiculous how bad the graphics are. You don't NEED good graphics, but it makes the world more believable. Every time I see jaggies, it really reminds me that I'm playing a game and that there's a huge disconnect between me and said game. Haven't really had that happen on the PS3/360.

njd09

@nworobes: Don't mean to be a dick - but you don't know what you're talking about. :(

d1gw33d

@persocom: yes I was kidding about the bankruptcy. sarcasm doesnt always work in text. nintendo still has problem with third parties. they get alot of it but its only crap. once again the only big beautifull awesome games are the same we had for over 10yrs now. mario and zelda and all the other big nintendo names.

chamoo232

@Đipic:

Exactly. Well put. I think the issue here is a little muddy now. The topic was in favour of an HD Wii.

Sure, I played loads of old low res stuff. I grew up with a Atari 2600 and Coleco and spent most of my teenage years behind a Commodore 64...so I know there is loads of fun to be had at lower resolutions. I loved Super Metroid and Yoshi's Island is still one of my all-time favs. But for a current gen console, I think we could all agree that the Wii is behind the times in terms of power. This doesn't knock their games in general (though honestly the library on the Wii is pretty slim for pickings for me) and certainly no one can argue with Nintendo's plan and sucess.
Certainly there has to be merit in HD...otherwise why is everyone buying HDTVs, getting HD TV channels, buying Blu-Ray movies, etc, etc?
I honestly have a lot more fun with my 360...partly due to the type of games, but also cuz it looks really nice and part of the fun is having the world of your game filled with visual eye candy and detail to round out the experience. As I've said before...given the choice I would rather play the 360 versions of multi-platform games over the Wii (I am not snubbing my PS3, just making it simple)...very often it is the exact same game on the Wii...but clearly, I'd rather play the HD version of the game. I haven't had an experince yet where the motion control wins out for a better version as the original poster did with the new Tiger Woods, but I think it safe to say that most people with a Wii, PS3, and 360 given the choice of a multiplatform release will generally choose one of the HD versions over the Wii exactly because it just looks better.

@CaptainSquishy: nothing wrong with it if you've payed for all the kit, some corprations might feel somewhat differntly about that though.

but i heard you need a really mean rig to run Dophin.

@sugardeath: xD.

Last gen:

"Whaaa! People don't appreciate gameplay anymore, they only like pretty graphics! Gaming is dead!"

This gen:

"Whaaa! People don't care about the graphics anymore! The only things that matter are pretty HD graphics!"

@shufflemoomin: doom with simpler graphics as u just described is wolf3D.

@santasassassin: Let me guess, you're the same guy who also always says he can't tell the difference between an upscaled DVD and well transferred Blu-ray, aren't you?

And let me tell you, it also depends on what kind of TV you have. On my Dad's old Sony HDTV, Galaxy looks great. On my new Panasonic it looks bad. That TV is the best on the market for it's price and produces an HD picture that is only rivaled by more much more expensive TV's like the Pioneer Kuro. That being said, for some reason it does a terrible job producing an SD picture. I would love to own an HD Wii because Galaxy is a gorgeous game and deserves to be displayed at it's best.

Do I need it to be in HD to enjoy the game? Of course not but I would enjoy the experience of playing on my Wii if it was.

@lucasreis - I want a twitter-less world...: I'll bet you enjoy the 'remastered' versions of Sabbath songs in your digital player these days. And I'll also bet that the only copy of Planet of the Apes that you watch is on DVD or Blu-Ray, the best possible quality available.

I'm all for enjoying things, no matter the age, but I'm also a fan of technology and quality. No one is sitting around running an 640x480 screen resolution for "nostalgic" purposes.

The point of this post is that Nintendo shouldn't be ignoring HD in favor of waggle. No one will argue against the fact that Wii is Gamecube plus motion controls. I'm glad Nintendo found their niche, but I would also like to be able to play games from them that take full advantage of my HDTV.

This is why my Wii collects dust, while I collect trophies on PS3.

@nworobes: "the retardedly low res ones in this Kotaku gallery"

There's a full size tab beside each of the pics for a reason. Also if you had a choice surely you'd pic 1080p instead of 480p. Which is what the point of this is.

NunianVonFuch

@shufflemoomin: They do add to the experience but the "more fun" is kinda BS. The Nintendo DS wouldn´t sell so much if graphics meant fun, really...

@N●Gage Croal: Graphics don't make fun on their own, but they do add to the experience. Are you saying doom would have been as popular if it used plain colour boxes and non-animiated sprites for enemies? It'd be the same game with the same dynamics, but the graphics are worse, so you'd enjoy it just the same? I really don't think so. Increased graphics=more immersive experience=better game=more fun.

shufflemoomin

@N●Gage Croal: You make good, strong points. I'm sure, Next Generation, Microsoft and Sony will continue to push technology and likely prices, Nintendo will do well to sit where they are and cater to the casual crowd that they've brought along in droves. Nintendo have found a market all to themselves and although MS and Sony are trying to muscle in with motion control, it may not be enough to take some of that market. It may not be what real gamers want, but it's what casual gamers and Nintendo shareholders want, and we can't argue with it. All the best to them, I say.

shufflemoomin

Cool, but is there a way to perform this test? It's emulated? It's an official test from Nintendo? Where did those screenshots came from?

luizzeross

@Shindokie: I'm willing to bet that the majority of people who own a current Wii will not "flock" to the next Nintendo hardware if it's just Wii with HD. The reason the Wii sells so much is because it sells to people that don't care, or even know about HD. I'm sure the mind set of a lot of people will be, "But all I ever play is Wii sports and Wii fit, will the new console do that any better or in some new way?" If the answer to that is no, then the moms/grandparents/and other non core gamers will just stick with their current Wii. Nintendo may make an HD version of the Wii, but (imo) I don't think it will revive the sales of the Wii to numbers like it had the last few years.

@ArtemusWolfwood:
Personally, I grew up with jaggies and pixelated graphics. I'm sure you've NEVER dreamed of playing a first person shooter at 320x240 resolution, yet that's exactly what I did in my childhood. Quake2 came out in 1997, while i was in fourth grade. I spent my remaining elementary school years playing the hell out of that game. At 320x240, online. Pixelation and jaggies are almost nostalgic for me.

Maybe I´m ignorant, but can´t someone release an upscaller for the wii, like the ones they use on DVD´s? Granted they don´t like like Blu-Rays, but cheap dvds are coming with HDMI´s for a while and they do look good for what they are.

@( shake cows, win a ) Milkshake!: This is BS, seriously. My friend has a 4 year old nephew and all that he plays is the Mega Drive (Genesis) that my friend has lying around in the house. I also have a 14 year old cousin, he grew up in the PS1-PS2 era, has a 360, but he plays an incredible amount of emulated games from a time before he was born such as Street Fighter 2, just because he LIKES it.

Yes, it´s possible to enjoy something from a era before you were born. I love Black Sabbath and I was born in 1983. I love Planet of the Apes, which is a 60´s movie, and I don´t care that it isn´t on HD, the masks are awful, etc etc. The history rules, and that´s what matters. Same thing with games, music, books, etc.

@CreamSodaSlurpee: This.

@Malaysia Isachargin: I agree actually. I think it looks the same as it does now ie. Awesome. *shrug*

Lemming

@KingSeafoam: lmao!

@TearsandScreams: Thank you, I was just wondering how many was actually up to HD by now, while reading persocom pulling things out of his arse.

Cavefish

the only problem with this kind of rendering is you run the risk of stretching the textures because they may have been designed for the 480 rendering. Sometimes higher res textures are added for more detail, but that can use up much more disc space with limited returns. If you look at the grass in picture 4, you can kind of see this happening because of how blurry the grass looks. overall though these shots do look way better than how it looks on my LCD tv running the game on 480p, especially picture 8, the corners of the stones kind of pop out. hopefully Patcher is right about this whole Wii Plus thing. I'd definitely jump on board.

kojimarou

@Paradox me: If you own the Wii and the games, I wouldn't think it's morally wrong.

@nworobes: On Kotaku, hit the "Full Size" link just beneath the picture to get the full res pic.

Kamakazie

@nworobes: Honestly dude, it sounds like you're just deluding yourself into believing that SD isn't any different than HD. Either that or you've got a bunch of tiny monitors around your house. Or bad eye sight.

The fact is pretty clear: if you have an HD TV and play one game that is made for HD and one that is not, the difference is going to be immediately noticeable.

@FillionSmythe: FINALLY

@Vidunder: It's reasonable complain about Dead Rising. The game designers could have either taken the time to offer an option for more easily readable text, or at least informed the customer through packaging that they wouldn't be able to fully play it on a CRT. Especially when you consider that despite the fact that more and more people are using HDTVs, there are still plenty of people who still play on a CRT.

And if you don't like the article, you're always welcome to move on to a different one.

@Ace11: Ah no I just wrote a horrible sentence lol. I meant whilst there are games that aren't quite as good, the ones I mentioned still hold up as brilliant. :D Stupid grammatical nonsense.

@Gyaruson:

The component standard itself is capable of at least 1080p. But movie studios don't want people to know that.

Actually, even PS2 could output higher resolutions than Wii. It just wasn't powerful enough for practical use (so only like one game did so).

@zach a mac rack alack:

plase Kotaku stop! you're killing me..

Rob_Nomad

I would totally buy a Wii if the graphics didn't make me cringe and nintendo released more then 2 good games every 3 years!!!

I was playing some 3 player Mario Kart on a 32 inch TV yesterday and at several points I was wishing it was in HD so I could see a little clearer. While I'll always go for game play over graphics, sometimes the graphics can help the game play, in this case it would have been nice for it to be 720p.

Verge

@TearsandScreams: I wont say anything about baldurs gate because i havent played yet but link to the past and metroid,i mean....seriously,they are not quite as good?... o_0.

@nworobes: Try playing a Wii on a 60+ inch screen. It's horrible.

slight

@[hothardware.com]

As if any of you bastards would know the difference.

Malaysia Isachargin

@( shake cows, win a ) Milkshake!:
Wrong.First time i played super metroid was a year ago on the wii and since it has become probably my favorite game of all time.I enjoyed it more than uncharted,more than cod4,more than mario galaxy and i can tell you that like ueziel said, holds up to any next gen game made so far.

@Sloopydrew: $99 was never the RRP, but a dumping price to get rid of the systems.

Arguing that the XBOX had more horsepower is a but silly. Sure, some games are very impressive, just as some PS2 games had some of the best graphics we saw last generation. But making generalisations from a few games isn't a sound argument.

Finally, it's not as if the Wii is incapable of rendering graphics with 720p, but that Nintendo decided not to support it because it made more sense to cencentrate on 480p rendering.

Kotakufan777

@Creasy: Here, have a trophy for "the most shite argument ever constructed!"

@persocom: Just to point out, I'm of the nintendo core. I adore the company. I really love playing my wii, as it's host to games that my 360 just doesn't match quality wise most of the time.

I don't like having to own a HUGE heavy 480p panasonic set just to play the latest nintendo games. If wii HD comes along, and can pump out the current games at a nicer res, I'll be one of the first to buy it.

persocom

@santasassassin: the cops just called; they said they discovered that you do not own an awesome television.

. . . :(

or you own a really nice, really old CRT, and your imagination is filling in the spaces between the scan lines.

and that shit is just bad for the environment, son.

did you know that a 40-inch LCD HDTV uses one-fourth the electricity of a ten-inch CRT?

why, if you own an HDTV for, say, five years, i reckon it'd pay for itself.

might want to consider that!

then come on over and join the club that wishes there was an HD wii.

seriously, i have learned to at least like my wii since getting wii sports resort. however! why not at least throw us high-rolling, ferrari-driving millionaires a bone and release an optional HD wii? i'd buy that!

@Creasy: More detail. Thus, infinitely more beautiful.

It's not a matter of HD being a luxury anymore. The people I know with no lcd or plasma hd sets are a minority. Everyone dumped their crts to make room, to last longer and to look better.

Nintendo were foolish to ignore HD, as at this point in time, it's practically a requirement for many, as they're turned off by the poorly anti-aliased and badly blownup pixels being churned out onto their screens. A jaggy 3d game is a ruined game for me :(

persocom

@Ueziel: I agree. Whilst there's a few games nostalgia has forced me to go back to and realise they weren't quite as good, Metroid, Link to the Past, Baldurs Gate, Dungeon Keeper and plenty more OLD games stand heads and tails above 90% of what's released today.

I heard next gen Nintendo is going cartridge with 2.1 stereo.

@Sloopydrew: Is that genuinely less horse power or just lazy devs? I thought spec for spec this was superior to Xbox. I may be wrong of course.

@chamoo232: You have to be kidding. Nintendo have never, at any point been nearing bankruptcy.

The amount they hauled in with the GBA and DS, meant they could've easily made an hd console and failed miserably, but still held onto their original market.

The gamecube was defeated as you say by a lack of third party interest and a distinctly uncool image nintendo were having trouble shaking off at that period. They were, in all manners of speaking, the apple of the videogame world.

persocom

higher resolution doesn't make something more or less beauitful, neither do high resolution textures... but i know, most people don't / won't get that.

"Graphics don't matter"

Go read a book then.

@Ueziel: No he doesn't, you are a liar... is what I would say if I was a really skeptical person... that gets me off the hook for flaming, right?

Uhyve

@AznSlackerType~Is Mulling:

I agree about 30%. I understand less horsepower and a novel controller in its place, but I don't understand less horsepower than the original Xbox. And nothing on the Wii has looked as nice as Chronicles of Riddick, Halo 2, Fable, Doom 3, Half-Life 2, Oddworld, etc. etc. And the original Xbox also played DVDs, did 5.1 surround sound and had some 720p games. And it was going for $99 at the same time the Wii was going for $250. The above shots of 720p Galaxy are the least of what the Wii should have done with less horsepower.

if nintendo had made a normal HD console they would have went bankrupt. the only reason the wii got a huge success is because of the motion controller that everyone went crazy over and got showed on every news channel and tv show. mario in HD wouldnt have been enough to recover from the gamecube's defeat in the previous saga of the endless console wars.

chamoo232

@AznSlackerType~Is Mulling: The only reason the Xbox 360 would be selling at a loss at this point would be because of the RROD and the extended warranty.

I believe they started making profit per console some time ago.

@( shake cows, win a ) Milkshake!: This is exactly what is wrong with people today. Everyone takes technology for granted. I could go on about for hours, but it's concisely said here:

Ultimately, my point is you damn kids and your music!

@MellowJade: It all depends on the means available to myself, if I have a HD option I will take it, but if not, it wouldn't prevent me from having fun.

Perfectnumpty

@Ueziel: And no, I don't enjoy games out of nostalgia. A good game is a good game, regardless of when it was made or how it looks. I don't go, "Oh man, I remember I thought this game was good! I should play that only because of that!" Trust me, that game holds up and plays better than every game put out this year, last year, or any year in the last five years.

@( shake cows, win a ) Milkshake!: I grew up before the SNES. But even then, I can take my nephew, who's just getting into games with the Wii/360 era and he goes straight for the SNES stuff if I ask him to choose.

The whole "more vast and engaging" stuff is just bullshit to me.

@Ueziel: Well, since you said that "Metroid 'still' totally destroys" etc, then I assume you did. See, someone who didn't play the SNES, whos first console could push out 3d graphics, online play, digital sound etc, simply wouldn't get the same enjoyment out of it as you do. They don't have the nostalgia value, your old system and games are certain to be tied to some pretty important memories, so everytime you play, your vision might be a little...rose tinted.
This isnt an abstract idea im talking about here, it happens time and time again, with movies, books, music...everything.

"Graphics don't matter"

I keep telling myself that, until I literally play a game on the N64 and practically pierce my eyes with its virtual edges.

@nworobes: Well a big native resolution is kind of required to appreciate a higher polygon count and igher texture detail. That's like saying you care about what color the walls of a room are 100x more than whether or not it has lights to actually see them.

CreamSodaSlurpee

@santasassassin: You don't see the difference? You need your eyes checked. Seriously.
I don't think anbody NEEDS high end graphics to have fun, I don't believe anybody suggested that, but if I can have the exact same gameplay with considerably improved visuals, I'm all for that. What's not to like?

KesMonkey

@Ueziel: Did you grow up with the SNES?

@( shake cows, win a ) Milkshake!: I really hope you're kidding. Like, Super Metroid still totally destroys nearly every game in existence for shear gravity and ambiance, along with some of the greatest everything in the history of all things ever everywhere.

The idea that the SNES can't "cut it" for some people just makes me weep for gaming.

@Paradox me: The 360 is selling at a loss, and doesn't include wifi, nor bluetooth. I think those are pretty good reasons why its 200$.

@Gyaruson: Vanillaware would like to have a word with you then :D!

Muramasa: The Demon Blade and Odin Sphere proves that not every video game needs HD graphics. Those games are 2D and looks stunningly beautiful.

@Vidunder: I can still complain about dead rising though >.>

@N●Gage Croal: Can't agree more.

@N●Gage Croal: OH yes, you CAN go wrong with the SNES. For someone who grew up after it was released, especially in the 3d generation, the SNES just can't cut it anymore. Granted, games like Tetris and Pacman they'll all play for a short while on their phone or facebook page, but they soon lose their appeal.
Compared to the vast, more detailed, more alive and therefore more engaging worlds we are now being presented with 3D, then HD capabilities, for many the SNES is almost impossible to get enjoyment from.

@Datacide: You know, the NES runs at 256x240 (not even that for NTSC games actually) but I still regularly go back and forth between the regular old TV over there and my big old Panasonic Plasma. I don't have any more fun playing on the plasma. I really don't. A fun game is as fun as it is to play and I didn't get any extra enjoyment out of moving from my old 25" TV to the 42" Plasma outside of being able to actually read the goddamn text in some games.

@Antiterra: "The next time Nintendo asks for a reason to release a Wii HD, just show them these screenshots..."

You need to slap them in the face and tell them to get with the times and release a HD console

@MellowJade:
Dead Rising says yes.

"So if the Wii could manage high definition (which it can't)..."

I was under the impression that because the Wii had a component output it could, albeit theoretically, output at resolutions higher than 480p. Granted there would be no processing power left for, say I dunno, physics engines, lighting engines and A.I., but it is possible. I mean, the original Xbox had games that output at 720p even though developers mainly made games in 480p or lower. Surely it's possible on the Wii, but no one who makes Wii games really cares about resolutions anyways.

@nworobes: the first screen is a side by side check it out

ShowBoozeTonight

@santasassassin: Look, every comment I've made about the Wii since E3 has been a positive one. There's no question that I like the system, but what's so wrong with wishing that it looked just a little sharper on a large HDTV?
No matter what you think, that does not make me a shallow graphics whore, merely someone who likes to imagine how their consoles could improve. (Trust me, I have plenty of suggestions for the PS3 and 360 as well.)

Why is it that every time someone dares to suggest that a Wii equipped with a half-decent upscaling chip could be a good thing, they're automatically labelled as a "false" gamer who doesn't really appreciate games?

Suggesting ways to improve a system is always a good thing: that's how the PSN improved so much since its mediocre beginnings, that's how the Wii got SDHC support, that's how the DS and PSP-1000 made way for the Lite/DSi and 2000/3000, and so on.

No, I don't need high end graphics to have fun, but let's not pretend that better technology doesn't make a difference whatsoever - especially in an industry so dependent on technological advances.

And for the record, I just got Tiger Woods for the Wii, not the PS3 or 360. If I weren't "in it for the games", I imagine I would have chosen a different version.

@bobtheduck: GlovePIE for using the Wiimote. You need a bluetooh dongle but it is really nice to control a PC with. I would really suggest it as a cool way of using a HTPC.

Ok it looks a bit nicer. Yet I still don't care.

Lozmaster

@nworobes:

Ahhh...ok, I misunderstood what you were saying, but as Bobtheduck said...even if you turned up all the other features...you'd still have to agree that 640x480 looks a lot worse than 1280x720.

@JudderDust: First it would need a fairly expensive computer. Or at least, I would need to replace nearly everything in my computer to run it and with the emulator where it's at right now, it wouldn't even run smoothly and it'd end up costing me more than even a PS3 would. I'd rather just take my Wii being hooked up to my TV that I've had around for a few years. It's not that big of a deal.

@bobtheduck: I believe you can connect the wiimote using bluetooth and some newfangled software.

@zach a mac rack alack: That's honestly just a problem of your TV upscaling and that just being a bad idea in general. It has nothing to do with the Wii. If you were to play Wii games, in progressive scan, on an EDTV (you know, 480p TV), it doesn't have any jagged edges or anything.

@nworobes: Not me... Playing a game at near TV resolution (640x480) looks like crap... On PC, I never go below 1024x768, and the difference is pretty clear, all other settings being the same. So I REALLY disagree. Higher resolution means a lot.

@JudderDust: My current HDTV (which I'm sitting at now) cost around £150. 24 inch, I think.

At the moment I can't use my Wii because I don't have a TV set and my Video-In USB stick seems to be broken.
These screenshots make me wanna try out an emulator. I wonder how well my system would perform when emulating in Full HD.

Haf

@Paradox me: How the crap do you control dolphin? I mean, ok, maybe a mouse for the wiimote pointer... what about the accelerometers?

@Datacide: The minor improvements I was referring to were "resolution and anti-aliasing and all that." As per my overall point.

nworobes

But would this require some expensive-ass TV as well?

JudderDust

@Paradox me: I agree and I think it would have been absolutely awesome if the Wii was just as powerful as the 360 and PS3. The problem is Nintendo made it to be weaker because they felt they were taking a massive risk with the system and its motion controls. I really hope that the next console that Nintendo release still works with the Wii remotes but remains to be just as powerful as the other next gen competitors.
If the Wii was as powerful as the PS3 and 360 gamers wouldn't be able to complain about not having any hardcore games on the system.

Comban will Ban you.

@bobtheduck: By 7, I was referring to SMB, SMB2, SMB3, Lost Levels, SMW, SML, SML2...

Wario Land and Yoshi's Island don't quite count in that list, and the original Mario Bros was... Not super mario, haha!

@nworobes:

"nigh indistinguishable"? Really? Hmmm...no can't agree with that at all. On my TV (1080p Samsung LCD) the Wii definitely looks fuzzy, blocky and less defined and less clear than the HD counterpart. Also, the colours are not nearly as nice and the game just cannot do the high definition detail that the other current consoles do. One look at the same game on all 3 consoles on my setup surely shows that the Wii hardware is far behind.

Also, I can't agree that poly counts and texture detail (and the others you list) are "minor improvements". Certainly graphically they are a major improvement. Simply look at Crysis on High and Low and I don't think you can argue that it is a "minor" difference.

@nworobes: I guess it's true then that some people can see the difference in things than other.

Honestly on my 52" TV when I hook up my PC to it, I CAN DEFINITELY see the difference when I set the AA and AF to maximum. I just hate the "jaggies" the wii creates on that TV, especially the Miis, the horrible Miis. Ugh.

@N●Gage Croal: I love Super Mario Bros... I loved the 16 bit remake even better. I'd love for all 7 of the old Super Mario games to get HD remakes... I'd pay lots of money for that.

It does make it better, as something that's already fun looking better really does make it more fun. Maybe not twice as fun, but it enhances it.

Maybe you could realize not everyone has fun for the same reasons, and leave it at that. There are a LOT of people who think like me.

@nworobes: Ohhh if you were on a match making show you would have just introduced the hammer's head to the nail, and they would be hitting it off.

Comban will Ban you.

@nworobes: No jaggies?

@Paradox me:
I don't think anyone's arguing there being an advantage to SD over HD.

360 had to drop price to stay competitive. Wii does not, as it still continues to top the chart.

You think Microsoft or Sony would drop the prices of their systems if they sold like the Wii did? Hell no! They'd be pocketing that change, easily.

@Char Aznable says, Hail to the King of Pop: There are some SNES titles with massive amounts of depth and mountains more difficulty then a lot of titles being released now.
I'd much prefer SNES to PS/64 era quality games with todays graphics but that would be dreaming.

Comban will Ban you.

@Char Aznable:
You're right, the Super NES's games aren't as deep as today's games...
Today's games have a whole extra dimension over Super NES's games. :P

Seriously, though, depth? Depth can be measured in many ways. If you want something that's complicated/frustrating, you'll find plenty of older games like that.

If you want realism and immersion (I personally think wanting to be immersed into games/movies/etc. is ridiculous... but that'll be another rant for another time), then yeah, the Super NES wouldn't fit the bill. But if you're just looking to have fun (which, shouldn't that be the point of PLAYING video GAMES?), you can't go wrong with the Super NES.

@jookie: Maybe its just difficult without something as a side by side comparison because at the moment I can't tell if/how much worse mario galaxy looked by memory.

Comban will Ban you.

@jookie:
It's not so much a graphics thing with me. It's more processing power. Graphics just go nicely with it. I just want Wii games to be able to do more. There could be some hack n slash games with shit loads of enemies on the screen at once. and people wouldn't have dreaded the Dead Rising port so much if it could keep up.

Invisible-Echidna

@aldo_14:
This.

Nintendo was already wounded after losing two generations, harshly. Yes, they were profitable, but not so much that they could take massive financial risks. Making something that would directly compete with 360 and PS3 would've put a huge financial burden on them. They might've gone the way of Sega... or worse: Atari (in that the REAL Atari doesn't exist anymore).

So, they invested their R&D into creating a new way to play, instead of more horsepower. Which, in and of itself, is not a bad thing. Only problem is the usual case of third parties: they latch on to whatever's popular, and try to make a "me, too" version of it. Hence why Wii is flooded with sports games, mini-games, party games, and flatout shovelware (which always follows the market leader).

I mean, hell, how many times have analysts have said that Sony would've had to drop out of the game, due to the early hardships of the PS3? And Sony is a MUCH larger company than Nintendo. In Nintendo's case, they probably would have dropped off the face of the Earth.

Nintendo was wise to not make a powerhouse system. It at least allowed for one more generation of games with lower budgets. And when it came out, the HD penetration was EXTREMELY low. There are still more SD owners than HD owners, but that ratio is rapidly changing in HD's favor. Iwata has already stated, multiple times, than the next system would have HD visuals, since it would suit the market at that time.
Yeah, it doesn't make them "future-proof"... but you can't have much of a future if you can't survive the present.

@nworobes: This.

@jbiller: That's the argument, except I still don't see that it applies very well to HD. Like, if I get a new PC game, and I'm screwing around with the settings, the first ones I up are going to be texture detail. Like, if it's an option, texture detail, polygon count, lighting effects, you name it, all come before resolution and anti-aliasing and all that.
It's just such a minor improvement. So it seems weird that everyone makes such a big deal over HD, when really I've never found the different that dramatic. I guess console graphics are good enough that we're no longer stuck with character that are only a couple hundred polygons, so now the only thing we can quibble over is the nigh indistinguishable resolution.

nworobes

@MellowJade: HD isn't everything, but there really isn't any benefit of SD over HD, and IMO SD is really starting to stick out like a sore thumb these days.

I'm not interested in beating a dead horse, but looking at the Xbox 360's $200 price point for the Arcade, and the Wii sitting at $250 still, I really have to question Nintendo's choice of hardware.

They wouldn't have made profit right off the bat, but just think how well off they would be now if so a lot of the 360/PS3's games could easily be ported to the Wii with good results. They'd also still have a pretty attractive price point at this stage of the game.

@N●Gage Croal: The SNES is fun but the games don't have the same depth as what I'd call "today's games". Wii can be pretty fun, but I think of it as a sort of throwback system, which isn't a bad thing.

Oh how I wish the Wii was high rez. Then maybe my 1080p panny wouldn't chew it up so.

Cygnes

@MellowJade:
Here is a simple one:

Pretty games LOOK BETTER, and people LIKE THINGS THAT LOOK GOOD. Otherwise people wouldn't care about finger prints on the back of their iPhone, people wouldn't worry about being clean shaven or buying hair products, etc.

PEOPLE LIKE THINGS THAT LOOK GOOD. WHAT IS HARD TO UNDERSTAND ABOUT THAT.

Also, outside of the 'we like pretty things', graphics add a huge amount of immersion. Just imagine if Gears of War had the same art direction as Team Fortress 2, would the game still feel the same?

jbiller

@jookie:

No worries, sorry...I wasn't targeting you directly. I was just making a statement to the arguement. :)

Yep. This looks awesome.

Jellopnik

@Datacide: All I was doing was responding to this part of santasassassin's post:

"And besides, if you need amazing high end graphics to have fun with your games, you're not really in it for the games."

jookie

@oremlk:
It may look twice as good... but is it twice as fun?

No? It's still the same game? Then what does it matter?

@kju204: I took your advice and actually looked at the higher res pics on NeoGAF, instead of the retardedly low res ones in this Kotaku gallery, and the improvement is a little more noticeable in those shots.
Nonetheless, I think I still don't care about the difference between SD and HD. Sure, I notice the slight improvement and the sharper picture, but it is so far down the list of "things I hope a console is capable of."
Higher polygon count, higher texture detail, greater number of on-screen objects, better physics engine: these are all things I care about a hundred times more than whether the game's native resolution is 1080p or not.

nworobes

@jookie:

I don't think any statement was made as to equate fun to graphics. However, given the choice of all the HD fun I can have with my PS3 and 360...it is hard to excuse the Wii for looking so bad. Sure, I had a blast with some of my Wii game (though few and very far between)...but honestly, does anyone with a 360 or PS3 really spend more time playing on their Wii? I know I certainly don't.

Does HD really matter to gamers nowadays? I mean a game isn't good if it's not in HD, right?

Or are some gamers just for HD overall.

I WANT SOME ANSWERS DAMMIT!

Atleast now re-packaged crappy mini games will LOOK good.

RedStar - Workers of The World Unite

I don't understand? Why are you people bitching because you see low quality screens of a game that wasn't intended to be shown at 720? It's like bitching because Dead Rising looks like shit and is unreadable on CRT TVs.
The media is just not right. And I fail to see the meaning of this article as well.

Vidunder

graphics are the least of my worries in games. i just want something that plays well. maybe that's why i'm still banging out rounds in CS 1.6

Vintage

@nworobes: They look far better, to me.

oremlk

@santasassassin: Then you must be blind. Seriously, the game looks twice as good without all of the obvious pixellation and jaggies.

oremlk

@santasassassin: You are really, REALLY forgiving to not notice, but I will agree that blaming graphics for not having fun is just a stupid statement.

jookie

@nworobes: are you serious??

view the full size...

if you still can't tell,
then i really don't know what to say to you.

kju204

@Antiterra: And I'll continue to reply "what's the difference?"

Seriously, I don't see the difference between Galaxy on the wii and these. And besides, if you need amazing high end graphics to have fun with your games, you're not really in it for the games.

santasassassin

@zach a mac rack alack: I wonder what the hell Nintendo is gonna do in terms of HD and strong parts next gen - they can't continue gimping it with low-end stuff (which in turn let's them sell it cheap).

It's not gimping if it's making money, though. Nintendo can't really risk going with loss-making hardware in the same way MS and Sony can; I'm pretty sure if Nintendo made the PS3 (or had made the first Xbox) they'd be close to bankrupt.

aldo_14

It really makes me want to use Dolphin instead of a Wii, but that wouldn't be right, would it?

Perhaps if I buy both a Wii and the games? Damn laws and morals!

I really don't remember Mario looking as bad as it does in that comparison shot though, yeesh.

OK, my initial appraisal is that they don't look impressively better at all. I'm sure I'd say different if I saw a side-by-side comparison, but just looking at those screen shots (which aren't even very high res), I don't immediately appreciate the improvement.

nworobes

@Antiterra:

Yeah really...*sigh*...maybe they'll understand some day. Ugly step-child console with no digital sound and 480p/480i graphics. Hell...my old Xbox and PS2 do better than that.

Maybe that's why my Wii is rarely turned on.

makes me want to cry

iknowkungfu

@zach a mac rack alack: Which makes them money. I don't think they have to worry about much if they do that because people are going to flock like sheep to the WiiHD because having the Wii and Nintendo branding.
They are trying to make money, so I don't think they are going to go out and create something that will cost like 400-600 like MS or Sony will for next console.

The next time Nintendo asks for a reason to release a Wii HD, just show them these screenshots...

Well, you get what you paid for.

I wonder what the hell Nintendo is gonna do in terms of HD and strong parts next gen - they can't continue gimping it with low-end stuff (which in turn let's them sell it cheap).