Ok, so zelda is a gamecube port. I dont care, the best looking game for a nintendo console ever in my opinion was RE4. Nothing I have seen has even made me think twice on my opinion on that. Also, I have a 40inch 1080p Samsung. ;) Gundam dosent look THAT bad... The Gundam world is desolate and empty. Look at the mech designs for the Zeon. They are BEAUTIFUL. x-box cant do that. :)

And that's why I mentioned Prime 3 and SMG. http://videogames.yahoo.com/predownload?eid=462427 (Prime) and http://videogames.yahoo.com/predownload?eid=462390 (Mario) Retro Studios has stated it is going to add a lot more details to the finalized version of Prime 3 so the graphics will be improved. Nintendo doesn't compete in high-def, so you're demand for better than PS3 looking Wii game on 40 inch screen is asking for a moon from the sky. But on a standard def, Wii is able to produce graphics comparable to the 360 and PS3. Think graphics twice better than RE4. That's what were hopefully going to see in Umbrella Chronicles (developing for Wii is similar to GC and Capcom knows how to program games for GC). Madden NFL 07 is pretty good example for good-enough graphics. I don't think average player with standard TV would prefer the PS3 or 360 versions of Madden, especially considering the great controls (see reviews) on Wii's version.

The pointer isn't a fairy, but a star... Anyway, for Mario to be an astronaut he would have to fly a spaceship. But by your logic he's also a cosmonaut. Either way, your starting a stupid argument to try and marginalize a major title for the Wii. So what if his expand his character every now and then? After all it is a relatively cartoon like series, so sticking strictly to canon is irrelevant. By this same reasoning each new final fantasy is stupid because it's about different characters in a different world... And Gundam is ugly, even with it's simplistic environments it still can't run at a steady frame rate while "only" at 720p. But I guess desolate and empty must be an excuse to repeat the same texture every five feet, or to have tons of buildings that are indistinguishable from one another -- aka, make two 3d models of a house and use them to craft an entire city. Although if you mean that the original xbox can't come close to the zeon model, than I agree with you, however if your talking about the 360 than your off your rocker. Of course your the same person who claimed the gamecube had the worst graphics of last gen, so this isn't to shocking. Regardless, this entire argument is stupid. Genji looks amazing but is still god awful. Ridge Racer also looks great, but plays the exact same as RR3. Zelda has an amazing art style and attention to detail, but is a GC title with wii controls added at the last moment. Red steel is a half hearted attempt to cash in at launch. Give both systems some time before you can really do a fair comparison between games. Many people were saying the 360 looked indistinguishable from last gen, but now thats changed. The same will happen with the Wii's graphics like Gamecube, or the PS3 looking the same, or in some cases worst than 360.

I was just meaning that Gundam pushes models that couldnt be done on a standard x-box. Your talking about power, and how consoles evolve. Correct. The fact a first gen PS3 game looks better/asgood as any 360 game, that is saying the PS3 is an animal. Now I dont expect the Wii to compare. It isnt a 800$ console. it's about a 100$ console. I however, do expect games to not give me migranes. And I do expect to see 3d titles that look better than games for the N64. My point is, the Wii, on a hardware level. is a glorifyed GameCube. Meaning it should look better. It is rumored the Wii cant support bump mapping. And it cant support pixel shaders, as bump mapping is a very simple shader. Without pixel shaders... the Wii needs 2x more power to do a single task. eg: there are pixel shaders that can give a almost identical result as AA. however AA uses almost as much power as the rendering. And the pixel shader uses no more than 2% of it's power, while AA uses 50%. wich leaves 48% more power for graphics. What I am saying is. The GameCube was the... from specefications... the slowest console last time around. The Wii is showing to be a glorifyed GameCube. (with modern features) Let's say this... Name me one Wii game that looks better than God Of War. Or let's even go further back. Name me one Wii game that looks better than FFX. Someone... cant rember who, has a wireless PS2 controller that works like the Wiimote. So buy that controller for 50$ (cheaper than wiimote/nunchuck) hook it into your PS2. (less than half the price of a Wii) and there you go. You have a more powerful system, for about half the price. One of my points agianst the Wii. It is not a 250$ console. it is a 100$ console, being sold for 250$. I feel ripped on the hardware. if I paid 100$ for it... or hell, 150$... or even 200$ +zelda. I would be relativly happy with my buy. I wouldnt feel duped. Speaking of Duped. WarioWare. 50$ = ~2hours of gameplay. 25$/hour. NFS. 50$ = ~30minutes of gameplay. 100$/hour Rayman. 50$ = ~15hours of gameplay. ~3$/hour. Zelda 50$ = ~30 hours of gameplay. ~1.8$/hour. PS2. Tales of the Abyss. 30$ = over 20hours so far. ~1.2$/hour. Lego Starwars2 30$ = close to 40hours so far. ~0.80$/hour. PS3. Resistance FOM. 60$ = ~70 hours of gameplay so far. ~0.90$/hour. Gundam. 60$ (I didnt buy it). ~10 hours. 6$/hour. Full Auto2 60$. = ~20 hours of play. 3$/hour. Dark Kingdom. 60$ = ~25hours of play. 2.25$/hour What that chart means to me, is how much I Play a game for it's value. How I truely decide if it was worth it. An AAA game, might only take 2 hours to beat, wich would be 30$/hour. but was the experience WORTH 30$ an hour? Was my experience with NFS on the Wii worth 100$/hour? Was my experience with Warioware worth 25$/hour? A few simple words. No. The only game I would be willing to play for more than 10$/hour, would be a zelda, final fantasy, or some KILLER RPG. I have bought every zelda, and I havent complained much about any of them. I have bought almost every mario there is. I havent liked a one after Mario64. I have bought both the new metroid primes. Their both great games. Will they force you to use the new controller? Will the game feel as good as it did? I dont know. I havent played it. But I have learned 1 thing from getting ripped off so many times from the Wii. I will not buy another game for it without renting it first.

I never said it looks better, in fact it's quite the opposite with games demonstrating equal graphical prowess being the exception. Look at cross platform titles; on the PS3 there is usually noticeably less detailed textures -- likely due to the PS3's split RAM, and in some there is considerable stuttering. The fact that nit's nearing the 360 this early on is due to the date of the launch. Both systems have very similar specs, so really it's up to the developers to take advantage of the hardware, in which case many factors outside of power come into play that dictate what a Dev can pull off. True, the Wii is a uber GameCube. But I have no idea where your pulling the "can't do bump mapping" from. The GC could do bump, but it was rarely used by developers, just see Rouge Leader for proof(a launch title by the way). In fact it has been verified that the Wii can handle Normal mapping, a more advanced form of bump, just fine. The Gamecube didn't support true pixel shaders in hardware, but rumor has it the Wii does. Then again, rumor has it that it lacks hardware shaders, or has very limited shaders that don't fully support dx8 features. BTW: Bump mapping isn't necessarily a vertex shader only effect, as a vpu can also handle it. I really can't tell what your trying to say by this, except AA makes a big hardware hit and a blurring effect via shader is almost indistinguishable. Neither is true. Shader blurring is noticeable different and rarely used, although how noticeable this is at 480x640 is debatable. AA is really dependent on the hardware, for example the 360's GPU basically gets "free" 4x AA, largely because of the EDRAM. However, doing AA in puts a serious dent in performance. Actually, if you were to do a comparison from something as stupid as clock speed, you would see that the GC is superior. In fact, the GC is superior to the PS2 in almost every regard, except virtually useless specs like more gflops (which the PS2 was better than xbox, but which console had better visuals?) Also, the GC is far more efficient and could come close to attaining it's stated performance, whereas the PS2 had it's figures derived from synthetic benchmarks that state the absolute limits of its power - for example, it's figure for max polys is without texture, lighting or anything else, which results in a number far from in game performance. And regarding graphics compared to PS2, lets compare RE4 since it's a direct comparison. In the PS2 version, you see allot of simplified models, especially characters. Most objects have a lower poly count, and all have lower resolution/blurrier textures. But in my opinion, the biggest difference is the lighting. The PS2 version seems "flat", with much lower contrast and very dull, simple reflections off people and building. Furthermore, many subtle graphical effects are absent, and jaggier. Don't believe me, just look at side by side comparisons and the difference is clear, which is saying allot since RE4 is a graphically amazing PS2 title. Speaking of which, God of War has many of the same problems as RE4 on the PS2. Look at things closely and you'll notice simple geometry and textures, as well as dull lighting. IMHO RE4 is far superior to GOW from a visual standpoint. Right, cause developers would make games for a third party controller for the PS2, as opposed to a more powerful system with a designed to take advantage of a better implemented motion sensing controller. But I feel paying $500 to $600 for a VIDEO GAME console is too much, but thats just me, right? Surely everyone feels the exact opposite, right? PS3's are probably sold out everywhere, with Bluray and cell ensuring each game scores at least a 9 from the amazing, new gaming experience they provide, since a new type of controller can do nothing for gaming, right? Great, thats what you should do. Play games because you enjoy them. But don't, for one second, think everyone feels the same as you. Plenty of people are more than happy with their Wii's, "sub PS2 graphics" and all. And other people, myself included, feel ripped off or a little dissatisfied with the PS3. I don't find RFOM to be compelling enough to invest 70 hours into, even the multiplayer, but for you it must be - and thats find. Just don't expect people to care about your gripes with certain games or systems that much.

First off. the 360's GPU has about 25% of it's transistors DEDICATED to AA. (it can do nothing else) That is one way you can *duh* tell the PS3's GPU is faster. It has 5% less transistors, runs at a 30% higher clock speed, and has 0 transistors dedicated to AA. so really that makes the GPU equal... so the PS3's gpu is ~25% faster from those rough numbers. (that is why the 360 does not suffer performance hit with AA, as 25% of it's GPU is dedicated to it) Second. Please send me a link to where the GC is faster in any regard to the PS2. Last time I checked... when I bought my GC. it was about 80% that of a PS2. and about half a X-Box. I agree the PS2 does some crafty stuff to make games look better. But hey, they could always make games like 90% of GC games, and just use 4k textures, and mediocore polygon counts, and call it a 'unique' art style. and run at 25% power. (i'm sorry I dont complain about games like that, but I dont feel they look as good as GodofWar. I really like RE4 for the GC. However, RE4 was made for the GC. the Ported to the PS2. Because of that, it was optimized for the GCs hardware. meaning if the PS2's version looks 'almost' as good, it can brute-force a GC. :) You wanna talk about graphics. FF10 looks FAR better than RE4. Dont even THINK of comparing FF12. I seriously, NEVER expected anything like that from the PS2. Wich is actually why it should be compared. FF12, best looking PS2, vs. RE4. Best looking Nintendo. (I say nintendo, because I think it looks better than anything announced for Wii yet) And let's compare FF12 to FF13. FF12 is to FF7 as FF13 is to FF12. :)

The 360 GPU has two separate dies. The main die, where all the real processing is done, is 232 million transistors. By comparison, the PS3's GPU is at approx. 300mil, and those have the burden of handling AA. The 360 has the advantage of offloading all of that onto the EDRAM, which gives it 4x AA with no real performance hit. The fact that the PS3 has no transistors dedicated to AA is a disadvantage, since you have to steal power to pull it off. This is why many PS3 games lack AA or look jaggier than their 260 counterparts. It's not like "25%" of the 360's GPU is dedicated to AA, it's more like it has an extra part, and this is an awful analogy I can't help but make - it's like adding a turbocharger to an engine. Clock speed is a stupid comparison, and one where you severely distort the facts. The 360's GPU is at 500mhz, whereas the PS3 is at 550mhz(it was originally 600). That's at 10% clock difference, not 30% higher. I guess walgreens taught you a thing or two about numbers, like your skills at a register. The thing your forgetting is the Xenos is a far more advanced, modern and efficient design, with features like unified shaders that the RSX lacks. There is a good reason why the people at beyond 3d swoon over the 360's GPU whereas they're relatively apathetic toward RSX. But I'm sure non of this will sway your opinion, since the PS2 is faster in every regard to the Gamecube. It's so much faster that it's CPU is 294MHZ vs the GC's 485MHZ CPU. That's right, the PS2 is so much faster than the GC that it's CPU is slower. Same with the PS2's GPU, or it's smaller amount of ram, or lower fill rate, or real world poly performance. And go back and look at FF10 again, even screen shots online. You likely think the game looks far better than it really does, and it's something I've done in the past. Super Mario Sunshine pushed far more polygons than FF10 or 12 ever did, and had fake depth of field to boot. Also, RE4 started development as a PS2 title.

Damn Kwaad, from reading all your posts, you'd think Nintendo raped your mom, poked your sister in the eye, burnt your house down and kicked your puppy to boot.

1-Sinear an Kwak: Nevermind the Anti-aliasing, AA is only usefull whit 720p, PS3 an Xbox 360 cannot run 1080p whit AA, and even if can you need a microscope to discerne any diference, AA only was created for low resolutions. 2-The comparisions Gamecube/PS2: It's very hard, ¿on wich models are based this comparisions?.Ej: PS2's Pro Evolution Soccer 5 SUCHS 'literaly' running in a PS2 model early 2001, but it's COOL running in a PS2 'slim' auttum 2004. 3-Kwak, i can't understand, if Wii and the 'Wiimigrane' controller suchs, ¿why buy a PS3? if it was a controller system base than Wii.

You say AA is only useful for low resolutions, but you also say it's only good with 720. I can easily tell the difference with AA on or off at 480, just as I can tell the difference at 1050 on my PC(granted, I'm only a few feet away) We are (or maybe it's just me) comparing GC to PS2 using specs only. Of course, most reasonable people will tell you that the GC is superior to the PS2 in almost every regard. But some people try and insist otherwise, basing their assumption off of misunderstood specs and half truths.