Really? They actually said it cant do bump mapping, thus no normal mapping? I know for a fact that is BS, as its all done with texture maps. Anyone with a version of Photoshop 5 or above can make normal maps (fyi PS 5 is about 8-10 years old)

Its true, there's no hardware shaders, and this is where devs get lazy/lack talent. Making shaders over a shader system is simple, but creating full software based shader rendering is a lot of work. Basically you will need a very advanced OpenGL programmer, a rare breed of creature. It's far easier to claim the system is inferior than to go out and track one of these programmers down and pay them 70k+/yr. The key is to make sure your programming staff excels in OpenGL. There's no reason why there shouldn't be at least 2 people on your dev team that have this ability, especially if you're going to build an engine.

The end result, which is what's seen on screen, is infact that same resolution 480i/p, like I said the only difference is how there encoded depending if the content is going to be on DVD in which case it'll be progressive or free to air tv which will be interlaced, now all TV's support both interlaced and progressive signals, however older TV's in general didn't support progressive because the eleteconics them selvs were not designed for progressive signals, which is why back in the day there were warnings telling the user that a tv can be damaged if one choose the progressive option but their tv didn't support it.

BTW there are pixels which are not seen as they fall with in the overscan, most modern tvs have an option to turn over scan off, but the olders don't.

There's a big difference - Madworld had a weird art style, was rated M, and was very short and repetitive. In the end, it just wasn't a good game. Think of Alone in the Dark that came out last year, very similar reception. Has little to do with the audience, just a crappy product.

Conduit will likely sell 1.5 mil, and as for Grinder, its hard to say - depends on how its advertised/hype buildup

I don't think they're being arrogant at all. To set out to create a better looking Wii game than most other 3rd party developers isn't going to be all that difficult; It's no secret that even the large 3rd parties barely put effort into their Wii games. I think what they're saying is that they are going to try, as opposed to most others, and that's a rather justified statement.

I'm not quite sure why you are getting so worked up about this but i have to agree with Jake here.  Resolution refers to the total number of pixels in the scene, whereas the i and p designations merely provide additional information about the display standard. By your argument a 576p DVD (PAL standard) would provide better image quality than a Blu Ray displayed on a slightly older HDTV (1080i), which is just not the case.  Progressive scan display provides a more stable, cleaner and flicker free image when compared with an interlaced display of comparable resolution but in the end the difference isn't night and day and it isn't twice as good because they are the same resolution and progressive scan does not allow you to resolve any additional detail from the source material. 

The term EDTV is of limited usefullness anyway because it is only used to describe 480p and 576p and i can assure you they are far closer in fidelity to SD than HD (720p, 1080i/p) having viewed numerous sources of all standards in the last 6-7 years on a TV that does not scale and displays all of the resolutions we have been discussing natively. 

In the end the Wii supports 480p which is great because it's definitely better than 480i and that's good enough for me.

Typically, with 480i you get 704 pixels displayed across 480 lines interlaced which translates to 10,137,600 pixels per second; with 480p you get the full 720pixels displayed across 480 lines progressively which translates to 20,736,000 pixels per second. The reason the change is not as dramatic as other changes in resolution is (primarily) the reason why they decided to broadcast interlaced video; as long as you're looking at a still image there is no visual difference (or lower quality) by displaying interlaced video, but when a line of pixels is switching from frame to frame you will see a noticeable difference in quality.

Yeah seems like people just hired staff as cheeply as possible that can make PC and 360 games for cheaper, which could be another reason why they say PS3 is hard to develop for since they just don't prep for that kind of work, take the example of Infinity Ward they knew the tech of the PS3 and 360 were different so they made teams that are versed in those different techs and worked their asses off to make it run nearly identical.  This is one reason I'm sad to see no infinity ward CoD game on Wii yet, if those guys put the effort they did into the 360 and PS3 tech they could blow some minds with Wii tech, not on "ZOMG it looks like a 360 game!" level but more of the "ZOMG that cannot be a Wii game" level.

I disagree with that statement... while sales of Madworld probably would have been a bit higher if it were a 360/PS3 multiplatform release, I think The Conduit would have bombed hard if it had been released for either of those platforms... it would have gone the way of Haze and been an underwhelming, generic FPS in a sea of high-quality FPS that consistently raise the bar for the genre like CoD, Halo 3, Gears, Resistance, etc.

And while I expect most reviews for The Conduit to give it modest praise for bringing high-quality visuals, intuitive controls, and online multiplayer to the Wii, reviewers would have ripped the game a new one if it was on the 360/PS3, just like Haze.

^^^

mw on wii would be immense, also rough for me goin for gold star 55 on two games . . .

wii sii