So how strong is the Wii in terms of graphics?
This topic is locked from further discussion.
I look at it this way: The Wii may be "two Gamecubes duct-taped together" as that douchebag from EA/Maxis said, but the Gamecube was able to pull out a game like Twilight Princess... Now, regardless of how one may feel about Twilight Princess as a game, in terms of graphics, what the little purple box accomplished with that game is kind of astounding. There may be some ugly terrains here and there, but it's miles ahead of any other game from last generation, especially for a game THAT big, with such a gargantuan world. Now, you just multiply that mental image by two. That sounds like some really good stuff to me.
Just to illustrate what I just said:
Multiply THAT by two.
I look at it this way: The Wii may be "two Gamecubes duct-taped together" as that douchebag from EA/Maxis said, but the Gamecube was able to pull out a game like Twilight Princess... Now, regardless of how one may feel about Twilight Princess as a game, in terms of graphics, what the little purple box accomplished with that game is kind of astounding. There may be some ugly terrains here and there, but it's miles ahead of any other game from last generation, especially for a game THAT big, with such a gargantuan world. Now, you just multiply that mental image by two. That sounds like some really good stuff to me.
Just to illustrate what I just said:
Multiply THAT by two.
LordQuorthon
I don't thinkdouble the power = double the graphics. It certainly doesn't mean double the resolution. Take digitial cameras for example -- resolution increase is not linear. You needfour times the pixels to double the resolution, doubling thepixels will only result in a noticeable increase in detail (i.e. a 20 megapixel camera has twice the resolution/detail of a 5 megapixel camera).
Point is, the Wii should be noticeably better than the Gamecube, but not twice as good.
I look at it this way: The Wii may be "two Gamecubes duct-taped together" as that douchebag from EA/Maxis said, but the Gamecube was able to pull out a game like Twilight Princess... Now, regardless of how one may feel about Twilight Princess as a game, in terms of graphics, what the little purple box accomplished with that game is kind of astounding. There may be some ugly terrains here and there, but it's miles ahead of any other game from last generation, especially for a game THAT big, with such a gargantuan world. Now, you just multiply that mental image by two. That sounds like some really good stuff to me.
Just to illustrate what I just said:
Multiply THAT by two.
LordQuorthon
That's a Wii screen :P
Anyway I think the Wii has good graphics, developers are just too lazy with the Wii since this whole, Casual gamer, 'The Wii is a family console' thing.
It's just another console, with different games. That is all.
[QUOTE="LordQuorthon"]
I look at it this way: The Wii may be "two Gamecubes duct-taped together" as that douchebag from EA/Maxis said, but the Gamecube was able to pull out a game like Twilight Princess... Now, regardless of how one may feel about Twilight Princess as a game, in terms of graphics, what the little purple box accomplished with that game is kind of astounding. There may be some ugly terrains here and there, but it's miles ahead of any other game from last generation, especially for a game THAT big, with such a gargantuan world. Now, you just multiply that mental image by two. That sounds like some really good stuff to me.
Just to illustrate what I just said:
Multiply THAT by two.
NirdBerd
That's a Wii screen :P
Anyway I think the Wii has good graphics, developers are just too lazy with the Wii since this whole, Casual gamer, 'The Wii is a family console' thing.
It's just another console, with different games. That is all.
It is a wii screen of what is essentially a gamecube port. Basically even though twilight princess looked amazing on cube and wii it could have been better on wii had they taken the time to really use the wii's power. Anyways we have a new zelda built for the ground up for wii coming before to much longer so we will all see what happens then.
You guys are comparing The Conduit to Super Mario Galaxy, but there's another game with good visuals as well:
Monster hunter 3 tri has some of the best graphics I've seen on the Wii!
I'm sure it is capable of anitaliasing, but why hasn't even the great Nintendo taken advantage of that then? I'm not trying to prove you wrong, or saying you're wrong...but I would assume there is more to do with it than just anitalaising.
If a system is capable of a million polys vs a system of only ten thousand, and both are capable of antialaising...which is going to have smoother looking edges? Again, I would assume processing power is mixed in there as well lol. I don't have the technical knowledge yet, so please.....feel free to prove me wrong :P
danger_ranger95
Well, to understand why antialiasing hasn't been done, you first have to understand what the process is behind antialiasing, why it's done, and what causes jaggies. It basically comes down to the limitation of the pixel system used in graphical displays in computers.
Suppose you have a 3D space that you want to render on the screen, and in this space you have a blue sphere and a white background. Suppose you have a theoretical resolution of 3x3. Here's a graphical representation of the "true" sphere and the pixel overlay that must approximate it:
Without anti-aliasing, you'd just take one single sample per pixel, for a total of 9 samples, like this (sample locations in red):
But there's a problem here: since each pixel can only hold one color, each pixel in this situation can thus only be in one of two binary states: it can either be part of the sphere, or be part of the background. Thus, you get a clear dividing line without antialiasing between the sphere and the background. And this is precisely what causes jaggies. The resulting image (enlarged) would look like this:
Not exactly a very faithful representation of the sphere.
With antialiasing, a pixel on the outer edge has to be aware of the fact that it really only contains 1/2 of the sphere's edge, and that it should not be a solid color in one direction or the other. The way to do this is basically to calculate more colors than there are pixels and then take an average of the colors surrounding a pixel. For example, suppose you have that same 3x3 resolution. With antialiasing, the samples you take might instead look like this:
Here, we now have nine samples per pixel rather than just one, and this enables us to interpolate and calculate just how much of the sphere is in each pixel, and thus we can make the pixels representing the edges of the sphere somewhere in between blue and white to represent the fact that they really only contain part of the sphere. The resulting image from this is as follows:
Much better. Obviously still not representative of a sphere, but this is about the best we can do with only nine pixels.
But there's an obvious problem: rather than 9 samples, we now have 49. That's a huge increase - we have effectively upped the resolution to 7x7 and then squished the results into 9 pixels. And this is exactly the problem with antialiasing - you have to basically render the image in a higher resolution than will be displayed in order to achieve it.
If this were instead a 16:9 480p resolution of 852x480, without antialiasing you'd need to take 408,960 color samples per frame, whereas with antialiasing you'd need to take 1,638,505 samples per frame - the equivalent of rendering in an unantialiased resolution of 1705x961. That's almost 1080p!
Of course, there are optimizations that can be made, but this general idea is nonetheless the case - rendering an image with antialiasing enabled is basically equivalent to rendering that image in a higher resolution than what is actually displayed. And that's precisely why an antialiased experience requires much more graphical power than an unantialiased one.
I hope that makes sense. :P
[QUOTE="danger_ranger95"]
I'm sure it is capable of anitaliasing, but why hasn't even the great Nintendo taken advantage of that then? I'm not trying to prove you wrong, or saying you're wrong...but I would assume there is more to do with it than just anitalaising.
If a system is capable of a million polys vs a system of only ten thousand, and both are capable of antialaising...which is going to have smoother looking edges? Again, I would assume processing power is mixed in there as well lol. I don't have the technical knowledge yet, so please.....feel free to prove me wrong :P
GabuEx
Well, to understand why antialiasing hasn't been done, you first have to understand what the process is behind antialiasing, why it's done, and what causes jaggies. It basically comes down to the limitation of the pixel system used in graphical displays in computers.
Suppose you have a 3D space that you want to render on the screen, and in this space you have a blue sphere and a white background. Suppose you have a theoretical resolution of 3x3. Here's a graphical representation of the "true" sphere and the pixel overlay that must approximate it:
Without anti-aliasing, you'd just take one single sample per pixel, for a total of 9 samples, like this (sample locations in red):
But there's a problem here: since each pixel can only hold one color, each pixel in this situation can thus only be in one of two binary states: it can either be part of the sphere, or be part of the background. Thus, you get a clear dividing line without antialiasing between the sphere and the background. And this is precisely what causes jaggies. The resulting image (enlarged) would look like this:
Not exactly a very faithful representation of the sphere.
With antialiasing, a pixel on the outer edge has to be aware of the fact that it really only contains 1/2 of the sphere's edge, and that it should not be a solid color in one direction or the other. The way to do this is basically to calculate more colors than there are pixels and then take an average of the colors surrounding a pixel. For example, suppose you have that same 3x3 resolution. With antialiasing, the samples you take might instead look like this:
Here, we now have nine samples per pixel rather than just one, and this enables us to interpolate and calculate just how much of the sphere is in each pixel, and thus we can make the pixels representing the edges of the sphere somewhere in between blue and white to represent the fact that they really only contain part of the sphere. The resulting image from this is as follows:
Much better. Obviously still not representative of a sphere, but this is about the best we can do with only nine pixels.
But there's an obvious problem: rather than 9 samples, we now have 49. That's a huge increase - we have effectively upped the resolution to 7x7 and then squished the results into 9 pixels. And this is exactly the problem with antialiasing - you have to basically render the image in a higher resolution than will be displayed in order to achieve it.
If this were instead a 16:9 480p resolution of 852x480, without antialiasing you'd need to take 408,960 color samples per frame, whereas with antialiasing you'd need to take 1,638,505 samples per frame - the equivalent of rendering in an unantialiased resolution of 1705x961. That's almost 1080p!
Of course, there are optimizations that can be made, but this general idea is nonetheless the case - rendering an image with antialiasing enabled is basically equivalent to rendering that image in a higher resolution than what is actually displayed. And that's precisely why an antialiased experience requires much more graphical power than an unantialiased one.
I hope that makes sense. :P
yes, thanks for taking the time to respond to me, greatly appreciate it!
In your last sentence, doesn't that basically prove me right though? Not saying the Wii can't handle the AA, but in order to make them (to the naked eye) non-existant in an actual Wii game...does the Wii actually have the power to do so?Are there any tricks developers can use to get around using antialaising due to it using more resorces?
Either way, that's insane information right there. I can only imagine how many samples are taken while playing anantialaised PS360 gamebeing displayedin16:9 1080p. I guess I still have alot to learn :P
Log in to comment