For those saying a Wii is less powerful than the Xbox (56k)

Those are first gen Xbox screens.  The graphics sucked, just like the Wii's do now.

By the end of the Gen we had graphics like these,

The Wii's graphics will get better, just give it time. 

As long as you know it and I know it.. who cares what they think. They're just in denial anyway, right?

cant we just drop the wiis graphics?its getting rediculious and everybody who bought a wii knew what they were getting.

That last picture looks freaking awesome.

I don't think we have to wait to the end of this gen to get amazing graphics from the Wii, MP3 and SMG will do that by the end of this year.  

As long as you know it and I know it.. who cares what they think. They're just in denial anyway, right?

Ganon_919

QFT

Also I thought this was going to be a topic where the TC compared xbox pics to current wii screen shots.

Holy crap @ Ninja Gaiden: Black screeny.SergeantSnitch

I didn't know the xbox could do 720p 

i loved conker online multiplayer,tons of fun.

i still play halo 2 online too...

Metroid Prime 3 already looks better than Halo and many would say Mario galaxy looks better than Conker.Metroid_Time

[QUOTE="SergeantSnitch"]Holy crap @ Ninja Gaiden: Black screeny.Metroid_Time

I didn't know the xbox could do 720p 

Some games supported it i.e Soul Caliber

No offense, but those are early halo screens. The floor textures were much, much, much better than that. :|Ninja-Vox

Not to mention one of them looks like it's from a low-spec run PC version. Or is very early. :|

[QUOTE="SergeantSnitch"]Holy crap @ Ninja Gaiden: Black screeny.Metroid_Time

I didn't know the xbox could do 720p

the original xbox could do 720p and 1080i.

[QUOTE="Ninja-Vox"]No offense, but those are early halo screens. The floor textures were much, much, much better than that. :|-Spock-

Not to mention one of them looks like it's from a low-spec run PC version. Or is very early. :|

I took the latest screens from gamespy for it... 

Dreamcast also had better graphics than N64

It also had unique controller that had weird portable system involved

and it also was selling like hotcakes in the beginning. 

How did that system do? 

Dreamcast also had better graphics than N64

It also had unique controller that had weird portable system involved

and it also was selling like hotcakes in the beginning.

How did that system do?

TriangleHard

I don't even know where to start proving you wrong. 

[QUOTE="-Spock-"]

[QUOTE="Ninja-Vox"]No offense, but those are early halo screens. The floor textures were much, much, much better than that. :|asdasd

Not to mention one of them looks like it's from a low-spec run PC version. Or is very early. :|

I took the latest screens from gamespy for it... 

Well they are not right, the floors in Halo CE are higher res than Halo 2. They knocked down some of the detail in Halo 2 for overall better graphics. But those pics are definatly not an acurate representation.

Dreamcast also had better graphics than N64

It also had unique controller that had weird portable system involved

and it also was selling like hotcakes in the beginning. 

How did that system do? 

TriangleHard

One problem:

Sega was knee deep in **** when they released the Dreamcast.

Nintendo has been doing fine regardless of sales.   They made profit (and that's what matters to a company.)

[QUOTE="-Spock-"]

[QUOTE="Ninja-Vox"]No offense, but those are early halo screens. The floor textures were much, much, much better than that. :|asdasd

Not to mention one of them looks like it's from a low-spec run PC version. Or is very early. :|

I took the latest screens from gamespy for it... 

I doubt that very much... if you'd played it you'd know.

Dreamcast also had better graphics than N64

It also had unique controller that had weird portable system involved

and it also was selling like hotcakes in the beginning.

How did that system do?

TriangleHard

[QUOTE="TriangleHard"]

Dreamcast also had better graphics than N64

It also had unique controller that had weird portable system involved

and it also was selling like hotcakes in the beginning.

How did that system do?

ithilgore2006

I think he means the VMU.

But boy is his post scrambled...

[QUOTE="TriangleHard"]

Dreamcast also had better graphics than N64

It also had unique controller that had weird portable system involved

and it also was selling like hotcakes in the beginning.

How did that system do?

ithilgore2006

I think he means the VMUs - Visual Memory Units.

I doubt any Wii game will graphically match Splinter Cell: Chaos Theory for the Xbox. And don't show me any crappy half-assed screenshots with messed up textures to prove me wrong. Only the people who have played Choas Theory on the Xbox would know what I'm talking about.

P.S: Galaxy is shaping up quite nicely (gameplay wise and graphically) 

[QUOTE="ithilgore2006"][QUOTE="TriangleHard"]

Dreamcast also had better graphics than N64

It also had unique controller that had weird portable system involved

and it also was selling like hotcakes in the beginning.

How did that system do?

-Spock-

I think he means the VMUs - Visual Memory Units.

The TC must not know about other early Xbox games.

Such as:

Project Gotham Racing

Jet Set Radio Future

Blood Wake

Rallisport Challenge

And even Some PS2 games like:

MGS2

Twisted Metal Black

Final Fantasy X

Onimusha

Devil May Cry

And Some Gamecube Games like:

Luigi's mansion

Rogue Leader

Super Mario Sunshine

These are First Gen games that looked good at the time and still look good so I don't think that's a good excuse for your argument.

Crappy Halo pic btw. But Nintendo Fanboys don't care about graphics, because thats what Nintendo wants (sort of) As long as the Wii is selling, it doesn't matter what games they put on the market.Toaster_Cell

Exactly.

You're deluding yourselves. Consoles get better graphics in time because the developers learn to use the hardware better, hardware that before the console's lunch they had barely any idea how to work with. The Wii hardware howerver brings nothing new. it's an upgrade of Gamecube hardware. Developers who've known how to work with last gen hardware already know how to program with the Wii. There is nothing new or fancy for developers to tap into.

 You could argue that devopers can do great things once they learn how to better use the Cells processors, or the 360's 3-cores, or the advanced architecture of their graphics chips. What's new for Wii developers to learn? The hardware is last gen, and already bled to death. 

You're deluding yourselves. Consoles get better graphics in time because the developers learn to use the hardware better, hardware that before the console's lunch they had barely any idea how to work with. The Wii hardware howerver brings nothing new. it's an upgrade of Gamecube hardware. Developers who've known how to work with last gen hardware already know how to program with the Wii. There is nothing new or fancy for developers to tap into.

 You could argue that devopers can do great things once they learn how to better use the Cells processors, or the 360's 3-cores, or the advanced architecture of their graphics chips. What's new for Wii developers to learn? The hardware is last gen, and already bled to death. 

Jotunnn

I agree completely... that's the same stance I have on the Wii.  Yes it has a higher clock/different CPU, and overall I'm sure it's been upgraded over the GC, but not by MUCH.  We're not talking completely different architecture here, just faster versions of what was already available for the GC.  I don't think we'll see anything much better out of the Wii, definately not Ninja Gaiden Black type of stuff.  The only reason that screen looks so good is because it's in 720p, which is a resolution that the Wii hardware can't even do.

I would say using Ninja Gaiden would be a better comparison... and if a game that looks like that will show up on the Wii, it's no real accomplishment.

A good example to support this argument would be Red Steel, in which during pre-release everyone was hyping high-res screen captures for the game, and I admit it did look great - almost made me get a Wii.  And then when it came out... pure graphics floppage.

Crappy Halo pic btw. But Nintendo Fanboys don't care about graphics, because thats what Nintendo wants (sort of) As long as the Wii is selling, it doesn't matter what games they put on the market.Toaster_Cell

acutally they do it was cows saying grapchis dont matter last gen.

please atleast geti it.

You're deluding yourselves. Consoles get better graphics in time because the developers learn to use the hardware better, hardware that before the console's lunch they had barely any idea how to work with. The Wii hardware howerver brings nothing new. it's an upgrade of Gamecube hardware. Developers who've known how to work with last gen hardware already know how to program with the Wii. There is nothing new or fancy for developers to tap into.

 You could argue that devopers can do great things once they learn how to better use the Cells processors, or the 360's 3-cores, or the advanced architecture of their graphics chips. What's new for Wii developers to learn? The hardware is last gen, and already bled to death. 

Jotunnn

prove link anything to back that one up :|

ok fanboy just stop :|

No offense, but those are early halo screens. The floor textures were much, much, much better than that. :|Ninja-Vox

Yeah, those pre-release shots of Halo always get used in comparison threads like this.

first gen xbox titles looked beteer than late gen n64/ps1 titles.

first gen 360 titles look better than late gen xbox/gc/ps2 titles.

first gen wii titles look worse than late gen xbox titles.

thread fail.  

first gen xbox titles looked beteer than late gen n64/ps1 titles.

first gen 360 titles look better than late gen xbox/gc/ps2 titles.

first gen wii titles look worse than late gen xbox titles.

thread fail.

JPOBS

[QUOTE="JPOBS"]

first gen xbox titles looked beteer than late gen n64/ps1 titles.

first gen 360 titles look better than late gen xbox/gc/ps2 titles.

first gen wii titles look worse than late gen xbox titles.

thread fail.

MapleGrunt

I was just about to post that.

1st gen Wii titles were rushed ports. Don't forget that one ;)

[QUOTE="Jotunnn"]

You're deluding yourselves. Consoles get better graphics in time because the developers learn to use the hardware better, hardware that before the console's lunch they had barely any idea how to work with. The Wii hardware howerver brings nothing new. it's an upgrade of Gamecube hardware. Developers who've known how to work with last gen hardware already know how to program with the Wii. There is nothing new or fancy for developers to tap into.

 You could argue that devopers can do great things once they learn how to better use the Cells processors, or the 360's 3-cores, or the advanced architecture of their graphics chips. What's new for Wii developers to learn? The hardware is last gen, and already bled to death. 

wavebrid

prove link anything to back that one up :|

ok fanboy just stop :|

Straight from the Horse's mouth.

If you can modify GC games to work with the Wii-mote, that really implies that there are no architectural differences between the CPU and GPU or major modification to the game's code would be required.

I know that part of that interview was taken out of context, and I'm not saying the Wii hardware is the same as the GC, because that would clearly be incorrect.  There are definately clock differences, but the fact that you can use modified development tools and basically pick up where you left off from the GC means little to no architectural differences.  So we're talking better fill-rates, better processing for physics, AI, etc., but no new special effects.