Nintendo World Report Forums

Gaming Forums => Nintendo Gaming => Topic started by: ThePerm on December 12, 2005, 12:29:28 PM

Title: 2-3 times powerful
Post by: ThePerm on December 12, 2005, 12:29:28 PM


the second picture looks 2-3 times better than the first  
Title: RE: 2-3 times powerful
Post by: Nile Boogie on December 12, 2005, 12:43:44 PM
Yes it does?
Title: RE: 2-3 times powerful
Post by: mantidor on December 12, 2005, 12:56:28 PM
I personally think that its unmeasurable how many "X times" is a picture better than other picture.

Seriously the games will look awesome, really, no need to worry .
Title: RE: 2-3 times powerful
Post by: ThePerm on December 12, 2005, 12:58:50 PM
if oyu havnt guessed its a joke thread
Title: RE:2-3 times powerful
Post by: kirby_killer_dedede on December 12, 2005, 01:17:10 PM
Perm?  When did your brain pop?  I mean I'm just wondering.
Title: RE: 2-3 times powerful
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on December 12, 2005, 03:39:02 PM
When you shook the Coke can one time too many.
Title: RE: 2-3 times powerful
Post by: MysticGohan24 on December 12, 2005, 03:52:34 PM
heh, I've stated this as well in the other thread under this somewhere What's up with perm lately? seems he sniffed all the baking soda outta a volcano project

Maybe he seen Mario Strikers Daisy in her ashorts and went nutz
Otherwise I swear Perm was on LCD or PSP, Acid and angel dust all in one inhaler.

"Edited to further the amusement of 1 hostile "
Title: RE: 2-3 times powerful
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on December 12, 2005, 03:58:58 PM
He sniffs crack.





butt crack
Title: RE:2-3 times powerful
Post by: Djunknown on December 12, 2005, 04:22:48 PM
Twisted by the Dark Side? His avatar is mainly black...

Hey Mods, can we get move this thread to the funhouse? More fun will be had over there...
Title: RE:2-3 times powerful
Post by: BlackNMild2k1 on December 12, 2005, 07:30:50 PM
Quote

Originally posted by: Djunknown
Twisted by the Dark Side? His avatar is mainly black...

Hey Mods, can we get move this thread to THE FUNHOUSE? More fun will be had over there...


don't you guys realize...?  That is your source of evil, the real 'ThePerm' is trapped in The Funhouse.
ThePerm that you you see here is just a reflection of his former self casted out by a Funhouse mirror.

beware of The Funhouse... cause even too much FUN can be a bad thing...
Title: RE: 2-3 times powerful
Post by: Hostile Creation on December 12, 2005, 09:08:43 PM
"Otherwise I swear Perm was on LCD or PCP, Acid and angel dust all in one inhaler"

This would have been even funnier if you'd said LCD or PSP.
Title: RE: 2-3 times powerful
Post by: ThePerm on December 13, 2005, 06:23:03 PM
no your minds are mush, im on a higher level then you guys now. I made a damn commercial for the system in less then 20 minutes.
Title: RE: 2-3 times powerful
Post by: MysticGohan24 on December 13, 2005, 06:31:57 PM
any idea why did it link Mario all of a sudden after editing ? I didn't do that on my free will. PGC doing this intentionally? lol
Title: RE: 2-3 times powerful
Post by: ThePerm on January 22, 2006, 06:26:43 PM
this is what it looks like visually  heehheh
Title: RE:2-3 times powerful
Post by: Ceric on January 23, 2006, 03:27:51 AM
ThePerm Where are those pictures from.  Mainly the first one.  I beleive the second one is the GCN RE 4  
Title: RE: 2-3 times powerful
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on January 23, 2006, 03:45:20 AM
First pic is an official screenshot from Capcom of Japan that dates before the game was released.

The 2nd one is promo art.  I have the theatrical-size poster of it =D
Title: RE: 2-3 times powerful
Post by: Smash_Brother on January 23, 2006, 10:13:00 AM
I can safely say that I would not want a poster of that hanging anywhere.

The one true crime of RE4 is that you yourself can never pick up a chainsaw and go hog-wild with it until it ran out of fuel (which could have been an ammo source, just like bullets).

-SB
Title: RE: 2-3 times powerful
Post by: ThePerm on February 12, 2006, 09:18:45 AM
This is a regular xbox screen of half-life 2

this is a pc screenshot  of the  same area in half-life 2 thats been scaled down to 640X480, the  standard tv  resolution

half-life is a beautiful game, as you can see it doesnt look  much different between the pc and xbox1.

The differences the  pc  version has  better  textures, the  xbox ones are  blurrier..and  you can  see that  the  shape  is less defined in the head and  especially in the  chess,  alson  note  the l ack of  texturing on  the  controll  panel, but overall  they  look barely any different.

Some  noted perks of the pc  version scaled  down.  The  pc  version was  ay the  max resolution,  but i scaled it down. This creates an artificial anti-aliasing. Retaining the smoothness of  the  pc  version, but at  the same time still remaining at a lower  resolution.

The revolution will be more powerful than current gen systems.  So,  the least you can expect in terms of  graphics are half-life 2  pc quality graphics. That being said, a fixed  format allows more programming tightness and thus better graphics.  
Title: RE: 2-3 times powerful
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on February 12, 2006, 11:43:51 AM
Sure, both screens get their point across, mainly by 2 things:  the guy's face, and that machine we identify as a computer.

But c'mon, that guy looks like a head sitting on top of an inflated trash bag.  And the computer only has the effect of being a prop, while the PC version appears it MIGHT actually do things.  These things stand out.

Fortunately, RE4 looks better than that (current gen).  To Capcom's credit, graphic details were distributed in such a way that it reduces obvious weaknesses.  Which means we've got a good foundation for "2-3 time powerful".  Including games like F-Zero GX, Metroid Prime 2, and Wave Race: Blue Storm into that standard should round things out nicely.
Title: RE:2-3 times powerful
Post by: Smash_Brother on February 12, 2006, 11:56:58 AM
I didn't know Matthew Broderick was in HL2...
Title: RE: 2-3 times powerful
Post by: ThePerm on February 12, 2006, 11:58:32 AM
lol, i'v been  playing  metroid prime 2 lately and am wizzowed, waverace looks like  balls to  me, f-zero still looks badass.
Title: RE: 2-3 times powerful
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on February 12, 2006, 01:08:34 PM
Wave Race is worthy of mention thanks to its fluid dynamics, particularly during thunderstorm weather.

Scientific Explanation:  Your sunglasses are borked =D
Title: RE: 2-3 times powerful
Post by: trip1eX on February 13, 2006, 12:58:52 PM
I'm playing Echoes now too and it looks great.  And plays great.  It's maybe the smoothest fps game I've played.  That's very important too.

Anyway I think Nintendo is a champ at designing games at 480 i/p and making them look good and feel believable  without having to be photo-realistic.  That's what's it about.    
Title: RE:2-3 times powerful
Post by: animecyberrat on February 13, 2006, 04:18:16 PM
Ok I see this 2-3 times as powerful argument doesnt die, so I thought I make a couple histrorical points that prove that its irrelavent anyways.




First take NES to SNES, the SNES really wasnt a big leap over NES, it mostly was faster and had more ram, better sound chip and mostly highr resolution and more sprites.bigger sprites for more details. Sega Genesis actualy was faster, had slightly less ram, but still had a better graphcis chip and its soundchip was still fairly comparable. When compared side by side it was VERY HARD to prove which system ahd better graphics, they REALLY WERE that close, this is form some one who has BOTH and I have the BEST games form both so I can make comparisons without looking at the tech specs, which I have compared to death also.  


The 'leap' from Genesis to Saturn wasnt that big either. Teh Saturn was desgined as a 2-D system first and teh 3D was added last minute. BUt when comparing 2D capabilities all Saturn did was bsacialy doubled the number of sprites, increased the number of lpaying feilds and improved resolutions and added mreo colors and ram, but when the 3D chips were added all they did was put 2 identical chips and lumped them together. The Saturn actualy DID have more powerful 3D capabilities and MORE RAM than PSx, and some how Sony still managed to make gamse look better on thier system. Having had both and comparing multiplatform games it was obhvious that Saturn was the better system.


Saturn and PS combined were still technologicaly INFERIOR to N64 and yet it still managed to get out sold by PS and only sold better than Saturn because Sega was stupid at marketing and running their business.


This Gen GC was slightly more powerfull than PS2 and a fair less powerfull than Xbox but all three systems were so close that you had a hard time showing which was truely better, the developers did a fine job pushing each systems strengths, making games that look fantastic on all three.


Historicaly GRAPHCIS HAVE NEVER MATTERED.


Take those other competing systems at teh time, Neo Geo was leaps and bounds seperior to SNES and Genesis and yet it failed to catch on despite critical acclaim and awesome games, it lacked mostly in variety as it wasa fighting game machine and everything else was an after thought, but it produced some of the BEST fighting games ever.


3Do was released at same time as Sega CD and long before PS or Saturn and was in direct competition witrh SNES and Genesis/Sega Cd and they all three managed to out sell 3Do for a long time, by the time Ps and saturn came out it was already history.


Also Atari Jaguar with its CD addon was quit capable of producing graphics on par with PS and N64, but developers chose to use the familiar 16bit chip they moronicaly stuck in and caused most games to look bad in comparison.


Original colorless GB out sold 16bit FULL COLOR LinX, fairly colorful game Gear, Full COlor 16 Bit Nomad, and even its own partner 32 Bit Virtual Boy, and that is quit a feat for any system to achieve.


Its pointless to argue with ANYONE over graphcis because they have NEVER mattered when selling a system. I just wish we could accept this and drop this 2-3 times isnt true next gen arugments because its all pointelss, there never has been a line draawn between whats next gen anyways and GFX never are a major decideing factor.
















Title: RE: 2-3 times powerful
Post by: ThePerm on February 13, 2006, 04:47:27 PM
as far as sega goes, if  they released a 3d sonic game similar to the nights games..it would have been awesome. I had  xmas nights for saturn and when you unlocked  sonic it was a  pretty badass level. If they just  added some  loops and a track running and interconnecting through  that t ype of world..the  game  would  be a  zillion  times  better  then  sonic  adventure was.
Title: RE:2-3 times powerful
Post by: Ages on February 13, 2006, 07:17:27 PM
Sorry, but there are too many things wrong with this post to leave unreplied:

"First take NES to SNES, the SNES really wasnt a big leap over NES, it mostly was faster and had more ram, better sound chip and mostly highr resolution and more sprites.bigger sprites for more details. Sega Genesis actualy was faster, had slightly less ram, but still had a better graphcis chip and its soundchip was still fairly comparable. When compared side by side it was VERY HARD to prove which system ahd better graphics, they REALLY WERE that close, this is form some one who has BOTH and I have the BEST games form both so I can make comparisons without looking at the tech specs, which I have compared to death also."

What?  Surely you jest.  The SNES was leaps and bounds over the NES in graphical quality.  If you want to argue that point, compare Metroid to Super Metroid and we'll talk.  The Genesis wasnt a better system than the SNES graphically either.  I too own both systems, and I've always noticed that Genesis games never looked as clear as the SNES games.  Interestingly enough, although they had an abundance of graphical power at their disposal, Nintendo rarely took full advantage of it (see Super Mario Kart).  They weren't that close, the SNES had a much larger graphics pallet and all the Genesis had was something called "Blast Processing" haha.  Seriously though, both were good, but the visuals in Vectorman couldn't hold a candle to those in Donkey Kong Country (keep in mind, Vectorman was specifically made to show that the Genesis could do whatever the SNES could).

"The 'leap' from Genesis to Saturn wasnt that big either. Teh Saturn was desgined as a 2-D system first and teh 3D was added last minute. BUt when comparing 2D capabilities all Saturn did was bsacialy doubled the number of sprites, increased the number of lpaying feilds and improved resolutions and added mreo colors and ram, but when the 3D chips were added all they did was put 2 identical chips and lumped them together. The Saturn actualy DID have more powerful 3D capabilities and MORE RAM than PSx, and some how Sony still managed to make gamse look better on thier system. Having had both and comparing multiplatform games it was obhvious that Saturn was the better system."

The jump from the Genesis to Saturn was substantial as well.  It wasnt as large a jump as between the NES and SNES, so you would have to look for the smaller things to see how much more impressive it was.  Namely, framerate.  Fighting games on the Saturn were incredibly smooth, better than that of the Playstation.  The 3D chips Sega put in the Saturn werent all that hot, not to mention it was a bitch to develop for.  The PSX had better 3D graphics, no if's and's or but's about that.  The games looked better on the PSX for the simple fact that it took less effort to get those kinds of results out of the system.  Not to mention, consumers saw one system $100 cheaper than the other.

"Saturn and PS combined were still technologicaly INFERIOR to N64 and yet it still managed to get out sold by PS and only sold better than Saturn because Sega was stupid at marketing and running their business."

The N64 was outsold for a variety of reasons, including: Nintendo's cocky attitude towards 3rd party developers, the use of carts over CD's (go carts!), the inability to release the 6DD (possibly), lack of developer support at the end, and image.

"Historicaly GRAPHCIS HAVE NEVER MATTERED."

I wouldn't go that far.  Recently graphics havent mattered nearly as much as the content (as opposed to gameplay), but in the early days of gaming, everyone wanted arcade perfect conversions of Pac-Man and Donkey Kong.  Truth be told, graphics havent been relevent in systems since the demise of arcades in America.

"Take those other competing systems at teh time, Neo Geo was leaps and bounds seperior to SNES and Genesis and yet it failed to catch on despite critical acclaim and awesome games, it lacked mostly in variety as it wasa fighting game machine and everything else was an after thought, but it produced some of the BEST fighting games ever."

The Neo-Geo was much more powerful than the SNES and Genesis at the time, true.  They offered "arcade-perfect" games for their home system.  But this would come at a price of nearly $600 for the system alone, and $200 per GAME.  At those prices, no one except the truely diehard fan could afford this luxury in home gaming.

"3Do was released at same time as Sega CD and long before PS or Saturn and was in direct competition witrh SNES and Genesis/Sega Cd and they all three managed to out sell 3Do for a long time, by the time Ps and saturn came out it was already history"

Ahh, the 3DO, first attempt at a "gaming hub" was another grossly overpriced piece of hardware that valued its VHS player more than the games it could play.

"Also Atari Jaguar with its CD addon was quit capable of producing graphics on par with PS and N64, but developers chose to use the familiar 16bit chip they moronicaly stuck in and caused most games to look bad in comparison"

Not sure what you're talking about here, but the Jaguar is widely considered a 32-bit system, rather than it's claimed 64-bit power.  There's no way that they put in a 16-bit chip that actually did something worthwhile in the system.  I know Atari made dumb decisions, but a 16-bit processor in 95' while everyone is switching to 32/64?  They weren't that stupid.

"Original colorless GB out sold 16bit FULL COLOR LinX, fairly colorful game Gear, Full COlor 16 Bit Nomad, and even its own partner 32 Bit Virtual Boy, and that is quit a feat for any system to achieve"

Keep in mind that the number top priorities for handheld gaming are price, battery life, game library and durability.  These, most importantly battery life, gave the Game Boy the edge it has had since it debuted in 89'.

Graphics don't have that much of an influence in gaming anymore as much as image and content.  Unless one system lags so far behind in power it cannot compete (N-Gage comes to mind) or truely looks bad compared to the others, graphics arent as important as they are made out to be.  
Title: RE:2-3 times powerful
Post by: Galford on February 13, 2006, 07:35:44 PM
I was going to reply to what animecyberrat said, but someone already beat me to it.
Well done Ages...
Title: RE: 2-3 times powerful
Post by: Bloodworth on February 13, 2006, 08:02:45 PM
Hey Galford is still around... and Ages, is that a cookie?
Title: RE: 2-3 times powerful
Post by: Bill Aurion on February 13, 2006, 08:04:10 PM
Ahaha, that's Ninty's spiffy new Mario emblem, Bloodworth...

(That specific pic is from that big financial report that's floating around...)  
Title: RE:2-3 times powerful
Post by: Ages on February 13, 2006, 08:39:33 PM
That would be quite the badass cookie.  I wanna make one now!
Title: RE:2-3 times powerful
Post by: animecyberrat on February 14, 2006, 05:44:02 AM
ok just becaus eages says what you want to hear but I LOOKED UP THE FACTS.

READ gamefaqs they have a comparison chart tahts breask down whats each system can do.


Also WHy compare Vectorman to DCK, Genesis had way better 3D games than thay.


Also I already kmentions SNES HAD MOR COLORS< TAHSTW AS ALL IT HAD. Genesis DID have more sprites and nigher frame rates, take games like Sonic 2 split screan and see how much details they putin thier levels, or sonic 2 psecial stages for that matter, they had 3D GFX also, so did SOnic 3 and SPinball. Also look ast Sonic Spinball while yoru at it.



Then compare games made for BOTH SYSTEMS NOT EXLCUSIVES! Vectorman showed off what GENESIS had as far as SPRITES, it ahd some very impresseive BACKGORUND visuals and a lot more fluid animation than DKC, its wasnt emphasising the 3d aspect like DKC was, itw as showing how flat dkc was verses hwo fluid it was.


SNES WAS NOT leaps and bounds over Genesis it was MORE COLORFULL! tahst was ALL IT HAD.

Mode seven was nice but once Sega CD came out that was put to shame. ANd when I comapred Genesis to Saturn I specificxaly said with SEGA CD. Sega CD was supposed to be the complete genesis and was marketed thatw ay and performed that way.

I NEVER SAID NINTENDO WAS WORSE TAHN SEGA SO WTF!


IF I had blatanlty said things untrue I would accept yrou reply but EVRYTHING IS SAID I LOOKED UP AND ARE FACTS.




ANd Atari Jaguar had a motorola 68000 chip in it, which MOST developrs admitted to programing for due to familiarity, tahst teh EXACT SAME CHIP IN GENESIS> PLay a Jaguar copy of ANY GAMES thatw a ALSO on Genesis and you'll see what i am talking,a nd it WAS a 64 bit system many devs who worked on it even said it was. Do some research. It had 64 bit processors and 64 bit system bus, but it ALSO had 16 and 32 bit chips which got used more ioften due to FAMILIARITY, it WAS Ataris stupidity, adn they paid dearly for it.


When you comeback with FACTS not Nintendo fanboyism we will talk. otherwise shut up.


Title: RE:2-3 times powerful
Post by: darknight06 on February 14, 2006, 07:20:54 AM
"When you comeback with FACTS not Nintendo fanboyism we will talk. otherwise shut up."

Those were actually facts, you're the one that can't let your Sega Fanboyism go.  And another thing, what's with all the negativity? Just because someone says anything about your beloved Sega doesn't mean you need to blow up in someone's face over it.  Damn, I've never defended ANY company as much as you seem to.
Title: RE: 2-3 times powerful
Post by: Ian Sane on February 14, 2006, 07:31:01 AM
People say graphics don't matter but the Rev is an odd situation.  Yeah the NES had worse graphics then the SMS and the Genesis had worst graphics than the SNES and the PSX had worse graphics than the N64 and it didn't matter in the end.  Fair enough but it's not the same issue.  The NES had inferior graphics because it came out BEFORE the SMS.  This applies to all those consoles.  At the time they were released they had cutting edge graphics that blew everyone away.  The Rev is an odd situation where it will launch with inferior hardware after a "better" console has come out, in this case the X360.  That's never happened to my knowledge.  People expect the newest console to have the best graphics and the Rev might suffer for not providing that.
Title: RE:2-3 times powerful
Post by: JonLeung on February 14, 2006, 07:37:47 AM
It's not about graphics, it never was, it's all about the library of games.
Title: RE:2-3 times powerful
Post by: Ages on February 14, 2006, 08:03:13 AM
Animecybercat...Chill out!  There must be some validity to what I said or someone else wouldnt agree with me.  What makes you think my facts are wrong and yours are right?  Galford was also going to rip your post, does that mean that he'd be lying as well?  And if so, why does everyone want to pick on poor poor Animecybercat anyways?  Because he doesnt use spell check?  Alas, you've spewed more nonsense, which I must fix.

"Also WHy compare Vectorman to DCK, Genesis had way better 3D games than thay"

The sole purpose of Vectorman was to show that the Genesis could make a game in the same style of DKC.  The 3D rendering process on a 2D sprite had not been done before, and it was something that Nintendo was tauting as an exclusive feature.  That game singlehandedly held off the PSX long enough for the N64 to be released.  Sega didn't want to be outdone so Vectorman was created to showcase the same graphical style.  Also, what games did the Genesis have that were 3D?  You cite the bonus stages in Sonic 2 and Sonic 3, yet they were not 3D at all.  If you knew what you were talking about, they were 2D models rendered on a moving 2D plane.  3D games required the use of polygons moving in a 3D space, which I never saw on the Genesis (note, I said GENESIS, not Genesis + 32X, or Genesis + Sega CD).  

"Also I already kmentions SNES HAD MOR COLORS< TAHSTW AS ALL IT HAD. Genesis DID have more sprites and nigher frame rates, take games like Sonic 2 split screan and see how much details they putin thier levels, or sonic 2 psecial stages for that matter, they had 3D GFX also, so did SOnic 3 and SPinball. Also look ast Sonic Spinball while yoru at it."

You say that more colors are all the SNES had, when that is infact not true.  The SNES sound card was more advanced than the Genesis.  Go back and listen to the music in Donkey Kong or Super Metroid if you want to argue that fact.  You state more colors are all the SNES had, yet they mattered the most.  What's the point of having the fanciest paper in the world if you dont have the paint to color your ideas?  I love Sega, but games like Ecco the Dolphin showed that they tried to hide subpar gameplay behind spiffy graphics (this does not mean all Sega games, just a few ie: Ecco the Dolphin & Sonic Spinball).

"Then compare games made for BOTH SYSTEMS NOT EXLCUSIVES! Vectorman showed off what GENESIS had as far as SPRITES, it ahd some very impresseive BACKGORUND visuals and a lot more fluid animation than DKC, its wasnt emphasising the 3d aspect like DKC was, itw as showing how flat dkc was verses hwo fluid it was. "

You just cited exclusive games for the Genesis, now you say compare games that werent exclusives?  Which one is it?  This is yet, another hole in your argument.  If you want to compare nonexclusives, alright, look at the Mega Man game on the Genesis, vs. The SNES ones.  Or we could look at Street Fighter on each system (where the SNES had enough buttons to replicate the arcade experience).  Fluidity vs. Flatness?  Where'd you come up with this argument?  If Vectorman was attempting to show how much more smoothly it could move than DKC, why were the graphics in the same style?  And wouldn't it make more sense to make a fighting game show how fluid a game could be rather than a platformer?  (Oh wait, they did...it was called Virtua Fighter)

"Mode seven was nice but once Sega CD came out that was put to shame. ANd when I comapred Genesis to Saturn I specificxaly said with SEGA CD. Sega CD was supposed to be the complete genesis and was marketed thatw ay and performed that way."

You seem to keep forgetting a little fact.  Mode Seven was a technique used by developers to make the games look better.  It cost the consumer nothing more than they paid for the system itself.  The Sega CD on the other hand, cost the consumer $150.  And if it "completed" the Genesis as you state, what do you make of the 32X?  Also, why the hell did Sega release a half finished system in the first place?  You argue a point using a more sophisticated product that came out years after Nintendo had released the SNES and say it put it to shame...Newer tech is obviously going to make old tech look worse.

"I NEVER SAID NINTENDO WAS WORSE TAHN SEGA SO WTF!"

You don't have to yell...When did I say that you said Nintendo was worse than Sega?  You made it clear in your post that the Genesis was more technologically advanced than the SNES.  That was your argument, and that's what I've been replying to.  Are you really that defensive that you cannot see that?

"ANd Atari Jaguar had a motorola 68000 chip in it, which MOST developrs admitted to programing for due to familiarity, tahst teh EXACT SAME CHIP IN GENESIS> PLay a Jaguar copy of ANY GAMES thatw a ALSO on Genesis and you'll see what i am talking,a nd it WAS a 64 bit system many devs who worked on it even said it was. Do some research. It had 64 bit processors and 64 bit system bus, but it ALSO had 16 and 32 bit chips which got used more ioften due to FAMILIARITY, it WAS Ataris stupidity, adn they paid dearly for it."

The Jaguar had many chips in it.  Maybe developers did program for one out of the many to choose from.  I'm not arguing that fact.  Here's an exerpt from Wikipedia.com: "The bit width of the Jaguar is still a source of considerable debate today, but consensus exists among those who are familiar with the system hardware that, because Jaguar's main data bus and some of the processors are 64-bit, the entire system can be considered 64 bit. It would otherwise be considered a 32-bit console" .

I dont know why you said my argument was Nintendo fanboyism.  As I mentioned earlier, I own a Genesis.  I own an SNES.  I love Nintendo yes, but Sega was a close second.  I cannot find any fanboyism in there outside of the remark about "blast-processing."  You need to lighten up, this is nothing to get so bent out of shape about.  If you're wrong, YOU'RE WRONG.  I could be wrong about a bit of the Jaguar mess, but that doesnt invalidate my whole arguement.  I'd advise you to shut up, think before you type, and for god's sake, use spell check once in a while.
Title: RE: 2-3 times powerful
Post by: ThePerm on February 14, 2006, 11:10:21 AM
snes could do more sprites on the screen at once too.
Title: RE:2-3 times powerful
Post by: animecyberrat on February 14, 2006, 11:30:25 AM
Before we go further I am going to say that I am ONLY makign these points because alot of these things are being debated rigth ow in the PS3 verses Rev and I am showing how even in the past every system bascicaly played to thier strengths.



I was only making a piont that GRAPHCIS have never sold a system and was using many expamles from the past, then YOU attacked me first.

I already mentioned the SNES had better sound chip didnt you read that, but GRAPHCIALY all it had was mroe colores, the GENESIS DID have more sprites and higher resolution. That was the point i was making, yet you didnt read any of that at all.  I can provide facts


______________________________________________________________________________
|          | Neo Geo  |   SNES   | Genesis  |   TG-16  |    NES   | Sega MS2 |
|----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+----------|
|Bits (CPU)|   8 + 16 |       16 |       16 |    8 + 8 |        8 |        8 |
|Bits (Gx) |       16 |       16 |       16 |       16 |        8 |        8 |
|CPU       |     68000|    65816 |    68000 |   HuC6280|     6502 |      Z80 |
|APU (Aud) |       Z80|  SPC???? |      Z80 |          |          |          |
|MHz       |   12.5, 4|      3.6 |      7.6 |  3.6  3.6|      1.8 |      3.6 |
|Graphics  | 320 x 224| 256 x 224| 320 x 224| 256 x 256| 256 x 240| 240 x 226|
| -2nd mode|          | 512 x 448|320 x 448*| 320x256**|          |          |
|Planes    |        3 |        ? |        2 |        1 |        1 |        1 |
|Colors    |4096/65536| 256/32768|   61/512 |  482/512 |    16/52 |   52/256 |
|Sprites   |      380 |      128 |       80 |       64 |        8 |       16 |
| - size   |  16 x 512|   32 x 32|   32 x 32|   16 x 16|    8 x 8 |    8 x 8 |
|Audio     |   15-lyr |PCM 8-lyr |   10-lyr |    6-lyr |     mono |     mono |
|RAM       | 64K+68Kgx|128K+64Kgx| 72K+64Kgx|  8K+64Kgx|  2K+ 2Kgx|        ? |
|          | (+2K Z80)|          |          |          |          |          |
|----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+----------|
|CD CPU/MHz|        ? |          |68000/12.5| 65802/16 |
|CD RAM    |430K VRAM |          |     768K |  CD= 64K |
|          | 64K SRAM |          |          | SCD=256K |
|          |7 mg DRAM |          |          | ACD= 2MB |
|----------+----------+          +----------+----------+



That is a break down  of the systems specs. compared to others at the time.

Now Yo brought up Street Fighter II, I will tell you I have both games for both systems now I can provide linsk to screenshots but Im sure yu can google search on yoruown and see that tehy are IDENTICAL on almsot every aspect but upon closer examination yo will see the GENESIS version always had faster animations, smother frame rate, and more animated characters sprites, teh SNES versions also looked good dont get me wrong, but tehyonly ADVANTAGE they had GRAPHICALY was the colors. SSF2Turbo was also the FIRST SNES game to fully utilise all those colors.


Before that not very many SNES games were that noticably more colorfull. considering that teh hardware that they used the aracade was most of the time the same hardware Sega used as it was generica chip set, SNES had CUSTOM chip, modified from the normal chip. The only thing MOde 7 offered was scaling and rotatio0n of the sprites, Genesis had this also but it wasnt used as much nor was it ever refered to as s aspecific feature of the system but it did have multiple plane and could rotate sprites just as easily as SNES, see Sonic Spinball for example.

I am not a SEGA FANBOY EITHER. I started out playing Nintendo games long before Sega was an option.

Also SMS only came out a year after NES and it was basicaly same hardware but it had improved sprites and more colors.  The differences between NES and SMS were not as noticable as NES to SNES but certain games did show the changes.



I do not have the time to go back and dig up the detailed specs of PS verses N64 verses Satrun, we can all see that clearly N64 was better and more powerful, I never argued with that, and even though itw as true YES teh Saturn proicessors were harder to program for and most developers didnt fully utilize it properly a detaild comparison of tech specs, and a direct comparison of games that were on BOTH systems will clearly show that Satrun did in fact have better polygon graphics.  It had a higher polly count and had more ram and better Video chips to fully cokpliment the sytem, what it lacked that PS had was VIDEO CODECS built in, PS had an easier time hadnling FMVs than Satrun and all the PS games that LOOKED better 3D wise were ONLY FMV sequences. The rare Saturn games that  SEGA made thta fully showed off what it could do clearly had superior GRX than PSx.



However I was one of the many peopel who werent impressed by the graphics and was turned off mostly by the games, or lack of games really.

When it comes to PS3 verses REV the point I have been making, is that people do not need to worry if the GFX arent as impressive because I GAURANTEE they will 1 be good enough you wont care, and 2 that if the games are good nobody will care.


THATS is what I have been showing, OK Ill admit I may have come about it the wrong way i was TRYING to be optimistic about the rev and MY INTENTION was originaly to offer some hope to those hear who continue to make it an issue.



and WHY THE HELL SHOUDL I CALM DOWN! All I was doing was trying to get peopel optimistic about teh NINTENDO REVOLUTION and you guys somehow missinterperted thats wrongly, and I NEVER EVER said SNES had BAD GFX or worse than Genesis just that for the most part SNES major advantage wa the colors and some hoe I am Sega fanboy? I shoudlnt have called any one Nintendo fanboy ok I admit it I try not to do that but it seams all I ever get around here IS attacked. No matter WHAT point I am making.


I tried to be calm and reason with peopel, because I have always been a fair and objetionable person when it comes to video games, yet for some reason if you tell someone someting they dont liek they all of a sudden have to get pissed off and argue, you ONLY disafree about the Genesis, not directed at ages but the otehrs, BECAUSE you preferd teh SNES over it, I never took sides, i bought both i still have both. and I have games ON both and can atest that for THE MOST PART Genesis did have higher frame rates, more detailed graphics and definatley faster and smoother animations. and I also want to re emphasise that I DID mention teh Genesis had inferior sound chip, of course Sony made teh SNES chip and Sega used the same chip they had usewd as main proscessor for SMS, that was actualy a patern of thiers for a while Genesis main chip was Satruns sound chip.


I have always been and always will bea  fan of BOTH companies and I take offense when a Nintendo ONLY or SEGA Only person bashes the other side for stupid reasons, goto Sega.com forums and read my posts there DEFENDING Nintendo to Sega fanboys. You can find me uder the name Segagamer12

I have alwasy taken offense when someonbe form eitehr side has to insult someone who lieks the otehr, I hate it when Nintendo fans bash Sega for no real rason, say "I didnt like Sega games becaus eto me they were fun"  NOT I didnt liek Sega games because Sonic is dumb and everything not made by Nintendo bites."



Same way for Sega fans, dont tell me you hate Nintendo czu their I LOVE HALO 2, and Segas not, cuz Sonic sure as hell wont win you that arunment. Say yo dont liek Mario or whatever it is for whatever reason but not because youd have to be stupid for liking it.




i HATE pokemon, there I said it, but I dont go aroudn telling people its dumb i justs ay hey it never appealed to me.

But when  person tells me I am dumb for liking Sonic cuz hes crap and their only resposne is Nintendo didnt make it so there, yewah I take offense.



TRY and read my entire post before replying I dont want an argument that wont die just try and get teh POINT I was making, cuz when you replied yo made it sound like I was BASHING Nintendo and proclaiming Sega when i WAS NOT. i was stating facts and I provided those facts, which in case of Jaguar you provide teh same links and we both said the same thing in different words.





















Title: RE: 2-3 times powerful
Post by: Bloodworth on February 14, 2006, 02:37:08 PM
Am I the only that thinks framerates in 2D have little or nothing to do with the processor?  Isn't it just a matter of frames drawn by the developers?  

Also, doesn't the chart you posted even show that the SNES could handle more sprites?
Quote

Sprites SNES 128 | Genesis 80
 
Several other stats on that list show higher numbers for the SNES too, not just the colors.

Anyways, what it comes down to is that you're stating as fact things that some of the more technically minded know to be untrue.  Plus, you are emotionally overreacting to some pretty calm and logical arguments, acting like you're being attacked by fanboys.  You do need to calm down.
Title: RE:2-3 times powerful
Post by: Galford on February 14, 2006, 03:06:36 PM
To Bloodworth,
Yeah I still post, just real life now intrudes much more then it use to.  
I see you're still here too.  Weren't you always content editor?

To animecyberrat, were not trying to bash you, but on some forums what you said would have unleashed a flame war...

The only component on the Genesis that is more powerful then it's SNES component is it's 68k based CPU.
It was much faster then the 65813(I think it's called that) based CPU.  The only other thing the Genesis has going for it was it's sound setup was slightly easier to get results out of.
Title: RE: 2-3 times powerful
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on February 14, 2006, 04:10:28 PM
and ultimately didn't stack up to SNES' audio offerings.
Title: RE:2-3 times powerful
Post by: Ages on February 14, 2006, 06:04:12 PM
I dont know why you had to turn what I said into an attack, I'm just citing facts that you missed.  Criticism isnt a bad thing, in fact, its the only way anyone ever improves.  So instead of yelling at me, saying I'm taking your phrases out of context, learn from what I say.  I'm not trying to hurt you.

"I was only making a piont that GRAPHCIS have never sold a system and was using many expamles from the past, then YOU attacked me first."

That's where you messed up, as I said in the first post, graphics mattered in the early to mid 90's as people wanted as close to an arcade experience as possible.  This was a big deal you refuse to aknowledge.  If it wasnt, Neo Geo wouldn't have felt it was worth the risk to release their ARCADE PERFECT home system, no matter the cost to the consumer.

"Now Yo brought up Street Fighter II, I will tell you I have both games for both systems now I can provide linsk to screenshots but Im sure yu can google search on yoruown and see that tehy are IDENTICAL on almsot every aspect but upon closer examination yo will see the GENESIS version always had faster animations, smother frame rate, and more animated characters sprites, teh SNES versions also looked good dont get me wrong, but tehyonly ADVANTAGE they had GRAPHICALY was the colors. SSF2Turbo was also the FIRST SNES game to fully utilise all those colors."

I chose Street Fighter because it was one of the few games that was ported between both systems I could think of off the top of my head.  You tell me to look at the screens, then say that I will SEE the Genesis version had faster animations and the like.  This is impossible to do outside of seeing a video, so your statement is moot.  Super Contra > Sega's Contra, no if's and's or but's about that.

"I do not have the time to go back and dig up the detailed specs of PS verses N64 verses Satrun, we can all see that clearly N64 was better and more powerful, I never argued with that, and even though itw as true YES teh Saturn proicessors were harder to program for and most developers didnt fully utilize it properly a detaild comparison of tech specs, and a direct comparison of games that were on BOTH systems will clearly show that Satrun did in fact have better polygon graphics. It had a higher polly count and had more ram and better Video chips to fully cokpliment the sytem, what it lacked that PS had was VIDEO CODECS built in, PS had an easier time hadnling FMVs than Satrun and all the PS games that LOOKED better 3D wise were ONLY FMV sequences. The rare Saturn games that SEGA made thta fully showed off what it could do clearly had superior GRX than PSx"

Could you pull up some screens to prove this point?  I cant really think of many Saturn games off hand that had also been released on the PSX.  The PSX had better 3D, if you want to dispute this fact, look at the best looking Saturn game compared to Gran Turismo 2.  You can argue all you want in tech speak, it doesnt matter.  What matters is the product displayed on the screen.

"When it comes to PS3 verses REV the point I have been making, is that people do not need to worry if the GFX arent as impressive because I GAURANTEE they will 1 be good enough you wont care, and 2 that if the games are good nobody will care"
We can ASSUME the graphics will be good enough, but you cannot make that guarenttee.  Ian Sane brought up the most important fact in this thread.  The Rev's graphics are rumored to be less than that of an older system.  Something that is seemingly inexcusible in typical technologial ideals.

"and WHY THE HELL SHOUDL I CALM DOWN! All I was doing was trying to get peopel optimistic about teh NINTENDO REVOLUTION and you guys somehow missinterperted thats wrongly, and I NEVER EVER said SNES had BAD GFX or worse than Genesis just that for the most part SNES major advantage wa the colors and some hoe I am Sega fanboy? I shoudlnt have called any one Nintendo fanboy ok I admit it I try not to do that but it seams all I ever get around here IS attacked. No matter WHAT point I am making."

You should calm down because it's not that big a deal.  We're all (sans Ian Sane) optimistic about the Rev.  You state that the Genesis outshined the SNES in every aspect except color...Isn't that saying that the SNES graphics are worse than that of the Genesis?  
Title: RE: 2-3 times powerful
Post by: ThePerm on February 14, 2006, 06:17:56 PM
tomb raider and resident evil had  been  released on  saturn  and  psx..they didnt look  much different.  
Title: RE: 2-3 times powerful
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on February 14, 2006, 06:48:47 PM
I've played both Street Fighter ports.  The Genesis version's colors seemed....OFF?  And the music and sound FX really sound... flattened?  The SNES version's audio in many cases OUTDID the arcade version's, since many of the sounds were re-recorded and the music re-sequenced to fit the SNES sound specs -- the music really stands out well in this case.

Then I could bring up Mortal Kombat 1... SNES had colorful HUGE sprites; at a quick glance it could pass off for the arcade version save for its resolution.  The Genesis version... "weak" sound sampling returns.  Then there's the unusually small sprites and the lack of color (lots of... grey skin... blue this, blue that), and of course the missing background layers.  Just didn't seem right.

~~~~~

Oh yeah, lots of Capcom games made to Saturn, including the Mega Man sequels of the time.
Title: RE:2-3 times powerful
Post by: darknight06 on February 14, 2006, 07:11:42 PM
""Now Yo brought up Street Fighter II, I will tell you I have both games for both systems now I can provide linsk to screenshots but Im sure yu can google search on yoruown and see that tehy are IDENTICAL on almsot every aspect but upon closer examination yo will see the GENESIS version always had faster animations, smother frame rate, and more animated characters sprites, teh SNES versions also looked good dont get me wrong, but tehyonly ADVANTAGE they had GRAPHICALY was the colors. SSF2Turbo was also the FIRST SNES game to fully utilise all those colors."

Ok, WHAT THE CRAP IS THIS?!  The Genesis version wishes it had anything on the SNES one.  The ONLY animations that it had extra was on the countdown, PC version of the arcade intro, and some backgrounds animations, (the latter two the SNES got later with SSF2) no doubt due to the fact the Genesis was crap for sound and they really didn't have to worry about doing quality digital samples.  And I'm quite sure the lower color graphics had a say in that too. They had the room to spare.  Other than that, it was WAY worse in color and FAR inferior in sound, two places that back then people CARED about bigtime back then with the comparisons.  

Now concerning which version of SUPER Street Fighter 2 was better that was SNES no contest.  Genesis did have a SLIGHTLY more animated intro (neither version got it 100 right), but everywhere else it was absolute garbage.  All of the gameplay issues that SF2T had on SNES because it used the World Warrior engine got completely ironed out.  The SNES version was actually critically acclaimed back then for having music that actually sounded VERY close to the CPS2 original, and it also had the projectile sound effects.  Genesis version fared FAR worse in comparison.  Even more missing background elements, animation cuts in the backgrounds, and music and sound that was even WORSE than SF2SCE.  So they added the option to fight all 16 characters, big deal, didn't help when the SNES version looked and sounded like CPS2 in comparison.  
Title: RE:2-3 times powerful
Post by: Ages on February 14, 2006, 09:02:59 PM
There.  A page dedicated to comparing SNES games to Genesis.  There's you're proof, and it's quite interesting as well.
Title: RE: 2-3 times powerful
Post by: wandering on February 14, 2006, 09:32:22 PM
He seems kind of biased.....
Quote

One instance of a game being highly publicized for being completely original is StarFox, which came out in 1993 on the Snes. It was a good game with an excellent soundtrack, but StarFox was not the first polygon based console game as people might think, thanks to the multi page spreads in many popular gaming mags describing the game as such. Hard Drivin’, Race Drivin’, F15 Strike Eagle and several other Microprose simulators had all been out on the Genesis in 1992 and 1993. Moreover, they all ran straight off the Genesis hardware, rather than a special on cartridge chip like StarFox’s SFX chip. Gameplay wise, StarFox might as well have been Galaxy Force 3 with cute animal pilots, because it is virtually identical to Sega’s Galaxy Force II from way back in 89’. I liked StarFox quite a bit, and am an Argonaut fan to this day, but the arcade version of Galaxy Force II, which included a moving cockpit and great graphics and sound, simply has no comparison.
Title: RE:2-3 times powerful
Post by: animecyberrat on February 15, 2006, 04:05:35 AM
wow, I see where it did get out of hand, maybe I was getting off and I thought I expolained that but oh well I guess I did get over excited, but I do tend to do that.



Ok I will give yo PS over Saturn just becaus eyou would have to compare exclusives like Daytona USA or Panzer Dragoon series to get any real indicator. But Wipeout and BAttle Arean Toshindedn were also on both systems and Saturn looked better I thought.


Saturns flaws laid in its desgin, it was too hard to program for therefore very few games got it right, but those that did, which took  forever to develop and came out too late in its life, did in fact show up the PS.

SNES I always DID see as graphicaly betetr until i started comparing them one on one, and I already vistied that site and thast where a lot of my comparisons came from, except I apparently got siwtched on the Street FIghter games, thast my mistake I admit, I play teh Genesis versions way more and Its for me anyways because of the controlers are better, the 6 button arcade pad and the genesis 8way d pad were, and thast not an argument its truth, better for fighting games. So since I spend more time playing them on Genesis I got cought up in they were betetr. YES ok they SNES did get better over time for Street FIghter, and MK, thast not fair, because Acclaim didnt even try to make Genesis games look good, they were flat out trying to make it look badm they aditted this latter on, oter acclaim games liek Maximum Carnage  and NBA Jam actualy looked pretty close on both systems and agian it was slight idfferences.



MY mistake was saying Genesis had betetr graphics, were I was only trying to show that tehre were close enough to each other taht gaphics were an issue.



YES I remember the arcade debate also, and yor rigth most peole did want and arcae perfect experince, I was one of them thats one of the reaons why I was very happy with Genesis, its had more arcade games, mostly Sega made but they were the King of the Arcades, still are actually.



But I was not trying to say that SNES was bad or worse than Genesis just that it wasnt things liek graphics that made peopel choise one over the other, after I got a SNES I did go back and get a lot of the exclusibes that was all I really needed it for,a nd I bougth all 4 MK games made on it as well as Genesis to see which was betetr and for the most part SNES just had colors and sound advatanges, I always played the Genesis for MK 1 and UMK3 and played SNES for 2 and 3 because Genesis was faster for ombos for UMK3 and had all the right stuff in 1 tahst SNES was misisng.


For me it wasnt about grax except in MK2s case because MK II on Genesis did look bad, but MK 3 didnt, so again it was Acclaims fault NOT the hardware, Willimas proved that by Getting MK 3 and UMK3 looking identical on both systems. and your riogth I re-read your posts and you miogth not have been attacking me I shouldnt have jumpd on you, I just been getting attacked alot, in other areas, and tehre fore have been on defensive these past few days.  

Title: RE: 2-3 times powerful
Post by: couchmonkey on February 15, 2006, 05:31:50 AM
Super NES vs. Genesis, have I stepped in a time-warp?  By the end of the PSX/N64 era, all the years of fighting over which console was the most powerful convinced me that it doesn't really matter, and the differences are usually not big enough to worry about.  It's all about the games, and Nintendo will always have the best of those in my opinion.
Title: RE: 2-3 times powerful
Post by: Ian Sane on February 15, 2006, 07:41:24 AM
Man I can't believe we're having a SNES/Genesis fight.

The SNES had better graphics and sound capabilities.  That's just factual and you can't do anything about that.  The Genesis was however faster.  I think it had more RAM.  I remember reading that Nintendo skimped on the RAM to cut the costs down and the infamous SNES slowdown was a result.  But the SNES came out years after the Genesis so it's no knock on the Genesis that it had better hardware in most areas and extra effects built-in.  I think if anything it's a knock against Nintendo that the SNES had slowdown problems.

Both systems had an incredibly impressive library of games and I would probably consider them the two best consoles ever made.  They benefited from the fact that the two of them were consistently close to each other in market share so they both were forced to compete aggressively because neither could afford to rest on their laurels.  A lot of people complain that games today aren't as good as they were then.  I think the main reason for that is because we've never had such a close race since.  Last gen Sony had such a huge lead that they didn't really have to try.
Title: RE:2-3 times powerful
Post by: animecyberrat on February 15, 2006, 07:56:23 AM
man i guess what brought it out was all the talk about Sega mamking games for VC and someone mentioned that it woudl be liek SNES VS Genesis all over again, and I got carried away.



BUt heres one for ya to think about, even back then SNES came out almost 3 years AFTER Genesis,a nd it was ONLY slightly better, graphicaly tehre were too close most of the time, colors not withstanding Genesis still had comparable sprite and animation capabilities.


So agian the point was even though Nintendo came out after, they still ddint make thier system so much more powerfull that Genesis died because of it, and thats were I was trying to get to also. Even with Rev its coming out a yaer latter than its competitor and now its going to be weeker, so on that note its going to be interesting to see how it plays out for Nintendo, but I remain optimistic because every generation the leader has not always been the more powerfull system. Also I dont know about any of you guys but N64 was good enough for me and everytime it gets better its just more good and nothing bad as far as I am concerned.


Title: RE: 2-3 times powerful
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on February 15, 2006, 09:03:46 AM
I'll mention I believe the SNES was more significant overall than the Genesis since it appears to me the SNES library shaped future game development the most in Japan.  Consider what lived on after the 16-bit era, what genres/franchises thrived in the PSX/N64 years, and what survived to be around today.  I SNES-library offspring all throughout.

But I might not even be half-right about this.  
Title: RE: 2-3 times powerful
Post by: ThePerm on February 15, 2006, 10:10:30 AM
either way  revoluton will  be more powerful then either sega genesis or snes
Title: RE: 2-3 times powerful
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on February 15, 2006, 12:34:10 PM
That's wonderful news, perm.
Title: RE: 2-3 times powerful
Post by: Requiem on February 15, 2006, 02:35:21 PM
*head explodes*
Title: RE:2-3 times powerful
Post by: The Omen on February 16, 2006, 09:02:13 PM
Quote

'll mention I believe the SNES was more significant overall than the Genesis since it appears to me the SNES library shaped future game development the most in Japan. Consider what lived on after the 16-bit era, what genres/franchises thrived in the PSX/N64 years, and what survived to be around today. I SNES-library offspring all throughout.


You are correct.  The Genesis turned out to be the stop gap console while people waited for the SNES.
Title: RE: 2-3 times powerful
Post by: Stimutacs Addict on February 16, 2006, 09:22:27 PM
who the hell hijacked this thread? I guess it wasn't really good to begin with, but jeez...  
Title: RE:2-3 times powerful
Post by: Ages on February 17, 2006, 09:00:01 AM
"BUt heres one for ya to think about, even back then SNES came out almost 3 years AFTER Genesis,a nd it was ONLY slightly better, graphicaly tehre were too close most of the time, colors not withstanding Genesis still had comparable sprite and animation capabilities"

The SNES released in America on September 9th, 1991

The Genesis on the other hand was released in America in August 1989.  As you can see, that's only 2 years difference.  Please check the facts before arguing a point.
Title: RE:2-3 times powerful
Post by: MaryJane on February 17, 2006, 11:46:24 AM
I still play my SNES my Genesis broke a long time ago... SNES wins.
Title: RE: 2-3 times powerful
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on February 17, 2006, 03:53:11 PM
My SNES still works and the bottom half has a lovely shade of spinnach green.
Title: RE:2-3 times powerful
Post by: animecyberrat on February 18, 2006, 05:09:34 AM
but ages its Iw asnt talkin when they wre released but whent hey were desgined, Genesis came out in late 87 in Japane, tahst when it was FINSIHED. SNES came out latew 91, almost 3 years later, I DID check the facts, you just twisted them.  
Title: RE:2-3 times powerful
Post by: Amodaus1 on February 18, 2006, 05:37:59 AM
Reason why genesis was good -> Treasure
Reason why genesis sucked -> Everything else

Reasons why snes was great -> Nintendo, Capcom(they were technically exclusive 3rd party at the time only linsencing a few games to the genesis)  
                                                   Rare, and Square
Reasons why it sucked -> No "Blazin" Proscessor


seriously the genesis was terrible, it lost in all territories, even in japan it was third to the turbo fx 16, the only good thing to come from sega IS treasure, i'm convinced of that, as i hate most sega games, Phantasy star sucks, sonic sucks, and most things they make just bore me, and you can't compare SF2 for the genesis and snes, because the snes is the more capable system, it was released later and was superior (minus the "blazin" processor)  

Title: RE: 2-3 times powerful
Post by: Chris1 on February 19, 2006, 10:42:27 AM
dont you mean "blast" processing?
Title: RE:2-3 times powerful
Post by: animecyberrat on February 19, 2006, 02:21:32 PM
So umgetting back on topic a little bit, hasn't Nintendo reps already confimded that the Revolution isn't going to be as powerful as the others or was it still all speculation? I am still gathering info for my FAQ anbd thats one area I am not finding a whole lot of info on.
Title: RE:2-3 times powerful
Post by: IceCold on February 19, 2006, 02:38:09 PM
Well, there have been a lot of equivocal statements made by Nintendo, but no official specs have been released. They've said everything from "specs don't matter" to "it's not what the specs look like on paper, it's what you do with them" to "we might never release Revolution specs, since we don't believe they are significant"

IGN did a feature SPECulating the Revolution hardware, but that's hardly conclusive..
Title: RE:2-3 times powerful
Post by: Ages on February 19, 2006, 02:46:56 PM
Quote

Originally posted by: animecyberrat
but ages its Iw asnt talkin when they wre released but whent hey were desgined, Genesis came out in late 87 in Japane, tahst when it was FINSIHED. SNES came out latew 91, almost 3 years later, I DID check the facts, you just twisted them.


Well you should state what you were talking about.

"BUt heres one for ya to think about, even back then SNES came out almost 3 years AFTER Genesis,a nd it was ONLY slightly better, graphicaly tehre were too close most of the time, colors not withstanding Genesis still had comparable sprite and animation capabilities."

Nothing in that sentence suggests discussion of the design of the systems.  You specifically said "CAME OUT" hence, released.  Also, you should let others know you're discussing a Japanese release rather than an American release.

Nevertheless, the Mega Drive was released in Japan on October 29th, 1988 according to Wikipedia.com.  Thus, still two years earlier than the Super Famicom, which was released on November 21th, 1990.  Please don't discuss twisting facts if you bring up the Japanese release of a system, while the American release is implyed within the entire discussion.
Title: RE:2-3 times powerful
Post by: Ages on February 19, 2006, 02:55:51 PM
Quote

Originally posted by: Amodaus1
Reason why genesis was good -> Treasure
Reason why genesis sucked -> Everything else

Reasons why snes was great -> Nintendo, Capcom(they were technically exclusive 3rd party at the time only linsencing a few games to the genesis)  
                                                   Rare, and Square
Reasons why it sucked -> No "Blazin" Proscessor


seriously the genesis was terrible, it lost in all territories, even in japan it was third to the turbo fx 16, the only good thing to come from sega IS treasure, i'm convinced of that, as i hate most sega games, Phantasy star sucks, sonic sucks, and most things they make just bore me, and you can't compare SF2 for the genesis and snes, because the snes is the more capable system, it was released later and was superior (minus the "blazin" processor)


If the Genesis was so terrible explain why Sega (until recently) had nearly as much clout in the gaming world as Nintendo?  Why were the two companies compared against each other so often?  Why does Biggie mention both the SNES and Genesis in "Juicy" if it was not an icon along with the SNES?  Why is the Genesis the only system besides the SNES the average person can name that was released during the late 80's/early 90's?

Sega didnt make Treasure.  Treasure came to be from a bunch of pissed off Konami programmers that decided to leave.  Notice how you're entire argument is based around YOUR opinion.  You're opinion is not fact unless it is shared by the general concensus.
Title: RE:2-3 times powerful
Post by: Kairon on February 19, 2006, 03:08:56 PM
Sega did first what Sony and Microsoft did better. It engaged in mudslinging (comparing Mario Kart, MARIO KART OF ALL GAMES, to an old beat down jalopy and it's own games to luxury sports cars), positioned itself as a more "adult" system and angled for a hipper, more modern look than Nintendo's franchises.

~Carmine Red
Kairon@aol.com
Title: RE:2-3 times powerful
Post by: attackslug on February 19, 2006, 07:36:10 PM
good lord, I remember how Sega's main advertising strategy was to pick on Nintendo.  if I recall, some of their ads came out and directly said that Nintendo's systems were inferior graphically (Genesis vs NES, Gamegear vs Gameboy), in terms of "edginess", and eventually that theirs was a far better system because games were cheaper.  Even as a kid that owned neither companies' system, I thought the mudslinging seemed like a fairly desperate attempt.
Title: RE: 2-3 times powerful
Post by: ShyGuy on February 19, 2006, 08:05:15 PM
Remember when Crash Bandicoot would harrass Nintendo?  
Title: RE:2-3 times powerful
Post by: animecyberrat on February 20, 2006, 05:30:22 AM
edit becaus ei dont want to start anymore flames.
Title: RE:2-3 times powerful
Post by: Kutza on January 11, 2007, 05:09:05 PM
Quote

Originally posted by: animecyberrat
edit becaus ei dont want to start anymore flames.


An edit and you still can't type correctly *blinks*. Usually an edit FIXES grammar/spelling problems. Might I recommend Firefox and it's built in spell checker. Then again you're so far off, it probably wont recognize it anywho.

And just remind me, what company does Sega now develop for ? Even Sega realized their inferiority when their company TANKED.  
Title: RE: 2-3 times powerful
Post by: IceCold on January 11, 2007, 06:41:20 PM
Is there any reason why you bumped this thread?
Title: RE: 2-3 times powerful
Post by: Kairon on January 11, 2007, 06:47:14 PM
VEDETTA!

~Carmine "Cai" M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Title: RE:2-3 times powerful
Post by: segagamer12 on January 11, 2007, 07:43:11 PM
>>Nothing in that sentence suggests discussion of the design of the systems. You specifically said "CAME OUT" hence, released. Also, you should let others know you're discussing a Japanese release rather than an American release<<


This was about the time I got banned originally so I never got to reply to this. Anyways it was stupid of AGES to argue the american release had any signifcance because the HARDWARE specs were already finalised by then so my point still stands.

But I have learned to remain calm since then so I hope I dont stray off track too much.

And for the last fu**ing time get off the spelling. Geez all the damn complainin some people do over spelling and sh*t. Seriously I try  by damn best and I type slower now than I used to so back the eff off.  
Title: RE:2-3 times powerful
Post by: The Omen on January 11, 2007, 11:27:56 PM
Anyone who thought the Genesis was better than the Snes had some big time inferiority complex.  Or console envy.  And Sega's ads played upon this fact.  
Title: RE: 2-3 times powerful
Post by: Shecky on January 12, 2007, 12:23:07 AM
kill -s SIGSTOP 14173
usermod -L 9485
Title: RE: 2-3 times powerful
Post by: ryancoke on January 12, 2007, 03:47:44 AM
I much prefer the SNES's superior graphics, games and sound but at least you could still rip a dude's head of in MK on genesis
Title: RE:2-3 times powerful
Post by: segagamer12 on January 12, 2007, 09:46:09 AM
so the Wii (revolution) is here now and it doesnt look better than GC that much. Some games look worse some look on par but so far nothing looks better. Not 2 to 3 times more powerful anyways.  
Title: RE:2-3 times powerful
Post by: Flames_of_chaos on January 12, 2007, 09:59:44 AM
In all fairness Xbox to Xbox360 ports barely looked any better when the Xbox 360 launched. Give developers some time and we will see the graphics shine a little brighter. IMO the graphics look fine on the Wii and theres nothing that makes me cringe.  
Title: RE:2-3 times powerful
Post by: Arbok on January 12, 2007, 10:03:09 AM
Quote

Originally posted by: Lord_die_seis
IMO the graphics look fine on the Wii and theres nothing that makes me cringe.


Title: RE:2-3 times powerful
Post by: segagamer12 on January 12, 2007, 10:03:18 AM
Well I know all that its just so far some games look WORSE than GC and that shouldnt be. I am putting everything into MP3 if that game is good looking than yeah, if not that damn it.
Title: RE:2-3 times powerful
Post by: Kairon on January 12, 2007, 10:20:05 AM
Quote

Originally posted by: Arbok
Quote

Originally posted by: Lord_die_seis
IMO the graphics look fine on the Wii and theres nothing that makes me cringe.





*sighs happily* I loved that game...

~Carmine "Cai" M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Title: RE: 2-3 times powerful
Post by: Nephilim on January 12, 2007, 10:38:05 AM

one of gamecube most insulted games during the first 2 years of release, even looks better
red faction 2

anyway RE4 PC comes out in less then 2 months, so the whole RE4 looks best on gamecube thing will be dead forever
Title: RE:2-3 times powerful
Post by: Crimm on January 12, 2007, 10:48:42 AM
Quote

Originally posted by: Lord_die_seis
In all fairness Xbox to Xbox360 ports barely looked any better when the Xbox 360 launched. Give developers some time and we will see the graphics shine a little brighter.


It's not totally the same.  In the case of the 360 they were learning a totally new architecture.  The Wii is pretty much the same architecture as a GC, except they made it more efficient.

Title: RE:2-3 times powerful
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on January 12, 2007, 11:28:42 AM
Quote

Originally posted by: DeadlyD

one of gamecube most insulted games during the first 2 years of release, even looks better
red faction 2

anyway RE4 PC comes out in less then 2 months, so the whole RE4 looks best on gamecube thing will be dead forever


Not if they port from the PS2 version, in which case upgrading from would involve recreating all the models and textures and effects.  But hey, you'll get to see low rez textures on your high-rez monitor, isn't that what people want?
Title: RE: 2-3 times powerful
Post by: Artimus on January 12, 2007, 11:45:17 AM
http://media.cube.ign.com/media/499/499105/img_2397554.html

or

http://media.wii.ign.com/media/748/748547/img_3915496.html
Title: RE: 2-3 times powerful
Post by: IceCold on January 12, 2007, 04:13:46 PM


EDIT: Yes, I'm going to keep doing this..
Title: RE:2-3 times powerful
Post by: denjet78 on January 12, 2007, 05:36:51 PM
Quote

Originally posted by: Artimus
http://media.cube.ign.com/media/499/499105/img_2397554.html

or

http://media.wii.ign.com/media/748/748547/img_3915496.html


It's really hard to get a feel for how Corruption looks compared to Echoes when almost all the screens are blurry, but I think the first 2 are a good indication. You can definitely tell that Corruption does looks better that Echoes. It's not head-and-shoulders above it, but you can definitely tell that it's better. There are a lot of subtle touches that set it apart.

And for anyone saying that Wii should be easy for developers to pick up and run with just because it's based on GC hardware... Um... just what developers would you be talking about? The only 3rd parties that really tried to do anything worthwhile on the GC were Capcom, Amusement Vision, and Namco. No one else really tried to do anything with the system, or have we all forgotten the string of ports that actually looked WORSE than their PS2 counterparts. For a system that was almost on par with the XBox how was it possible for so many games on it to look so bad?

Because developers never really learned how to use the hardware properly in the first place. They practically ARE learning it all over again with the Wii. But as we can see from the launch titles, very few of them are learning much of anything.

If Wii can continue like it is and actually give the PS3 a run for it's money you will see developers take the system seriously and actually put some effort into making it look good. Nintendo's not usually one to do that but every once in a while they do put out a title that proves they know exactly what they're doing and can more than hold their own in the face of graphics whores. In the mean time we're going to get bad launch titles, but what system is immune to that? Wii might be getting more than it's fair share though given where Nintendo's coming from and 3rd party's desires to cash in on the new interface without any real effort but you can't fault the system if no one is actually taking advantage of it in the first place.

What we're seeing right now is in no way indicative of what the Wii is capable of, I'm absolutely certain of that. When a direct GC port with no graphical upgrades is the best looking game on the system you have to know that there's something wrong. Even if we took the CPU and GPU processing speeds at face value what we're seeing right now is laughable at best.

I will say though that the Mario Galaxy footage that I've seen so far looks incredible. I don't care about polygon this or shader that, I just know that the game looks like incredible fun and in the end that's really what it's all about, isn't it?
Title: RE:2-3 times powerful
Post by: darknight06 on January 13, 2007, 07:25:53 AM
Quote

You can definitely tell that Corruption does looks better that Echoes. It's not head-and-shoulders above it, but you can definitely tell that it's better.


The videos I've seen of the game do a far better job of showing the advancements in the engine, especially with the lighting and particles.  Speaking of which, Gamepro has played the game recently and their assessment of it is quite glowing.

Quote

Metroid Prime 3: Corruption Definitely stole the the show. The graphics looked amazing -- better than Halo 2 on the Xbox without a doubt -- and the levels showed off sparkling details, proving the Wii is far more powerful than the Gamecube.


Original source.
Title: RE:2-3 times powerful
Post by: Adrock on January 13, 2007, 07:42:05 AM
For me, it'll always come down to this:

Art Design > Graphics Power

Also, most current Wii games look awful because of developer laziness and publishers rushing product to market. I still think Nintendo seriously undercut the power of their processors, but that doesn't mean developers can't make a visually stunning game on Wii. You don't need to make Gears of War to wow people graphically. Something like Okami on PS2 looks amazing. A game that looks 2-3 times better than Resident Evil 4 is going to look great. Maybe not Lair great, but great nonetheless. There's a great misconception that more powerful graphics cards automatically mean better graphics. That is simply not true.
Title: RE: 2-3 times powerful
Post by: IceCold on January 13, 2007, 08:00:51 AM
It sounds like GamePro played the E3 build..
Title: RE:2-3 times powerful
Post by: segagamer12 on January 14, 2007, 01:45:01 PM
Im sorry icecold but that picture turns me OFF from plating the game so please dont use that to show the graphcis cuz thats ugly IMO.  
Title: RE:2-3 times powerful
Post by: Ages on January 14, 2007, 02:10:59 PM
Quote

Originally posted by: segagamer12
>>Nothing in that sentence suggests discussion of the design of the systems. You specifically said "CAME OUT" hence, released. Also, you should let others know you're discussing a Japanese release rather than an American release<<


This was about the time I got banned originally so I never got to reply to this. Anyways it was stupid of AGES to argue the american release had any signifcance because the HARDWARE specs were already finalised by then so my point still stands.

But I have learned to remain calm since then so I hope I dont stray off track too much.

And for the last fu**ing time get off the spelling. Geez all the damn complainin some people do over spelling and sh*t. Seriously I try  by damn best and I type slower now than I used to so back the eff off.



Rat, it was stupid of you for not clarifying what you were talking about in the first place.  Coming out = released, end of story.  Also, remember, being on an American forum, people are going to be discussing things from the American point of view, not the Japanese one.  The Genesis was released in Japan in 88, and the SNES in 90, a difference of 2 years, not 3 as you stated.

Ice Cold, I love that screen cap.  It shows graphical prowless the Wii possess.  It's kind of funny seeing Mario as a graphical powerhouse for once.  It hasnt been one of the top graphical games on a nintendo system since Super Mario Bros. 3, (New Super Mario Bros. notwithstanding).
Title: RE:2-3 times powerful
Post by: IceCold on January 14, 2007, 03:16:43 PM
Quote

Originally posted by: segagamer12
Im sorry icecold but that picture turns me OFF from plating the game so please dont use that to show the graphcis cuz thats ugly IMO.
Then you quite simply have no taste whatsoever..

EDIT: To Ages - yeah, that's true, but we should remember that Super Mario World and Super Mario 64 were both there at launch, so it's expected that they weren't as good graphically as the later games. SM64 especially; it was the first time Nintendo worked with a 3D system, so they got much better over time. I think SMW still holds up pretty well against other SNES titles though.
Title: RE: 2-3 times powerful
Post by: Ages on January 14, 2007, 06:19:41 PM
IceCold, true SMW does hold up pretty well, but I believe it's more on SMW's style than technical prowless.  SMW couldn't hold a candle to Super Mario RPG, Super Metroid, Donkey Kong Country among others.
Title: RE:2-3 times powerful
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on January 14, 2007, 08:31:06 PM
Can't believe ANYONE can think that pic of the spider from SMG looks ugly, the thing looks almost CGI esque.
Title: RE: 2-3 times powerful
Post by: wandering on January 15, 2007, 01:10:44 AM
I like how everyone went crazy at Perrin's suggestion that the Wii would be 2-3 times more powerful....and now it really just doesn't matter to anyone.

Quote

Super Mario 64 [was] there at launch, so it's expected that [it wasn't] as good graphically as the later games.

Good thing, too. SM64 has aged much better than other N64 games because of its graphical simplicity. The solid colors it used for textures are much easier on the eyes than the blurry messes featured in other games.
Title: RE:2-3 times powerful
Post by: segagamer12 on January 15, 2007, 04:15:31 AM
ok two years so I added wrong I suck atr math. Regardless I DID make it clear I was taling abotuhardware idfferences and COMMON SESE would didctate that means when ther hardware was finalaised EI when it was released originally, as in JAPAN. I shouldnt have HAD to clarify that when refering to hardware idfferences that was your misinturpratatiopn not my lack of clarity.

ANYWAYSI forgot what the original point was so whatever you win end of discussion lets let it go and be civil.

Icecold the grfx look fantastic, the pic is ugly to me cuz I HATE spiders thats all.  I would rpefer a pic with NO spioders to show off the gfx is what i was saying.  
Title: RE:2-3 times powerful
Post by: JonLeung on January 15, 2007, 04:28:27 AM
I'm somewhat arachnophobic but that thing doesn't even register as a spider at all.  But it certainly does look good, as far as near-full-screen bosses go.  It's colourful, fits the cartoony setting, and doesn't seem blocky or otherwise awkward at all.  And even if it resembled a spider more, it could still show off good graphics.

Though my skin gets really crawly like in Resident Evil (GameCube) when dealing with giant tarantulas, I can still (kind of) appreciate that those are among the most realistic-looking enemies in the game.  They look good, even if only on a technical level.

It's not a paradox or ironic, really, but it does remind me of an amusing portion of a Way Of The Warrior (3D0) review I read way back when.  If you remember, it was a fighting game often shown off for the 3D0 that used digitized actors.  The animation was pretty bad.  But the graphics themselves were good.  The statement I remember was that "the graphics are so good, you can tell how cheap their costumes are".
Title: RE:2-3 times powerful
Post by: segagamer12 on January 15, 2007, 04:38:24 AM
I am not slightly arcahnophopbic and in isanely arachnobopic. Is topped playing OOT when it came to that gian spider and almost trhough TP into the trasj when that damn bug atacked me at my house when I went to get my wodden sword. I HATE spiders. cartooney or not. But thats just me.

Anywyas Ill step off its not so much an issue now that i FINALLY seen the fototage for MP3 and Brawl in action, I know I SHOULD have doen that a while back but I been busy and didnt want to look at Brawl footage till it cam eout cuz I dotn want to WANT the game I just want to go and get it when it comes out.  
Title: RE: 2-3 times powerful
Post by: MysticGohan on January 15, 2007, 05:56:34 AM
In TP in the Sacred Grove Temple, That Boss is quite the most realistic looking Tarantula I've seen, cept for that eye on it's back. But you get the idea :p  
Title: RE:2-3 times powerful
Post by: IceCold on January 15, 2007, 06:02:07 AM
Quote

Icecold the grfx look fantastic, the pic is ugly to me cuz I HATE spiders thats all. I would rpefer a pic with NO spioders to show off the gfx is what i was saying
You're forgiven then
Title: RE: 2-3 times powerful
Post by: UltimatePartyBear on January 15, 2007, 08:25:11 AM
That isn't a spider in that screenshot.  Count the legs.  Observe the colors, stripes, and wings.  It looks like a bee to me.
Title: RE:2-3 times powerful
Post by: Arbok on January 15, 2007, 08:32:09 AM
Quote

Originally posted by: VGrevolution
Can't believe ANYONE can think that pic of the spider from SMG looks ugly, the thing looks almost CGI esque.


Exactly. Galaxy's graphics really impress me, personally... I just wish that more games were up to snuff with it. It's quite clear the Wii is able, just not many developers are pushing it.
Title: RE: 2-3 times powerful
Post by: ThePerm on January 15, 2007, 12:26:05 PM
what i cant believe is ages bumped this thread to comment on Rats spelling, i leave for a few days to move into my new apartment and someone takes over as forum thread necromancer.

I have seen the power of the wii within a couple of days of moving it to my new apartment, all my roommates cant stop playing wii sports, no one is really playing the ps3 here. We have one but it is just not as fun. My friend from out of town came over and played, i didn't even have to be the one to do the conversion. They did it. I was still unpacking(i had more stuff because i was the only one still living in town)
Title: RE:2-3 times powerful
Post by: ShyGuy on May 10, 2007, 10:25:50 AM
Ngai investigates criticisms

Good article about Wii power.

"Math is hard"  
Title: RE: 2-3 times powerful
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on May 10, 2007, 11:16:15 AM
WISE FWUM YOW GWAAAAVE
Title: RE:2-3 times powerful
Post by: mantidor on May 10, 2007, 11:45:52 AM
I read that thing twice and I still don't see what standard/measurement/whatever they used to say the xbox is more powerful, they didn't even mention xbox numbers at all. It goes into saying that the console can emulate the "next gen" effects of 360/ps3 and then it jumps and says "the guy was somewhat right" without anything in the middle, basically it concludes the wii is less powerful than the xbox because the wii can emulate 360/ps3 shaders or something, WTF!? what a crappy article.

Title: RE: 2-3 times powerful
Post by: ShyGuy on May 10, 2007, 12:07:56 PM
Xbox had shaders built into gpu hardware. Wii does them in software. Developers are too lazy to write them in software.
Title: RE: 2-3 times powerful
Post by: that Baby guy on May 10, 2007, 12:08:30 PM
That's what I got out of it, too, Mantidor.  I don't think they had a clear purpose in mind when they sat down and wrote the article.  As far as I know, I saw that when developers actually tried on the Cube, they could get a whole lot out of it, as much, or even greater than most high-end Xbox games.  Heck, look at Pikmin.  That many active AI's in such a beautiful environment didn't happen on the Xbox, as far as I recall.  So really, if the Cube was nearly as powerful as the Xbox (or just as powerful when used properly), and the Wii is a good bit more powerful than the Cube, then of course the Wii is more powerful than the Xbox.

On a side note, I'm not surprised he was saying the Wii could produce games almost as powerful as the PS3 and 360.  My current hypothesis is that regardless of actual capabilities, developers are only going to push graphics as far as they are expected to on a system-to-system basis.  I don't think the Cube and Xbox ever really got used too their full strength last generation by  anyone, because it's cheaper and more profitable for developers not to.  I think the same is probably true to this gen too,  only worse, because it will cost so much more cash monies to produce a game that really takes advantage of what any of the systems have to offer, including the Wii.
Title: RE:2-3 times powerful
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on May 10, 2007, 12:12:11 PM
I don't care about all the hardware mumbo jumbo, all I care about is getting games that look at least on par with GC's best soon.
Title: RE: 2-3 times powerful
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on May 10, 2007, 12:34:11 PM
We already got TP, and RE4's coming out next month!

Hooray!
Title: RE:2-3 times powerful
Post by: Kairon on May 10, 2007, 12:43:31 PM
Quote

Originally posted by: ShyGuy
Xbox had shaders built into gpu hardware. Wii does them in software. Developers are too lazy to write them in software.


The PS2 didn't support AA in hardware, they had to do it in software as well.

~Carmine "Cai" M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Title: RE:2-3 times powerful
Post by: Mario on May 10, 2007, 02:18:22 PM
Quote

Originally posted by: GoldenPhoenix
I don't care about all the hardware mumbo jumbo, all I care about is getting games that look at least on par with PS2's best soon.

Fixed.
Title: RE:2-3 times powerful
Post by: Kairon on May 10, 2007, 02:28:56 PM
Quote

Originally posted by: Mario
Quote

Originally posted by: GoldenPhoenix
I don't care about all the hardware mumbo jumbo, all I care about is getting games that have quality art direction

Fixed.


Fixed.
Title: RE:2-3 times powerful
Post by: ShyGuy on May 10, 2007, 03:40:03 PM
Sorry to bump this folks, but the Wii forum has been a bit slow lately. Perhaps if you people played something besides POKEMON.

I'll go make a thread about the awesome Ghost Squad k?
Title: RE: 2-3 times powerful
Post by: Kairon on May 10, 2007, 04:09:32 PM
Please do!
Title: RE: 2-3 times powerful
Post by: Kairon on May 10, 2007, 05:41:19 PM
Smoke beat you to the punch Shyguy. Anyone care to make a thread for Square's Chocobo Mystery Dungeons for the Wii?
Title: RE: 2-3 times powerful
Post by: that Baby guy on May 10, 2007, 05:43:52 PM
I'll hit that!
Title: RE: 2-3 times powerful
Post by: Dirk Temporo on May 10, 2007, 07:07:57 PM
Wii is 2-3 times more powerful than Gamecube.

Why the hell haven't we seen it yet? I tell you, these first party titles coming out this year better look f**king gorgeous.
Title: RE:2-3 times powerful
Post by: ThePerm on May 10, 2007, 08:54:46 PM
i just beat gears of war, and well i really didnt see the big leap between graphics, i mean if you take the best from resident evil 4,starfox and stuff it can be concluded that wii could do some great graphics if the effort was put in
Title: RE:2-3 times powerful
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on May 10, 2007, 09:04:52 PM
Quote

Originally posted by: Dirk Temporo
Wii is 2-3 times more powerful than Gamecube.

Why the hell haven't we seen it yet? I tell you, these first party titles coming out this year better look f**king gorgeous.


Maybe I've been living in a hole, but isn't Super Mario Galaxy f**king gorgeous?
Title: RE: 2-3 times powerful
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on May 10, 2007, 09:33:00 PM
' course not.  Wii lacks hardware thingies and 128 layers of lazy nonshaders.
Title: RE: 2-3 times powerful
Post by: Kairon on May 10, 2007, 10:33:51 PM
There's one absolutely AMAZING LOOKING game that people keep forgetting when coming up with great looking GC titles: Final Fantasy Crystal Chronicles.

~Carmine "Cai" M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Title: RE: 2-3 times powerful
Post by: Ian Sane on May 11, 2007, 06:14:38 AM
I find if a Nintendo first party game doesn't look that hot it usually is because of a lack of effort from Nintendo.  For example of the Cube Super Mario Sunshine's Mario model looked worse than the SSBM model eventhough SSBM came out first.  Super Mario Sunshine looked like a Dreamcast game.  Then Nintendo took the graphics from Mario Sunshine and recycled them in pretty much every Mario spinoff.  So more games were made with lazy graphics.  But that had nothing to do with the hardware.  On launch day Factor 5 demonstrated what the hardware was truly capable of if Nintendo put in the effort to make use of it and they did with Pikmin, the Zeldas, Metroid Prime, SSBM.  With third parties it was the same way.  Some quick PS2 port looked like crap but Resident Evil 4 and Rogue Leader looked great.

The reason Wii games so far don't look like anything beyond the Cube is because the effort just hasn't been there.  Nintendo has mostly made non-games where they don't really put any effort into the graphics and the two big "gamer games" used to be Cube titles.  Third parties also so far haven't really given the Wii their full attention yet.  So we have to wait and see.
Title: RE: 2-3 times powerful
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on May 11, 2007, 10:15:47 AM
Why spend the millions of dollars on programming/graphics effort when you can go cheap and make highly profitable short easy non-games?

You'll only start seeing 3rd party games with effort when they run out of PS2 games to port.
Title: RE:2-3 times powerful
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on May 11, 2007, 11:07:16 AM
Is it just me or is comparing the graphics of Smash Brothers to SMS silly? They are doing different things graphically, Super Mario Sunshine had amazing draw distances, amazing water effects and had a smooth framerate most of the time, so it is kind of pathetic to compare it to a dreamcast game. Mario Sunshine had quality visuals that took advantage of the GC hardware if you look at what it was doing graphically as a whole, not comparing the models to Smash Brothers. That is like comparing a fighting game or a sports game to an adventure game when it comes to visuals, they are doing COMPLETELY different things with their visuals and can focus more on the character models when it comes to details.
Title: RE: 2-3 times powerful
Post by: that Baby guy on May 11, 2007, 11:34:17 AM
I have to chalk up everything Ian says to him desperate to find something to complain about.  When I used to read what he had to say, it would make sense, and have some logic to it.  Now, I think he's gotten so used to disagreeing to what's going on with Nintendo, that he can't see what they are doing right, and has to force false problems out to complain about.
Title: RE:2-3 times powerful
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on May 11, 2007, 11:36:35 AM
My only problem with Super Mario Sunshine's visuals is sometimes the textures were kind of blah, but besides that I think it is a good example of a game that pulls together a lot graphically and does everything quite well. I remember the final battle, even though it had framerate problems it was pretty impressive visually.
Title: RE: 2-3 times powerful
Post by: Terranigma Freak on May 12, 2007, 03:12:23 AM
Not to mention SSBM was actually a 2D game where as SMS was a 3D game.
Title: RE:2-3 times powerful
Post by: Mikintosh on May 12, 2007, 05:41:53 AM
Quote

Originally posted by: Ian Sane
I find if a Nintendo first party game doesn't look that hot it usually is because of a lack of effort from Nintendo.  For example of the Cube Super Mario Sunshine's Mario model looked worse than the SSBM model eventhough SSBM came out first.  Super Mario Sunshine looked like a Dreamcast game.  Then Nintendo took the graphics from Mario Sunshine and recycled them in pretty much every Mario spinoff.  So more games were made with lazy graphics.  But that had nothing to do with the hardware.  On launch day Factor 5 demonstrated what the hardware was truly capable of if Nintendo put in the effort to make use of it and they did with Pikmin, the Zeldas, Metroid Prime, SSBM.  With third parties it was the same way.  Some quick PS2 port looked like crap but Resident Evil 4 and Rogue Leader looked great.

The reason Wii games so far don't look like anything beyond the Cube is because the effort just hasn't been there.  Nintendo has mostly made non-games where they don't really put any effort into the graphics and the two big "gamer games" used to be Cube titles.  Third parties also so far haven't really given the Wii their full attention yet.  So we have to wait and see.


While on the whole they look similar the Mario in SMS was actually a little taller than the ones in Mario Tennis for the Cube, anyway:


http://www.gamergirlsunite.com/reviews/mariotennis/hammer.jpg

http://www.gamezero.com/offline/smbss/previews/mariosunshine01.jpg


Just as a matter of theory, though, I don't think they loaned out the exact models since the only spin-off game Nintendo made in-house was Mario Kart Double Dash!!, which by neccessity wouldn't use them anyway. Not saying Hudson/Camelot/Namco weren't all given the same model sheet, but I don't think the N was that lazy. Also, Nintendo didn't make SSBM, HAL did.

And comparing Mario to Rogue Squadron is not apt. Mario's stylized, a Star Wars game has to match up to a movie. Not saying SMS was as detailed as it could have been (SM64 had much better level and scenic design, IMO), but to hold it to another series' standard is ridiculous. No one was saying, "Man, I hope the next Resident Evil looks as good as Mario Sunshine" because it's apples and oranges, almost.
Title: RE: 2-3 times powerful
Post by: Tanookisuit on May 12, 2007, 05:53:04 AM
Remember, Mario was supposed to look more "mature" in Sunshine (Nintendo's words, not mine).  This is probably the reason for the height difference.  I think Mario Sunshine looked amazing.  I get so upset when people say they're disappointed in that game.  As for saying it looked like a Dreamcast game- sadly, Dreamcast games look better than Wii games so far.
Title: RE: 2-3 times powerful
Post by: that Baby guy on May 12, 2007, 07:17:55 AM
I loved how it looked too, Tanookisuit.  I just wish people recognize the style Nintendo aimed for in the game, and appreciate how much this style was fulfilled, but I guess some do not.  I also think people are misremembering the Dreamcast's games, as they looked closer to how most PS2 games looked, rather than most Gamecube games.
Title: RE: 2-3 times powerful
Post by: Deguello on May 12, 2007, 08:36:32 AM
Quote

I have to chalk up everything Ian says to him desperate to find something to complain about. When I used to read what he had to say, it would make sense, and have some logic to it. Now, I think he's gotten so used to disagreeing to what's going on with Nintendo, that he can't see what they are doing right, and has to force false problems out to complain about.


Don't try to reason with Ian.  He lost his credibility eons ago.  This is what causes him to say stupid crap like "Mario Sunshine looks like a Dreamcast game" which is apparently the pejorative of the day here at NWR.  Wait, maybe I should phrase it like he used to...

He doesn't have the CREDIBILITY to be taken seriously.
Title: RE: 2-3 times powerful
Post by: mantidor on May 12, 2007, 12:11:34 PM
Mario Sunshine looked amazing, the problem was the setting, not the art. A beach scenario can only be interesting for a short period of time, then it gets boring.

Title: RE: 2-3 times powerful
Post by: Smash_Brother on May 12, 2007, 12:43:34 PM
I personally can't understand how people said SMS was "too hard" and demanded that Miyamoto scale the next one down a bit.
Title: RE:2-3 times powerful
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on May 12, 2007, 02:10:07 PM
Quote

Originally posted by: Smash_Brother
I personally can't understand how people said SMS was "too hard" and demanded that Miyamoto scale the next one down a bit.


SMS's difficulty was quite balanced in my opinion, yeah it is probably the hardest Mario platformer but the difficulty didn't feel cheap either even the old school levels.
Title: RE: 2-3 times powerful
Post by: Smash_Brother on May 12, 2007, 02:59:21 PM
Agreed.

I think the biggest outcry was probably from the Japanese.
Title: RE: 2-3 times powerful
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on May 12, 2007, 04:27:12 PM
SMS lacked gambits.
Title: RE: 2-3 times powerful
Post by: ShyGuy on May 12, 2007, 04:39:10 PM
You know, I just spent the day playing some PS2 games that I had missed at my cousin's place. We played God of War, Black, and Shadow of the Colossus. Arguably three of the best looking games on the PS2. In my eyes, they looked just as good as many 360 games because they had great art style and were very polished. This is why I think graphical horsepower is a non-issue in the hands of the right developers.
Title: RE: 2-3 times powerful
Post by: Adrock on May 12, 2007, 05:38:15 PM
It's not that developers can't make graphically polished titles, it's that they don't want to. It's harder to make a visually impressive game like God of War II on inferior hardware like PS2. I have no doubt that 3rd parties can really push the Wii and make some stunningly beautiful games. I wonder if they're willing to put in the effort necessary to do so.
Title: RE:2-3 times powerful
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on May 12, 2007, 07:39:22 PM
Quote

Originally posted by: ShyGuy
You know, I just spent the day playing some PS2 games that I had missed at my cousin's place. We played God of War, Black, and Shadow of the Colossus. Arguably three of the best looking games on the PS2. In my eyes, they looked just as good as many 360 games because they had great art style and were very polished. This is why I think graphical horsepower is a non-issue in the hands of the right developers.


Well besides Shadow of the Colossus's HORRIBLE framerate. I never played Black but I heard it is pretty much a slightly above average shooter, I've heard nothing about its art direction. God of War on the other hand does have good art direction and visuals.
Title: RE:2-3 times powerful
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on May 12, 2007, 07:41:32 PM
Quote

Originally posted by: Adrock
It's not that developers can't make graphically polished titles, it's that they don't want to. It's harder to make a visually impressive game like God of War II on inferior hardware like PS2. I have no doubt that 3rd parties can really push the Wii and make some stunningly beautiful games. I wonder if they're willing to put in the effort necessary to do so.


You are right on the money there, it is all about effort. Hopefully as developers start running out of ports they will start making some games from the ground up for Wii with decent budgets.
Title: RE:2-3 times powerful
Post by: oohhboy on May 12, 2007, 09:20:54 PM
Quote

Originally posted by: GoldenPhoenix

Well besides Shadow of the Colossus's HORRIBLE framerate. I never played Black but I heard it is pretty much a slightly above average shooter, I've heard nothing about its art direction. God of War on the other hand does have good art direction and visuals.


Black graphicly, isn't too different from games like Gears of War. Lots of grey, muted colors and brown.It is an above average shooter that is a blast to play through the first time, but the additional difficulties are not that great and are poorly implimented.
Title: RE: 2-3 times powerful
Post by: Terranigma Freak on May 13, 2007, 04:26:52 AM
I'm gonna have to disagree a bit on the part about it being harder to push the system -- at least if we're talking about the Wii/GC. You guys forget the the Wii/GC was disgustingly easy to program and develop for. The sad truth is that developers are lazy. They ported PS2 stuff onto GC and Xbox. Few ever bother to truly tap into it's power. Things like normal mapping, bump mapping, EMBM, light scattering, specular lighting, depth of field, indirect textures, FSAA, AF and some form of dynamic lighting are all quite possible on the GC.

Remember Factor 5 recently bitched about developers not even trying? They no longer work with Nintendo and they still know the hardware better than others. The effects I listed above will eat up fill-rate, but Factor 5 also noted that the Wii has insane fill-rate compared to the GC.

The Wii and GC doesn't use shaders, but they use TEVs. Most developers are more familiar with directx programming so shaders will be easy to use on the other hardware. The Wii/GC's TEVs are less feature rich compared to shaders, but can be just as powerful if they actually BOTHERED to try and get it to work. The GC is so well designed that it's almost impossible to get a code to run badly on it.
Title: RE: 2-3 times powerful
Post by: ShyGuy on May 13, 2007, 06:33:10 AM
Sometimes I think it may not be a factor of developers being lazy, just being rushed. I think Vicarious Visions does some good work, and they are probably one of my favorite Western dev houses. But Spiderman 3 Wii is really lackluster from what I can tell. I think it was more a matter of Sony telling Activision they need the game ready for the movie launch and Activision telling Vicarious Visions they had three or so months to get the job done.  
Title: RE: 2-3 times powerful
Post by: Smash_Brother on May 13, 2007, 06:37:02 AM
I've had a vendetta against VV ever since they hyped Terminus for years and then it turned out to be pure crap.

I just figured SM3 for Wii was par for the course.

A good game from them will change my mind, though, just like RE changed my mind about Capcom which I previously called "Crapcom".
Title: RE: 2-3 times powerful
Post by: ShyGuy on May 13, 2007, 06:43:59 AM
The Tony Hawk games on the DS are technically impressive.
Title: RE:2-3 times powerful
Post by: Terranigma Freak on May 13, 2007, 07:10:34 AM
Quote

Sometimes I think it may not be a factor of developers being lazy, just being rushed.


There's a difference between rushed and lazy. A rushed game is incomplete and full of bugs and other problems. Lazy is porting PS2 graphics to a system with much more power. How many Gamecube games have you seen with realistic looking water? The sad part is that the Gamecube is excellent at rendering realistic looking water, but they didn't bother cause they were just porting over PS2 data. Now, I haven't seen it myself, but I heard the water in the PS2 version of RE4 is flat unlike the GC version (which I did see).  
Title: RE: 2-3 times powerful
Post by: Adrock on May 13, 2007, 10:00:26 AM
Quote

I'm gonna have to disagree a bit on the part about it being harder to push the system -- at least if we're talking about the Wii/GC. You guys forget the the Wii/GC was disgustingly easy to program and develop for.

"Easy" is a relative term. GCN/Wii architecture is easy to develop versus N64 or PS2, for example. However, I would argue that creating something like Resident Evil 4 from scratch isn't "easy."
Title: RE: 2-3 times powerful
Post by: Terranigma Freak on May 13, 2007, 11:19:28 AM
As I said before a developer on the Beyond3d forums said that it's impossible to get a code to run badly on the GC, (and yes beyond3d is a reliable forum with real game devs hanging around) so take that for what you will.  
Title: RE: 2-3 times powerful
Post by: IceCold on May 13, 2007, 02:45:39 PM
The water in Sunshine and Wave Race was so beautiful..
Title: RE:2-3 times powerful
Post by: Galford on May 13, 2007, 04:34:05 PM
The PS2 held graphics back a lot last generation.  
Any one remember the conversations that we had with Jason back in the day?
He stated that the PS2 was responsible for a lot of 3rd party games looking like crap.
I've managed to talk to a couple other devs in my online travels and they have said similar things.

Here's a link to the original article...
http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/levelup/archive/2007/05/08/geek-out-xbox-uber-boss-robbie-bach-takes-a-shot-at-nintendo-s-underpowered-wii-does-
he-manage-to-score-a-bulls-eye-or-just-shoot-himself-in-the-foot.aspx

I've heard the figure 8 tevs before, but according to patent applications the GC tev can have upto 16 stages in it???

For more infor about Nintendo's TEV/pixel combiners here a link to a patent that describes them in detail...
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-adv.htm&r=9&p=1&f=G&l=50&d=PTXT&S1=Nintendo.ASNM.&OS=an/Nintendo&RS=AN/Nintendo

Namely this little piece of info from the link above...

"The association of lighting colors, texture coordinates, and texture maps with a recirculating shader stage is set using GXSetTevOrder. The number of texture coordinates available is set using GXSetNumTexGens. The number of color channels available is set using GXSetNumChans.

GXInit will set nStages to 1 as a default.

Arguments: nStages

Number of active recirculating shader stages. Minimum value is 1, maximum value is 16 Example usage: void GXSetNumTevStages( u8 nStages );
"

Are there any devs here that can clear things up?
Title: RE:2-3 times powerful
Post by: Terranigma Freak on May 14, 2007, 05:57:39 AM
Quote

I've heard the figure 8 tevs before, but according to patent applications the GC tev can have upto 16 stages in it???


Yes, someone over at Beyond3d also brought that up. I'm going to post your post at the forums there to see if they can give me a better answer. It sounds like whoever they interviewed didn't know the Wii/GC very well either.
Title: RE:2-3 times powerful
Post by: Galford on May 14, 2007, 05:49:41 PM
Thanks, I appreciate that, it would be nice to clear some stuff up.
Title: RE: 2-3 times powerful
Post by: Terranigma Freak on May 15, 2007, 03:16:06 AM
Apparently, it was due to the cost of performance if they used all 16 units on the GC. I'm guessing the Wii won't suffer as much thus allowing it to full utilize all 16 of them.  
Title: RE:2-3 times powerful
Post by: ShyGuy on September 24, 2007, 05:08:32 AM
Ngai is back to trolling the Wii's horsepower http://72.3.228.88/blogs/levelup/archive/2007/09/24/is-wii-really-gamecube-one-point-five-yes-says-beyond3d.aspx
Title: RE:2-3 times powerful
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on September 24, 2007, 05:12:05 AM
Quote

Originally posted by: ShyGuy
Ngai is back to trolling the Wii's horsepower http://72.3.228.88/blogs/levelup/archive/2007/09/24/is-wii-really-gamecube-one-point-five-yes-says-beyond3d.aspx


Prepare for the ban stick ShyGuy!
Title: RE: 2-3 times powerful
Post by: ShyGuy on September 24, 2007, 05:19:16 AM
Should I have made a new thread? We need bump/create guidelines, darn it!1
Title: RE:2-3 times powerful
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on September 24, 2007, 05:33:32 AM
Quote

Originally posted by: ShyGuy
Should I have made a new thread? We need bump/create guidelines, darn it!1


It was nice knowing you ::watches ShyGuy walk up to the noose::.
Title: RE: 2-3 times powerful
Post by: Pale on September 24, 2007, 05:45:15 AM
No worries.  As I said before, I promote bumping if there is a good reason to bump a thread.  So in this case you posted on a new piece of info based on the same topic.  That's ok!  It's just bumping threads for a joke or in mass quantities that ticks me off.
Title: RE: 2-3 times powerful
Post by: Kairon on September 24, 2007, 06:46:23 AM
Actually, that's a pretty decent article! Well written by those people at Beyond 3D.
Title: RE:2-3 times powerful
Post by: ThePerm on September 24, 2007, 07:31:50 AM
that article is pretty much clearing up what we already know, so its pretty good. The thing is games should look better than they did on Gamecube easily. Theres slightly more processing power and alot more ram and more disk space as well. What cannot be achieved with shaders on wii can be achieved with a combination of lighting and textures(all shaders are is a mix of the two). If Capcom were to make a new game on the Wii from scratch it would look tons better than Resident Evil 4. Mario Galaxy is shaping up real nicely, Twilight princess on gamecube looked awesome...but it was designed for Gamecube! Thats the only problem with building games from existing gamecube engines is that the libraries for textures wont be that good. Which is why texturing on wii will have to be built for Wii
Title: RE: 2-3 times powerful
Post by: Chiller on September 24, 2007, 08:48:38 AM
I can't help but take from the article that there is somehow a bitterness toward the success of the Wii on the part of the authors.  It seems as if they are equating the success of the console to the ignorance of the buyer.  They suggest that we really need to question if the gameplay, and presentation of games on the Wii is important enough to supersede the graphical prowess of the other systems.  Do we?  I though that playing a game, and enjoying it, was enough to determine its value.  I didn't know that we had to have esoteric discussions on the theoretical implications of graphics versus mechanics and style.  Sure, graphics are something to be considered, but at the end of the day, you will enjoy what you want, and don't need to beat yourself up that you aren't using the most cutting-edge hardware available.  

Another thing is that they play out all of these "what if?" scenarios, and assume the worst case for Nintendo.  What if Sony and Microsoft release similar controllers?  What if they drop their prices?  Won't this make the Wii insignificant?  Well, it could, but again, that assumes the worst from Nintendo's strategists, and the best from Sony and Microsoft's developers.  

PS3 already has a motion-sensitive controller, which has proven to be a mere afterthought.  It isn't too much to assume that the same could happen even with slightly more functionality, and a new form-factor.  One could extend this to the 360.  These machines have been catering to a different type of player.  Sure, there is some overlap, but at this point in the game, it seems plausible that new peripherals could very well be completely insignificant, much like the many failed peripherals Nintendo has released, themselves.

As for the price drop: what is to say that, given a significant push from the competition, Nintendo wouldn't match the drop?  They are already profiting from the system, and the production costs are surely dropping, as we speak, so why assume that they would sit by and watch the others come down to more attractive price-points?

And, of course, as many often state, with the under-utilization of the GameCube, it is hard to say how far developers could take standard-definition graphics on the Wii.  We may be able to give numbers on polygon-counts, et al, but those numbers don't necessarily translate into how a game will actually look.

Now, if they want to argue that, perhaps, we are overpaying for what we have gotten with the Wii, they might be able to make a better argument.  But, again, value isn't so cut-and-dry.

Again, all of this speculation on their behalf seems defensive.  I realize that they are "tech" guys, so they want to see cutting edge, and perhaps it irks them that the brainwashed masses are falling for the marketing (to paraphrase what they state).  None the less, their speculations seem vapid, and ill-conceived.  I realize that I, in the course of this post, made speculations, too; but they were merely as counterpoint to theirs, in attempt to show that the discussions they are suggesting aren't really constructive.    The points they suggest are moot.
Title: RE: 2-3 times powerful
Post by: UERD on September 24, 2007, 08:53:56 AM
Quote

I realize that they are "tech" guys, so they want to see cutting edge


Would these guys be happier if consoles cost millions of dollars, incorporated supercomputer technology, and were manufactured in lots of ten per year? Yes? No? Then maybe they should keep their mouths shut. Like it or not, electronic entertainment is becoming more and more widespread. The console is a tool, an instrument. If I play a game on it, walk away, and feel that I have taken something of value from it, then it has done its purpose. End of story.
Title: RE:2-3 times powerful
Post by: Kairon on September 24, 2007, 08:56:29 AM
Quote

Originally posted by: Chiller
I can't help but take from the article that there is somehow a bitterness toward the success of the Wii on the part of the authors.  It seems as if they are equating the success of the console to the ignorance of the buyer.  They suggest that we really need to question if the gameplay, and presentation of games on the Wii is important enough to supersede the graphical prowess of the other systems.  Do we?  I though that playing a game, and enjoying it, was enough to determine its value.  I didn't know that we had to have esoteric discussions on the theoretical implications of graphics versus mechanics and style.  Sure, graphics are something to be considered, but at the end of the day, you will enjoy what you want, and don't need to beat yourself up that you aren't using the most cutting-edge hardware available.  

Another thing is that they play out all of these "what if?" scenarios, and assume the worst case for Nintendo.  What if Sony and Microsoft release similar controllers?  What if they drop their prices?  Won't this make the Wii insignificant?  Well, it could, but again, that assumes the worst from Nintendo's strategists, and the best from Sony and Microsoft's developers.  

PS3 already has a motion-sensitive controller, which has proven to be a mere afterthought.  It isn't too much to assume that the same could happen even with slightly more functionality, and a new form-factor.  One could extend this to the 360.  These machines have been catering to a different type of player.  Sure, there is some overlap, but at this point in the game, it seems plausible that new peripherals could very well be completely insignificant, much like the many failed peripherals Nintendo has released, themselves.

As for the price drop: what is to say that, given a significant push from the competition, Nintendo wouldn't match the drop?  They are already profiting from the system, and the production costs are surely dropping, as we speak, so why assume that they would sit by and watch the others come down to more attractive price-points?

And, of course, as many often state, with the under-utilization of the GameCube, it is hard to say how far developers could take standard-definition graphics on the Wii.  We may be able to give numbers on polygon-counts, et al, but those numbers don't necessarily translate into how a game will actually look.

Now, if they want to argue that, perhaps, we are overpaying for what we have gotten with the Wii, they might be able to make a better argument.  But, again, value isn't so cut-and-dry.

Again, all of this speculation on their behalf seems defensive.  I realize that they are "tech" guys, so they want to see cutting edge, and perhaps it irks them that the brainwashed masses are falling for the marketing (to paraphrase what they state).  None the less, their speculations seem vapid, and ill-conceived.  I realize that I, in the course of this post, made speculations, too; but they were merely as counterpoint to theirs, in attempt to show that the discussions they are suggesting aren't really constructive.    The points they suggest are moot.


I agree with you Chiller, but aside from that little slip on their part, the article was for the most part written without any clear bias.
Title: RE: 2-3 times powerful
Post by: ThePerm on September 24, 2007, 09:21:13 AM
i was going to get on that. If Sony or Microsoft try to compete with Nintendo on the price range Nintendo could judt lower the price, and release more colors. When they lowered the price of Gamecube the thing skyrocketed in sales and became hard to find, unfortunately there was a shortage and during the shortage xbox overtook it on sales again.
Title: RE: 2-3 times powerful
Post by: Kairon on September 24, 2007, 09:24:28 AM
The $200 price point, so magical, so powerful, and soooo tantalizingly close!
Title: RE: 2-3 times powerful
Post by: couchmonkey on September 26, 2007, 04:52:20 AM
I read that article elsewhere and really disliked it.  The technical side is fine, but the whole conclusion left me cold with it's "Nintendo is trying to fool us with the controller, power is what really matters" slant.  They don't come right out and say it, but they imply it a lot, and in particular they bring up all of the old FUD arguments: Wii can't last very long, people will get tired of motion control, what will happen when HD becomes popular...etc.  I guess they're just so invested in high technology that they want to believe those tired old claims, but for a second there I was beginning to wonder if the article was sponsored by Sony or Microsoft.

Ultimately, I think it's nice that they came up with a technical proof that Wii is not very powerful relative to the new consoles, but it's not a big revelation.  Anyone with eyeballs could tell you that.
Title: RE: 2-3 times powerful
Post by: UERD on September 26, 2007, 06:45:37 AM
Computers are tools...just like the people who do nothing but obsess over their stats without considering how well they perform their jobs.
Title: RE: 2-3 times powerful
Post by: ThePerm on September 29, 2007, 12:30:09 PM
playing n64 games lately iv come to the conclusion..they should have tried to make them even more cartooney! Soythpark 64 doesnt look bad at all, if more games went with a more cartooney approach they probably would have been crisper, screw crappy dithered blurry textures go for low color high contrast textures...id go for pixelation over blurriness
Title: RE: 2-3 times powerful
Post by: Ceric on September 29, 2007, 02:52:40 PM
Considering the source and the crowd that tends to gravitate to it.  The HD More Power is better vibe isn't that weird.
Title: RE:2-3 times powerful
Post by: jasonditz on September 30, 2007, 10:47:32 AM
Quote

Originally posted by: couchmonkey
They don't come right out and say it, but they imply it a lot, and in particular they bring up all of the old FUD arguments: Wii can't last very long, people will get tired of motion control, what will happen when HD becomes popular...etc.  I guess they're just so invested in high technology that they want to believe those tired old claims, but for a second there I was beginning to wonder if the article was sponsored by Sony or Microsoft.



I have to say, as far as what they're done with it so far, I am starting to get a little tired of motion control. Madden was neat in some parts but inexcusably sloppy in other parts (like its virtually impossible to rile up the crowd without accidentally calling defensive audibles)... ditto for Tiger Woods. A lot of the games use gestures that don't make any sense, and responsiveness isn't always all it could be.


Title: RE:2-3 times powerful
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on September 30, 2007, 10:49:02 AM
Quote

Originally posted by: jasonditz
Quote

Originally posted by: couchmonkey
They don't come right out and say it, but they imply it a lot, and in particular they bring up all of the old FUD arguments: Wii can't last very long, people will get tired of motion control, what will happen when HD becomes popular...etc.  I guess they're just so invested in high technology that they want to believe those tired old claims, but for a second there I was beginning to wonder if the article was sponsored by Sony or Microsoft.



I have to say, as far as what they're done with it so far, I am starting to get a little tired of motion control. Madden was neat in some parts but inexcusably sloppy in other parts (like its virtually impossible to rile up the crowd without accidentally calling defensive audibles)... ditto for Tiger Woods. A lot of the games use gestures that don't make any sense, and responsiveness isn't always all it could be.


Wait the examples you are giving are from EA games?
Title: RE:2-3 times powerful
Post by: jasonditz on September 30, 2007, 06:20:55 PM
Quote

Originally posted by: GoldenPhoenix
Quote

Originally posted by: jasonditz
Quote

Originally posted by: couchmonkey
They don't come right out and say it, but they imply it a lot, and in particular they bring up all of the old FUD arguments: Wii can't last very long, people will get tired of motion control, what will happen when HD becomes popular...etc.  I guess they're just so invested in high technology that they want to believe those tired old claims, but for a second there I was beginning to wonder if the article was sponsored by Sony or Microsoft.



I have to say, as far as what they're done with it so far, I am starting to get a little tired of motion control. Madden was neat in some parts but inexcusably sloppy in other parts (like its virtually impossible to rile up the crowd without accidentally calling defensive audibles)... ditto for Tiger Woods. A lot of the games use gestures that don't make any sense, and responsiveness isn't always all it could be.


Wait the examples you are giving are from EA games?


Yeah... they are the third party throwing the most support at the Wii, after all.

Anyhow, I don't mean to pick on EA... I'm just getting sick of the whole "gestures instead of buttons" idea.  
Title: RE: 2-3 times powerful
Post by: ShyGuy on September 30, 2007, 06:43:02 PM
It's interesting, you read some developer interviews and they talk about how they originally had more waggle and took it out of their game. I think traditional games that make light of use motion controls have turned out fairly well control-wise.  
Title: RE: 2-3 times powerful
Post by: NWR_insanolord on September 30, 2007, 08:02:35 PM
I agree, I think that relying too much on motions in a more traditional game can kill it. I remember seeing a developer interview in which
the developer said that Nintendo had told them to not force motion control and only use it where it works. I think that's great advice, and
it's great that Nintendo realizes that it doesn't work for everything. Their games so far (at least Strikers and Metroid) have shown that it's
the way to go. Metroid using the nunchuk motion for grappling is something that could easily be done with a button, but it being done with
the motion pulls you into the game and makes it one of my favorite parts of the game. The same goes for the hard hits in Strikers and
sword slashing in Twilight Princess, the Wiimote shake gets the adrenaline pumping in the heat of the battle way more than any button
pressing ever could.
Title: RE: 2-3 times powerful
Post by: Chozo Ghost on October 01, 2007, 12:52:52 AM
You do feel like you're in the game more with the motion controls.... that said, it should be used sparingly. The average gamer has weak arm strength, and their muscles will be strained by too much of that waggling.  
Title: RE:2-3 times powerful
Post by: jakeOSX on October 01, 2007, 02:50:07 AM
Quote

Originally posted by: Chozo Ghost
You do feel like you're in the game more with the motion controls.... that said, it should be used sparingly. The average gamer has weak arm strength, and their muscles will be strained by too much of that waggling.


i see this kind of statement a lot. so i am not singling you out when i start this rant...

but how the hell are you people playing?

with the wii and having my two hand separated from each other (instead of linked like the traditional controller) i have become even more slack in how i play games. i can lean back on the couch or gaming chair, wrists on my knees and play most every game i have.

now don't get me wrong, i'll stand up and jump around the room during some mario strikers, but that is different.

you don't have to hold your arm out straight and make big grand motions. yes we do it for sports because it makes the game fun, but you don't have to. in fact, esp. for FPS games, the small wrist motions are much better for control.


Title: RE: 2-3 times powerful
Post by: jasonditz on October 01, 2007, 05:21:24 AM
I don't know about you guys, but I can't even get the online version of Madden to register a kick half the time unless I swing my arm 90 degrees. Even then if its a slow-motion game winning kick half the time it won't register and I'll have to do it faster.

I used to be able to sit and play NCAA 2003 for the GC for 5-6 hours at a time, after about 45 minutes of Madden my wrist starts getting sore.
Title: RE:2-3 times powerful
Post by: IceCold on October 01, 2007, 04:50:17 PM
That's a software problem then..

I agree totally with jake - I can go hours playing e.g. Zelda without feeling any pain in my wrist or arm.
Title: RE: 2-3 times powerful
Post by: jasonditz on October 02, 2007, 07:51:15 AM
I'm just starting to get tired of the "PS2 port with motion control" premise that a lot of third parties seem to follow, that said I've loved some of those games, I'd just like to see more:

1. Original RPGs that don't feel the need to tack on a bazillion gestures to fit in with the wii library
2. Games that take the motion control idea to do something that wasn't possible before.

Of course, then I go out and buy Marvel Ultimate Alliance and NBA Live 08 today, so I guess I'm kind of a hypocrite too

Title: RE:2-3 times powerful
Post by: Kairon on October 02, 2007, 09:32:50 AM
Quote

Originally posted by: jasonditz
1. Original RPGs that don't feel the need to tack on a bazillion gestures to fit in with the wii library
2. Games that take the motion control idea to do something that wasn't possible before.


So you want, at the same time, more motion control AND less huh?

... but I agree with you. I want to see some straightforward RPGs for the Wii. They don't need to be anything special, just there. The Wii userbase will take care of the rest.

Besides, the simple IR functionality is a HUGE control improvement, and if there were games that ONLY used that new feature of the Wii, like some DS games only use one or two features of the DS, then that'd still be amazing, maybe even better because of the focused experience. Metroid Prime 3 showed us what a restrained and controlled approach to motion controls can achieve.

At the same time, I'm loving this idea of a high guard and low guard thing that No More Heroes is implementing. There are ways to abstract experiences and controls with the wiimote that haven't begun to be explored yet!