Editorial: Why The Wii Is Not Meeting My Expectations

[Balthasar00]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Balthasar00 View Post


Miyamoto :


Wii hardware is not far from GC.. (6 years old) Besicaly, the Wii is a GC boosted. Has a Devs, can you realy be that much Lazy ?
whats your point?

Simple, since they already have tools and knowlegde, they should be ready to give better looking games than that.

WAit, aren't you one of those budies who were complaining about cheap PS3 launch games like Resistance ?!


well you sure learn from your mistakes.

Not far from xbox v1 but under it. Wii dosen't match xbox graphics ; Halo 1/2, Ninja gaiden, DOA etc.. HDTV sets are becoming cheaper and XBOX360/PS3 will deliver way better games in the near future. Wii should follow the DS sucess story. Fun games, original and tons of RPGs.

Ok I was wrong. Indeed, Wii is stronger than Xbox V1. Ubisoft staff said however in an interview for Red steel that some shadings effects on xbox couldn't be acheived (so far) on the Wii since Nvidia earn some of those and ATi don't.

I found this on Katoku wich explain preatty well the situation.

The gamecube had superior texturing capabilities even though it used what we would clasify as a non-standard shader engine, so my point is it's probably some trivial direct x shader function [or as I thought earlier that propriatary Nvidia fog method that was more costly on ATI chipsets at the time] that is easy to do on xbox, but a little harder on wii.

Sofox - the reason you hear Wii quoted as 'just above the XBox' is simply that the CPU runs at the same speed (733 MHz), while the GPU runs at a slightly faster speed (243 vs 233 MHz). However, both parts were completely different (Intel vs IBM; NVidia vs ATI) so they aren't comparable, something people tend to ignore.

Even though GC had a much slower CPU and GPU in terms of clock speed, it wasn't as much less powerful than XBox as that comparison would suggest (and some of the difference is due to its anaemic memory; Wii has, again, slightly more memory than XBox).

Direct comparisons between Wii and GC are possible. So yes, Wii really is 'GC 1.5' although in terms of memory it's 'GC 2 and a bit'. If you consider RE4 with the textures twice as detailed and 1.5 times as many polygons or effects etc, that should be about the limit for Wii. (Disc transfer speed is also a bit more than twice as fast, but in terms of streaming data during play, that's only proportional to the memory / potential texture size; so load times ought to be about the same as GC.)

I think memory was a significant limiting factor on GC (just a hunch based on crappy textures...) so really it might be closer to GCx2 than GCx1.5 in practical terms.

As for XBox? It's not comparable. For a hunch, though, if we're using these 'console multiplier' numbers, I'd suggest maybe XBox 1.3?

In the end, its not about graphics, it about feeling. Give me somes of thoses Japan exclusives rpgs like Dragon quest V remake wich haven't been released here in america.

I'll feel better this way.

[ICE]

ninty has been making good games and will continue to. 3rd party hasnt.

[Balthasar00]

ninty has been making good games and will continue to. 3rd party hasnt.

Thats the way things always goes when a new system come out. At least, SE upcoming FF on wii looks promising.

[ICE]

the wii is new and hot so 3rd party gets to make crap games that sell like oxygen in space. when that stops working(usually about a year) i will be happy.

EDIT: wii is like 1.5 x gamecube.

also i never said that resistance was cheaply made, just that its made on a system to complicated to make good graphics for yet. by good i mean better than 360 which is far a far weaker but less complicated system.

dont put words in my mouth.

[RV2006]

The thing you got to realise about the XBOX360 is that its been out alot longer than the wii, so the graphics you see now are awesome, but if you look at the launch titles for the 360 and some early 3rd party titles for the 360, you'll see that the graphics were not much better than the XBOX.

The wii is still early so not all games look great yet, (but the 2D games look great on my 42-inch TV like warioware, much like the great looking 2D games on my DS)
and the wiimote has not been fully explored yet, in terms of creative value, and even coding, (as some games have had very dodgy controls!), but give it time and it will start to churn out some great looking games, (for example the new smash bros game looks awesome, Mario has never looked more stylish!), and 3rd party developers will clean up their games a bit, (in terms of coding and design flaws), and hopefully the Indie coders will get into the scene as well, and make some awesome games too!

I can see a bright future in the Wii, but we gotta wade through the dark storm first!

[I heart Nintendo]

The guy is talking $#@!. Plain and simple. As for "Where is the online play?" He obviously hasn't heard of Mario Strikers Charged.

[Ewan]

The idea that this console could never even come close to matching the graphical power of the 360 or the PS3 really turned me off as a gamer.

So.. everyone should go out and get PC's then, since there is no way a 360 or PS3 could ever match the graphical power of the "newest" nVidia or ATI chipsets that are now available on the PC, right? I mean, HD is 1080p, most PC games are based in 1600x1200 at this point in time, so they are "beyond" HD!

Really, a "true" gamer wants good graphics, but they aren't the basis of a "good" game. A good game stands on it's own and brings something to the table. Many of the current Wii games are quick ports from either the GC or PSP, because many of the developers that aren't Nintendo did not develop *any* games for the Wii at start.

Give it another 6-9 months, and we'll see what happens. The PSP is more powerful, can do more, and is the "better" handheld, and which one is being completely and utterly dominated in the market?

At the pricepoint of the Wii, btw, they a) are making money with each console sold (can Microsoft or Sony claim that right now?) and b) many folks will not be upset in 2-4 years if something "new" comes out? Nintendo may be taking a shorter lifecycle to the box than Sony or Microsoft can "afford" to right now. If my memory serves me the GC was the last of the batch to be released (I believe it was Dreamcast, PS2, xBox, GC in ordering), and the Wii came out in a shorter "development cycle" than the others did.

If you are "truly hardcore", get the box you want. I'm sure there will be games for it. The third parties will be making games for the boxes that have the highest percentage of the market share, thus if only 10-20% of the people buy the game they have a chance of still making money. The "technological leader" has seldom won the generation (the N64 didn't - it had the "best graphics", the Saturn didn't - it had the most powerful processor, the TG16 didn't, etc), it's the one with best 3rd party support.

Time will be the true judge, but as Sega said back in 2001 - never count out Nintendo.

[rabidchild]

Why doesn't this guy just sell his Wii if he is so disappointed? Then in 5 or 10 years he can tell everyone how he was the first to realize how the Wii was only a gimmick. Just like Pac-Man was. (Terrible graphics, Pac-Man. For Shame!)

[Accordion]

Why doesn't this guy just sell his Wii if he is so disappointed? Then in 5 or 10 years he can tell everyone how he was the first to realize how the Wii was only a gimmick. Just like Pac-Man was. (Terrible graphics, Pac-Man. For Shame!)

because people want to believe nintendo can make it work... thats why i have kept mine, i havent played since december, but holding on to the slightest chance nintendo makes a good game. and gamecube, psp, ps2 ports wont do at all, and nor will overused franchises.

[Basil Zero]

And where's online play for the PS3?...

Its called PSN