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."
that the Wii was only a little better (hardware-wise) than the Gamecube. Everything I've read has either suggested that the Wii was only slightly better in hardware than the Gamecube (if not equal in some aspects). However, if the Wii has 2 to 2.5 times the hardware power of the Gamecube as the above article suggests, then they've fulfilled my expectations by more than enough.
Specs definitely don't matter for this console at all. It's about getting games back to how they used to be; short or moderately long pick-up-and play type games. I could definitely buy the idea that the games shown at E3 were hurried more with getting a fun game out on time than maximizing visuals, but ultimately it really doesn't matter, the games will be fun or they won't. The only games I play any more are games you can pick up and get into the heart of the gameplay instantly; Smash Bros. and Counter-Strike: Source. New Super Mario looks fun. So does Galaxy.
"Who makes the world? Perhaps the world is not made...A clock without a craftsman."
Who even cares about real numbers? If you want pretty pictures of the same old rehashed games, get an xbox 360 or PS3, hardly rocket science!
I never understood this whole problem. The Xbox2 does not look 2.5 times better than the first one. It doesn't even look twice as better. It's something lower than that. If the Wii is two times better looking than the Gamecube, then I'm going to be completely amazed.
I have always been a fan of game playability/fun factor/games that make you use your imagination, similar to a book. IMHO complicated graphics, sound, and movies inside games seem like they tend to take away from the fun of the game. If I wanted to play a game that looks absolutely like real life, I guess I woulnd't use a game console and go play real tennis. The 256 colors and the 8-bit sound had a magic to it.
There used to be a game by Lucasfilms called Indiana Jones 3, Last crusade, on the PC, around 1990 or so, in the game you could go anywhere you wanted, and solve puzzles not necessarily in the order that they need to be solved. Graphics were VGA, 256 colors, but now that I think about it, the fact that I used my imagination more might have made the game a bit more fun; the fact that the boss didn't look picture perfect helped him out a bit, similar to reading a book and visualizing the characters.
It's hard to pin down what I'm really trying to say here, but I loved the sierra games in the 80s, but maybe it's beause I'm older, but today's games just don't do it for me anymore. The other day I played mario kart and super mario world (is that what it was called) on the super nintendo, and had tons of fun, despite how old it is. Seems like Wii is trying appeal to this kind of demand.Insinct is stronger than Upbringing - Irish Proverb
Numbers cannot help with these question, only time and experience. I for one look forward to playing the Wii and maybe even getting one if it is good, though until then, I don't care.
When Argumentum ad Hominem falls short, try Argumentum ad Matrem
I still think the GameCube ports of Resident Evil 4 and the new Zelda still hold up very well compared to many of the titles I've seen for the XBox 360 and PS3. If the Wii is 2 to 2.5 more powerful than the GameCube I'll be more than satisfied.
Let's not forget the Wii does not need to be as powerful as the other two consoles as it doesn't need to output HD. The Wii graphics should be very good in 480p.
generally, the cheapest system is cheap for a reason.
That may be true, but it's also worth mentioning that there's never been a particularly successful console that cost anywhere near $600. Not to say that Sony can't pull it off, but Neo Geo and 3DO certainly weren't able to.
ZuluPad, the wiki notepad on crack
It wasn't long time ago we were posting jokes about the Wii name, have you noticed how this stopped? Noone jokes with the name anymore.
So it was indeed a temporary thing. Good lesson in marketing, and a great decision to announce it the week before E3 instead of E3.
Also notice how this brought them popularity: they're all over the press with articles about Wii's performance, remote, features, price and so on.
The PS3 is almost invisible around Wii.
While that's true, it's fair to say neither NeoGeo or 3D0 (or even Atari with its Jaguar) ever had the market- and mindshare that Sony has to this day. It's going to interesting to see how the PS3 fares when it hits the market.
My goodness, aren't you a nasty twit?
But you aren't something so what do we care if you WOULD do something that you would never end up doing...
See, that's the rub. Nintendo has stated very clearly that they care what this guy would do. He's the sort of guy that composes most of the non-hardcore gaming market, which, in turn, is most of the potential market. He won't go out and buy every game console, just one. Nintentdo is hoping to be that one. As such he has a very valid point. The full-blown-computer-crammed-in-a-box consoles, as he points out, are far too expensive for most people. Moreover, they don't really offer all that much of a PC, which, again, the GP points out.
There's no reason to be a jerk about things, especially when you really don't have a point at all.
What if the entire Universe were a chrooted environment with everything symlinked from the host?
True enough, but I think the price discrepancy in this case, at least as far as the PS3 is involved, is well beyond what we're used to from major console competitors. If I'm going to spend $200 on a system, but there's another one that's maybe a little bit fancier for 50 bucks more, I might say what the heck, and spend a little extra. But if the price difference is between $200 and $500-600, there's not even a comparison. That's not even the same market.
If Sony was releasing the exact same system as the PS3, with the exact same specs, and the exact same price, the only difference being that the PS1 & 2 never existed, I think they'd have been laughed right out of E3. $600 for a mass market game console is ridiculous.
The PlayStation name is the only thing that will give the PS3 a chance at that price.
One time I threw a brick at a duck.
I always felt that the GameCube GPU is more flexible than the Xbox or PS2 GPU... Definitely much more then the PS2 GPU, but the PS2 sacrifices flexibility for an enormously high fillrate. :)
If there is one thing negative about the GameCube GPU, it is that there is no atomic dot product pixel operation like on Xbox. Instead you have to sacrifice several texture stages to make one manually.
I can live without vertex shaders, but they would be a nice addition as well.
Back before technology became good enough for FPS, big development houses were pumping out platformers at a rate they could only dream of doing with the more technologically complicated FPS. How many games have you played with Mario, Sonic, Donkey Kong, Metroid, Duke Nukem, Commander Keen etc. in their names? Furthermore, how often have they had something unique compared to the rest of their franchise or the other franchises for that matter? That doesn't mean they wern't fun, they just wern't unique in any way shape or form.
As for top down games, how about the Command and Conquer series, the Legend of Zelda series, the Ultima series the war/star craft series and anything by squaresoft (I know some of those games went 3d later on, but retained the original gameplay)? I played and enjoyed all of them too, it doesn't mean that they had any differences to one another of any significance. Remember when every man and his dog had a top down RTS in the late 90s and they were all the same apart from subtle unit naming differences?
Nostalgia is a beatiful thing, but it never gives you the right to be judgemental. The game industry has always been an incestuous nest of copycats, but they have always made us happy with what they have produced as long as our expectations have been low. If anything, I think it is getting better, with games getting bigger there is more places they can accidently do something slightly differently to their last game.
When Argumentum ad Hominem falls short, try Argumentum ad Matrem
Holy crap, I forgot I had to type in HTML breaks :( noooo! (why is there no edit post option?).... retry!
I don't know, I'm still not sold on Wii. The thing is, I'm not convinced 3rd parties will dedicate the time to the machine. For the most part, 3rd party DS games still suck, or are quite a bit lacking compared to Nintendo or some of the other top developers like Sega who are known for their creativity. I'm not sold on the fun of "hiking" the ball in Madden (not that I like Madden... just an example). E3 reports give games like Sonic Wild Fire a mixed bag... they are simple yeah - to the point that some say that the 360 version still feels more of a Sonic game than the thing the Wii is getting.
Another thing, Wii sports.... that is going to be fun for about 15 minutes. As for the FPS... Metroid Prime 3 and Red Steel do not inspire confidence in me for the Wiimote on FPS. The turning speed is absolutely atrocious, and looks very awkward and even less fluid than using dual analogs. Don't even get me started on Zelda... watching them demo Zelda was quite painful, he kept running into the environment and enemies when he never should have... and Zelda controls have been perfect since N64. While at the same time, I like "simple" pick up and play games, I'm still not convinced about the Wii.
I love my DS - I own New Super Mario Brothers, Sonic Rush, Advanced Wars Dual Strike, Castlevania Dawn of Shadow, Metroid Prime Hunters (though it controls pretty crappily on my DS Lite with the lack of thumbstrap), Nanostray, and Mario Kart DS. This has proven its worth time and time again. I still have a lot of hope for the Wii. I think playing games like Pikmin will be great as will other games, but the emphasis on simplicity scares me. I don't know about you, but have you TRIED going back to some of the old games? Many of them are downright archaic and while they were a total blast during their prime, they aren't something you really want to go back to for more than a few nostalgic trips with some exceptions of course.
I dunno, I'm personally very excited about the upcoming 360 Library. I don't have one yet and don't know if I'll get a 360 or Wii (not really into Playstation) but 360 has both the epic games - things that will change our perception of how great a game can be like BioShock or Mass Effect, and then it also has tons of high-quality, simple games on XboxLive Arcade like Geometry Wars or Mutant Storm. Seems like a best of both worlds thing. This past generation I tried supporting an Xbox and GameCube and Windows PC. I got a bit of a gaming overload... tons of great games and not enough time to spend on one before I got a deal on a new one... next gen I am looking to try and stick to one (and I've also gone the Intel Mac route since day one... so not really into Windows gaming anymore except for exceptions like Half-Life 2)
Right now to me, 360 seems to have a nice balance of amazing new properties and epic games, and then a lot of simpler games too. I'm not sold on Wii yet... mainly because my confidence in developers making truly great things on it isn't too high as seen by what is done on DS.... the games that take advantage of it really kick tons of ass, the rest are pretty mediocre.
Another thing, I'm also not sold on Wii's online play - which is a big deal to me. I have a ton of friends I keep in touch with on XboxLive and its awesome. DS's Wifi Connect is an absolute nightmare. Friend-codes are the worst thing I've ever had to deal with for online play, and if the Wii is anything like DS I'm going to be really upset over this. Mario Kart online is great... until you come to the fact you can't communicate with anyone because Nintendo wants "safety first". Then you have to enter a unique code per friend per game... versus one single Gamertag on XboxLive. Thats right, ever game a person gets on DS gives them an extremely long unique # you have to have each friend add per game, so if you and 5 friends play 5 games together, you have to enter 25 of these stupid, annoying codes. Don't take this as anything other than skepticism. I am really looking forward to Wii but I am not on the pretty incredible hype train it seems to have going so far.
I think the word you're looking for is "immersion"
Either that or "gimmick". The worst case scenario is that the controller will be used for only for titles like "Virtual Wok" and that regular action games would still be better played with the normal controllers.
Whenever I hear the word 'Innovation', I reach for my pistol.
I find it interesting that the slashdot summary talks about how the graphics will be better than at E3, while the gamespot article is titled "Nintendo is not working on a next-generation console" and it emphasizes how it is a lower end graphics console.
The fact is, the Wii is good enough. Games aren't going to look TERRIBLE or anything. In fact, they'll look way better than the last generation, which already looked pretty awesome.
Look, I'm as much of a "tech-spec" geek as the next guy, but talking about how good a console is based on specs is akin to talking about how good a novel is based on the quality of the typesetting job.
It really *is* the games that count. And the Wii remote really is pretty cool. I haven't owned a Nintendo system since the NES, and I'm excited about the Wii, because it FINALLY gives us a new way to play games. Maybe it's not the "revolution" that Nintendo claims it is, but at least it's something new and different.
One word - Zonk.
95% of my "main" gaming consists of having something fun to play when there are people over. The way the world generally works, as you get older life dumps more and more responsibility on you, and free time quickly becomes your most precious commodity. I don't spend only three or four hours per week in front of the TV playing video games because I don't like them that much anymore. That's just all the time I can spare now-a-days.
That wasn't such a big deal 5-10 years ago, cause all those adults didn't know what they were missing. They didn't grow up with video games. But now a bunch of us childhood gamers are busy with the real world, but don't want to completely give up a hobby that has brought us so much enjoyment. Nintendo has noticed this, and noticed how big of a market we are (and how we've generally got a decent amount of disposable income), and is gearing their console towards our needs.
Furthermore, I'm not sure why you're so certain that we're going to get bored with this new controller. Is moving your arms around a little somehow innately less fun than just pushing a bunch of abstract buttons stuck on a piece of plastic? I think you're still sort of stuck in some sort of mindset relating back to those little control demos that Nintendo showed back when they first announced the remote controller. Just because your imagination hasn't allowed you to see any involved or engaging uses for the controller doesn't mean that game designers are having the same problem.
When the party atmosphere is gone, people will stop playing certain games. But instead of putting down the Wii remote and picking up a PS3 controller, maybe they'll just put a different disc into the Wii, and play something else.
One time I threw a brick at a duck.
The real problem for Nintendo is people really love the controller for a brief time and then seem to get bored with it quickly and go back to playing 'normal games' with a normal controller
I'm curious. This is evidenced by what?
"When I first heard Daydream Nation it quite frankly scared the living shit out of me." -- Matthew Stearns
re:"you and the 14 other people with HDTVs can go buy a $800 PS3 then"
(a) More than 14 people own HDTV
(b) More than 14 people will buy an HDTV in the next 6 years
(c) The PS3 is 500 and 600 respectively
(d) You're a troll. But - still - how do you keep your apartment under the bridge looking so fresh?
But now we are talking about $200, $400, and $600. The first two (Wii and 360) are already pretty different. But when you put a Wii ($200) up against a PS3 ($600) you have to ask yourself: is that PS3 REALLY going to be 3x as fun? Do you need it now or can you wait until it hits $400 or buy it used?
That $400 is a BIG difference.
As others have pointed out, launching $300-$400 above you competition has historically not been a very smart move.
Comment forecast: Bits of genius surrounded by a sea of mediocrity.
The $200/game cost didn't help the NeoGeo either...
The current market is what you'd consider the "hardcore" gaming market. The current market is the 100m people that own PS2s and GCs and XBoxes.
The market Nintendo is targetting with the Wii is the hypothetical casual gamer market. There are some indications that there is such a market, as evidenced by sales of games like the Sims, but saying "most of the potential market" is non-hardcore (by your definition) is misleading. There are no indications that the casual gaming market is anywhere close to the size, let alone bigger, than the "hardcore" gaming market.
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
Thus, they're simultaneously lowering expectations about power while building anticipation for something completely subjective (fun), rather than something mechanised and unaffected by opinion, like polygon counts or megahertz. Thus, when they finally release the Wii and it actually does turn out to be a reasonably powerful machine that also seems to make gaming fun again (if people want to believe this, they will), Nintendo can say "Gaming is fun again! Oh yeah, and it's powerful too". Nintendo wins.
Deep down, people want to believe that gaming is more than just graphics, and if the Wii gets it right, we'll all believe them. Everyone wins (except Sony and MS).
Nintendo doesn't have to win the console war to stay afloat. Our of the major 3, they are the only ones who sell their console at a profit.
I will most likely buy Wii over an Xbox360 or a PS3. Nintendo has always come out with 1st rate games, and you can't get Zelda or Mario anywhere else.
Its just clear that they have to take a hit this generation and shift their strategy towards new ideas, rather than best technology.
Maybe they could stop competing with Sony and MS on high end hardware and just make a cheap, small, decent console and revolutionize the way people play games by inventing a new type of controller.
...
oh wait
PS: although I liked consoles since I first played double dragon on the NES I never owned a console myself. The Wii will be the first one I'll own so maybe there is a bright future for nintendo after all.
The XBox 360 costs $400.
Those are facts.
The $300 "XBox 360" is crippled. The lack of a hard drive is pathetic, especially for the console that launched with a hard drive and was the reason Sony put one in the PS3. The lack of the drive also kills backwards compatibility.
The $500 PS3 is crippled. You want to play your games in 1080p like they've been promising? They promised me DUAL 1080p which is now dropped. But if I want to play in 1080p I need a HDMI out and guess what is missing from the $500 version. You want to save your data on memory cards? The PS3 has a 612-in-one memory card reader... unless you don't pay $600.
I was iffy on buying a PS3 when I expected it at $400. There is no way I'm paying $500 for a crippled console.
The console that does (most) of what they promised me a PS3 would do costs $600.
Comment forecast: Bits of genius surrounded by a sea of mediocrity.
Why would people be tired of the games we have right now with Sony and MS? My Xbox was the first console I owned since my NES more than 10 years before. I played a bit on the PC for a few years, but mostly FPSes and Blizzard games. When I got the Xbox, I got back a bit in RPGs with Knights of the Old Republic (I followed the Final Fantasies over the years, waching friends play them and except for the FMVs I couldn't care less), started playing 3rd person games like Ninja Gaiden, got into Burnout, played innovative titles like Kingdom Under Fire.
All those game were new to me, and so were they to MILLION of other people who had been out of gaming for years or just started playing for the first time. We are definitely not blasé about the current crop of games. I'll gladly play Kotor 3, Ninja Gaiden 2 (well, technically, that would be 5), Halo 3 and Dead or Alive 4. That's why I got a 360 a month after it came out. I knew it would be more of the stuff that got me back into console gaming. I have no problem playing a game like Ghost Recon : Advance Warfighter, I never even played a tactical FPS before this one. While this game may only be Ghost Recon 2 + pretty graphics + better AI (tough, I'm not impressed about the AI... anyway) to a lot of people, to me it was a fresh new experience that got me into that genre. I'll probably take a look at Rainbow Six Vegas when it comes out.
Why would I even want a Wii for it's groundbreaking new controller? Most of the stuff I played on my Xbox and now the 360 are maybe not ground breaking to others, but they are to me. Sure I could experience new ways of controlling the game, but I'm already experiencing so much new with the 360.
I get if you've been playing games for the last 20 years through every generations, you might feel the need for Nintendo's Wii controller. I really respect what they are trying to accomplish and I'll probably have fun playing with it at a friend's house. Me personnally, I'll probably have fun discovering genres that are new to me. Even with my "primitive controller" (which, btw, feels like the nicest controller I've ever held in my hand. Give me an Xbox controller over a dual shock any day.)
I really don't think it matters. There's diminishing returns on upping the power of your chipset, especially when you're also upping your output to HD etc etc. Plus you have to charge people through the nose or make a loss on the console. These days, all games can look good; some can look amazing, but they can all look good. It's a cliche, but it really is becoming more about the gameplay and accesibilty. Who would have said 2 years ago that sales of the ugly, not very powerful DS (with its odd touchscreen hook) would be blowing the sleek, sexy, powerful PS2-in-your-pocket PSP out of the water? And yet here we are. I know the handheld market doesn't map directly to the under-the-TV, but I don't struggle to imagine the sucess of the DS being mirrored by the Wii.
in general, sony products are overall more expensive than other brands. look at the bravia line of HDTVs, or the VAIO line of computers. sony in general sells their products at a premuim.
the sony name equates to quality in the minds of the average consumer. whether that is true of the product or not, that is still the case in the mindshare of j. q. public. people trust the sony name when it comes to consumer electronics; rootkit or not.
for the first time ever, sony game consoles are going to try to bank on that same trust. the psp is generally speaking seen as a higher quality handheld. [hence the DS redesign] the ps3 is supposed to end up being a higher quality home console. [hence the marketing/pricing scheme] they are both more expensive than their competitors. the hardware is there and to alot of consumers thats what matters, but in the video game world software is king.
a couple of months or so after launch, the console and its price start to matter less and less, its games start to mean alot more in the eyes of consumers. since thats where the real money is made, thats where the battle will be won.
personally, nintendo makes some very nice products and great games. their failure to win the console race in the last several years is a result of a lack diversity and a sad release schedule. great games trickle out of the house of N maybe once or twice a year. the wii seems great, but if they dont secure some solid third party exclusives to tide gamers over between the mario-link-samus-smashbrothers-pokemon roundrobin release schedule, i predict a repeat of the gamecube.
$499 PS3 - $150-$250 Wii
1080p HD movies - No. Image Constraint Token means no HD without HDMI.
1080p TVs prices are in a freefall - If by free fall you mean too goddamn expensive to consider for at least three years, then yes
1080p games - No 1080p TV see above
Free online play for games - Nintendo has this already. We have yet to see how free the PS3's online really will be.
Support for 25gig game data - Wii reads its 10 GB far faster than the PS3 can read the first 10 GB on a Blu-Ray. Enjoy your load times. "But they will cache to the HD!" 20 GB HD... 25 GB game... do the math.
~15000 library of backward compatible games - Backward compatibility will not be native. We'll see how good the emulation will work. Oh, and no legacy memory card support means no previously saved games.
Linux - Who the fuck cares? No, really. Who the fuck cares?
Online music store - See Linux
Web browsing - Opera Embedded on Wii
Tilt controller - Only tilt? How GameBoy.
PSP connectivity - Wii has DS Connectivity... and people actually own DSs
And an even larger library of exclusive games than with the the PS1 or PS2. - That remains to be seen.
Post with your name, you shill.
- The graphics in Resident Evil 4 were considered better on Gamecube than on any other platform. The graphics rivaled even the best of PC games like HL2 and Doom 3. The Gamecube was NOT a weak system, it's potential was just rarely reached.
Okay, now that might just be a bit of hyperbole on your part. Sure, said games were definately at the top for that generation of consoles, but they weren't HL2 or Doom 3 level; even when running those two games on my two year old desktop PC with its 9800 Pro. Not that that's unexpected or bad or anything, but I'm just saying.
"You're deluding yourself if you think the DS has won,"
Well, the DS Lite outselling the PSP in Japan at around 8:1 right now, and at best the PSP is approaching parity with the DS in North America. Factor in the loss of one of the major features of the PSP that Sony is trying to push (UMD movie playback), and I think that the best argument you can make is "losing" vs. "lost."
"and the DS is not "nearly" half the price of the psp."
Bare-bones packages sell for $130 for the DS and $200 for the PSP, the 15% difference seems to justify the "nearly" adjective. Factor in the price of the required Memory Stick for game saves (not an issue for the DS) and the way PSP games tend to be $50 versus the $35 new DS games sell for, and we can even start talking about "less than."
But Nintendo does the same with Zelda, Mario, Donkey Kong and their various spinoffs. I don't get the "sequel" criticism directed only at Sony -- Nintendo milk just as much, if not more.