Sony loves EU gamers <3

[Mysterio]

But just saying that the Wii is "Gamecube technology" is a stupid post, and dissing it on graphical power alone is a very stupid and ignorant debate.

how is undermining the graphical power on the Wii, which is arguably about a quarter as capable as either the xbox360 or the PS3 a stupid debate?

its fact, nothing to debate... unless you're saying PS3 and 360 are on even terms with the Wii, or even somewhat close in that regard, then it would be a something worth debating, but that isn't the case.

yes graphics are not the end all evidently, but its plenty of reason to argue when it pales in comparison to the other 2 competitors.

And the Wii is Gamecube technology, no matter how much you blindly deny it.

[zoobernut]

But just saying that the Wii is "Gamecube technology" is a stupid post, and dissing it on graphical power alone is a very stupid and ignorant debate.

how is undermining the graphical power on the Wii, which is arguably about a quarter as capable as either the xbox360 or the PS3 a stupid debate?

its fact, nothing to debate... unless you're saying PS3 and 360 are on even terms with the Wii, or even somewhat close in that regard, then it would be a something worth debating, but that isn't the case.

yes graphics are not the end all evidently, but its plenty of reason to argue when it pales in comparison to the other 2 competitors.

And the Wii is Gamecube technology, no matter how much you blindly deny it.

It is a stupid debate because it is not a debate that by its self determines the success of the system. And yet for some reason you seem hell bent on the fact that since the wii is graphically weaker than the other 2 systems it is going to fail and it has already reached its peak.

IF you want to debate graphics with respect to the systems success you need to include all the other factors into the systems success which you are not doing.

Another way to look at it is the ps2 vs. the xbox. The ps2 is way weaker than the xbox. Its hardware doesn't even come close to the xbox plus the xbox works using PC graphics protocols so it is very easy for people to program for they do not even have to learn something new. Yet somehow the ps2 went on to become extremely successfull sell way more units than the xbox and towards the end of its life is now having some games that look extremely good and rival some of the xbox games because companies have become more efficient at using its technology.

And what do you mean the Wii is Gamecube technology? If you mean its just a gamecube shrunk down to a smaller package you are wrong. If you mean they based the technology in the wii on the gamecube then maybe you are right but there is no way you can know what the wii actually has in it compared to the gamecube unless you are an electrical engineer, work for a game company developing wii games or work for nintendo.

[Mysterio]

you either mis-interpreted what I said, or missed it entirely.

When PS2 came out it was new tech. When Wii came out it wasn't new tech, its essentially the same technology used in the Gamecube which comprises the Wii.

So of course PS2 got better with age...Gamecube's been out since 2001, so the Wii technology is almost 6 years old in essence, so its not new to developers. The only thing they really have to learn to utilise is the new control scheme with the nunchuk and motion sensing.

And developers not taking full potential of the Console system? of course they are, it's their job to ensure they do. The companies they work for expect them to pump out the best game possible to generate THE most sales possible. Thats how they do business?

"Ok guys I want you to use our 50 million for development to do a half-assed job and make us half the sales we should be getting."

Of course they try to make the best product they can... I think you may be mistakenly confused on that idea?
??

I know how a game comany works, I have been in game companies before, I have talked with producers who worked on big budget games. I understand the pipeline of game development.

What I don't think you understand that in the business of game development there is more to creating a game than just "Making the best product they can" there is a very fine line balance between working to get the best product out they can and making sure it happens fast and works to optimise profit.

The reason why games for game systems get better over time is becaue in the begining it is too expensive for game companies to put research and time into how to optimise a system and use it to its full extent. Over time each game a company releases for a system gets a little bit better than the last technology wise, runs more efficiently, has better graphics, has larger environments... each time they make some discovery to make the development pipeline more efficient they continue to use that for future games.

I guess what I am saying in short is yes game developers work to use a system to its full potential all the time but what the "Full potential" of a system is expands and changes over time.

Wii games will get better the longer companies make games for it.

this post makes more sense than your first one, I probably wouldnt have questioned you had this been your initial response.

Several of the games released for the Wii were originally intended for the Gamecube, and were quickly ported over after the majority of production was allready done.

Zelda most notably, it was originally made for the GAmecube, and they decided later on in its production to hold off on it and release it for the Wii.

For the life of me I don't remember the link to the article I read stating that...if you can't take my word for it so be it, lol.

[zoobernut]

Yeah it was very smart business on Nintendos part to hold off on releasing some gamecube games and move them to their new systems.

They will still have plenty of non gamecube port games comming out for the wii that in my opinion will be a better place to judge the power of the wii.

[Mysterio]

But just saying that the Wii is "Gamecube technology" is a stupid post, and dissing it on graphical power alone is a very stupid and ignorant debate.

how is undermining the graphical power on the Wii, which is arguably about a quarter as capable as either the xbox360 or the PS3 a stupid debate?

its fact, nothing to debate... unless you're saying PS3 and 360 are on even terms with the Wii, or even somewhat close in that regard, then it would be a something worth debating, but that isn't the case.

yes graphics are not the end all evidently, but its plenty of reason to argue when it pales in comparison to the other 2 competitors.

And the Wii is Gamecube technology, no matter how much you blindly deny it.

It is a stupid debate because it is not a debate that by its self determines the success of the system. And yet for some reason you seem hell bent on the fact that since the wii is graphically weaker than the other 2 systems it is going to fail and it has already reached its peak.

IF you want to debate graphics with respect to the systems success you need to include all the other factors into the systems success which you are not doing.

Another way to look at it is the ps2 vs. the xbox. The ps2 is way weaker than the xbox. Its hardware doesn't even come close to the xbox plus the xbox works using PC graphics protocols so it is very easy for people to program for they do not even have to learn something new. Yet somehow the ps2 went on to become extremely successfull sell way more units than the xbox and towards the end of its life is now having some games that look extremely good and rival some of the xbox games because companies have become more efficient at using its technology.

And what do you mean the Wii is Gamecube technology? If you mean its just a gamecube shrunk down to a smaller package you are wrong. If you mean they based the technology in the wii on the gamecube then maybe you are right but there is no way you can know what the wii actually has in it compared to the gamecube unless you are an electrical engineer, work for a game company developing wii games or work for nintendo.

I've made that assumption(since I can't prove it as you said) based on the fact many of the reviewers for the launch games for the Wii have notably stated its "Gamecube graphics" or that its little to no different from the Gamecube.

Recently if this helps any... They released Zelda TP for Gamecube, and no one bothered reviewing(magazines websites etc) it, all stating its identical to the Wii game.

But you're right without being an electrical engineer I can't prove in fucking court that its the same technology. lol

[zoobernut]

Yeah I agree with you about the games right now being of "Gamecube quality". It does make it feel like it is just a smaller gamecube.

I was just trying to point out that we dont know what the wii has under the hood and while it is almost certaintly not as powerfull as the xbox360 or ps3 it may have tons of room to grow and impress us eventually when they stop porting games and start making originals.

I read a review today on the new sonic game that said it was graphically very impressive. (I will need to see the game first to form my own opinon)

[Mysterio]

The Wii sonic game got wayyyy better reviews than the steaming pile of shit Sonic for 360 and ps3.

They are different games though.

[Mysterio]

did you know Nintendo sold 21.20 million Gamecubes worldwide? lol

They all in some massive pile somewhere?

over 100 million PS1's sold..

over 105 million ps2's sold as of March 2006

some serious numbers

[Alina]

I recently got my HDTV + component cables, and honestly if Zelda in 480p and Widescreen is any indication on how the future of Wii games look, I'll be happy.

Does no one else seem to think that graphics have reached a point where even "low end" stuff (Wii) is still extremely satisfying to view? I mean, obviously there's a difference when you get into the fine details of things, but does it really matter if you can't count every individual piece of grass in Hyrule field?

You can discount the Wii by saying "it only has Zelda", but come on... ITS FUCKING ZELDA. Of all the launch games over the ages, I'd say only Mario 64 can really compete with offering such an epic experience from Day 1. I had a PS2 at launch, and all I remember playing til FFX/MGS2 was SSX and, uh, the MGS2 demo. Looking into later this year, I'd have to say Mario + Metroid + Smash Bros. > MGS4/FF12 (if they even are released in 2007) for me.

With that being said, I will probably end up getting a PS3 because I'm weak and want MGS4 to see how it all ends... The power of exclusives

Overall though, I think this console war is pretty exciting. No one seems to be a clear cut winner, and I think in the end all will be successful - which is what the industry NEEDS, not companies going out of business. Competition is the driving force for raising the bar and innovation in gaming.

[Mysterio]

Wii actually plays in 480p? thought it was only 480i?

[Mysterio]

Does no one else seem to think that graphics have reached a point where even "low end" stuff (Wii) is still extremely satisfying to view? I mean, obviously there's a difference when you get into the fine details of things, but does it really matter if you can't count every individual piece of grass in Hyrule field?

I'm pretty sure if Zelda was made for the PS3 in 1080i resoultion your entire opinion would change.

It also depends on the game in question, games with alot of close-up shots would rely alot more on higher res.

[Alina]

Well, I know 480p isn't true HD, and I don't have anything to take advantage of 720p/1080i yet...but I'm getting a 360 next month.

I've never really been a graphics whore though. Sure, I always think "damn that looked cool" when seeing the whizz-bang effects from new hardware, but the only thing I really care about from a visual standpoint is that the game plays at a smooth framerate.

[Mysterio]

Well, I know 480p isn't true HD, and I don't have anything to take advantage of 720p/1080i yet...but I'm getting a 360 next month.

I've never really been a graphics whore though. Sure, I always think "damn that looked cool" when seeing the whizz-bang effects from new hardware, but the only thing I really care about from a visual standpoint is that the game plays at a smooth framerate.

You're just the gamer Nintendo is looking for, lol.

I only find enjoyment from low graphical games if they are RPG's, and done nicely. I find it very difficult to sit down and play Wii games, I admit I played Wii sports for about 4 days and zelda for a couple hours, and I was getting angrier by the minute trying to play the fucking frustrating Wii golf.

[SephYuyX]

Wii golf isnt that hard.. you swing.

And theres no such thing as true HD, its just the current highest HD. Also as stated above, no one know what the Wii is capable of, hell GC was a more powerful system than PS2, and no one knew about it untill Metroid and RE4 came out.

I was at my grandparents yesterday for my gpas bday, and my lol 12y/o asian cousin brought his PSP, and I had my NDS. He was playing some dirt bike game and I was playing mario kart, hes all 'you can take your kiddy graphics and ill take my cool graphics' I told him 'have fun with you 'pretty graphics' while I play my fun game'. He took my NDS and wouldnt give it back till I had to leave.

Gamers want games first and graphics second, if you think the other way around, stick to movies. Fun sells, sure graphics help, but no one will care as long as the gameplay is good. Usually the only people who do care about graphics first tend to be the spoiled next gen people, theyre used to everything being pretty.

[Kenai]

But just saying that the Wii is "Gamecube technology" is a stupid post, and dissing it on graphical power alone is a very stupid and ignorant debate.

how is undermining the graphical power on the Wii, which is arguably about a quarter as capable as either the xbox360 or the PS3 a stupid debate?

its fact, nothing to debate... unless you're saying PS3 and 360 are on even terms with the Wii, or even somewhat close in that regard, then it would be a something worth debating, but that isn't the case.

yes graphics are not the end all evidently, but its plenty of reason to argue when it pales in comparison to the other 2 competitors.

And the Wii is Gamecube technology, no matter how much you blindly deny it.

It is a stupid debate because it is not a debate that by its self determines the success of the system. And yet for some reason you seem hell bent on the fact that since the wii is graphically weaker than the other 2 systems it is going to fail and it has already reached its peak.

IF you want to debate graphics with respect to the systems success you need to include all the other factors into the systems success which you are not doing.

Another way to look at it is the ps2 vs. the xbox. The ps2 is way weaker than the xbox. Its hardware doesn't even come close to the xbox plus the xbox works using PC graphics protocols so it is very easy for people to program for they do not even have to learn something new. Yet somehow the ps2 went on to become extremely successfull sell way more units than the xbox and towards the end of its life is now having some games that look extremely good and rival some of the xbox games because companies have become more efficient at using its technology.

And what do you mean the Wii is Gamecube technology? If you mean its just a gamecube shrunk down to a smaller package you are wrong. If you mean they based the technology in the wii on the gamecube then maybe you are right but there is no way you can know what the wii actually has in it compared to the gamecube unless you are an electrical engineer, work for a game company developing wii games or work for nintendo.

I've made that assumption(since I can't prove it as you said) based on the fact many of the reviewers for the launch games for the Wii have notably stated its "Gamecube graphics" or that its little to no different from the Gamecube.

Recently if this helps any... They released Zelda TP for Gamecube, and no one bothered reviewing(magazines websites etc) it, all stating its identical to the Wii game.

Exactly! Launch games are launch games, and Zelda is a port, basically the same game except for the control scheme. What is so annoying to me is you act like just because the Wii's Zelda has Gamecube-esque graphics (due to it being a port no less) that the Wii is incapable of better graphics, or that you can understand the Wii's graphic potential at all by looking at Zelda, which of course you can't come to any realistic conclusion on. When we start seeing some games like Zelda, or Metroid, or something brand new, built from the ground up and really taking advantage of the Wii's power, THEN maybe we will know, and the games will keep looking better as the system's potiental is better used. Of course it isn't as graphically intensive as some of the 360 and PS3's games, but saying it's not capaple of anything above the Gamecube? Why even bother posting something like that, it isn't even close to credible...