Is the Wii graphics being takin a tad bit lightly?

honestly, back then, graphic DID matter as much as ppl are taking it serious today. also, when i fisrt saw screenshots of the games i was stunned, because look at the size of the wii, and then look at the games....nicely done right? plus it makes up for it with the wiimote
 
Very interesting article.. I didn't know that. I wonder what it could be used for then, if the Wii isn't going to support HD.
 
  • Thread Starter
  • Thread starter
  • #4
I am beginning to think the wii is more powerful than it is thought to be, in terms of graphics...
Why hasn't nintendo released the specs?
Im not a stupid delusional wii fan that wants better graphics either but I can't help but think it now....
 
A huuge move for Nintendo would be to announce HD support. That would catch everyone off guard - but add a ton of sales too, so lame PS3er & XBox fans could justify buying a Wii without taking a hit to their ego.
 
zoomer said:
A huuge move for Nintendo would be to announce HD support. That would catch everyone off guard - but add a ton of sales too, so lame PS3er & XBox fans could justify buying a Wii without taking a hit to their ego.
Click to expand...

Wow, a hit on your ego because you own or are a fan another system? Kind of harsh, don't ya think ?

I've always have been a Nintendo fan, all the way back from when the NES came out, and there was 5 games for the system at the time, I ended up having 92 games for the system never mind the SNES, N64, etc...

I am one who has an Xbox, an Xbox 360 and almost every other system on the market (for the last 7-10 years now). I do love my gaming.

I am very disapointed in the fact that Wii will not support HD or even Dolby Digital 5.1. Your right, not everyone has an HD set but, in 3-5 years, most people will, as the prices vs. the benifit of owning one would make it worth it, even more if your replacing a old tv.

On the 5.1 sound, most systems in the last 2-3 years have supported it and if you have played a well done game, it really gets you in the game, and worth doing as it only makes the game a lot more enjoyable.

I also agree that the games make the system but, they all are one together. The graphics, the sound, and the game play. Anyone who plays games knows this.

With PS3 and Xbox 360 supporting HD, it will take time before every other system will look dated because of the lack of the 1080i games, and it is worth it, as I play a lot of games in 1080i.

I would like to see Nintendo do a PS3/360 type of thing, $199 for everything now, $249-299 for HD and Dolby digital support, as I would be willing to pay more for those features in a *new* system.

I do also think any system coming out today should have these options. Sad to say, I wont get a Wii when it 1st comes out, unless I see a game that makes me buy the system (I did buy a PS2 for 1 game, had it 2 years now, only have 5-6 games for the system).

I kind of feel it's going to be a great system but, it's going to behind the other guys because of the lack of support for these key features a lot of people want in a system besides great games.

-Dave

Don't flame, just giving my honest thoughts here....
 
Last edited:
You can't just add in HD support it doesn't work like that ¬_¬ you'd have to have the games coded in both HD settings and non HD settings. It wouldn't be a PS3/360 type of thing as even the basic systems there are still HD, it would be like LoZ:TP where one version is GC and on Wii except it would be system wide and there would be two versions of everything. Just because in 3-5 years everyone will have a HD tv doesn't mean you should release a HD console now.

I know two people who have a HD tv and they're both plasma screens, they're not actually allowed to play games on them because, as you may know, if anything stays in the same place for an extended period of time (healthbars etc) they can damage the LC in the screen and leave faint after images. So even though one of my friends would have liked a PS3 there's no way he could play it on his tv (pity as it's 58").
 
Its interesting to read that anti-aliasing will only really make a difference on high-def screens. If you have played any games ever you will have noticed the jagged edges on the sides of the polygons, even on your old set. Anti-aliasing will obviously work on old sets as all it really does is smooth out those edges. Though... hd support would be nice, even though I dont have an hd ready tv. But I do have a dolby 5.1 system, that would be great!
 
DarkDepths said:
Its interesting to read that anti-aliasing will only really make a difference on high-def screens. If you have played any games ever you will have noticed the jagged edges on the sides of the polygons, even on your old set. Anti-aliasing will obviously work on old sets as all it really does is smooth out those edges. Though... hd support would be nice, even though I dont have an hd ready tv. But I do have a dolby 5.1 system, that would be great!
Click to expand...
I think what people mean is HDTV games suck without it, standard def can do without and be OK, in HD every imperfection comes out so they need anti-aliasing, personally I hate playing games on HD because no one can fully take advantage of it, even madden 07 or TV have those stupid jagged edges, I'm happy the Wii will not be pushing HD as a major component, even though it does have 480p which is HD.
 
Last edited:
Interesting....im glad that the Wii isnt going to use an HDTV cause i dont have one....plus graphics dont really matter to me that much....what would you rather have...good graphics....or good games
 
dont u think that the developers of Wii thought about this already? First of all, if it did support HD, they would have automatic less buyers for the ppl who dont have HD. They probably made the Wii to withstand not having HD and yet still have HD-like features; this way, HD is not required and still great sound and graphics r attained. Besides, ppl r pobably gonna buy the system anyways, thats not a good enough reason to not buy the whole console, the online play and other features already outnumber that one... BTW, nicely put opinions; well-respected
 
Technically the Wii does have HD, it has 480p which is kind of a low-resolution HD(see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/480p ), the big difference in hd and standard def is the interlaced versus progressive scan(check wikipedia for exact differences) which the Wii does have progressive and interlaced, then of course some HDTVs support higher resolution, by the way the low-end HDTV(the ones on sale that everyone is buying) most likely will not have 1080p the PS3 goes to, so I wouldn't worry about the HD difference it really won't matter if the game is good. Which with the Wii's awesome controls should really make it a ton more fun then the PS3, the PS2 really isn't as fun as it could have been, Sony has really been drowning the fun out of the market as of lately.
 
  • Thread Starter
  • Thread starter
  • #13
Wii will definatly be the funnest, and it is the most powerful console too!
 
DarkDepths said:
Its interesting to read that anti-aliasing will only really make a difference on high-def screens. If you have played any games ever you will have noticed the jagged edges on the sides of the polygons, even on your old set. Anti-aliasing will obviously work on old sets as all it really does is smooth out those edges. Though... hd support would be nice, even though I dont have an hd ready tv. But I do have a dolby 5.1 system, that would be great!
Click to expand...

This statement is not completely right.
Playing console games on a low resolution system like a normal TV makes FSAA useless because the blurry picture of the TV set cant show any sharp jagged edges. (this is what I like to call monitor-integrated FSAA :D , crappy blurry picture. heh.) Don't get me wrong, the picture is still good enough for console systems.

Now if you where to take this low resolution signal and send it via RGB to a normal tube monitor you would end up with sharp pixels and majour jagged edges because a monitor shows sharp pixels, bump up the resolution to say 1080p and you get much smaller pixels and less jagged edges.

So, normal tube tv with low resolution does not need FSAA because of blurriness.

Monitor or LCD with low res needs FSAA because of huge pixels

Monitor or LCD with high res does not need FSAA that bad because the pixels are so small that you cant see the jagged edges so clearly.
 
So I guess this whole article is basically saying that in the future Devs could utilize this special ram to dramatically improve the Wii's graphics?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

BAZ
something intresting about the graphics
Replies
11
Views
2K
mothershipconnection
M
SensesFail
Could the Wii be capable of having good graphics?
6 7 8
Replies
115
Views
12K
CyanRussel
CyanRussel
A
Nintendo Wii Hard Drive Coming in July
Replies
9
Views
1K
Fox MattCloud
F
MetroidZ
Wii Graphics Myths Debunked!
2
Replies
19
Views
4K
Wii_Smurf
W
Wilko21
Nintendo drops Wii graphics bombshell!!
2 3
Replies
35
Views
4K
sasuke747
S

Latest posts

Back
Top