"Any new feature increases cost initially."

I meant development costs, which has actually gone up since HD gaming was introduced. Nintendo will likely want to curb that with the next Wii. I would say that's even more important than a new control setup. But admittedly that's just me.

"Once you see/play Mario/Zelda/Samus in HD with higher end horse power behind them, you won't want to go back after even 5 minutes. I'd bank on it. "

Still using opinion myopia.

Development costs are going to go up no matter what Nintendo does. That's just a losing battle.

There isn't some magical dev environment that lets you create a great game with minimal effort. Just doesn't exist. 

HD I think is actually helpful in this regard. You can get a very nice image quality (the higher resolution smooths out a lot of those jaggies and muddy textures and creates a very nice clean look) without a lot of fuss. Whereas devs on the Wii have to really push the system and work hard with their art style to get good looking visuals and most in the end don't even bother to try.

That's not a great situation at all IMO.

And yes, once you play a Zelda game that looks like this:

http://i36.tinypic.com/24lk0sn.jpg

You won't ever want to go back. You can call that "speculation", but write it down, take a picture whatever. When you are playing that, the last thing you will be thinking is "gee ... I wish this was fuzzier and blurrier and lower poly and lower budget like my old Wii, those were the good ol' days".

"Development costs are going to go up no matter what Nintendo does. That's just a losing battle.

There isn't some magical dev environment that lets you create a great game with minimal effort. Just doesn't exist."

Lowering costs, not minimal development. There is a difference.

"HD I think is actually helpful in this regard. You can get a very nice image quality (the higher resolution smooths out a lot of those jaggies and muddy textures and creates a very nice clean look) without a lot of fuss. Whereas devs on the Wii have to really push the system and work hard with their art style to get good looking visuals and most in the end don't even bother to try."

That's a talent issue, not a cost issue. In fact, it's the need to throw money at a game that is actually helping HD development costs go up. The very purpose of the DS and Wii was to throw off this line of thinking.

"And yes, once you play a Zelda game that looks like this:

http://i36.tinypic.com/24lk0sn.jpg

You won't ever want to go back."

Strop pretending to know my tastes. And all that grass would be a bitch to render in real time, even in HD.

LOL, let the devs worry about rendering grass, sheesh, you really think about stuff like that when you play?

Their JOB is to the entertain you. It's the reason why they're taking your money from you.

I'll tell ya what, when Wii 2 comes if you feel the SD Wii 1 was better, you can post "told ya so" all you want to me, but I doubt that post will ever happen.

Just like no Nintendo fan ever complained about optical discs ... once Nintendo embraced it. Or online play ... once Nintendo begrudingly allowed it. It'll be the same deal with HD. Complain that it's too expensive or doesn't work for whatever reason for 5 years and then shut up after 5 minutes of actually seeing it in action with a Nintendo logo slapped on it. 

Even Nintendo has never said anything really bad about HD themselves, this is something really that a vocal minority has chosen to really make a big fuss over nothing about. Just a few days ago Mr. Miyamoto stated HD wouldn't help a game like Wii Fit, but it would very much help a game like Pikmin. 

So I discovered that SNES games play at half the resolution of Wii games, and now I can't bring myself to play the classics anymore.

My god, Soundwave, you're already right.

Those "classics" are great despite the technology not because of it.

Like I said a more apt example would be would anyone want to play Super Mario Galaxy on an N64 or DS level chipset? Even with a pointer controller?

*crickets*

Yeah ... didn't think so.

Nintendo took a big risk with the Wii and to minimize the risk they opted for basically an overclocked version of a chipset they were already using. That's why they didn't go with HD, not because they have some aversion to HD. Iwata has said from day 1 that Nintendo will some day release an HD capable console. 

It's IMO a vocal minority that took that and spun it into all types of ridiculous arguements like HD would bankrupt developers and this that and the other. I don't think Nintendo has actually ever even said anything of the sort. 

Actually, I would really enjoy SMG on the DS. I'd probably play it more.

Also, your attitude is coming across as presumptuous and confrontational. You can't expect people to debate sensibly with you when you make conclusions without even waiting for responses.

"I'll tell ya what, when Wii 2 comes if you feel the SD Wii 1 was better"

That is not what you wrote. You wrote I somehow wouldn't want to go back to the old graphics. That is just bullshit.

And claiming the graphics can only make a game better is just bullshit as well. That is assuming there is no scenario where it makes a problem. First of all, games with realistic art direction have needed to use brown and gray tones to avoid the uncanny valley. Another scenario is when developers have to spend more money to make the graphics good than in making level design and quality control.

"Like I said a more apt example would be would anyone want to play Super Mario Galaxy on an N64 or DS level chipset? Even with a pointer controller?"

Again, strawman. Not going HD is NOT REVERTING TO THOSE GRAPHICS. How dare you call that more apt.

And just because YOU wouldn't want to doesn't mean others wouldn't mind. Despite what you think many would still play it with those graphics, as long as the game was just as solid.

If SMG was on DS as a *secondary* port type of deal, that would be fine, but if that was it and that was all Nintendo offered? I can't see how that benefits the game in way, shape, or form. Graphics and resolution do help a game, that's just the bottom line, otherwise we'd all be playing on the N64/Playstation.

There's nothing really to debate. Nintendo has said all along they aren't against HD and will offer an HD console at some point. It probably is sitting in their R&D lab right now and will be sitting under your TV give or take a year or two at that. 

It's people who have spun that to be something other than what it actually is where I think there's some disconnect.

"If SMG was on DS as a *secondary* port type of deal, that would be fine, but if that was it and that was all Nintendo offered? I can't see how that benefits the game in way, shape, or form."

That wasn't what you wrote.

"There's nothing really to debate. Nintendo has said all along they aren't against HD and will offer an HD console at some point."

You were NOT debating that. You were claiming blu-ray was the obvious choice for the next system, and that HD can only benefit games, and that HD Nintendo would make us not want to "go back" to their older games.

Now you seem to be trying to avoid those when called on them.