Honestly, we'll have to wait and see. I think the promise was mainly in loads more effects, but again, we'll see.

well, shit from the likes of krome studio, yeah, this is climax and they don't mess around. sega doesn't do that either, sonic unleashed on Wii looked better than PS2 by a good margin is one example.

It's only the truth since some of those PSP games are the same games, just look shittier. Anyways, Climax seems to be pretty good with the TEV so far by looking at their products, I'm sure their PS2 engine is well established too but I doubt it'd look as nice as the Wii since the Wii is the lead platform and it's one those those rare studios where they actually care.

sc94597: I'm sorry but you don't know what you're talking about and from here on out I'm not replying to anything you say on the subject. Anyone who would speak so expertly on the subject like you're trying to do, would know the difference between Normal mapping and Bump mapping without me having to point it out. Bump mapping is something that the very first wave of Xbox games were using, and most Wii games still don't use this. Even those that do are using different methods that just achieve a similar look, not the same effects.

About Halo 2 vs Metroid Prime games. You're still not understanding the resources being used here. Metroid Prime games usually have areas that are being streamed into the active memory which is one of the advantages of having super fast memory, but like you said they aren't very populated. On screen characters with AI and vehicles as well as different guns with actual geometry for bullets (not sprites) as well as different physics for each type of gun and enemy take up more resources and power to pull off than empty landscapes that are being streamed in with not much else. The more intense MP scenes are usually in corridors or rooms. That's why MP looks better, you don't have as much going on. On top of that enemies in MP are simpler creatures. When you fight bigger bosses, that's all that's really going on. Classic case of art over technology.

Viper1: It's still a rail shooter, and far more controlled than most other gaming environments. I haven't seen anything in that game that impresses me, considering it's on rails. If it was a FPS or TPS you might have a point, and even then it doesn't show anything (shaders) that Xbox couldn't match or do better. You seem to be confusing scripted behaviors (easy to do with rail shooters) with actual AI and Physics. These things are just easier to do when constricted, otherwise there wouldn't be rails.

And I disagree, I think the Wii has a more efficient GPU. I just see it as a very outdated design that can perform more efficiently, considering the fact that it's barely faster and not as advanced as the XGPU. It's like comparing the top of the line GPU from an older generation, to a medium range GPU from a newer generation that can simply do better/more effects and has built in hardware support. The XGPU itself was a slightly older design with pixel/vertex shaders added from an upcoming line of cards. It's still more adavanced than what is in either GC/Wii, just not as fast. The Wii GPU is faster, but it doesn't have enough of an advantage to make up for what it doesn't have.

dahuman: People use SC as an example, because it's one of the few games that showed the real difference between the previous gen of consoles. That being shader capability and performance. The GC simply couldn't do the same game with the same effects all running at the same time. This is the advantage you get from having this tech built it, and not having to do everything yourself in software. Using the excuse that it is a PC engine doesn't cut it. If the GC could handle it, they would have gotten a downgraded Xbox port, instead of an upgraded PS2 port.

No, it's was due to Epic games' background with UE, they are simply not that good outside of the PC type realm. That's why UE3 on the PS3 is suffering too, they have never bothered with learning the TEV to the core because they are PC originated, it's a horrible comparison lol. A lot of the western devs are simply not competent outside of the PC realm, Valve is the same way in that regard and that's why they are trying to hire PS3 people atm since EA totally butchered their Orange Box on PS3. You have been brain washed by a lot of the excuse bull shit that devs come up with to hide their short comings if you think UE2 is the greatest thing ever last gen and it can't be done on other platforms without shader model like the Xbox.

I can't counter that with the new RE because that game looks quiet scripted, but from what I've been watching with Dead Space Extraction, it actually looks smarter and faster than the original Dead Space because you can shoot faster with the wiimote(not gimped by DA) and that is very impressive to me since if they had been given one more year, they could have made it into a TPS that'd look great and play better than the original and that's s scary thought because that shows just how good a studio like Visceral Games is. You are right on the XGPU having more advanced feature sets, but it has too many bottlenecks like a PC and will never achieve the type of height that you are dreaming about, MS has made a lot of improvements to the way the 360 works because of what they learned from the Xbox's shortcomings, despite all the RRoD and E74 lol.

PS: and yes the Wii can make up for it, I've already tried to explain to you, it's able to come out with the same look on screen using different methods and you can easily create effects that the Xbox can't even achieve, there is no one way to make things appear right to your eyes, and the Xbox is serverly gimped by it's design.

No I think it's the other way around, you have been brainwashed by Nintendo fanboys and other people that defend the Wii and its' outdated design. Maybe you just don't understand that shader tech IS PC/ Western tech that Japanese developers are just beginning to understand. That is the main reason why this was an afterthought on the PS3, and why the 360 tech is based around this.

You don't even seem to understand why PC developers are struggling with PS3. Is has more to do with unconventional design than incompetent devs. The PS3 only has one real core, and it isn't great to begin with, on top of that you get a weaker GPU than what 360 has as well as a memory setup that doesn't work together very well. You also don't get free AA on PS3 like you do with 360, and slightly less RAM for textures/models and everything else. This requires a lot more work than is reasonable, it has nothing to do with lazy or stupid people.

PS3/Wii are totally different problems, you can't even compare them. What you don't understand is that TEV makes you write everything, which kills any efficiency the Wii might have over the Xbox. You're also ignoring the fact that it's a fixed function pipeline, I don't know how many times I've said that.

Explain to me how a fixed function pipeline is more flexible than a programmable pipeline that already has many of the very effects you would want to produce already built in? Just to produce similar effects it takes more CPU power since it isn't natively supported by the GPU. If you wanted to make your own stuff on Xbox you could, and it would run better than what you can do on Wii. Have you ever worked with textures or 3D models? Just look at any of the extracted Wii models that are out there, and you will see that texture resolutions are pathetic, shader effects are very primitive and not very impressive at all. The only thing that is nice is the geometry (sometimes, but barely better than top GC stuff), and it isn't that nice. You get better geometry on Xbox models, and far more advanced and power hungry shader effects.

About those rail shooters, they both look very scripted to me. RE looks way better IMO, but that's because IT IS more scripted and contained.

uh, you are too fixated on the XGPU itself and I can see why since it's the only thing you can argue with, it's limited by certain bottlenecks and you can only do so much with it under the Xbox design as a whole, the Wii is capable of almost any advanced shader type effects you can throw at it without using too much CPU power, the difference is it works under fixed functions(and I've never said it was more flexible, putting words in people's mouth much? Wii just has more power and the hardware in it works more efficiently together,) it's not really news, I think the main problem is devs not trying on the Wii. PS3 and Wii suffer the same problem a lot, shitty coding and dead lines, the difference in hardware or power won't change that part, so yes they are incompetent at that particular subject if they can't meet the standards, just like everything else. Japan also never had problems with shader model, I don't know where you got that from, Sony is a hardware manufacture who decided to put that part into their console at the last minute, that's all there is to that.

which models are you speaking of btw? keep in mind the budget and time when you compare them. also you do realize because of the nature of the TEV, the shaders don't work the same since they use different rendering techniques right? assuming they are being used at all? I personally haven't had a hard copy of a true high budget 3rd party game for the Wii myself, have you seen any around lately? didn't think so.

99% of the games are scripted, the difference is how they react to different situations, if you've been looking at the latest comicon videos, they did a damn good job with DSE, if given enough time, they can easily make a full game and it'd look way better than Xbox games. We'll only see more of that as well, the console itself does have higher potential than Xbox, but only because of it's higher power and efficiency.

Really, these are all old news though, it's been discussed on here before, just goto http://www.vgchartz.com/forum/post.php?id=972050 I don't know why we are even having this discussion to start with.

You're more fixated on TEV than I am on the XGPU, that's for sure. You're still not getting that I agree the Wii is more powerful than Xbox. Why is it that you keep regurgitating this info? It is a more efficient system that was put together well, that doesn't mean it can handle all those effects like Xbox can. Last gen developers weren't exactly trying with the Xbox either, games that didn't have a PC version and were ported from PS2 at least added higher poly models, better textures, better draw distances and other various half-assed polishes. Why isn't the same done with Wii? Becasue if you add those things, the hardware takes a hit. On Xbox you can do them as an afterthought, and still run the basic port. The business doesn't work how you think it does, very few devs have the luxury to exploit any given console. You make it sound like every last ounce of juice was squeezed out the Xbox, even though you said the devs are lazy and incompetent.

Of course Western developers have a better grasp of shaders than the Japanese do. These were first used in PC games from Western devs, Japanese devs didn't really start using this stuff until consoles were able to handle them. This is why both Sony and Nintendo didn't make this a priority, they were both too busy worrying about pushing polys. Sony didn't worry about shaders until they got word about 360's GPU capabilities, which is why they basically added a part with similar specs. Nintendo again didn't care enough to add a better solution and they just turned up the volume on what they were already doing. Their solution is "here you can do anything you want with this, good luck getting it all to run" and it shows.

I was talking about the actual 3D models that are used in-game, actual game resources. Some have been ported to GMOD others are in various 3D formats (obj, 3DS, max, etc.). This isn't just looking at pretty graphics and saying it looks good enough, you can actually see what is used and it looks very last-gen. Really the only stuff that looks good is Capcom stuff from you guessed it, their other rail shooter.

You can believe what you want, this isn't going anywhere. So we're just going to have to agree to disagree.