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."

They may have a winner

[Puff of Logic (895805)]

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

[omeomi (675045)]

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

[cowscows (103644)]

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 (132727)]

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

[Guppy06 (410832)]

"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

[goofyheadedpunk (807517)]

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.

I always got the impression...

[Parham (892904)]

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...

[KarmaMB84 (743001)]

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...

[scot4875 (542869)]

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...

[NeMon'ess (160583)]

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...

[barawn (25691)]

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 [wikipedia.org] 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 (67381)]

> 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.

Just Hype?

[mc calculust (738923)]

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 (978574)]

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 [w33t.com]

Current gen on up with the Wii?

[Dark Paladin (116525)]

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 (557890)]

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 [penny-arcade.com] or "target renders" *cough*Killzone2 [gametrailers.com]*cough*)

How things change

[suv4x4 (956391)]

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 (8480)]

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 [kotaku.com]

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. =)

Tech specs aren't THAT important

[realmolo (574068)]

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.

The Underhype

[courtarro (786894)]

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).

Re:Fuzzy math question

[mobby_6kl (668092)]

> 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".

Rosy eyed nostalgia

[donscarletti (569232)]

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:Real Wii Graphics Better Than The 360

[cowscows (103644)]

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 (8964)]

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 (951552)]

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?