Wii has been a smash success and I am happy.

[Lemmi]

i come in here to read all this stuff because , i hate Sony (all of their stuff) and i hope the ps3 fails and because im still using a 27inch TV i bought in 1999 and i wont even think of getting a new one untill it dies (or if i come into major amount disposable cash.. haha i made myself laugh there)

 

i also wont be buying any of the new systems ever because i already own a computer that can plays games

i only have the Xbox and Gamecube of which i have a total of 24 games for both and i paid a total of $0 for the systems and a few games (i made money $100 trading for the GC and i paid $100 for the Xbox and 6 games = $0)

i still watch VHS, VCDs, and Divx/AVI movies off a CDR on my philips dvd player

im still hooked into analog cable or whatever its called and ive been using the same cable remote control since 1998

 

so i think by the time i upgrade most of this stuff will be dead or atleast some kind of standard will be set (i hope)

 

but i wope the Wii and 360 takes Sony down a notch

 

 

so you guys keep on talking its been fun

[Lord Thag]

ome on, I am one of the guys like most here who still play Atari 2600 via an RF switchbox!!!

 

Ha ha, you and me both. I still have three hooked up in the game room.

 

I think the Wii is great, and I think we're finally starting to see some market diversity. Previously, the video game market could only support a couple of consoles at a time which all tried to do the same thing. Nowadays, companies can get away with focusing on different users. The 360 and the PS3 have the adult gamer covered, and the Wii has the family, kids, and innovative/original stuff down.

 

I hope both sides do well. Well, except for the PS3. No more $600 consoles, thank you very much, or I'll be playing my old 2600 exclusively.

[Atari Master]

I don't think you can really call the Wii a "side console" for "parties" just yet. The battle is just getting started, really.

 

And Metroid looks hella fun.

[kisrael]

post pedantic and annoying followups on web forums.

This reminds me of something...has to do with a pot and a kettle. LOL

Heheh. Annoying, probably. But I try to avoid pedantic...

[kisrael]

ome on, I am one of the guys like most here who still play Atari 2600 via an RF switchbox!!!

Ha ha, you and me both. I still have three hooked up in the game room.

For the folk still using an RF switchbox... how the hell do you get any kind of decent picture? I'm no image quality wonk, but RF switchboxes always leave me with waves and waves of interference. I'd say at LEAST get a Coaxial (F-Type) to Female RCA Adapter, $3 from the AA store. I think it's the best you can get next to a RCA cable mod.

Edited December 28, 2006 by kisrael

[kisrael]

I think the Wii is great, and I think we're finally starting to see some market diversity. Previously, the video game market could only support a couple of consoles at a time which all tried to do the same thing. Nowadays, companies can get away with focusing on different users. The 360 and the PS3 have the adult gamer covered, and the Wii has the family, kids, and innovative/original stuff down.

 

I hope both sides do well. Well, except for the PS3. No more $600 consoles, thank you very much, or I'll be playing my old 2600 exclusively.

At the risk of play whiny Nintendo Fanboy, I wouldn't call the 360/PS3 niche "adult gamer"... I think it's more like "teen and adult dedicated gamer". In other words, I think it's a combination of the "edgey" feel along with much less concern about the "pick up and play" aspect.

 

(On the other hand, right now it seems like half the current Wii library are these "cartoon to game" ports... I guess PS2 has tons of those as well, but it makes me think that Nintendo might be able to tap into its monumental success with the GBA and DS lines.... as handhelds act more and more like consoles, but back a generation, Nintendo can offer a different console experience...

 

I wonder if we'll see much of a PS3/360 split, in terms of market they appeal to. Interestingly, the PS3/360 split might be opposite the PS2/Xbox split; last gen, people who wanted the best A/V but with fewer games went for the Xbox, this gen they might be waiting around for the PS3 to pick up steam.

 

Which reminds me of the big question: how long until it's fair to judge how the consoles are doing? With Wii and PS3 supply problems, and both still both more or less coasting on launch or near launch titles, it seems like it might not be 'til..I dunno, next fall? 'Til we can really see how the 2 new entries do against the 360s headstart.

[Paranoid]

I've got my 800XL and 800 plugged in through an RF switchbox. But that is the only thing going into the TV. No aerial, no TV signal, no rabbit ears. It looks fine. People are too damn picky about their signal quality for a video game on a TV... although, I guess if you live pretty close to a channel on 2, 3 or 4, it could be more problamatic.

 

Again, I'm with NE146. I've got the stuff because I can afford it, but I really don't care, and HD is a great example. I'm sure my stuff isn't cabled up to my TV to get the BEST quality from it. But, DVD and HD look awesome... and that is good enough for me. I've *tried* to care, but, it just isn't worth an extra $100 in cables to get everything hooked up right when the quality is so good as it is. Looks better than it would on a regular TV (just by virtue of being on a 42 wide screen Plasma), and resizes to the right aspect ratio. That is what I care about, mostly.

 

The funny thing is, the screen is so nice I hate to play games on it, with the burn in issues of even the latest generation of Plasma TVs. Instead I use oldschool TVs for most of my console gaming.

 

The XBox is definetly geared toward an older crowd. Their target demographic is pretty broad... I think I recall them saying they wanted the 12-34 year old male range. Although, once you get up to the 24-34 age range, I suppose you could split hair and call those "dedicated gamers".

 

I think the real attrction of the XBox has been that it has stayed largely away from those sappy Japanese fairy-tale plot-line Anime monstrosities. No FRPs where you run into a field of daisies populated by giant eyed Unicorns that are suddenly abducted by UFOs, forcing you to pull out your sword which is three times its size and run off to the local village to ask everyone questions that get nonesense answers. Even *dark* Japanese titles always seem to need an interlude like this where some big-eyed little girl is crying because the Overlord has stolen the ancient ancesteral joystone and sapped the happy from her village.

[moycon]

Here's the thing. I wasn't talking about buying the best HDTV costing thousands of dollars and the best, most expensive cables, setting your Xbox or PS3 to 1080i and comparing it to the Wii. By all means, pick up a cheap $300 HDTV, Use the cables that came with the system and play the Xbox 360 version of Call Of Duty 3 and then the Wii version. Now do the same thing for Far Cry.... Now you'll see what I'm talking about. Both games are great fun, just not on the Wii and the reasons why are just what I listed. Sub-par graphics and wonky control. Not one or the other. A combo of the two. There are going to be many games that rock on the 360 and the PS3 that suck ass on the Wii. If all you have is a Wii. Get used to it.

[Starscream]

The whole HD thing is kind of interesting. Until I see proof otherwise, I'm still sticking with my theory that consumers really don't care all that much about resolution, that it helps rationalize a decision that's already made...

 

Case in point:

* MP3s convenience wins out over CDs, despite the potential quality drop

* it seems like lots of demonstration HDTVs aren't even showing a proper highdef signal

* I can't think of a signal "next gen" product that took off ONLY because of fidelity/resolution: CDs offered random access, DVDs had flicker free pause, random access, extra content, better shelf-ability, HDTVs offer a big picture in a 16:9 format while being physically smaller

 

So, I'm still a skeptic about HD in general, especially with a format war in the works. 10 years for DVD over VHS? How long for this stuff??

 

 

First off, not one single example that you have given is proved, just speculated. Secondly, higher resolution = better visual quality. Tell me, did you find the ugliest, fattest woman in the world to marry? Your first nice car you could afford, did you make sure it had a shitty paint job? Your clothes, I would assume all are made of polyester and have some sort of polkadot/teddy bear pattern? Surely, you never wipe grease off yourself, or shave/get a haircut?

 

You want:

 

 

Not:

 

Correct?

 

See, you and many others are just full of shit if you really think visuals aren't very important. In so many aspects of everyone's lives, it's how something appears. If it didn't matter, every car would be white, every house white, every food white, etc. For the topic at hand, even those who claim to not care about say HD, still do to some extent. Why? It looks better. If that doesn't matter, than why did you ask about s-vid cables in another thread or comment about RF signals being wavy and sucking ass (my addition to your question)?

 

So it's obvious that anyone who says "graphics don't matter" is a lying sack of shit. They do. Maybe not to the same levels as say me who sees no reason I shouldn't have great visuals, but they are still always noted. Things of no importance are very seldom spoken of.

 

Many people on here suffer from the have and have nots mentality. Because you can't have something, then it is of little importance. But if you have something, it matters. The world leaves you behind every time. Go ahead, keep telling the world from the top of you lungs that HD doesn't matter, great graphics in games don't matter. You have a wii right? Have not. You can't have it so maybe if you keep repeating it's unimportance, it will suddenly be true. Or maybe you can just try to justify all the shortcomings by trying to knock the others because they can and you can't. Maybe if you all keep doing your crusade, you will make a difference. No doubt, if Nintendo included HD with the wii and actually made a new system that was up to par with the other 2, all you naysayers would stop bullshitting yourselves.

 

Things all Nintendo sheep always regurgitate after hearing Reggie talk:

 

HD doesn't matter

Graphics don't matter

Sony and MS only care about graphics

If you want fun, you need a wii not the other 2, they are just pretty

wii has most innovative games

Everyone any age can play our wii

the possibilities because of the controller are endless

Wii is the most unique system

wii is cheaper to develop for

 

WTF? Are you all paid spokespeople? you all keep saying the same nonsense as if magically, everyone else will get enlightenment. I could argue those points all day long, but you guys are too thick to think outside of tunnel vision. The few who I know give good opinions have spoken. Easy to pick out. They don't sugarcoat the wii.

 

Here, let me leave you with this. The beloved wii has enabled to critically acclaimed big piece of shit Red Steel. Without the wii, that ass would not be possible. From a company that normally does pretty good. At a higher cost than Gears of War (12 mil for RS, 10 mil for GOW). Shitty graphics, shitty controls, shitty story, shitty gameplay. Think of RS before you keep repeating Reggie. He's full of shit too.

[jbanes]

Oh Lordy. Starscream has gone troll on us.

 

These girls are hot:

 

These girls are not:

 

Not all of us prefer the supermodels.

[kisrael]

The whole HD thing is kind of interesting. Until I see proof otherwise, I'm still sticking with my theory that consumers really don't care all that much about resolution, that it helps rationalize a decision that's already made...

 

Case in point:

* MP3s convenience wins out over CDs, despite the potential quality drop

* it seems like lots of demonstration HDTVs aren't even showing a proper highdef signal

* I can't think of a signal "next gen" product that took off ONLY because of fidelity/resolution: CDs offered random access, DVDs had flicker free pause, random access, extra content, better shelf-ability, HDTVs offer a big picture in a 16:9 format while being physically smaller

 

So, I'm still a skeptic about HD in general, especially with a format war in the works. 10 years for DVD over VHS? How long for this stuff??

First off, not one single example that you have given is proved, just speculated.

BS, dude. MP3s are lower quality than CDs, CD sales have slumped, I've seen lots of super shitty display HDTV setups, and for all those products, yeah it's ARGUABLE that despite the other factors, it really was the resolution that pushed the sale, but ALL of them offered something ON TOP OF the resolution. (And how about all those "highdef" music formats? Those have sold like gangbusters, huh?) This is why BluRay/HD-DVD might not really catch on in a reasonable time frame, and might even miss out to ubiquitous downloads or solid state formst.

 

 

Secondly, higher resolution = better visual quality. Tell me, did you find the ugliest, fattest woman in the world to marry? Your first nice car you could afford, did you make sure it had a shitty paint job? Your clothes, I would assume all are made of polyester and have some sort of polkadot/teddy bear pattern? Surely, you never wipe grease off yourself, or shave/get a haircut?

 

If you're talking HD, the question is, do you want highrez Bea Arthur, or lowrez random hot chick?

THATS almost an exact match to the whole HD thing. Pixel count matters but a lot less than content.

 

See, you and many others are just full of shit if you really think visuals aren't very important. In so many aspects of everyone's lives, it's how something appears. If it didn't matter, every car would be white, every house white, every food white, etc. For the topic at hand, even those who claim to not care about say HD, still do to some extent. Why? It looks better. If that doesn't matter, than why did you ask about s-vid cables in another thread or comment about RF signals being wavy and sucking ass (my addition to your question)?

Sure they're important. Just not as important.

 

Resolution by itself, not a big deal. Totally shitty RF signal with waves of weird colors and static etc, big deal.

 

WTF? Are you all paid spokespeople? you all keep saying the same nonsense as if magically, everyone else will get enlightenment. I could argue those points all day long, but you guys are too thick to think outside of tunnel vision. The few who I know give good opinions have spoken. Easy to pick out. They don't sugarcoat the wii.

 

I'm one of those people. The control isn't as amazing as it should be... sometimes you really miss that it's not "real" 3D tracking.

 

But it opens up new ways to have fun. I'm digging it. And its core is cheaper than its competitors. When I start seeing a "killer app" on one of the other systems, I'll get it.

 

Who is Reggie?

[CPUWIZ]

Who is Reggie?

 

http://cube.ign.com/articles/514/514769p1.html

[homerwannabee]

The whole HD thing is kind of interesting. Until I see proof otherwise, I'm still sticking with my theory that consumers really don't care all that much about resolution, that it helps rationalize a decision that's already made...

 

Case in point:

* MP3s convenience wins out over CDs, despite the potential quality drop

* it seems like lots of demonstration HDTVs aren't even showing a proper highdef signal

* I can't think of a signal "next gen" product that took off ONLY because of fidelity/resolution: CDs offered random access, DVDs had flicker free pause, random access, extra content, better shelf-ability, HDTVs offer a big picture in a 16:9 format while being physically smaller

 

So, I'm still a skeptic about HD in general, especially with a format war in the works. 10 years for DVD over VHS? How long for this stuff??

 

 

First off, not one single example that you have given is proved, just speculated. Secondly, higher resolution = better visual quality. Tell me, did you find the ugliest, fattest woman in the world to marry? Your first nice car you could afford, did you make sure it had a shitty paint job? Your clothes, I would assume all are made of polyester and have some sort of polkadot/teddy bear pattern? Surely, you never wipe grease off yourself, or shave/get a haircut?

 

You want:

 

 

Not:

 

Correct?

 

See, you and many others are just full of shit if you really think visuals aren't very important. In so many aspects of everyone's lives, it's how something appears. If it didn't matter, every car would be white, every house white, every food white, etc. For the topic at hand, even those who claim to not care about say HD, still do to some extent. Why? It looks better. If that doesn't matter, than why did you ask about s-vid cables in another thread or comment about RF signals being wavy and sucking ass (my addition to your question)?

 

So it's obvious that anyone who says "graphics don't matter" is a lying sack of shit. They do. Maybe not to the same levels as say me who sees no reason I shouldn't have great visuals, but they are still always noted. Things of no importance are very seldom spoken of.

 

Many people on here suffer from the have and have nots mentality. Because you can't have something, then it is of little importance. But if you have something, it matters. The world leaves you behind every time. Go ahead, keep telling the world from the top of you lungs that HD doesn't matter, great graphics in games don't matter. You have a wii right? Have not. You can't have it so maybe if you keep repeating it's unimportance, it will suddenly be true. Or maybe you can just try to justify all the shortcomings by trying to knock the others because they can and you can't. Maybe if you all keep doing your crusade, you will make a difference. No doubt, if Nintendo included HD with the wii and actually made a new system that was up to par with the other 2, all you naysayers would stop bullshitting yourselves.

 

Things all Nintendo sheep always regurgitate after hearing Reggie talk:

 

HD doesn't matter

Graphics don't matter

Sony and MS only care about graphics

If you want fun, you need a wii not the other 2, they are just pretty

wii has most innovative games

Everyone any age can play our wii

the possibilities because of the controller are endless

Wii is the most unique system

wii is cheaper to develop for

 

WTF? Are you all paid spokespeople? you all keep saying the same nonsense as if magically, everyone else will get enlightenment. I could argue those points all day long, but you guys are too thick to think outside of tunnel vision. The few who I know give good opinions have spoken. Easy to pick out. They don't sugarcoat the wii.

 

Here, let me leave you with this. The beloved wii has enabled to critically acclaimed big piece of shit Red Steel. Without the wii, that ass would not be possible. From a company that normally does pretty good. At a higher cost than Gears of War (12 mil for RS, 10 mil for GOW). Shitty graphics, shitty controls, shitty story, shitty gameplay. Think of RS before you keep repeating Reggie. He's full of shit too.

 

First of all when it comes to a lifetime partner I would pick a Bea Arthur any day of the week over picture number two. True enough the 2nd lady is way more attractive. But tell me what do you think she will look like when she is Bea Arthurs age. My guess is she will probably be 30 pounds overweight. With Bea Arthur I have someone who could intellectually stimulate me for the rest of my life. What she lacks in looks she makes up for in intelligence. My guess is Bea Arthur was probably on the attractive side in her younger years.

Another thing Starscream, you have to remember where you are posting. This is a website dedicated to the Atari systems. All of which have been

drowned out graphically speaking for the past 15 years. So why did you become a member here anyway? There are definetly a ton of other sites

that will be more to your liking with like-minded graphicphiles.

[Paranoid]

Check out Bea's *mouth* in that picture...

 

I'm just saying... Bowling-balls through garden hoses... Mmmmmm baby!

 

Um... As far as a $300 HDTV... Bzzzzt. Sorry. I've got a Philips 42" HDTV that cost me a couple thousand dollars.... and I guess, all the cables to get more or less the best picture possible for the signal being sent.

 

Whoop-de-doo.

 

Anyhow... there goes your "the haves and have nots" theory.

 

I'm certainly one of the "haves" around here. I'll tell you something that ONLY the "haves" know, too...

 

Having generally isn't half as much fun as wanting. And that doesn't apply just to electronic gadgets, either.

Edited December 29, 2006 by Paranoid

[Starscream]

The whole HD thing is kind of interesting. Until I see proof otherwise, I'm still sticking with my theory that consumers really don't care all that much about resolution, that it helps rationalize a decision that's already made...

 

Case in point:

* MP3s convenience wins out over CDs, despite the potential quality drop

* it seems like lots of demonstration HDTVs aren't even showing a proper highdef signal

* I can't think of a signal "next gen" product that took off ONLY because of fidelity/resolution: CDs offered random access, DVDs had flicker free pause, random access, extra content, better shelf-ability, HDTVs offer a big picture in a 16:9 format while being physically smaller

 

So, I'm still a skeptic about HD in general, especially with a format war in the works. 10 years for DVD over VHS? How long for this stuff??

First off, not one single example that you have given is proved, just speculated.

BS, dude. MP3s are lower quality than CDs, CD sales have slumped, I've seen lots of super shitty display HDTV setups, and for all those products, yeah it's ARGUABLE that despite the other factors, it really was the resolution that pushed the sale, but ALL of them offered something ON TOP OF the resolution. (And how about all those "highdef" music formats? Those have sold like gangbusters, huh?) This is why BluRay/HD-DVD might not really catch on in a reasonable time frame, and might even miss out to ubiquitous downloads or solid state formst.

 

 

Secondly, higher resolution = better visual quality. Tell me, did you find the ugliest, fattest woman in the world to marry? Your first nice car you could afford, did you make sure it had a shitty paint job? Your clothes, I would assume all are made of polyester and have some sort of polkadot/teddy bear pattern? Surely, you never wipe grease off yourself, or shave/get a haircut?

 

If you're talking HD, the question is, do you want highrez Bea Arthur, or lowrez random hot chick?

THATS almost an exact match to the whole HD thing. Pixel count matters but a lot less than content.

 

See, you and many others are just full of shit if you really think visuals aren't very important. In so many aspects of everyone's lives, it's how something appears. If it didn't matter, every car would be white, every house white, every food white, etc. For the topic at hand, even those who claim to not care about say HD, still do to some extent. Why? It looks better. If that doesn't matter, than why did you ask about s-vid cables in another thread or comment about RF signals being wavy and sucking ass (my addition to your question)?

Sure they're important. Just not as important.

 

Resolution by itself, not a big deal. Totally shitty RF signal with waves of weird colors and static etc, big deal.

 

WTF? Are you all paid spokespeople? you all keep saying the same nonsense as if magically, everyone else will get enlightenment. I could argue those points all day long, but you guys are too thick to think outside of tunnel vision. The few who I know give good opinions have spoken. Easy to pick out. They don't sugarcoat the wii.

 

I'm one of those people. The control isn't as amazing as it should be... sometimes you really miss that it's not "real" 3D tracking.

 

But it opens up new ways to have fun. I'm digging it. And its core is cheaper than its competitors. When I start seeing a "killer app" on one of the other systems, I'll get it.

 

Who is Reggie?

 

I loved the hi res Bea, that was awesome!!!

 

And I am not going to argue with you at all. In fact, I used "you" and it may have looked like it was directed at you personally many times that it wasn't. But damnit, sometimes seeing people say some really BS stuff, time after time after time after time, just gets annoying. I vented.

[moycon]

Haha this thread is so full of BS it's not funny.

 

I see a lot of trying to slam Starscream...going so far as to lie to try and make him look foolish.

 

Just let me know when one...just one of the folks that has a Wii and a 360 or a PS3 (I love these people in the discussions of the next gen systems that own a Wii and nothing else) thinks the Wii version of the games I listed is superior. Try out Marvel: Ultimate Alliance while your at it...and don't think you have to run out and buy a $2,000 HDTV like Paranoid did. It's not nessecary. If , as a gamer, you say the Wii version is better, YOU ARE A LIAR!! LOL There is no-way humanly possible you could honestly state this as a fact. I don't care about all this other nonsense, If you say you can't because you aren't going to spend the money MS and Sony are asking, just go to a local videogame shop where you can try out game for free and do this. You will see the Wii's short coming. It's unavoidable, and trying to say you like fat chicks, or would fuck Bea Arthur because she has a nice personality (LOL Like any fool here knows Bea) isn't going to change the fact. The Wii is fun for sure, but it's short comings are obvious. Hopefully the 3rd parties will discover a way around this. More likely they will do what they always do...not bother trying.

[Starscream]

Check out Bea's *mouth* in that picture...

 

I'm just saying... Bowling-balls through garden hoses... Mmmmmm baby!

 

Um... As far as a $300 HDTV... Bzzzzt. Sorry. I've got a Philips 42" HDTV that cost me a couple thousand dollars.... and I guess, all the cables to get more or less the best picture possible for the signal being sent.

 

Whoop-de-doo.

 

Anyhow... there goes your "the haves and have nots" theory.

 

I'm certainly one of the "haves" around here. I'll tell you something that ONLY the "haves" know, too...

 

Having generally isn't half as much fun as wanting. And that doesn't apply just to electronic gadgets, either.

 

but you took what I said outta context. The wii lovers can't display HD with the wii. They keep insisting that HD is not important because they can't do it. IF they could, you would easily see a change of tone. It is simply a way to justify, what they perceive others as perceiving, as a shortcoming. They need to justify it somehow. Mainly those who can play games in HD, don't give a shit about it but are portrayed as the ones who do. Trust me. The same ones insisted online gaming wasn't important either when Reggie told them. They downplayed it's relevance because they couldn't do it.

 

And, I do not mean that HD gaming is the only way to go. Or that online gaming is a must. Or that the importance to an individual on these topics may be on a different level as others. All I am saying is many wiitards just repeat what Nintendo says as if it's gospel and are too stupid to think logically or looking at the entire situation. They are the "sheep" that they claim everyone but them are. Example....Nintendo says old people can/will play the wii. I'm positive they will and probably have before the wii. There is no way to prove or disprove it. Without some really involving studies, nobody will ever know factual information. Some wiitards are already screaming from the mountain tops that elderly just love the wii and Nintendo has expanded the video game market like they said they would. Yet, the market naturally expands yearly. But Nintendo and the wiitards now claim this victory. That's the type of BS that annoys me.

Edited December 29, 2006 by Starscream

[Inky]

Been reading this thread, all I can say is this:

 

I do not own a HDTV. I cannot afford an HDTV (let alone a new gen console), so when I make a decision as to what console I want, HD does not enter into the equation. It simply does not matter to me.

 

And I think the whole "wiitard" thing is childish.

[Starscream]

See but you Inky are providing a different reason altogether. Affording what you can always beats a want. And choice really can't come into play. We have all been there, some of us still are. But when you can choose, and cost isn't the issue as much as quality or perfect fit for you, almost everyone goes with the best they can get.

 

Yes the wiitard thing is very childish, but in order to relate......

Edited December 29, 2006 by Starscream

[PuddWakkr]

I'd do bea arthur just to say I did. My wife watches alot of golden girl reruns for some odd reason so I think if I got the chance she'd give me the green light to hit it.

[Cheese007]

Been reading this thread, all I can say is this:

 

I do not own a HDTV. I cannot afford an HDTV (let alone a new gen console), so when I make a decision as to what console I want, HD does not enter into the equation. It simply does not matter to me.

 

And I think the whole "wiitard" thing is childish.

Same here. It WOULD be nice though to get the TV I currently have replaced with a new HD flat panel. Convergence is completely screwed up on the bottom of the screen, making Snail Maze for the Master System completely unplayable. Sadly, my dad won't replace it because it still "works." Of course, after getting me a Turbo CD and 360 for Christmas, the best my dad can do is replace the part that is broken.

In short, I don't care about HD since my TV can't even do RF correctly.

[NE146]

Come on, I am one of the guys like most here who still play Atari 2600 via an RF switchbox!!!

Ha ha, you and me both. I still have three hooked up in the game room.

For the folk still using an RF switchbox... how the hell do you get any kind of decent picture? I'm no image quality wonk, but RF switchboxes always leave me with waves and waves of interference.

 

It really depends.. yeah, usually the image sucks. But that's vintage 2600 to me I really don't expect much.. it's fine for what I want it to be. I WILL most likely snag one of those connectors eventually however.. it's just laziness at this point.

[kisrael]

As if there aren't tons of people playing 360 on a regular TV.

 

HD just doesn't matter all that much.

 

As for individual games being better on the other systems, yeah, they probably are. Wii is about game experiences the other platforms just don't do.

[NE146]

Use the cables that came with the system and play the Xbox 360 version of Call Of Duty 3 and then the Wii version. Now do the same thing for Far Cry.... Now you'll see what I'm talking about.

 

Oh yeah I definitely know what you're talking about. If I'm going to play Call of Duty 3 (although I prefer Rainbow 6), there's NO WAY I'm going to play the Wii version. I don't see what's the debate That's like choosing the DS version of Need for Speed over the PSP version. It's a sad comparison.

 

You gotta choose the software that lends itself to the consoles strengths, and with the DS it's obvious those games have indeed come out where the lack of DS horsepower mattered naught (Need for Speed notwithstanding ). I expect it'll be the same for the Wii.

[NE146]

By the way I'm reading the various comments here.. very pigeonholing. I guess what I'm wondering is, do I count as a Wiitard?