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."
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!
P.P.S. I'm doing Science and I'm still alive.
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."
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
My Computer Music Tutorial Videos
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.
52 Weeks, 52 Religions with John Hummel
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*)
Don't think of it as a flame---it's more like an argument that does 3d6 fire damage
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
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.
> 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".
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.
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. =)
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
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.
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 $800 PS3 then"
(a) More than 14 people own HDTV
(b) More than 14 people will buy an HDTV in the next 6 years
(c) The PS3 is 500 and 600 respectively
(d) You're a troll. But - still - how do you keep your apartment under the bridge looking so fresh?
Anyone that questions Wii's potential graphically doesn't know anything about graphics beyond the buzzwords Sony and M$ 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.
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).
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?
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.....
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.
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.