disolitude said: I am not bragging when I say this...but I own a 58 inch plasma and Wii gets played through component cables. I see how someone with a smaller CRT TV may think Wii can compete with the ps360 but when everything is maxed out on a big screen like that...one can see Wii has more in common with gamecube/xbox then ps360. As a matter of fact, to me Ninja gaiden on the xbox still looks better than any wii game I've ever seen including nintendos lineup. And original xbox did 720p in a few games (mortal kombat armageddon...few others)...wii has yet to do that. So I amm not sure programmers are to blame 100% here...

Those games also probably loss out on other things to compensate for the higher resolution. A 15 year old pc could play ES:Daggerfall at 720p. That doesn't mean it will look nice. You also said ninja gaiden looks better when upscaled in the other thread. I said it looks about equivalent to the best wii graphics. The wii only had a year anyway. I'm pretty sure the graphics will improve alot especially since nobody really pushed the wii to it's limits yet.

 

noname2200 said: sc94597 said: noname2200 said: sc94597 said: I've been saying since I joned vgchartz. I believe the wii is 3 times more powerful than the original xbox/gamecube, and 4-6 times more powerful than the ps2. I beleive it is 4-6 times less powerful than the ps360, about the same difference between the ps2 and wii is the wii and hd consoles. Devs are far too lazy. High voltage, and Tecmo/Grasshopper, and nintendo are the only ones seem to try to make good wii graphics. I love my Wii and all, but I do think you're overestimating its graphical prowess here. By a lot. That said, it's never been the graphics that bothers me about the Wii (shoot, I still play NES games once in a while). No, the part that concerns me is the reports I've heard that the memory is too low for developers to do things like having advanced AI and the like. Mind you, from all the PC and HD console games I've played, developers don't take advantage of the hardware to give us good AI anyhow, but it's always nice to dream of a game where the computer's strategy doesn't come down to "charge!" in every situation... Explain how I'm overestimating it. The wii has far more memory, faster memory, more efficent cpu/ gpu by alot, and texture compression that the original xbox didn't have. Since when did you need alot of memory for AI? I'm pretty sure that is mostly done by the cpu.  True, the Wii has more of everything than even the X-Box, but I'm highly sceptical that it's three times more powerful than the X-Box was. In fact, from what I've read, it's better than the X-Box in some ways, and weaker in a select few areas. Here. http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/levelup/archive/2007/05/08/geek-out-xbox-uber-boss-robbie-bach-takes-a-shot-at-nintendo-s-underpowered-wii-does-he-manage-to-score-a-bulls-eye-or-just-shoot-himself-in-the-foot.aspx "Our second source echoed that assessment of the Wii's graphics chip, comparing its fixed-function design to that the Gamecube, saying that it was "basically pretty similar" to Nvidia's seven-year-old GeForce2. "A dev support guy from Nintendo said that the Wii chipset is 'Gamecube 1.5 with some added memory,'" our second source told us. "I figure if they say that, it must be true."   Our second source went on to explain that the "Gamecube 1.5" moniker, while accurate, doesn't mean that gamers won't see graphical improvements on the Wii. "There are three main differences which will result in graphics improvements. One, the increased memory clock speed, from 162 megahertz to 243 megahertz, means that it is easier to do enough pixels for 480p mode versus 480i. Two, the enhanced memory size of the Wii gives much more room for image-related operations such as anti-aliasing, motion blur, etc. The performance to these memory systems from the graphics chip is also improved. So full-screen effects and increased texture usage seem likely as a result.""   My conclusion: the Wii has enough stuff under the hood to get us the games, but it's hardly a graphical powerhouse. I'm perfectly fine with that: as I said, I still go back and play old games on a regular basis, so graphics take a big backseat in my book. And besides, as you yourself have shown, the Wii is quite capable of putting out the eye-candy when the developer wants it to. But it does us no good to overestimate its graphics.    As for the AI issue, you may well be right. I'm simply echoing what I've heard from others, since my knowledge of how software works is sketchy at best. If you're correct, and if the Wii's CPU is good enough to give me the smart AI I crave, then I take back what I said about that. But I stand by my comment that damn few developers devote as much attention and energy to AI as they should, no matter what the platform.

The exact specs on Hollywood and Broadway are KNOWN so you can compare them for yourself. The power is there. Good looking 480p is more than good enough for me. If I had wanted more I'd have stuck to the PC. But I won't take shoddy half assed products from anyone.. I'm not paying full price for 2nd hand PS2 crap.

If I go to a five star gourmet restaurant at $100+ a pop, the food better be freaking excelllent. When I go to a nice $40 establishment, I do not expect the same caliber of food, but I sure as hell expect it to be freah and properly prepared. Good graphics are good graphics and bad are bad regardless of resolution. It's easy to turn up our noses but we are talking about DVD quality and I think thats just fine.

Grampy said: Squilliam said: Grampy said: Squilliam said: I thought the whole idea of the Wii was low development costs! If you start designing engines etc then your budget could easily be greater than a HD console game on a paid for engine. You also have a time delay factor as well to consider. It is no harder and probably easier to develop for the Wii than the PS2. It's familiar now but developers universally said it was a bitch to develop for. The Wii is the growing market, the PS2 is yesterday’s news. Let them make games for the Wii and then port them over to the PS2. The Wii is the success story of the video game industry and the owners should not have to eat table scraps from the PS2. But if they want to do it that way, OK fine. For myself, having read this material, I WILL NEVER AGAIN SPEND ONE F**CKING CENT FOR A LOUSY PS2 PORT. Haha agreed on the PS2 port thing, I hate them too, I also dislike the console for many reasons so I can understand your feelings. Last generation engines should be left where they are. I would say they simply don't know what to do with the Wii, until some third party games start being successful they probably don't know what direction they're aiming for. This is new territory for them. They don't have much information to work from so I can understand some publishers and developers being conservative with how they approach the system. Nintendo may have "disrupted" the market, but they also did the same for the people who develop software for the platform. They don't know their place yet in the 'new world order'. I'm no genius but I think I would take a good hard luck at the third party games that are million sellers, could be a clue.

On the Wii theres what? A sonic game, two party games, Red Steel, and a last gen game ported to this gen. Thats the third party lineup aprox over a million. I think they have to wait before they will do anything more risky. They need more info!

sc94597 said: disolitude said: I am not bragging when I say this...but I own a 58 inch plasma and Wii gets played through component cables. I see how someone with a smaller CRT TV may think Wii can compete with the ps360 but when everything is maxed out on a big screen like that...one can see Wii has more in common with gamecube/xbox then ps360. As a matter of fact, to me Ninja gaiden on the xbox still looks better than any wii game I've ever seen including nintendos lineup. And original xbox did 720p in a few games (mortal kombat armageddon...few others)...wii has yet to do that. So I amm not sure programmers are to blame 100% here... Those games also probably loss out on other things to compensate for the higher resolution. A 15 year old pc could play ES:Daggerfall at 720p. That doesn't mean it will look nice. You also said ninja gaiden looks better when upscaled in the other thread. I said it looks about equivalent to the best wii graphics. The wii only had a year anyway. I'm pretty sure the graphics will improve alot especially since nobody really pushed the wii to it's limits yet.

I agree that it will only get better for the wii. However, related to this topic...Wii is not really handing out its programmers an easy ride to visual bliss. They will have to squeeze and squeeze some more...so they shouldnt be fully blamed for lack of visual polish...nintendo did decide to make a less powerful console after all :)

disolitude said: sc94597 said: disolitude said: I am not bragging when I say this...but I own a 58 inch plasma and Wii gets played through component cables. I see how someone with a smaller CRT TV may think Wii can compete with the ps360 but when everything is maxed out on a big screen like that...one can see Wii has more in common with gamecube/xbox then ps360. As a matter of fact, to me Ninja gaiden on the xbox still looks better than any wii game I've ever seen including nintendos lineup. And original xbox did 720p in a few games (mortal kombat armageddon...few others)...wii has yet to do that. So I amm not sure programmers are to blame 100% here... Those games also probably loss out on other things to compensate for the higher resolution. A 15 year old pc could play ES:Daggerfall at 720p. That doesn't mean it will look nice. You also said ninja gaiden looks better when upscaled in the other thread. I said it looks about equivalent to the best wii graphics. The wii only had a year anyway. I'm pretty sure the graphics will improve alot especially since nobody really pushed the wii to it's limits yet.   I agree that it will only get better for the wii. However, related to this topic...Wii is not really handing out its programmers an easy ride to visual bliss. They will have to squeeze and squeeze some more...

 Well they aren't even pushing.They are porting low quality ps2 games to the wii. There are ps2 games that have far better graphics than the wii ports, and they're are wii exclusives that have far better graphics too. Grapy wants developers to make the standard for graphics at least metroid prime 3 or mario galaxy level, but they are too lazy too do it. Not even those games seemed to push the wii seeing as they are running at 60fps with no drops. 

disolitude said: I am not bragging when I say this...but I own a 58 inch plasma and Wii gets played through component cables. I see how someone with a smaller CRT TV may think Wii can compete with the ps360 but when everything is maxed out on a big screen like that...one can see Wii has more in common with gamecube/xbox then ps360. As a matter of fact, to me Ninja gaiden on the xbox still looks better than any wii game I've ever seen including nintendos lineup. And original xbox did 720p in a few games (mortal kombat armageddon...few others)...wii has yet to do that. So I amm not sure programmers are to blame 100% here...

I'm not quite as overwhelmed with Ninja Gaiden as you but I will definitely agree that a game designed for the Xbox will look better on the Xbox than a game designed for a PS2 will look on a Wii.

In any case it doesn't matter what the developers like or want to do. With the rate at which the Wii market is growing and the size it is or soon will be, ignoring it is corporate suicide. The only way they can get away with half assed crap is if we are stupid enough to buy it. Looking at sales I'm not sure I would count on that.

sc94597 said: noname2200 said: sc94597 said: noname2200 said: sc94597 said: Yeah , but if you read any of the quotes in the op you will know why the wii isn't weaker than the original xbox in some ways. Please read the op again if you haven't. If you don't understand then ask me to explain. It definately isn't a powerhouse, but 3 times more powerful isn't too much compared to what the ps360 are to the xbox. I shouldn't even say it in these linear terms. It shoudl be more on how much each area is better than each area of the xbox original. I will do that in my analysis.

 *shrug* Fair enough. I'm still not convinced, but I also still don't think it means diddly. The graphics we have are more than good enough for me: I play my Wii for its gameplay, not its graphics. Were my priorities the other way around, I'd be playing PC games exclusively.

@ Grampy: Yeah, the specs are known, as you posted...but I don't understand them. Sorry, but I learn just enough about computers to repair my own, and then I move on. So the stuff you posted may as well be in Klingon as far as I'm concerned: I just go by what people in the know tell me on a comparative basis, and by what my eyes have shown me. Sorry for mucking up your thread, though. 

@squillam: You're missing quite a few titles actually. And I do firmly believe that third parties have already started jumping into the Wii pool, and that we'll hear about the first real wave this E3. Mind you, I could be wrong (seems to be my thing today), but I'm flexible enough to stick my foot in my mouth without needing more than two operations afterwards, so I'll go ahead and say the cliched "wait 'til E3!"

Granted, Ubisoft is a prime example of a rather disoriented developer, so they definitely do exist... 

I posted this a while ago in responce to a thread about SMG not looking very good compared to SMS. I'll post it again since it serves a similar purpose of showing what the Wii is capable of in the hands of great development team:

An example of Specular Highlights
An example of Specular Reflection
Before Applying Bump map	After applying Bump map
^^Note how bump mapping is used to take advantage of specular highlights.

I also really liked their fur shaders....

 

 

I also wanted to point out that normal mapping is really nothing more than the proper application of bump maps. In essence a bump map is a heightmap (essentially a specialized texture) that is used to "change" the way the object is shaded. Typically to have amazing looking models you would need millions of polygons to get all of the detail required...the idea however is that with this extra texture you can impose the detail without the use of millions of polygons per model. I can't show you an in-game usage of normal mapping simply because when its done right you shouldn't be able to just tell from a screenshot. But I can give an example of what I mean:

 

In the bump mapping example I showed above with the orange here is what the heightmap looks like:

Model Before Bump Mapping	Heightmap to be used	Result of Bump Mapping

 

The techniques used aren't that wild and crazy, they just aren't really ever explained to folks so everybody has this almost mystical view of them.

Squilliam said: On the Wii theres what? A sonic game, two party games, Red Steel, and a last gen game ported to this gen. Thats the third party lineup aprox over a million. I think they have to wait before they will do anything more risky. They need more info!

RE4 Wii

No more Heroes
RE Umbrella chronicles
Guitar Heroes III
Rayman Raving Rabbids 2
Sonic and the Secret Rings
Carnival Games
Lego Star Wars: The Complete Saga
My Sims
Rayman Raving Rabbids

Red Steel

noname2200 said: sc94597 said: noname2200 said: sc94597 said: noname2200 said: sc94597 said: Yeah , but if you read any of the quotes in the op you will know why the wii isn't weaker than the original xbox in some ways. Please read the op again if you haven't. If you don't understand then ask me to explain. It definately isn't a powerhouse, but 3 times more powerful isn't too much compared to what the ps360 are to the xbox. I shouldn't even say it in these linear terms. It shoudl be more on how much each area is better than each area of the xbox original. I will do that in my analysis.    *shrug* Fair enough. I'm still not convinced, but I also still don't think it means diddly. The graphics we have are more than good enough for me: I play my Wii for its gameplay, not its graphics. Were my priorities the other way around, I'd be playing PC games exclusively. @ Grampy: Yeah, the specs are known, as you posted...but I don't understand them. Sorry, but I learn just enough about computers to repair my own, and then I move on. So the stuff you posted may as well be in Klingon as far as I'm concerned: I just go by what people in the know tell me on a comparative basis, and by what my eyes have shown me. Sorry for mucking up your thread, though.  @squillam: You're missing quite a few titles actually. And I do firmly believe that third parties have already started jumping into the Wii pool, and that we'll hear about the first real wave this E3. Mind you, I could be wrong (seems to be my thing today), but I'm flexible enough to stick my foot in my mouth without needing more than two operations afterwards, so I'll go ahead and say the cliched "wait 'til E3!" Granted, Ubisoft is a prime example of a rather disoriented developer, so they definitely do exist...

Fair Enough. When I make my analysis I'm going to explain what everything means, so maybe you could read that. It will be long though.