Quote

---

"What we'll offer in terms of gameplay and approachability will more than make up for the lack of HD," said Reggie.

---

Well I wont be surprised if IAN will bitch but I really dont care about HD. I'd rather pay for a system that costs in the 200 range rather than 300 - 400 - 500 range for a system with similar things as in specs and graphics output. Sure its a bummer to some but I also think its wrong to force devs on the X360 front to make games with HD and online on every game since it could just be a throw away feature.

Quote

---

For a time Nintendo has gone on record saying that they were still considering the issue, but Reggie has said himself, HD is out. "What we'll offer in terms of gameplay and approachability will more than make up for the lack of HD," said Reggie.

---

Quote

---

Originally posted by: Steven
The No-HD confirmation is a bummer, but in the end Nintendo really doesn't need it. All outputting Revolution games in HD would do is make HD comparisons to the 360 and PS3 look poorly on Nintendo.

---

Yeah, I definitely don't want to buy the Rev for Nintendo goodness, that would be a disaster.

"When you use your positives to nullify your negatives, then you can't claim your positives as selling points anymore."

I agree completely. That was why connectivity was a big fat nothing. Connectivity was something that the competition didn't have. But Nintendo didn't go online. Ooops. Now it was an "either or" scenario and people picked online. Nintendo totally negated a potential advantage by trading off on features.

I think gameplay is more important than HD-support. But you know what's better? Gameplay AND HD-support which the competition has. "Gameplay" is a vague feature. There's no guarentee Nintendo will release great games and Sony and MS won't. Sony and MS have the potential to deliver both and Nintendo doesn't. HD-support is a selling point Nintendo cannot match at all.

I don't think on it's own no HD-support is that big of an issue but what it represents is. Nintendo did a really horrible job on matching the competition with the Cube and that's a big reason why they're in last place. It was just tons of little things like smaller memory cards that Nintendo just did an inferior job on. Plus there was of course big things like no online. It made Nintendo look sloppy and incompetent. People don't trust you to get the big things right if you screw up easy things everyone else can spot a mile away. No HD-support suggests that Nintendo didn't really learn from that, or at least they didn't learn enough from it. They're still trading off features and cutting corners and making dumb little mistakes that anyone else aside from maybe Nokia would know to avoid.

On it's own no HD-support is not a big deal. But what about no HD-support and the weakest hardware and the weakest graphics? Plus looking at Mario Kart DS's online setup Nintendo is making some silly mistakes with their first online game. What if those mistakes translate over the Rev's online setup? It's already likely that we have to use wi-fi for a stay-at-home console which makes no sense. Suddenly little stupid sh!t is piling up and turning into a big fat reason to not buy a Rev just like all the stupid little sh!t turned into a big fat reason to not buy a Cube. Plus remember this is the last place console and is by default going to have the weakest third party support. This is also from a company that couldn't market chocolate to fat people. And with every console there are problems that no one can foresee. So it's a good idea to deal with the stuff you can foresee now so that you have less problems to deal with.

So we have a console that already has an uphill battle to deal with and yet Nintendo is INTENTIONALLY not matching a feature used by both competitors. This is a decision that they CAN'T FIX EVER. They have to deal with this limitation for five years. What good is it to make such a blatant potential mistake? No good will come from not having the feature. They're basically just hoping enough people won't care. It's like they know it's a mistake but they're hoping no one notices.

Do you know what Nintendo could have done? Sony and MS are FORCING devs to make every game HD compatible. It's a very developer unfriendly move. Nintendo could have had a clear advantage by providing HD as an option but not forcing devs to use it if they don't want to. They would be feature matching while also providing more options for third parties. But nope. They're instead removing the feature outright and thus just like Sony and MS are forcing devs to do things only one way. Only Nintendo's method is worse because they're forcing CONSUMERS to do things a certain way as well. All three consoles force developers to follow strict guidelines regarding HD support. But Sony and MS both provide the consumer with the option and Nintendo doesn't.

I think this will be a lot more fun if I simply read HD as "High Dollar" every time I see it. I don't need a High Dollar TV or High Dollar graphics or Microsoft's High Dollar era.

Quote

---

Originally posted by: ruby_onix
We still barely know anything about the Rev, but it's already making far too many sacrifices, IMO.

---

There are times when this forum does nothing but depress me. I am so sick of the hideous double standard applied to Nintendo. Microsoft and Sony are making mistakes too, but no one seems to care. XBOX360 has a horrible launch lineup, its best games being delayed. Both the systems cost an insane amount of money, far too much to be acceptable. But no, it's not that, it's Nintendo who is at fault for every thing ever to go wrong in the history of the world!

Nintendo is not competing with the graphics of the 360 or PS3.

That's it, that's all there is to it. Nothing more. If you have a serious problem with that, go buy an XBOX or PlayStation. But that is it. They want to win people with a new interface, not technology. That is their choice. They would rather do mediocre business with their current plan than good business with Sony and Microsoft's plan. If that disagrees with your life philosophy, fine. But you don't work for Nintendo. It is their company, their lives, their work, not yours. They WANT to do this. They aren't cutting corners trying to win back the market as cheaply as possible. They have made a decision on how to make this system appealing, on how to make it what they want, and that's final. Good god Ian, how many times did you say 'match the competition' or a variation of that phrase in your one post? More than five million it felt like. They're not competing! They've been stating this since E3 and you're still acting like they've never said it. What part of them stating this do you not get? They don't want to wage the war Sony and Microsoft are waging, so they're going they own way! There is no issue with them matching the competition because they're not tyring to!

Deal with it.

You know, that lower price in addition to the uniqueness is going to look mighty tempting to the PS3/360 owner who's out for a second console...

n64 had all the things that psx didnt.....and psx sold pretty well.
Psx had the killer app of fmvs.......

i think controller will have the killer app of the controller

I think it's completely unknown whether HD is a selling point yet

I wish they would force them to fix the fuggen framerates and load times instead of pissing around with HD.

now... do we still get 480 progressive scan?

I think this will be a lot more fun if I simply read HD as "High Dollar" every time I see it.

As long as you don't add an emoticon for that...

I get the feeling Reggie is trying to dance around a Revolution feature we don't know about yet when he says they'll "more than make up for it with *PR words here*".

Quote

---

Nintendo is not competing with the graphics of the 360 or PS3.

---

making too many sacrifices? that would be HD and... opps, thats right, nothing else

Quote

---

Originally posted by: KDR_11k
I think this will be a lot more fun if I simply read HD as "High Dollar" every time I see it.

As long as you don't add an emoticon for that...

---

Quote

---

This is also from a company that couldn't market chocolate to fat people.

---

XBOX360 has a horrible launch lineup, its best games being delayed.

Looks okay to me. Looks better than most launches, I would venture to say.

I'm not too worried about the lack of HD, as stupid a decision as it is. Only because I don't think that will be the determining factor. One question though-if MS is forcing developers to conform to HD, than wouldn't it be easier to port the games to REV in said HD? And if they are specifically made with HD in mind, how are the ports going to look in a lower resolution?

HD is not a system seller or system killer for me. And if Nintendo can make their games which will be non-HD look as good as Xbox360 and PS3 which may or maynot be HD, then Sony and Microsoft will have to explain why their systems cost as much as they will as opposed to the Rev's lower cost.

Frankly, about HD? It doesn't matter. I am entirely used to playing Half-Life 2 at 1280x1024 pixels on my laptop, but one day I plugged it into my non-high def-TV, and it looked fine. I really didn't notice too much of a quality difference. Yes, really really small text is harder to read, but that's it. Also, rendering at smaller resolutions takes a *significant* load off of the GPU. So, basically, restricting Revolution to smaller resolutions (lol teh rhymes) will actually give it potentially better framerates, if not better texture quality and shaders.

Quote

---

And if they are specifically made with HD in mind, how are the ports going to look in a lower resolution?

---

I don't think this is the Big Fuggin' Deal you all make it out to be, seriously. HD only matters to tech-heads and people who let the Industry tell them what they need. Sony and MS are only about Bigger And Better, Cost Be Damned, and they are looking for anything to put on their little spec sheets so they can tout theirs as superior hardware.

I'd say, at most...the HD decision is only going to affect those that weren't going to buy a Revolution first anyways, because they're the ones who listen to the tripe about Bigger Numbers and such.

I have to agree with Artimus, here. Nintendo is waging this battle on their own terms, rather than letting the competition define the terms for them. They are content with what they have, because after its all said and done, they are still making money WHILE they forge their own, albeit unique, path...rather than partake in the war of attrition that Sony and MS are waging.

No HD support? Boo freaking hoo. I'll be too busy playin SSBM:Online to care.

I agree that this won't effect me at all, as I don't plan to get a HD TV any time soon, nor have I been convinced of the need.

Sadly, I think the area where this could affect Nintendo very badly is with reviewers, who will likely have "top of the line" setups and I could forsee them taking jab after jab at this:

"By all accounts, the graphics in Metroid are amazing. However, they don't support my HD set up, which hardly any of you readers have anyway, meaning that it could have looked better. So it gets a fair 7.0 in this area."

I don't think it's about Sony and MS dictating the terms. We (at least in the U.S.) are moving to HD. People have HD sets. People with HD sets want HD content. It's not about what they tell us we want. People with HD sets already made the choice.

HD sets are still in the minority and will be for some time, but having the *option* to output in 1080i was not going to break anybody's bank. Ours or Nintendo's.

I don't agree with Nintendo's decision to blacklist it entirely, but I don't agree with the "mandatory HD" approach either that Sony and MS are pushing. They should all have been more flexible.

Reggie's "we'll make up for it with gameplay" comment is ridiculous. It's not a selling point when they ALL have gameplay. As great a speaker he is, we should remember that he's just a salesman, and he has no alternative to say anything else. He doesn't make the hardware design decisions and I can't imagine anybody is really GLAD that there's no HD support... except for Sony and MS, of course.

I think you guys are forgetting a few things...Sony has no central online plan, nintendo does, so why not harp on that fact, MS's Backwards compatibility is a joke (and Sony's isn't great either), Nintendo is going above and beyond in that avenue, why not harp on that?

The REV can play far more types of games than its competitors, and its cheaper, and its online is free, its competitors can only play the old style games, are hundreds more and online is pay to play or left up to the devs themselves, and yet all you guys can say is no HD will doom the REV.

Why are you guys harping on the one thing that Nintendo isn't doing, when its competitors have just as many, or even more flaws with their systems?

lol it's funny how still some dont get it. The revolution is not 3d it is has move on. What some of you are say is (put in in term of 2d - 3d) you want HD SMW in 2d over mario 64 in 3d now replace SMW with SMS and mario 64 with mario 128 so smw (in HD) or 64 (=fun)?

so smw (in HD) or 64 (=fun)?

B-b-but Nintendo is an AND company

Even if my family did get an HDTV (no way), I'd still be playing on a crappy old television. Just the way I like.
I'm unaffected, so it's fine by me.

This is actually kind of disappointing to me. I am planning on buying an HDTV in a month or so, and I was hoping Nintendo would change their mind. But by no means is this going to change my decision to buy a Revolution.

And if I could respond to Steven's statement on the news page:

Quote

---

Steven says: The No-HD confirmation is a bummer, but in the end Nintendo really doesn't need it. All outputting Revolution games in HD would do is make HD comparisons to the 360 and PS3 look poorly on Nintendo.

---

Quote

---

Originally posted by: Stu L Tissimus
Also, rendering at smaller resolutions takes a *significant* load off of the GPU. So, basically, restricting Revolution to smaller resolutions (lol teh rhymes) will actually give it potentially better framerates, if not better texture quality and shaders.

---

I don't think there'll be much of a visible difference between the Rev at standard resolution and the X360 at medium resolution. And if there is, the customer will be disappointed when he takes the system home, plugs it in and finds that his TV is not HD.