I want HD, the other day I played with my wii 5 component cables, then played normally and it hurted my eyes..........

Personally, I'd probably stuggle to get it. By then I expect every TV in my house to be HD, and having hooked up the Wii to one as a test, I have to say I wouldn't be keen - great games notwithstanding - to hook up an SD console to an HD TV.

In the bigger picture, it probably wouldn't matter a hoot depending on what else it offered and the games it had.

First off, the Wii looks perfectly fine in 480p on an HDTV. I have a 44'' Samsung LEDTV, and there is no weird distortion or anything. Doesn't look as good as my PS3 or PC, but it doesn't look bad either.

Secondly, there is no reason not to release an HD Wii. By now, the graphics capability to display 1080p is much cheaper than when the Wii came out, which was cheap enough already. Nintendo just didn't see the point for the target audience.

Fixed

Nintendo's next system will go beyond the TV and into our dreamz:)

If it has Mario I will be ok. I don't care about HD, graphics or whatever. I bought a x360 because of Gears of War, I saw the gameplay and it was something new to me. I can't say that I am not happy with my x360 but seriously, I am happy with my Wii and I am a retro game fan, I don't have problem with graphics if the game is fun like Gun Smoke. I am always playing old platform or shump games.

Many people don’t seem to understand the multiple factors which combined to making the Wii the system it is today ...

First and foremost, in 2005/2006 the hardware that could be used to make a $200 to $300 console with minimal loss could either produce “Wii Quality” graphics (figuratively speaking) at HD resolutions or it could produce advanced graphics at Standard definition. Sony and Microsoft dealt with this by pushing the price of their consoles to new highs ($400 to $600) while still taking very large losses on each system sold; and, being that most of the best looking games struggle to approach 720p @ 30fps it could be argued that the systems are somewhat shy of being a true HD console that displays advanced graphics.

To add to this the Wii was a very large gamble, and Nintendo was (probably) very concerned that it could be a failure. In general, they probably wanted to keep all "Start-Up" costs of the system as low as possible and wanted to have a healthy profit off of the hardware because there was the potential that the system could have a very short (1 year) lifespan; and this would put their R&D investment and hardware licensing costs at an order of magnitude lower than what Sony or Microsoft were willing to pay.

In hindsight we can say that Nintendo probably didn’t need to be as cautious, and could have probably released a console with conventional processing power but it should be understandable why the Wii became the system it is. Now, I could be wrong but I suspect that Nintendo’s next system will probably be much more conventional when it comes to processing power; and if you assume a 2011/2012 release date this would probably be about 4 to 8 times the processing power of the XBox 360. When you are dealing with a system that performs in this range there really is no reason why it wouldn’t output at HD resolutions.

Then they'll make a full body controller (natal, eye toy) and show how much more "orignial" is than the them and everyone who buys a new iPhone every year and their mother will buy it. The morons tell others of the "innovation" and natal and the sony wand get completely ignored.

It will obviously be in HD but if for some odd reason it isn't they would obviously ass something worth getting it for such as a new innovation (full body control, 3d, or whatever else they think of) it will also be dirt cheap because HD support is pretty cheap as it is right now. The only way I could see this happening is if they release 2 versions, a HD and a non-hd version at a major price difference. The games would originally be in HD and would be downscaled for the non HD console.

Wii doesn't need HD,
HD needs Wii:)