@Kwaad

I am sorry but you totally misunderstood what I mean. I meant that if we are looking at VF5 sales which was crap on PS3, Namco might decid to go multitap. I didn't mean that a Wii version of Tekken 6 would sell more than a PS3 version, I did mean that the total number would be bigger and thus mayby generate more money. That was also why I think I stated xbox360 before. I also belive that I said that I didn't belive the story.

What's all this talk about Wii not being able to get an "arcade perfect" Tekken 6??

This ain't NES Double Dragon Vs. arcade Double Dragon or Genesis Street Fighter II Vs. arcade Street Fighter II.

Arcades are virtually out of business because consoles caught up to them about 10 years ago. In the 5th gen consoles were JUST UNDER arcades in bringing the complete experience. Framerates, sound effects, all that jazz. Remember all those PS1 games like Marvel Vs. Capcom & stuff like that?

The 6th gen killed the arcades. You got arcade perfect games straight on the console by then! This is why arcades had to come up with new ways of interaction like dancing games and karaoke games and stuff like that to differentiate. Most arcades went out of business the past 7 years. Nobody goes to them anymore when they can get virtually the same experience at home. No quarters to spend, just play play play until you beat it.

Soul Calibur II even on the PS2 was just as equal to an arcade version of the game. I saw Tekken 5 on my friend's PS2. Looked arcade quality to me. There was no more differences and even in the 4th gen consoles were close to catching up to arcades only missing minor elements.

Wii is NOT as powerful as a Gamecube or a PS2 or an XBox. It's MORE powerful than those systems. Weaker than XBox 360 & PS3 specs wise, yes, but not THAT much weaker. I would say Wii's 1/2 to 2/3 as strong as the competition's machines. If the 6th gen machines can pick up on arcade conversions then SURELY the 7th gen systems can.

If I didn't know any better I'd think people thought the Wii was as strong as the Colecovision or something!

I mean be for real, somebody.

John Lucas 

I am expecting from what I have seen and read, and seen slip in forums (not gonna say where as I would rather that not be known)

But it seem like the game is being aimed at multiplayer, massive numbers of people, vehicular combat, strategy, and brains. I am guessing the single player would follow the same general idea. In all honesty, if they turn Liberation into a FPS... that would be one of the best games I've played in a long time. I expect much MUCH much more. The entire team that was makeing liberation, is now working on Killzone PS3. I would say there are getting close to 300 people working full time on Killzone right now. I dont know what all is going in it, but it is gonna be a MASSIVE game. And if it's not, I will loose *all* faith in sony's ability to make games. (Think of it this way, Sony is shipping a HELL-OF-A-LOT more money than they did for God of War. I think Killzone is being made to take Halo3 on... head on. I think they are making a game so amazing, so massive that the hype for it alone will put Halo3 in it's place. I'm guessing at most of this, however I expect it to be towards the top of the top 10 games of the year. (rember, we have God of War2, GTA4, SPORE, Halo3, LAIR, Heavenly Sword, A few big ones from Nintendo, Basically 2007 will be one of the best years in gameing in a long time. Most of it is 360/PS3/PC I feel, however I'm willing to bet that Killzone PS3 will be an amazing game, and even if it dont get good reviews, will be a great game. (Killzone Liberation got raped in reviews, not becuase of liberation, but because of the original. Half the reviews I read have little bad to say about liberation, yet they gave it a 7. Then agian, I've seen them have little to say good about a game and give it a 9 and even a 10 once)

I expect Killzone PS3 to be a large scale FPS, with Urban warfare. It reminds me of B.R.E.E.D. (Dont waste your time looking it up, the early Beta was 4x better than the actual game. The dev team that made that game were getting complaints about stuff they said wasnt in the game, one of the team bought the game retail. *everything* had changed. Art, sound, voice, dialog, some models, physics tweaks. Basically the publisher tuned a D- game into a F- game. (Never expected it to be amazing, but it was fun in the demo, and expected a fun game... not what was released)

Flying a dropship, haveing a tank loaded in the back of it, or even a hovercraft, flying around while being shot at from AA. Hot-dropping a team, and then getting that dropship back home, without loosing it hopefully. Battlefield is such a great game, such a great idea. I hate it. Why? It's a F*king simulator. It dont matter if the guy hits you with a bee-bee gun, or a bomb. Your dead. I like takeing at least a few hits before I die, have a chance to run for cover. I also hate the 'perfect' accuracy people have on a computer. It removes the fun from the game, unless you are one of those 'headshot' people. I like the joystick style aim the most, because everyone has trouble aiming. There is no. 'twitch' style gameplay. So the 'joystick' wont bother me in the least bit. I like it. 

First, arcade machines arent dead. Far from it actually.

Second. Dude, pass please and let me hit that. The Wii is roughly 2x more powerful than a Gamecube with is roughly 2/3rd the power of a x-box. That puts the Wii at about 25% more power than the original x-box. That puts the Wii at roughly a top of the line GeForce3. GeForce4. 50%. GeForce5. 25%. GeForce6. 12.5% GeForce 7. 6.75%

The Wii is roughly 1/20th the power of a PS3. not. 2/3rd.

Let's look at power consumption. PS3 consumes 217watts. Wii consumes under 17watts. The DVD drive, uses about 5 watts of that. That puts the Wii down to about 10watts of power, while the PS3 is still running around 200watts. That means the PS3 is drawing 20x more power for it's graphics. That also points to the 20x more power point. The 360 is basically the same too.

Dude, You are Crazy. 

No, this is not the case with Tekken 6.

For tekken 5 and soul calibur 2 they were originally on System 246/256 boards = arcade boards designed for PS2 portablility.  and the GC version of SC2 was possible because, well GC is more powerful than PS2.

Now tekken 6 is currently in development on a new board that utilizes CELL = PS3.  Pretty fancy graphics and HD resolution and stuff...Wii can not get an arcade/PS3 perfect port.  Wii is more closer powerwise to the 6th generation systems I believe.

Believe me, I would be the most happy person here if T6 was announced for Wii.  I wouldnt care much about HD resolution and perfect graphics as long as gameplay isn't changed from arcade/PS3 version, but saying that Wii is capable of Tekken 6 arcade is far off.

QFT.

@Kwaad

Your 20xenergy used = 20xpower availible is not 100% true. The PS3 is much much more powerfull (anybody seend motorstorm vs ExcitaTruck would confess on that. If you build a chip from the ground to be energy efficence you can possible get out more power per energy than if you only go for more power.

Note I am not stating that Wii is more powerfull or any ratio between tham, because I honestly doesn't know, but to state that more energy used = more power is wrong. One good example is Pentium M, a great processor built to be energy efficence.

One small question didn't sony themself state that PS3 was 10 times the power of the PS2?

 No, it's much faster than that. That would mean the PS3 is slower than the Wii. (the Wii is roughly 10x faster than the PS2) However when the PS2 launched, the hardware in it, wasnt amazing.

robjoh - I know 20x more power does not mean 20x more performance. In the example of Wii vs PS3, if anything it would mean a bigger performance gap. Why? Because the cell is essentically the most efficent processor ever made. Second. The Graphics card on the PS3 is ~10x bigger transistor count than that of the one on the Wii. Basically everything in the PS3 is just as efficent, or more-so than the Wii. If Anything the 20x power diffrence would be more like a 25-30x performance diffrence. But the Wii dont have to deal with the fans as much as the PS3 as well as some other assorted in/outs. I am just saying. There is a reason the Wii runs on about 10watts and the PS3 runs on 200watts. I would be less supprised to see a game that looks real on the PS3 in 2 years, than I would be to see Heavenly Sword on the Wii with the same graphics... Even if it is only 480p.

The Pentium M is a great processor, actually the C2D is based loosely off the Pentium M. The Pentium M is what has destroyed AMD, and now the C2D just cant be touched. AMD does something to equal the speed of the 900$ C2D, Intel released the C2Q (quad). If AMD some-how releases something that fast, Intel will start producting the 8core the next day. Intel is so far ahead of AMD right now, AMD might as well researching chips to sell for the next 2 years, and concentrate ONLY on a chip to come out in 2 years. Because untill they can match intel, their in for some hurts. (When you speak of effiencey, that is a great example of the FX72 vs the fast C2D. One uses 200 watts of power, and the other uses like 50. One is faster. I assure you, the power hog isnt the winner in this case.

However the Cell processor... just for an example, is about 10-20x faster than a C2D. The Cell processor runs on give or take the same power as a C2D. The PowerPC processors are auite efficent, but an example of what is on the Wii, pimped out, look at the 360. They both have the same processor (more or less) Just one is bigger, faster, and more. The 360 has no-where near the CPU power of the PS3, and yet I'm sure the CPU's on the 360 run at least the same power as the PS3. For the graphics cards, this is harder to benchmark as these are what really define the console, and they are exclusive. Meaning you will never be able to see how fast/efficent these are.

I dont know of sony said the PS3 was 10x faster than the PS2, but I do know for a fact the PS3's graphics card is roughly 20x faster than that of the x-box, wich is about 5x faster than a PS2.

The PS2 was never very fast (compared to the home PC market).
The X-Box was 25-50% the speed of a home PC when it launched.
The GameCube was about 20% of a home PC when it launched.

Basically the x-box has a fast GeForce3, The GC has a fast GeForce2. (I know the GC has an ATi card in it, but I am just saying GeForce2 becuase that's about how fast it is) The PS2 is more like the original Riva TNT. (a 2-3 year old graphics card)

The X-box 360's graphics card is about the speed of a GeForce7, while the PS3's is more like a GeForce 7.5

I would say the Wii is like a GeForce3.5

Basicaly 2x speed diffrence per generation.

The PS3/360 are such amazing peices of hardware when it comes to consoles. The PS2 launched and I was like. "Crap it's weak." The x-box was annoucned and I was like. "Whoa cool!" Then 2 years later it's like "Wow that is so last year in it's power."

The PS3/360, still rival a top of the line computer today. I was watching the oblivion trailer on the PSN at 720p, and I noticed that quite a bit of stuff looks BETTER than oblivion for the PC. So actually Oblivion looks better on the PS3 I think. (I can run oblivion @ 1080p with everything max on my PC, I'm not kidding when I say I think that trailer looked better than my PC version)

My point on this is, the PS3-360 are as far as I'm really aware, the only two consoles to launch to really rival a computer in pure power. (when they actually launched)  I think the 360/PS3 will have a much longer life than has been expected from them. I say 8-10 years for both of them. Why? Becuase to do a noticeable performance diffrence. (8x or more) your looking at 4-5 'generations' that will take 6-8 years just for a new '800 dollar' console to be that fast. I dont think sony will do this agian with the 600$ launch console. I think they will wait at least 1 generation beyond that, so they could then build the 8x faster console for under 300$, and then sell it at 250$. The PS2 was slow when it launched. The PS3 is extreme fast. My point is, the x-box was slow when it launched, and it was almost 5x faster than the PS2. The gap between this gen and last gen, is the largest gap in performance ever. And likely will stay that way for quite some time. The Wii is not counted in this, as it is one of the smallest improved consoles from one gen to the next in all history. (this is not a wii attack either dont think it is)

The PS3/360 are just so powerful compared to last gen, and the Wii is like 10% faster than a x-box, so that means the PS3/360 are both around 10-20x faster. This is why I've been saying, the Wii is gonna be in for some hurts becuase multiplatform games just wont work for them. Their gonna have to rely on exclusives, and yet, they dont really have anything amazing announced. I like the 360's lineup quite well, and the only reason I'm holding onto my Wii is becuase there are like 3 games coming out this year I will buy. Next year, is a real question, as I dont know what to expect.

But as long as the PS3+360 sales are higher than the Wii, and as long as PS3 sales alone pass Wii sales, The PS3+360 multiplat combo will just walk all over the Wii. We will see starting next month how well the wii does when big name multiplatform games start showing up.

I will say this now. I expect Spiderman3 to sell MUCH better on Wii than PS3, and even 360. Why? Because children are the people who typically buy that crap, and that is why I expect the Wii to do it. IF the wii actually sells less than the PS3 on Spiderman3, I think the Wii has already lost 3rd party. 

*Sleepy sound effect* Biggest mistake anybody can make is looking purely on specifications to see how powerful a system truly is. Gamecube was in some estimations equal or just under the XBox 1 and loads lighter and smaller than that onyx colored system.

I believe people make things work based on how the tools work together rather than just the singular isolated powers of each component. The truth of the matter is that you haven't really SEEN the full power of the Gamecube or XBox 1 because those systems weren't as successful as they were supposed to be. Their lives got cut short so we didn't get to see fully realized potential of the machine like it would have been for a marketleader where people squeeze every bit of potential out of the machine since it still sells.

I think that's going to be one big surprise with the Wii. An unexplained graphic monster that wasn't supposed to be possible but somehow is. Some developer is going to go inside the system and pull it up to higher optimization using the toolset it has and a lot of people will be surprised. For the artstyle that developer chooses needs a certain output and his/her company follows the Wii because it has the market. They will make it work.

Wii is NOT *so* much weaker than the PS3 & XBox 360 like it's a 6th gen level machine because it's not. I believe it's somewhere in the middle of the two and the simple fact of the matter is that most won't put the effort into the graphics because there's not as much need for that anymore (6th gen solved all reasonable graphical output issues) but a few WILL and that's where the surprise will come in.

Nintendo has played the lamb role the whole way with this project and I don't see why it won't continue that dark horse strategy even towards the power of their machine. Lamb is the Big Bad Wolf and slowly but surely everyone is realizing that. On paper the specs of the Gamecube paled in comparison to the XBox 1 but somehow those systems were virtually equal in graphical output. The whole answer is not ALWAYS on paper.

Here's a quote from some poster at Joystiq that sort of explains Nintendo's approach to the market:

Get back on topic here. Why is the Wii 2/3rd the speed of "the competitors" machine?

Also, Chronicles of Riddick blew anything the GC had out of the water. I think it was one of the best looking games last gen, and still looks damn good by todays standards as well. You wanna speak of power optimization. Look at the PS2. It has almost 1/10th the power of the x-box, and can do FF12, and look so damn good. 

Good post up there Kwaad, however on the multiplatform topic i think it will depend a lot on prices and the user base of the consoles. When i was looking at Marvel Ultimate Alliance i had a choice between the Xbox 360 version or the Wii version. Now to be honest i didn't want to use motion sensitive controls for that type of game so initially i went after the 360 version for that reason and graphical detail. After looking around several stores in my local shopping centre i found it was $109.95 at the cheapest price, however the Wii version was just $69 in the end i went with the Wii version i couldn't justify spending an extra $40 on graphics. It may be a different story in America (differences in prices) however Wii game prices have received a bit of a drop just recently here in Australia, all retail between $60 and $80 while 360 are $100-110 for newish releases and PS3 games go for $100-120. I think this is a big factor when consumers look at games availible on multiple consoles.

We also do not have ANY supply problems with consoles, within one shopping centre you are just about garunteed whatever console you need (with the odd exception of a Wii or PS3)