Wii graphics

chupacabra

Ive been reading alot of gaming forums recently and the idea is that the wii graphics are completley bulls**t against the PS3 and Xbox360.....now I ask you, good people of boards what was your opinion on the graphics?
For me games like Super Mario Galaxy and Sonic Wild fire were very beautiful graphically, I dont necasarily need next gen graphics to keep me happy but Mario Galaxy was very strong in the graphics department, nice bump mapping and very high res texturing, Sonic wild fire was one of the only wii games I saw that used HDR lighting, and dispite the very squashed feeling of red steel it was very beautifully contructed.

Although I know that graphics arent the major thing for nintendo this time, but I think people are taking their "hate" for nintendo too far by proclaiming it to be a flop on graphics alone, goddamn Sony/Microsoft fanboys.

flogen

Based on Super Mario Galaxy alone I think that the Wii will be capable of very beautiful graphics if dev houses are willing to put the work in, but Nintendo machines have always been like that... Nintendogs, for example pulls off some superb detail, as does (what I've seen) of Metroid... not PSP quality but better than I thought the machine was first capable of.
Red Steel needs work, hopefully it will happen... the Wii won't be on a par with the 360 and Ps3 but I think it will be powerful enough to at least look well when it needs to; it will certainly look far better than the GC and that's a good place to start IMO.

garthv

Flop on the graphics?Probably!
But Ninty's major selling point is not graphics, its gameply so i cant see how theyll flop on something they never plan to succeed on.

CiDeRmAn

An awful lot of the graphics horsepower of the 360 and PS3 is surely pumped into supporting the HD option, the Wii has no such demand on its resources so I fully expect to be glorious.
As for how the next gen graphics of the next gen are better than the current stuff you only have to ask if Shadow of the Colossus or Katamari would have benefited from all the new tricks and the simple answer is no, they are perfect as they are, as is God of War.
Perfect Dark Zero goes out of its way to plaster every available surface with effects and layers and yet it still looks fake and poor compared to its PS2, Xbox and GC peers.
Metroid Prime/2 both still look amazing even now, several years after release, as does, surprisingly the DS version, despite the existence of better more supposedly capable hardware.
So, to be honest, I don't reckon the Wii is going to suffer at all in, eventual, direct comparison with its peers, I reckon the questions will be asked the other way, why is it that this more affordable console with more affordable games is able to compete so well with the other consoles that are meant to kick its metaphorical ass in every department?
And thats before we get to the mastery of the games creating arts that Nintendo have in their employ.

I know which console will be on my Christmas list, no I tell a lie, I'll have it at launch won't I?

chupacabra

CiDeRmAn wrote:

An awful lot of the graphics horsepower of the 360 and PS3 is surely pumped into supporting the HD option, the Wii has no such demand on its resources so I fully expect to be glorious.
As for how the next gen graphics of the next gen are better than the current stuff you only have to ask if Shadow of the Colossus or Katamari would have benefited from all the new tricks and the simple answer is no, they are perfect as they are, as is God of War.
Perfect Dark Zero goes out of its way to plaster every available surface with effects and layers and yet it still looks fake and poor compared to its PS2, Xbox and GC peers.
Metroid Prime/2 both still look amazing even now, several years after release, as does, surprisingly the DS version, despite the existence of better more supposedly capable hardware.
So, to be honest, I don't reckon the Wii is going to suffer at all in, eventual, direct comparison with its peers, I reckon the questions will be asked the other way, why is it that this more affordable console with more affordable games is able to compete so well with the other consoles that are meant to kick its metaphorical ass in every department?
And thats before we get to the mastery of the games creating arts that Nintendo have in their employ.

I know which console will be on my Christmas list, no I tell a lie, I'll have it at launch won't I?

Yes I will definitley get my wii at launch day, and I reckon that the graphics although wont be super AMAZING!!!! will be very nice indeed.

QuadLeo

I read somewhere (can't remember where, sorry) that the Wii is expected to have around half the graphics power of the 360. But as posted above, 360 and PS3 use a lot of power on HD. The GCN wasn't on par with PS2 or XBOX but it still played some of the prettiest games ever, Resident Evil 4, Metroid Prime, Windwaker etc... I think as time goes by and the dev teams are well experienced with the Wii, the graphics will be superb. Maybe 2 years down the line.

GrumPy

I dunno, the wii graphics have looked nice in all, HDR lighting, bump mapping, nice textures etc... But it will be an awful pitty not being able to play the new zelda in super high res on a HD ready flat panal The 360 and ps3 games will obviously look better than the wii's graphics, But I still reckon the wii will still be a great console. Just a shame that it cant output HD. But in fairness to Ciderman's comment, Its all up to the developers how they push their games. Games on the 360 like perfect dark, and fifa are just built on a normal run-of-the-mill engine, on much more powerful hardware, and instead of improving things, they just cake every single surface in stupid glossy textures. I'm sure games like metroid 3, mgs4, and halo 3 will all push there home formats graphical abilities the best. Only time will tell. I for one cant wait till all three 7th gen consoles are under my tv

projectmayhem

wii will have suitable graphics, but in 2-3 years your wii games will look stale while ps3 and 360 games will continue to get better.

i'm more worried about third-party support for wii. GC failed because it didn't have the support from anyone other then nintendo (imo).... right now everyone's signing on and saying they want to work with it, but how viable that'll be is another thing altogether. time will tell... and sure, it's cheap, so it wont break the bank to have it collect dust if the worst comes to the worst...

CiDeRmAn

Don't think it's fair to guess at a differential in 2-3 years between the various consoles, by it's very nature the comment is meaningless, unless we all run right out and buy HD sets there will be precious little difference to speak of, particularly between the machines, and even if there are, sure who will notice?
I mean the xbox had the edge over the the ps2 yet who noticed?
Overall the games looked the same, console specific titles looked even better due to the specialisation of the dev teams in that consoles little nooks and crannys, expect this to continue, fanboys will throw console specific games at each other as examples of their consoles superiority and the rest of us will just get on and enjoy the games.
Regarding the 3rd party support, you're dead on there, same happened initially with the GC as people started to develop titles and quickly they dried up, the Wii could be destined for the same fate, but then remembering the quality of 1st party titles for the GC there should be more than enough games of sufficient quality to warrant the machine a must have.
Lets hope some of the Nintendo fever in Japan about the DS wil rub off over here with the Wii.

Blub2k4

projectmayhem wrote:

wii will have suitable graphics, but in 2-3 years your wii games will look stale while ps3 and 360 games will continue to get better.

I think I remember something about PS and Xbox putting a console out there that will fill their market space for 10 years. Nintendo didn't, they can bring out a new console in 4 years or so, they're in no hurry with HD, 4 years will do waiting on that when HDTV is standard.

GrumPy

I still cant see how a ninty developer on the wii, can make there game look better than a sony developer on the ps3. It boils down to that, who cares what third party muck looks like anyway. "Oh noes, fifa looks the exact same on all formats"

flogen

Blub2k4 wrote:

I think I remember something about PS and Xbox putting a console out there that will fill their market space for 10 years. Nintendo didn't, they can bring out a new console in 4 years or so, they're in no hurry with HD, 4 years will do waiting on that when HDTV is standard.

I doubt the PS3 and 360 will be here for 10 years... 5/6 years is the expected lifespan for every machine, just like before.

I think projectmahem's point is that Wii games will look impressive from day 1 but PS3/360 will continue to improve, one reason for saying that is that the Wii is so similar in arch to the GC developers will be able to get the most out if it from the start, while the other two won't produce their best quality games until the mid-late term of their lives (eg PS2 with GT4, Tekken, God of War).
I'd still say the wii will improve over time, but the biggest difference being that the ideas and innovations will get better/more responsive/more immersive while the graphics, while still decent, won't be the best around (Super Mario Galaxy, for example, is one of the prettiest working games I've seen for the next gen so far, but I'm sure the 360 and PS3 are capable of matching and beating it)

Blub2k4

I'm just going on what Sony have said about the PS3.
http://www.engadget.com/2005/07/25/ps3-expected-to-live-10-years-in-the-market/

flogen

Blub2k4 wrote:

I'm just going on what Sony have said about the PS3.
http://www.engadget.com/2005/07/25/ps3-expected-to-live-10-years-in-the-market/

They probably could last that long, and by saying that it obvious makes the investment seem more worthwhile, but even if they planned to stay with the ps3 for 10 years, if Nintendo and MS brought out their respective next next gen consoles in 2010/11, you know Sony would drop their plans and reply with more of the same!

projectmayhem

flogen wrote:

I'd still say the wii will improve over time, but the biggest difference being that the ideas and innovations will get better/more responsive/more immersive while the graphics, while still decent, won't be the best around (Super Mario Galaxy, for example, is one of the prettiest working games I've seen for the next gen so far, but I'm sure the 360 and PS3 are capable of matching and beating it)

the wii will improve over time but i think ps3/360 will improve at a much faster rate... simply because they can. i do agree that the games on wii will get more interesting as devs get to grips with the thing, but as i said earlier, i'd be worried that the devs shy away from it in order to make another fps to make big bucks rather then something "interesting" for fear of it becoming a novelty. nintendo have their work cut out for them... though with the ps3 controller, devs have the option of doing dual wii/ps3 games now. not quite to the same extent, but the idea's can be shared.

Blub2k4 wrote:

I'm just going on what Sony have said about the PS3.
http://www.engadget.com/2005/07/25/ps3-expected-to-live-10-years-in-the-market/

it will last 10 years in the same way ps2 will and ps1 did. they'll release ps4 in 5 years and continue to support the ps3 while that's out...

chupacabra

Take the following into account:
The gamecube could funny support volumetric clouds and you can see this in games like Star wars rogue leader. (Take also into account that Rogue leader was a launch title) (The playstation could not )
GC could handle HDR relatvley well, i.e Mario Sunshine and Prime 2: echoes.
(Btw HDR, Vol. Clouds etc. etc. are all effects being boasted for games like Crysis and warhawk which are true next gen)
Now if there saying that the wii is up to 3 times as powerful as GC then we could see some very sexy looking titles.
It also appears that nintendo are taking A F**K load of patents out on new graphic technologies and it has been proven that the "Hollywood" GPU is not even final yet.
Just take a look at the very high res textures, bump mapping and beautiful lighting in Mario Galaxy that was shown at E3 and think that the game could be twice if not more times better when It comes out.

Even though Im not too highly strung on graphics for the wii as its not their selling point, I just think that it should not be over looked.

Lets just believe Iwata when he said at e3 2005 "When you see the graphics you will say.....WOW!"

the wii will improve over time but i think ps3/360 will improve at a much faster rate... simply because they can. i do agree that the games on wii will get more interesting as devs get to grips with the thing, but as i said earlier, i'd be worried that the devs shy away from it in order to make another fps to make big bucks rather then something "interesting" for fear of it becoming a novelty. nintendo have their work cut out for them... though with the ps3 controller, devs have the option of doing dual wii/ps3 games now. not quite to the same extent, but the idea's can be shared.

But developers have already got a decent grip on the hardware, because as its been stated before the wii SDK is very similar to the Gamecube one, so in retrospect there wont be a HUGE difference in launch games to games being developed in 3 - 4 years time, as you said Ps3/360 games will only continue to get better and better.

projectmayhem

chupacabra wrote:

Take the following into account:
The gamecube could funny support volumetric clouds and you can see this in games like Star wars rogue leader. (Take also into account that Rogue leader was a launch title) (The playstation could not )

well gamecube was a slightly more powerful console (graphics-wise) in the first place. it could support volumetric clouds (which is being touted on warhawk), but it couldn't do that with nice textures and a heap of stuff going on at the same time without slowing down.. so volumetric clouds and other such things are nice, but not so much if you can't have all the rest going on with it... now i could argue that the volumetric clouds were a nice algorithm, but didn't look as nice as the ps3 thing that's going on...

chupacabra wrote:

GC could handle HDR relatvley well, i.e Mario Sunshine and Prime 2: echoes.
(Btw HDR, Vol. Clouds etc. etc. are all effects being boasted for games like Crysis and warhawk which are true next gen)

games like crysis and warhawk are using nicer HDR and clouds. you can hardly compare the HDR in mario sunshine to that in half life2: lost coast

chupacabra wrote:

But developers have already got a decent grip on the hardware, because as its been stated before the wii SDK is very similar to the Gamecube one, so in retrospect there wont be a HUGE difference in launch games to games being developed in 3 - 4 years time, as you said Ps3/360 games will only continue to get better and better.

this is very true, but out of the box wii hasn't got the raw grunt of the 360/ps3, so the games will simply not cut it graphics wise. nintendo is very much hoping the devs can come up with cool, interesting and innovative games, which could prove a hard sell to a lot of the "fifa" type gamers...

chupacabra

games like crysis and warhawk are using nicer HDR and clouds. you can hardly compare the HDR in mario sunshine to that in half life2: lost coast

I wasnt comparing the sunshine to Half life2:lost coast/Warhawk/Crysis, if thats what you think. I was merley outlining what the gamecube was capable of.

CiDeRmAn

As interesting as the media find Crysis I have absolutely no interest in spending the kind of money needed to make that thing run on my machine, in fact its a good bet that whatever top specced PC you've got at the mo' you are going to have to upgrade the bugger before you can expect that title to run in an optimum manner.
Screw that for starters, I reckon for that sprt of cash I can own all of the next gen consoles plus pretty much everything else too.
So either you are to view the games without the issue of cash or not.
Personnaly I found the last wundertitle by that company, FarCry, a real let down, like a glorifies tech demo, except someone forgot to include the game, HalfLife 2 was far more enjoyable and there I enjoyed the original Halflife more, and that runs on my PS1, PC and Dreamcast, very nice on the DC actually!
So where does that leave the Wii?
The graphics will be very nice, they will compliment the efforts of the developer to introduce new gameplay experiences and avoid him/her being forced to use the larger part of the development funds on the graphical content, a stat not often referred to would be the cost of development and as its so low on the new Nintendo relative to the 360 and PS3 this should encourage more smaller dev co's to through their lot in with the Wii, a lot like the small developers in Japan who produce titles still for the DC, like Border Down for instance, here is a machine that seems terribly underpowered relative to the Xbox and PS2 yet out comes Ikaruga, so maybe the graphical powers matters less than what you do with it.

chupacabra

Ive been looking closley at some of the high res in game vids latley of the games for wii, and the thing that has been enhanced the most is the draw distance.......its amazing, I looked at "Wii sports: Airplane", "Mario Galaxy", "Excite truck" and "sonic wild fire" and I must say the draw distance in those games is utterly astounding.

There is also an argument across the interwebz about weather or not the wii will fully support HDR and from what i have seen...it can support it well enough but its a common misconception people have that Light bloom is actually HDR, ive realised that people in the "major" games forums really know f**k all.

steviec

The graphics will be perfectly serviceable, just a pity it doesn't output HD. Games like SOTC and ICO really have some of their beauty taken away when they look all fuzzy blown up to my HDTV. I'm already looking forward to seeing them properly upscaled on PS3

In terms of graphics it'll do the job though, few of Nintendo's games aim to be realistic looking anyway, it's not their style. I think it's CPU and RAM will be more of a problem than the graphics to be honest, in terms of lots of activity on screen like many AI controlled NPCs, large dynamic environments, the sort of things to improve immersion that I'm hoping to see from next gen consoles... Wii is really going in a different direction entirely.

Slice

Wasn't the GC more powerful than the PS2 graphics-wise? I deffo got that impression when you see how poorly PS2 graphics were for most games that came out on it.

As for Wii - I dunno - graphics for that machine have been pretty dissapointing so far when compared to what I've seen of PS3 and 360, maybe with the exception of Sonic. Though I can't say I'm especially familiar enough to say for certain. I can only say I really hope the Wii isn't a dud on the graphics department.

Then again innovative graphics don't always need powerful machines - look at paper mario, viewtiful joe, jet set radio - there's some graphical styles that are very unique and quite creative without being especially power hungry. There's a game for PSP i saw a screenshot of recently that consisted of badly drawn white lines of stickmen-type figures that I thought was quite original and wouldn't look any better on any other type of machine

CiDeRmAn

There we go again, more folk swallowing the HD thing perpetuated by Sony and MS, most people don't have a HD set, most people won't have to have one for some time, most people can't afford a HD set, so the whole, Ico will look soo much better on my PS3 upscaled to HD is nonsense.
And don't believe the rubbish by Sony about all your games looking better, sure we heard that crap with the PS2 and how our PSone titles would look simply fab but I don't remember being blown away, do you?
Looking at the like of Ico and SOTC I don't think there will be much of an improvement, and its more likely you will be disappointed with the HD view of the titles, as HD is very unkind to textures.
The Wii is not only going in a different direction to the PS3 and 360, its going in the right way.

Remember, its all about the games, and how the hardware manufacturers allow you to interact with these new worlds on offer, who wants a next gen playground with the same old joypads, just tweaked a little?

Can anyone actually say that the Xbox was a better machine for gamers than the PS2 was, given the sheer volume of class software on Sonys console?
Despite the obvious power differential the Xbox couldn't hold a candle to the PS2 regardless of the handful of Xbox only titles that sparkles, Halo, PGR, and that about it.

Same next time I reckon, it will not be the HD gleam that will sell the consoles, it will, to grown ups anyway, be the gameplay, the titles that scream out to be played.

unreg54756987

CiDeRmAn wrote:

the titles that scream out to be played.

Well for me, titles that scream out to be played are mgs4, gears of war, etc.. not particulary zelda, sure I can get that on the cube', albeit no gimmicky controller

CiDeRmAn

Each to his own I guess, and regarding gimmicks, I'm sure you were the the guy who thought rumble features and analog control were "gimmicks" as well, but then, what do you know, everyone is doing it now, except Sony who have de-evolved their controller and removed the rumble effect, that'll make your Metal Gear Solid a little disappointing given the good use they have put it to in recent years, no?
Gears Of War and its ilk will more than likely just sink into the lake full of other must have shooters that have all been played and become routine, along with the other great, awesome and perhaps incredible games like
Quake4, Doom3 etc, they all seem to feature nothing more than slightly bigger guns in the hands of slightly harder space marines shooting slightly more firework like ammo at slightly more articulated enemies while running about in slightly better rendered spacecraft/ruined cities/badly imagined alien landscapes. Did I leave anything out? Nope, don't think so.

As for the wonder of MGS4, wonderful, another set of overlong cutscenes followed by interludes of sneaking about before we get back to Snake musing about love, the world and small talk with whatever girl is running the comms in this episode, I'm sure every lone operative working in hostile enemy territory is doning exactly that, Nope, Don't think so.

And as for Zelda, it certainly looks great and while there is a version for the cube I want the fully featured Wii edition, I want to hear the arrows being notched, fish and indulge myself in the world of Hyrule as I have never done before, who knows I may even finish this one!
Personally I can't wait for Mario Galaxy, and seeing as you are a Solid Snake fan I can assume you will buy the new Super Smash Bros. title for the chance of seeing Kirby and Pikachu beat the living snot out of the mulleted hero.

thebman

flogen wrote:

They probably could last that long, and by saying that it obvious makes the investment seem more worthwhile, but even if they planned to stay with the ps3 for 10 years, if Nintendo and MS brought out their respective next next gen consoles in 2010/11, you know Sony would drop their plans and reply with more of the same!

360 lifespan is only supposed to be 4 years.
Nintendo at 5 years.
Sony will do the standard Sony thing and release a new console when the others do but keep selling the old one with trickling support of games.

As for graphics. Nintendo have never disappointed before and the memory announcements today for the Wii show that it is a little more powerful than was previously thought. It has already been shown that the games at E3 were running on modified GC's and not on Wii dev kits.

sock puppet

unreg54756987 wrote:

Well for me, titles that scream out to be played are mgs4, gears of war, etc.. not particulary zelda, sure I can get that on the cube', albeit no gimmicky controller

I dont see how the wii controller is a gimmick. Nintendo wouldnt be half as sucessful as they are now if the only thing that changed in their consoles were the graphics.

Rozie

Okay, first of all, the games weren't running on "Overclocked Gamecubes". They were running on Nintendo Wii hardware.

However, the Wiis on floor were fake. The real Wii devkits were hidden under the TVs as some such.

They are prototype Wii units, with a prototype of the Hollywood GPU. With a name like that, the final unit has to kick a lot more ass.

Note how all the Nintendo games(and Sonic Wildfire) look pretty damn good(considerring some are obviously very early on or roughly tweakered), but since they're so stylised it's hard to tell. The draw distances are amazing.

Keep in mind, also, that the framerates are almost twice that of most PS3/360 games. Which is great for games like Smash Bros. However, most games don't need that much - I'm a big supporter of "movie frame rates" or at least low enough ones to squeeze detail out of the machine.

But that's exactly what they'll do later on. A lot of the time graphical evolution on consoles comes at the expense as framerate, so it's not all clever programming(except Sonic Adventure 2 which nearly doubled the framerate and the character details too - frickin' amazing).

The Wii has tons of leeway to improve. The PS3 and 360 don't, not near as much as you think.

What's clever about this is that it seems insane - surely first impressions are everything? Nintendo wowed everyone with what was essentially an underpowered system. They showed off some neat stuff not quite shown on the other consoles(games with next-gen effects and super high frame

Ubisoft should be ashamed of Red Steel. It's the game that got everyone excited about the Wii, and it's been left behind in the dust, by quite frankly, far superior titles.

The only problem is - how are the developers going to improve the graphics of their games in just a short few months?

I think I have the answer - Nintendo at the end of last year filed a patent for new Displacement mapping technology. Basically, Displacement mapping means that instead of modelling the texture of a bumpy road or jagged wall, you just draw a bump map, and apply that. It's basically a 3D Bump map. Doesn't seem that amazing - but is very practical for quickly adding details. It will be a neat trick to give it some graphical tricks not on the 360 or PS3, and mean titles will be touched up quickly.

The Wii won't be miles behind the other consoles - it will just have a different way of doing things. Instead of overly shiny bump mapped characters with unneeded polycounts, they'll have detailed environments, high draw distances and high frame rates.

Don't expect too much of it though, either. Nothing's too final. We know that what was at E3 shows it has potential to be quite a lot better than the GC, and we know that it's probably going to be a little better than that when it's fully finished.

Also - the memory - http://www.vgpub.com/wii-memory/news

steviec

CiDeRmAn wrote:

There we go again, more folk swallowing the HD thing perpetuated by Sony and MS, most people don't have a HD set, most people won't have to have one for some time, most people can't afford a HD set, so the whole, Ico will look soo much better on my PS3 upscaled to HD is nonsense.
And don't believe the rubbish by Sony about all your games looking better, sure we heard that crap with the PS2 and how our PSone titles would look simply fab but I don't remember being blown away, do you?
Looking at the like of Ico and SOTC I don't think there will be much of an improvement, and its more likely you will be disappointed with the HD view of the titles, as HD is very unkind to textures.
The Wii is not only going in a different direction to the PS3 and 360, its going in the right way.

Remember, its all about the games, and how the hardware manufacturers allow you to interact with these new worlds on offer, who wants a next gen playground with the same old joypads, just tweaked a little?

*sigh*

I own a HDTV. I use my PS2 on it. Shadow of the Colossus looks worse than it should. Fact. I know it will look better with proper upscaling. I didn't fall for marketing(a statement like "who wants a next gen playground with the same old joypads" sounds like somebody's following a certain company's marketting to the letter). Playing a game as beautiful as Ico or Shadow of the Colossus not properly upscaled is like looking at a photo of the Mona Lisa taken with a mobile phone(ok slightly extreme but you get the idea). I don't expect the PS3 to magically create new textures, but it will help the game to be experienced as it was originally intended on a high definition tv screen.

Comparing that to PS1 games on a PS2 is completely different - it was identical display technology. A much fairer comparison is xbox games on a 360, which the 360 does an admirable job(I can say this from first hand experience), sadly there just aren't anything like the number of xbox games worth experiencing as there are PS2 games.

HDTV isn't a fad that's going to go away, right now not many people have them, but by the time that this generation matures I expect you'll find they'll be quite common. And the improvement is very tangible - apart from looking better, it allows far more detail which means, say, enemies in the distance can be spotted as mere specs and picked off, or particularly split screen is much much much better, you get the full game experience in your quarter of the screen and none of the difficulty in identifying what's happening that very often happened on standard tv sets(for example, I found Gran Turismo unplayable in split screen because you just can't tell what's in front of you, I've had no such difficulties in any 360 racer)

As for the final point. It is precisely all about the games. But it's not about input devices. Thats pure Nintendo marketting spiel, nobody ever held that belief before Nintendo started planting that idea in their heads. Gameplay starts and ends with software. If a specific game idea benefits from a new method of input, by all means go for it, release your bongos or your microphones or your buzzer or your dancemat.

The ideal input method is one that you don't notice. You should be thinking about the game not about the controls. And the Wii-mote is the antithesis of that right now. When I read about Wii games all I hear is "you swing your hand this way to do this" and "you wave your hand that way to do that". What happened to good level design, clever challenges, intelligent enemies, immersive storylines, cinematic atmosphere and addictive gameplay?

I'm not saying none of that will be there, I'm sure that in some games it will be. But moving the emphasis onto gesture recognition as if it's some kind of revelation isn't a huge step forward in my book. If a game is crap then replacing a button press with a hand movement won't make it good. And if a game is great replacing a button press with a hand movement isn't going to make it all that much better. There will be games that do things that couldn't be done on a joypad, but I haven't seen any yet, and when I do I'll still want them to be fun to play first and foremost.

So, if you want to know whether I want a current-gen game engine with a next-gen joypad so it has gesture recognition and, um, a speaker, or do I want a next-gen game engine featuring new gameplay thanks to destructable environments, large numbers of intelligent enemies, and indeed better graphics, with a current gen joypad, I'll take the current gen joypad.

In reality that's simplifying things a lot - many many games on PS3 and 360 aren't going to feature most of what I mentioned above at first, we've only seen glimpses of it with Assassin's Creed teasers and clips of MGS4 for example, but I'm positive that a few years down the line those sorts of dynamic, living environments could be commonplace. And on the other side the Wii is somewhat more powerful than the cube and only time will tell if it can make strides in this area too - but I don't think a different input method will make or break a game. The game itself is much more important.

To make another example, my two favourite games on the DS are New Mario and Mario & Luigi: Partners in Time. Neither of these games use the touchscreen in any meaningful way, and in fact both would be better suited to a standard, single, non-touchscreen console. Gameplay though was more important than hardware and input method. But when you look at Mario 64, it was hurt very badly on the DS because the controls don't suit it. All three of the aforementioned Mario games would have fared far better on the PSP, with it's widescreen good for platforming and it's analog nub great for movement. People point at the DS as an example of why new input methods are good. I don't think it is, it's an example, much like the PS2 and the GBA, of great software overcoming hardware limitations. The Wii could do the same, once they do focus on gameplay and not on the joypad, which is something they're starting to do more with the DS. Use motion sensing if it' complements the game, don't if it doesn't. That's why I was so very pleased to see Smash Brothers isn't having it shoe-horned in. Unfortunately other games are.

thebman

steviec wrote:

*sigh*

I own a HDTV. I use my PS2 on it. Shadow of the Colossus looks worse than it should. Fact. I know it will look better with proper upscaling. I didn't fall for marketing(a statement like "who wants a next gen playground with the same old joypads" sounds like somebody's following a certain company's marketting to the letter). Playing a game as beautiful as Ico or Shadow of the Colossus not properly upscaled is like looking at a photo of the Mona Lisa taken with a mobile phone(ok slightly extreme but you get the idea). I don't expect the PS3 to magically create new textures, but it will help the game to be experienced as it was originally intended on a high definition tv screen.

Comparing that to PS1 games on a PS2 is completely different - it was identical display technology. A much fairer comparison is xbox games on a 360, which the 360 does an admirable job(I can say this from first hand experience), sadly there just aren't anything like the number of xbox games worth experiencing as there are PS2 games.

HDTV isn't a fad that's going to go away, right now not many people have them, but by the time that this generation matures I expect you'll find they'll be quite common. And the improvement is very tangible - apart from looking better, it allows far more detail which means, say, enemies in the distance can be spotted as mere specs and picked off, or particularly split screen is much much much better, you get the full game experience in your quarter of the screen and none of the difficulty in identifying what's happening that very often happened on standard tv sets(for example, I found Gran Turismo unplayable in split screen because you just can't tell what's in front of you, I've had no such difficulties in any 360 racer)

As for the final point. It is precisely all about the games. But it's not about input devices. Thats pure Nintendo marketting spiel, nobody ever held that belief before Nintendo started planting that idea in their heads. Gameplay starts and ends with software. If a specific game idea benefits from a new method of input, by all means go for it, release your bongos or your microphones or your buzzer or your dancemat.

The ideal input method is one that you don't notice. You should be thinking about the game not about the controls. And the Wii-mote is the antithesis of that right now. When I read about Wii games all I hear is "you swing your hand this way to do this" and "you wave your hand that way to do that". What happened to good level design, clever challenges, intelligent enemies, immersive storylines, cinematic atmosphere and addictive gameplay?

I'm not saying none of that will be there, I'm sure that in some games it will be. But moving the emphasis onto gesture recognition as if it's some kind of revelation isn't a huge step forward in my book. If a game is crap then replacing a button press with a hand movement won't make it good. And if a game is great replacing a button press with a hand movement isn't going to make it all that much better. There will be games that do things that couldn't be done on a joypad, but I haven't seen any yet, and when I do I'll still want them to be fun to play first and foremost.

So, if you want to know whether I want a current-gen game engine with a next-gen joypad so it has gesture recognition and, um, a speaker, or do I want a next-gen game engine featuring new gameplay thanks to destructable environments, large numbers of intelligent enemies, and indeed better graphics, with a current gen joypad, I'll take the current gen joypad.

In reality that's simplifying things a lot - many many games on PS3 and 360 aren't going to feature most of what I mentioned above at first, we've only seen glimpses of it with Assassin's Creed teasers and clips of MGS4 for example, but I'm positive that a few years down the line those sorts of dynamic, living environments could be commonplace. And on the other side the Wii is somewhat more powerful than the cube and only time will tell if it can make strides in this area too - but I don't think a different input method will make or break a game. The game itself is much more important.

To make another example, my two favourite games on the DS are New Mario and Mario & Luigi: Partners in Time. Neither of these games use the touchscreen in any meaningful way, and in fact both would be better suited to a standard, single, non-touchscreen console. Gameplay though was more important than hardware and input method. But when you look at Mario 64, it was hurt very badly on the DS because the controls don't suit it. All three of the aforementioned Mario games would have fared far better on the PSP, with it's widescreen good for platforming and it's analog nub great for movement. People point at the DS as an example of why new input methods are good. I don't think it is, it's an example, much like the PS2 and the GBA, of great software overcoming hardware limitations. The Wii could do the same, once they do focus on gameplay and not on the joypad, which is something they're starting to do more with the DS. Use motion sensing if it' complements the game, don't if it doesn't. That's why I was so very pleased to see Smash Brothers isn't having it shoe-horned in. Unfortunately other games are.

HD isn't going away but isn't becoming mainstream in the next 5 years. That is how long the console will most likely last. SD support isn't neccessary for the percentage of the market that has one. You don't make games for the minority of a market.

Hand geastures are more natural and allow further immersion in the game. Graphics only go so far although personally I'd like to see Wii graphics be more impressive than what I've seen so far.

There is also the lifeless puppet problem people suffer from which is when a game becomes realistic or a realistic puppet people actually get scared by how it looks because what they are seeing looks real yet isn't and people can tell the difference and it freaks them out. You can see it in some of the PS3 clips when there is too little/no eye movement in some of them.

Rozie

HDTV isn't a fad that's going to go away, right now not many people have them, but by the time that this generation matures I expect you'll find they'll be quite common. And the improvement is very tangible - apart from looking better, it allows far more detail which means, say, enemies in the distance can be spotted as mere specs and picked off, or particularly split screen is much much much better, you get the full game experience in your quarter of the screen and none of the difficulty in identifying what's happening that very often happened on standard tv sets(for example, I found Gran Turismo unplayable in split screen because you just can't tell what's in front of you, I've had no such difficulties in any 360 racer)

Comparing PS2 games REALLY isn't fair because it runs in such a ****ty resolution to begin with.

Honestly, 640x480 is fine for most games. High resolution often looks unnatural crisp and the environments begin to look like they're made out of paper. At lower blurrier resolutions the "illusion" tends to work better. I play Morrowind at 800x600 as opposed to full res, it doesn't go any faster, it just looks better.

You also don't seem to understand the concept of "anti-aliasing". While it makes things blurry at low resolutions, decent enough anti-aliasing can pull off the illusion of being at a higher resolution.

I mean, do DVDs REALLY bother you that much in their current resolution? You can still make otu pretty much anything. Heck, even on a TV. That's a lot to do with them being blended together so well in the first place.

I'm sure Nintendo will have plenty good AA technology. Remember it's designing it's console around it's purpose.

As for the final point. It is precisely all about the games. But it's not about input devices. Thats pure Nintendo marketting spiel, nobody ever held that belief before Nintendo started planting that idea in their heads. Gameplay starts and ends with software. If a specific game idea benefits from a new method of input, by all means go for it, release your bongos or your microphones or your buzzer or your dancemat.

So the analog stick never changed the way you played games? The Mouse never changed the way you played gamed? Extra buttons? This is a riduculous stance.

Gameplay matters heavily on controls. How you interact with the game. If it's "pure Nintendo marketting spiel", why were the E3 perceptions of Nintendo's baby almost universally positive, despite the graphical disappointment?

The ideal input method is one that you don't notice. You should be thinking about the game not about the controls. And the Wii-mote is the antithesis of that right now. When I read about Wii games all I hear is "you swing your hand this way to do this" and "you wave your hand that way to do that". What happened to good level design, clever challenges, intelligent enemies, immersive storylines, cinematic atmosphere and addictive gameplay?

That has to be the most incredibly stupid anti-Wii argument I've ever heard.

Why exactly won't the Wii deliver these things? It will deliver these things, and, on top of that, a much improved control method.

Interestingly, one of the widest comments about the Wii's controller was that eventaully you forgot even noticing you were using a new control method.

I'm not saying none of that will be there, I'm sure that in some games it will be. But moving the emphasis onto gesture recognition as if it's some kind of revelation isn't a huge step forward in my book. If a game is crap then replacing a button press with a hand movement won't make it good.

But games can't move forward the way they're going. New control methods allow you to interact with the game world in different ways. Why not do that, exactly?

And if a game is great replacing a button press with a hand movement isn't going to make it all that much better.

Well, obviously if a game is bad, it's bad. But the controller will make everything a bit better since the player is becoming more involved in the game.

Then again, you're also bitching about HD - why should we even listen to you saying something actually related to the gameplay won't make the game all that better?

There will be games that do things that couldn't be done on a joypad, but I haven't seen any yet, and when I do I'll still want them to be fun to play first and foremost.

What are you talking about? Just about anything could be done on a joypad if you assign it to a button. But it would be nowhere near as fun, fluid or dynamic. I can't think of any totally new uses for the Wii-mote. It's meant to change the way games are played, not come up with bizarre and abstract ways of cooking your dinner.

So, if you want to know whether I want a current-gen game engine with a next-gen joypad so it has gesture recognition and, um, a speaker, or do I want a next-gen game engine featuring new gameplay thanks to destructable environments, large numbers of intelligent enemies, and indeed better graphics, with a current gen joypad, I'll take the current gen joypad.

The Wii is actually pretty much in between generations. It's neither last gen nor next gen, speces wise.

And why exactly would those things offer better gameplay if an improved control method doesn't?

And that's a joke, considering Red Steel features destructable environments and large numbers of intelligent enemies. There aren't many titles on PS3 like that.

Why is "Next Gen" such a positive thing anyway? We can already have tons of intelligent enemies, there's only so much more you need to improve it considerring it's a GAME. Are Nintendo the only ones that realise this?

You're not taking into account the cost of these things. Incredibly detailed graphics, super duper AI, and destructable environments take so much time and manpower to dvelop it, thus raising costs immensely. With the Wii you have a gameplay revolution out of the box - just people and their ideas, no need for massive budgets. Though Red Steel shows you can go after those things too, if you want to.

People point at the DS as an example of why new input methods are good.

But at the same time the DS has the minigames in Mario 64/NSMB(which are worth a whole game on their own), Prime Hunters, Another Code, Phoenix Wrights, Trauma Center, to name just a few that really do show how great new controls systems can be.

Just because not all games use it doesn't mean it's a failure. The touch screen isn't as versatile as the Wii-mote since it's difficult to use it and standard controls at the same time.

PLus, it's harder to put in tacked on extras like a map into the Wii. At the very least you'd control the camera, which would improve the experience quite a bit.

steviec

First of all I know precisely what aliasing is and I know how it's dealt with, and the statement that anti-aliasing will make Wii games look like they're a higher resolution is completely nonsensical. If you have a low resolution source(say, a PS2 game or Xbox game) upscaled to high resolution(through a PS3 or Xbox360) then, indeed, you can use anti-aliasing to remove some of the artifacts that plague current gen games on HDTV screens. With the Wii and it's lack of HD output, you're putting the job solely in the hands of the TV itself, and few HDTVs have very good filters for upscaling to HD, nor are they going to anytime soon.

Anyway, aside from that, I didn't say the Wii won't have good games, but I find it funny when I'm accused of swallowing Sony marketting spiel when I mention how I like my HDTV from first hand experience, and support it with logical points like how I can still see everything clearly in split screen or it's much easier to identify distant enemies in FPS games which helps gameplay, aswell as everything just looking nicer. Meanwhile people come back at me with apparently unbiased statements like 'With the Wii you have a gameplay revolution out of the box' and 'We can already have tons of intelligent enemies, there's only so much more you need to improve it considerring it's a GAME. Are Nintendo the only ones that realise this?'...

I think that says it all really, because Nintendo aren't going for more processing power you suddenly don't want more intelligent enemies or more dynamic environments. Until you can't tell the difference between singleplayer and online play, there'll always be plenty of room for improvement when it comes to AI. There is tons of room to add immersion to games in so many ways, and simply adding more processing power is the best way for hardware to give software developers all the tools to realise their ideas.

As I've said already, gameplay is down to the GAME, not down to the machine, and there'll be good and bad games on every console. I just don't think the Wii is the mana from heaven it's made out to be. It's just another console with a different input method.

DemonOfTheFall

I thought that the Wii's graphics, especially SMG and Sonic Wildfire, looked incredible.

I do think that in 2-3 years time it will begin to fall a good bit further behind its better equipped competition though. Just look at how much power the devs managed to get out of the PS2 over the years. For example take the Ratchet and Clank series. The difference between Ratchet 1 And Ratchet Gladiator is staggering, Ratchet 1 is blurry and horrible whereas I'd believe that Ratchet Gladiator was running on a high spec PC, just set in 640x480.

I think that Nintendo will be making a serious mistake if they don't atleast build in support for 480p over component. The difference between 480p over component and 480i over composite is pretty staggering and doesn't require any extra horsepower.

Rozie

First of all I know precisely what aliasing is and I know how it's dealt with, and the statement that anti-aliasing will make Wii games look like they're a higher resolution is completely nonsensical.

No it isn't. The main issue with resolution in 3D games is that you get jagged lines. It only eaffects things like textures notably at very low resolutions.

If you have a low resolution source(say, a PS2 game or Xbox game) upscaled to high resolution(through a PS3 or Xbox360) then, indeed, you can use anti-aliasing to remove some of the artifacts that plague current gen games on HDTV screens. With the Wii and it's lack of HD output, you're putting the job solely in the hands of the TV itself, and few HDTVs have very good filters for upscaling to HD, nor are they going to anytime soon.

That's a problem with HDTV's then - since television itself is broadcast in lowres.

Anyway, aside from that, I didn't say the Wii won't have good games, but I find it funny when I'm accused of swallowing Sony marketting spiel when I mention how I like my HDTV from first hand experience, and support it with logical points like how I can still see everything clearly in split screen or it's much easier to identify distant enemies in FPS games which helps gameplay, aswell as everything just looking nicer.

I know the difference between high and lower resolutions. But in all honesty, if you have good enough filterring, it shouldn't matter. And Wii games look very crisp and clean for a low resolution.

I think that says it all really, because Nintendo aren't going for more processing power you suddenly don't want more intelligent enemies or more dynamic environments.

When was I asking for more intelligent enemies and dynamic enivronments? It's certainly nice - but it's not everything. The actual way the game plays and feels is more important.

Not to mention that we don't know how powerful the Wii is. For all we know it's graphics processor could be a little on the underpowered side, but it's main processer could be on a part with the 360. Personally, I think the control method is more important that realistic AI and dynamic environments. I want a game that's fun to play as a whole. And the controller impacts this much more than subtle changes like that.

And you're forgetting that most of that is down to the developers. It takes a lot of effort to code stuff like that, and with consoles like PS3 they feel forced to do so - bumping up the production costs immensely, and cutting off smaller developers. Nintendo have pointed out this before, and this is why they make the DS and Wii so easy to develop for.

[qutoe]Until you can't tell the difference between singleplayer and online play, there'll always be plenty of room for improvement when it comes to AI.[/quote]

But do we necessarily NEED that? Right now? Games are suffering and it's a shame you don't see why. Ever increasing complexity is cutting out fantastic but much smaller ideas. Not every gamen eeds dynamic environments and complex AI. Most don't. You have to take responsibility for the fact taht some philosophies fly in the face of another.

If you're REALLY seriosu about coding great AI - chances are you'll figure out how to do it on Wii anyway, as Ubisoft has done. We've had enough processing powerful for great AI for a while now - it's msotyl down to programming.

There is tons of room to add immersion to games in so many ways, and simply adding more processing power is the best way for hardware to give software developers all the tools to realise their ideas.

Or completely changing the way we interact with the games. What the hell is wrong with that?

As I've said already, gameplay is down to the GAME, not down to the machine, and there'll be good and bad games on every console. I just don't think the Wii is the mana from heaven it's made out to be. It's just another console with a different input method.

But how many consoles have had as drastically different an input method as the Wii? Even the Analog stick was just a mini joypad.

I think that Nintendo will be making a serious mistake if they don't atleast build in support for 480p over component. The difference between 480p over component and 480i over composite is pretty staggering and doesn't require any extra horsepower.

I'm pretty sure it does. There was a third graphical mode listed too, but I can't remember which. It should be on http://wii.nintendo.com

steviec

The mouse/keyboard is as drastically different as the Wii, but a good game is still a good game and a bad game is still a bad game, regardless of which control system is used. The DS is a drastically different control system too - and as I said most of its best games do revert to a reliance on traditional controls.

The input method is different - that doesn't automatically mean better, it just means different. This doesn't mean a revolution in gameplay, it means games will have a different input method! Whether or not its a good thing depends on the games. You can't claim that it'll redefine gaming until you've tried it yourself or at least until some games have been reviewed. It's going to have good games and bad games, just like every console.

The thing is that when comparing the Wii to the Cube, all we can say is that it's different. We can't automatically say that it's better, that's something that's yet to be seen. Zelda, for example, will be exactly the same on both consoles, and nobody's quite sure which version will be better because the controls are an unknown.

In the case of the PS3 and 360 - you can immediately say they're better than the PS2 and Xbox. Why? Because if you were to do something similar with them as Nintendo were doing with Zelda, you automatically know the next gen version will be better. Maybe not much better. It might just be the same game with better graphics. Heck, if the developer is really really lazy it might be the same game with the same graphics - but load times would be better. In the case if Wii though, the Wii version might be better, but it might be worse - depending how the controls work.

More grunt automatically means developers can make better games. Note I'm using the word 'can', not 'will'. They can of course make worse games too. But it simply gives them more freedom than they had before to realise their ideas. And those ideas don't have to be expensive epic next-gen ideas - just look at Live Arcade or Rockstar's Table Tennis, the point is that a more powerful console can do everything a less powerful console could do and more. If simplicity is desirable for a specific game, then powerful hardware doesn't force you to complicate it. But if complex physics and AI are desirable, then a slower console does force you to simplify it.

So more power is a win-win situation. Apart from price of course but thats a whole other argument. The wiimote on the other hand - it does new things, but it doesn't retain the ability to do everything that traditional controls did. So it's not that win-win situation we have with more power. There is the classic controller, but I don't know if that will be included as standard or an extra peripheral, and I get the impression Nintendo are keen to make sure as many games as possible use motion sensing even where it isn't for the best, much as Sony mistakenly did with 3D on the PS1.

I'm not saying the Wii won't be good, I'm saying there's not enough evidence that it will be good, nevermind the sort of superlatives that get thrown around by a lot of people talking about it on here.

1huge1

im still blown away at resident evil remake that came out on the gamecube 4years ago
anything better than the gamecube will be grand for me

flogen

steviec wrote:

The mouse/keyboard is as drastically different as the Wii, but a good game is still a good game and a bad game is still a bad game, regardless of which control system is used. The DS is a drastically different control system too - and as I said most of its best games do revert to a reliance on traditional controls.

I agree with you that controls don't make the game, a dev could be handed the best control system ever and still end up with a lousey game, and vice versa (nes controller anyone!); saying that I would hope that a good game builds on (but doesn't make too fine a point of using) the wii controls, but if zelda is better on the GC controller I'd rather use that and miss out on loads of fishing! I think the best wii games will be the ones that don't seem different, in a way... it should really feel natural and not tacked on, forced or uncomfortable in anyway... gameplay first, controls and then graphics IMO... I just hope Nintendo (or the devs working on the Wii) don't get the first two mixed up.
I do disagree with you about the DS though; Animal crossing works better on screen than the pad, trauma centre is superb (and would suck without the screen), advance wars is improved by the screen, Kirby is simply a brilliant platformer and just uses the screen, Nintendogs would, again, suck without the screen, Metroid works better with it etc. etc.; that's not to say that there are plenty of games that don't use it well, and not just 3rd party... Mario Kart, New Mario Bros etc. all use the Dpad very well, and as we saw with Mario64 slapping it into a game it wasn't meant for is silly.

The input method is different - that doesn't automatically mean better, it just means different. This doesn't mean a revolution in gameplay, it means games will have a different input method! Whether or not its a good thing depends on the games. You can't claim that it'll redefine gaming until you've tried it yourself or at least until some games have been reviewed. It's going to have good games and bad games, just like every console.

I agree, as I said though, I'd like to think that to some extent the controller will improve gameplay; it won't make a bad game good (in fact if it's done badly it could do quite the opposite) but I think it could make a good game better in many circumstances and create new genres, such as Trauma Centre.

The thing is that when comparing the Wii to the Cube, all we can say is that it's different. We can't automatically say that it's better, that's something that's yet to be seen. Zelda, for example, will be exactly the same on both consoles, and nobody's quite sure which version will be better because the controls are an unknown.

but you can fish with the wii!!
Seriously though, I think Zelda will be Mario64 DS all over again, the game wasn't designed for the Wii and from what I've seen it's control method is taked on... I do wonder if you can use the GC controller on the Wii disc though...

In the case of the PS3 and 360 - you can immediately say they're better than the PS2 and Xbox. Why? Because if you were to do something similar with them as Nintendo were doing with Zelda, you automatically know the next gen version will be better. Maybe not much better. It might just be the same game with better graphics. Heck, if the developer is really really lazy it might be the same game with the same graphics - but load times would be better. In the case if Wii though, the Wii version might be better, but it might be worse - depending how the controls work.

Well that depends on your definition of better... I don't think better graphics means anything; I think the 360 has certainly made better looking games than the xbox, but so what? So far the thing I can say that is better from one to the other is the controller and the Xbox Live set up... The games out on the 360 now could largely have been on the old xbox, perhaps not as polished looking, but gameplay wouldn't have been at all effected.

More grunt automatically means developers can make better games. Note I'm using the word 'can', not 'will'. They can of course make worse games too. But it simply gives them more freedom than they had before to realise their ideas. And those ideas don't have to be expensive epic next-gen ideas - just look at Live Arcade or Rockstar's Table Tennis, the point is that a more powerful console can do everything a less powerful console could do and more. If simplicity is desirable for a specific game, then powerful hardware doesn't force you to complicate it. But if complex physics and AI are desirable, then a slower console does force you to simplify it.

So more power is a win-win situation. Apart from price of course but thats a whole other argument. The wiimote on the other hand - it does new things, but it doesn't retain the ability to do everything that traditional controls did. So it's not that win-win situation we have with more power. There is the classic controller, but I don't know if that will be included as standard or an extra peripheral, and I get the impression Nintendo are keen to make sure as many games as possible use motion sensing even where it isn't for the best, much as Sony mistakenly did with 3D on the PS1.

I think the potential for better games is the same in each machine; they all have their power boosts (some more than others) and two of them have new input methods, the other has arguably the most intuitive controller going. While we don't know the Wii specs I'd venture a guess that they're good enough to allow for an extra grunt... perhaps not in the detail on a characters face, but in many other ways; I do think that the wiimote gives the Wii just as much potential to do something great as more power does for the other two; God knows who'll use theirs to the best effect though.

I'm not saying the Wii won't be good, I'm saying there's not enough evidence that it will be good, nevermind the sort of superlatives that get thrown around by a lot of people talking about it on here.

I think the same can be said for the PS3, and even for the 360 in the long term; you can't say any of them will or won't be good until you've played it all yourself and made your mind up too... there were some great looking games on all the machines at this years E3, but how many times have great looking/sounding games come out and been utter rubbish?

steviec

flogen wrote:

I think the same can be said for the PS3, and even for the 360 in the long term; you can't say any of them will or won't be good until you've played it all yourself and made your mind up too... there were some great looking games on all the machines at this years E3, but how many times have great looking/sounding games come out and been utter rubbish?

Agreed. Though I've had the 360 6 months now and am very very happy with it

Rozie

The input method is different - that doesn't automatically mean better, it just means different. This doesn't mean a revolution in gameplay, it means games will have a different input method!

I'm sorry, but this is an utterly retarded statement.

Playing FPSes without a mouse and keyboard, or well positioned dual analogue sticks is annoying as hell. Playing FPSes with a trackball is no fun at all.

Similiary, playing Super Mario 64 without an analogue stick just isn't the same - as the DS port proves(though you can switch between the D-Pad and Touch Screen so it's not so bad).

Have you ever played a Lightgun game without a Lightgun?

It is not just "different". There are many ways in which it can improve by being different. At the very least the Wiimote offers vastly improved camera control for most games.

The thing is that when comparing the Wii to the Cube, all we can say is that it's different. We can't automatically say that it's better, that's something that's yet to be seen.

But people HAVE played the Wii, and the general consensus is that it's pretty great.

In the case if Wii though, the Wii version might be better, but it might be worse - depending how the controls work.

That's exactly why it's a gamble. But without making a gamble, innovation would come to a standstill.

More grunt automatically means developers can make better games.

... as can an improved control system.

Also, we've gotten to the point where it won't really make games play that much better. Destructable environments are fun but were possible on the higher end of last generation if you knew how to do them, and are possible on the Wii(Red Steel). It's about the work you put in. It will get to a point by the next generation where only certain developers can make games and nobody can reach the full potential.

Nintendo are keen to make sure as many games as possible use motion sensing even where it isn't for the best, much as Sony mistakenly did with 3D on the PS1.

There are very few games where motion sensing isn't useful. There is always SOMETHING you can do with it, which is what makes it so genius. You're nearly always going to have a weapon, fists, psychic powers, or something along those lines.

The only game where it might get in the way - Smash Bros., isn't using it.

Though, beatemups could use it too - jab up high for a punch, jab down low for a kick.

The Wii isn't just for motion sensing games - it's also for simplified games that you can't get on other consoles. The Virtual Console model is mean to sell many of these for you for $5.

I'm not saying the Wii won't be good, I'm saying there's not enough evidence that it will be good,

It stealing the show wasn't enough? 5 hour queues compared to PS3's 1 hour queue?

steviec

Rozie wrote:

It is not just "different". There are many ways in which it can improve by being different. At the very least the Wiimote offers vastly improved camera control for most games.

Why is it better? Explain to me the improved camera control, because two analog sticks seem perfect to me. It will be better for some games, it will be worse for others. But the games should be focussed on gameplay not how to use the controller.

But people HAVE played the Wii, and the general consensus is that it's pretty great.

That's the thing. Eurogamer said the Wii was great in the overall Wii article, but then they went through the individual games one by one and had problems with all of them, both first and third party, Mario being the only real exception. Time and time again the controls were the problem. IGN, Gamespot, they all mention difficulties with the controls and then blame themselves or the developers still tweaking... I get the sense people want to like it - but the reality isn't quite the same just yet. Joystiq have been the most brutally honest about it.

Also, we've gotten to the point where it won't really make games play that much better. Destructable environments are fun but were possible on the higher end of last generation if you knew how to do them, and are possible on the Wii(Red Steel). It's about the work you put in. It will get to a point by the next generation where only certain developers can make games and nobody can reach the full potential.

See, the more power you have to play with the more you can get an engine to do without spending 100s of hours optimizing and tweaking to try and get framerates down. With middleware becoming more and more common anyway, any devs will be able to implement advanced features into their game. And there's no limit to how interactive an environment can be. Sure, some things are destructable on current gen games, but it can be taken so very much further. And it's not just about being 'destructable'. Assassin's Creed is a prime example of what can be done with more power - a bustling city with properly crowded streets, and all surfaces completely interactive and climbable in a fluid realistic way - all reports have been glowing about the limitless possibilities.

The Wii isn't just for motion sensing games - it's also for simplified games that you can't get on other consoles. The Virtual Console model is mean to sell many of these for you for $5.

That made me laugh - the Wii is all about stealing one of Microsoft's best ideas. Yay for Nintendo's innovation!

Rozie

Why is it better? Explain to me the improved camera control, because two analog sticks seem perfect to me. It will be better for some games, it will be worse for others. But the games should be focussed on gameplay not how to use the controller.

It offers more degrees of freedom, and a whole new way to play. I don't see how that could be a bad thing. It's not as if you can't play games in a somewhat standard way, anyway.

, Mario being the only real exception. Time and time again the controls were the problem. IGN, Gamespot, they all mention difficulties with the controls and then blame themselves or the developers still tweaking...

The only games I've heard there were difficulty with were Red Steel and Metroid Prime 3 - and Prime 3 is definitely just a sensitivity issue. Where are you getting this?

Joystiq have been the most brutally honest about it.

Aren't Joystiq infamous for lambasting Nintendo and Sony no matter what they do?

See, the more power you have to play with the more you can get an engine to do without spending 100s of hours optimizing and tweaking to try and get framerates down.

But you have to spend 100s more hours adding new code for the machine to handle. Plus, if you do't optimise it, how are you going to get full power? You're just encouraging laziness.

Also, an optimized engine is usually a bug free one.

That made me laugh - the Wii is all about stealing one of Microsoft's best ideas. Yay for Nintendo's innovation!

Microsoft made a controller with Tilt detection. Nintendo's Wiimote can detect tilt, speed, and overall orientation and position in 3D space.

steviec

From Eurogamer:

Metroid
Zelda
Monkey Ball
Project Hammer
Excite truck

And they haven't bothered with the really bad games like Tony Hawk's. The point of the above is that the controller isn't magic. It's just a different controller, not proven to be better, and I haven't said it's worse either, but it will only be suited to certain games and not others. And some games, like Metroid, even in cases when the controller is working well, Eurogamer say it doesn't add to gameplay, it felt like they were just playing the gamecube version with different controls. Much like playing the same FPS with a mouse & keyboard or with a joypad isn't hugely different, it still comes down to level design and AI.

Games I'm looking forward to include Mario, Elebits, and indeed Monkey Ball, even if "waving a wand around just isn't the same" as Eurogamer say, I've always loved Monkey Ball so I'll be wanting to try it. If there's any game motion sensing should suit I thought Monkey Ball would be it.

Oh and that final comment, I did not say the Wii controller was copying Microsoft, I was replying to your statement Nintendo's brilliant idea to have cheap downloadable games unlike other consoles. I guess you haven't heard of Xbox Live Arcade.

Rozie

I've heard complaints about Metroid Prime(the graphics and the aiming interface need to be done - both should be easy enough thanks to the Wii's displacement mapping, and the tweakability of the controller) but the Zelda complaints are new to me. Isn't it possible that the Eurogamer peeps just didn't like it? As I said, Apart from Red Steel and Prime most people agreed the controller WAS magic.

Retr0gamer

Rozie wrote:

I've heard complaints about Metroid Prime(the graphics and the aiming interface need to be done - both should be easy enough thanks to the Wii's displacement mapping, and the tweakability of the controller) but the Zelda complaints are new to me. Isn't it possible that the Eurogamer peeps just didn't like it? As I said, Apart from Red Steel and Prime most people agreed the controller WAS magic.

Quite possible since they hired a third party to report on them (cheap bastards!). However the same complaints are surfacing in more than one publication.
Hopefully Ninty will straigthen it out for release.

Screw it. Smash Bros and Wario ware can't fail to rock in Multiplayer.

Balfa

QuadLeo wrote:

The GCN wasn't on par with PS2 or XBOX

No, the Gamecube is more powerful than the PS2, though not as powerful as the xbox.

po0k

Define "powerful".

CiDeRmAn

Define who cares, what a daft topic, next we'll be hanging our man parts out and seeing who can pee the highest.
Yup, every generation brings the "What console is the best" argument, and lads i've been hearing it since the speccy and c64 days, its the same conversation everytime too,
Please put the topic down and step away slowly.

steviec

Well I don't think speculating on the direction of the games industry for the next 5-10 years is particularly irrelevant. Talking about the 360 vs the PS3 is pointless because they're obviously going to be similar and it's going to be down to the games.

The Wii on the other hand is taking a very clearly different approach and it's worth talking about. Is it better to just give developers a massive blank page and all the power they could need to realise their ideas like the other consoles are doing. Or is it better to come up with a unique control scheme and tell developers to see what they can do with it.

I may come across as overly negative about the wii - but that's because I think some people need a bit of balance. It will have good games and I will buy one. But I'm not convinced it's going to change gaming. Different doesn't automatically mean better. Joypads as they currently stand have developed and grown into very usable input devices over the last two decades, with the most recent, the 360 pad, really representing the pinnacle right now. It does that by taking what works, and adding to it with some great ergonomics, balanced weight, and the indisputable improvement of being wireless as standard. The PS3 pad will do similar, and add in the motion sensing feature, another evolution of what you can do without changing the standard function of the pad. What the Wii does, though, is simply throw away all of that evolution, and start from scratch. It's not a guaranteed improvement. It may be better, it may be worse, only time will tell. Super Smash Bros is testament to it not being able to do everything a regular pad can do. But obviously things like Wii Sports show it can do many things a pad couldn't. But will Wii Sports be more fun than Super Smash Bros Brawl because it has this new controller? Not necessarily.

The addition of more power, on the other hand, is an unquestionable improvement. There's never going to be a Super Smash Bros style situation where a game needs a 'classic' low powered CPU to work effectively. More power will always be better than less power, give the exact same developer with the same idea a more powerful machine and a less powerful macine, and he'll be able to realise a more playable game on the more powerful one. A bad game is still a bad game, more power won't make it better. But a good game has more scope to do everything the dev wanted it to do, there won't be sacrifices for frame rates.

So I think the Wii will have good games and be a good console, it will certainly be more successful than the cube for Nintendo, but I don't think we're going to see it completely turn the industry upside down the way people suggest. Good developers will still make good games and bad developers will still make bad games, it's not going to work magic.

CiDeRmAn

But the addition of more processing power shouldn't be seen as some sort of big surprise, I mean with 5 or more years between each gen of machine it would be foolish to release a console that doesn't offer some improvement over its previous iteration, the problem pops up when this is all the manufacturer has to offer, when there is little to differentiate this gen from the next bar an extra layer of graphical tricks to dazzle us into opening our wallets/purses and buying the new PSXBOXWII device.
We should, as consumers, demand more, an example would be the Live service provided by MS, something that had fundamentally changed the way we play online, the way we purchase software etc.
Nintendo brought D pads, Analog sticks, rumble features and touch screens to the unwashed masses and Sony, well sony brought Crash Bandicoot, but seriously they brought gaming out of the bedrooms of a small minority and introduced gaming to the world.
Now with the new machines about to be set free across the globe I look at my bank balance and look at the expected expenditure and find myself not wanting a PS3 as I have a 360, if I didn't have a 360 I would seriously consider the PS3 but I can't see enough differences between them to warrant buying a PS3, at least at launch anyhow, the Wii is weel within my budget and looks as if to have a unique controller that was always going to hook my attention, as a gamer I know there will be the inevitable dung games on the Wii but I reckon the good ones will more than make up for it, call it the closest thing to faith I have!
The console may not work magic on every disk fed to it but as can be seen with Resident Evil 4, Shadow of the Colossus and Steel Battalion, some developers can indeed pull a rabbit out of the hat, so I'll put my faith in them.
And what would I rather risk, the guts of a grand on the new PS3 with an extra controller and some games at launch or the guts of €500 for the Wii with the same? So t makes finacial sense as well.
If the PS3 didn't come in at such a high price point i'd buy one no problem, but I have no need for a Blu-Ray player or a Multi Media Hub, and neither I reckon do most of you either.

Laguna

I couldn't care less about the graphics as long as they're to a decent enough standard, a progression from the Gamecube at least, I'm not looking for eye candy. I've had the 360 since launch and I'm now completely disenchanted with it, the graphics that it can produce are obviously astounding but I find myself being more impressed with my DS which is a 64-bit machine capable of just beyond N64 graphics.

The biggest draw for me with the Wii, which is obviously the same as most others, is the level of interactivity with the next generation of games, there's only so much enjoyment I can get out of a games visuals, the DS taught me this, it completely reinvigorated my interest in gaming.

CiDeRmAn

Yup, my brother is not a gamer but appreciates a really good title when he sees it and has just sold his 360, had only put 5 hours into it since he got it at launch, nothing good enough to pop up on his radar, everything to derivative, last gen gameplay wrapped in next gen graphics, and due to the new gens obsession with the visual side of things, the gameplay may not even be up to the last gens standard either.
And you know, its not surprising.
If I was braver I'd do it too, but I have the patience to await Gears of War and Prey.
But at least he's thinking of buying a DS lite, there is some hope for him!
And at least there we have Diddy Kong Racing to look forward to, oh yes!