@Kwaad

Yes, the Wii is 100% SD, True. I do hope HD compatability comes in the future in a software update if it's possible, or even an updated Wii. I am kinda disappointed about that. But I am sure it has more life to it than you give it credit for.

I think the PS3 will be slower to build a user base, but be a steady seller and have a longer life than the other 2 systems. Heh, I hope so. Since It'll be a while before I buy one, and I'll want it to last a while more.

More on topic, I'll have to look at what's selling around here in Colorado. I'd like to see everything in HD, and avaliable in all price ranges.

At 2 minutes 30 seconds into the interview he says that they will see if there is another zelda game on the wii, because they typically take 2-3 years to make.

To me, this says that they haven't started production yet, and therefore they do not know the beginning point for the 3-year cycle. NOT that there will neccessarily be a Wii2 within 3 years.

Don't bother bringing logic and history into this ...

Pointing out that the NES, SNES, Playstation, Gameboy, Gameboy Advance, and PS2 all survived (much) longer than their competition inspite of having far less processing power. The only exception I can think of was the NeoGeo which lived a long life but was mostly only supported as an arcade platform for most of its existence.

Well...being that HDtv is supposed to be 100% broadcast in the States by 2009, it makes sense that SDtv's would be scarce to none right now.

IGN: Is Twilight Princess the last Zelda Wii game?
Shigeru Miyamoto: It's really hard to say, we've never had a zelda that has appeared so early in the life cycle of the system. Umm. So it's defiantly possible that there will be another zelda on the... on the uhh. Course the challenge is that typically a zelda game takes around 3 years so we will have to wait and see.

Kinda funny, the way that is worded.

EDIT: this is not taken out of context. That is the entire responce. Word for word. 

I have got to hit the sack, so no time to properly follow up your post. But I will say:

1/ I am definitely going Plasma. No interest in LCD - worst possible solution for what I want (movies, Wii). The new/modern Plasma's have solved all/most of the issues of the old ones - last for a lot longer, etc. And they look a hell of a lot better than LCD screens, no viewing angle issues, better blacks/colour (etc..).

2/ The split here is still about 50/50 480p/720p sets. I don't see 480p screens going away anytime soon. Got one for my partners mother - and she loves it.

3/ I would not consider getting a 1080p set for a few more years at least. IMO, they are quite pointless at this point in time (I wouldn't recommend them to anyone). Don't look significantly better than 720p, cost a lot more, and not enough things drive them properly. 

...

Main reason I am actually going to upgrade is that I can't use my Wii in 480p properly ATM. My TV is a "little" old, and actually has a separate component input for 480p signals versus component non-480p signals. And since not everything on the Wii runs in 480p (i.e. VC titles and more), its real pain to get around and switch those inputs around just when switching games.

(My DVD player upsamples to 720p as well, so movies will look a little nicer I suppose. And a couple of other reasons. And I may end up with a 360 next year... sometime).

 Nope. 100% digital, not HD. :)

 I have seen the best plasma next to the new samsungs. The diffrence isnt as big as you make it out to be. ;)

I am going to my HD store tomorrow to look at the sets becuase I am in the market for a new one... (agian)

Becuase your getting a 4xinch screen, I still say 1080p. a 32 is fine with 720p tho. but overall any HDTV looks amazing compared to SD. All my local HD broadcasts are in 720p or 1080i, and when I watch the show on SD... I'm like. 'yuck'.

But I got my 40inch 1080p TV to survive over time. And seriously, if your not in the market 'today' Look into a 'laser' TV.

Honestly, I expect that he is being cautious because he doesn't want to answer a ton of questions about The Legend of Zelda at this point in time ...

Odds are that a Zelda game is being worked on and it is 9 to 18 months into development, the game is (potentially) a departure from Twilight Princess and Wind Waker because they're attempting to take advantage of the Wiimote; they are probably playing around with a lot of gameplay mechanics and the game is potentially in a very unstable state at the moment.

At the same time Nintendo wants people to get excited about Metroid Prime 3, Mario Galaxy, and Super Smash Bros. Brawl rather than focus on a game which will not be released for 18 to 24 months.

Basically, Miyamoto probably thinks it is far too early to determine when the next zelda game will be ready (or even if it will ever be ready) and it is important that he keeps consumers focused on the games that will be available this year (or are already available like Twilight Princess)

But he seems to be saying that because TP hit Wii early in it's cycle that another would be "definately possible". Why would he use that term if he meant on another platform, it's not exactly a revelation that any N system would get a Zelda game but it is more unusual to get 2. He also uses the word "another" which I take to mean in addition to TP, why would he use that word in connection with another N console as it would be the first Zelda game on it therefore removing the need to say "another".

Do you honestly think when N has finally, after 2 generations of eating Sony's dust, managed to put together a system which is dominating  the market they will cut it's lifespan short? It's no small achievement to put out a no.1 console in today's vg industry and you can bet that N will try to squeeze every last cent/sale/week out of their new baby.