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

Forums - Nintendo - How much powerful the Wii is ?

FJ-Warez on 12 July 2008
Daddo Splat said:
Not to flame or get off topic but its funny this gens consoles particularly the PS3 vs 360

the 360 gets flamed for not having a HD in every system and hence no swap file for extra system memmory which the original xbox used great for games like halo for open world driving and gun fight in large areas.

I dont recall seeing a wii game or gamecube game using wide open environments with loading on the fly.

The ps3 recreates this with Resistence and with 512 megs of ram the 360 does alright but the original halo seamed so big.

pure tech #'s dont show how important a good swap file is and how much quicker the load times are how levels can be bigger.

thats why Pc games are bigger in scope system ram varies but swap files or virtual memmory push the envelope.

So pretty and small vs wide open and huge.

what games do you know on the Gc and wii fit the open and huge with great visuals alla original halo.

re4 was very pretty not very wide open except for some boss fight

 

The issue here is the same about the PS3 vs 360 (X game can do this on this plataform, ence X game can´t be done on X plataform)... but if you recall correctly the lack o HDD is not a big performance issue on the multiplats like DMC4, COD4 and GTA4...

Is the Wii don´t feature games like Halo in the enviroment sense is because the Wii doesn´t have any halo is up tot devs put games like that...

And the Wii dvd reader is faster then the oringla xbox dvd reader...



By me:

Made with Blender + LuxRender
"Since you can´t understand ... there is no point to taking you seriously."
Around the Network
Viper1 on 12 July 2008

@Daddo

Star Wars: Rogue Squadron III. Try the Hoth stage.

Oh, it also used the TEV on the GC.



The rEVOLution is not being televised

mariozeldametroid on 12 July 2008

@daddo splat:

Huge open spaces with very short to no loading times.



HappySqurriel on 12 July 2008

I have found that everytime someone says the Wii is as powerful (or less powerful) than the XBox that they tend to be the people who are least qualified to comment on the power of any system. Back in the day many developers believed that the Gamecube was the more powerful system of the two being that (at the time) PowerPC processors were far more powerful than the x86 architecture at the same clock speed (consider that a modern x86 processor at 2 to 3 times the clock speed of the original XBox's processor is 10 to 20 times as powerful), and the Gamecube's GPU could handle a similar number of polygons in real world conditions with more texture layers and effects ...

The (unfortunate) problem was the Gamecube's GPU used an older design and incorporated pixel combiners (the TEV unit) rather than the newer (and rapidly becomming GPU standard) programmable pixel/vertex shaders. To make matters Worse the way the Gamecube sold few developers focused attention on developing games that took advantage of the hardware; the PS2 was dominant so every developer saw value in exploiting the hardware, the XBox was so close to a PC that most PC developers put effort into getting good performance out of the XBox (to port their game), but the Gamecube mostly got third rate PS2 ports.

The interesting thing is that the developers who focused attention on the Wii were able to produce games that stand out as some of the best looking games of the generation; Factor 5 was able to achieve performance from their launch game Starwars Rogue Squadren 2: Rogue Leader that surpassed the performance of most other third party efforts on the Gamecube, and then they surpassed that level with the sequel, and Capcom's efforts with the Resident Evil games (in particular Resident Evil 4) were the most visually impressive games of the generation.

Now, the problem is we can't really evaluate the Wii because we don't know how Nintendo changed the hardware. Based on analysis of the die sizes of the Hollywood and Broadway processors they are (roughly) twice as large (in transistors) as the Flipper and Gekko were, we know they run at 1.5 times the clock speed of the Flipper and Gekko, and we know that they have far more (and far faster) memory than was available on the Gamecube.

When you consider that the real-world performance of the Gamecube allowed it to render more polygons than there are pixels at 480p, with more texture data than can be displayed at 480p, and have (for its time) advanced lighting and material effects and think that (by all measures) the Wii is at least 1.5 times as powerful (potentially closer to 3 times as powerful depending on the changes made to the processors) it should be able to do some pretty impressive things.

The fact is that we have started to see some of these impressive things with games like Super Mario Galaxy and The Conduit ... and over time (as developers start focusing on taking advantage of the Wii for maximum impact) we will start to see things far above and beyond what was possible on previous generation hardware.



stanley2011 on 12 July 2008
HappySqurriel said:

I have found that everytime someone says the Wii is as powerful (or less powerful) than the XBox that they tend to be the people who are least qualified to comment on the power of any system. Back in the day many developers believed that the Gamecube was the more powerful system of the two being that (at the time) PowerPC processors were far more powerful than the x86 architecture at the same clock speed (consider that a modern x86 processor at 2 to 3 times the clock speed of the original XBox's processor is 10 to 20 times as powerful), and the Gamecube's GPU could handle a similar number of polygons in real world conditions with more texture layers and effects ...

The (unfortunate) problem was the Gamecube's GPU used an older design and incorporated pixel combiners (the TEV unit) rather than the newer (and rapidly becomming GPU standard) programmable pixel/vertex shaders. To make matters Worse the way the Gamecube sold few developers focused attention on developing games that took advantage of the hardware; the PS2 was dominant so every developer saw value in exploiting the hardware, the XBox was so close to a PC that most PC developers put effort into getting good performance out of the XBox (to port their game), but the Gamecube mostly got third rate PS2 ports.

The interesting thing is that the developers who focused attention on the Wii were able to produce games that stand out as some of the best looking games of the generation; Factor 5 was able to achieve performance from their launch game Starwars Rogue Squadren 2: Rogue Leader that surpassed the performance of most other third party efforts on the Gamecube, and then they surpassed that level with the sequel, and Capcom's efforts with the Resident Evil games (in particular Resident Evil 4) were the most visually impressive games of the generation.

Now, the problem is we can't really evaluate the Wii because we don't know how Nintendo changed the hardware. Based on analysis of the die sizes of the Hollywood and Broadway processors they are (roughly) twice as large (in transistors) as the Flipper and Gekko were, we know they run at 1.5 times the clock speed of the Flipper and Gekko, and we know that they have far more (and far faster) memory than was available on the Gamecube.

When you consider that the real-world performance of the Gamecube allowed it to render more polygons than there are pixels at 480p, with more texture data than can be displayed at 480p, and have (for its time) advanced lighting and material effects and think that (by all measures) the Wii is at least 1.5 times as powerful (potentially closer to 3 times as powerful depending on the changes made to the processors) it should be able to do some pretty impressive things.

The fact is that we have started to see some of these impressive things with games like Super Mario Galaxy and The Conduit ... and over time (as developers start focusing on taking advantage of the Wii for maximum impact) we will start to see things far above and beyond what was possible on previous generation hardware.

U will learn if u read ALL of my older comments.

 



Around the Network
NNN2004 on 12 July 2008
fazz said:
Viper1 said:
NNN2004 said:
Viper1 said:
Skeeuk said:

the wii is just as powerfull as gamecube. they say twice as powerful but thats obviously bull.

the origional xbox is more powerfull than wii.

but what wii has done is tap into a lucritive new market and sell lots. imo there is nothing on the wii shelfs that i would want to play apart from brawl,galaxy,paper mario,zelda and nights.

most games are aimed at mini game crowd and children type games. real console gaming its ps360, but if you like mini game type games and obscure type titles like word coach etc then the wii is the console for you.

Did you intentionally plug your ears, or rather eyes, to the entire thread before posting or do you just like to instigate for the sake of angering people?

You're 32, act like it.

sorry Viper1 but its a bit true.

No it's not.  He makes two major mistakes.

1. His assertion of the Wii's capabilities.  I think we've established that issue well enough already.

2. His assertion of what real console gaming is.  What is real console gaming?  What he should have stated instead is the games largely do not appeal to him.   The difference in Halo and Carnival Games as a video game is null.  When you assume they hold separate qualifications as a video game is the same as assuming a sports car is more of a real vehicle than a truck.  Separate consumer markets, separate characteristics, separate prices but both are still very much a real vehicle.

You'd rather try to teach a dog some theoretical physics , than trying to make a Sony fanboy understand this stuff.

I'm sure the dog will at least listen to you.

reported.

 



NNN2004 on 12 July 2008
stanley2011 said:
HappySqurriel said:

I have found that everytime someone says the Wii is as powerful (or less powerful) than the XBox that they tend to be the people who are least qualified to comment on the power of any system. Back in the day many developers believed that the Gamecube was the more powerful system of the two being that (at the time) PowerPC processors were far more powerful than the x86 architecture at the same clock speed (consider that a modern x86 processor at 2 to 3 times the clock speed of the original XBox's processor is 10 to 20 times as powerful), and the Gamecube's GPU could handle a similar number of polygons in real world conditions with more texture layers and effects ...

The (unfortunate) problem was the Gamecube's GPU used an older design and incorporated pixel combiners (the TEV unit) rather than the newer (and rapidly becomming GPU standard) programmable pixel/vertex shaders. To make matters Worse the way the Gamecube sold few developers focused attention on developing games that took advantage of the hardware; the PS2 was dominant so every developer saw value in exploiting the hardware, the XBox was so close to a PC that most PC developers put effort into getting good performance out of the XBox (to port their game), but the Gamecube mostly got third rate PS2 ports.

The interesting thing is that the developers who focused attention on the Wii were able to produce games that stand out as some of the best looking games of the generation; Factor 5 was able to achieve performance from their launch game Starwars Rogue Squadren 2: Rogue Leader that surpassed the performance of most other third party efforts on the Gamecube, and then they surpassed that level with the sequel, and Capcom's efforts with the Resident Evil games (in particular Resident Evil 4) were the most visually impressive games of the generation.

Now, the problem is we can't really evaluate the Wii because we don't know how Nintendo changed the hardware. Based on analysis of the die sizes of the Hollywood and Broadway processors they are (roughly) twice as large (in transistors) as the Flipper and Gekko were, we know they run at 1.5 times the clock speed of the Flipper and Gekko, and we know that they have far more (and far faster) memory than was available on the Gamecube.

When you consider that the real-world performance of the Gamecube allowed it to render more polygons than there are pixels at 480p, with more texture data than can be displayed at 480p, and have (for its time) advanced lighting and material effects and think that (by all measures) the Wii is at least 1.5 times as powerful (potentially closer to 3 times as powerful depending on the changes made to the processors) it should be able to do some pretty impressive things.

The fact is that we have started to see some of these impressive things with games like Super Mario Galaxy and The Conduit ... and over time (as developers start focusing on taking advantage of the Wii for maximum impact) we will start to see things far above and beyond what was possible on previous generation hardware.

U will learn if u read ALL of my older comments.

 

i think ur posts is the most useful here.

 



NNN2004 on 12 July 2008
Viper1 said:
NNN2004 said:
Viper1 said:
Skeeuk said:

the wii is just as powerfull as gamecube. they say twice as powerful but thats obviously bull.

the origional xbox is more powerfull than wii.

but what wii has done is tap into a lucritive new market and sell lots. imo there is nothing on the wii shelfs that i would want to play apart from brawl,galaxy,paper mario,zelda and nights.

most games are aimed at mini game crowd and children type games. real console gaming its ps360, but if you like mini game type games and obscure type titles like word coach etc then the wii is the console for you.

 

Did you intentionally plug your ears, or rather eyes, to the entire thread before posting or do you just like to instigate for the sake of angering people?

You're 32, act like it.

sorry Viper1 but its a bit true.

 

No it's not.  He makes two major mistakes.

1. His assertion of the Wii's capabilties.  I think we've established that issue well enough already.

2. His assertion of what real console gaming is.  What is real console gaming?  What he should have stated instead is the games largely do not appeal to him.   The difference in Halo and Garnival Games as a video game is null.  When you assume they hold separate qualifications as a video game is the same as assuming a sports car is more of a real vehicle than a truck.  Separate consumer markets, seperate characteristics, seperate prices but both are still very much a real vehicle.

 

iam with u with the first one but the second not completely cuz most of the games is aimed for teens.

 



Sqrl on 12 July 2008

Just an FYI, just because you're really into this debate doesn't mean you get to be rude to each other. If I get another complaint from this thread I'm just going to lock it, so please be kind to each other =)
To Each Man, Responsibility
Sqrl on 12 July 2008
Skeeuk said:

the wii is just as powerfull as gamecube. they say twice as powerful but thats obviously bull.

the origional xbox is more powerfull than wii.

but what wii has done is tap into a lucritive new market and sell lots. imo there is nothing on the wii shelfs that i would want to play apart from brawl,galaxy,paper mario,zelda and nights.

most games are aimed at mini game crowd and children type games. real console gaming its ps360, but if you like mini game type games and obscure type titles like word coach etc then the wii is the console for you.

 

Consider yourself warned, this is troll flamebait 101. 

You can find a way to express your views without the negative insuination towards other gamers.
To Each Man, Responsibility