Slashdot Mirror
Wii Graphics 'Better Than At E3'
Gamespot and GameDaily have additional details on Nintendo's upcoming console. Gamespot reports on comments by Nintendo President Iwata that they were specifically not going for high-end graphics with the Wii. He goes on to say that some of their staff initially disagreed with the adoption of the Wiimote, but public and internal reaction has allayed the fears of detractors. GameDaily reports on comments from ATI, who says there is still a lot left to see from Wii's graphical output. What was shown at E3 was 'just the tip of the iceberg.' From the article: "Industry sources have said that the Wii GPU would be moderately more powerful than the GameCube's GPU, but how much more we don't know. Conservative estimates from developers have placed the Wii console as a whole at 2 - 2.5 times more powerful than the GameCube."
What I find really amazing is that they managed to pack at least double the performance of a Gamecube (this has been known for quite some time) into a chassis even smaller than the Gamecube.
Look at THIS image and marvel at what Nintendo's engineers are capable of.
I noticed this blurb on kotaku:
- details-on-wii-version-178216.php
Opera Drops Details On Wii Version
http://www.kotaku.com/gaming/nintendo/opera-drops
Personally, I don't think anything less than HD resolution for a TV is horrible for webbrowsing. I've used hand helds, dreamcasts, etc. The only console so far worth web browsing on was a PS2 with netfront. Want to know why?
1. No one designs their site for NTSC.
2. The PS2 browsing was SVGA resolution ( at least the way I was running it over a monitor )
3. You need a real keyboard and mouse at some point.
I'm hoping my playstation 3 will have branded kb+mice at some point, since I like such things to match. At least the other consoles can display the resolutions needed for me to read the websites. It's ok for nintendo since I doubt anyone will do more than browse demos anyway. Also I need a PSP kb, since I still haven't found a better way to use google maps in a handheld. If DS isn't ass for it I'll buy a DS lite for portable web browsing. =)
I hope that you aren't serious. How can this be modded insightful? Just because a system is 2.5 times more powerful does not mean the graphics are 2.5x as good. In fact just being 2.5 more powerful will have very little difference in graphics. The X360 is something like 25X as powerful as the Xbox, but the graphics are not yet twice as good.
Look at the specs for the xbox and the 360, then just use some common sense.
Going from a Celeron 733MHz to three PowerPC cores at 3.2GHz is going to offer much more than double the performance. Going from a GeForce 3 GPU to a chip competitive with a 7800 is going to do over eight times as many polygons with many more effects. A GF 5900 was twice as powerful as a GF 3. The 6800 was 2x compared to the 5900, and the 7800 was 2x compared to the 6800.
PC Games bear this out, as will the 360 games this Christmas.
1) Each generation of console is 10-20x more powerful than the previous one. It's not Sony and MS exaggerating their claims, but rather the fact that increasing preceived graphical quality by a little bit takes a large increase in the system's power. Consider something like anisotropic filtering. It can easily double the performance requirement from the hardware, without delivering what you might consider to be a doubling in graphical quality. However, it's worth it, because it makes touches like text on billboards so much sharper and easier to read (ie: more realistic). In reality, the PS2 is easily 20x faster than the PS1. That's why it can deliver graphics that you might consider to look 2-3x better overall.
2) When ATI speaks about hardware performance, they're talking about actual performance, not perceived visual quality. So that 2-2.5x number likely means a few more pixel pipelines, a 50% higher clockspeed, and that's it. If game developers don't actually use any next-gen feature (ie: stuff like anisotropic filtering, shaders, etc), games could look substantially better, but they won't look anywhere near "twice as good" in the sense that you think PS2 looks twice as good as PS1.
3) Your scaling about the relative delta in graphics performance is completely off. The PS3 GPU and the Gamecube's GPU are in completely different leagues. The PS3's GPU can theoretically draw 12 gigapixels per second (24 pixel pipes, 500 MHz clockspeed). Moreover, it's got special hardware for reducing the impact of stuff like anisotropic filtering, and its got pixel shaders and whatnot for special effects. The Gamecube's GPU can draw 660 megapixels per second. If the 2.5x figure is accurate, then the Revolution's GPU can hit probably 1.3-1.4 gigapixels per second, with far fewer special effects and no pixel shaders, putting its theoretical performance about 1/8 the theoretical performance of the PS3's GPU. Even given the difference in resolution, the Wii just won't be able to compete, graphically.
4) The proof is in the pudding. Look at the screenshots of Zelda: Twilight Princess in this weeks EGM. When I saw them, two things popped into my mind. One: they are so artistically drawn, and really do look great. Two: the Revolution really can't do the artwork justice. Nintendo, faced with limited hardware power, did the rational thing: the made a game with beautiful colors and textures, but with limited quality in the details. Most Revolution games will likely look the same way. They'll look good, because of good and somewhat stylized artwork, but they won't have the detail, smoothness, sharpness, and special effects that PS3 and Xbox 360 games will. That fits right in with Nintendo's policy of creating "fun, easy to develop" games, but don't think for a second the same games wouldn't look a ton better done on the PS3 in 720p.
5) The PS2 is actually faster than the GC by a substantial margin. However, it's designed more to push a huge number of polygons with relatively few special effects. If you look carefully at PS2 games versus Gamecube games, you'll notice that PS2 models are substantially higher in polygon count, while Gamecube models tend to mask lower-polygon counts with rich textures and special effects.
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
Just remember that Resident Evil 4 was not a port. It was developed for the Gamecube first....AND it won the best graphics award from IGN for ALL platforms. A Gamecube game BEAT OUT all other platforms for the best graphics.....
Correction there, most game artwork is done at mid level detail and then rez'ed up or down to suit needs. Also, it costs exactly the same to export a texture at 1024x1024 as 256x256. You always work on the texture large and export it out small to hide any flaws it may have. Same applies to visual effects.
No one uses the high poly model for the game, it's for cinematics and for normal map creation. Having worked with Maya and 3D studio max for 5 years now, I can assure you there is no magic tool that lowers your poly count without totally wrecking your model. You have to do it by hand, no matter what.
Also, no game model has 1m or 5m polygons. 10k is approaching the limit of lag fest for a model. Keep in mind you often have 20 models on the screen at the same time.
As for your third point, well, who wants to get the hardcore gaming system "lite" version? No one. They are marketing it as 'hard core' and who wants to be $100 less hard core than the Joneses? No one who would spend $500 on a game system that is for sure.
The proof is in the pudding. Look at the screenshots of Zelda: Twilight Princess in this weeks EGM. When I saw them, two things popped into my mind. One: they are so artistically drawn, and really do look great. Two: the Revolution really can't do the artwork justice.
Which would matter if Zelda: Twilight Princess was a Wii game.
It's not. It's a GameCube game. Its control scheme was updated and it'll be sold as a Wii game, but graphically it won't look any different on the GameCube vs. the Wii. Other than maybe progressive scan.
If you want a good comparison of Wii vs GameCube level graphics, look here at the evolution of the Super Smash Brothers artwork. It's - uh - not a small jump at all.
Then take a look at the SSBB trailer (which is an in-game trailer). The one thing that popped into my mind while watching it (and while playing Kingdom Hearts 2/Dragon Quest VIII this week) is this: graphically, if we want to reproduce cartoons, we're done. They're essentially perfect - the limiting feature at this point is the desire of the programmer to put in the details, not the console to output the graphics and the artist to take the time in making them.
Now, if you want realistic looking games, you've got a ways to go, but the limiting feature there won't be the graphics anyway - it'll be the AI, motion capture, and physics. Who cares if the thing on screen looks like Indiana Jones if it moves like a mannequin?
And that's why the Wii's graphics will do fine - because they're good enough to replicate cartoons, and game developers are too lazy to make realistic games look realistic.
Heck, that's the main issue I've had with PC gaming for a while. They keep trying to make things look realistic and pretty, which leads to great still shots... but things just look like a computer game when things start to move again.
Gamecube sported some of the best graphics last gen (Metroid, Resident Evil, etc)
Wii is 2.5 times more powerful than Gamecube.
Logical conclusion? Wii graphics are 2 gens old!
Seriously, who cares how crappy games like Tennis and Tony Hawk look? There are some X360 titles that look a lot worse than Metal Gear Solid 3 did.
> 5) The PS2 is actually faster than the GC by a substantial margin. However, it's designed more to push a huge number of polygons with relatively few special effects. If you look carefully at PS2 games versus Gamecube games, you'll notice that PS2 models are substantially higher in polygon count, while Gamecube models tend to mask lower-polygon counts with rich textures and special effects.
.. substantially? Well, maybe not, but lets just say unarguably. For a recent visual example, look at the Resident Evil 4 port to PS2 - it still looks awesome, but models all have lower poly counts. Note that the PS2 came out significantly before the gamecube too .. you really think a console that came out almost 2 years before the gamecube has more powerful hardware? We have to optimize to hit 30 fps on the PS2, while the gamecube cruises along at a nearly flawless 45 fps.
.. just about everything except for raw disc capacity due to the use of mini-DVD on the gamecube, although the S3 texture compression here helps. I'm no fanboy; I own both systems, and they both rock .. but just because I work 50 hour work weeks doesn't mean I won't take the time out to correct some baseless myths.
I'm a game developer, currently working on a console title that will release on PS2 and Gamecube, and you're repeating an oft quoted but totally baseless myth with point number 5 here. The gamecube hardware is more powerful than the PS2
It is a testemant to Sony's "Super computer" cell processor hype and Nintendos "Its not about the power" company line that keeps this old wives tale still perpetuated in 2006.
But make no mistake, the GPU and CPU on gamecube are more powerful than those of the PS2. Higher clock rates, more ram (although the non CPU addressable ARAM in the gamecube requires more management for memory use optimisation)
"Old man yells at systemd"
This actually kinda illustrates his point. The main difference seems to be shading and textures, not polygons...
Yeah. Because Wii has a significant amount more texture memory and shader capability than the GameCube did.
Not everything is about polygons.