Wii graphics

steviec · 24-06-2006 03:17PM

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 · 24-06-2006 03:39PM

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 · 24-06-2006 05:31PM

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 · 24-06-2006 10:10PM

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 · 24-06-2006 11:07PM

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 · 24-06-2006 11:10PM

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 · 24-06-2006 11:34PM

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 · 25-06-2006 12:15AM

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 · 25-06-2006 01:53AM

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 · 25-06-2006 01:11PM

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 · 25-06-2006 02:37PM

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 · 25-06-2006 06:01PM

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 · 26-06-2006 12:10AM

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 · 27-06-2006 12:17AM

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 · 27-06-2006 10:18AM

Define "powerful".

CiDeRmAn · 27-06-2006 08:21PM

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 · 28-06-2006 10:45AM

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 · 28-06-2006 11:22AM

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 · 28-06-2006 03:37PM

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 · 29-06-2006 06:42PM

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!

steviec · 29-06-2006 06:59PM

Ah nothing like yet another cartoon kart racing game to really provide us with new ways of experiencing games with new input methods is there! Hmm I wonder what are the odds it'll have a map screen...

Rozie · 29-06-2006 11:26PM

Balfa wrote:

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

In terms of raw processing power, the GC has a customised PowerPC core. While it may be around 450mhz and the Xbox at 733, PowerPCs are at least twice as efficent as their Pentium equivillent. In reality the GC more compares with a 1.2 GHZ P4 processor. Unfortunately it's lack of ram kicked it in the balls.

The GC has some of the best architecture ever in a console - unfortunately the lack of RAM really did it badly.

The ATI Flipper chip is pretty powerful - it's somewhat based off a pretty old crappy Radeon, but uber suped up. Custom chips are the way to go. This is why Wii will be more powerful than people realise. The early titles look like shinier GC titles because that's exactly what they were - devs were told to develop with a GC level of power in mind. Obviously, the original GC titles would have run in pretty low framerates as everyone was expecting Wii to be a bit more powerful than that, when you see them running on Wii they're all bump mapped and running at around twice the framerate as most 360 titles.

Most people say the Wii will remain pretty static - this isn't true. The Wii can afford to cut off a notable amount of it's FPS while still remaining smooth - since most the initial titles are running at between 40 and 60 FPS, most at 60, whereas 360 and PS3 titles are between 24(movie frame rate) and 40.

Since the architecture is similiar to GC, it WILL mean devs can get to grip with it quicker though - but we won't see this until the second generation, most likely, as the first generation will all be improved GC titles, essentially.

The reality is neither Sony nor Microsoft really know how to make an efficent console. The original Playstation was quite efficent, but suffered from horrible problems like warped textures and shaky environments. The PS2 was undobutedly slightly worse looking than the Dreamcast, despite the rumour mill.

My guess is the specs for Wii will seem pretty low, but it will surprise everyone as there is a lot of new technology going into the GPU.

My guess at the specs:

Custom PowerPC core "Broadway" @ 1.65 GHZ.
Custom ATI Radeon "Hollywood" @ 390 MHZ - highly customisable shaders, displacement mapping, bump mapping, next generation anti-aliasing compensating for lack of HD, . New graphics libraries offering DX9-like effects, but further extended(to help some of the weird visuals that Nintendo will no doubt be churning out in games like Mario Galaxy).
88 MB 1T-SRAM, 96 MB eDRAM - accessable as RAM or VRAM.

Purely speculative based on what I've read so far of course. Just trying to get a decent halfway point, and based on the best Wii titles I've seen.

1huge1 · 29-06-2006 11:34PM

you've clearly done your research

Wii graphics

Comments