Wii GRAPHICS MYTHS DEBUNKED!
So, as we know there has been a lot of talk about Wii's graphics, the competition, the previous generation e.t.c and there have been a lot of myths too, I got a little fed up so I decided to debunk them.
1. "Wii can't do Normal Mapping."
- Oh yes it can! Really, Who actually said it couldn't? That's something I've always wondered. The Xbox did normal-mapping to great effect in games like Doom 3 & Splinter Cell: CT, and the Wii's programmable TEV (Texture Environment Engine) can do any effect XGPU could so why shouldn't it be able to? More proof?
Digital-Legends proved that even the N-Gage! which didn't even have a 3d accelerator chip let alone shaders or h/w bump mapping did normal-mapping too.
and so can the Nokia N93's *Dreamcast* based PowerVR MBX graphics chip.
Furthermore, Konami will use Normal-mapping technology in Dewy's adventure for Wii and Factor 5 have already expressed their displeasure of developers not using normal-maps on the system.
2. "Even though the Wii's ATI Hollywood GPU has a higher clock speed than the Xbox's XGPU, it still isn't capable of as many pixel fillrate calculations. Wii isn't capable of pixel shading. Nor is it capable of graphical effects such as stencil shadows, self-shadowing and light scattering".
This is wrong. The 'shaderama' that was Rogue Squadron II did these effects on Gamecube back in 2001, light scattering was an excellent addition in Rebel Strike in 2003.
The ATI Hollywood can actually produce "insane fillrates" to use Factor 5's words. The XGPU had a pixel fill-rate of 932 m/pixels. Hollywood is capable of a pixel fill-rate of almost 2 G/pixels. Having such a high fill-rate capability means that the Wii can perform advanced shaders, advanced texture filtering and advanced multi-layer texture effects without much hassle, especially as it only has to produce graphics @ 480p.
3. "Wii is hardly anymore powerful than the Gamecube. In fact its not much more capable than the PS2."
Don't make assumptions by what early Wii games display.
Wii has both more graphical power and processing power than the previous generation of consoles. In terms of processing calculations, did you know? IBM Broadway >> GC Gekko + XB Celeron put together!?
4. "The Wii cant produce anything near photo-realistic visuals."
Who said photo-realism meant that graphics have to look EXACTLY like real-life? Besides Gran Turismo 4 on PS2 (a much much lesser system) did a fine job of re-creating near-photo-realistic cars.
5. "The Wii is incapable of good physics."
Wait til they switch the Vacuum Laser on, physics allover the place.
All those interactions at once? Wii was having a picnic, hardly touched Hollywood for graphics functions too. Broadway used a fraction of the CPU to compute those physics. The system is capable of even more. Btw, AGEIA Physics are already in use for current & future Wii titles.
6. "The controller interactions require huge amounts of processing power, that's holding back Wii graphics."
Incorrect. It doesn't have a performance hit. If it did this (below) wouldn't run in 60 frames per second with so many advanced effects.
I think that will do for now
All Credit Goes to, AC-Revolution from the Gametrailers.com forum
This should shut up a few blind fanboys (though we all know it is not as powerful as 360 or ps3)