Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Wii Confirmed at 480p

Zonk posted more than 7 years ago | from the good-but-not-that-good dept.

223

Eurogamer is reconfirming that the Wii only outputs at 480p, after the official Nintendo magazine mistakenly said otherwise. From the article: "Nintendo UK also recently said that it had every intention of releasing peripherals like the component cable — used to achieve the 480p resolution — at retail, despite suggestions that you'd have to buy the cables through online shops in the US. The interest in Wii's high-resolution options is of course spurred on by Microsoft and Sony's battling over the higher end. Both PlayStation 3 and Xbox 360 generally offer games in 720p, with 1080p now possible for developers who want to go the extra mile (well, the extra 1,152,000 pixels, anyway)."

cancel ×

223 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

A little late? (0)

dividedsky319 (907852) | more than 7 years ago | (#16691085)

Date of the article: "02/11/06" ...I think this article is a little bit late. It's been known for months that the Wii would output 480p.

Re:A little late? (4, Informative)

MeanMF (631837) | more than 7 years ago | (#16691117)

02/11/06 in Europe is 11/02/06 in the U.S.

Re:A little late? (1)

SoapDish (971052) | more than 7 years ago | (#16691145)

This is why we should all stick to the standard yyyy-mm-dd format. As a Canadian, I never know which format is being used.

Re:A little late? (1)

Walpurgiss (723989) | more than 7 years ago | (#16691299)

I agree. But here in the US, we stick to our guns, and try to be different in useless and confusing ways.

I've only once been able to use the different numeric date writing format to my advantage. My birthday is august 5th, 1983, and on my driver's license, it says 08/05/1983. In June 2001 I went on a school exchange trip to germany and a guy in a porn store carded me and read it in the european way and thought I was 18.

But that case aside, I really think the US really should do more to make the stupid little things match up.
Namely dates and using the metric system for more than just 2 liter bottles of soda pop and science classes.

Re:A little late? (1)

chrisbtoo (41029) | more than 7 years ago | (#16691639)


Namely dates and using the metric system for more than just 2 liter bottles of soda pop and science classes.


And if you could spell litre properly too, it'd be even better ;-)

Re:A little late? (1)

tomstdenis (446163) | more than 7 years ago | (#16692073)

and centre, and favour, and rumour, and honour, and pronounce "roof" (not as ruff) and say "chimney" not as "chiminey", and pronounce freedom as "being alive and in the absence of tyranny" and ...

Wait a sec... I love America though. Where else can I get my Jack in the box and hollywood?

That and Canada sucks. Stupid fence sitting hypocrites. All they talk about on CSPAN is whom has to apologize to who. Instead of having real debate it just boils down to pointless name calling all day long. Christ, I'd do that for free, unlike these shites who get paid four times the poverty line "just to keep honest."

Wait, what are we talking about?

Tom

Re:A little late? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16691335)

It just as easy either way....as long as its after the 12th

Re:A little late? (1)

Abreu (173023) | more than 7 years ago | (#16691577)

Yeah, tell that to the people who still wont change to the decimal system... [rolls eyes]

Re:A little late? (1)

Orange Crush (934731) | more than 7 years ago | (#16691705)

Yeah, tell that to the people who still wont change to the decimal system...

How archaic! You'd think we were back in 0x3E8 BC!

Re:A little late? (1)

bcat24 (914105) | more than 7 years ago | (#16691709)

Umm, do you mean the metric system. Most Americans I know use decimal.

Re:A little late? (1)

Abreu (173023) | more than 7 years ago | (#16691779)

yup, sorry... meant to say "the Metric decimal system"

Re:A little late? (1)

techpawn (969834) | more than 7 years ago | (#16691883)

My car gets 30 rods to the hogshead and that's the ways I likes it!

Re:A little late? (1)

geekster (87252) | more than 7 years ago | (#16691887)

I use ie. "02 November 2006" when ever I write a date on a homepage or where ever. I think that minimizes confusion.

Wandering even further off topic... (1)

Hillgiant (916436) | more than 7 years ago | (#16692093)

I always use ddMMMyyyy, where MMM are the first three letters of the month's name. So today would be 02NOV2006.

Re:A little late? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16692721)

It's easy, the date is formatted as it is said in whatever language you are reading it:

US: November 2, 2006 --> 11/2/2006
EU: 2nd of November, 2006 --> 2/11/2006
Canada: In 2006, on November the 2nd --> 2006.11.6

Since we didn't have as much interaction with Spanish for instance in the US we prefer what sounds better in English.

Re:A little late? (1)

MentlFlos (7345) | more than 7 years ago | (#16691253)

oh they use Metric time!

now it makes sense...

Oops... disregard. (1)

dividedsky319 (907852) | more than 7 years ago | (#16691135)

...and I now realize that that is indeed today, I'm just a stupid American... ;-)

At first glance the 02/11/2006 made me think of Feb, not 11/2...

Apparently recently there was a report that the Wii would output in 720i/p... And this is just debunking that error.

Sorry, move along, nothing to see here ;-)

Re:A little late? (1)

A Brand of Fire (640320) | more than 7 years ago | (#16691307)

Europeans use a dd/mm/yy format for date. :) So the resulting article would have been posted today, November 2nd, 2006.

Does resolution matter? (3, Insightful)

LehiNephi (695428) | more than 7 years ago | (#16691215)

It would be interesting to know how much of the video game market consists of people with HDTVs that actually do 720p/1080whatever. This also leads me to ask: "Does resolution really matter?" For some games, I'm sure it makes a difference, but I'd be willing to bet that high resolution won't make any difference to a large majority of gamers in a large number of titles.

Keeping to 480p seems like a good move by Nintendo. Many (I'd even go so far as to say most) of their games will be just as fun, you don't need a fancy TV just to enjoy it, and (perhaps most importantly) it keeps part cost, size, and power requirements down.

I was watching my teenage brother-in-law play Zelda (I don't recall which) on his gamecube the other day. The graphical style of the game was very effective, and I think it would actually lose appeal going to higher resolution.

Now all you experts can respond and tell me why I'm totally wrong.

Re:Does resolution matter? (1)

HarvardFrankenstein (635329) | more than 7 years ago | (#16691259)

Resolution itself isn't that important for me, but I do know that I get a lot more HD lag on my Samsung DLP when I'm running in interlaced mode than when I'm running in progressive.

Re:Does resolution matter? (1)

gt_mattex (1016103) | more than 7 years ago | (#16691455)

Sadly this means no wide screen.

I so wanted to play Zelda in widescreen. I'm not quite as excited about the WII anymore.

Re:Does resolution matter? (1)

brouski (827510) | more than 7 years ago | (#16691595)

Not necessarily. There's nothing stopping anyone from producing widescreen content at standard resolutions.

Re:Does resolution matter? (1)

Kazzahdrane (882423) | more than 7 years ago | (#16691657)

Happily, you're wrong. It was confirmed months ago by Nintendo that one of the main differences between the Cube and Wii versions of Twilight Princess was that the Wii version would have native widescreen support. I don't have a source but it's all over the 'net (yes I realise that's a cop-out, but it's been a long day).

Re:Does resolution matter? (2, Informative)

gt_mattex (1016103) | more than 7 years ago | (#16691711)

You are correct sir. The Wii will support widescreen at 480p.

I have unwittingly spewed FUD and must apologize.

Re:Does resolution matter? (1)

myster0n (216276) | more than 7 years ago | (#16691673)

Then what about this screen [uploaddump.nl] ?

It's from this video [ign.com]

Re:Does resolution matter? (1)

spinkham (56603) | more than 7 years ago | (#16691271)

The market that is willing to spend $600 on a PS3 is the same market who probably has a HD TV. The market that would rather spend $250 on a game machine is the one that is likely to only have a standard def tv(mine can't even do 480p, 480i only)
They really are pointing at different markets.

Re:Does resolution matter? (1)

AuMatar (183847) | more than 7 years ago | (#16691403)

Not really. I'd consider 600 for a console, if there were enough must have launch games and if the console itself was innovative. But I play a lot of games. I wouldn't consider an HDTV- I watch about 2-3 hours of TV a week, and most of that is just background noise (I'm not really watching it). If my old TV broke and an HD was only about 10 bucks more, I might get an HD one, but that would be the limit of what I'd pay.

A game console is always aimed at the gaming market, which is definitely not the same as the videophille market. There's some overlap, but its nowhere near 100%.

Re:Does resolution matter? (1)

mgv (198488) | more than 7 years ago | (#16691333)

I was watching my teenage brother-in-law play Zelda (I don't recall which) on his gamecube the other day. The graphical style of the game was very effective, and I think it would actually lose appeal going to higher resolution.

Now all you experts can respond and tell me why I'm totally wrong.


No, gameplay can be quite independent of resolution quality. In fact the earlier games were often good because they had to make the gameplay good. The graphics were never going to impress anyone.

All too often now a game gets released with really good graphics, but its still a crap game. Its easier to get a team to paint pixels than it is to get an innovative play line.

But that doesn't mean that graphics destroy a game. They just are used to hide a bad one....

Michael

Re:Does resolution matter? (1)

LoudMusic (199347) | more than 7 years ago | (#16692987)

No, gameplay can be quite independent of resolution quality. In fact the earlier games were often good because they had to make the gameplay good. The graphics were never going to impress anyone.

Here's an interesting approach - hire a team to design a game for the original Playstation and when they're done hire another team to reskin it for the PS3. Maybe the first team will make something that's actually fun instead of just making an interactive movie.

Re:Does resolution matter? (1)

joggle (594025) | more than 7 years ago | (#16691373)

It's nice having the higher resolution when playing with friends on a split screen. It's nice to actually be able to see what's going on, especially in racing games. For single-player, if you really want high resolution then you're best off with PC gaming since even 1080p can't touch what high-end cards and PC monitors are capable of.

Re:Does resolution matter? (1)

LehiNephi (695428) | more than 7 years ago | (#16691497)

You make a very good point. I don't own a console of any sort (blasphemy, I know), and I've only once played Halo with four players on one TV, but it was pretty tough for my used-to-higher-resolution eyes to see much.

And since the Wii seems to be the only "next-gen" console that natively supports four players on one console, that extra resolution would come in handy.

Re:Does resolution matter? (1)

badboy_tw2002 (524611) | more than 7 years ago | (#16691851)

Last time I looked PS3 and 360 both have support for 4 controllers. What are you talking about? The Wii isn't coming with 4 controllers if that's what "natively" means.

Re:Does resolution matter? (1)

jZnat (793348) | more than 7 years ago | (#16692313)

I think he's referring to the huge amount of games for Xbox 360 that are single player or online multiplayer only.

Re:Does resolution matter? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16691785)

For single-player, if you really want high resolution then you're best off with PC gaming since even 1080p can't touch what high-end cards and PC monitors are capable of.

Considering only high-end computer monitors come close to matching or surpassing 1080p (1080x1920), I'd say you're full of shit.

Re:Does resolution matter? (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 7 years ago | (#16692755)

I have a 22" Sony that's Dell-branded and which I bought surplus for $250. It does 2048x something or other that's wider than full-HD at its maximum resolution. It's a fairly high end monitor but it didn't come with a high end price tag.

Re:Does resolution matter? (1)

Endo13 (1000782) | more than 7 years ago | (#16692281)

I'm primarily a PC gamer, and my monitor is a 19" LCD at 1280x1024. I've never had any trouble playing the old classic split-screen games on a nice 27-30" TV split four ways. Even Mario Kart on SNES worked fine. I'm sure higher rez would be nicer, but low-rez is definitely playable. Definitely agree on the single-player comment though.

Re:Does resolution matter? (1)

Aladrin (926209) | more than 7 years ago | (#16691399)

Well, you have to define 'make the difference'.

Do you mean:

A) Game is unplayable at 480, and playable at 720
B) Game is boring at 480, fun at 720
C) Game is visually horrid at 480, beautiful at 720
D) Game is playable and fun at both, but 720 makes it crisp and clean, and more lifelike.

Would I like to see Elebits at 1080? Absolutely. Would I pay 3x the price for the console to do that? Heck no.

I still play PS2 games at 480. Why would I suddenly HAVE to have 1080 for all my gaming?

I'll admit, some of the time on the 360 I stop and go 'Wow.' Enchanted arms, One of the characters after battle, you get to see his cape pretty close up. It is amazingly crisp and clear and really looks nice. Other than that, I don't notice the increased resolution for most of the rest of the game.

In fact... I played N3 on my friends 360 at standard TV resolution for a week before I bought my own 360 and found the switch on the cable to change to high-def. The difference was immediately apparent, but didn't knock my socks off.

(I play on a 37" widescreen LCD that only goes up to 1366x768, so 1080 doesn't offer me much.)

Real-time war simulations (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 7 years ago | (#16692107)

I still play PS2 games at 480. Why would I suddenly HAVE to have 1080 for all my gaming?

Real-time war simulations would benefit from more pixels. Each step from 320x200 to 640x480 to 1024x768 allowed PC RTS games to show much more information about the player's buildings and units on the screen at once. It also allows the camera to be pulled out farther to show more units at once or multiple views so that the player can see what's going on at each front.

Re:Does resolution matter? (1)

Jarjarthejedi (996957) | more than 7 years ago | (#16691411)

I agree completely. I have both a large (60 in.) non-HD and a medium (42 in.) HD T.V. in my house. When I play Gamecube I play on the large T.V., both to allow others to use the plasma and because I can see better on that T.V. because of my medium bad eyesight. Whenever we play X-box, and moreso with the -360, my friends are stupefied if I suggest we use the 60 in because "'it's not HD!" Honestly resolution only matters if you care more about graphics than gameplay, and if you do what in the world are you doing even thinking about a Wii?

Re:Does resolution matter? (1)

ShawnMcCool42 (557138) | more than 7 years ago | (#16691469)

Seriously... YES it does matter.

I am the uber frugal type.. I would not pay for an HDTV... However my friend just moved into my house after his tour in Iraq where he was doing nothing but accumulating hazard pay..

He bought an HDTV for $700... And i have to say.. WOW

It makes a HUGE difference. We had the xbox360 configured to a lower resolution so that we could watch some media center video in a different aspect or whatever... Then we played some games and were like.. this looks HORRIBLE. That's when i truly realized how important 1080i is. Once we switched to 1080i it made all the difference in the world.

If you're anything like me then you'll use psychological tactics (i don't need, who needs? what a waste of money) to avoid the expense.. However, after seeing the contribution that TV makes to our full house... I am starting to realize how important a single nice TV can be.

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes HD is important.

However thank you Nintendo for making the Wii so cost effective. I want your console and don't have the money my army friend does.. With the cost of a wii and extra controller setup i can afford 2 additional games on TOP of the bundled wii sports.

Re:Does resolution matter? (2, Insightful)

twistedsymphony (956982) | more than 7 years ago | (#16692555)

I agree... HD resolutions is one of those things that if you don't have it, you don't need, it but once you've lived with it for a while you'd have a very hard time going back... like upgrading from a ball mouse to an optical or laser. Or from a corded phone to a cordless. Or a wired controller to a wireless, etc. etc.

I don't watch tv, I don't have anything beyond basic cable for the news, and I certainly don't pay for HD service, I have an HDTV purely to play my games. IMO resolution might not add to the gameplay but widescreen certainly does, it literally ads an extra 33% of viewable area. HD, while not a necessity is beneficial when playing any game that would split up the screen, or any game with a lot of menus and text (like an RPG or other games with deep strategy or text driven gameplay). Text can be incredibly difficult to read on an SD display unless it takes up a substantial footprint on the screen to keep it from being blurred into oblivion.

Anyone who said HD resolutions don't matter, I encourage you to set the resolution on your PC monitor to 640x480 (essentially 480p)... then use that for a few days, come back and tell me how beneficial higher resolutions are.

There are cases where HD and Widescreen don't actually add anything to a game over SD (480i) resolutions, however I can't think of a single instance where HD and or Widescreen took something away from the gaming experience. That is to say most games will be OK in SD, but ALL games will be OK in HD. The GP talked about Zela (which is Cell Shaded) the game wouldn't have lost anything being in HD, it simply would have looked more crisp, clean, and vivid.

After watching content in HD, going back to SD or ED resolutions is like sticking a screen door in front of your screen, you can still play it and it doesn't take away from the gameplay it's just not as visually appealing. And while visual appeal isn't a necessity, neither is playing video games, it's all about what makes you happy.

Re:Does resolution matter? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16691495)

yes it does matter, things look better on an HDTV when they are displayed in a higher resolution. Sony and Microsoft aren't blowing it out of their asses, HD honestly does look better.

Re:Does resolution matter? (2, Insightful)

Cereal Box (4286) | more than 7 years ago | (#16691719)

Well, ask yourself this: do you think 640x480 is still an acceptable PC gaming resolution or do you see benefit in higher resolutions?

Another thing you should consider is that the Wii is going to stick around for what, five years or so? The 480p graphics will look absolutely primitive by then (I would argue they do right now), and the fact is that HDTV adoption is on the rise, and more and more households will have them in five year's time. Nintendo should've at least allowed the possibility of 720p/1080i output in order to "future-proof" the console.

Re:Does resolution matter? (1)

MooseMuffin (799896) | more than 7 years ago | (#16691919)

Its possible they could still 'add the possibility' of 720p 1080i via software. Microsoft just updated the 360 to output 1080p, and the Wii does have component cables. In reality though, the wii wasn't built for that and would be lacking the muscle to do those resolutions justice.

Re:Does resolution matter? (1)

7Prime (871679) | more than 7 years ago | (#16692113)

Well, ask yourself this: do you think 640x480 is still an acceptable PC gaming resolution or do you see benefit in higher resolutions?

No, however, PC games are played by sitting right in front of your computer screen, so every pixel counts. Unless you're playing 3 feet away from your large-screen TV, NOONE plays console games with as big a field of view as with PC games, so NTSC/ED resolutions are fairly comperable to standard PC resolutions when you take into acount how large each pixel looks from the players viewpoint.

Another thing you should consider is that the Wii is going to stick around for what, five years or so?

There's nothing that says that Nintendo won't release a console update mid-generation. In fact, I pretty much expect that within 2-3 years, we'll see a "Super Wii" or whatever they decide to call it, with support for HD graphics. The Wii is a very ecconomical system, and will make a profit almost immediately off the assembly line, which means that Nintendo is perfectly capable of turning around and releasing a mid-generation system. If they do, it'll be FAR more powerful than the PS3, far cheaper to make, the HD-DVD wars will have been decided by that point, and HD TVs will have come down in price enough so that normal people can buy them. This business model worked like a charm for the DS, and I expect that they learned from their success with that, and will do it again with the Wii. I see this as by far the best strategy, at this point in time.

Re:Does resolution matter? (1)

Endo13 (1000782) | more than 7 years ago | (#16692395)

Good point. Very good point actually. Nintendo is known for releasing updated versions of current consoles. Wouldn't be a surprise at all.

Re:Does resolution matter? (1)

MeanderingMind (884641) | more than 7 years ago | (#16692745)

Except only rarely are those updated editions more powerful. Usually they're just niftier, lighter, sleeker and brighter (screens). Releasing a Wii that was more powerful would be unprecedented.

Re:Does resolution matter? (1)

k_187 (61692) | more than 7 years ago | (#16692999)

Since the PS1 Hardware was in the PS2, you could argue that it was just an "update" for the PS1. Everything else was the same, it was just more powerful.

Re:Does resolution matter? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16693107)

And I guess that crack you are smoking is just an up date to cigarettes.

Re:Does resolution matter? (1)

thebaron2 (1008833) | more than 7 years ago | (#16692699)

Well unless they offer a free upgrade to people that already bought the system, then this is likely to just piss people off - it would piss me off!

So I go out and buy a Wii, and then in 2-3 years I've got to drop another $250 (or more) in order to play in HD - which will presumably dominate the television market at that time? It gets even worse if you've got to replace your controllers, cables, and maybe even games (if the ones they make now don't support an HD upgrade).

So now my nice, $250 system is antiquated and I've got to go out and replace it all in order to keep up with my upgraded home entertainment system. Come on now.

I think that it's possible for your strategy to work, but it's going to create such a head-ache for Nintendo that the work/reward ratio probably wouldn't be worth it, especially when they're poised to sell so many regular Wii's anyways.

At the very best, I see them "pulling a Microsoft" and maybe releasing their next-gen system 1 year before MS and Sony do in the next round in order to penetrate that HD-lovin' market.

Re:Does resolution matter? (1)

eht (8912) | more than 7 years ago | (#16693037)

But in 2-3 years the next Nintendo will still only be 250$(Nintendo has quite a long history of pricing at this point) and so adjusted for inflation cheaper than what you bought today. But a the Sony PS3 you bought for 700$ today will no longer be top of the line, will "only" do 1080P and will also have a replacement, guess how much it will cost.

Re:Does resolution matter? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16691771)

no it doesn't. the number of people out there with 1080p sets let alone even planning on buying them is incredibly small. I deal with the affluent every day and they are not interested in 1080p for their tv's in home or even for the projectors in their theaters. They all are 720p and happy with it.

anyone losing sleep over something supporting 1080p is retarted. all current gen consoles will be obsolete and tossed in the trash before 1080p sets are even near commonplace in homes.

Hell I have clients refusing to get rid of old ass plasma sets they paid way to fricking much for back in 1999/2000.. there is zero chance that they will toss newer plasmas or lcds for the newest resolution stuff that does not have any content for anyways.

Re:Does resolution matter? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16691813)

The problem is LCD tv:s with crappy scalers. So whenever you use other other resolutions than the native of the panel, image quality detoriates. With video material it's not usually noticable, but with computer/gaming it can be a terrible experience.

Re:Does resolution matter? (1)

bazorg (911295) | more than 7 years ago | (#16692121)

Resolution matters a lot for Microsoft vs. Sony pissing contest. Besides that, Sony gains from pushing Bravia screens, while MS gains from getting their DirectX toolkit to work nicely for companies developing for both console and PC games. Resolution matters less for Nintendo as they prefer to make money now with the Wii and live to fight another day when it is really convenient for them to make a HD console.

Re:Does resolution matter? (1)

Threni (635302) | more than 7 years ago | (#16692465)

> "Does resolution really matter?"

Up to a point. But, like 2D speed on a graphics card, we've reached that point. Now if we could just concentrate on games rather than trying to up the number of polygons every 2 years we might have some more original gameplay. I think it's great that Nintendo has opted out of it all.

£150 for the Wii vs £430 for the PS3...hmm, that's a tough choice. Which one can plot more polygons? That's got to be worth £300 extra...

Re:Does resolution matter? (2, Informative)

thatguywhoiam (524290) | more than 7 years ago | (#16692639)

It would be interesting to know how much of the video game market consists of people with HDTVs that actually do 720p/1080whatever. This also leads me to ask: "Does resolution really matter?"

Which leads me to answer: "Of course it fucking matters!"

Look, I get the argument. A lot of people don't have HDTVs yet. But this is a resolution that has been with us since the 50s people. It is positively ancient.

Not to mention, the inherent artifacts of NTSC (Never The Same Colour). 29.97 frames per second, not 30. No real reds (balanced to make caucasian skin look palatable). Interlaced. Its bullshit. And we all know it.

The Wii solves one problem - its progressive, so no interlacing. That's nice. But you still need to make considerations for: action-safe area on the TV (overscan), gigantic fonts (because the resolution is so bad), obscure broadcast-design limitations around aliasing and gradients, moire effect... I could go on and on.

480p, in my humble opinion, is the PS2 and GameCube and Xbox. It is yesteryear. I've been playing games in that resolution for over ten years. Its time for something that would not look like a postage stamp on my computer monitor. 720p would have been a nice boost.

Now all you experts can respond and tell me why I'm totally wrong.

Did I miss anything?

Wow! Every invention! (1)

AikonMGB (1013995) | more than 7 years ago | (#16691219)

If MY company had every invention, I certainly wouldn't be making video game consoles!

Aikon-

umm (1)

dolson (634094) | more than 7 years ago | (#16692109)

Yes you would! You would have every invention, including all video game consoles.

Re:umm (1)

AikonMGB (1013995) | more than 7 years ago | (#16692303)

I would have the invention, yes, but that doesn't mean that I would be making vg consoles =P

Aikon-

Great!! (2, Funny)

phase_9 (909592) | more than 7 years ago | (#16691223)

I was busting for one!!! ;)

Not even capable of what the original XBOX can do? (1)

joggle (594025) | more than 7 years ago | (#16691263)

I thought the Nintendo Wii was supposed to have similar capabilities as the original Xbox. There are many games that support 720p resolution on the old Xbox, with a few (simple) games supporting 1080i. So the new Nintendo isn't even up to the standard of the previous generation of game consoles?

Re:Not even capable of what the original XBOX can (1)

Paladine97 (467512) | more than 7 years ago | (#16691291)

Resolution wise, you are correct. In all other aspects, the Wii will tromp the original XBox.

Re:Not even capable of what the original XBOX can (1)

UbuntuDupe (970646) | more than 7 years ago | (#16691313)

Yeah man, I guess we just shouldn't buy it now. The Wii may be the most innovative system in a long time, but hell, if it can't do 720p, I guess we're just going to have to shell out more for one of the other consolso we can get better eye candy in our sequels.

Re:Not even capable of what the original XBOX can (1)

joggle (594025) | more than 7 years ago | (#16691443)

Don't get me wrong, I'm still going to buy a Wii. I'm just disapointed that it won't even support a higher resolution. It really is nice to be able to use the higher resolution when playing with friends on a split-screen. And since the Wii won't have any service like Microsoft's Live initially (and I don't think there will even be any local network games at first), this will be the only way to play with friends for a while on the Wii unless it is a turn-based or overlayed game of course.

Re:Not even capable of what the original XBOX can (1)

grumbel (592662) | more than 7 years ago | (#16691441)

According to the Wii FAQ from IGN the Wii can technically do 720p and 1080i. Its only that due to the lack of CPU/GPU power using that resoluton wouldn't make much sense for real games.

Re:Not even capable of what the original XBOX can (1)

trevorrowe (689310) | more than 7 years ago | (#16691465)

There are many games that support 720p resolution on the old Xbox, with a few (simple) games supporting 1080i

Thats funny. I would have suspected it was the other way around (many supporting 1080i and fewer 720p).

The scale goes like this (from higest quality to lowest):

  1. 1080p (1080 actual lines)
  2. 720p (720 actual lines)
  3. 1080i (540 actual lines)
  4. 480p (480 actual lines)
  5. 720i (360 actual lines)
  6. 480i (240 actual lines)

How this works... The number is the number of vertical lines in the picture, or the final resolution. However, that number alone can be very misleading. The i or p suffix stand for interlaced or progressive scan. Interlaced images quite literally only pass 1/2 of the total resolution each image. To avoid having a half empty (every other line style) image, they take the opposite lines from the previous image and interlace them.

What most people don't realize is that this gives very poor quality images when there is a large amount of motion (aka video games, sports tv, etc). Progressive scan images on the other hand represent ALL vertical lines of the image for each pass, resulting in MUCH crisper (quite easy to see with your own eyes) images.

Anyway, my point was, it would be much easier to supply a 1080i resolution (540 lines) verses a 720p (720 lines) from a graphics processing standpoint.

Re:Not even capable of what the original XBOX can (1)

Smorkin' Labbit (930740) | more than 7 years ago | (#16691757)

I'm sorry but that is wrong. You are forgetting that there are also more lines for the other axis; assuming 60 Hz, these are the pixel outputs for every 1/60th of a second:

1. 1080p = 1920x1080 = 2073600 pixels
2. 1080i = 1920x540 = 1036800 pixels
3. 720p = 1280x768 = 983040 pixels
4. 720i = 1280x360 = 491520 pixels
5. 480p = 640x480 = 307200 pixels
6. 480i = 640x240 = 153600 pixels

This of course assumes that all pixels are assumed equal, i e as difficult to output.

Re:Not even capable of what the original XBOX can (1)

trevorrowe (689310) | more than 7 years ago | (#16691865)

If you read my comment then you would have noticed I was discussing vertical lines of output and overall quality. Its a non-disputed fact that 720p is a higher quality than 1080i despite 1080i have more total pixels. 1080i has fewer vertical lines, which comes from interlacing and has an awful motion blurring effect.

Why else would all the sport channels, and all other forms of high quality video use progressive scan instead of the interlaced resolutions?

Re:Not even capable of what the original XBOX can (1)

MooseMuffin (799896) | more than 7 years ago | (#16692221)

Its not non-disputed at all. The 'horrible blurring' with 1080i is the same thing that has always existed with normal 480i tv. That is, very minor blurring. And 1080i superior for lower motion broadcasts which is why the premium movie networks use it.

And all the sports channels do not use 720p. 1080i channels that display sports: CBS (AFC football and college basketball/football) NBC (sunday night football), both INHD channels (various pro sports), NFL network and NBA TV (self explanitory).

Re:Not even capable of what the original XBOX can (1)

Smorkin' Labbit (930740) | more than 7 years ago | (#16692283)

I read your post as claiming that outputting 720p for a video console was more taxing than outputting 1080i since that is what the original poster was talking about, and that is simply not true.

For live action, it depends very much on what the actual cameras support whether 1080i is better / worse than 720p. For regular movies, filmed non-digital, 1080i is of course superior to 720p since 1080i is equivalent to 1080p for those (they only film 24 frames / second, so a good deinterlacer will produce the exact same result from 1080i as from a 1080p stream). For TV, such as sports, if the digital cameras support 720p & 1080i but not 1080p, there are advantages with 720p, definitely.

In short, it depends on what you really mean with p or i. The real question is, what is your original stream (console output, camera output, or whatever)? Is it 60 frames / second or 30? For 30 (including non-digital movies; they're really 24 but that doesn't matter), 1080i is equivalent to 1080p and hence far superior to 720p. For 60, a 720p might be more pleasant to the viewer even though 1080i contains slightly more date.

Re:Not even capable of what the original XBOX can (2, Interesting)

twistedsymphony (956982) | more than 7 years ago | (#16692953)

progressive scan is used over interlacing because interlacing leaves artifacts and flickering particularly with fast moving pictures (like sports). Not to mention most HDTV are progressing meaning they'd have to deinterlace the incoming signal which can create breakup and more artifacting along the edges of fast moving objects on screen (again like sports).

In terms of the video game space there is no difference in programing 1080i and 1080p. While 1080i might only have 540 lines actually displayed they have to render the whole frame in 1080 frame to keep it in sync. If you were to specifically program your game to output in an interlaced format (meaning you only had to render 540 lines per frame) you'd be doing what's called "field rendering" which is almost universally avoided because it requires you to ensure a rock solid 60FPS and if you miss a frame you run the risk of loosing sync placing the odd lines where the evens should go and the even lines where the odds should go.

Re:Not even capable of what the original XBOX can (1)

raptorjb007 (890049) | more than 7 years ago | (#16693209)

I not sorry to say this but: 1) It is *NOT* and undisputed fact that 720p is higher quality than 1080i. In fact, that is one of the least understood and most disputed arguments in the HD world. Fact is, 1080i is a higher resolution than 720p but you inherit some of the artifacts that an interlaced scanning gives. 720p60 is 1280 × 720 pixels, progressive encoding with 60 frames per second (60 hertz known as Hz). 1080i50 is 1920 × 1080 pixels, interlaced encoding with 50 fields (25 frames) per second. 720p offers only 44% of 1080i's resolution. Rather 1080i offers 56% more detail than 720p. 720p is not only a lower resolution but requires both less bandwidth and storage space. Its only advantage image wise is the fact that it is 60 full frames each scan at 60fps. 1080i Displays half a frame each scan 50 scans a second or 25fps. For reference movies in the that are only display 24fps because this is the rate at which the human eye can no longer distinguish individual frames. SDTV is 480i and have been forever, not many people even cared or could visualize the difference between interlaced or progressive until they had the opportunity to argue between 720p and 1080i, in reality is that the only argument for 720p is the fact that it is progressive. The only downside with 1080i is that you may experience degradation of image quality with fast motion(I suppose this is why the NFL supports 720p). Here is a little reference to support my statements. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HDTV#Format_considera tions [wikipedia.org]

Re:Not even capable of what the original XBOX can (2, Insightful)

ben there... (946946) | more than 7 years ago | (#16692527)

That doesn't even make sense to me. When you're talking movies, they are shot on film at 24fps progressive. So say 720p24 for film. Then on DVD it is encoded as either 720p24 or telecined to 720i60, where 60 refers to fields (1/2 frames). NTSC TV is usually recorded at 720i60, which displays as 60 fields per second, which equals 30 frames per second.

HD movies would be sourced to film still, at 1080p24, and there is no reason to encode or display them at any higher frame rate. The data is not there. Every HDTV broadcast I've seen has been 1080p30, which is equivalent to 1080i60. Same number of pixels once the 60 fields are deinterlaced to 30 frames.

Games could theoretically output 1080p60, which would be twice as many pixels as 1080i60, but from what I've read so far, you need the latest version of HDMI, 1.3, to even support that bandwidth. Does the PS3 use HDMI 1.3? I'm sure the Xbox didn't. The 360 probably doesn't.

If we're talking a full 60 frames of 1080p, it has more pixels. Still not for movies, which are still recorded at 24fps, but possibly for games. Short of that, this whole discussion about pixels is meaningless.

Re:Not even capable of what the original XBOX can (1)

ben there... (946946) | more than 7 years ago | (#16693189)

Replace all reference to 720p/720i with 480p/480i in my parent post, and it makes a lot more sense. ;-)

Basically what I'm saying is SDTV/DVD (in the US) is either:
480p24
480p30 or
480i60

p24 and i60 (telecined) for DVD or
p30 and i60 for SDTV
end up being the same amount of data (pixels x frames / sec)

HDTV/Blu-Ray/HD-DVD is the same:
720p24/1080p24
720p30/1080p30 or
720i60/1080i60

I just read the specs on Sony's Blu-Ray site, and Blu-Ray doesn't even support 1080p60. I'd be really surprised if games do.

Re:Not even capable of what the original XBOX can (1)

Cereal Box (4286) | more than 7 years ago | (#16691831)

You've neglected the horizontal resolution aspect. 1080i is 1920x1080 (interlaced), whereas 720p is 1280x720 (progressive). Do the math. Even 1920*540 > 1280*720. But you're also forgetting that 1080i contains two 1920x540 fields for every 1920x1080 frame. So remember to double the amount of data generated by the last calculation.

1080i is more taxing than 720p.

Not exactly (1)

joggle (594025) | more than 7 years ago | (#16691839)

You are forgetting the horizontal resolution. 1080i still requires a higher throughput of pixels since it has a much higher horizontal resolution than 780p. The throughput required for each resolution is:

  1. 1080p - 1080*1920=2073600 pixels/frame
  2. 1080i - (1080/2)*1920=1036800 pixels/frame
  3. 720p - 720*1280=921600 pixels/frame
  4. 720i - (720/2)*1280=460800 pixels/frame
  5. 480p - 480*720=345600 pixels/frame
  6. 480i - (480/2)*720=172800 pixels/frame
So the 1080i needs about 15% more pixels/s than 720p.

Not true (1)

Funk_dat69 (215898) | more than 7 years ago | (#16692629)

Anyway, my point was, it would be much easier to supply a 1080i resolution (540 lines) verses a 720p (720 lines) from a graphics processing standpoint.


That's not true. You are correct in that 1080i sends less lines to the TV (or what have you), but graphics processors dont render interlaced images. Interlaced images are necessary for analog display devices so when your machine is connected to one, the controller only sends half the data because the display wants that. It still has the full resolution image in it's frame buffer.

This is why MS can 'add' 1080p support easily. The machine does the work regardless, the resolution is the same for 1080i and 1080p as far as its concerned.

So it's no skin off nintendos bum to incude 480p. That basically means the wii supports digital displays. Of course, unlike the higher resolution standards, 480p doesnt always mean widescreen. Widesreen 480p would take extra processing power over 480i because it has more pixels to render. Nintendo is leaving that decision up to developers.

Re:Not even capable of what the original XBOX can (1)

ClamIAm (926466) | more than 7 years ago | (#16692921)

The Gamecube was pretty close to the original Xbox in terms of graphical horsepower. Oh wait, you're not actually talking about graphical power, just about those TVs that nobody has yet [multichannel.com] .

Good news! (1)

bunions (970377) | more than 7 years ago | (#16691347)

I won't be paying for resolution I can't see.

Who cares? (1)

SuperKendall (25149) | more than 7 years ago | (#16691427)

With an innovative motion controller and great gameplay, 480p is still really good.

Remember that 480p is more aong the lines of current DVD quality, and still better than the interlaced TV display we are all used to. It should still look better than last generation consoles from a detail persepctive.

Re:Who cares? (1)

MooseMuffin (799896) | more than 7 years ago | (#16691829)

My last generation xbox displayed most games at 480p, and later games in 720p and 1080i.

DVD is exactly 480p, actually (1)

TheAxeMaster (762000) | more than 7 years ago | (#16692003)

Which looks just fine on my 720p capable TV, and the TV does all the scaling. Get some decent anti-aliasing in there and you're good to go.
 
I actually like Nintendo's tactic here, it is much like AMD's wait to support DDR2 sceme. Let your competitors spend the capital to build the market, then step in when its ready and start making cash without the initial investment.

Re:DVD is exactly 480p, actually (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16693169)

Err, no.

It's 480i for NTSC, 576i for PAL, and always has been. So technically the Wii is "higher" if you always consider p > i, which I certainly believe.

hey jerkoff (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16691553)

Another torrent of fanboys posting about how nintendo is somehow making a better console using the theory of addition by subtraction. I am buying a Wii and fuck Sony, but I have a nice HDTV. When I put my PS2 on it for the first time I was underwhelmed. So Hi Def would have been nice. Its alright to love nintendo for their games and sweet controller, but dont act like not having hidef is actually some kind of advantage. It makes you sound like an idiot.

VGA (1)

Echnin (607099) | more than 7 years ago | (#16691591)

Oh well, at least it has progressive scan. What I'm wondering is whether progressive scan will work for Gamecube games, and also whether there will be a VGA adapter... poor college students without TVs need this kind of information! Geez.

Re:VGA (1)

pjbass (144318) | more than 7 years ago | (#16692719)

I own three Gamecube games (Zelda and both Metroids), and they both support progressive scan. Of course, you need to use the component video cables to a TV capable of 480p, but it currently exists on the Gamecube.

Re:VGA (1)

twistedsymphony (956982) | more than 7 years ago | (#16693057)

About 70% of all Gamecube games support 480p (if you have the component cables for it). Also if you've got a modchip in your Gamecube many of them allow you to force the non 480p games into displaying in 480p mode.

The Gamecube also had a VGA cable (albeit 3rd party). Even if the Wii doesn't support VGA, it does support component and there are a plethora of Component to VGA converters on the market for around $50... which is probably about what you'd pay for an official VGA cable anyway.

Thank God! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16691633)

I thought I would be forced to buy one of these ridiculous expensive HDTV's. Does the PS3 or the XBox360 work with a current TV?

Now I can get the Wii and wait for the much cheaper to produce Laser TV's when they arrive in 2 or 3 years.

I guess because of the lower resolution the Games will run faster than on PS3 and XBox360, right?

Re:Thank God! (2, Interesting)

MyDixieWrecked (548719) | more than 7 years ago | (#16692183)

It's a fact that the 360 works with a regular TV and it can be assumed (quite confidently) that the PS3 will, too.

Although, one problem that the 360 has is that many of the games are designed with HDTVs in mind. That leads to developers creating HUDs with text that is unreadably small on regular TVs. So far, I've noticed that problem in FEAR (the only unreadable text so far has been the name of the talking person in the upper left corner, which doesn't really matter), Dead Rising (the name of the weapon and some other misc. text, but it's not a HUGE deal... but that one gets annoying), and Madden. I primarily stick to playing Lumines, Geometry Wars and Fight Night, so I haven't seen every game in depth, but my roommate has complained about small type in other games.

There is an advantage with nintendo only supporting 480p which is basically that all developers are targeting the same resolution and things will be consistent.

although, I think the Wii will be far more fun on those huge TVs which are high-def and it would look beautiful if they supported the 1080 resolution.

anyway, I seriously doubt Nintendo would release the wii if it looked terrible. they do have some sense.

Re:Thank God! (1)

DragonWriter (970822) | more than 7 years ago | (#16692205)

Does the PS3 or the XBox360 work with a current TV?


Yes, in both cases.

I guess because of the lower resolution the Games will run faster than on PS3 and XBox360, right?


Probably not: in addition to less resolution the Wii has less processing power. I wouldn't expect the lower resolution to result in faster speed than the more powerful consoles for similar games in most cases.

Re:Thank God! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16692609)

Plus, if you use a 360 (and presumably PS3) to output 480p/480i you ought to get a rock-solid 60 frames a second.

Maybe not though - for instance I hear that some games like Gears of War are locked to 30 frames a second. Which defeats the object of progressive scan in the first place, well done Epic :(

pre-order Wii (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16691787)

Hey is there anywhere I can still pre-order a Wii? As it stands, the kids I've worked my entire life to support resent me - if I don't get them a Wii, I doubt they'll ever speak to me again.

PS - Never have kids - you will regret it for the rest of your life.

DLP TV Delay? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16691827)

Does this mean trying to play the Wii on a DLP will result in that quarter second delay that plagues games like Guitar Hero? I imagine the motion sensitive games would be similarly unplayable with such a delay :(

Cue the Nintendo fanboys... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16692015)

...falling all over themselves to declare how great it is, and how they wouldn't want a higher resolution anyway.

Nintendo could release an actual brick as a console and people would still say how much better it is.

And yes, I may buy one myself at some point but c'mon people, blind love for a hunk of plastic and metal is kind of sad.

If only they had done 720p (1)

thatguywhoiam (524290) | more than 7 years ago | (#16692537)

It is basically my only real complaint about the Wii, but it is a huge one.

Most people don't have HDTVs. But I do. And the idea of buying a console that will never talk to it, never show me the full picture, is irritating. Particularly because I like the Wii.

If they had just managed to get it up to 720p, this whole discussion would be moot. 1080p is great and all, but as far as content is concerned (i.e. tv shows, films, games that can drive it) 1080p is basically science fiction right now. Won't be common for years.

But 720 would have been awesome. Its a design istake in my opinion. Hopefully they can add it after the fact like the Xbox360 did, but I'm not holding my breath.

Resolutions (5, Interesting)

weasello (881450) | more than 7 years ago | (#16692659)

I'm a big geek and I'd love to say "1080P ROXXORZ! ALL!! 4TW!!" but sadly, it isn't the case. Yes, a big-screen high-definition teleivision playing HDTV definately looks better than Channel 2 on your old 13". But that isn't an accurate comparison for most of the market.

I sold TVs for 8 years. I had big banks of them - Standard, ED, HD - even some exotic 1080p stuff that didn't run anything except a special demo disk in a special machine.

One particular corner was a perfect test area. We had a 480P, 720P, and 1080I television of the same make and line (it was an LG set of televisions). Of the hundreds (if not thousands) of customers I showed these sets to, running HD PBS 1080 feed via Satellite (beautiful show, btw) - 8 out of 10 people pointed at the 480P set and said it was superior quality. When pressed for why they made that choice, they usually said "it was a hunch" and that they couldn't really tell between the three.

All three TVs had v-high quality cables, and my "test subjects" were sitting approximately 8 feet away from these 42" sets, which were all hung in equal lighting at eye level.

Then I'd move the test subjects up close - 2 feet away or so - and we could easily count the physical pixels on the 480 screen, wheras you'd have to move your head much closer to count the pixels on the 1080 screen. We could all see that, yes, upon inspection we *know* that 1080 is better...

But then I pointed at the pricetags. $1000 for the 480, $1800 for the 720, and $2500 for the 1080. Guess which one I sold the most of. (most of my data culled from 1-2-3 years ago so pricing/details may vary).

Does 480p have anything to do with widescreen? (2, Interesting)

chatgris (735079) | more than 7 years ago | (#16692853)

I have a 50" LCD Projection TV, 720p, that is widescreen (as all new TV's appear to be). I really don't care too much about resolution, but rather about dimensions. The only thing that is really a negative in my mind about the Wii is whether or not games will be square, or rectangular. Will I get to use all of the screen real-estate on my new TV, or will I have a square box in the middle, wasting at least 1/2 of my TV's display space?

That's the big question in my mind.

Re:Does 480p have anything to do with widescreen? (1)

weasello (881450) | more than 7 years ago | (#16692947)

DVDs are *typically* 480 and show on widescreen 480/720/1080 screens without any of those black bars, so I suppose it depends on the actual game. The "480" is *lines* of resolution; I beleive width is variable? I could be wrong there.

Re:Does 480p have anything to do with widescreen? (2, Informative)

weasello (881450) | more than 7 years ago | (#16693201)

After researching on Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DVD [wikipedia.org] All DVD video in NTSC is restricted to 480 lines of resolution and there are several horizontal pixel ratings (eg: 720x480, 352x480, etc.) and some DVDs are only 240 lines of resolution. Anyone out there that says "Wii suxx0rz for only being 480 I want my games to look as good as my rented DVDs on my high def TV" are deluding themselves. :)
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>