No. Hopelessly in denial.

That's what the "earth is flat" dudes said at first, too.

At least you won't execute me for being a heretic. I hope.

No one will change my mind, not even Nintendo, that alone should show where I stand as a Quote on Quote on Quote Fanboy as you put it

It's more like: I'm outside seeing the world in color with all of its beauty and then noticing that you are standing inside a cardboard box looking at a picture of the world.

HD has the potential to bring a layer of beauty to your favorite video games, in a similar way to how 3D alters the way you see games in an arresting and meaningful way.

That's the best I can explain it.

That image seems pretty flat to me.

this thread had a good run. now, it's got its blindfold on, smoking its last cigarette, just waiting for the black dragon to pull the trigger...

they're very dependent on each other. the technical limits of a console dictate what styles can and can't be done on it. the reason so many wii games (red steel 2, ghostbusters, etc.) used a more cartoonish style than the other systems was to disguise the fact that it couldn't pull of realistic visuals.

one example- miyamoto talked about how HD had changed pikmin 3 so that they could use a more zoomed out camera position than before and still have the ability to see each pikmin. it allowed them to put more emphasis on the surroundings and include more nature in the game. the presentation and style changed because of the better technical abilities the system had.

there's no point in arguing any further. i was just trying to convince those of you who don't think HD makes a difference otherwise because most people on that side of the argument either haven't played HD games much or don't own an HDTV. once you actually do see the difference you'll understand that it's not as minor an enhancement as you think. feel free to have a different opinion, but you should at least have spent some time gaming in HD before arguing about it.

seriously... just look at these and tell me there wouldn't be any difference in the atmosphere or immersion between one or the other:

You want an audio/visual experience? Watch a movie. Games are about the interaction with the visuals and/or music.

I still don't think you understand where I'm coming from on this one... I'm not saying that downscaling a game like Limbo to 480p would make it better. I'm talking about upscaling GameCube games. If you took Metroid Prime and upscaled the graphics to 1080i, why would I enjoy that more than the original version? It's the same game with the same enemies, the same power-ups, the same bosses, the same story, the same world, and the same Samus. Simply upscaling to 1080i wouldn't improve anything but the look of the game.

And I know that developers can do more with a game if it has better technology, but it shows how skilled they are in art direction if they can make games look great even in a lower resolution. Take Xenoblade Chronicles for example. 480p and beautiful. Twilight Princess? Masterful artwork and engaging scenery. Monster Hunter Tri? Skyward Sword? Resident Evil 4? Super Smash Bros. Brawl? These are just a few great looking Wii games that are in 480p and what they were able to pull off in terms of graphics and overall content is incredible. And once again, if these games were just upscaled to 1080i, why would that make them any more enjoyable than they were in 480p?

I think this is a really bad example. I think what you should have said is "It's like I'm outside viewing the world in all of it's beauty and then I notice that you aren't wearing HD sunglasses."

No. 3D enhances the entire depth of the gaming world whereas HD makes it look good. I'll take the epic depth over the HD anyday.

So then it is an audio/visual experience is it not.

He didn't mention the interaction with the visuals. Otherwise it is just a movie or a television show.

perhaps you should look up the definition of an experience.

if he were observing the audio/visuals, then yes it would be a movie/tv show
_{though watching a movie/tv show is still an experience}

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_game
"A video game is an electronic game that involves human interaction with a user interface to generate visual feedback on a video device."
"Video games typically use additional means of providing interactivity and information to the player. Audio is almost universal, using sound reproduction devices, such as speakers and headphones."

No interaction, no game.

So are you saying that if you took a given game and played it with its original graphics, and then played it with far improved graphics, you would find zero difference?

I find that hard to believe. I've been playing games for almost 20 years, so I'm no stranger to older graphics, and most of my favourite gaming experiences are late 90s PC games, which I love to death. However, I can't deny I wouldn't enjoy playing them with better graphics, simply because that would improve my immersion.

A video-game is an interactive audio/visual experience. When either three of these aspects become insignificant, the game itself starts to become insignificant.

Case closed.

@GameLord08

I'm petty sure I made it as clear as humanly possible that I consider it silly to try and break a game down into components like Graphics, Gameplay, Audio. We are not talking about Lego blocks here.

Even Gamelord agrees with me on this one - games are an interactive audio/ visual experience. If any three of those components are crap, the game is crap. End of story.

And for the record calling a game "interactive" is redundant.

The definition of 'game' is that is it an interactive experience.

I don't like redundancy in English. That's the editor in me talking.

Wait wait wait, so let me get this straight, the same people who complained about Nintendo remaking games with better graphics for 3DS/WiiU are the same people who say a graphics increase will make the game better?

@Wheels2050 If the only difference was upscaled graphics, then why would it matter? Im not saying HD doesn't have it's good moments, I'm just saying that a good game is a good game whether it is in HD or not. And if they upscaled a good game to HD, then it'd be the same good game with improved graphics.

Now this is only my opinion, but remaking one of my favorite games in HD and not fixing any of the flaws won't make me enjoy it anymore.

I own Legend of Zelda Ocarina of Time 3D. This is an example of a game that upscales graphics and improves gameplay to make me enjoy it more. I did play the original and the improved graphics make it look good, but I would still love the game just the same as the original if it had the same N64 graphics. What they did to make me enjoy it more overall is improve certain aspects of the actual game like using the Iron Boots, aiming with the gyro controls, adding in little tips to help you throughout the game (especially the Water Temple), and add new game modes (Master Quest and Boss Rush). What this thread is talking about is a simple upscaling of graphics. If it is the same game underneath the paint, why would I enjoy it anymore?

Otaku, if you can't represent the different opinion of a majority correctly, then don't represent it at all.

As I said before, graphics, audio and gameplay are the three main components that define a game, and each are as equally important as each other. Actually, throw out audio - we're not debating on that right now. Graphics and gameplay are each as equally important as each other; if you don't care for one or the other, then you don't care for the true value you could get in the game when it surpasses into its full potential. They are not separate aspects of a game; they are hamornised into the game as one solid experience. So, basically, what is being said is that you can't really truly say you care for gameplay, and don't give a flying toss about graphics; that's a half-*rsed statement, and one that would've countered the advancement of video-games and technology were it believable, in my opinion.

When a remake of a game comes out, and only one aspect of the game is changed (which in this case we're debating, is graphics), then exactly what's the use of that remake? The graphics may provide a better visual experience, but truly, it's the same game, only all dolled up. And even we don't like that. The same applies vice-versa for gameplay as well - if that changes, and the graphics stay the same, we might as well just stick with what we have; it's the same game, only different control experiences. Not very intriguing.

Whereas, when it comes to potentially new games and experiences, then changes of graphics are a vital and appreciated addition - it instantly provides the gateway to a more immersive and realistic experience over its past renditions, as well as providing a fresh way to play; boom, it's a bigger and better game. Are you going to tell me that, had this concept hadn't been held on a high pedestal by the industry, we would be where we are today? In every successful console generation, we see significantly different aspects over its past counterparts, and that is because no aspect of a game, graphics/gameplay/audio, was deemed to insignificant to upgrade and improve on. None of them were left behind, and that is why we have the video-game experiences we have today; every single aspect of a video-game was considered important, no matter what any certain majority may have thought against them. They mattered to the right people. And this, all you anti-graphic evolution people, is why we disagree with your points of view.