Post by: WindyMan on May 10, 2007, 04:46:53 PM
http://www.nintendoworldreport.com/newsArt.cfm?artid=13442
Last week, Microsoft Entertainment and Devices Division President Robbie Bach made some comments stating that the Wii wasn't really that much more powerful than the original Xbox. In fact, it was less powerful. Newsweek's tech expert and resident geek N'Gai Croal decided to investigate Bach's claim about the hardware differences.
The results may surprise some people. Talking to development sources on the condition of anonymity, Croal discovered that people from Nintendo's own development support group said the chipset powering the Wii is a "Gamecube 1.5 with some added memory." The developer who heard that said if Nintendo said it, "it must be true." The Wii lacks programmable shaders as did the original Xbox, and in fact another developer likened the Wii's graphic set to a seven-year old Nvida PC graphics card.
Such a comparison would seem to confirm the initial worry about the Wii being a vastly underpowered system. However, the two sources Croal tapped in his writeup indicate that the Wii is stronger than the Xbox in other areas, such as the faster clock speeds and extra memory over the GameCube. (Most people will agree that the GameCube and Xbox were neck-and-neck in terms of real-world performance.) One of the developers told Croal that the shader effects featured in the more powerful PS3 and Xbox 360 could be reproduced well enough on the Wii to get "very close results."
Croal concludes that Bach's initial claim about the Wii being underpowered compared to the Xbox wasn't unfounded, but not completely true. Still, for a "next gen" system to be so close in power to a console of the previous generation, one has to wonder how long Nintendo can keep up the "graphics don't mean anything" pitch without the gap starting to become too disadvantageous.
Post by: that Baby guy on May 10, 2007, 05:00:16 PM
Edit: "sigh"
Take that, Shecky!
Post by: Shecky on May 10, 2007, 05:00:40 PM
Thanks.
Edit: Two can play at this...
Post by: Kairon on May 10, 2007, 05:03:18 PM
~Carmine "Cai" M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on May 10, 2007, 05:18:46 PM
IT'S OVER, FOLKS.
Post by: Mario on May 10, 2007, 05:20:15 PM
Post by: that Baby guy on May 10, 2007, 05:28:09 PM
Post by: UERD on May 10, 2007, 05:32:17 PM
Post by: Blue Plant on May 10, 2007, 05:38:12 PM
Quote
and in fact another developer likened the Wii's graphic set to a seven-year old Nvida PC graphics card.
Bet that was Mark Rein. Le sigh...
Post by: Alfonse on May 10, 2007, 05:53:02 PM
Quote
Bet that was Mark Rein. Le sigh...
Regardless of who it was, it's not entirely inaccurate. Given that Wii is just an overclocked GC with 64MB of extra RAM, that means it's using the GC's GPU. Which means it was developed 7 years ago.
The problem is that you're reading into this, "OMG, Wii's gr4p1x r teh sux0rz!" Sure, 360 and PS3 can out-match it easily. Can the X-Box?
Probably not. GC was in many ways superior to the X-Box in actual performance, so a GC 1.5x should still be superior. There may still be some functionality differences on the GC/Wii (specific bits of X-Box hardware that GC/Wii can't emulate), but that's about it.
Post by: NWR_pap64 on May 10, 2007, 05:55:47 PM
Post by: Kairon on May 10, 2007, 06:00:45 PM
~Carmine "Cai" M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: NWR_pap64 on May 10, 2007, 06:02:38 PM
We don't know for sure, though. Square forbid the taping of the trailer. But many people agreed that the game look really nice.
Post by: Khushrenada on May 10, 2007, 06:09:34 PM
Post by: that Baby guy on May 10, 2007, 06:11:34 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Khushrenada
The Crystal Chronicles game is for the DS. Trust me, I know. I'm a staff writer and have to keep track of these things. The full title is Final Fantasy Crystal Chronicles: Ring of Fates. This job is a lock.
Are you saying the video was for the DS version? There is a Wii Crystal Chronicles in production, too, though there's been less information about it available.
Post by: Kairon on May 10, 2007, 06:16:56 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Khushrenada
The Crystal Chronicles game is for the DS. Trust me, I know. I'm a staff writer and have to keep track of these things. The full title is Final Fantasy Crystal Chronicles: Ring of Fates. This job is a lock.
Sorry Khush, but you're not going to get that job after all. Square DID show FF:CB Wii real time footage at the conference, they just asked EVERYBODY not to take pictures or anything.
Who'll end up getting that job after all? Hmm... I say GoldenPhoenix!
Post by: Khushrenada on May 10, 2007, 06:32:41 PM
Oh well. Not to worry. Golden Phoenix is relying on Smash_Brother and Pap64 to support her and I don't see that happening. Too much review fighting.
Post by: Kairon on May 10, 2007, 06:34:31 PM
Hmm... what OTHER accusations can I sling at him? How else can I get someone who'll support my right to sign all my posts manually into office?
Post by: WuTangTurtle on May 10, 2007, 06:41:02 PM
(Edit) Nice jab Kairon, lol. Good luck Khush, I'm pullin for ya.
Post by: Khushrenada on May 10, 2007, 06:49:10 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Kairon
Darn! Khush owned up to his own mistake! I wasn't expecting that!
Hmm... what OTHER accusations can I sling at him? How else can I get someone who'll support my right to sign all my posts manually into office?
Yeah, I'm not really a stuck-up arrogant jerk. I only play one on TV and in the Funhouse. Type-casting. What can you do?
But you bring up a very interesting point. You've stopped typing your signiture at the end of your posts. What happened? I can't believe I didn't even notice. This election has been taking up a lot of my time. Also, I don't care if you manually sign at the end of your posts or not.
Actually, I could use someone to sign a whole bunch of autographs for me. The public. They just can't stop loving me. Since you seem to be pretty handy with your fingers, maybe you'd like to join my party. The fact that you are trying so hard to think of some OTHER accusation just shows the squeaky clean record I have. So why waste time?
EDIT: Thanks for the support WuTangTurtle.
Post by: Kairon on May 10, 2007, 06:57:06 PM
Post by: sycomonkey on May 10, 2007, 07:24:24 PM
In the end, nobody cares. No game gets funner the more polies it has.
Post by: NeoThunder on May 10, 2007, 07:50:25 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: pap64
We REALLY need a killer app with amazing graphics. Maybe then some people will shut up. I mean, the PS2 was weak as hell, but once the beautiful games were released everyone didn't seem to care anymore.
This is a really good point that people fail to remember. Last generation the PS2 was the weakest of the three hardwares. Even so, it was widely popular and therefor developers worked with what people have.
These types of articles make me sick. It's like saying software designed for the xbox wouldn't run as good on a wii, and of course it wouldn't cause you have to develop games specifically for systems. It should be important to note that some original xbox games run better on xbox than the emulation on a xbox 360. So if the 360 is supposed to be 20 times more powerful (or whatever they say), I would ask them how come their original xbox games are that way.
It's not the hardware....it's the games. Your $600 PS3 is just a 10 pound rock if their isn't any good games on it.
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on May 10, 2007, 08:47:56 PM
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on May 10, 2007, 09:15:38 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Kairon
Then you can be sure for my support Khush!
You traitor.
Post by: ThePerm on May 10, 2007, 09:33:27 PM
the first thing you notice is the characters are really detailed, they have all this armor, and their shiny. Comparing it to Resident evil 4, you could say these charadcters look more detailed, however having played twilight princess I have seen characters just as detailed.
the backround is vast though and the draw distance is pretty high, but then again so was twilight princess. When you ghet into the game you start going inside more and then it ends up looking just like resident evil 4. Even some areas like the caverns and buildings look like they were taken out of re4.
the enemies are detailed, but usually blown away before you get a chance to see you. They are comparable to your character in appearance, but than again there are never that many people on the screen at a time.
whats really impressive are the huge monsters you fight, but then again if you remember star fox adventures you woul remember some pretty big and impressive characters, as well as some on resident evil 4.
The lighting is better, but than again iv seen what Super Mario Galaxy looks like. Also, eternal darkness probalbly had better lighting than alot of games out now.
What really i think is what makes games look morte next gen is the textures. One of the problems with the last generation was that the characters were looking really detailed, but the textures in games were still blurry. Gamecube had amazing texturing abilities(better than xbox, but what happened was a lack of memory)
from reports Wii has more power, but not much. However it has alot more memory, and also alot more disk space. Wii uses DVD 9 disks which are 8.5gb, Gamecube had a measly 1.5 gb, gamecube had 48mb, and apparently wii has an extra 64mb. Chances are the original gamecube was plenty powerful, but there comes a limit what can be produced graphically when there is a lack of memory. That problem is fixed with wii.
Post by: Kairon on May 10, 2007, 10:39:05 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: GoldenPhoenixQuote
Originally posted by: Kairon
Then you can be sure for my support Khush!
You traitor.
Hey, it's your own fault. You just admitted that you read EGM.
Post by: cubist on May 11, 2007, 03:32:57 AM
Hehe...
Post by: Ian Sane on May 11, 2007, 05:53:31 AM
I think a Wii game that makes full use of the hardware will look really good. The best looking Cube games still wow me today. The more likely problem is the PS3 and X360 getting some really killer game that everyone is buying and the Wii is incapable of getting it because it doesn't have powerful enough hardware for a port. Then you get something like GTA showing up on every console last gen BUT Nintendo's. The Wii has an advantage in that it is hard to port from but it also has a big weakness in that it's hard to port to.
Post by: couchmonkey on May 11, 2007, 06:22:13 AM
That's where Cubist's comment comes in...the people are choosing, and their choice says that they don't care about graphics. If graphics aren't enough to sell Xbox 360 or PS3 now, why should they be enough a year from now, or two years from now? By the same token, if "bad" graphics aren't stopping Wii from selling right now, why should they stop it from selling two years from now? The common answer is that people will get tired of the "gimmick". Tell me, are people tired of the DS? Even if they are tired of the stylus control, they sure aren't tired of the system itself.
I've heard a lot of complaints about Wii...but they all have to do with a lack of games...lack of online games, lack of big one-player games, lack of VC games...few people care about the graphics, and the ones who do are in the minority, judging by sales.
Post by: mantidor on May 11, 2007, 07:20:56 AM
Post by: Ian Sane on May 11, 2007, 09:44:32 AM
If people are tired of the stylus control the DS still is a good follow-up to the GBA though. It's noticably more powerful with it's 3D capabilities being the most obvious difference. And if you remove the touchscreen the DS still has the normal expected controls. It even has more buttons than the GBA.
If people ever get sick of the Remote the Wii is screwed. Unlike with the DS, the "normal" control option costs extra. And in terms of hardware the Wii isn't as big of a jump as the DS is. Remove the unique feature of each system and the DS becomes what most people wanted for a GBA followup anyway while the Wii becomes a slightly more powerful Gamecube with an NES controller. The DS would still sell without the touchscreen but the Wii would be a laughing stock without motion control. People CANNOT get sick of the Remote. It's just not an option for Nintendo.
Post by: that Baby guy on May 11, 2007, 09:54:27 AM
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on May 11, 2007, 11:17:26 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Ian Sane
"Tell me, are people tired of the DS? Even if they are tired of the stylus control, they sure aren't tired of the system itself."
If people are tired of the stylus control the DS still is a good follow-up to the GBA though. It's noticably more powerful with it's 3D capabilities being the most obvious difference. And if you remove the touchscreen the DS still has the normal expected controls. It even has more buttons than the GBA.
If people ever get sick of the Remote the Wii is screwed. Unlike with the DS, the "normal" control option costs extra. And in terms of hardware the Wii isn't as big of a jump as the DS is. Remove the unique feature of each system and the DS becomes what most people wanted for a GBA followup anyway while the Wii becomes a slightly more powerful Gamecube with an NES controller. The DS would still sell without the touchscreen but the Wii would be a laughing stock without motion control. People CANNOT get sick of the Remote. It's just not an option for Nintendo.
Um Ian I think you are forgetting the nunchuck attachment, the Wii has traditional controls too. Regardless, couldn't you have said the same thing about analog stick controls? Heck you could say it about any new innovation in controls. Besides I REALLY doubt people will get sick of motion controls because at the very least the Wiimote makes aiming a breeze, and works quite well as a 3D mouse.
Post by: senatorquijano on May 11, 2007, 12:11:50 PM
Post by: Ian Sane on May 11, 2007, 12:24:49 PM
Yes I could have said it about the analog stick but Nintendo would have been fine if that didn't work out because the N64 is perfectly suited for d-pad driven controls. Even with the nunchuk the Wii controller has less buttons than any other console from this gen or the last. Plus it's sold seperately in two halves and would make for a pretty expensive "normal" controller.
Post by: that Baby guy on May 11, 2007, 12:27:17 PM
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on May 11, 2007, 01:06:08 PM
Post by: TrueNerd on May 12, 2007, 07:22:01 PM
In conclusion, it is hard not to sound like a chemically imbalanced Nintendo fanboy when talking about the unimportance of HD graphics.
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on May 12, 2007, 07:47:57 PM
