didnt ign say in their podcast that factor 5 wii game will be 720p

^ I don't think so but there is a rumor going around that it is.

aaargh again capable or not is not the question. The question is if it looks good. And with three to six times the pixels the games would look like hell because devs would need to reduce details. So nobody cares. Obviously game developers do not think that hd on the wii makes sense that's everything what is important. So yes if you want to play games with hd resolutions you won't be happy with the white gamecube. That doesnt mean that you get bad or ugly games. Smg looks great. But the would be theoretically capable discussion is stupid.

Kyros said: aaargh again capable or not is not the question. The question is if it looks good. And with three to six times the pixels the games would look like hell because devs would need to reduce details. So nobody cares. Obviously game developers do not think that hd on the wii makes sense that's everything what is important. So yes if you want to play games with hd resolutions you won't be happy with the white gamecube. That doesnt mean that you get bad or ugly games. Smg looks great. But the would be theoretically capable discussion is stupid.

 For the final time. The meaning of this thread was to show how HD could effect the wii and to show the wii could do hd. It wasn't to say oh yeah the wii is going to look so good because of hd. I'm getting pissed because for some reason people don't understand what I'm saying or they aren't reading my post. Maybe since this is in bold people will read it.

Renar said: Sqrl said: sc94597 said: I think the wii could pull of alot of those but maybe not all at high res. Like I said one or the other, but not both. Honestly, they will get better results from putting in the time to develope the techniques properly...especially if they can re-use the engine in other projects. And as I said higher resolutions are overrated by graphics whores. Thats not to say they are useless but they are given far too much credit when its not deserved. Here is a decent example: Crysis Pic Low Res 1200x800 Crysis Pic High Res 2560x1600   Which one looks better? Which one looks more realistic? To my eyes at least the first one looks more realistic but you can see more detail in the second one. Which is what I'm trying to illustrate. With a game like Crysis where the detail is being properly rendered you can get some gain out of stupid high resolutions like 2560x1600..but even on a modest resolution it still looks stunning. A sort of diminishing returns to be sure. Now honestly I think if you showed the pictures to people on the street the higher res pic would more easily be identified as a rendered shot. Now why is that? The answer should be obvious that it is the high quality BM on the leaves (and to a lesser extent in this shot the trees) with amazing lighting and shading techniques that would ring true for most people.   To me, both shots look beautiful. You're right that the hi res has more detail, but is it worth it? The white guy with the bit of stubble on his face looks good, but the black guy seems to have the pox. Or at best, you are looking at his face with a 100x powered microscope. Where the low res pic fails (as such) is the extreme blurry-ness in the upper left hand corner and the same with the tree trunk that has fallen. But the same is true in the hi rez shot as well, such as the face of the 3rd man. Seems to me that both shots have a problem with where 'detail' blurs in the distance. It doesn't at 10 feet, or even that much at 50 feet. But this is a developer's issue, not the machines. And like I said to being with, overall, both look very nice.

The blurring you see is intentional motion blur and is just another one of the tricks developers use to help make a scene look more realistic. There are two fundamental uses for blur, the first idea is that when you are observing objects in 3D space the objects you aren't focusing on should appear a bit blurry.

The second instance is when in motion by blurring the objects that are moving rapidly you hide any jumpy movements created by lower framerates. For example: If you are playing a game at 30 FPS and you whip your characters view to the right to turn around...the edge of a wall say 20 feet away might appear to jump 400 pixels per frame all the way across the screen without motion blur. But with motion blurring that edge has a blurred trail behind it as it moves across the screen and the effect is that your brain understands that the blurring is to indicate that the object moved across your field of vision and didn't simply jump there...its a subtle difference but one that can make 30 FPS look as smooth as 60 FPS with good motion blurring in the same game.

In short, the blurring is not only intentional but a very good thing. Granted it doesn't really look that great in a stillframe shot but the game is meant to be played in motion right?

the Wii is stronger then the Xbox so its strong enough to so 720p but 1080p is out of the question.

^ What about 1080i the ps2/xbox supported that.

I doubt Wii is stronger that Xbox 1 .It has to demostrate it in any case .

Diomedes1976 said: I doubt Wii is stronger that Xbox 1 .It has to demostrate it in any case .

Lets compare the specs. xbox

CPU	733 MHz Intel Custom Pentium III
Front Side Bus	133 MHz - 1.0 GB/sec
RAM	Micron 64 MB DDR SDRAM
Memory Bandwidth	6.4 GB/sec bus
Storage Medium	8 GB Hard Disk (Western Digital, 5400 RPM)
I/O (Input / Output)	w-5x DVD-ROM Type 9 DVD - 8.5 GB single sided 4x Proprietary USB Game Ports (12 Mbps) Broadband Ethernet Connection (100 Mbps) Proprietary Audio/Video Connector
Graphics Processor Unit	250 MHz Custom-Designed NV2X
Max Polygon Performance	125 M/sec
Simultaneous Textures	4.8 G/Sec
Pixel Fill Rate	12w
Compressed Textures	Yes (6:1)
Maximum resolution	1920 x 1080 (HDTV Required)
MPEG 2 Support	Yes (Standard DVD)
HDTV Game Support	Yes (HDTV Cable Required)
DVD Movie Playback	Yes (DVD Remote Control Required)
Media Comm. Processor	200 MHz Processor Custom Designed By NVIDIA Controls Hard Disk & DVD Controls High-Speed Ethernet Controls Proprietary USB Game Ports Controls Advanced Audio which uses: licensed technology from UK's Sensaura 3D.
Peripheral Bus (MCP BUS)	400 MB/s (Full Duplex)
Broadband Enabled	Yes (10/100 Mbps / TCP/IP / WinSock)
Audio Channels	256
3D Audio Support	Yes (64 3D channels)
Operating System	- Windows 2000 Core OS (Custom designed by MS) - DirectX 8.0a (Drivers) - Part 1 of the OS is on the hard disk < 1 MB - Part 2 of the OS can be DVD disc < 500 K - (Part 1 includes the core OS, DirectX, DVD playback, some drivers and 3D user interface) - (Part 2 includes things like libraries, other drivers and other features needed by the developer) - OS takes less then 3 MB in RAM - The OS has a 3D user interface when no games are inserted to play music CDs, run DVD movies etc. - The games run in ring 0, known as kernel mode which is the fastest mode possible.
V-CHIP	Parental control on DVD's with ESRB ratings
Size	Width: ~31cm Depth: ~27cm Height: ~10cm
Total Internal Components	800     Wii CPU (Broadway) Superscalar microprocessor with six execution units (floating-point unit, branching unit, system register unit, load/store unit, two integer units) Operating speed of 729 MHz Bus to main memory: 243 MHz, 64 bits (maximum bandwidth: 1.9 gigabytes/sec) 32-kilobyte 8-way set-associative L1 data cache (can set up 16-kilobyte data scratch pad) Onboard 256-kilobyte 2-way set-associative L2 integrated cache Supports three L2 cache fetch modes: 32, 64, and 128-Byte DMA unit (15-entry DMA request queue) used by 16-kilobyte data scratch pad Write-gather buffer for writing graphics command lists to the graphics chip GPU (Hollywood ) Operating speed of 243 MHz 3 megabytes of embedded graphics memory 24 megabytes of internal main memory Internal main memory operates at 486 MHz Maximum bandwidth between GPU and main memory: 3.9 gigabytes per second The GPU of the Wii is identical to the GC's but it is on average 1.5X faster Other details 64megabytes of GDDR3 external main memory Internal non-removable 512MB flash memory used as storage for game save data and downloadable content The following interfaces are included with the Wii: SD card slot, Wireless controller, two USB 2.0 ports, wireless LAN, 4x GC controller ports, 2x GC memory card slots and an AV multi output jack (analogue only) Two main disc types supported the single sided 12cm single sided 4.7gb and the double sided 8.51 GB. Nintendo GC discs also supported. The maximum read speed is the equivalent of a 6 speed DVD

Now lets compare. First lets look at the cpu. Xbox is 733mhz Wii is 729 Mhz. Yep they are about the same in clock speed. The difference is that the wiis cpu is has a far more efficient architecture meaning it could do 2-4 times what the xbox can in a certain amount of time. Alright now lets look at the gpu. Again the gpus are about the same speeds but the wiis gpu is more efficient doubling or tripling the performance. Now ram. The wii has two types of ram gddr3 and T-Ram both of these faster than the ddr ram in the xbox. There is also more of it. The wii also has many times the cache. Now this was a really basic analysis. I could go in more depth but the specs on the wii are very limited. The wii far outperforms the original xbox.

Diomedes1976 said: I doubt Wii is stronger that Xbox 1 .It has to demostrate it in any case .

 I really hope this is a joke. 

 

Basically either this is a joke or you've just admitted that you have literally zero understanding of the way computer architectures advance..let alone how they work. I generally ignore these kinds of comments because they usually come from folks who are looking to stir the proverbial shit-pot but you generally take a serious approach so I figured I would give the line a bite so to speak.

Please say you're joking....