We don't know if those consoles maxed out on those games mentioned. We just know those were some of the most visually impressive games on the platforms.

Dreamcast inparticular was discontinued around 2002 so I don't think we ever saw its true potential. Its not like we saw PS2's true potential in 2002.

That may possibly be true with other consoles but not with the Dreamcast. Yu Suzuki had the devs do things that had never been done before in gaming ever with Shenmue. Some of those things were not even thought to be technically possible for the system like the stretching and bending of the phone cord in Shenmue 2 that was used only once.

Yu Suzuki made them get as much out of the system towards his intended ideal design as they could. Not all could be done, but they pushed it as close as they could.

Doom3 and Half-life 2 had to be reuilt slightly for the Xbox because it was not strong enough to handle the straight versions of the games. They reoptimzed the games to get them on the Xbox 1 as accurately as they possibly could. Lighting, shadows, normal mapping and physics on a level that was never seen on a console before were implemented. You tell that Doom 3 hit the max of the Xbox 1 by the frame rate.

Then say Turbo3D microcode.  Don't just make up something like Super Mode.  And if you noticed, I even asked you if you meant the microcode.

Turbo3D was a microcode from Nintendo themselves but wasn't used because it saturated system rsources so much it made it unusable.  However, thee were several custom microocdes written from dozens of developers that exceeded the default SGI microcode.

And therein lies your N64 answer on why it was never maxed out.  Becuase you can always write better microcode.  Hell, you could even say a bigger catridge could be developed too.  Again, there are games that push it harder than others but you can't max out a console.

It was more the textures I noticed. Many of them were N64 level due to the difficulty they had cramming the game into 64MB of RAM.

Can you please point me to where you specifically said "optimisation of specific components"? I only found this quote, which was the quote I was referring to:

"Games that use all of the features that the base console has to offer."

You did specify in the subsequent post that it was, in fact, the graphics you were referring to:

"I'm pretty sure I specificed that I was talking about graphics specifically."

As for the remainder of your post, you're blaming me for using technical jargon, yet you're trying to assert your knowledge on the systems. So...why annoyed at the jargon, exactly? It was you who I'm replying to. Was it still too technical, despite your knowledge of the systems? 

I think this is the main point to this discussion. It may be easier if you could quantify what it means exactly to "push the hardware", but at the end of the day we all know the difference between a game that tried to look its best and one that didn't. This isn't just about polygon counts or number of shaders implemented, it's about the overall impression you get when seeing the game for the first time, and what that implies about the effort that went behind making it.

When the best looking 3rd party games on Wii can't match the quality of the best Gamecbe games, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to tell you somethings wrong.

If you look at the link provided by curl-6, I think Eggebrecht sums it up nicely - there are indeed compatability issues that would prevent every engine from being ported over, but given the success of the system you'd expect at least some companies to want to push the hardware in order to differentiate themselves from the crowd... but I guess that kind of logic is SO 2007

It's mostly because this time around there were other ways to go high-end graphics. Sure, you can say that the HD market was saturated, but truth is, Wii-ish games also were lacking on the HD twins, so the "well is dry" argument applies both ways.

That's why it's so 2007, because back then (or a year or two prior), people made consoles that stood up to the rest.

by that logic publishers should have stuck with pc gaming in the ps2 era...

you can argue what developers have argued, that there is no market for third party games on Wii. There are plenty of threads dedicated to that, no need to go into it here. But if you accept that Wii sells and that you would benefit from having a piece of that success, what reason is there not to want to push the hardware?

Of all the complicated decisions publishers have to make about market compatibilty or demographics or timing or brand recognition or whatever, this one is a no brainer! Plus it's a bit too convenient that ALL Knowledge of the architecture of the Gamecube was LOST in the span of 12-18 months! There are some fine engines running on GC*, and there was no reason why they weren't the starting point for development on Wii.

*besides Nintendo's engines, RE4 and the rougue squadron games, Namco and Sega both had very capable engines from developing Starfox and F Zero on the cube, the engine used in the game Metal Arms was very good, Square had good tech with which they developed the original Crystal Chronicles, and there were others, not to mention using any licensed engine like gamebryo or unreal 2.5 etc.

Its not made up. It was a combination two simple terms to convey the magnitude of the feature to people who lack technical knolwedge. More people will understand what I am explaining to them when I use the words "super" and "mode" than when I say Turbo3D microcode. They do not know what that is and aren't likely to look for it. Saying it will not enlighten them at all as a esult. I do not need to explain it to myself and I do not need to explain it to the few people who do know what it is. Those who want to know the details of it can research it themsleves.

I do not need you to explain to me why it was and wasn't used. I already know. I wasn't asking. I was talking to the people who "don't" know.

I'm not talking about added features. I'm talking about the core unit. How many times have I had to repeat this? If you want to get into using bigger and newer hardware componants or replacing the default instruction set then you are leaving the realm of the core system. If you want to get that technical, we can go into soldering stronger components unto the motherboard, reprogramming the bios and and increasing the number of pins in the controller sockets.

You are splitting hairs and begging the question into oblivion to prove your point, but the point has been off from the moment you talked about any alteration to the provided hardware and its base set of instructions. That is in an entirely different realm then what we are getting at in this thread. We are talking about the max that can be achieved by the system as is.

The main point of this thread is that we have yet to see a Wii game that pushed more polygons and shader effects than Rebel Strike on the Gamecube. I'm not going to argue about the N64 with you.

This is all such wishful thinking. The HD twins surpassed the Wii in marketshare from the get-go. The businesses had their business models shaped around the promise of the PS3, not the GC's successor. The Wii was a HUGE business risk and 3rd parties were not ready to invest on the platform. Fast-forward 2-3 years when the Wii proved itself, here is what you have:

1) Their legwork is already done on the HD twins, and their market is established.

2) The Wii market is now shaped to look for non-gamer and casual experiences, NOT the type of consumer that is looking for cutting edge necessarily.

I mean, I know there are people that like both approachable games and high-end graphics such as Smash Bros and Mario Galaxy. But that was not a very big market this gen. Hopefully gen8 Nintendo will be able to lead the pack as 3rd parties are more ready to embrace them as a manufacturer, but to expect people to max out the Wii is tremendously counter-market! Yes, there were exceptions as there should naturally have been (Capcom, Monolith, which is 1st party, Nintendo), but that was the nature of this gen and the product of Nintendo's low-end disruption strategy and poor 3rd party relations.

Nothing, absolutely NOTHING to cry over. BLAME NINTENDO DAMNIT. And If you're gonna ask "Youman, bro?", the answer is YES I AM. I am damn ennerved by the sheer denial on this forum, plain and simple. Nintendo made a mistake, call it! Don't start asking for the unexpectable.

I expect Nintendo to regain its place in the market, but that is something possible, something I believe that if they make their wrongs right again, they will succeed. To blame 3rd parties is to miss where the true problem lies, and it was in Nintendo's horrible 3rd party past. They needed a gen to fix that, now it's time for the future. Call in the WiiU.

You know what? If Nintendo needed to scrap high-end this gen so as to become #1 on a manufacturer basis and kick ass gen 8, then bring it on.