If it were only that simple - giving a cable to give HD, or providing an HD-out capable port - then I might tend to agree.
But that's not the case. We're talking about something that is industry wide at this point. Nintendo's omission of HD will decrease development time for everyone, first through third parties. It lowers the cost to all consumers. It forces people to think less about superfluous pretty graphics, and instead on gameplay. It returns the game to video game.
The big problem I have with super grpahis is that all too often, developers use that as their reason for you to give any consideration toward their game. Lack of gameplay? No sweat. All I'm going to see before buying the game, even as a hardcore tech internet nerd, are clips and impressions, and half the time those are picked with the intention of making the game look better than it is. There's moles everywhere, and review companies are being paid nicely to give out sparkling reviews. I mean, gosh, just look at the graphics in the commercial!
But the bottomline is that when I get the game and determine it's nothing more than an overwrought boring by the book FPS game, or a sports game with new rosters, or a platformers devoid of any kind of charm or innnovation, or an RPG starring a spunky 17 year old boy and his trusty girl friend-from-childhood white magic sidekick, or a racer that brings nothing to the table, etc etc etc, I could care less about graphics or reviews or impressions.
The fact is that graphics are the most easily exploitable component of a game, and the least important. Period. I'm not some idiot thinking graphics make the game.
I want gameplay. Fun gameplay.
And personally I think that is Nintendo's aim. Throw out all that bs people are spouting about graphics and generational leaps in polygons, or the fact that basketball players can sweat, that dimples are on the football AND bump mapped, or that realistic cheerleaders are on the sidelines. Or useless hundreds of enemies when I can only interact with 3-4 of them at a time, or drawing the same tree over and over with slight variations.
It's only like Nintendo is trying to get everyone to WAKE UP and realize that these are games on game systems. They aren't tech demos, they aren't graphics displays, they aren't some trumped up soulless piece of technology to show us what WW2 was like for the umpteenth time.
They are meant to entertain. They are meant to be played, not watched.
If the HD issue was as simple as removing a cable or including it, then we might be on the same page. But we're not because I'm seeing what Nintendo wants to accomplish by ommitting it entirely - a return to roots and less emphasis on shallow reasons to be interested in a game to begin with it. I'll gladly take 2D sprites or low polygon games if it means they entertain me longer than the tripe that is out these days. And quite frankly Nintendo seems to be on board with that idea by telling people to shut the hell up about graphics, that it's a ceiling we've nearly reached, and instead of pushing it up an inch further for 10% graphic quality increase with 2X development time, we can safely remain where we are and focus on the experience.
THAT is far more intelligent. MS isn't giving you a cable and caring whether or not you are using it. They are giving it to you because they know they make a profit on it, and don't give a damn afterward. They know they can charge a premium (no pun intended) with the idea that a small percentage of their customers CAN use it. Now if 100% of those people buy an HDTV within the next 5 years, then yes, good decision. But we all know that isn't the case - parents bought them for kids who don't know any better, teenagers who can't afford it, college students who don't have the cash or space, etc etc etc. I'd suspect less than a third of their userbase will be HDTV compliant within the next five years, meaning the other two thirds got screwed.
There's also the fact that they can use it as marketspeak to no end.
So we can be pessimistic or optimistic about it. 100% of the Nintendo userbase gets screwed, or 100% of them save lots of cash, and hopefully gain access to games that were able to be developed quickly and still be innovative.
What fun is it being given the HD capable machine if you know you can't get money for it? I'm pissed enough as is not being able to play progressive scan games right NOW, let alone knowing that the next generation can display a zillion pixels and my SDTV can't handle it. I mean, I was thinking a few years ago an 800 buck tv would be sufficient, but thank god I didn't bite, because I would have been SCREWED. And NOW I have to get a 1200 dollar one AT LEAST to be gauranteed that I can watch the next generation of media? Where the hell does it all end?
And that's when I think about the Rev and think well at least I know SOMETHING is going to work with whatever I have, and I don't have to be wrapped up in a lot of useless jargon and red tape by a bunch of corporate big wigs are sh*tting on my paycheck and laughing about it.
A cable doesn't magically give you HD. Hundreds of hours of development time, skyrocketing costs, a nice television, lots of hours working for all that equipment, a huge (and dangerously inept in some cases) power supply, and a dozens of other things do. If it WERE just the cable, Nintendo would sell it on the street and make a tidy profit, knowing that most of their fans won't use it, don't have the capability, or don't understand what they are getting.
Kinda like Microsoft.
I'm sure if we ran some developers down, they'd be annoyed by the HD issue too, but that's another thread.
Topic: Why is the console so small? (Read 53804 times)
