Quantcast
3DS is more powerful than Wii!

Forums - Nintendo Discussion - 3DS is more powerful than Wii!

@masschamber  HD consoles got a Contra too, and I believe the App store has one as well



Around the Network
jarrod said:
Cheebee said:
LordTheNightKnight said:
Cheebee said:
NoirSon said:

The Wii is more powerful then the original Xbox and the GC, neither of which were ever pushed to the edge of what could be done with it.

Lol, I think games like the Rogue Squadron games and Resident Evil 4 would like a word with you. XD


Fixed. SFA pales in comparison to Twilight Princess.

SFA had way better grass, water, and fur effects though.


SFA was also a silky 60 fps (TP is only 30 fps).  Really, it was one of the most technically impressive games last gen imo, and weirdly moreso even than Rare's later Xbox 1 games.

My point exactly.



Nintendo Network ID: Cheebee   3DS Code: 2320 - 6113 - 9046

 

Cheebee said:
jarrod said:
Cheebee said:
LordTheNightKnight said:
Cheebee said:
NoirSon said:

The Wii is more powerful then the original Xbox and the GC, neither of which were ever pushed to the edge of what could be done with it.

Lol, I think games like the Rogue Squadron games and Resident Evil 4 would like a word with you. XD


Fixed. SFA pales in comparison to Twilight Princess.

SFA had way better grass, water, and fur effects though.


SFA was also a silky 60 fps (TP is only 30 fps).  Really, it was one of the most technically impressive games last gen imo, and weirdly moreso even than Rare's later Xbox 1 games.

My point exactly.


Framerate alone is not enough to be more impressive. Polygon count, texturing, and effects (fur shading isn't even as good as Crystal Chronicles, and only beats TP by quanity, not quality) are all topped by few GC games than Twilight Princess.



A flashy-first game is awesome when it comes out. A great-first game is awesome forever.

Plus, just for the hell of it: Kelly Brook at the 2008 BAFTAs

LordTheNightKnight said:


Framerate alone is not enough to be more impressive. Polygon count, texturing, and effects (fur shading isn't even as good as Crystal Chronicles, and only beats TP by quanity, not quality) are all topped by few GC games than Twilight Princess.

Well, to be honest, SFA's overall graphics and effects trump most other last-gen games (and most Wii ones too, sadly). Other games may have had certain effects that were executed better than in SFA, but SFA was a complete package, graphics-wise.

Everything from the framerate to the character models, the animations, the lighting, the fur, grass and water effects to the textures were utterly top-notch, at the time. That doesn't say anything about the overall quality of the game of course, but to deny it was one of the very best looking games of last gen is just silly.



Nintendo Network ID: Cheebee   3DS Code: 2320 - 6113 - 9046

 

Cheebee said:
LordTheNightKnight said:


Framerate alone is not enough to be more impressive. Polygon count, texturing, and effects (fur shading isn't even as good as Crystal Chronicles, and only beats TP by quanity, not quality) are all topped by few GC games than Twilight Princess.

Well, to be honest, SFA's overall graphics and effects trump most other last-gen games (and most Wii ones too, sadly). Other games may have had certain effects that were executed better than in SFA, but SFA was a complete package, graphics-wise.

Everything from the framerate to the character models, the animations, the lighting, the fur, grass and water effects to the textures were utterly top-notch, at the time. That doesn't say anything about the overall quality of the game of course, but to deny it was one of the very best looking games of last gen is just silly.

1. "to be honest" should precede a fact, not an opinion.

2. I'm still going to call it quantity over quality. Those effects were still topped by other games, just none had as many at once as SFA. Plus the polygon count and texturing was lower than other GC games, so they had more room in the system resources for more of them.

So it's an effects buffet, but that does not mean it's overall more impressive than other GC games, as they pushed the system in other ways.



A flashy-first game is awesome when it comes out. A great-first game is awesome forever.

Plus, just for the hell of it: Kelly Brook at the 2008 BAFTAs

Around the Network
LordTheNightKnight said:
Cheebee said:
LordTheNightKnight said:


Framerate alone is not enough to be more impressive. Polygon count, texturing, and effects (fur shading isn't even as good as Crystal Chronicles, and only beats TP by quanity, not quality) are all topped by few GC games than Twilight Princess.

Well, to be honest, SFA's overall graphics and effects trump most other last-gen games (and most Wii ones too, sadly). Other games may have had certain effects that were executed better than in SFA, but SFA was a complete package, graphics-wise.

Everything from the framerate to the character models, the animations, the lighting, the fur, grass and water effects to the textures were utterly top-notch, at the time. That doesn't say anything about the overall quality of the game of course, but to deny it was one of the very best looking games of last gen is just silly.

1. "to be honest" should precede a fact, not an opinion.

2. I'm still going to call it quantity over quality. Those effects were still topped by other games, just none had as many at once as SFA. Plus the polygon count and texturing was lower than other GC games, so they had more room in the system resources for more of them.

So it's an effects buffet, but that does not mean it's overall more impressive than other GC games, as they pushed the system in other ways.

No, I'd honestly say it's still upper tier for GameCube, up there with stuff like Rogue Squadron 2-3, Metroid Prime 1-2 and RE4.  I hate the art though, it's not a "good looking" game imo, but it's still very technically impressive, much moreso than nearly everything else on the system.  It's also doing a lot of texture layers (and they're high quality) and the models are decently complex, so I'm not really sure what you're getting at there?  There's pretty nothing else on the system that runs in 60fps that does as much as SFA, and even most 30fps games (like Zelda actually) have lower polycounts and fewer effects going.

I'd say the best looking GC games are still probably The Wind Waker, Luigi's Mansion, FFCC and F-Zero GX, but that comes purely down to art and consistency.  None of the 3 are really all that technically impressive (though FFCC has some very nice water effects).



jarrod said:
LordTheNightKnight said:
Cheebee said:
LordTheNightKnight said:


Framerate alone is not enough to be more impressive. Polygon count, texturing, and effects (fur shading isn't even as good as Crystal Chronicles, and only beats TP by quanity, not quality) are all topped by few GC games than Twilight Princess.

Well, to be honest, SFA's overall graphics and effects trump most other last-gen games (and most Wii ones too, sadly). Other games may have had certain effects that were executed better than in SFA, but SFA was a complete package, graphics-wise.

Everything from the framerate to the character models, the animations, the lighting, the fur, grass and water effects to the textures were utterly top-notch, at the time. That doesn't say anything about the overall quality of the game of course, but to deny it was one of the very best looking games of last gen is just silly.

1. "to be honest" should precede a fact, not an opinion.

2. I'm still going to call it quantity over quality. Those effects were still topped by other games, just none had as many at once as SFA. Plus the polygon count and texturing was lower than other GC games, so they had more room in the system resources for more of them.

So it's an effects buffet, but that does not mean it's overall more impressive than other GC games, as they pushed the system in other ways.

No, I'd honestly say it's still upper tier for GameCube, up there with stuff like Rogue Squadron 2-3, Metroid Prime 1-2 and RE4.  I hate the art though, it's not a "good looking" game imo, but it's still very technically impressive, much moreso than nearly everything else on the system.  It's also doing a lot of texture layers (and they're high quality) and the models are decently complex, so I'm not really sure what you're getting at there?  There's pretty nothing else on the system that runs in 60fps that does as much as SFA, and even most 30fps games (like Zelda actually) have lower polycounts and fewer effects going.

I'd say the best looking GC games are still probably The Wind Waker, Luigi's Mansion, FFCC and F-Zero GX, but that comes purely down to art and consistency.  None of the 3 are really all that technically impressive (though FFCC has some very nice water effects).

star wars games are all 60 fps with all of the effects goodness of star fox, possibly even moreso, wonder what factor 5 or rare would have been able to accomplish on the wii (especially since factor 5 said the fillrate was the ceiling with their gc games and the wii supposedly has three times the fill of the gc, 8 pixel pipes by 243 mhz vs 4 by 162)

regardless they are among the few gc games with extensive bump mapping, multi texturing, and many lighting effects, with star wars rebel strike having extensive thing like rim lighting, self shadowing and etc.



I HAVE A DOUBLE DRAGON CAB IN MY KITCHEN!!!!!!

NOW A PUNISHER CAB!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Just the fact that it's on par makes me happy  :)



tarheel91 said:

I think you're going to find the average graphical quality of games on the 3DS to be better than that of those on the Wii because it uses a more traditional setup as opposed to the TEV.  There aren't too many devs that are really good with the TEV.



What the hell is TEV?



masschamber said:
jarrod said:
LordTheNightKnight said:
Cheebee said:
LordTheNightKnight said:


Framerate alone is not enough to be more impressive. Polygon count, texturing, and effects (fur shading isn't even as good as Crystal Chronicles, and only beats TP by quanity, not quality) are all topped by few GC games than Twilight Princess.

Well, to be honest, SFA's overall graphics and effects trump most other last-gen games (and most Wii ones too, sadly). Other games may have had certain effects that were executed better than in SFA, but SFA was a complete package, graphics-wise.

Everything from the framerate to the character models, the animations, the lighting, the fur, grass and water effects to the textures were utterly top-notch, at the time. That doesn't say anything about the overall quality of the game of course, but to deny it was one of the very best looking games of last gen is just silly.

1. "to be honest" should precede a fact, not an opinion.

2. I'm still going to call it quantity over quality. Those effects were still topped by other games, just none had as many at once as SFA. Plus the polygon count and texturing was lower than other GC games, so they had more room in the system resources for more of them.

So it's an effects buffet, but that does not mean it's overall more impressive than other GC games, as they pushed the system in other ways.

No, I'd honestly say it's still upper tier for GameCube, up there with stuff like Rogue Squadron 2-3, Metroid Prime 1-2 and RE4.  I hate the art though, it's not a "good looking" game imo, but it's still very technically impressive, much moreso than nearly everything else on the system.  It's also doing a lot of texture layers (and they're high quality) and the models are decently complex, so I'm not really sure what you're getting at there?  There's pretty nothing else on the system that runs in 60fps that does as much as SFA, and even most 30fps games (like Zelda actually) have lower polycounts and fewer effects going.

I'd say the best looking GC games are still probably The Wind Waker, Luigi's Mansion, FFCC and F-Zero GX, but that comes purely down to art and consistency.  None of the 3 are really all that technically impressive (though FFCC has some very nice water effects).

star wars games are all 60 fps with all of the effects goodness of star fox, possibly even moreso, wonder what factor 5 or rare would have been able to accomplish on the wii (especially since factor 5 said the fillrate was the ceiling with their gc games and the wii supposedly has three times the fill of the gc, 8 pixel pipes by 243 mhz vs 4 by 162)

regardless they are among the few gc games with extensive bump mapping, multi texturing, and many lighting effects, with star wars rebel strike having extensive thing like rim lighting, self shadowing and etc.

Factor 5 downported their Lair engine to Wii after Sony broke out of their multigame contract.  There's a terrain video floating around somewhere on the internet, kind of impressive iirc.

The only dev I've ever really been impressed with on Wii is probably EAD Tokyo.  A few others have done some nice looking stuff (notably Capcom, Retro, Konami, Eurocom, Sonic Team, etc), but nothing that's really wowed me in the same way.