makes sence but the wii's graphics are still better than ps2 graphics right now. unless you were to just look at all the crappy ports they stick on wii from ps2. the wii's graphics can look very good if the developers were to take teh time on making the graphics look really good. (ex. metroid prime 3 i think has much better graphics than ps2 mostly because nintendos taking so much time on improving the graphics as mich as they can).
The Wii will never look as good technically as any ps3 or 360 game. That being said most of what we're seeing now is pushing the Wii anywhere near it's limits, the Gamecube was more powerful than the ps2 and the Wii is a fair bit more powerful than the cube, but no where near the 360. What I don't understand is why we're not seeing the Wii pushed to it's limits from the start if companies are already making games on the 360 / ps3 that have better graphics...do you get what I mean. Anyway, once developers get used to the controls we'll se much better graphics in game, but sadly, never as good as the 360.
im pretty sure gamecube had better graphics then ps2(if u go by graphics card), just didnt see them much cuz there was no games.
wii's graphics now are way better then ps2 graphics. wii wont get up to 360 graphics cuz wii doesnt support hd so it wont magicly get hd and have those amazing graphics. Im happy with the graphics now, hell i dont care if they were snes graphics, as long as the games fun, ill play it
The Wii will never look as good technically as any ps3 or 360 game. That being said most of what we're seeing now is pushing the Wii anywhere near it's limits, the Gamecube was more powerful than the ps2 and the Wii is a fair bit more powerful than the cube, but no where near the 360. What I don't understand is why we're not seeing the Wii pushed to it's limits from the start if companies are already making games on the 360 / ps3 that have better graphics...do you get what I mean. Anyway, once developers get used to the controls we'll se much better graphics in game, but sadly, never as good as the 360.
Because developers have to spend more time thinking about the UI now that the remote is brought into the equation. They'll get better once they nail those mechanics down.
And I would say once the Wii's graphics are fully utilized (like it even matters anyway because I'm happy with quality gameplay), we're going to be looking at graphics of an Xbox 240 caliber
Be realistic for a moment. Even the launch titles for the xbox 360 were up to graphical standards that the ps2 couldn't meet.
The Wii isn't going to come out of nowhere with Gears of War type graphics any time. I have a Wii, and I'm perfectly fine with the graphics there are now, and while I realize there is much room for improvement, the games are by no means bad looking, and hell, not to mention, the gameplay is second to none. I'm playing Zelda and Super Paper Mario and the gameplay is just amazing.
I'm just saying I'm sure we will see the Wii exceed what the Xbox 1 could deliver graphically.
ok. those of you who are shocked that the Wii has better graphics than the PS2 should look over the specs. of course the Wii has better graphics. its power is even better than the Gamecube and the 'Cube had better processing capabilities than the PS2. if you don't believe me, compare Resident Evil 4. the Gamecube version is obviously cleaner and sharper. the Wii's capabilities are even better than that of the Gamecube, though not by leaps and bounds. comparably, the Wii is just shy of the original X-Box. the Wii is not going to have games comparable to the 360 for two main reasons. first is obviously the processing. let's face it. the Wii just doesn't have the power of the 360. second is the discs. the Wii's optical discs cannot store quite as much information as the HDDVD discs of the 360. less space means not as much information which means the graphics have to be "dumbed down" to fit the entire game on there. think GTA. the graphics aren't the best, but it's because there's so much information for the gameplay.
as for people claiming that Twilight Princess didn't have absolutely astonishing graphics, it's another "duh" situation. TP didn't push the Wii's capabilities. it was made for the Gamecube and its graphics are fitting for it. if Twilight Princess featured the Wii's full capabilities, it wouldn't have been able to be played on the Gamecube, and Nintendo didn't want to leave out that market. this is also the reason TP didn't feature fully orchestrated music. there just wasn't enough space on the Gamecube disc to fit all that information. the next Wii Zelda game will most likely push the Wii's limits as far as graphics and sound. hopefully gameplay as well, but that's a different thread at a much later time
when it's all said and done, the Wii is the least capable power-wise of this newest console generation. the reason we love the Wii is for its gameplay schematics and that's the way it'll remain
second is the discs. the Wii's optical discs cannot store quite as much information as the HDDVD discs of the 360. less space means not as much information which means the graphics have to be "dumbed down" to fit the entire game on there. think GTA. the graphics aren't the best, but it's because there's so much information for the gameplay.
Actually xbox360 games don't use HD DVD's. Not yet atleast, you would have to buy that detachable extra drive anyway to play them. As of right now they use dual layer dvd's (nicknamed DVD-9's). Standard single layer dvds (nicnamed DVD-5) hold 4.7'ish gigs of data while the dvd9 holds 7.4 or so. The wii could use dvd9's but because there isn't that much data in the first place to fill a dvd9 and they cost extra, they don't. The xbox360 could use HDDVD's now since the extra drive is out but they wont because most games aren't even more than 5 gigs, they just pack it with junk data so it fills the dvd9 all the way.
I can't believe a lot of what I read in this thread. I'm not trying to be a negative person but the best Wii game will not be of 360 graphics caliber. I didn't buy the Wii for graphics and I would have been a fool to do so. Granted, the Wii is capable of much more than it is showing now but let's not get too carried away. I went in knowing full well that the graphics wouldn't be so great and I never expect them to touch PS3/360 game graphics. If you do then your setting yourself up for disappointment. Gameplay should be the most important factor and yes you cannot completely overlook graphics but if you find it hard to do so then you'd better change systems now.
^^^ I totally agree. I've always seen Nintendo like the dad from Leave it to Beaver.
"High Def? Why, what's that, son? Some new fangled dance they're doing at the dance halls? Aw heck, we don't need that! Let's just have some fun!"
I think there is some truth to this claim. I wouldn't be at all surprised to see Wii games comparable to first-gen 360 games in a couple of years. That's not a particularly huge accomplishment though, since most of the early 360 titles didn't look much better than original Xbox games. I think a target like Perfect Dark Zero is not totally unreachable.
Also if it is true that Wii can match and even surpass the last gen systems' graphical prowess, this also adds validity to the argument. Go ahead and play Doom 3 or Ninja Gaiden or Resident Evil 4 or God of War II and you will be surprised how pretty they still look.
That being said the Xbox 360 and PS3 are already leagues ahead of last-gen titles and the 360 titles that were released in 2005 or early 2006, so a Wii game released in say 2009 will still look very last-gen compared to a 360 game released at the same time.
Just look at the comparison between these two ps2 games released 4 years apart
You can easily tell that the graphics are alot better 4 years later. The same thing will happen to the wii, seeing as it will most definately follow the same pattern
(and yes, thats a ps2 screen of GRAW, not 360)
Just look at the comparison between these two ps2 games released 4 years apart
You can easily tell that the graphics are alot better 4 years later. The same thing will happen to the wii, seeing as it will most definately follow the same pattern
(and yes, thats a ps2 screen of GRAW, not 360)
wow the first shot looks like a crappy PSP game. and the second one almost looks like one of the first games for 360.
Ok, so right now the Wii's graphics are compareable to that of the current PS2's graphics. But if you think about it, when the PS2 first came out, the graphics weren't near as good as they are now. So if the beginning Wiis graphics are as good as the final PS2s graphics, then that could only mean the 'final' Wii graphics will be as good as the beginning 360/ps3 graphics?
I'd put my money on that. Launch games almost always have inferior graphics. Once companies start learning the hardware more time can be spent on graphics.
The only exception is the PSP. Everything else about it sucks, so it needs to have good graphics to keep it afloat.
Excite Truck was a really good looking launch title and so was PBR for Japan. So if we think those are good now, just wait in several years to see what Wii can produce.
Excite Truck looks pretty ok but nothing amazing. It's normal that launch games don't look as great as they should. I'm just worried about 3rd party developers who feel that Nintendo games are too much competition so that they don't focus on improving things and instead try to bring over even more ports with tacked on controls for the Wiimote.
well there are games in development buy third parties, but most of them are cel-shaded. I think there are a couple that are realistic.
I have a little time, so I will post some tech ramble that I know. First, the current Wii titles are pretty close to what you're going to see at the end of it's cycle. Holywood and Broadway are direct extensions to Gecko and Flipper. These souped up GCN processors (that's what they are), will never output anything remotely close to the first generation of Xenon and Xeneos, Cell and RSX processors. The reason being? First, one must take a good hard look at exactly the detailed configurations. Let me say, anything bad I might input about the Wii graphics, I don't feel graphics are important, I'm just speaking on behalf of the comparison. True gameplay is a different story, and Wii is best there. First, let's take a look at the CPUs.
The Wii's processor is 733 MHz with 1 general purpose core, running a PowerPC G3 architecture
The Xbox 360's CPU is 3.2 GHz with 3 general purpose cores, running PowerPC 970 (G5 architecture), and a substantial amount of L2 cache
The PS3's Cell processor is running 3.2 GHz with 1 general purpose core, and 7 (6 effective) SPE cores, which each have no cache.
The Xbox 360's CPU is undoubtedly the most powerful for gaming, as SPEs really can only process background actions, such as weather effects, due to their lack of cache. Regardless, the PS3 and Xbox 360 are so much ahead in the CPU department, that even a lously slaped together game still would kill the Wii's best graphics.
Now the GPUs
Wii: 243 MHz ATI Broadway
Xbox 360: 550 MHz ATI Xeneos
PS3: nVidia RSX (R70)
But here's where the difference comes in. The Xbox 360 and PS3's GPUs both have pixel shaders, vertex shaders, pipelines, and a 256-bit memory bus. I also give the edge here to Xbox 360, in that, not only is the GPU more powerful, but it also has 10mb e-dram on die, which gives it super fast ability to quickly render data ahead (great for racing games). In adddition, the PS3 divides it's ram 256/256, where the Xbox 360 shares it's 512mb, and the game can allocate where needed. (Preload 384 MB durring loading, store textures, and allocate ram away from process, to graphics as needed) A much better system, where depending on the type of game, programmers can allocate what they need, and when, and effectively have more videoram or CPU ram than the PS3 when or if they need it. In any case, the advanced architecture of the GPU configurations of PS3 and 360, with pixel and vertex shaders, and much faster memory throughput offer so much more than the Wii could ever handle, even if only used 25%.
Here's another thing, that really limits it. This is actually limited by the Wii's power, but even moreso by the fact that it is. The Xbox 360 and PS3 are both capable of rendering games in any definition. (Xbox 360 can go 1080p at 60 FPS/1080i/720p/480p). The PS3 also goes 1080p 60FPS/720p/480p/) The fact is, even if they render at a higer res inside, and output lower, it's a much better graphic. But say you run a first gen Xbox 360 game at 1080p on you'r HDTV. There's no way a last gen Wii game at 480p will ever come close. You're limited by console power, and the number of pixels, end of story there.
As for the HD-DVD thing on Xbox 360 games. Microsoft said it would never get used for games, and I don't see why it would need to. DVD9 leaves plenty of space, and it should have no effects on the graphics. HD-DVD connected to USB would have too slow of a data throughput anyhow. In anycase, the only reason PS3 games currently use blu-ray is all they do is prerender video, and the FMV sequences are pre rendered. Nothing big, I prefer my FMV sequences to look like the game anyhow. That much space is not needed, and it comes at a cost. Blu-ray and HD-DVD have much slower data transfer rates, and this costs game loading time, and in game data buffering speds.
Hope this clears some stuff up.
Cheers,
sc7
Uh, sure that made things a lot clearer. Really it did.
I like cel-shaded graphics for some games but it seems to be that the majority of the games that are coming are using it. I was ranting about this in another thread in the past and I still believe it.
I'm sure the graphic style will change later on.