Separate names with a comma.
Wanting to join the rest of our members? Feel free to sign up today.
Discussion in 'Nintendo Wii Chat' started by ilves, Jan 17, 2008.
Lol, thats a nice way to look at it
You know what I hate. When people judge graphics by how "real" something looks. There are many things to take into account especially with fantasy type games with no link to reality. With graphics you should be looking at things like smooth edges, vibrant colours and good movement of characters and objects.
i just wanted to comment on the "original xbox has better graphics than wii". at the moment you can see that most games look the same as the original xbox, but its only the start for wii. if you look at the hardware, the wii runs in 480p, dvd graphics run in 420p and the original xbox was only i little higher than 420p. if you think that super mario galaxy is wii's limit, you are sadly mistaken.
I just said that because I read it in the article. Also the fact that ive still been buying old Xbox games (I never owned original Xbox) and the games still look better than Wii games. With the exception of SMG. SMG is the best looking Wii title.
Edit: Btw, orginal Xbox does run in 480p...
Does 420p even exist? Im not sure I thought it was 480/720/1080
Games like Metroid and Galaxy can hold their own against any 360/PS3 games.
Even though Galaxy was far more beautiful than Sunshine, that's for sure
Well, with Factor 5 back, who knows. We could be getting some better-than-Xbox graphics very soon!
I know someone already mentioned it, but I want to reiterate an important point.
If you have a 50+ inch HDTV and you watch a lot of HD content, you may be somewhat underwhelmed by the graphics of the Wii.
If you have a 20-37 inch Standard Def TV, and have never watched any HD content then you will be impressed by the Wii graphics.
My 2 cents...
The graphics for wii will NOT compare to the PS3 or 360. But they get the job done.
Let me add that the game developers aren't puting thier best efforts into wii graphics, so they aren't as good as they could be if they were.
If you value high end graphics, that it is best for you to buy a PS3 or a 360 first and get a wii for Nintendo games.
Yes, you are correct.
True, but as overall developers they suck unless its Rogue Squadron.
Other than Rogue Squadron their best game was Contra III.
Rogue Squadron II was good. Rogue Squadron III flopped.
Their latest game Lair was horrible.
May sound lame, but I just want them to make a pretty looking game. You know, just so they can confirm that it can be done.
Yeah, Galaxy and Metroid looked great, and Brawl looks awesome too.
But those are first party games, and still probably could have been pulled off with the original XBox.
Maybe not at 60 fps, but still could have been pulled off.
We just need a good looking game to prove that it can be done.
^Follow This Post!^
I don't think you understood me. My point was that it's not the controls that make the quality of the gameplay of a console, but rather the games on the console. The reality is that the Wii just doesn't have the lineup right now, with only a few good games. Furthermore, the grand capabilities of a consoles control system are pretty much moot if the games don't implement them well, which has been the case with pretty much all of the Wii games.
So to sum up, the Wii motion controls DON'T make the Wii or the gameplay of the games better than that of consoles without motion controls.
PS: I don't own a 360, so nice try. In fact, the Wii is the only console I own, and I hardly play that.
I agree 100%
One thorn in my side with the Wii is that basically no developer uses anti-aliasing. I understand the technical reasons why, but it's still an eye-sore. I wish AA was a given for Wii games, but the technical abilities of the Wii being what they are, I guess we're just going to have to trade AA for frame-rates.
so far nothing looks too much better than on the gamecube (actually most of it looks worse than gamecube because half the games are ps2 ports).
people who say its about fun not graphics
360 and ps3 are fun, why else would millions of people play them? you have to be pretty ignorant and new to gaming as a whole if you think good graphics means no fun.
also, brawl graphics arent that great at all, just more colors and what not. half the screenshots you see arent even the game, i once made a threat showing the mario from the video where they showed SSBM mario to the SSBB mario. then compared him to the mario in actual SSBB gameplay footage, nothing like each other.
Well no one can accurately make an estimate between the Wii and Xbox, mainly because no one actually knows what the CPU and GPU specs of the Wii are yet.
As for AA, they really need to start using it in games. @sremick as far as I know, the Gamecube GPU was capable of utilizing x4 AA without a performance hit. Since the Wii is using a ATI GPU, I would assume that it is atleast capable of doing x2 or x4 without a performance hit. Just for comparison the 360 GPU can do HDR and x4AA without a performance hit.
Do you get the slot where u put the yellow-red-white cables in with the Wii??
At the risk of repeating what's already been discussed in many other threads on the topic...
The Wii can do anti-aliasing, but it comes at a price. The Z-buffer must be reduced from 24 to 16-bit precision, and it requires using 1 TEV pipeline. The fillrate drops in half because the scene must be rendered much-larger than the displayed resolution then subsampled down, unlike without AA where the GPU only has to render the displayed pixels. More pixels = more rendering time, no way around that.
The Gamecube could do AA but also at a price, similar to the Wii. You dropped to 16-bit color and 16-bit Z-buffer, and the resolution fell from 640x528 to 640x264. AA required 2 texture layers and would halve the fill-rate.