http://www.gamespot.com/ps3/action/starwars2007/index.html

Click the link above you havn't checked outthe recent Star Wars pitch for PS3/360 and supposedly PS2. Then add your gripes or comments to your heart's content.

Here's what I have to ask: Granted the Wii doesn't have the graphical power nor the base hardware to compete with the PS3/360 version of this exact game. It just would not look anything like what comes out on these platforms. HOWEVER, given what the Wii CAN offer with it's remote system I would ask doesn't it make sense that a Star Wars game allowing you to control the force and the good ol' lightsaber would make better use out of the Wii controllers than the standard fare that sony and microsoft stand by? Think about it: Wii remote motion controls the saber at default, press down a button and it unleashes the force which is then directed by the remote motion as long as it is depressed, hold another button for auto defense/blaster deflection, nunchuk for x/y movement; it just seems to me that the Wii is screaming USE ME for a Jedi based game. I'm not even the biggest Star Wars fan, though I admit toenjoying the movies and KOTOR when it came out. I'm hoping it's just a matter of time but still, why the heck develop for the PS2 and not the Wii? It just doesn't add up given the popularity and potential the Wii is sporting.

grow up? do u think that Videogames r 4 children?? ...

as long as that thought came to ur mind u better quit

Mr_Takisuteni

Mr_Takisuteni hit on a point that pretty much was the basis of me starting this thread and I thought I'd throw some gas on the fire today by expanding on it. In my first posting I placed this little bit in the middle: "...I remember back in the 8-bit and 16-bit days a lot of parents, talk shows and even news media stated that video games were just a habit that children would surely grow out of with time." From what I've read since my original post I think I can safely say that the majority of us would say that is nothing but a steaming pile of cow ploppie. However, even today in all forms of media there seems to be a general consensus, chiefly among non-gamer sources, that video gaming will forever be a stigma looked upon as a "childhood or adolescent phase." The few media sources who do talk of video gaming, as something not just limited to childhood, seem to focus more on making it look like an addiction or a disruption to "ordinary life." Granted if you find yourself playing video games by yourself for >8 hours a day, 7 days a week, every week of the month...and so forth, then yes, MAYBE it's time to put the controller down and seriously think of finding ways to cut back. But in the general scheme of things, video gaming is simply becoming the preferred manner of entertainment for current generations and I daresay for some in previous generations. If you find yourself preferring to spend your free time, whether it be a few minutes or a few hours, playing your favorite video game instead of (insert practically everything else that modern society says is "normal" HERE) then why the heck should we be made to defend ourselves for it? In the end of my recent rambling, I have been comforted in finding that many people share my view that video gaming is indeed not something you "grow out of" when it has become your hobby, preferred entertainment, escape from reality or whatever it is that you do play for INSTEAD of the many other things society seems to tell is far more acceptable than video gaming. If you fall out of it because of lack of time, money or interest I can't say I blame you. It's true that free time is hard to find with a family/school/significant other, games cost more,and good quality games in a favored genre can be scarce. Just please don't let the media, peers, spouse, ANYONE make you give it up just because they deem it something you should have "grown out of." To all who have contributed or contribute from here on out, I thank you. With the rapidly growing support that video games continue to gain from gamers, designers, producers and enthusiasts alike, one day the media will have no choice but to report that video games are as big a part of the world society as anything else we do for fun!

Hopefully this link will help bring more concrete info than I was given at Best Buy:

http://www.carltonbale.com/2006/11/1080p-does-matter/

Turns out the movie industry has done studies on this stuff and this author put it all together in some nifty charts. I also noticed some future predictions that could indicate where the next-gen of next-gen consules will go with HD graphics...try not pee yourself in anticipation. ;)

I'd like to know how many video gamers are also just generally gamers, playing games in non-digital formats as well.

bacchus2

That's interesting you mention gaming in a more inclusive manner like this. I know my parents started me off with board games (like candyland) even before the original atari system came into our house. So maybe love of games starts even before we touch a controller...except for my daughter who already runs screaming through the house maddly punching buttons on a controller I gave her. She's well on her way to being a gamer, though I will likely continue the family tradition and pull out board games first as an intro. If you include playing cards in the same thinking of gaming, I know my grandfather still plays cards and he's nearly 90. While the preferred 'platform' may change, gaming definitely has been a long standing tradition in my family so it may be near impossible for me to ever grow out of it. Thanks for all the shared comments btw. I was glad to see so many fellow gamers share the same thinking I do. I'll keep checking back on this board to read any more stories that show up!

[QUOTE="fawkes06"]

So let me get this straight, if you're going to buy say a "32" tv, then you should get 720p rather than 1080p?

smadiso1

Sorry fawkes06, left out the most important part to answer you...in that last posted I meant to put in: In theory 720p and 1080p should look the same on a 32" tv.

So let me get this straight, if you're going to buy say a "32" tv, then you should get 720p rather than 1080p?

fawkes06

With a screen smaller than 50" you're supposedly not going to notice any difference. I have no idea who was used to test this theory however. It would be great if you could find a 32" that displayed 720p and one that displayed 1080p in the same store so you could compare them with your own eyes. In the end, choosing the TV that gives what you see as the best picture (for your desired price) should be the clincher in buying.

^ I think he means the difference between 720p and 1080p rather than between 1080i and 1080p, as non-1080p displays are 720p or 1366x768 native. 1080i still gets converted to 720p or 1366x768 native.

dmanrevived

720p vs 1080p, that does sound right. You'll have to forgive my swiss-cheese brain on that one - some stuff sticks other things go right through. Had it been a woman in negligee carrying two pitchers of beer giving me the info I probably would have remembered better. As it stands, there wasn't anything to drive the techno garbage in well enough. My bad! :oops: Thanks for the help on that one dmanrevived!