Author Topic: Wii analysis in this next gen war. (Read 16675 times)

Link_ · « **on:** December 19, 2006, 03:38:04 PM »

I will make this short.

in the last gen wars the clear winner was the ps2,regardless of its "inferior" hardware,as always its all about the games.the xbox and gamecube went head to head for an almost tie,with the xbox winning by a small margin.so the 2 "superior machines" loss.

but here is a fact.when you compare the ps2 to GC or xbox the diference its notable but not outstanding.examples.soul calibur 2,the splinter cell series,metal gear solid series and so on,thats because the technical specs from each console are not too separate,xbox 700 processor 64 ram,GC 485 processor 24 ram,ps2 300 processor 32 ram.

to the point.
in this next gen wars we see that nintendo took the gameplay over graphics aproach,but i think the wii specs are too weak compared to the competition.that means that we can see a good game play well on the xbox and the ps2,but not potentially on the ps3 or 360 to play on wii,examples far cry,call of duty.this games look way too crappy on the wii,and this is just the beggining,as well as the wii development improves so the ps3 and 360's.

the point i see is that maybe third parties would dump wii in the long run for the "more powerfull machines".

i think if nintendo at least got a 1ghz processor and 256 ram,that would do as a last gen ps2 compared to the competition,the way i see is that the wii stand as a nintendo 64 compared to a ps2 and xbox.

by the way this is not a nintendo bashing thread,im a nintendo fan since i can remember.

later dudes.

ShyGuy · « **Reply #1 on:** December 19, 2006, 06:20:59 PM »

I think we need to see the second batch of Wii games before we make any conclusions about the Wii hardware.

BTW, your avatar is 50 pixels too wide.

Infernal Monkey · « **Reply #2 on:** December 19, 2006, 06:24:40 PM »

Master System beat the NES
Nintendo 64 beat the PlayStation
Xbox beat the PlayStation 2
PSP beat the DS

WATCH OUT WII!

denjet78 · « **Reply #3 on:** December 19, 2006, 06:54:07 PM »

It is strange how the weakest system always seems to win out. I think Nintendo finally noticed that trend and decided to use it to their advantage. They purposefully made the Wii the weakest system because they know weak=winner!

Generation after generation that point has been proved.

Beyond that though. I'm sick of super realistic shiny graphics. I'm tired of games where it looks like they put all the effort into making the character models look good while the backgrounds are crap. I'm tired of developers throwing effects at horrible are direction hoping to make it look better. And I'm really tired of games not being fun anymore because the entire budget was squandered on getting the specular highlights to reflect off the gun barrel a little more realistically than they did last generation.

I just want fun, well built games.

Graphics can be damned for all I care.

Zach · « **Reply #4 on:** December 19, 2006, 06:57:58 PM »

Quote
Originally posted by: ShyGuy
BTW, your avatar is 50 pixels too wide.

I find that kinda funny coming from somebody who's avatar is 50 pixels too long. (yes I know its not heavily enforced since it does not widen the margin)

NWR_pap64 · « **Reply #5 on:** December 19, 2006, 06:59:00 PM »

You icon is too big...BRING ON DONKEY KONG!

willie1234 · « **Reply #6 on:** December 19, 2006, 07:00:25 PM »

it's not that strange really, weaker system generally means lower price.

Kairon · « **Reply #7 on:** December 19, 2006, 07:07:14 PM »

Quote
Originally posted by: Zach
Quote
Originally posted by: ShyGuy
BTW, your avatar is 50 pixels too wide.
I find that kinda funny coming from somebody who's avatar is 50 pixels too long. (yes I know its not heavily enforced since it does not widen the margin)

This just in! Shyguy is Link's duplicate account! *gasp*

~Carmine "Cai" M. Red
Kairon@aol.com

ShyGuy · « **Reply #8 on:** December 19, 2006, 07:14:20 PM »

I will shorten my avatar when Jonny shortens his. Ooh I'm a rabble-rouser!

But back on the subject, the Mario Galaxy vids from E3 looked good. Really good. I think we will all be saying wow by next christmas. To further illustrate, look at what Squenix is squeezing out of the DS nowadays, You give a good developer enough time with the platform, and they can impress.

TerribleOne · « **Reply #9 on:** December 19, 2006, 07:14:42 PM »

Threadstarter has a point... the difference is a bit disturbing.. this topic has been done a thousand times but now that games are coming out it is NOT COOL to see them with exact Gamecube graphics

It's a bit difficult playing Gears of War and pickin COD up. Yes, things are slow at the beginning but not THIS slow. and if you take a peak at the schedule you'll notice no time soon a game might show us any different.

IceCold · « **Reply #10 on:** December 19, 2006, 07:52:05 PM »

It isn't even close to the difference between the N64 and the Xbox. From the 64 era to the Cube, you could clearly see the jump in graphics. From the Xbox to the 360, for example, the difference is much more subtle. Now, there is more detail, more resolution etc, but overall I don't see it as a huge jump.

If you look at the videos of, say, Mario Galaxy, and compare them to PS3 or 360 games, there is a difference, but it's not a big one at all. To me, Galaxy is more pleasing to the eye because of the art direction. The third party games you see right now are the result of the rush to get them ready for launch. We always knew that the Wii would get horrible third party ports visually, especially at launch. A better indicator would be the exclusives..

Chozo Ghost · « **Reply #11 on:** December 19, 2006, 11:00:36 PM »

Seriously, do graphics even matter at all any more? Once a video game's graphics look as good as real life then you just can't improve them anymore than that.

I think Nintendo made a wise decision in choosing to greatly improve gameplay and more or less neglecting graphics. That is not to say that there is no graphics improvement, though. Isn't the Wii supposed to be 2-3 times more powerful than the cube?

Majora · « **Reply #12 on:** December 19, 2006, 11:08:57 PM »

Graphics.... a thing of the past... lol

Seriously, how beautiful does Zelda Twighlight Princess look? Gamecube standard graphics, but that is all we need, and I could not have asked for more. Beautiful art direction, the graphics are rich in emotion and detail.

Hell, I wouldn't even care if the new Zelda games were produced to resemble the Ocarina of Time graphics! Would the Animal Crossing experiance change if the graphics didn't look like it was designed for the GameBoy Color? To me it wouldn't have.

Of course we have not seen the machine at it's potential, but we always new that it would be the weaker that the powerful units of the XBOX 360 or PS3 (which are both exellent machines)... I'd rather the innovative technology of the Wii, rather than being able to play Tony Hawks 27...... same gameplay, just beefed up graphics each time.

By the way, I was playing that Rockstar Table Tennis game on the XBOX 360 today, and I was having a ball, its great fun... But I couldn't help but feel I'd rather be playing it using the Wii remote, than have the graphics just that little bit better....

As for analysising the Wii in the console war... Who knows how it'll fair, but things look promising... (but I rememeber thinking that about the Gamecube too)

Rhoq · « **Reply #13 on:** December 20, 2006, 01:02:57 AM »

Quote
Originally posted by: Link_
call of duty.this games look way too crappy on the wii

Only if you are comparing it to the XBox 360 and PS3 version. Personally, I think COD3 looks damn nice on the Wii.

Nick DiMola · « **Reply #14 on:** December 20, 2006, 01:14:30 AM »

This topic is retarded. Really how many times do we have to tread this same water. The Wii is graphically inferior, the games don't look super realistic. The world is not coming to an end. As long as developers can continuously make fun games, the Wii will continue to keep it's popularity. At the very least, Nintendo always has its big fans to fall back on ... and the DS.

Pittbboi · « **Reply #15 on:** December 20, 2006, 01:53:09 AM »

Majora...I don't know which version you have...but my copy of Zelda looks like crap.

Great art direcion, but overall the characters are blocky and it looks no better than a Gamecube game. Which would be fine if this were last gen, but it's not. The truth is the worst Xbox360 and PS3 games look better than what the Wii has offered so far, and that might be the case for all of this gen. It's one thing to enjoy games on the Wii, but don't kid yourself into thinking that the graphics are great and they don't matter, because compared to the standard set this gen that's just not the case. I love the Wii, but it doesn't get the right of being judged in a vacuum.

An THAT'S what the problem is. Pretty much everyone knew that the Wii was going to be less powerful than the competition, but you're a deluded fanboi if you claim that you expected it to be THIS underpowered. Even the most dedicated Nintendo fan was a little shocked to learn that the Wii was not only underpowered, but it wasn't even in the same ballpark in the competition. Still, we were willing the cope because we were told in a-later retracted-statement that the Wii was 2 to 3 times more powerful.

But where are those games? I told myself that the graphical difference would be tolerable if we atleast started to see games that couldn't be done on the Cube. If we at least started seeing the difference, even if it wasn't going to be that major. But so far, not even THAT has happened, and it doesn't seem like it's going to for a long time. There has yet to be a single game shown that "inarguably" couldn't be done on the Cube.

And that might be Nintendo's fault for waiting until the absolute last minute to give out dev kits, but still...it's starting to feel like i spent $300 on a wimote.

" As long as developers can continuously make fun games, the Wii will continue to keep it's popularity."

WHERE are those fun games??? All Wii seem to be getting are crappy ports of what were fun games years ago.

Ceric · « **Reply #16 on:** December 20, 2006, 02:06:49 AM »

You know if the GCN Version of TP wasn't ever in existance I but your tune would be very different. So around the very last game of the system they finally... top a most of its potential. It happens to look like games that barely top the new systems potential.

In the end the first generation will always be junk compared to the last. The problem is that the Wii has the same architecture as the Cube which developers only ever bothered to in general unlock at most 50% of its actual ability. So now we got this new system and everyone is playing catch up and have to break old stigmas to boot. Thats how a common architecture can work against you. If say Sony would have done the same thing as the Nintendo did with the Wii we probably see better looking games at launch because developers flogged the PS2 for every penny it was worth.

Pittbboi · « **Reply #17 on:** December 20, 2006, 02:34:44 AM »

Well, pretty much everyone knows that with a system launch, you get a bunch of games that look thrown together, or that look like the best last gen had to offer. However, there are always one or two titles that make you go "wow, so this is what [system name] is all about. This makes it worth it." In my opinion Wii doesn't have those games yet (Zelda doesn't count because it's on the cube, and WiiSports is nothing but glorified demos). Since 3rd parties are so content with releasing crappy ports on the system it seems like the games that'll make Wii totally worth it are going to be, surprise surprise, Nintendo games. And their showcase titles don't seem to be coming out until late next year...

ryancoke · « **Reply #18 on:** December 20, 2006, 02:42:45 AM »

Just wait until metriod prime 3....

couchmonkey · « **Reply #19 on:** December 20, 2006, 03:02:04 AM »

Basically the question is, do graphics matter? Wii might answer that question once and for all, but I think DS vs. PSP (plus Game Boy vs. Game Gear) have already given us a sneak peek.

Quote
the point i see is that maybe third parties would dump wii in the long run for the "more powerfull machines".

No, I don't think so. Smart third parties decide who to develop for based on money, not the power of the hardware. The smart money is on Xbox 360 right now, since it has by far the most users. However, Wii is also a good choice, it has quite a few users and its lower power means developers don't need as many man hours to create acceptable graphics.

Darc Requiem · « **Reply #20 on:** December 20, 2006, 03:10:06 AM »

Quote
Originally posted by: Link_
I will make this short.

in the last gen wars the clear winner was the ps2,regardless of its "inferior" hardware,as always its all about the games.the xbox and gamecube went head to head for an almost tie,with the xbox winning by a small margin.so the 2 "superior machines" loss.

but here is a fact.when you compare the ps2 to GC or xbox the diference its notable but not outstanding.examples.soul calibur 2,the splinter cell series,metal gear solid series and so on,thats because the technical specs from each console are not too separate,xbox 700 processor 64 ram,GC 485 processor 24 ram,ps2 300 processor 32 ram.

to the point.
in this next gen wars we see that nintendo took the gameplay over graphics aproach,but i think the wii specs are too weak compared to the competition.that means that we can see a good game play well on the xbox and the ps2,but not potentially on the ps3 or 360 to play on wii,examples far cry,call of duty.this games look way too crappy on the wii,and this is just the beggining,as well as the wii development improves so the ps3 and 360's.

the point i see is that maybe third parties would dump wii in the long run for the "more powerfull machines".

i think if nintendo at least got a 1ghz processor and 256 ram,that would do as a last gen ps2 compared to the competition,the way i see is that the wii stand as a nintendo 64 compared to a ps2 and xbox.

by the way this is not a nintendo bashing thread,im a nintendo fan since i can remember.

later dudes.

Well the Gamecube had a total of 40mbs of RAM (24MB main, 16MB Auxilary), but thats not why I'm responding to your post. The reason most Wii games look like Cube games is because they are. A lot of company's just took GC titles and brought them over to the Wii with motion control. In Ubisoft's case everything thing they've released on the Wii is horribly rushed or a GC game with tacked on controls. Far Cry for Wii would be terrible looking for a Dreamcast game. I swear Far Cry for Wii began development 3 months ago. I mean there just isnt an excuse for a game to look that horrible. I mean honestly the only game that looks like it may have been developed with the Wii in mind from the beginning is Excite Truck.

I think the fact that the Wii is powered by an upgraded Gamecube chipset is going to allow a lot of lazy developers to continue to use current gen graphics engines for Wii. I seriously doubt you'll see EA develop all new graphics engines for their Wii titles. Ubisoft has severly disappointed me with their shovelware. Sadly most developers never even took at vantage of the GC chipset so we are going to end up with a lof PS2 port based game engines.

Unfortunately that means Wii owners are going to end up with a lot shoddy, cash in, shovelwave titles with a PS2 (or worse) level of graphic detail. The only good thing I can see coming from this is that the Wii will get a lot more game titles overall. So when you see a game that looks and plays head and shoulders above the rest. Buy it. Support developers that actually develop games that not only take advantage of the Wii-mote but he improved hardware as well. At the absolute worst, Wii titles should look like RE4, MP2, Chronicles of Riddick (Xbox), Halo 2 (Xbox), etc.

Lets hope the better than expected Wii sales will prompt developers to actually put some work into their Wii titles. Although I know it won't be read by them, I will say it anyway. Ubisoft, I know you all are desperate to make money to stave off an EA hostile takeover. That said, resorting to EA style rush job ports isn't the way to do it. I much rather have played Red Steel in February and Far Cry in June if would have meant you guys actually finished the games.

Spak-Spang · « **Reply #21 on:** December 20, 2006, 03:28:29 AM »

You state that Wii Sports is a glorified demo and doesn't show off what Wii is about...but what do you have to support that belief?

The single launch game that shows what the Wii is about IS Wii Sports. It is easily my second favorite game for the system. I play the game atleast once a week. It isn't perfect, but it is beautifully simple and greatly inspired.

The game that shows that defines the potential of a system and "what the system is about" doesn't have to be about graphics. It doesn't have to make you say "WOW," because of graphics...but can make you say "Wow," because of concept and vision.

Wii Sports is fantastic in that regard, and really pulls the entire system's vision together. Miis to use as ingame characters and pull yourself and family into the game. Letters sent to your system announcing when you achieve something great in Wii Sports is like a nice reward for your hard work. Multiplayer games of Wii Sports push the community aspect of the system.

Wii Sports right now is the definitive Wii game, and above any other game it is selling the Wii system and concept.

Second would be Zelda...and Zelda is the killer App for the system in the fact, that If you own a Wii you will want to buy Zelda.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I think Graphics are important in gaming, but it is only important when graphics come at an affordable price, which gamers feel they can afford the system.

Make no mistake, if the PS3 and Wii were the same price, many would buy a PS3 and never consider the Wii.

How this will play out in later years of this generation will be interesting...but the Wii should already have a strong user base installed by that point.

ShyGuy · « **Reply #22 on:** December 20, 2006, 03:51:13 AM »

So what couple 360 launch window games made people go wow? King Kong? Gun?

Pittbboi · « **Reply #23 on:** December 20, 2006, 03:53:11 AM »

If you own a Wii you'll want to buy Zelda because it's really the only game out there right now worth its salt, and you can get it on Gamecube if you still don't want a Wii. Face it: it doesn't count.

And don't get me wrong, I like WiiSports, but to me it's not a game. It's fun, but it's a small series of mini-games that are meant to demonstrate the "concept" of the Wii. It's good at showing what the remote can do, but as a game itself it's still too simple. Nintendo knows the US needed something like that, which is why they packaged it with the system (if they hadn't, I doubt many people would have bought it). Playing WiiSports makes me go, "Ok, this is fun, I believe in the Wiimote now...now bring on the real games"

TerribleOne · « **Reply #24 on:** December 20, 2006, 04:12:36 AM »

Quote
Originally posted by: ShyGuy
So what couple 360 launch window games made people go wow? King Kong? Gun?

Kameo, Perfect Dark, NBA Live

the problem is that the wii games look really bad... worse than RE4.. thats ming boggling.. i just paid $250 for this thing... a GC was at $99 and honestly its 2006 and the hardware is dirt cheap i doubt more than $75. with its "update" 250 right now is NOT cutting it. Perhpaps like some say it's only the first gen of Wii games... but 360 is only a year ahead and PS3 launched at the same time. We're paying for the R&D team's salary for the wiimote

News:

Author Topic: Wii analysis in this next gen war. (Read 16675 times)