There will be "wow" games later...I'm sure of that, so that's why I don't complain about games now. Developers are pretty lazy now, but the bigger, epic games that we all like will come in time.
LEFT4DEAD411.COM
Bet with disolitude: Left4Dead will have a higher Metacritic rating than Project Origin, 3 months after the second game's release. (hasn't been 3 months but it looks like I won :-p )
Most developers are saying the Wii is about as powerful as the original Xbox was .I dont know why we have to doubt them when they are actually working in the hardware just to make space for a dime-a-dozen analisys about its power .I mean ,the analysis seems serious ,but after having seen so many of those lately totally flawed (most comparing PS3 and 360 ) as soon as you knew something about the machines it is hard to take this serious .
Kwaad said:
Once agian, let me show my appreation at you troling my posts. I say the Wii is a GeForce4/5. Speed of GeForce5, with shaders like a 4. Moral of the story, look at HL2 as another example. And that is about what you'll get on the Wii. HappySqurriel - Factor 5 says whatever console they are makeing games for is god. They say the PS3 is MUCH faster than the 360 in nearly every way! The Wii never showed anything to amazing other than RE4, and it used a GREAT inguenative texture trick. It dosent use shaders like a traditional game made in that era, it used textures, that look 3D. They somehow took 'pictures' of a all, with wires, chips, and everything, rendered at super HD, with perfect lighting, and then snapped the shot, and put that picture for the wall on the game. The game looks amazing, but they cheated alot. In terms of, the Console is not 'really' rending the image you see. I mean it is, but it's not using near as much power as it looks. Overall, on a technical standpoint, Escape from Buters bay on the X-Box looked light-years better. And truthfully, I would say the GameCube was 75% X-box. I would say the Wii has roughly the Power of a GeForce 4.5 What more could you want me to say? It has the power of a GeForce9? The power of SLI 8800GTX, in 1 card. Or roughly 6x faster than a PS3's graphics card? Good god, The damn thing runs on 20w. How fast can it be?!?! The PS3 runs on over 10x more power than the Wii. Count the HDD, I'd say the PS3 runs at least 175w. Or 8x more power useage. Now, let's do a rough, power useage/power comparison. 4x would be GeForce6. 2x Would be GeForce5. 1x would be GeForce4. Once agian, it nails the Wii at ~GeForce4 graphics chip performance. EDIT: I just want to point out, I feel the Wii has ~25% more power than a X-Box. |
So which is it, was the Gamecube 75% of the XBox (having something similar to a Geforce 3) or is the Gamecube 33% to 50% of the XBox (having something similar to a Geforce 2)? This argument the Wii is slightly more powerful than the XBox while in your next argumet it will be less powerful than the XBox ...
You don't know what you're talking about and you make crap up until someone catches you on it!
The Wii is obviously not similar in power to either the XBox 360 or PS3 but that doesn't mean that its games will look bad. As was discussed in another thread, few developers ever focused on the Gamecube took advantage of its processing power; the developers that did produced some amazing looking games:
As good developers get used to the hardware of the Wii they will be able to produce some very good looking games ...
OK, I gave up reading the article because there is just too much junk in it to be considered a worthy source.
1) "CISC" vs. "RISC" is a moot point. PowerPC processors have changed quite a bit, and the honest differences between what they do is not all that great, compared to the P6 architecture (not netburst or later). Besides that, the point about using photoshop on a mac and it seeming fast had more to do with the fact that adobe optimized for the platform that was the most popular for their product.
2) Comparing 64MB of A-RAM to multigigabytes of HDD cache is hyperbole. 64MB, of which most will be tied up in other areas, cannot serve as a swap space by any means. Most of the time when information is needed, it will need to be pulled off the CD.
3) The internal flash memory was again, not a big point. The gamecube was supposed to support SD cards via an adapter for the memory card, and could have supported it through the still open serial port (of which a micro HDD was supposed to fit in.)
I love my wii, but spouting non-sense is pointless.
"Suck on it" -vgchartz mod
| Diomedes1976 said: Most developers are saying the Wii is about as powerful as the original Xbox was .I dont know why we have to doubt them when they are actually working in the hardware just to make space for a dime-a-dozen analisys about its power .I mean ,the analysis seems serious ,but after having seen so many of those lately totally flawed (most comparing PS3 and 360 ) as soon as you knew something about the machines it is hard to take this serious . |
Really? I only heard EA saying that. Here, I would like to see some more evidence.
Care to show some examples on the PS3/360 argument? Not needed, but I would be interested.
Kwaad said:
... The Wii never showed anything to amazing other than RE4, and it used a GREAT inguenative texture trick. It dosent use shaders like a traditional game made in that era, it used textures, that look 3D. They somehow took 'pictures' of a wall, with wires, paint chips, and everything, rendered at super HD, with perfect lighting, and then snapped the shot, and put that picture for the wall on the game. The game looks amazing, but they cheated alot. In terms of, the Console is not 'really' rending the image you see. I mean it is, but it's not using near as much power as it looks. ... |
If that was cheating then the PS2 version was the biggest scam in the whole video game story.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resident_evil_4
A PlayStation 2 port of Resident Evil 4 was released in America on October 25, 2005. Despite being a graphically downgraded port due to the PlayStation 2's hardware capabilities, impressions of the port based on a preview build have been good. A handful of critics stated that the PlayStation 2 version's graphics were inferior to the those of the Gamecube, however some felt that the exclusive features made up for these shortcomings.[17]
Additionally, almost all the GameCube’s real-time cut scenes were converted into FMV movie files in order to maintain a better quality. In other words, the player’s character will appear (in higher-polygon GameCube model) wearing their default costume, regardless of which accessories or outfits were actually chosen. The gameplay balancing present in the PAL GameCube version applies to the PlayStation 2 version as well (though the North American release has no Easy option).[citation needed]
Voices and sound effects quality outside of the cutscenes had been reduced due to audio RAM constraints.[citation needed]
Satan said:
"You are for ever angry, all you care about is intelligence, but I repeat again that I would give away all this superstellar life, all the ranks and honours, simply to be transformed into the soul of a merchant's wife weighing eighteen stone and set candles at God's shrine."
HappySqurriel said:
So which is it, was the Gamecube 75% of the XBox (having something similar to a Geforce 3) or is the Gamecube 33% to 50% of the XBox (having something similar to a Geforce 2)? This argument the Wii is slightly more powerful than the XBox while in your next argumet it will be less powerful than the XBox ... You don't know what you're talking about and you make crap up until someone catches you on it! The Wii is obviously not similar in power to either the XBox 360 or PS3 but that doesn't mean that its games will look bad. As was discussed in another thread, few developers ever focused on the Gamecube took advantage of its processing power; the developers that did produced some amazing looking games:
As good developers get used to the hardware of the Wii they will be able to produce some very good looking games ... |
There's some x-box ownage for ya.
ItsaMii - graphical cheating is normally a really good thing, becuase it makes games look much better than they could normally look on the hardware. But, it's not the hardware doing everything. (graphical cheats are usually very hard to do, and take a lot of time/tweaking to make look right, and that, is something alot of developers wont and dont do)
PSN ID: Kwaad
I fly this flag in victory!
Kwaad said:
There's some x-box ownage for ya. |
Hmmm sorry Kwaad but even though I respect your opinion, I think the first image looks better... Or maybe my eyes are defective... O-o
Kwaad, do you have a screenshot that involves gameplay? There is a reason why in engine cut scenes always look better than in game scenes.
| lolita said: Hmmm sorry Kwaad but even though I respect your opinion, I think the first image looks better... Or maybe my eyes are defective... O-o |
I actually could have picked a picture with more going on at the same time, however I decided to pick a picture that shows more of what FarCry is about, than small beautiful spaces. FarCry is about huge islands. On the PC version of the game, you could make a map that took 15-30 minutes to drive across in a jeep. You could spend hours and hours and hours, exploring every nook and cranny. (now that map would take months and months and months to make) But still, FarCry is about sniping someone from so far away, it will take you 5-10 minutes to get there.
PSN ID: Kwaad
I fly this flag in victory!
About Us |
Terms of Use |
Privacy Policy |
Advertise |
Staff |
Contact
Display As Desktop
Display As Mobile
© 2006-2025 VGChartz Ltd. All rights reserved.
