they're prob. developed by different teams so the Wii version can't be too bad

First, @WoW - Which is WoW (interesting, same initials)? I would say the second one looks better.

@Those posting specs of consoles, Sony and Microsoft have, at least, given out initial specs for their consoles. Whether or not those are the same specs as the ones that made it into the final product, I do not know. Nintendo has neither confirmed nor denied the specs in the Wii, nor has ATI or whoever else made components for the Wii. Also, looking at two processors (for example) and looking at just clock speed is not painting the whole picture. Cache, BUS Speeds, etc all play a part in how fast the processor is, how efficient it runs, etc, etc. Also, a processor developed nearly 8 years ago (or more) would be a lot less efficient than a processor developed 2 or 3 years ago, so even if the speeds were identical, the newer processor would be able to handle processes easier. Not to mention improvements in other things (chip sizes and such).

@everyone: I really hate these topics. When people say the Wii can handle decent graphics, which is usually anything above what the PS2 had, then 360/PS3 fanboys come in and start asking "I thought graphics didn't matter?" Then the Wii fanboys come in and start saying that the Wii is able to produce graphics that are much better than the PS2's graphics. Then the PS3/360 fanboys start saying how the Wii couldn't match the graphics of the PS3/360, then the Wii fanboys come back by saying that graphics don't have to be at the level of PS3/360 games to have "good graphics," then somewhere in there it's assumed by 360/PS3 fanboys that the Wii fanboys are saying the Wii can handle PS3/360 level graphics, while at the same time the Wii fanboys assume that the PS3/360 fanboys are saying that the Wii can't even do graphics much better than the PS2 graphics. Then, the thread is locked.

I agree that the Wii is probably in the middle range between the PS2 level graphics, and the PS3/360 level graphics. All the picture comparisons, spec comparisons, and assumptions will never settle this debate, because no one can be unbiased enough to do so.

Also, PS2 pictures from the end of the generation aren't fair comparisons to beginning of the generation Wii graphics, because they figure ways to optimize the hardware to squeeze out every ounce of performance. As for the Wii hardware, though similar to the GC hardware, was never pushed like the PS2 hardware, since many developers never developed exclusively for it or did it enough to find the best ways to optimize the hardware. Try looking at early to late 2001 PS2 pictures to see how far they've come on the PS2, and then show how that could be similar to what happens to the Wii games, along with PS3 and 360 games, which will all have much improvements in performance.

My two cents... Now continue...

 This post sums upeverything that alot of us have been saying. Thank you stever.

ps2-wii: Wii has ~2x the memory, a GPU thought to be on par with the xbox, and a CPU thought to be ~50% faster than the gamecube

wii-ps360: ps360 has ~8 the memory, GPUs thought to be 1 or 2 generations ahead, and "multicore"-CPUs running at ~4x the speed of the Wii's single core.

Is the gap comparable? No. The problem for the ps360 is that HD graphics 'eat' into that memory/processor/GPU gap - but the Wii is closer in performance to the PS2 than it is to the ps360.

I just read the first sentence, and dont feel like reading the rest of your rant.

First off the wii's tech is not new, therefore there is nothing new to learn about it. Dont expect the wii to all of a sudden surpass SMG graphics because you see a trend with other consoles, these other consoles were new at that time, and as developers learned how to develop on there hardware graphics continued to improve.

edit: Well I kept reading, and no the wii is not 6 times more powerful than the ps2, its really idiotic you think this as a fact, since its like I said pure fiction when it comes to the reality.

Ok the second one's a flamebait ( sorry couldn't help myself ) , but please agree with the first one. 

They wont agree because they cant reason, its the main reason I decided to leave this site.

The wii is not even 1/4 the power of the XBOX 360, or PS3.

They cant face reality, the wii is good at things like motion controls, let it be good at what it is, but please dont rant that the wii is almost as powerful as the PS3 or XBOX 360.

This might be one of those things that everyone is going to have to agree to disagree. Because it really is terribly hard to but a value on each consoles hardware performance, so it's hard to say what the difference between two consoles are, thus it's hard to say how far the Wii is from the PS2, and if that gap is bigger or smaller than the gap between the Wii and PS3. Since most data is either subjective (comparing pictures), or hard to give real values to (specs, which aren't all official specs), this "point" everyone is trying to make is just not something that can be proven.

What I want everyone to agree on is to agree to disagree, and then drop it. I think that would be best. 

I'm sorry, I really fail to see where anyone says that the Wii is as powerful as the PS3/360. All I see is people suggesting that the difference in power of the Wii and PS2 is similar to the difference in power of the Wii and PS3/360.

 @Steve , to me it seems like common sense but then that's the magic of subjectivity.


We're mostly males between 12-25 , agreeing to disagree might be a bit difficult.

edit: talking about the post before your last.