Thanks a lot for the replies.

This helps me understand how a 360 will look on SD, but how about the other way: Wii, PS2, etc. on an HDTV?

I consider myself closer to the newbie end of the spectrum on HDTV-related topics. However, I have read several articles and posts as well as talked to some salespeople in the stores, so I think I understand all the basic differences among the competing technologies.

Here's a rundown of my current set-up:

• 30-32" (diagonal) SD TV set that is more than 10 years old but still works great; it only has composite and s-video inputs
• A relatively inexpensive but serviceable stereo receiver hooked up to a pair of old speakers (no clue of the wattage, but they can shake the house when cranked up)
• Game consoles: original XBox, PS2, and a Wii

I understand that if I get a big HDTV that my three consoles won't look great on it due to pixelation. However, at least the XBox has some games that can do 720p, so I would expect some games to look better, at least on a 720p HDTV. I assume pixelation would still be an issue even for those games with a 1080p set.

I expect to be getting an XBox 360 in the next few months (the Orange Box will be the primary cause, but Halo 3 and Bioshock will be in my collection early on, too, I'm sure). My fundamental question is this: How bad will the 360 (and these games) look on my SD TV?

I have been told that the 360 will actually look pretty good on an SD set, but am I selling myself short by not getting an HDTV? I will still be doing a lot (perhaps a majority) of gaming on the older consoles (everything is shared with the family, who won't be using the 360 so much).

I have also considered spending my budget on a home theater surround sound system instead, even though my existing speakers are fine (no surround though). So these seem to be my options:

1. Get a plasma or LCD with 1080p, which will probably delay the purchase of the 360 because it will break my budget
2. Get an HDTV that only does 720p and save some cash
3. Keep the SD set and spend the money on surround sound and more software
4. Save even more money by only getting the console

Clearly this is about balancing and determing relative values of different options. I am looking for advice to help inform my decision. In case it's not obvious from context, I am a semi-serious medium-core gamer who likes FPS and action/adventure games that tell good stories with high production values (or something). And I share my consoles with young kids and a wife who are more into "casual" games, at least for now. Oh yeah, we also watch a fair number of DVDs (just standard so far) and some TV shows on digital cable. I like NFL football, too (go Broncos).

Thanks in advance for any suggestions or guidance.

This posting is NOT meant to be directed at the GameSpot editorial staff, but is instead being posted here as site feedback and is open for other comments by users.

I commend the recent change in GameSpot's rating methodology that did away with the sub-scores in favor of one unifying score. The merit badges along with "The Good" and "The Bad" are wonderful and valuable additions that greatly enhance your reviews. I commend the change with one exception: I do not like the new coarseness of the available scores. Where before it was possible for a game to have a score with any digit immediately to the right of the decimal point, now that number is either zero or five. I didn't realize this was the case for several weeks after the change and don't remember it being mentioned in the new rating documentation. I believe the old system was better in this one regard.

The fundamental issue for me is that now a game will have one of 20 possible scores (assuming an actual 0.0 is out of the question) whereas before there were 100 possible scores. In some ways this makes sense, since the rating of games is so subjective; the scores are now much closer to grades, such as A-, B+, etc. But I actually find myself wondering if a 9.0 game just slightly missed being a 9.5 or did it just slightly miss being an 8.5? When the score was 9.3, this wasn't a concern. Obviously, you could take this too far (no one would appreciate scores like 9.37327) but there must be a sweet spot somewhere between a binary choice (good vs. bad) and a ridiculous level of specificity.

GameSpot already provides aggregate scores from their competition and from users, so I would urge them to be more bold in their assertions and give us the extra significant digit back. I actually don't think it will have an impact on my buying decisions, mostly because the written and video reviews are so well-done as to render the actual score secondary. It just troubles me to think that if we retrofitted all the old scores into the new system that so many games would be lumped together. Halo's 9.7 and Escape from Butcher Bay's 9.3 would probably have both been 9.5, which wouldn't necessarily be bad, but my opinion is that the sweet spot should go far enough to give us the extra judgement and information of the old, and in one way superior, system.

This posting is meant to be directed at the GameSpot editorial staff.

I commend your recent change in your rating methodology that did away with the sub-scores in favor of one unifying score. The merit badges along with "The Good" and "The Bad" are wonderful and valuable additions that greatly enhance your reviews. I commend the change with one exception: I do not like the new coarseness of the available scores. Where before it was possible for a game to have a score with any digit immediately to the right of the decimal point, now that number is either zero or five. I didn't realize this was the case for several weeks after the change and don't remember it being mentioned in the new rating documentation. I believe the old system was better in this one regard.

The fundamental issue for me is that now a game will have one of 20 possible scores (assuming an actual 0.0 is out of the question) whereas before there were 100 possible scores. In some ways this makes sense, since the rating of games is so subjective; the scores are now much closer to grades, such as A-, B+, etc. But I actually find myself wondering if a 9.0 game just slightly missed being a 9.5 or did it just slightly miss being an 8.5? When the score was 9.3, this wasn't a concern. Obviously, you could take this too far (no one would appreciate scores like 9.37327) but there must be a sweet spot somewhere between a binary choice (good vs. bad) and a ridiculous level of specificity.

You already provide aggregate scores from your competition and from users, so I urge you to be more bold in your assertions and give us the extra significant digit back. I actually don't think it will have an impact on my buying decisions, mostly because your written and video reviews are so well-done as to render the actual score secondary. It just troubles me to think that if we retrofitted all the old scores into the new system that so many games would be lumped together. Halo's 9.7 and Escape from Butcher Bay's 9.3 would probably have both been 9.5, which wouldn't necessarily be bad, but my opinion is that the sweet spot should go far enough to give us the extra judgement and information of your old, and in one way superior, system.