After decades of work with more processing power per frame than any console will see for years, pre-rendered graphics are still seeing improvements to this day ... The one thing that we can say for the near future is there will always be room for improvement in graphics.

The fact of the matter is that computer graphics have never been a major motivating factor for why people buy the systems they do, and the improvement in graphics should occur at a rate which the industry (in general) can support it; and the desire for greater graphics should never be so great that independant developers are pushed out of the industry because they can not support the cost of the latest and greatest technology.

It's not only about just grafix, but more power also gives you better game physics, complexer environments, better AI, etc.

Maybe you're talking about this?

http://www.nwiizone.com/nintendo-wii/nwii/ibm-announces-broadway-cpu-is-20-more-power-efficient/

I can't comment on the Cube's graphics. Tbh, after the Nes, I lost interest in Nintendo consoles and moved on to mthe Playstations. The Ps2 had great graphics imo. (though many say that the Cube had better ones.)


Now, that i own a Wii, I can say that Twilight Princess looked fantastic! It was my 1st Wii game and the 1st Nintendo game I owned. ( along with the Wii which was the 1st Nintendo console I thought about buying.) That justfied the purchase of the Wii for me in May of 07.

Heh physics.. Ajax I have to explain something about physics engines to you.

Your aware that outside of procedural animation all animations are more than coded images or scripted. This script is called an engine, how it calls up this script and the pace also how well the processor runs this script and loads these images is what a physics engine is. Most of the memory on any medium including blu-ray is riddled with these images. The animations are a direct result of this engine, in otherwords the graphics you see have to be maintained within the animation.

People went crazy over the building crumbling in Killzone 2's trailer, that entire event was scripted to my knowledge, which would explain why it takes so many people to develop that game, you see depending on how and which the condition was met the building would collapse, I'm not certain if there were sub-conditions but that is how they got that effect.

With this in mind the only time you would need a faster processor is if you have large ammounts of large files being called on, and not the script itself, in other words star dust HD calls on high res images to be on the screen in massive ammounts, their trajectory is scripted and the animations while they are constantly being refreshed across the screen is all part of the physics engine, but within that dot moving you probably have 15 maybe 30 animations for that dot all in HD, then multiply that by how many frames are going by and the ammount of animations it goes through in a second and you have your high system requirements.

Last cycle it was the same thing, and the cycle before that - this cycle would be no different if it weren't for the dominant system redefining how to succeed. Now Asteroids back in the day had just as many dots and asteroids going all around the screen, but my comp had about 12 mbs or ram back then, which was amazing for back then actually - you get where I'm going? The same ammounts of dots were going all around but on 12mb of ram and a processor that would make SNES look like a super computer.

To go back into my point, Zelda is amazing, I just killed 3 goblins and watched them fly back, while espers are floating around through the forest and the lighting and shadow effects are in full blasts. It actually looks like I'm in a forest, and it's working on GC limitations.

Maybe I didn't write well... or you lack reading comprehension

What I said was that graphics are no longer a relevant factor in game improvement. while they can improve as much as the hardware allows it, other aspects matter a lot more (story, gameplay, interactivity).

What the Wii implies is that balance is a lot more important than graphics alone. Developers must not be blinded at the graphic capabilities bur focus instead of making the games fun.

You must be blind...  The Genesis had UGLY graphics...  and the sound was just horrible.  Their sound chip was worse then what the original NES and Gameboy used.  It was just a disgrace!  The SNES's graphics and sound still stand up really well today.  The same can not be said about the Genesis.

 Actually... the Genesis had better graphics than the SNES.

But the problems were the Audio, the number of channels, the output capacity, etc.

Genesis was an outbalanced system and the SNES was balanced

Guys, guys, Genesis vs SNES isn't that hard a comparison and they both have advantages and disadvantages. SNES had more colors, S-video output, a better sound chip and extra graphical modes built-in. Genesis had a significantly faster processor. SNES games tend to be brighter (more colors to choose from and more able to be displayed) and have better sound quality (not necessarily composition), but Genesis games are less plagued by slowdown due to the processor speed.

You considering only SNES and Genesis have forgotten the NeoGeo MVS.

@topic: 20% lol