Rambling disccusions withe Zero2dash and others.

[JackAxe]

Slightly better than RE4, I've said that & requoted it twice now.

RE4 slightlty better than RE4. I'm confused? My original comment was in general to your whole post. Not one specific phrase.

--

I was also gaming prior to the DOS 2.0 days also, I only mentioned that, because that's when I started using PCs for games. Previous to my hand me down XT, our family had a TI-99 and Sinclair 1000, then Commodore 64s. My dad refused to by us an Atari 2600 back in the early eighties.

My personal favorite games were from the MCGA days on PCs.

--

Us Wii monkeys aren't debating that a Wii can keep pace with the other consoles. This has never been the case, it's more of a hey to peeps that make assumptions that antiquated GPUs and CPUs, like the XBox's "Model Ts" are some how up to Wii's specs. IGN is guilty of this. They're bunch of inexperienced lemmings that really can't see past their rampant ignorance. It's kind of sad that they're constantly being surprised by developers when it comes to the Wii's hardware. But I find this is common place with most console eccentric individuals. They're also part of the same group that thought a PS2 was more capable than a Cube. Anyway, it's all fluff. HD is nothing more than a buzzword for those who bought in too early and our now feeling the pain of not enough content to truly fit their fixed-pixel progressive displays. Displays with odd PC resolutions, not 1-1 HD rezes. 1080i.. WTF? Why did we step backwards, oh bandwidth limitations and greedy service providers...

The only thing I've ever stated about the Wii vs the PS360, is that at 480p, it can display pretty much the same type of purdies. I'm not sayin that it cand handle as much of a load as a PS360 at that rez, but it can certainly keep up with the trend in graphics at that rez. It doesn't need 7 cores, or 15000 GPUs, because it's not targeting resolutions like 1080p, which in terms of system requirement call for a configuration like a PS3. But for 480p, the Wii's GPU and CPU are more than adequate. The Wii is way more powerful than my 1280x1024 uber gaming machine from the turn of the century.

--

And before I ramble, Zelda TP does visually surpass RE4 in some areas and I haven't even finished it. I finished RE4 though, I just couldn't stop playing. They both had great art direction and of course our both Cube games. This comes down to personal likes if anything. But I need to note that RE4 is "not" 480p on the Wii, it's 480i unless I missed an option in the game's menu? Then I'll have to slap myself.

Zelda TP on the other hand is truly 480p. It's noticeably sharper on my LCD and the colors are way more vibrant, because of the component cables, not just because of the art direction. (Side note: I discovered that if I lean my LCD forward about 15 degrees, its colors and gama improve to the point of making me happy. I wasn't able to play RE4 before figuring this out without increasing the gamma to the point of blowing out the light values. This is an issue I've had with all 480i games on my LCD, not 480p games.) With games like Zelda, I get this slight horizontal line thing that only shows up with 480p games via component, but not 480i games. The Wiimote reminder screen under RE4 is definately 480i. It's just like Rayman. So if RE4 supports 480p, how do I turn it on?

I can't believe you quoted Wikepida. Don't you know that's not allowed, because most of that info is objective, not factual... But my objective opinion thinks 2x sounds about right. My old 1 Ghz G4 was about twice as powerful as my old 1 Ghz T-Bird, which was faster than the Dell P3 733 I had at work at that time. (My main comp was a Mac of course.) So with a CPU that's about 2x of a Cube and a GPU that's fulll of modern goodies, the Wii's in good shape for the next half a decade. Then we'll see the next Nintendo offering released performing about about 2 - 3 x of a PS3 and peeps at that time saying it can't handle HD.

<]=)

 

[GFLPraxis]

Then we'll see the next Nintendo offering released performing about about 2 - 3 x of a PS3 and peeps at that time saying it can't handle HD.

Actually, I wouldn't be surprised if Nintendo doesn't make the next system be a budget system. Really, Nintendo was forced to make the Wii cheap and easy to develop for, because any game made for the Wii would either be a poor port or be an exclusive because it's too different to port.

After the GameCube performed so badly developers would be scared to make Wii exclusive games, thus nobody would make Wii titles.

So Nintendo combats this by making the Wii ridiculously easy to make games for. Low cost to develop = low risk, devs can say "what the heck, we'll take a chance" and produce Wii titles. The low price also results in higher sales. When the Wii came out it started selling like hot cakes, and devs realized this and scrambled to make Wii ports (see all the PS2 ports w/waggle).

Nintendo HAD to make it a budget system or no one would have risked high-budget titles on it.


The Wii 2 or whatever its called will not have that worry, as assuming it remains on top this gen devs will be confident that people will buy it and willing to take the risk. So the Wii 2 might be 2x the PS3, or it might be equal to the PS4. We'll see what Nintendo does.

 

[sikkinixx]

^

but Nintendo is building their base on casual gaming and people who have no money/ don't wanna spend it on gaming. To make a big budget and expensive system it's pissing on the fanbase they built up.

 

[progx]

^

but Nintendo is building their base on casual gaming and people who have no money/ don't wanna spend it on gaming. To make a big budget and expensive system it's pissing on the fanbase they built up.

They brought up the point that many people don't buy game systems because of their high price tag. And confusing control schemes.

 

[e²Studios]

They brought up the point that many people don't buy game systems because of their high price tag. And confusing control schemes.

But the majority of people that spend any considerable amount of money on gaming (Hardcore Gamers) will pay whatever the hardware costs and usually spends gobs on software. Hell, I have a Wii and a PS3. I have 16 PS3 games, the BD Remote, and a extra controller. The Wii has 15 games, 4 controllers, 4 nunchucks, and 6 or 7 VC games. I guarentee you that i just surpassed what grandma would spend in gaming during an entire generation. I am far done from buying I'm on track to have 20+ titles sooner than later.

Ed

 

[0098386]

If casual gamers don't care for graphics, then why not keep the Wii running when they release a more potent system? Let them overlap, just like GBA/DS to keep both parties satisfied.

Whatever they do it'll be very interesting to see. Nintendo used to bring out the most powerful hardware for 3 straight generations in a row, then sat side by side with the Xbox. They stopped fighting the power seat and moved into making a unique and different experience. They don't just make a regular updated sequel. They try to be the best or different. Seemingly.

 

[pcypert]

I'm pushing for a WiiTV or AppleWii or something like that. The two team up and you have a device that will stream iTunes, 720p TV, and play games in your living room. With the internet browser getting a boost in the next gen you'd have a killer home entertainment center. Plus having sat this round out Wii could pick the winner of the format war. What a system and money printing machine that would be Think iPhone times 100.

Paul

 

[GFLPraxis]

^

but Nintendo is building their base on casual gaming and people who have no money/ don't wanna spend it on gaming. To make a big budget and expensive system it's pissing on the fanbase they built up.

The GameCube was $200 when everyone else was $300 and wasn't disadvantaged.

The XBox 360 Core launched for $300, Premium for $400. Nintendo could have made a system with 60-80% the CPU/GPU power of a 360 for $300, easy.

Really, the Wii only costs $250 because:
A) Wii remote and nunchuck are expensive hardware; IR camera, twin accelerometers, speakers, bluetooth...they sell for $60 and are included.
B) Free game; Japanese Wii costs $220 and doesn't come with a game.
C) Profit Margin
D) Most importantly; Nintendo put the R&D into miniaturization.

If the Wii were larger, Nintendo could've marketed it for $200 easy.


The Wii was $250. The Wii 2 could believably be $300, and be a bit larger than the Wii, and have 60-80% the performance of a PS4 for say $400, could it not?

 

[GFLPraxis]

I'm pushing for a WiiTV or AppleWii or something like that. The two team up and you have a device that will stream iTunes, 720p TV, and play games in your living room. With the internet browser getting a boost in the next gen you'd have a killer home entertainment center. Plus having sat this round out Wii could pick the winner of the format war. What a system and money printing machine that would be Think iPhone times 100.

Paul

You really think Apple and Nintendo would partner up? Making the Wii stream video would cannibalize Apple TV sales.

Now, Nintendo might add that kind of functionality on their own. Apple just wouldn't help them.

I'd love to see Apple and Nintendo team up. I'd love to see the next DS use the iPhone multitouch technology (I could actually see that happening). But in all reality, both Apple and Nintendo are two of the most secretive companies on the planet; they'd probably hate each other on the basis of being too alike.

 

[JackAxe]

This is silly on my part, but I would be hesitant to spend $400 on a Wii 2. It's not that it's an unreasonable price. The same thing goes for the PS3 and 360 at their price points which are fair. It's that I'm accustom to paying in the $200+ range for a new console. But with inflation and 5 years being the end of the world and all, who knows...

Yep, us Nintendo / Mac using peeps have no money.

<]=)

 

[GFLPraxis]

This is silly on my part, but I would be hesitant to spend $400 on a Wii 2. It's not that it's an unreasonable price. The same thing goes for the PS3 and 360 at their price points which are fair. It's that I'm accustom to paying in the $200+ range for a new console. But with inflation and 5 years being the end of the world and all, who knows...

Yep, us Nintendo / Mac using peeps have no money.

<]=)

Well, I said $300, not $400

$400 is too much for me to spend on a console. I'll buy a 360 when Premium drops below $300. Same for a PS3, assuming it comes out with either a killer app I'm interested in, or a killer feature (which could be Blu-ray if Blu-ray wins and I get a HDTV).


I'd just never consider spending more than $300 on a system, which is why I haven't bought anything BUT a Wii.

 

[JackAxe]

Yep, you did.

For $300 I better get 2 controllers and 2 games. I would rather spend that money on other things, which I do. Responsibilities, which I try to avoid tend to get in the way of me spending money on games.

<]=)

 

[pcypert]

How would it canabalize apple TV sales if they partnered up? I'm not saying it's likely...just something I wish would happen. IF they partnered it would just be win/win for both. Make the price point around 400-600 so Apple is still making around what they currently are and Nintendo is too...plus Nintendo would be eating the hard drive costs. Then Apple gets to sell video games on iTunes as well as regular games on the apple store. They now get a cut in games too.

They both benefit from each other's slick marketing campaigns. This would cut into Microsoft which would benefit both companies.

Wii could do it on its own...but they wouldn't have the iTunes store and all of those integrated features. Just think .mac could have a boost too...set up .mac to be like Live Arcade and we're really rolling. I don't see a way this wouldn't be profitable for Apple and Nintendo...more hardware and software sales for Apple in their stores, leg up on the 360 or it's successor for Nintendo...

Paul

 

[MRU]

Confused that you talk about or concieve Wii 2 to be 60/80% power of the 360/PS3.

Why? well lets face it by then... we will have the next "MS console" and rumblings from Sony about their new "misile launching, fully starwars operational, super conducting electro thermostatic hybrid synergy super duper computer."

So if the Wii 2 is only 60/80% power of 360/PS3 then it will still be more than a generation graphically behind the competition.

 

[zero2dash]

RE4 slightlty better than RE4. I'm confused? My original comment was in general to your whole post. Not one specific phrase.

The Wii is capable of a game similar to RE4, and possibly slightly better than RE4.

There. Does that clear it up now?

HD is nothing more than a buzzword for those who bought in too early and our now feeling the pain of not enough content to truly fit their fixed-pixel progressive displays.

I guess then going by this statement that you've never played an HD game on an HDTV.

HD makes a difference, period.
You can be of the opinion that it doesn't, but millions of gamers + tv viewers disagree with you because HDTVs and HD game consoles are selling and selling well.

With a wide screen ratio you have more viewing area, and with more pixels you have a greater sense of detail available.

Yes, it does matter.

That's almost as funny as saying 60fps isn't any better or noticeable than 30fps. Umm <geico caveman> uhh....what??

The only thing I've ever stated about the Wii vs the PS360, is that at 480p, it can display pretty much the same type of purdies. I'm not sayin that it cand handle as much of a load as a PS360 at that rez, but it can certainly keep up with the trend in graphics at that rez. It doesn't need 7 cores, or 15000 GPUs, because it's not targeting resolutions like 1080p, which in terms of system requirement call for a configuration like a PS3. But for 480p, the Wii's GPU and CPU are more than adequate. The Wii is way more powerful than my 1280x1024 uber gaming machine from the turn of the century.

Come on dude.
The Wii pales in comparison to the other two systems.
Quit denying it.
It has nowhere near the power in the cpu or the gpu. It does not do higher resolutions; whether that's Nintendo's crippled fault or the gpu isn't the point. The gpu cannot do polygon numbers like the 360 or Ps3. The cpu cannot process as much, as quickly as the 360 or Ps3.

Higher polygon counts matter at any resolution. Therefore, no, the Wii cannot handle poly counts like the 360 or Ps3 just because it's at 480p across the board. That's like saying the engine in a Ferrari is equal to the engine in a Ford Escort because they can both travel at 40mph.

For the love of christ, what's happened here lately? Are people so much in denial that x system can't do something that they just refute it and believe that refuting facts will suddenly change the future or how something works?

So if RE4 supports 480p, how do I turn it on?

I have no clue, I still haven't received the component cable MRU sent me overseas.
I know on the Gamecube you had to hold a button down or something (B?) while loading the game. I assume on the Wii with the component cable hooked up, as long as the video setup under the system menu is set to 480p, the game will display in 480p.

I can't believe you quoted Wikepida. Don't you know that's not allowed, because most of that info is objective, not factual...

Riiiight. Everything on Wikipedia is full of crap. Ok, I'll remember that from now on.

 

[GFLPraxis]

Yep, you did.

For $300 I better get 2 controllers and 2 games. I would rather spend that money on other things, which I do. Responsibilities, which I try to avoid tend to get in the way of me spending money on games.

<]=)

lol, for a Wii with 2 controllers you'd be spending $310 already!

 

[GFLPraxis]

Confused that you talk about or concieve Wii 2 to be 60/80% power of the 360/PS3.

Why? well lets face it by then... we will have the next "MS console" and rumblings from Sony about their new "misile launching, fully starwars operational, super conducting electro thermostatic hybrid synergy super duper computer."

So if the Wii 2 is only 60/80% power of 360/PS3 then it will still be more than a generation graphically behind the competition.

I said 60/80% of the PS4.

 

[0098386]

I'm trying to find where these numbers are making games more fun

*back to losing on Strikers online*

 

[MRU]

I said 60/80% of the PS4.

Doh! Never spotted that Just trying to make me look like a monkey aren't you

 

[takao]

HD makes a difference, period.
You can be of the opinion that it doesn't, but millions of gamers + tv viewers disagree with you because HDTVs and HD game consoles are selling and selling well.

funny how console players now are defending the HD marketing who back in the defended consoles in comparisations to gaming PCs which always amused me back in the day

HD TV has been around since decades it's hardly something i would consider new .. after all it failed more often(in it's analog forms) before this current success than people think

With a wide screen ratio you have more viewing area

at the same diagonal: no you don't have more viewing area mathematicaly 4:3 wins over 16:10 and 16:9 in that regard (that's why manufacturer so readily jumped for widescreen lcd screens: they are at the same diagonal used for marketing more 10% smaller and thus cheaper to produce)

 

[2nyRiggz]

funny how console players now are defending the HD marketing who back in the defended consoles in comparisations to gaming PCs which always amused me back in the day

What?....was there a time when console gamers shun HD?

at the same diagonal: no you don't have more viewing area mathematicaly 4:3 wins over 16:10 and 16:9 in that regard (that's why manufacturer so readily jumped for widescreen lcd screens: they are at the same diagonal used for marketing more 10% smaller and thus cheaper to produce)

Provide a link for me please....I think this will make for an interesting read. I'm(was) a film student and not once have I heard this debate come up(they debate about everything with film res and pulldown)


Bless

 

[0098386]

What?....was there a time when console gamers shun HD?

I think Takao means back in the 90's in PC vs Console debates, PC could handle higher resolutions yet console people said it wasn't important.
That's all I can remember.

 

[takao]

Provide a link for me please....I think this will make for an interesting read. I'm(was) a film student and not once have I heard this debate come up(they debate about everything with film res and pulldown)

complicated solution from top of my head + calculator (rounded to 2 digets) and diagonal of 100 units
tan(alpha) = 3/4
atan(3/4) = 36,87°

tan(beta) = 9/16
atan(9/16) = 29,36°

area4to3 = 100 * sin(36,87) * 100 * cos(36,87) = 4800 square units
area16to9 = 100 * sin(29,36°) * 100 * cos(29,36°) = 4273 square units

the 16to9 has with the same diagonal roughly 89% of the area of a 4 to 3 screen and 112% reversed

 

[e²Studios]

complicated solution from top of my head + calculator (rounded to 2 digets) and diagonal of 100 units
tan(alpha) = 3/4
atan(3/4) = 36,87°

tan(beta) = 9/16
atan(9/16) = 29,36°

area4to3 = 100 * sin(36,87) * 100 * cos(36,87) = 4800 square units
area16to9 = 100 * sin(29,36°) * 100 * cos(29,36°) = 4273 square units

the 16to9 has with the same diagonal roughly 89% of the area of a 4 to 3 screen and 112% reversed

A 32" Wide has a substantially larger visual area than the 4x3. Check your math

http://www.displaywars.com/32-inch-4x3-vs-32-inch-16x9

Mathematically converting a 4:3 to 16x9 you will lose visual space, but thats not how 16x9 sets are measured or made so in all fairness the 4x3 aspect has a smaller visual area than the 16x9/16x10 aspect.

Ed

 

[JackAxe]

The Wii is capable of a game similar to RE4, and possibly slightly better than RE4.

There. Does that clear it up now?

And this goes back to my very original post. You basically mentioned you agree that the Wii is about 2-3x the Cube, but yet you think a slightly better than Cube game is the Wii's limit. Do you not see the contradiction in what you've sated over and over? Wouldn't that much of a power boost offer that much more system capability?

You really have underestimated the Wii as a whole and it's a willing choice. I know you really like RE4, which I do also, but it's a "Cube game" it is in no way some how the Wii's cap, not even a slightly better version as you would like to beleive. Why would a system that has a better than Cube GPU, better than Cube CPU and "tripple" the ram capacity, not be able to do that much more than a Cube game? One reason is because of inexperienced developers, which are like a plague right now. Developers that don't know ***** when it comes to a TEV, because of their shader eccentric minds. Screen shots from these newer games already look "way" better than RE4, and many peeps, including myself feel that Rogue Squadron pushed the Cube further than RE4. It certainly used more advanced TEV techniques than RE4 and overall the texture quality on RS was better, where as they didn't become pixelated fuzz when moving up closer to inspect. Zelda TP pushes the Cube further than RE4.

I guess then going by this statement that you've never played an HD game on an HDTV.

HD makes a difference, period.
You can be of the opinion that it doesn't, but millions of gamers + tv viewers disagree with you because HDTVs and HD game consoles are selling and selling well.

With a wide screen ratio you have more viewing area, and with more pixels you have a greater sense of detail available.

Yes, it does matter.

That's almost as funny as saying 60fps isn't any better or noticeable than 30fps. Umm <geico caveman> uhh....what??

LOL!

Before I ramble further, HD "will" eventually make a difference and in some areas it already does, but definitely not all, and this will always be the case. HD is still the minority and will only become the majority because of a mandatory change. There are millions upon millions more still on SDTV. And HD consoles selling well, what? MS is once again loosing money and Sony, they're in my prayers. There's over 50 years of analogue content, meant for superior-color-displaying CRT tubes that looks like crap on a fixed-pixel HD sets and it gets worse when they convert it to a compressed digital broadcast. Even broadcast HD content looks like crap on certain HD tech, if not sitting back quite a few feet.

I live in Southern California. Everyone I know, including their gamma's cat has a plasma screen. Let me look, I'm sure there's even one up my bum. HD screens are like roaches down here. It's some kind of status symbol, even if the screen only cost $400. I've been gaming on PCs which have always been ahead of the resolution curve, since the DOS 2 days to be redundent. This is why I even bothered mentioning it earlier. I've always upgraded my hardware to accommodate the latest and greatest. I've gamed at resolutions higher than your precious 720p for almost a decade now and now I game at 1600p to use this cliche way of not giving enough factual info about the screen's rez. By sticking with PCs, I will always be privy to better than anythning a PS360 will be able to match, but yet I like the Wii better at this point in time. I must be insane for focusing on fun instead of a higher resolution gaming.

My friend 62" plasma display at 1368 x 768. That's HD. Wow, that certainly is uber high-rez. remember when HD was hard disk and HDD was high density disk? He can display 1080i on it and it looks great, but ask you self how does a screen that's only 1368 horizontal, display 1920 pixels? It really doesn't. My LCD TV is 1400x900, but yet it displays 1080i. My other friend's DLP display 1920x1080, but yet it doesn't look as good as any of the plasmas I've seen.

I like widescreen. This really is the one good thing that has come early on for HD in my opinion. Recall I already mentioned that I play my Wii on my LCD TV for widescreen support. It's why my friend's jumped to HD for sports. They could really care less about seeing a more detailed view of some guy's arse, but like that they can see more of the playing field at once.

HD is still way too much hype at this time, but in a few years it won't be. The content is still not their and when it is, it's usually sub par quality when it comes down to it. Sure, I can now watch something at 1080i, but now I have deal with stream issues, massive blocking when the action picks up too quickly, and make sure I'm sitting far enough back to not notice the compression, etc.. For FPS games, I do like a higher rez screen, because it's easier to see distant foes, but on the same note a good shader system could do so at even 480i. And when consoles can do DVD real, wake me up, but I'll probably be dead by that time.

Come on dude.
The Wii pales in comparison to the other two systems.
Quit denying it.
It has nowhere near the power in the cpu or the gpu. It does not do higher resolutions; whether that's Nintendo's crippled fault or the gpu isn't the point. The gpu cannot do polygon numbers like the 360 or Ps3. The cpu cannot process as much, as quickly as the 360 or Ps3.

Higher polygon counts matter at any resolution. Therefore, no, the Wii cannot handle poly counts like the 360 or Ps3 just because it's at 480p across the board. That's like saying the engine in a Ferrari is equal to the engine in a Ford Escort because they can both travel at 40mph.

For the love of christ, what's happened here lately? Are people so much in denial that x system can't do something that they just refute it and believe that refuting facts will suddenly change the future or how something works?

I never denied it. You should got back and read my blurb again. A PS360 is an absolute powerhouses compared to a wimpy little Wii, but if you you only need to go 40, in a 40 zone, why drive a Ferrari? Oh, it's a status thing, just like owning a purdy HD set. It's all about what my thing can do, not that it's trully useful...

I have no clue, I still haven't received the component cable MRU sent me overseas.
I know on the Gamecube you had to hold a button down or something (B?) while loading the game. I assume on the Wii with the component cable hooked up, as long as the video setup under the system menu is set to 480p, the game will display in 480p.

My system is 480p. What I like about the Wii is that my Cube games no longer need that b thing. Everything I've read says the game is 480p, but it's not. On my screen I always get this slight, but weird horizontal banding for 480p content, for both Wii and Cube games. It's noticeable when about 2 feet from the screen. RE4 does not have this at all, and looks just like my 480i games.

Riiiight. Everything on Wikipedia is full of crap. Ok, I'll remember that from now on.

You're the one that said crap, all I said was objective. Which is pretty much are whole ramblings about the Wii and its performance. Until Nintendo releases something definitive, it's all objective.

<]=)