Ok

1) What the hell has dolby digital support got to do with games as art? Are movies without Dolby Digital soundtracks no longer art? Is music recorded only in stereo not art? There is a 22.2 channel standard, no games support it. Does that mean that no games are art?

2) Dolby Pro Logic II has 5.1 channels of audio which are encoded out of phase and then decoded by your reciever. You can hear someone coming up behind you in game, just not with the same audio fidelity that you can with dolby digital.

Not the future? So you're telling me yu would rather have a 5 pound brick instead of a small disk? and in case you didn't know a Hard Disk Drive is just a like disk with a permanent casing and they actually have even longer loading times due to the reduction of the laser that reads the disk inside to make it fit. Solid state drives = flash drives, which = cartridges, so you're willing to live in the past to flame in a stupid war... PWND!

nintendog66

If you are just gonna make things up, don't write pwnd at the end of the sentence. HDD's are magnetic based media, there isn't a laser in them at all. HDD's are much faster than DVD's in read speeds and access times, because they spin at much higher rates. And solid state drives are similar to cartridges (except the RAm vs Rom part)- this is not a bad thing. They have faster read and access times than any other media. Optical media won out over cartidges because it was a lot cheaper, not because it was better, hence everyone pointing out that the N64 had no load times because it used cartridges.

[QUOTE="TREAL_Since"]I didn't know the PS3 has a lack of quality games :shock:! Have I been living in a cave???hellfire9988

0 AAAE...

Self ownage to the max... Go justify your PS3 purchase with its bleu ray, and six axis...

But really, 0 AAAE.

It still has a decent number of good quality games though. You might be able to play them on another system, doesn't mean they are any worse for it.

[QUOTE="BlazeOC"][QUOTE="SpruceCaboose"]

Ok look. I will explain this again.

VGChartz is not very accurate. Even NPD data is not quite accurate. The NPD polls stores that represent about 70% of the retail world, and then they extrapolate. Its not like they get their data from every single store in NA and it is therefore impenetrable.

Likewise for Japan, as the numbers are an extrapolation.

Also, there is no real reliable numbers from Europe, just mainly from the UK, and even that suffers the same as NPD data does.

The numbers that are closest to being accurate are the figures of shipped/sold units from the manufacturers (contrary to popular opinion, shipped and sold are the same thing) since they know exact figures of what is sent out to retail, and sold to consumers generally follows that number with a slight lag to allow for sell through.

And in the end, its useful to remember that as long as something is selling well enough to survive, actual sales data should not matter to anyone who is not a shareholder.

SpruceCaboose

I did take a stats class. Many of them actually. Still does not change the fact that in those 30% not counted you could get huge outliers or other numbers that skew the numbers, especially depending on what retail chains are more represented and which are not actually counted.

Yeah if you take a random sampling of 70% of retailers then you would be able to get >99% accuracy, however the 70% that NPD uses is based on who will give them data and therefore their sampling is not random and so there is potential bias to their data. For the record shipped and sold are definitely not the same. Stuffing the retail channel to boost shipped numbers to fit a certain milestone, financial or otherwise, definitely does occur. Plus shipped could definitely include warranty replacement consoles, which do not increase the install base, which is what we (who don't have a finincial interest in the numbers) are really interested in.

Now, when I play Mario Galaxy on it, it has that muddy/jaggy look to it. Similar to when you watch a normal channel on an HD tv and it doesn't look right because the channel or picture doesn't provide HD.

blockbuster

Your answer is in your question. In both cases you decribe you are viewing a 480i/p picture on a large screen. You may want to check your upscaling options on the TV, as these could make a significant difference.

The standards are lowered because the game is old and for a different system. It's only on the Wii because it can emulate older hardware. Price is something that really irritates me about reviews, because the game is the same game, high price or not, and I hope the only impact of the price is merits or demerits. Regardless, if you want "proof" the game is reviewed by lower standards, here you go: The older VC games rarely get demerits for their graphics, while newer games do, even if their graphics are better. How's that for same standards?

Xolver

The reviews are there to tell you whether the game is worth spending your money on, therefore price is very important to the score. Why do you think games get minus points for being too short? If price isn't a consideration then why should I care if a game only lasts two hours as long as those two hours of gaming are excellent? Graphical demerits are given for busted graphics, either in terms of artstyle or technical, SMB3 for example has excellent artstyle and the only technical hitch is the overscan which is not major enough to earn the demerit.

[QUOTE="actionquake"][QUOTE="TekkenMaster606"]

How can you possibly compare a game that is 3 generations old to a modern title? It's just not accurate or worthwhile. DKC2 was a 2D game packed into a tiny cartridge that featured great graphics and gameplay for a 16-bit title but by no means can you compare it to a high definition game that spawns an entire dual-layer DVD packed with voice acting, massive 3D levels...

It's like saying the Ford Model T is a better car than a 1954 Corvette. Sure, they were both excellent cars, but different eras.

TekkenMaster606

Yeah that would be like comparing Citizen Kane, a movie from the 1940's, which was shot on grainy Black and White film, editing done by hand by splicing film together, to a modern day movie like Alone in the Dark, which utilized modern day movie technology, make up expertise, digital effects, digital editing, surround sound etc....

I mean Orson Welles did the best he could, but he was so restricted by the technology available that it would be unfair to compare his movies to modern day Uwe Boll movies.

And yeah I know I am comparing best to worst, but the point would still stand if you substitute Alone in the dark with a good modern picture.

Except that the current RARE lineup has been getting pretty decent scores so bringing up trash like Uwe Boll films is irrelevant. Your comparison has failed on so many levels.

I'm not even trying to comment on the quality of RARE games past or present, I am just trying to say that you can compare games from different generations with completely different tech and the older game can be better. Whether that is true for RARE games I don't know. I played MP Goldeneye on a friends N64 and thought it sucked relative to quake mainly because I sucked with the controller.