By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Nintendo - Most technically advanced game on Wii?

Darc Requiem on 11 August 2012
Viper1 said:
curl-6 said:
Viper1 said:
curl-6 said:
So in technical terms is there any game on Wii that couldn't be done on the original Xbox? It is more powerful than the last gen Xbox, isn't it?

There are a few games that would not be possible exactly as they are on Wii.    But things could be scaled back in such a way or rednered with a different technique that it would be hard to notice the difference.

Out of curiosity, what are these games?

Pretty much all those already mentioned. 

Navane said:
Darc Requiem said:

The Rogue Squadron games on Gamecube couldn't be done on Xbox. Lucasarts was going to port RS2 and RS3 to Xbox but they couldn't get the games running nearly as well as their GC counter parts so they canned the port.

Dude, do you have a source that proves that? If you do I'd love to be able to read it.

Darc is actually correct.  I'd have to track down the interview but this was a pretty big notch in the GC belt when that interview came out.


Yeah I haven't been able to find anything on the net. It was big deal at the time. I know the GC could do single pass multexturing with twice the light sources of the Xbox. I think that was one of the primary reasons.



Around the Network
curl-6 on 12 August 2012
Darc Requiem said:
Viper1 said:
curl-6 said:
Viper1 said:
curl-6 said:
So in technical terms is there any game on Wii that couldn't be done on the original Xbox? It is more powerful than the last gen Xbox, isn't it?

There are a few games that would not be possible exactly as they are on Wii.    But things could be scaled back in such a way or rednered with a different technique that it would be hard to notice the difference.

Out of curiosity, what are these games?

Pretty much all those already mentioned. 

Navane said:
Darc Requiem said:

The Rogue Squadron games on Gamecube couldn't be done on Xbox. Lucasarts was going to port RS2 and RS3 to Xbox but they couldn't get the games running nearly as well as their GC counter parts so they canned the port.

Dude, do you have a source that proves that? If you do I'd love to be able to read it.

Darc is actually correct.  I'd have to track down the interview but this was a pretty big notch in the GC belt when that interview came out.


Yeah I haven't been able to find anything on the net. It was big deal at the time. I know the GC could do single pass multexturing with twice the light sources of the Xbox. I think that was one of the primary reasons.

Couldn't the Gamecube push more polygons in effect-heavy situations too? I heard Rogue Squadron 3 pushed 20 million polygons per second while also running self-shadowing, light scattering, and tons of bumpmapping, which is INSANE for a last gen console.



Darc Requiem on 12 August 2012

Yes it could. Both the PS2 and Xbox touted specs that where unachievable in real situations. Nintendo's Gamecube specs were conservative and based on actuation gaming situations. Nintendo said the Gamecube could render 6 to 12 million polygons a second will all effects. Rogue Squadron 2, a Gamecube launch title, rendered 13.2 million polygons a second with all effects. Rogue Squadron 3 rendered 20 million polygons with all effects. Both games rendered at 60 fps.



Navane on 12 August 2012
Darc Requiem said:

Yes it could. Both the PS2 and Xbox touted specs that where unachievable in real situations. Nintendo's Gamecube specs were conservative and based on actuation gaming situations. Nintendo said the Gamecube could render 6 to 12 million polygons a second will all effects. Rogue Squadron 2, a Gamecube launch title, rendered 13.2 million polygons a second with all effects. Rogue Squadron 3 rendered 20 million polygons with all effects. Both games rendered at 60 fps.


I guess I'll have to take your word for it. But isn't it a fact that the Xbox was a more powerful system than the GCN?



I don't know why people tell me to get a life. I'm a gamer, I have lots of lives!

lilbroex on 12 August 2012
Navane said:
Darc Requiem said:

Yes it could. Both the PS2 and Xbox touted specs that where unachievable in real situations. Nintendo's Gamecube specs were conservative and based on actuation gaming situations. Nintendo said the Gamecube could render 6 to 12 million polygons a second will all effects. Rogue Squadron 2, a Gamecube launch title, rendered 13.2 million polygons a second with all effects. Rogue Squadron 3 rendered 20 million polygons with all effects. Both games rendered at 60 fps.


I guess I'll have to take your word for it. But isn't it a fact that the Xbox was a more powerful system than the GCN?


No, it was actually a fact that the GC was more powerful when all was said and done, but the Xbox1 was far easier to produce texture and lighting effects on  making a lot of the games a lot better looking in most circumstances. Most devs never took advantage of the full capabilities of the GC.

No Xbox game could even come close to the Rogues Sqadron's on a technical level.

The GC had the stronger CPU all around while the Xbox technically had a stronger GPU(on paper), but the Xbox's GPU took a huge hit when  doing special effects where the one in the Gamecube took next to no hit. It could pretty much do texture effects for free if it was programmed well enough and it could do far more diverse effects at once than the Xbox1.

The Xbox had more RAM while the GC had WAYYYYY faster and technically capable RAM.

http://www.nintendoworldreport.com/editorial/516

Believing the Xbox was stronger is huge misconeption just like with peole who believe that the 3DS is stronger than the Wii. Just counting raw stats without understanding what one is seeing is the leading cause of misconceptions from gamers all around.



Around the Network
curl-6 on 13 August 2012
lilbroex said:
Navane said:
Darc Requiem said:

Yes it could. Both the PS2 and Xbox touted specs that where unachievable in real situations. Nintendo's Gamecube specs were conservative and based on actuation gaming situations. Nintendo said the Gamecube could render 6 to 12 million polygons a second will all effects. Rogue Squadron 2, a Gamecube launch title, rendered 13.2 million polygons a second with all effects. Rogue Squadron 3 rendered 20 million polygons with all effects. Both games rendered at 60 fps.


I guess I'll have to take your word for it. But isn't it a fact that the Xbox was a more powerful system than the GCN?


No, it was actually a fact that the GC was more powerful when all was said and done, but the Xbox1 was far easier to produce texture and lighting effects on  making a lot of the games a lot better looking in most circumstances. Most devs never took advantage of the full capabilities of the GC.

No Xbox game could even come close to the Rogues Sqadron's on a technical level.

The GC had the stronger CPU all around while the Xbox technically had a stronger GPU(on paper), but the Xbox's GPU took a huge hit when  doing special effects where the one in the Gamecube took next to no hit. It could pretty much do texture effects for free if it was programmed well enough and it could do far more diverse effects at once than the Xbox1.

The Xbox had more RAM while the GC had WAYYYYY faster and technically capable RAM.

http://www.nintendoworldreport.com/editorial/516

Believing the Xbox was stronger is huge misconeption just like with peole who believe that the 3DS is stronger than the Wii. Just counting raw stats without understanding what one is seeing is the leading cause of misconceptions from gamers all around.

I read once that while the GC CPU was faster, it had to do tasks that the Xbox could do with just its GPU, so that in the end the Xbox CPU got more done. (Leading to games like Halo 2 and Half Life 2 with lots of physics and enemies at once) Just what I heard...



Darc Requiem on 13 August 2012

The Xbox CPU was basically a Celeron. They called it a Pentium but the cache said differently. The Gamecube essentially had a Power PC G3.



Soundwave on 13 August 2012

I'm probably going to say GoldenEye (Wii). It just seems to be pushing a fair amount of polys + reasonable amount of effects going on.



lilbroex on 13 August 2012
curl-6 said:
lilbroex said:
Navane said:
Darc Requiem said:

Yes it could. Both the PS2 and Xbox touted specs that where unachievable in real situations. Nintendo's Gamecube specs were conservative and based on actuation gaming situations. Nintendo said the Gamecube could render 6 to 12 million polygons a second will all effects. Rogue Squadron 2, a Gamecube launch title, rendered 13.2 million polygons a second with all effects. Rogue Squadron 3 rendered 20 million polygons with all effects. Both games rendered at 60 fps.


I guess I'll have to take your word for it. But isn't it a fact that the Xbox was a more powerful system than the GCN?


No, it was actually a fact that the GC was more powerful when all was said and done, but the Xbox1 was far easier to produce texture and lighting effects on  making a lot of the games a lot better looking in most circumstances. Most devs never took advantage of the full capabilities of the GC.

No Xbox game could even come close to the Rogues Sqadron's on a technical level.

The GC had the stronger CPU all around while the Xbox technically had a stronger GPU(on paper), but the Xbox's GPU took a huge hit when  doing special effects where the one in the Gamecube took next to no hit. It could pretty much do texture effects for free if it was programmed well enough and it could do far more diverse effects at once than the Xbox1.

The Xbox had more RAM while the GC had WAYYYYY faster and technically capable RAM.

http://www.nintendoworldreport.com/editorial/516

Believing the Xbox was stronger is huge misconeption just like with peole who believe that the 3DS is stronger than the Wii. Just counting raw stats without understanding what one is seeing is the leading cause of misconceptions from gamers all around.

I read once that while the GC CPU was faster, it had to do tasks that the Xbox could do with just its GPU, so that in the end the Xbox CPU got more done. (Leading to games like Halo 2 and Half Life 2 with lots of physics and enemies at once) Just what I heard...


They were mistaken on the physics. The GC required the CPU to be used in conjunction with the GPU for cetains special effects like normal mapping and bloom lighting. There is no reason why it would have any need for the GPU to do physics.

Its like I said. The Xbox could do things a lot "easier". It took a lot of work to get some things running on the GC, but as Rogue Squadron showed, the GC could do more ovearall.



curl-6 on 13 August 2012
Darc Requiem said:
The Xbox CPU was basically a Celeron. They called it a Pentium but the cache said differently. The Gamecube essentially had a Power PC G3.

As someone not too familiar with CPUs, how does this make them fare aginst each other power wise, wth the Gamecube's CPU clocked at 485MHz and the Xbox one at 733MHz?

 

 

lilbroex said:
curl-6 said:
lilbroex said:
Navane said:
Darc Requiem said:

Yes it could. Both the PS2 and Xbox touted specs that where unachievable in real situations. Nintendo's Gamecube specs were conservative and based on actuation gaming situations. Nintendo said the Gamecube could render 6 to 12 million polygons a second will all effects. Rogue Squadron 2, a Gamecube launch title, rendered 13.2 million polygons a second with all effects. Rogue Squadron 3 rendered 20 million polygons with all effects. Both games rendered at 60 fps.


I guess I'll have to take your word for it. But isn't it a fact that the Xbox was a more powerful system than the GCN?


No, it was actually a fact that the GC was more powerful when all was said and done, but the Xbox1 was far easier to produce texture and lighting effects on  making a lot of the games a lot better looking in most circumstances. Most devs never took advantage of the full capabilities of the GC.

No Xbox game could even come close to the Rogues Sqadron's on a technical level.

The GC had the stronger CPU all around while the Xbox technically had a stronger GPU(on paper), but the Xbox's GPU took a huge hit when  doing special effects where the one in the Gamecube took next to no hit. It could pretty much do texture effects for free if it was programmed well enough and it could do far more diverse effects at once than the Xbox1.

The Xbox had more RAM while the GC had WAYYYYY faster and technically capable RAM.

http://www.nintendoworldreport.com/editorial/516

Believing the Xbox was stronger is huge misconeption just like with peole who believe that the 3DS is stronger than the Wii. Just counting raw stats without understanding what one is seeing is the leading cause of misconceptions from gamers all around.

I read once that while the GC CPU was faster, it had to do tasks that the Xbox could do with just its GPU, so that in the end the Xbox CPU got more done. (Leading to games like Halo 2 and Half Life 2 with lots of physics and enemies at once) Just what I heard...


They were mistaken on the physics. The GC required the CPU to be used in conjunction with the GPU for cetains special effects like normal mapping and bloom lighting. There is no reason why it would have any need for the GPU to do physics.

Its like I said. The Xbox could do things a lot "easier". It took a lot of work to get some things running on the GC, but as Rogue Squadron showed, the GC could do more ovearall.

I orded that wrong; they didn't say that the GC needed the GPU to do physics, but rather that it had to useit's CPU to do geometry calculations, leaving the Xbox CPU with more power to spare.

Here's the quote: 

"The GCN is more powerful than the Xbox at Floating Point calculations all by itself. It is significantly weaker doing Integer Calculations though.


HOWEVER, this is misleading, unless viewed in the proper context.

The GCN uses it's CPU for raw triangle setup, and base 3D rendering. The GPU only handles the final stages of performing Transforms, and any fixed hardware lights.

The Xbox uses it's GPU, NOT the CPU to perform all 3D rendering, which means that the Xbox CPU isn't being weighted down with doing 3D calculations. 

Since it is the 3D rendering that uses the Floating Point processing power the most, the advantage the GCN has in that one area is totally lost. The GCN relies on it's CPU to perform the Floating Point calculations for 3D rendering, while the Xbox does NOT use it's CPU for the same job. This leaves the Xbox with more Floating Point processing power to use on non-3D rendering tasks, as well as it's superior Integer Calculations performance."

http://forum.teamxbox.com/showthread.php?t=98510