Sony cry: Wii is Just "Impulse Purchase"

[sieanr]

KwaadYour 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.

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.

KwaadMy 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.

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.

KwaadWithout 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.

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.

KwaadWhat 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.

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.

KwaadSomeone... 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.

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?

KwaadWhat 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.

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.