Support NeoGAF

[soundwave05]

I have a question though ... isn't GPU overclocking on PCs quite common? Can't some of those overclock mods produce a higher fillrate?

I think ATi even has an official overclock software called OverDrive. Granted this is primarily for overclocking GPU clock speed, but again I don't think it's out of the relam of possibility for ATi to make an offical hardware "overclock" add-on to help accomodate HDTV resolutions for Nintendo.

Obviously a solution made specifically by ATi would yield greater performance returns.

Pretty much all of Nintendo's consoles have come pre-built for hardware upgrades anyway via EXT. ports, so it wouldn't exactly be anything new for Nintendo. To me this seems like the best overall solution.

 

[Myoclonic Jerk]

GC did . Why wouldn't the Rev?

Dunno!! the whole no HD thing made me worrry that they won't have a component output for REV.

 

[Ghost]

Rev is better without HD like GC was better without DVDs and like N64 was better off with Carts (that last ones tenuous because i loved tiny loading time, but anyway).

 

[GitarooMan]

I was always confused by that logic and I now have to ask you if you haven't got a computer? I've been playing with PS2, Xbox and GCN for the last years and I never had the feeling that there SD resolution was a disapointment for me compared to my 19" TFT display.

Of course I have a computer, but I don't use a 50-inch screen on it. On a larger screen the resolution differences (sharpness, etc) becomes much more pronounced. Seeing the crystal clear sharpness of games like PGR3, etc. on a large screen versus the 480p stuff on the old system I can see a large difference is the vividness of the colors, the overall clarity, and the sharpness of text and faraway objects, etc. (also there is far less blurriness when you run right close to something such as a wall).and this is outside the general graphic improvment. For example even running somthing like Crash Nitro Kart in 720p on Xbox the vividness and sharpness is very noticeable improved over 480p games.

Also, SD was not a disappointment because that was pretty much what consoles offered, and I'm primarily a console gamer. Now consoles are offering more, and Nintendo, likely launching last, is offering less than the other new ones in this area. I will certainly notice the difference, hence my disapointment. If you haven't already I would look at some X360 games running hi-def on screens. If you don't see a big differences, good for you you've got nothing to worry about. I do see a difference.

 

[dark10x]

GC did . Why wouldn't the Rev?

I'm positive that it will offer 480p, but think about this...

GC did feature 480p, but Nintendo f*cking REMOVED the digital video port during its life and also made it incredibly difficult to obtain component cables for the machine. Anything is possible, ya know?

 

[Frankfurter]

Of course I have a computer, but I don't use a 50-inch screen on it.

You probably don't sit 1 metre from your 50-inch screen so I don't see the huge difference (bigger screen, bigger distance, smaller screen, smaller distance).

If you haven't already I would look at some X360 games running hi-def on screens. If you don't see a big differences, good for you you've got nothing to worry about. I do see a difference.

Xbox 360 launches tomorrow in Europe and although I won't buy one at launch (just to expensive for me at the moment) I have already played it in a store and it was attached to a ~32" LCD. Yeah, of course the graphics were really clear, but it's not like I came home after that and wasn't able to look at RE 4 or sth. like that.

I have seen high definition on an LCD for the last 1.5 years and RE 4 on my ~20" SDTV was still beautiful.

 

[Xellotah]

You probably don't sit 1 metre from your 50-inch screen so I don't see the huge difference (bigger screen, bigger distance, smaller screen, smaller distance).



Xbox 360 launches tomorrow in Europe and although I won't buy one at launch (just to expensive for me at the moment) I have already played it in a store and it was attached to a ~32" LCD. Yeah, of course the graphics were really clear, but it's not like I came home after that and wasn't able to look at RE 4 or sth. like that.

I have seen high definition on an LCD for the last 1.5 years and RE 4 on my ~20" SDTV was still beautiful.

Well try playing X360 on a HDTV screen and then play RE4 on a HDTV screen, I think you might then see the difference.

 

[marc^o^]

"Peu importe le flacon pourvu qu'on ait l'ivresse", Alfred de Musset.
Poets support Nintendo.

 

[GitarooMan]

You probably don't sit 1 metre from your 50-inch screen so I don't see the huge difference (bigger screen, bigger distance, smaller screen, smaller distance).

Xbox 360 launches tomorrow in Europe and although I won't buy one at launch (just to expensive for me at the moment) I have already played it in a store and it was attached to a ~32" LCD. Yeah, of course the graphics were really clear, but it's not like I came home after that and wasn't able to look at RE 4 or sth. like that.

I have seen high definition on an LCD for the last 1.5 years and RE 4 on my ~20" SDTV was still beautiful.

You make a good point about the screen, alhthough sitting 8-10 feet (2.5-3 meters maybe) from a 50-inch vs. 2-4 feet (say 1-1.5 meters) from a 20 inch screen I still feel you're going to see more detail on a 50-inch screen so you can see the difference better (This is just my personal experience).

I also agree RE4 still looks good, I've been playing games in SD for years and I've enjoyed the visuals on games this gen a lot. But I also thought that PSX games (even lower res) looked good when they came out. RE4 does look blurrier in 480p than hi-res stuff on my TV (Note I haven't played much of RE4, just the first few minutes, but other 480p games (God of War for example also has less vividness and sharpness) exhibit the same qualities)). Maybe the difference in res isn't as dramatic this gen to some people, but I think when RE5 comes out for X360/PS3, it will certainly be vivider, clearer, and sharper, than it would be in 480p. That equals better to me (than the same game in 480p). Of course I can still play 480p games (I still play NES games), but I'd just prefer hi-def.

 

[xexex]

HD is so not-necessary. I'd much rather have high-framerates, high-polygon counts, complex lighting, anti-aliasing in games.

 

[DaCocoBrova]

HD is so not-necessary. I'd much rather have high-framerates, high-polygon counts, complex lighting, anti-aliasing in games.

So true.

 

[dark10x]

HD is so not-necessary. I'd much rather have high-framerates, high-polygon counts, complex lighting, anti-aliasing in games.

I'll take both, actually...and I'm hoping PS3 will deliver that. Of course, if I had to make the choice, I'd totally opt for 60 fps + significantly increased detail.

 

[borghe]

is it better off without it? this is a trick question. if it is $50-100 cheaper than X360/PS3... eh, maybe not (that isn't much of a cost difference).

If it's graphics, beyond resolution, are noticeably worse than X360/PS3, probably not.

If it's graphics, beyond resolution, are noticeably worse than X360/PS3, and the system is $100 or more less than them, maybe.

If it can render the same scenes as X360/PS3 at 480p and costs $100 or more less than them, absolutely.

 

[GitarooMan]

I'll take both, actually...and I'm hoping PS3 will deliver that. Of course, if I had to make the choice, I'd totally opt for 60 fps + significantly increased detail.

I'll take both too, and I think X360 and PS3 will both deliver eventually (I don't think PS3/X360 power difference will be much more than PS2/Xbox, just IMO). It's likely that this won't be an either/or thing next gen. In other words PS3/X360 games vs. Rev games will probably have similar framerates, poly counts, and lighting, except two will be higher res. I just don't think that Rev is going to deliver superior effects/framerates/detail than X360/PS3 (could be equal), but I hope Nintendo proves me wrong.

If it can render the same scenes as X360/PS3 at 480p and costs $100 or more less than them, absolutely.

Is 100 dollars (2 games) really worth losing hi-def for a whole gen? I guess Nintendo has to make this call.

 

[xabre]

HD is so not-necessary. I'd much rather have high-framerates, high-polygon counts, complex lighting, anti-aliasing in games.

Just to prove it go watch Monsters Inc.

High resolution doesn't equal high quality graphics.

 

[marc^o^]

Is 100 dollars (2 games) really worth losing hi-def for a whole gen? I guess Nintendo has to make this call.

Nintendo made this call already with the DS. Their strategy is to release games that also appeal to non gamers. And they have to propose a cheap console to reach this new target. As everyone, I like great graphics. But it's only a "nice to have" feature. I'm enjoying Mario Kart DS much more than Burnout Legends, despite the graphic gap.

Graphics and fun are not related. So that the Rev controller can totally make up for the lack of HD display if it delivers on its promises.

 

[Buggy Loop]

HD is more of an option for me, i mean there's some gorgeous 480i and 480p games out there, if it has good AA it doesnt irk me, and yes, i do have an HDTV. What i hate is no 16:9 support, and i hope that REV has it as a standard, its not asking too much, i mean goddamn, its just a fish eye view for devs to implement. 16:9 >>>>>> HD support, imho.

 

[TheJesusFactor]

Ok, let me see if I can try to summarize this to keep it clear for everyone. Nintendo preventing developers from using HD is probably a strategy related to the following:

1) Cost
2) Inferior Image
3) Technology

Obvious not an end all be all comment, so please correct and adjust to your leisure. Please remember, this is just a summary more than anything else.

1) Cost: We know that there were rumors that Nintendo produced 2 specs for the Revolution. One that was compariable and might even outperform the X360, and one that is a low cost solution. Given the emphasis on the low cost and price sensitivity of casual gamers, they went with the lost cost solution. Assuming this, Nintendo will probably price their console between 200 - 300 at launch, most likely around $200 like the GC. They can probably achieve this by reducing the number of ports, no harddrive, and selling accessories to access Component video/digitial audio (similar to X360). On the inside of the system, they would have to use less powerful hardware such as, CPU and GPU to achieve the right cost. However, the technology would still allow HD to be implemented if they desire, but it might not look as good as the competition, especially comparable EA Games.

2) Inferior Image: To stay competitive, programming at HD resolution might give the Revolution Hardware an inferior image to the casual market. Since that is the market that do not have HD equipment. If Nintendo decides to allow HD resolution into its games. We can easily assume that developers will port inferior looking versions over to the Revolution, assuming they are using the same resolution on all platforms. It is probably true that Nintendo lock it to 480p to prevent EA or similiar multiplatform companies from doing same resolution ports that will make their hardware look bad. Forcing them to port to a lower resolution will boost framerates, anti-alising, and filters to make the game look better and maybe even be superior than other platforms at 480p.

3) Technology: It is very possible the RevCon was designed, tested, and enhanced on a 480p screen. Boosting resolution, means that the RevCon will need to detect finer movements. Since HD Resolution is at least 4x sharper, it might demand more accuracy from the RevCon. More accuracy might mean better technology, which means higher cost. Since this is a Pioneer tech in gaming, it might be smarter to play it safe and stay at 480p.

Another thing to look at is if display technology is at a point where 480p is being Max out. Max out being that we are at a point were technology is able to produce graphics where nothing else better can be achieved unless we go to a higher resolution. So all the technological energy and effort used to run games are a higher resolution should probably be used to make games look more realistic instead of simply sharper. Nintendo is probably developing technology that is focus more on doing things really well at 480p than at various resolution. For example, High resolution makes polygon edges more apparent than lower resolution. So with a 480p lock, they can ask ATI to focus less on max polygon count and more on lighting (HDRI), multi - texturing, anti-aliasing, reflection, etc.

 

[Panajev2001a]

Would Revolution be better without HD ?

NO!


It reminds me of the old Lewis Black joke "When did it go up for grabs ? Did I miss when the principal said "Today is Friday and we will have fish-sticks and with the week-end coming remember boys, blowjobs don't count!" Blow-jobs are adultery, end of the fu**ing argument!" (re: Clinton-Lewinsky story) .

 

[borghe]

Is 100 dollars (2 games) really worth losing hi-def for a whole gen? I guess Nintendo has to make this call.

You may know me from previous threads, like "I've been watching network and premium hi-def including god damn end-of-life DTheater since early 2002".. so with that out of the way.....

Is $100 or more worth losing 720p when the system can push the same framerate, antialiasing, filtering, and shader features at 480p as the others can at 720p? absolutely.

the bottom line is you take a look at some gorgeously mastered DVDs (Shrek 1/2, any Pixar disc, most SuperBit discs, Saving Private Ryan, Episode 2/3, Charlie and the Chcolate Factory, LOTR Trilogy, etc) and compare them to the HD versions of those movies (when available) and you really don't see THAT dramatic of an improvement. high bitrate dvd to high bitrate HD is described as a subtle upgrade at best. the big push for HD comes, not from DVD to HD DVD, but from SDTV, in many cases crappy analog cable, to gorgeous broadcast HDTV. However, with the game consoles, we are not talking about the difference from analog cable to OTA HDTV. We are talking high bitrate (actually uncompressed) DVD to HDTV.

The biggest push next-gen will still be graphic capabilities, NOT resolution. a screen at 480p 4xAA running at a rock solid 60fps with full shader effects will still look pretty damn good. almost as good as the same screen at 720p.

 

[AirBrian]

Good grief. How can anyone honestly defend Nintendo on this one? This is the exact same thing as GC and online support. Read the 8000 threads on GAF about Nintendo’s and GC’s weaknesses/problems. Everyone agrees that one of Nintendo’s major problems is perception. Well guess what? Whether or not YOU take advantage of HD gaming is completely irrelevant. When average Joe Shmoe goes into Best Buy and looks at the different consoles, two of them will have a major feature that one of them doesn’t have. Sound familiar? Joe probably doesn’t even have an HDTV, but that doesn’t really matter. PS3 and X360 offer more features, and thus will be perceived as a better console.

The more pertinent question is whether or not consumers will see the controller as an acceptable replacement feature for a lack of HD support. This is something that the GC could not offer.

 

[DaCocoBrova]

Just to prove it go watch Monsters Inc.

High resolution doesn't equal high quality graphics.

Huh?

 

[borghe]

...This is the exact same thing as GC and online support. ...two of them will have a major feature that one of them doesn’t have.

if you are honestly trying to debate that HD is as important as online, it shows how truly overblown this topic is. online actually PREVENTS GAME MODES AND PREVENTS YOU FROM PLAYING CERTAIN GAMES!

HD doesn't prevent developers from doing anything. they can use the same models in game, same textures, and gues what.. if something is too small at 480p on a 34" TV, it will be too small at 720p on a 34" TV also.

 

[AirBrian]

if you are honestly trying to debate that HD is as important as online, it shows how truly overblown this topic is. online actually PREVENTS GAME MODES AND PREVENTS YOU FROM PLAYING CERTAIN GAMES!

HD doesn't prevent developers from doing anything. they can use the same models in game, same textures, and gues what.. if something is too small at 720p on a 34" TV, it will be too small at 480p on a 34" TV.

Instead of taking my quote out of context, read the whole damn thing. IT'S MORE ABOUT PERCEPTION THAN THE ACTUAL FEATURES.

Two consoles will have it, one won't. Same as online this generation.

 

[Mrbob]

HD is so not-necessary. I'd much rather have high-framerates, high-polygon counts, complex lighting, anti-aliasing in games.

Why choose one or the other? PS3 and X360 will give you both.

It'll be interesting to see how much RAM revolution has. If I were guessing I would say 256 megs.

 

[Particle Physicist]

Prediction: ATi will back out of their contract with Nintendo at the 11th hour for fear of damaging thier reputation as a chip maker. The embarassment of having thier namebrand attached to "Hollywood" will be too much to bare.

drinky.. you posted this under the wrong user name.

 

[GitarooMan]

the bottom line is you take a look at some gorgeously mastered DVDs (Shrek 1/2, any Pixar disc, most SuperBit discs, Saving Private Ryan, Episode 2/3, Charlie and the Chcolate Factory, LOTR Trilogy, etc) and compare them to the HD versions of those movies (when available) and you really don't see THAT dramatic of an improvement. high bitrate dvd to high bitrate HD is described as a subtle upgrade at best. the big push for HD comes, not from DVD to HD DVD, but from SDTV, in many cases crappy analog cable, to gorgeous broadcast HDTV. However, with the game consoles, we are not talking about the difference from analog cable to OTA HDTV. We are talking high bitrate (actually uncompressed) DVD to HDTV.

I disagree. I just don't see the comparison between film movies and games. They're created differently (recorded on film vs. textures and polygons). To me, stuff like Finding Nemo (CG film recorded digitally) looks a lot better in HD (I was just watching it last weekend on ABC HD) than SD DVD (which I've watched on the same TV). The depth and color is dramatically different. And I've also been watching premium hi-def forever like you have.

Here's the brunt of the issue. It's possible that Rev will look worse on better TVs (TV with HD resolutions) than those that don't (because of upscaling, low res). To me it's not a selling point that your system might look better on inferior TVs.

I disagree also and think that hi-def will be part of pushing next-gen. It's already pushing the next-gen of television, why are games different? Again, Nintendo is making a cost-cutting business decision, I think it's the wrong decision. I also think that this cost-cutting is being mandated by NCL (given the success of DS and likely Rev in JP), and that NoA probably begged for HD inclusion (because it would undoubtedly help in the US, IMO). But NoA is essentially powerless and has to spin this with "people don't really want HD" This system is being made for Japan with NA as an afterthought IMO

 

[Particle Physicist]

Why choose one or the other? PS3 and X360 will give you both.

but at a much higher cost...

 

[marc^o^]

When average Joe Shmoe goes into Best Buy and looks at the different consoles, two of them will have a major feature that one of them doesn’t have. Sound familiar? Joe probably doesn’t even have an HDTV, but that doesn’t really matter. PS3 and X360 offer more features, and thus will be perceived as a better console.

People are more likely to notice the new revmote controller and the new game experiences it will bring than the HD versions of the games they already played without HD.

 

[Beer Monkey]

the bottom line is you take a look at some gorgeously mastered DVDs (Shrek 1/2, any Pixar disc, most SuperBit discs, Saving Private Ryan, Episode 2/3, Charlie and the Chcolate Factory, LOTR Trilogy, etc) and compare them to the HD versions of those movies (when available) and you really don't see THAT dramatic of an improvement.

Yes you do, it's a HUGE difference.

If you have a 1920x1080 display device, or one that is resolving close to the full resolution of it.

However, most HDTVs cannot come close to fully resolving 1920x1080. And most of the 'HD capable' devices that half of the country will supposedly own by 2010 won't be able to either!

Most people will buy a 27" device that can resolve around 900x600. But since it says '1080i and 720p capable', they'll think it's 'full' HD even though it's medium resolution at best.

Then they'll sit 12 feet away from it.

Welcome to the HD era.

Even when HD is mainstream, it really won't be HD for most!

 

[Mrbob]

but at a much higher cost...

How much higher? We don't know. By the time the Revolution is out the Xbox 360 core pack may be $249. Guessing that Revolution is $199 this is only a 50 dollar difference.

 

[Particle Physicist]

How much higher? We don't know. By the time the Revolution is out the Xbox 360 core pack may be $249. Guessing that Revolution is $199 this is only a 50 dollar difference.

you actually think that the 360 will drop down to $249 in a year? wouldnt that be one of the largest price drops within a year of a console's release?

 

[Mrbob]

you actually think that the 360 will drop down to $249 in a year? wouldnt that be one of the largest price drops within a year of a console's release?

It would be 50 bucks. Core pack will be 249. Premium pack 349. Still you can get Xbox 360 and a memory card for about 50 bucks more than a Revolution and a memory card.

 

[AirBrian]

How much higher? We don't know. By the time the Revolution is out the Xbox 360 core pack may be $249. Guessing that Revolution is $199 this is only a 50 dollar difference.

That's assuming MS drops the price. If Halo 3 is anywhere near complete, there is no way MS drops the price of either pack.

 

[DSN2K]

this choice by Nintendo has nothing to do with the worth of HD or the potential market for it but the fact the Revolution cant produce the same visuals on par with 360/PS3 at 720p simply because it aint powerful enough.

 

[Mrbob]

That's assuming MS drops the price. If Halo 3 is anywhere near complete, there is no way MS drops the price of either pack.

Why not? It is all about growing a user base. MS has the advantage over Sony and Nintendo at the moment. Might as well take advantage of the head start.

 

[sammy]

We've been through this over an over again ....

I love HD as much as the next guy, and especially seeing my TV investment realized at its full potential ..... but hell, as long as its an affordable system running at crisp 480p I'll be just as happy to pop in a Rev game as much a PS3 game.....

For months and months, the low resolution of the DS always had me worried --- It seemed a screen as obsolete as an old 'dot-datrix' display once I had my PSP in hand :lol

But since the launch of the PSP, that 'crispness' has come to develop little meaning compared to the extensive ammount of awesome shit on the DS that keeps my bank-account at a bouyant $100 .... And on many occasions I've found myself just as "wowed" by polished 2d visuals and the solid 60fps (no ghosting) of many of the newer DS games as I have been "wowed" by a few of the good PSP titles.......

I'll admit, that I'm a whore for great screen quality --- but I've spent way more $$$ than any other console on the awesome PS2 games that Sony's been pushing lately even if they look like ass on my HD progressive or not.

 

[Particle Physicist]

It would be 50 bucks. Core pack will be 249. Premium pack 349. Still you can get Xbox 360 and a memory card for about 50 bucks more than a Revolution and a memory card.

oh. you are talking about the core pack. anyway. we still dont know how much the rev will be.. we still dont even know how powerful it will be. we dont know what will come in the package.. all we know is its size, and some of its features. also, you wont need a memory card for the rev.

 

[AirBrian]

People are more likely to notice the new revmote controller and the new game experiences it will bring than the HD versions of the games they already played without HD.

From the same post:

The more pertinent question is whether or not consumers will see the controller as an acceptable replacement feature for a lack of HD support. This is something that the GC could not offer.

 

[marc^o^]

Hold off your purchases! x360 down to $249 next year!
Joke aside, this could very well happen, Microsoft is not afraid to lose billions to make its path. Though that would hurt Sony more than Nintendo. Revolution is unique and will sell to a wider crowd than x360 anyway (Nintendo fanbase, non gamers, x360 & PS3 gamers as a second system if the magic wand is magic indeed).

 

[Beer Monkey]

also, you wont need a memory card for the rev.

I bet you'll want one. They'll probably make it a big pain to not have one once you start filling up your internal flash with downloads.

There's good money in memory cards.

 

[borghe]

Yes you do, it's a HUGE difference.

ah yes, back to the "I see a huge difference" etc. Well, it is all subjective, and I'll leave it at that, but virtually every person I have actually talked to says the same thing. You see a big difference with TV, but their DVDs look great. And provided they have Rev in store on the same LCD panels as PS3 and X360 and at 480p, it is likely still going to look great..

but really I am not going to get into the "OMG HD IS GR8. I ALMOST WALKED INTO MY TV THINKING IT WAS REAL!!!!1!" argument. It is subjective and that's that. I just know that once anyone I've known gets beyond the hype and bragging, HD is typically a shitton better than broadcast/SD cable, and a nice way to catch movies on cable that you don't already own on DVD without it looking like SD cable ass.

Instead of taking my quote out of context, read the whole damn thing. IT'S MORE ABOUT PERCEPTION THAN THE ACTUAL FEATURES.

Two consoles will have it, one won't. Same as online this generation.

do you really think consumers hold the boxes right next to each other and see which system is better? Bullshit. They ask a salesperson who is going to be influenced first and foremost by games. When GTA:SA came out last year, did people say "But the xbox has more memory and better antialiasing." No.. they said "It sure doesn't have GTA:SA."

these imaginary bullet points don't fucking exist for consoles like they do for TVs or stereos. You buy a game system for games, and as long as Rev has the exlucsive titles, peopel aren't going to say "but it's not 720p" just like being online didn't cause xbox to outsell GCN by 2:1.

 

[Taker666]

It would be 50 bucks. Core pack will be 249. Premium pack 349. Still you can get Xbox 360 and a memory card for about 50 bucks more than a Revolution and a memory card.

But you don't need a memory card for the Revolution.

 

[AirBrian]

Why not? It is all about growing a user base. MS has the advantage over Sony and Nintendo at the moment. Might as well take advantage of the head start.

Why not? How much did Halo 2 sell on the first day? Why would MS lower the price, thus revenue, on the single biggest software release of its generation to date?

 

[TheJesusFactor]

At $199 you will get online, 512 memory, and probably a few free roms to download out of the box. I'm not sure if you can download games to play on the X360 Core Pack without subscribing. But I do agree the general perception is that you can get X360 for $50 more. However, I think Nintendo games will hopefully retail for $50 instead of $60 and that will be an advantage.

 

[Mrbob]

But you don't need a memory card for the Revolution.

Depends if Nintendo allows access to the 512MB for saves or not. They may only allow access to it for game downloads.

Even so, it is still under a 100 dollars difference.

Nintendo fans still haven't learned their lesson from the N64 and GC it seems. Cheap is good in the portable market since parents buy products for their kids. Cheap is not good in the console market because it makes you look weak. Be ready for another round of disappointment.

Oh and MS first party games are still $49.99.

 

[borghe]

Nintendo fans still haven't learned their lesson from the N64 and GC it seems. Cheap is good in the portable market since parents buy products for their kids. Cheap is not good in the console market because it makes you look weak. Be ready for another round of disappointment.

how many units did ms sell worldwide this gen?
how many units did nintendo sell worldwide this gen?
how many units did n64 sell?
what were the top selling 32/64-bit games of all time?

 

[Bluemercury]

I dont have an HDVT, but i do have LCD 19 monitor, still if those games support 480P ill be happy, since here in Europe most games never shipped with the progressive scan mode intact this gen......

 

[marc^o^]

Nintendo fans still haven't learned their lesson from the N64 and GC it seems. [..] Be ready for another round of disappointment.

Mrbob, troller in chief.

And we don't have to learn lessons. Nintendo does. Revnunchakumote, free online gaming, virtual console, etc. are evident signs they learnt their lesson well.

 

[monkeyrun]

wtf is added definition .... shit, it's higher resolution period.