Wii's real power explained

[Generosity of God]

at least sort of

CLICK HERE (http://wiirincontrol.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=88:why-the-conduit-will-look-as-good-as-claimed&catid=16:team-news&Itemid=107)

i can't say that i completely believe it. honestly i don't have the technical knowledge to be able to say "hey that's so true". but i'm convinced enough to say that it could be true.

anyone able to collaborate the technical side of things?

i'd like to believe it and while i don't agree with people's claim that "Wii can't do better than PS2", i get the feeling that there's an oversimplification in this article.

though. it all begs the question "what are the reasons for Wii title's not looking better than last gen?" there's not just one reason but i'd say that Wii's power definitely isn't one of those.

[SuperLuigiBros]

Its nice to see people are supporting the Wii and High Voltage Software like this.

One thing that pisses me off is the statement 'the original Xbox is more powerful'. Well, Resident Evil 4 on Gamecube has the best graphics seen in that generation (in my opinion), so that statement can fuck right off.

But dang, thats a long read so Ill have to finish it later :( I read a bit though, honest!

[Viper]

I've stated everything in the article and more many times over right here.

I've also explained why games do not look any better than last gen but I'll explain that last bit again.


2004-2005 - Publishers and developers are starting to plan their next generation strategy and where to put their money. With X360 getting an early jump, it's an obvious choice and with the PS2 having dominated like it did, PS3 is also an obvious choice. What wasn't obvious was Wii because GC had sold the fewest units last gen and the least of any Nintendo home console. They didn't expect Nintendo's next console to do very well at all.

2005-2006 - Wii details unveiled. Publishers and developers not impressed and divert basically all their development plans, resources and money into PS3/X360. All the analysts (whom the publishers and developers pay to provide them with future sales expectations) proclaim Wii to be a complete and utter failure. One major analysts said ti would sell 11 million lifetime.

2006 - Wii launches to a resounding success and catches the whole industry off guard.

2007 - Publishers and developers quickly realize there is money to be made on Wii but with all their money and resources tied up in PS3/X360 for the next 2-3 years, all they offer are shovelware and pitiful ports.



So why does this mean the games don't look very good? The TEV. The Wii, like the GC, uses a Texture Environment Unit for shader operations instead of Direct X like the Xbox, X360 and PS3 utilize. Most publishers/developers either do not have the knowledge of TEV development, prefer not to use it or don't have the money and time allocated for it.

Without the TEV, you get very little in terms of shader capabilities which makes games look very last gen.

I'll show you the difference between no TEV use and with TEV use in the same game.


The Conduit early in development.

http://wiimedia.ign.com/wii/image/article/867/867484/the-conduit-20080417032657973_640w.jpg


And The Conduit with TEV shader operations applied.

http://wiimedia.ign.com/wii/image/article/887/887708/the-conduit-20080709061826928_640w.jpg


So long as a developer will put the effort into Wii development like they do for X360/PS3, it will stand above last generation.

[Adrian Santiago]

Well, that article has some understandings about the processor, at the very least: However, it does overlook a few things.

See, the main draw to "HD Gaming" is the resolution, yes that's true. The more pixels a game has to work with, the smoother the image... a difference more readily seen in larger displays. Graphical "effects" such as the lighting they mentioned, would be more of a GPU function than a CPU one, and that's both the Wii's strong suit and weak spot at the same time.

The Wii can push polys, the wii can push graphical effects, but in order to do all of that AND still be smooth, the Wii has to use highly optimized textures. Most games run out 512x512 textures at maximum, and as a matter of fact, most XBox 360 games do as well. Texture seams are apparent in many 360 titles, and not so much in PS3 titles... however, the PS3 has the HARDWARE that can push HD Resolution with said effects WITH larger texture sizes...

...but it ISN'T powerful enough to deliver all of that at 60fps. Yes, I know there are many games on the PS3 that DO play at 60fps, but none I assure you use as many high resolution textures in the game world, or they have other graphical optimizations that you just aren't aware of.

A quick summary:

Playstation 3 = HD Resolution, HD Textures, Not Powerful Enough to do both extremely well, hence the more generous 30fps cap in some titles.
Xbox 360 = HD Resolution, not-so-HD textures: Result, many more HD res titles running at the ever-attractive 60fps mark.
Wii = SD Res, SD Textures, Hardware powerful enough to capitalize on both: Result, a system specialized for 480p at most, Standard Definition gaming has the ability to run non-stop with very few (if you've ever noticed any at all) slowdowns or hiccups.

The Wii's got a very fast architecture considering what it's supposed to do, 360's powerful with some nice surprises in HD support, and the PS3 wants to do more than it actually can (Read: Nintendo 64 syndrome).

Of course I'm certain some folks will see a bias towards the Wii details in this post, but I'd like to remind you the forum you're in, the topic you're in, and to check your respective fanboyisms at the door.