I wish the Wii had 360's graphics...

[QUOTE="Hir0_N"][QUOTE="Teufelhuhn"][QUOTE="Homesrfan"][QUOTE="Teufelhuhn"][QUOTE="Homesrfan"]

Wii's graphics are comparible to GC's for a reason... to make it cheaper, thus making it an easier buy for casuals.

If Wii had the remote but next gen graphics and it was $600... it would not be winning.

Ganon_919

Actually I'd probably say it has GameCube hardware because Nintendo wanted to make it profitable. Even if they'd wanted to keep it at $250, they could have put in a better GPU and some more memory and taken a loss just like MS and Sony.

Nintendo will never take a loss on a console.

Microsoft and Sony are huge corparations with many divisions. Nintendo is just gaming. They have to make a profit on it... it's their only choice.

Nintendo is also raking in money faster then they can count from just Pokemon alone, I'm sure they can afford to take a hit for the first 12 months or so.  I mean neither of us could prove it since we don't actually know how much money they have, but when I look at the sales charts I'd be skeptical as to why they would "need" to make a profit on the console itself. 

Nintendo didnt know if the Wii was going to fail or not. So they didnt take any risk.

If you ask me, they took a HUGE risk...

that didnt get out right. I mean yes they took a huge risk. but if the wii would have failed at least they would gain a little money.

ROFL, this sure looks better than halo 3 huh?

[QUOTE="Big_T-Mac"][QUOTE="Teufelhuhn"][QUOTE="Homesrfan"]

Wii's graphics are comparible to GC's for a reason... to make it cheaper, thus making it an easier buy for casuals.

If Wii had the remote but next gen graphics and it was $600... it would not be winning.

Hir0_N

Actually I'd probably say it has GameCube hardware because Nintendo wanted to make it profitable. Even if they'd wanted to keep it at $250, they could have put in a better GPU and some more memory and taken a loss just like MS and Sony.

its obvious you know so much about making a console :lol:

Actually they could have made a significant improvement to both the CPU and GPU whilst maintaining profit. But whats done is done., at least it certainly is better than Gamecube.

Ok, this has gotta stop. How in the hell is Mario's graphics in anyway impressive in the least?soulsofblayck

Nintendo's wonderful ability to make everything look nice and round.  thats what's impressive 

ROFL, this sure looks better than halo 3 huh?

 

 

DoctorBunny

That's exactly what TC did. Found the worst picture... so basically YOU WIN! :roll: 

[QUOTE="soulsofblayck"]Ok, this has gotta stop. How in the hell is Mario's graphics in anyway impressive in the least?scorpionldr

Nintendo's wonderful ability to make everything look nice and round.  thats what's impressive 

It looks pretty damn impressive if you ask me, but to say it looks better than Halo 3 is a bit out there.

[QUOTE="DoctorBunny"]

ROFL, this sure looks better than halo 3 huh?

 

 

 

Homesrfan

That's exactly what TC did. Found the worst picture... so basically YOU WIN! :roll: 

I took a picture from IGN...not some random site. And btw that wasnt my point at all. I didnt want to say that Wii has better graphics and u know that.

[QUOTE="Homesrfan"][QUOTE="DoctorBunny"]

ROFL, this sure looks better than halo 3 huh?

 

 

 

Hir0_N

That's exactly what TC did. Found the worst picture... so basically YOU WIN! :roll:

I took a picture from IGN...not some random site. And btw that wasnt my point at all. I didnt want to say that Wii has better graphics and u know that.

Gameplay picture > Tech/Doctored picture... theres no way to spin it. And where did I mention the wii?

Wow lol,that crappy pic of halo 3 still kills that jaggie mario picture.

I have played with the wii mote and no thanks,the 360 controller is much better.

Wow lol,that crappy pic of halo 3 still kills that jaggie mario picture.

I have played with the wii mote and no thanks,the 360 controller is much better.

tree-branch

I'm sure forming an opinion with zero knowledge of what it is you're forming an opinion about is a great way to seem unbiased. 

[QUOTE="Hir0_N"][QUOTE="Homesrfan"][QUOTE="DoctorBunny"]

ROFL, this sure looks better than halo 3 huh?

 

 

 

DoctorBunny

That's exactly what TC did. Found the worst picture... so basically YOU WIN! :roll:

I took a picture from IGN...not some random site. And btw that wasnt my point at all. I didnt want to say that Wii has better graphics and u know that.

Gameplay picture > Tech/Doctored picture... theres no way to spin it. And where did I mention the wii?

:|

[QUOTE="Homesrfan"][QUOTE="DoctorBunny"]

ROFL, this sure looks better than halo 3 huh?

 

 

 

Hir0_N

That's exactly what TC did. Found the worst picture... so basically YOU WIN! :roll:

I took a picture from IGN...not some random site. And btw that wasnt my point at all. I didnt want to say that Wii has better graphics and u know that.

My comment wasn't a direct rip at you. 

IGN, better? 

 

 

IGN, better? 

DoctorBunny

http://www.nintendolife.com/images/original/articles/2006/06/08/super_mario_galaxy_footage/attachment/galaxy.jpg

What is this site? This screenshots isnt even direct feed. its like they took a picture with a camera. Man ur so ignorant I dont even want to argue with u. I mean u dont even know the difference between gameplay/real time/retouched screenshot/direct feed.

[spoiler]

  [/spoiler]

IGN, better? 

DoctorBunny

I like those last two.. lookin' great. I wonder what it'll look like when it's done...

After having watched the footage of Halo 3, I can say that the game looks fantastic.  Haters have been owned, and they know it; that's why they've been crying about it all day.Michael85

I am not a hater and not owned. Like lemmings I was expecting Halo 3 to be at least on par with GeOW in terms of technical achivements since Halo 3 is so big.

IGN, better?

DoctorBunny

Much. You can't deny that is a pretty looking game. 

[QUOTE="DoctorBunny"]

IGN, better?

Homesrfan

Much. You can't deny that is a pretty looking game.

Graphically, i've seen better on the original xbox and gamecube. Your standards are VERY low 

[QUOTE="Homesrfan"][QUOTE="DoctorBunny"]

IGN, better?

DoctorBunny

Much. You can't deny that is a pretty looking game.

Graphically, i've seen better on the original xbox and gamecube. Your standards are VERY low

Yeah, okay... are you blind?  Just because it's not next-gen doesn't mean it's not gorgeous. And I love how you said that the graphics were bad but used crappy pictures anyways. If the graphics are that bad, why use bad pictures? You got self-owned when you used actual gameplay, direct feed pictures. 

[QUOTE="DoctorBunny"][QUOTE="Homesrfan"][QUOTE="DoctorBunny"]

IGN, better?

Homesrfan

Much. You can't deny that is a pretty looking game.

Graphically, i've seen better on the original xbox and gamecube. Your standards are VERY low

Yeah, okay... are you blind? Just because it's not next-gen doesn't mean it's not gorgeous. And I love how you said that the graphics were bad but used crappy pictures anyways. If the graphics are that bad, why use bad pictures? You got self-owned when you used actual gameplay, direct feed pictures.

More like self owned when you called those pretty rofl. Sorry but there are better looking xbox and gamecube games. let me guess, you'll deny that too huh?. And the last 2 are 2 of the BEST screens. sorry 

[QUOTE="Homesrfan"][QUOTE="DoctorBunny"][QUOTE="Homesrfan"][QUOTE="DoctorBunny"]

IGN, better?

DoctorBunny

Much. You can't deny that is a pretty looking game.

Graphically, i've seen better on the original xbox and gamecube. Your standards are VERY low

Yeah, okay... are you blind? Just because it's not next-gen doesn't mean it's not gorgeous. And I love how you said that the graphics were bad but used crappy pictures anyways. If the graphics are that bad, why use bad pictures? You got self-owned when you used actual gameplay, direct feed pictures.

More like self owned when you called those pretty rofl. Sorry but there are better looking xbox and gamecube games. let me guess, you'll deny that too huh?. And the last 2 are 2 of the BEST screens. sorry

You make claims but have nothing to back it up...

You're so blinded by your fanboyism that you can't appreciate a well designed game. 

[QUOTE="DoctorBunny"][QUOTE="Homesrfan"][QUOTE="DoctorBunny"][QUOTE="Homesrfan"][QUOTE="DoctorBunny"]

IGN, better?

Homesrfan

Much. You can't deny that is a pretty looking game.

Graphically, i've seen better on the original xbox and gamecube. Your standards are VERY low

Yeah, okay... are you blind? Just because it's not next-gen doesn't mean it's not gorgeous. And I love how you said that the graphics were bad but used crappy pictures anyways. If the graphics are that bad, why use bad pictures? You got self-owned when you used actual gameplay, direct feed pictures.

More like self owned when you called those pretty rofl. Sorry but there are better looking xbox and gamecube games. let me guess, you'll deny that too huh?. And the last 2 are 2 of the BEST screens. sorry

You make claims but have nothing to back it up...

You're so blinded by your fanboyism that you can't appreciate a well designed game.

Ive done nothing but post images proving me right. You just say scream fanboy b/c I dont agre with the graphics of a nintendo 64 game being amazing. Who is the fanboy here?

On the original xbox, gameplay. 

[QUOTE="Homesrfan"][QUOTE="DoctorBunny"][QUOTE="Homesrfan"][QUOTE="DoctorBunny"][QUOTE="Homesrfan"][QUOTE="DoctorBunny"]

IGN, better?

DoctorBunny

Much. You can't deny that is a pretty looking game.

Graphically, i've seen better on the original xbox and gamecube. Your standards are VERY low

Yeah, okay... are you blind? Just because it's not next-gen doesn't mean it's not gorgeous. And I love how you said that the graphics were bad but used crappy pictures anyways. If the graphics are that bad, why use bad pictures? You got self-owned when you used actual gameplay, direct feed pictures.

More like self owned when you called those pretty rofl. Sorry but there are better looking xbox and gamecube games. let me guess, you'll deny that too huh?. And the last 2 are 2 of the BEST screens. sorry

You make claims but have nothing to back it up...

You're so blinded by your fanboyism that you can't appreciate a well designed game.

Ive done nothing but post images proving me right. You just say scream fanboy b/c I dont agre with the graphics of a nintendo 64 game being amazing. Who is the fanboy here?

On the original xbox, gameplay.

Riddick had jaggies galore, but I will admit that it did look awesome. Mario still has a chance of looking better. They are totally different art direction though. Mario is much brighter and colorful, while Riddick is mainly drab.

[QUOTE="Ganon_919"][QUOTE="Big_T-Mac"][QUOTE="Teufelhuhn"][QUOTE="Homesrfan"]

Wii's graphics are comparible to GC's for a reason... to make it cheaper, thus making it an easier buy for casuals.

If Wii had the remote but next gen graphics and it was $600... it would not be winning.

Teufelhuhn

Actually I'd probably say it has GameCube hardware because Nintendo wanted to make it profitable. Even if they'd wanted to keep it at $250, they could have put in a better GPU and some more memory and taken a loss just like MS and Sony.

I'm pretty sure it wouldn't costt $250 if they did.

I may be wrong, but doesn't it cost about $200 to make then add Wii Sports and sell it at a profit?

There's absolutely no way it could cost them $200 to make.  They sold the GameCube for $200, and there's only been marginal improvements to the hardware since then. 

How about it is probably $150 then add in the other stuff like Wii Sports, the Controller, and Wifi and you would get about just less then what they're selling it for. But I'm only guessingNintendo_Ownes7

And I suppose R&D costs nothing? :roll: 

[QUOTE="DoctorBunny"][QUOTE="Homesrfan"][QUOTE="DoctorBunny"][QUOTE="Homesrfan"][QUOTE="DoctorBunny"][QUOTE="Homesrfan"][QUOTE="DoctorBunny"]

IGN, better?

Homesrfan

Much. You can't deny that is a pretty looking game.

Graphically, i've seen better on the original xbox and gamecube. Your standards are VERY low

Yeah, okay... are you blind? Just because it's not next-gen doesn't mean it's not gorgeous. And I love how you said that the graphics were bad but used crappy pictures anyways. If the graphics are that bad, why use bad pictures? You got self-owned when you used actual gameplay, direct feed pictures.

More like self owned when you called those pretty rofl. Sorry but there are better looking xbox and gamecube games. let me guess, you'll deny that too huh?. And the last 2 are 2 of the BEST screens. sorry

You make claims but have nothing to back it up...

You're so blinded by your fanboyism that you can't appreciate a well designed game.

Ive done nothing but post images proving me right. You just say scream fanboy b/c I dont agre with the graphics of a nintendo 64 game being amazing. Who is the fanboy here?

On the original xbox, gameplay.

Riddick had jaggies galore, but I will admit that it did look awesome. Mario still has a chance of looking better. They are totally different art direction though. Mario is much brighter and colorful, while Riddick is mainly drab.

Nice, theres logic for once in this thread. IMO I would of love to have mario with the graphics of kameo or ratchet and clank, wouldn't you? This thread is about graphics, not gameplay, remember it for yor reply :) 

Ok, this has gotta stop. How in the hell is Mario's graphics in anyway impressive in the least?soulsofblayck

but it looks like a cartoon, which are incredibly hard to simulate compared to real life, gritty graphics.

/casm. 

[QUOTE="Homesrfan"][QUOTE="DoctorBunny"][QUOTE="Homesrfan"][QUOTE="DoctorBunny"][QUOTE="Homesrfan"][QUOTE="DoctorBunny"][QUOTE="Homesrfan"][QUOTE="DoctorBunny"]

IGN, better?

DoctorBunny

Much. You can't deny that is a pretty looking game.

Graphically, i've seen better on the original xbox and gamecube. Your standards are VERY low

Yeah, okay... are you blind? Just because it's not next-gen doesn't mean it's not gorgeous. And I love how you said that the graphics were bad but used crappy pictures anyways. If the graphics are that bad, why use bad pictures? You got self-owned when you used actual gameplay, direct feed pictures.

More like self owned when you called those pretty rofl. Sorry but there are better looking xbox and gamecube games. let me guess, you'll deny that too huh?. And the last 2 are 2 of the BEST screens. sorry

You make claims but have nothing to back it up...

You're so blinded by your fanboyism that you can't appreciate a well designed game.

Ive done nothing but post images proving me right. You just say scream fanboy b/c I dont agre with the graphics of a nintendo 64 game being amazing. Who is the fanboy here?

On the original xbox, gameplay.

Riddick had jaggies galore, but I will admit that it did look awesome. Mario still has a chance of looking better. They are totally different art direction though. Mario is much brighter and colorful, while Riddick is mainly drab.

Nice, theres logic for once in this thread. IMO I would of love to have mario with the graphics of kameo or ratchet and clank, wouldn't you? This thread is about graphics, not gameplay, remember it for yor reply :)

Yes, but that doesn't change the original point I had that this game looks gorgeous. It's not next-gen but it still looks cool. 

[QUOTE="Nintendo_Ownes7"]How about it is probably $150 then add in the other stuff like Wii Sports, the Controller, and Wifi and you would get about just less then what they're selling it for. But I'm only guessingTylendal

And I suppose R&D costs nothing? :roll: 

[QUOTE="DoctorBunny"][QUOTE="Homesrfan"][QUOTE="DoctorBunny"][QUOTE="Homesrfan"][QUOTE="DoctorBunny"][QUOTE="Homesrfan"][QUOTE="DoctorBunny"][QUOTE="Homesrfan"][QUOTE="DoctorBunny"]

IGN, better?

Homesrfan

Much. You can't deny that is a pretty looking game.

Graphically, i've seen better on the original xbox and gamecube. Your standards are VERY low

Yeah, okay... are you blind? Just because it's not next-gen doesn't mean it's not gorgeous. And I love how you said that the graphics were bad but used crappy pictures anyways. If the graphics are that bad, why use bad pictures? You got self-owned when you used actual gameplay, direct feed pictures.

More like self owned when you called those pretty rofl. Sorry but there are better looking xbox and gamecube games. let me guess, you'll deny that too huh?. And the last 2 are 2 of the BEST screens. sorry

You make claims but have nothing to back it up...

You're so blinded by your fanboyism that you can't appreciate a well designed game.

Ive done nothing but post images proving me right. You just say scream fanboy b/c I dont agre with the graphics of a nintendo 64 game being amazing. Who is the fanboy here?

On the original xbox, gameplay.

Riddick had jaggies galore, but I will admit that it did look awesome. Mario still has a chance of looking better. They are totally different art direction though. Mario is much brighter and colorful, while Riddick is mainly drab.

Nice, theres logic for once in this thread. IMO I would of love to have mario with the graphics of kameo or ratchet and clank, wouldn't you? This thread is about graphics, not gameplay, remember it for yor reply :)

Yes, but that doesn't change the original point I had that this game looks gorgeous. It's not next-gen but it still looks cool.

Maybe 3 years ago, but spending $250 on my wii, I dont feel the price is justified with the graphics it has been producing. It gets harder and hrder to want to play it when I have a ps3 and 360 sitting right there with a HDTV. Plus i've been playing mario since the NES days, which most have not. This is the first main mario game, not spinoffs, that does not look top of the line.

The massive jaggies are killing me with all the screens i've seen of the game. 

[QUOTE="SpruceCaboose"] Way to rip one of the worst screenies to compare it to the best from the other two. Your thread fails.Homesrfan

To be fair, us sheep get screwed with this trick all the time. Namely, Spider-man 3, GT Pro Series, and Far Cry.

[QUOTE="Homesrfan"][QUOTE="DoctorBunny"][QUOTE="Homesrfan"][QUOTE="DoctorBunny"][QUOTE="Homesrfan"][QUOTE="DoctorBunny"][QUOTE="Homesrfan"][QUOTE="DoctorBunny"][QUOTE="Homesrfan"][QUOTE="DoctorBunny"]

IGN, better?

DoctorBunny

Much. You can't deny that is a pretty looking game.

Graphically, i've seen better on the original xbox and gamecube. Your standards are VERY low

Yeah, okay... are you blind? Just because it's not next-gen doesn't mean it's not gorgeous. And I love how you said that the graphics were bad but used crappy pictures anyways. If the graphics are that bad, why use bad pictures? You got self-owned when you used actual gameplay, direct feed pictures.

More like self owned when you called those pretty rofl. Sorry but there are better looking xbox and gamecube games. let me guess, you'll deny that too huh?. And the last 2 are 2 of the BEST screens. sorry

You make claims but have nothing to back it up...

You're so blinded by your fanboyism that you can't appreciate a well designed game.

Ive done nothing but post images proving me right. You just say scream fanboy b/c I dont agre with the graphics of a nintendo 64 game being amazing. Who is the fanboy here?

On the original xbox, gameplay.

Riddick had jaggies galore, but I will admit that it did look awesome. Mario still has a chance of looking better. They are totally different art direction though. Mario is much brighter and colorful, while Riddick is mainly drab.

Nice, theres logic for once in this thread. IMO I would of love to have mario with the graphics of kameo or ratchet and clank, wouldn't you? This thread is about graphics, not gameplay, remember it for yor reply :)

Yes, but that doesn't change the original point I had that this game looks gorgeous. It's not next-gen but it still looks cool.

Maybe 3 years ago, but spending $250 on my wii, I dont feel the price is justified with the graphics it has been producing. It gets harder and hrder to want to play it when I have a ps3 and 360 sitting right there with a HDTV. Plus i've been playing mario since the NES days, which most have not. This is the first main mario game, not spinoffs, that does not look top of the line.

The massive jaggies are killing me with all the screens i've seen of the game.

...What are you talking about?  Galaxy is leaps and bounds more visually stunning than Sunshine, and that's given their respective platforms. 

[QUOTE="Homesrfan"]

[QUOTE="SpruceCaboose"] Way to rip one of the worst screenies to compare it to the best from the other two. Your thread fails.Truth-slayer

To be fair, us sheep get screwed with this trick all the time. Namely, Spider-man 3, GT Pro Series, and Far Cry.

[QUOTE="DoctorBunny"][QUOTE="Homesrfan"][QUOTE="DoctorBunny"][QUOTE="Homesrfan"][QUOTE="DoctorBunny"][QUOTE="Homesrfan"][QUOTE="DoctorBunny"][QUOTE="Homesrfan"][QUOTE="DoctorBunny"][QUOTE="Homesrfan"][QUOTE="DoctorBunny"]

IGN, better?

Michael85

Much. You can't deny that is a pretty looking game.

Graphically, i've seen better on the original xbox and gamecube. Your standards are VERY low

Yeah, okay... are you blind? Just because it's not next-gen doesn't mean it's not gorgeous. And I love how you said that the graphics were bad but used crappy pictures anyways. If the graphics are that bad, why use bad pictures? You got self-owned when you used actual gameplay, direct feed pictures.

More like self owned when you called those pretty rofl. Sorry but there are better looking xbox and gamecube games. let me guess, you'll deny that too huh?. And the last 2 are 2 of the BEST screens. sorry

You make claims but have nothing to back it up...

You're so blinded by your fanboyism that you can't appreciate a well designed game.

Ive done nothing but post images proving me right. You just say scream fanboy b/c I dont agre with the graphics of a nintendo 64 game being amazing. Who is the fanboy here?

On the original xbox, gameplay.

Riddick had jaggies galore, but I will admit that it did look awesome. Mario still has a chance of looking better. They are totally different art direction though. Mario is much brighter and colorful, while Riddick is mainly drab.

Nice, theres logic for once in this thread. IMO I would of love to have mario with the graphics of kameo or ratchet and clank, wouldn't you? This thread is about graphics, not gameplay, remember it for yor reply :)

Yes, but that doesn't change the original point I had that this game looks gorgeous. It's not next-gen but it still looks cool.

Maybe 3 years ago, but spending $250 on my wii, I dont feel the price is justified with the graphics it has been producing. It gets harder and hrder to want to play it when I have a ps3 and 360 sitting right there with a HDTV. Plus i've been playing mario since the NES days, which most have not. This is the first main mario game, not spinoffs, that does not look top of the line.

The massive jaggies are killing me with all the screens i've seen of the game.

...What are you talking about? Galaxy is leaps and bounds more visually stunning than Sunshine, and that's given their respective platforms.

Yeah... seriously. This is an obvious improvement from last-gen.

[QUOTE="SpruceCaboose"] Way to rip one of the worst screenies to compare it to the best from the other two. Your thread fails.Hir0_N

get a better screenshot, it wont change the fact that Halo 3 is Halo 2 HD

So you've picked up Halo 3 already? Nice...:roll:

hahaha lol

awesome thread. 

Duh! Mario Galaxy only had one character moving on screen, a black background, and a few balls of planets. With this they can put more detail on Mario and his surrounding thus effectively making the graphics better because of minimal things hppening in the environment which is pretty small.

Halo 3 has more things happening on screen such as more characters running around, people can drive, gun animations, larger levels, multiplayer online, etc. This of course will cause the graphics to take a hit.

Anyone with a brain knows this, if RE 4 had multiplayer with 52 characters on-screen and they could get in vechiles and it had realistic physics then the graphics would take a hit.

Gears of War- Smaller game and less characters on screen means they can put more into graphics.

Halo 3- Huge levels and a lot of characterd running around plus vechiles means the graphics got to take a hit in order to maintain a stable framerate.

If the Wii tries running Halo 3 with the physics, 42 characters on screen, and so much happening, it would blow up.

Now show me a 360 game with one character on screen like Galaxy......looks a thousand times better?