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."

Comments

They may have a winner

[Puff of Logic]

On price alone, I think Nintendo's going to do well. I'm not a console-gamer, but if I chose to get into console gaming, I'd go with a Wii I think. After all, I already have an incredibly expensive box full of hardware for super-pretty games: my desktop!

Re:They may have a winner

[badasscat]

On price alone, I think Nintendo's going to do well.

If console wars were won and lost on price alone, Nintendo would have been #1 with the GameCube. The fact of the matter is that's not all it takes. In fact, it's rare for the cheapest system to win in any given generation - generally, the cheapest system is cheap for a reason. If Nintendo were operating from a position of strength, they might be able to charge $600 like Sony apparently thinks they can. Trying to compete on price is a sign that you are trying to win back lost market share. It is not confidence-inspiring.

The war will be won or lost on the games available. That's the way it always is; no different now.

Re:They may have a winner

[omeomi]

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.

Re:They may have a winner

[Jarlsberg]

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.

Re:They may have a winner

[goofyheadedpunk]

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.

Re:They may have a winner

[cowscows]

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.

Re:They may have a winner

[MBCook]

Yeah, but what was the difference between the two? The PS2 and XBox both launched at $300. The 'Cube launched at $200. So you had a $100 price difference. I can see why people would be able to justify spending that extra cash (especially with the backwards compatibly in the PS2 and the DVD player in the PS2 and XBox). $200 and $300 are rather similar.

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.

Re:They may have a winner

[Puff of Logic]

Alternatively, I *could* be a long-time PC gamer who has occasionally eyed consoles but never felt sufficiently compelled to buy one. In my eyes, the PS3 and 360 are competing directly for the dollars that would otherwise go to my desktop gaming rig. Nintendo, on the other hand, is saying "hey, we can supply you with a fun pick-up-and-play experience that's pretty cheap." That, as I stated before, may be the reason they have a winner. If Nintendo can, by supplying a decent console at an attractive price-point, finally convince me to purchase a console, isn't that success?

Re:They may have a winner

[be-fan]

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.

Re:They may have a winner

[The Analog Kid]

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.

Re:They may have a winner

[mOdQuArK!]

market- and mindshare that Sony has to this day.

I'm not entirely sure it's the kind of mindshare Sony wants - even complete non-geeks in my extended family have heard about the Sony rootdisk fiasco (although they don't understand kind what it was about, just that it was something that Sony was doing to try and screw their customers), and they haven't been hearing it from me (the family techie slave).

I've also heard indications that they're not real happy with the complexity or reliability of their various bits of Sony electronics either (a lot of which I think is due to Sony-Content's perpetual attempts to control what the consumer can do with the content that they buy).

At some point Sony consumer electronics is going to have to cut their content division loose to fend for itself, or else Sony is going to get a "strong" reputation as a has-been tech giant that can no longer create anything relevant for today's marketplace.

Re:They may have a winner

[24-bit Voxel]

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.

Re:They may have a winner

[apoc06]

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.

Re:They may have a winner

[SetupWeasel]

$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.

Re:They may have a winner

[Guppy06]

"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."

Re:They may have a winner

[Brian_Ellenberger]

The lack of a hard drive in the XBox 360 cripples it, because eliminates a fundemental feature that can be used in games. There are no fundemental gaming elements missing from the low-end PS3.

The thing is, the $300 Xbox 360 brings it into a price range where a kid can get it for Christmas and get the hard drive for their birthday or vice versa. Especially if grandma gets them a game and Aunt Sue gets them a memory card. That same kid could get a Wii too. However, there aren't many families that can go shelling $500 to $600 JUST FOR THE CONSOLE. Microsoft's strategy is that it is better to make the console affordable and upgradable than completely put it out of the price range of most people.

If Sony wants to reach the same levels of sales it has been reaching, it is going to have to drop the price ALOT. They didn't sell 100 million consoles just to fanboys wanting to play FF.

Re:They may have a winner

[KDR_11k]

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.

Uprezing makes no sense since you'd only add interpolated pixels. If you've worked at too low of a resolution you're screwed. If the specs for texture sizes aren't final you should work with the largest size that could happen (or the multiple of it you usually use), if the specs are finalized already it depends on the artist, some prefer working at higher res and downsampling, others work at final res right away. Also lower resolution means less details, PS2 textures are usually pretty detailless because small details would emphasize the texture resolution and look bad. Granted, normalmaps can be rendered at any resolution but even then you have limits to the detail you can feasibly include so you'll spend less time on a 256x256 normalmap than a 2048x2048 one.

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.

I think with Doom 3 and its ilk they used a hybrid approach, an automated reduction as the first pass and manual cleanup afterwards. Personally I prefer making the lowpoly from scratch (doesn't take that long since we're talking about ~1-2k tri models) but whatever floats your boat...

Re:They may have a winner

[cowscows]

I would say that the DS redesign is more about Nintendo's confidence in the handheld's continued success, and less about the PSP. It's also another chance for Nintendo to make some easy money, cause you know a bunch of people who already have DS's are going to go out and buy a new one just to have it. I also would note that even if the PSP is seen as higher quality, it hasn't really translated into domination of the handheld market that a lot of people were predicting back during all the hype. Like you said, it really came down to games. And in that case, Nintendo seems to have a strong upper hand there. Maybe they've learned something.

Oh yeah, and just looking at the hardware, the PSP released at $250, while the DS was $150. A $100 difference is much less of a premium than $300-400 we'll probably see for the PS3.

As for Sony marketing the PS3 as some sort of high end super console gadget, I have my doubts how successful that will be. In my opinion, the console market hasn't really be itching for that niche, and if you really want to spend buckets of money on a gaming rig, you've probably already got yourself a nice PC. If that niche does exist, and I guess the hardcore gamer is that niche, well, they'll sell some for sure. But Nintendo's whole strategy seems to be that that market isn't growing, possibly shrinking, and not the best place to put your efforts.

But as you noted, games are the key for consumers. But I would think that for developers/publishers, installed base is pretty important. If Sony doesn't keep pace with Nintendo and MS in terms of console sales, the developers aren't going to stick around forever. I don't predict that the PS3 is a complete and utter flop, just that they're not going to have a rough go at it this time around. And I think the console price will be one of the biggest factors in that outcome.

I always got the impression...

[Parham]

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.

Re:I always got the impression...

[w33t]

My expectations are being raised all the time by announcements. I'm trying very had to keep them in check by playing original NES and SNES titles - just so when the Wii is released it will seem even cooler! Kind of like running around the pool makes it feel warm when you jump back in ;)

Which brings me to the thing I find so tantilizing about this system - the excitement I feel when I think about the Wii is something I haven't felt since I was a young child on christmas morning when my parents suprised us with the NES. I was flabbergasted! I played Mario for hours and watched my siblings play for hours. I never thought I would feel the same again about a video game console - and I haven't yet.

But the excitement around the Wii and hearing how developers simply laugh and laugh while playing it is making me feel like that 12 year old wearing his pajamas until sundown fighting bowser.

I'm so EXCITED :D
--
Music should be free

Re:I always got the impression...

[KarmaMB84]

I think I'll take this shitty console at half the price of the "non-shitty" competition, thank you.

Re:I always got the impression...

[EdMack]

Graphics give diminishing returns. Look at the transformations ten years ago compared to XBOX `now with armpit hair' 360. The Playstation has 10x more power (or some silly statistic like that) and it definately does _not_ have 10x better graphics. Nintendo was right on - Until another leap and bound we cannot create proper photorealism, and developers should accept that limition and aim for stylised art (that doesn't mean cartoons).

Re:I always got the impression...

[scot4875]

To put this in perspective...

The Wii will be able to output graphics 2-2.5 less 'shitty' than Resident Evil 4 or Metroid Prime.

To do some simple, non-irrefutable math:

2-2.5 * pretty fucking good = what the hell more do you want?

Seriously, you people need to listen to yourselves once in a while.

--Jeremy

Re:I always got the impression...

[ZakuSage]

Is 2 to 2.5 times GC hardware really enough, though? Look at it this way: 2 times PS1's hardware power would still look like shit. Hell, wasn't N64 like twice as powerful as PS1? That wasn't a very large improvement. PS2 is easily around 10+ times more powerful then PS1, and even for some that's not satisfying enough.

I for one think that Nintendo -should- have gone for some real graphical and hardware improvements, not just minor ones that can barely bring them out of this generation of gaming. Really, if I'm going to be paying $250 for a piece of electronics, I want my money out of it in all areas. Look at MGS4: it's going to be one hell of an immersive experience, one that just wouldn't be possible on PS2, Gamecube, or XBox 1 simply because the hardware couldn't handle what it's trying to offer. With technologically next generation consoles, games like it are going to be possible that bring new things, innovative things even, that are only possible because of **Tim Alle voice** MORE POWER. I'm not saying that Wiis controller and cute little simple games are bad, I'm just saying that making them look beautiful in a technical and aesthetic way is also very important.

Re:I always got the impression...

[NeMon'ess]

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.

Re:I always got the impression...

[be-fan]

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.

Re:I always got the impression...

[Andrew Kismet]

Excuse me? Did you just miss, uh, analog sticks, rumble packs, game controllers over keyboards/joysticks...? While all of them are natural progressions, many modern games just wouldn't work WITHOUT analogue. Rumble and force feedback has become an integral part of the gaming experience, for me as a console gamer, at least.
Innovation just means a leap is progress. Even if it's not a very big leap.
"A new and unusual thing: novelty."
New is subjective in all gaming innovations, but the Wiimote is quite a novelty, and definitely unusual.

Re:I always got the impression...

[barawn]

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.

Re:I always got the impression...

[SirSlud]

> 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.

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 .. 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.

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) .. 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.

Re:I always got the impression...

[barawn]

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.

Just Hype?

[mc calculust]

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.

Video enhances gameplay: but it's only a topping

[w33t]

I have to say, that even though the graphics have never been the issue with the Wii/Revolution I am still very happy to see that they appear very much "next gen".

I have to face the fact, that even though I admire gameplay and that "game-play" is really why we "play-games", graphics are darn interesting.

Additionally, the fact that the Wii is going to offer such a unique interface device will, I think, allow us to see "graphics" which will be completely absent on the other consoles. What I mean by this is that because the wiimote offers such a more intimate and intuitive interface with the console's game world that we will be able to interact with it in ways that will have the effect of looking even more "real-life" than a console with simply raw video processing power.

Example: by being able to hold a cooking skillet or wok and flip, shake, swirl and turn the food around in it the resulting imagery on the screen should looks very much and especially FEEL very much more "life like" than by being forced to use a joystick or keypad to move the virtual cookware.

Any additional video processing power should only serve to further enhance this experience. And that's truly what video should be for video games - the enhancement part (like a spice) - not the main course.

Hmm, I'm using a lot of cooking examples - is it lunch time yet?
--
Music should be free

Looking better and better every day

[czarangelus]

I've been a Sony gamer since the PS1... but Nintendo really seems to be shaking things up. Between the HD-DVD less 360, and the unbelievable trainwreck that is the PS3, I might be convinced that simplicity is a virtue. What good is a next-gen console if all the games are just the same rehashed 6 titles over and over?

Re:Looking better and better every day

[nexarias]

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.

Re:Worthless article.

[Anonymous Coward]

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!

Current gen on up with the Wii?

[Dark Paladin]

When the Gamecube first came out, I was actually pretty pleased with the graphics - Monkey Ball, for example, was smooth and just a pretty game (as well as being a blast to play - playing "Monkey Punch" is one of those cracktastic party games).

The current Wii games that have just been shown look to be as good as "current" Gamecube games, which doesn't surprise me. Most of the dev kits the developers have were modified Gamecube kits with the controller, so odds are, that's the level of tech they focused on. So E3 shown games looked just like Gamecube games.

Since we can bet that the graphics chip has gone under a 2.5 - 3 x increase since the Gamecube, that should mean that within a year or so (as devs get used to the actual Wii developers kits and their power level), games should look better graphically.

Then again, with the Wii, most of us will shrug and go "Whatever". I've been playing "Digital Devil Saga: Avatar Tuner 2" today, and only just noticed that there were reflections on the floor. Then I tuned it out while I played. With the Wii's controller, odds are they won't have to compete on the graphics, letting Sony and MS developers spending the extra money on artwork that could have gone to game play.

WTF?!

[nutshell42]

First generation of games half a year before launch are not the pinnacle of what said console is capable.

I'm shocked. Shocked!

The same is true for all consoles and all games (as long as they're actually running in real-time on the real hardware and are not just bullshots or "target renders" *cough*Killzone2*cough*)

Games that made you use your imagination

[bariswheel]

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.

Re:Graphics..... whatever.

[greyduk]

That's the thing with Nintendo... whether intentionally or not, they've fallen behind in the cutting edge graphics and focused more on a different market than Sony and Microsoft. Nintendo games for the most part have simpler controls and are designed for a casual environment, either a party or when you just wanna relax and have a little fun. I still play solitare on my computer every once in a while, when I get sick of devoting time and energy to complicated RTSs and FPSs. I think that's the demographic Nintendo is aimed at here.

Slightly-OT

[Gogo0]

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.

Re:Slightly-OT

[Aladrin]

Even worse is the fact that they probably do not actually mean what they said.

'2 - 2.5x more powerful' is what they said... They probably actually MEAN '2 - 2.5x as powerful'. It's quite a difference.

If you make the GC a 1 for power, the first statement makes the Wii a 3.0 or 3.5. The second statement (the one they probably mean) would make the the Wii a 2.0 or 2.5. Quite some difference.

In the end, numbers like these mean nothing because you cannot trust the speaker to:

A) Know WTF he's talking about
and
B) Know WTF he's actually saying

Re:Fuzzy math question

[mobby_6kl]

> Can they quantify "power" of a graphics processor to one place of decimals?

Yep. If the old chip used 10W and the new one requires 25W, that's 2.5 times more "powerful".

Re:Worthless article.

[donscarletti]

Even hard numbers arn't enough to make this hype worth caring about. Frankly, I won't know if a Wii is any good until I've played one. Will the launch titles be fun to play? Will the motion sensing controller make games more fun or less fun? Will the hardware (which we know is going to be modest) be unable to satisfy requirements for modern games and modern gamers, or is the PS3 and XBox360 just computational overkill? Will the wiimote force nintendo to be innovative in their games, or will they keep pounding out their 20 year old franchises and leave innovative gameplay wholly in the domain of PS3 developers like last generation?

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.

How things change

[suv4x4]

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.

Wii and Opera

[Mongoose]

I noticed this blurb on kotaku:

Opera Drops Details On Wii Version
http://www.kotaku.com/gaming/nintendo/opera-drops- details-on-wii-version-178216.php

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. =)

Rosy eyed nostalgia

[donscarletti]

You know, I've been gaming all my life and I've played a lot more cookiecutter sidescrollers than FPSs.

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.

Re:Video enhances gameplay: but it's only a toppin

[jeffbax]

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.

Re:Video enhances gameplay: but it's only a toppin

[NutscrapeSucks]

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.

Re:Wah?

[KingBraden]

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.

Slashdot v. Gamespot

[KingBraden]

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.

Tech specs aren't THAT important

[realmolo]

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.

Re:Worthless article.

[DrXym]

One word - Zonk.

Re:Real Wii Graphics Better Than The 360

[cowscows]

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.

Re:Real Wii Graphics Better Than The 360

[Knuckles]

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?

Re:Super graphics with no HDTV

[mgabrys_sf]

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?

Just ignorant

[MuNansen]

Anyone that questions Wii's potential graphically doesn't know anything about graphics beyond the buzzwords Sony and M$ shove down their throats. Don't listen to them. There's some very simple and telling facts about the Wii:

- 2-2.5x the power of Gamecube is a CONSERVATIVE estimate.

- 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.

- The Wii architecture is near identical to Gamecube, just multiplied in horsepower a few times. This means anyone that worked on Gamecube doesn't have to learn a new platform. This is unique to the Wii among consoles.

- Some very big names like BioWare and Capcom are onboard for the Wii, and their developers are excited as hell. You can pretty much count on these companies to squeeze everything they can out of the hardware and blow everyone away. Can you imagine a Resident Evil game with 3x the graphics of the 4th one, AND with new gameplay enabled by the Wiimote?

It's telling of Wii's upside just how desperate and weak the trolls' description of the downside sounds. There's never a guarantee and it will all come down to the games, but the naysayers really don't have anywhere to stand this time. If the Wii fails it will be against ALL rational expectations. But if you wanna hedge your bets and troll it, oh well, your loss when it's a success. I know how hard it is to say anything positive on the internets. Can't risk the e-peen.

Re:Just ignorant

[Suddenly_Dead]

- 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.

The Underhype

[courtarro]

In an industry greatly influenced by massive hype machines Sony and Microsoft, Nintendo has mastered the art of the underhype. In some ways they've become the Apple of gaming: the old classic that has continuously kept the larger companies in check by reminding them what gaming is supposed to be. Much like Apple they don't hype raw numbers, but rather the greater experience. They make weak claims about power without sounding presumptuous, and rather than saying "we know better than you and you don't need power" as many companies might, they're saying "we'll show you that you don't want power". It's that sort of soft language that represents underhype.

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).

Contextual graphics argument

[mgabrys_sf]

I'm trying to imagine 2 kids in 1982 having some fanbuy argument.

Bob: Hey! I heard Atari is going to put out the 2600 which is just like the VCS graphically except it's in a black case instead of a faux-wood one.

Joe: Screw that - I'm getting a ColecoVision.

Bob: Graphics aren't everything - there's also gameplay. I don't care about graphics.

John: Anyone seen this Famicom in Japan? It's got great graphics.

At which point above do you think one of the characters blew milk out his nose?

Re:Wii graphics will be substantial

[KeiichiMorisato]

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.....

Re:Let's hope so

[MykeAbner]

Nobody wants to buy a new console sporting graphics from two generations ago.

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.

Re:Gamecube Power - Proof in Pictures

[obby.net]

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.

I'm not sure how accurate that statement is, but this comparison casts some serious doubt on it, after all, the proof is in the pictures(and videos):

http://www.gameswelike.com/web/re/RE%20Comp.htm

Capcom has lots of experience making games for both consoles, moreso for the PS2, so I'm sure they did the best they could with what they had in terms of power, and the results aren't pretty. Image quality, poly count, and special effects all suffer on the PS2 port.

The GameCube looks like the superior machine to me. Perhaps this is why Nintendo is taking its focus away from graphics this generation, it didn't do them much good to have the 2nd most powerful console on the market last time(barely behind the x-box, according to some developers)...

Re:Just release the controller for GameCube...

[k-sound]

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.

Re:Video enhances gameplay: but it's only a toppin

[TemporalBeing]

Why? because cooking is a fucking chore. No one is going to immerse themselves in a universe of feeding my goddamn face.

There's a lot of restaurants out there ready to do that. All you have to do is go to one.

Real adults are so lazy they DON'T GET OUT OF THEIR CARS IN ORDER TO CONSUME FOOD. It needs to be handed to us through a window pre-prepared. Do you think this same adult is going to buy a game where I have to engage in a motor skills learning curve just to figure out how to mimic in real life some lame activity?

I wouldn't call them "real adults" - but rather "lazy adults". Personally, it is very rare for me to go through the drive through - I usually park, get out, and go in - even if I am taking it with me.

Prior to that, gaming was a kids thing or a small segment of adutls thing. Now its huge and tons of people game. That's why Sony and Microsoft are #1 and #2, because they brought gaming to everyone and made a game for every type of person.

Neither Sony nor Microsoft did anything to bring gaming to the masses. It was primarily Atari, and Nintendo did that - yes, Nintendo. Sony and Microsoft jumped on the bandwagon late in the game (no pun intended) and took over the market as a generation of gamers grew up - and that "small adult" group became a rather large group. Sony and Microsoft have neither done much to innovate in the gaming market either - all they have really done is add more graphical features. In the process, they left a good majority of the masses behind, and targetted only on that "small adult" group.

Nintendo is instead taking a different approach by marketing their product...

Nintendo, on the other hand, has primarily focused more on the masses than on that "small adult" group - and the Wii/Revolution only goes to show that even more. The Wii/Revolution will be a revolution because it once again brings gaming back to the masses. Nintendo will take over because their games will appeal to a far wider audience than Sony or Microsoft are looking to appeal, and an audience that does not care so much about graphical quality as they do that the game is just plain fun and entertaining. Joe Shmoe does not want to have to learn how to play a game for 4 hours before playing the game - they want to just sit down, play, and have fun. That is certainly an aspect that Sony and Microsoft have forgotten - or never intended to remember to start with.

Want proof that controllers don't matter? Look at sales of racing games versus sales of racing wheel controllers.

The problem with this analogy is that the Wiimote will be provided with the Wii; where as you would have to go out and buy a racing wheel in addition to the system - no system has offered a wheel as its de facto controller. The Wiimote, on the other hand, it a very innovative device that captures the ease of using things in real life (a sword, a stick, a golf club, etc - things people already know how to use) and brings their normal, intuitive use into the gaming experience. Suddenly, it becomes a lot easier for real golfers to play Mario Golf - as golfing experience and a little gaming practice can make you very good; but a newbie to golfer, who may be able to hit the buttons at the right time on an NES, will have a learning curve just like in playing a real game of golf - they can practice and get it right - there will (of course) be slight differences, but it becomes a lot more natural to do various activities, such as playing golf, or playing the drums, or swinging a sword.

And best of all, the Wiimote is the default controller with the Wii - which means it will be widely accepted.

best looking cars, with real licensed brands, and actual recorded exhaust sounds, and ranking systems and online play

Ironically those are all gimmicks themselves. "Licensed brands" are just a way of aiding

Re:Gamecube Power - Proof in Pictures

[be-fan]

If you actually look at the raw hardware, you'll see that the PS2 is substantially faster. The PS2 had a GPU with 16 pixel pipelines running at 150 Mhz, resulting in a fill rate of 2.4 gigapixels/sec. The GC had a GPU with 4 pixel pipelines running at 165 Mhz, giving it a fill rate of 660 megapixels/second. The GC did T&L in hardware, but the PS2 had a seperate vector coprocessor running at 300 MHz to do T&L.

If you were displaying a flat-shaded CAD model, the PS2 would indeed be tremendously faster. The problem with the PS2 was that every extra feature you enabled resulted in a huge hit in fill rate. The GC did all these effects in hardware. So by the time you'd gotten roughly comparable features enabled (lighting, filtering, etc), you'd also lost your polygon count advantage. The PS2 was really designed to run games like FF X and The Boucer, with very high-poly models and relatively simple shading and lighting.

Same old games... depends who you ask...

[JFMulder]

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.)

Are tech-specs really important to the player?

[VenomPhallus]

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.