Well, the biggest difference between including blu-ray in the PS3 and dvd in the PS2 is that the PS2 didn't require the spending of hundreds or thousands of dollars on a suitable viewing screen - everyone already had one, basically. HD is still on the rise. Sure, it's started to pick up momentum because of the tv providers and HD movies, but it's still nowhere near the level of distribution the standard television is. Hence the reason why Nintendo didn't want to include HD media - it would honestly only create storage issues and drive up the cost of manufacturing on all parts - it would even require more
RAM just to process the higher resolution textures, and you'd be looking at a system rivaling the mid-to-high-range 360's in price.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PSYCHOKID909  I CAN HAS COLOR NAOW?
That foolishness aside I do find it odd that the more "realistic" games (As much as a game can be realistic anyway.) tend to have a lack luster color pallet. Hell say what you will about the simplicity of the 8 and 16 bit games but they were far more intresting partly because they made use of vibrent color.
-You stupid dog! |
This is a stereotype perpetuated ever since Doom was new and popular. It began as a legitimate complaint because of the limitations of the 8-bit pallete - the palette literally was a majority of grey and brown hues with a few sparse colors. Since they only had 256 colors to work with, they went with the more subdued tones. It was such a big issue in that engine because it was basically one of the first games to tackle lighting in a 3D environment.
It reminds me of the argument that the first screens of Diablo III have too much color in them, mostly because the new 3D engine renders out colored lighting different than the traditional 2D engines of the prior games.