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."

9 of 400 comments (clear)

  1. They may have a winner by Puff+of+Logic · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.
    1. Re:They may have a winner by omeomi · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    2. Re:They may have a winner by cowscows · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    3. Re:They may have a winner by MBCook · · Score: 5, Insightful
      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.

      --
      Comment forecast: Bits of genius surrounded by a sea of mediocrity.
  2. Video enhances gameplay: but it's only a topping by w33t · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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

  3. How things change by suv4x4 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  4. Re:Real Wii Graphics Better Than The 360 by cowscows · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  5. Re:I always got the impression... by NeMon'ess · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

  6. Re:I always got the impression... by barawn · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.