27th July 2005, 6:56 AM
Ryan Wrote:1. Why even bother with DVI if you're going to run SD/ED resolution?
2. I beg to differ. I can definitely tell the difference between a high-res image and an standard.
3. ED is Enhanced definition... essentially SDTV without interlacing. It's nothing special, but it does exist. It's better than SD and worse than HD.
1.) It would look better on a computer monitor since you can change your display resolution and genrally computer monitors have the best color and contrast.
2.) Everyone can, but can you tell the difference between a 480p HD signal and a 720p? The difference between a 480p and a 720p source is barely noticeable to most consumers. The only time it becomes anything of notice is when you scale the image up like with a big screen rear projector, then higher res images tend to look noticeably sharper. Otherwise it's not anything to write home about. Once the source or signal is HD and your television can accept the HD source and going through composite or S-video it's going to look fantastic. Bumping it up to 1080i from that point will barely make any difference at all.
3.) 480i is a digital television format, 480p is only available through HD sources. It's hard to tell people that 480i is the same resolution of their TV (at its peak) but 480p is "High Definition ooOoOoO!" because people wont understand. You have to give them a larger number in order for them to make the leap in logic and all of a sudden 720p is "HD" but 480p isn't; Makes no sense at all. The fact remains that we're talking about source and signal and if you have a television capable of recieving HD then 480p will look on par with 720p. HD is HD, there's multiple resolutions and formats but it's still HD and once you're in it, adding a few more lines of info wont change much.
ABF Wrote:Maybe about graphics (with original versions probably also available), but I highly doubt we'll suddenly see single player games grow multiplayer modes...
Regardless of what game or system it was for the idea is that Nintendo will be updating the game to use current gen (Revolution) graphics be it 2-D or 3-D running off of high end cards. That kind of overhaul is huge, just adding an interface for players to connect on to Nintendo's wifi network is a task in itself and all the above takes time and R&D, meaning there would be plenty of time to include a multiplayer option where there was none.
We all played Mario 64 DS and Four Swords. We all know that Nintendo took a single player N64 or SNES game and added a multiplayer aspect to the game design (though 4 Swords was designed specifically for that purpose). Adding a multiplayer aspect to any game is not difficult, a few nails and some glue and you can add a multiplayer aspect to your start menu. All you're doing is taking the one player game and sanding it down to a minimal eg; little to no AI enemies, loss of detail, smaller levels, more straightforward game mechanics etc.
You say dont expect Nintendo to do it when they've already done it. They wouldn't even have to spend any more time on a game than they would if they're updating the graphics of it to include a multiplayer option. Take Super Metroid, create closed-off sections of the world, throw in 2 to 8 Samus Arans and some streamlined mechanics and poof multiplayer mode. They could even make a 4 Swords type of game with Metroid so you need to work together. It's all completely plausable and has been proven. Plus, Nintendo would get to charge full price for a 20 year old game... which, I can only assume, is definitely on their to-do list.
*wins... again* :D