WiiLoaded.com - Wii Forum and News

Speed wise no, just for neater rooms and the ability to put the system any place you'd like it within range of the access point or wireless router. I haven't watched the video and am not for PS3 or 360 because I don't own either one of them yet. The point is that if a system is built to play games in widescreen format and you use a TV that doesn't support widescreen then it is pointless. Comparing to see which has higher quality graphics it just makes sense to run them at their full potential. What would be the point in two cars racing if one of them wasn't allowed to go but so fast?? No one should take any of these comparisons seriously anyways since as gluegun said, they are shown in a format that wouldn't take advantage of their capabilities.

With all systems you have to buy something extra to get the best quality out of it. That's too be said for all 3 next gen systems, and not having those items packed in, doesn't mean anything by default.

That's actually still irrelevant though, just saying. Just because they're not included doesn't mean the system wasn't built/designed to perform it's best in HD. The 360 was built around Component, but the core only had composite cables. Honestly, even though it's built for one, it still supports SD, and since the majority of TVs are still SD, package what's needed to cut savings.

but thats the point hes making. they are using the default settings for the 360 (which happens to come with a component cable, which is better than the composite that the PS3 comes with) and they are using the default for the PS3. you could say its sony's fault for having those RGB settings (or whatever they're called) the way they are, and again having the composite cables. thats why fanboys are crying 'they aren't using the full settings! they aren't using an HDMI cable'. so I can understand gametrailer's statement that they made.

I don't think your a fanboy for saying that when you do a review or comparison you should use the best Video Outputs for both the Xbox 360 and the PS3. I think most people would agree that PS3 owners will have an HDMI cable, since they're probably using the system as a Blu Ray player, so I'd guess my people by default use a higher video output for a PS3 than a Xbox 360.

youre making a lot of assumptions with no way to back it up.

again, does it even matter what they use if the resolution that gv.com's videos arent 720p?

HDMI cables do not cost a lot compared to wifi. so i guess the 360 not having wifi is justified.

and should all vids then be recorded for SD?

BS a little WIFI chip wouldn't cost hardly anything for MS to put into a 360..especially when they'd order as many chips as they'd need. Now your right about HDMI cables, but buy them in stores where you might pick up a PS3 and you'll either get a badly made HDMI cable at Walmart or a super expenisve one from a Best Buy or Circuit City. I doubt if Sony would go to http://www.monoprice.com like you and I to suply HDMI cables for the PS3.

BTW you asked the question if it really even mattered if gv is running the games in 720p...all I can say to that is if it really doesn't matter, then why not just use the best outputs the systems have so you can say your using the best outputs.