Wii vs. Original Xbox: Capabilities

  • 78 results
  • 1
  • 2

This topic is locked from further discussion.

Avatar image for navyguy21
navyguy21

17911

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 10

User Lists: 0

#1 navyguy21
Member since 2003 • 17911 Posts

Hey guys, I created this thread because of another thread comparing the Conduit to other Xbox games, so i decided to go a little "in-depth" with it. This article basically explains that theoretically, Wii is more capable. But when designing Wii's GPU, Nintendo chose to place "caps" on rendering vertex, lighting, and pixel operations so it will never outperform Xbox graphics.

Xbox Vs. Wii: A Comparative Analysis


Xbox Vs. Wii: A Comparative Analysis

Robbie Bach, President of Microsoft's Entertainment and Devices division, (he's a step above Peter Moore, and is the head of the "tri-force" [wink wink] that brought together the Xbox and 360), recently made this statement on being questioned about the undisputed success of the Wii

"I'm actually not-the product has gotten more broad-base acclaim that I would have expected. It's a very nice product, but it actually has a relatively specific audience and a fairly specific appeal, frankly, based on one feature, which is the controller itself. And the rest of the product is actually not a great product-no disrespect, but...the video graphics on it aren't very strong; the box itself is kind of underpowered; it doesn't play DVDs; there are a lot of down-line components that aren't actually that interesting"

This was only the beginning of his string of rambling thoughts he went on say which I quote, "The challenge they have is that third parties aren't going to make much money on this platform because Nintendo is going to make all that money, and their ability to compete with something like a Halo or produce an experience like Madden on their system is going to be tough. They don't have the graphics Horsepower that even Xbox 1 had. So it makes sort of the comparison set a little bit difficult."

Both these statements showcase that the popularity, which translates into the commercial success of Nintendo's Wii, is pinching both Microsoft and Sony's pocket, it's not only eating into their share of their market but big shot developers are setting up exclusive production houses to develop ex-cloosive games for Nintendo's console (E.A. being one of the many), the "Army of Two" may not be enough to upstage this family entertainment channel.

The lackluster of the Wii in the graphics and processing department has been the favorite attacking ground for the opposition and it is true that the console is grossly underpowered than current generation systems and relies on its innovative controller and its bunch of games to cover this up to an extent, but Nintendo's true incarnation of the next generation is due as we speak.

The statement of Bach was a little hard to digest, maybe it was just another part of the unstable rambling or did it hold ground and could be proved with substantial evidence, I smelt a mystery in those words of Bach and went hunting for clues on the internet and was somewhat able to come to a conclusion.

Xbox Vs. Wii Table

Well, the verdict is that the Wii has more processing speed than the original Xbox and can allocate more memory with its 24 Mib internal programmable memory whereas the original Xbox had only 64 Mib memory to play around with. The problem with the Xbox's Power P.C setup was the fact that even though it clocked at higher speeds than the G.C. it was far less efficient to work round with, it would take a considerable amount of time and resources to actually understand the working architecture, so a game as fluid and beautiful as Ninja gaiden took a long time in the development room.

A Wii is technically 1.75 faster than a GameCube. making it easier for developers to understand what they have to work with, this debate applies to the current generation as well even though the PS3 has a really powerful Cell processor but the way the developers are able to milk this power depends on time, F.E.A.R is a ****c tale of this epic power struggle. it looks like a horrendous port of the original P.C. and the 360 versions, even Resistance has been tagged as Ps2.5 game rather than being a full fledged PS3 game, second generation PS3 titles like MGS4 and Killzone 2 will perhaps show off the true power of the PS3.

In a nutshell the X-box may pull off a Twilight princess (hypothetically speaking... no need to butcher me on this) but it will take a longer time to develop, more time equals more money and less profits.

Coming onto the GPU, there is not much known about the Wii's GPU capabilities but the developers on the condition of anonymity have this to rant about the star spangled "Hollywood" chip

Developer 1 had this to say:

"The Wii's GPU has fixed functions for vertex, lighting, and pixel operations, all 'programmable shaders' means is that the code you write for the shader gets run on the vertex and pixel hardware of the GPU. This is how it works on the high-end ATI and Nvidia GPU parts. The Wii is an older fixed function design where you have lots of operations but the pipelines are not programmable in the sense of downloading shader code to run. Almost all the shader effects on PC, Xbox 360 and PS3 can be reproduced on the Wii by re-implementing them with the fixed function hardware of the Wii's GPU. Most games just port the effect over. A few teams have gone as far as making a shader-to-Wii conversion tool. It reads the shader code and generates the fixed function code necessary to achieve the same result. Keep in mind that the Wii's GPU is not as fast or feature rich as the Xbox 360 or PS3, but that doesn't mean you can't get very close results."

Developer 2 said:

"The fixed-function design to that of the Gamecube is basically pretty similar to Nvidia's seven-year-old GeForce2.There are three main differences which will result in graphics improvements. One, the increased memory clock speed, from 162 megahertz to 243 megahertz, means that it is easier to do enough pixels for 480p mode versus 480i. Two, the enhanced memory size of the Wii gives much more room for image-related operations such as anti-aliasing, motion blur, etc. Three the performance to these memory systems from the graphics chip is also improved. So full-screen effects and increased texture usage seem likely as a result..."

Prior to Red Steel's release their Lead Team member admitted to the fact that the Wii was more powerful but the Xbox could pull off certain things that it can make which is difficult to make on the Wii.

So the lowdown on the graphical front was that the even though the Wii can pull off certain games with striking detail as the Xbox but certain real high end games like Doom 3, Half life 2, Ninja gaiden might not be able to make an effective transition due to the lack of the shaders and the lack of 720p. Its easier to find faults in the realm of High Definition (Halo 3 is a perfect example, the whole world is up in arms with the whole jaggies bit from the Beta version) so a developer may have to spend a lot of time on the board to make every tiny detail as clear to the gamer who'll go grumbling if he sees the slightest signs of Polygon tear.

I did have a look at a couple of multiplatform games to assess the so called glaring disparities between the two consoles and found that it was pretty difficult to notice any apparent differences amongst certain games, barring The Godfather which actually looked far better on Microsoft machine than the Wii. The Left ones are from the Xbox version and the Right ones are from the Wii version of the game.

Xbox Vs. Wii: A Comparative Analysis

Xbox Vs. Wii: A Comparative Analysis

Xbox Vs. Wii: A Comparative Analysis

Xbox Vs. Wii: A Comparative Analysis

Xbox Vs. Wii: A Comparative Analysis

Xbox Vs. Wii: A Comparative Analysis

I'd be honest to admit that if we'd go Red Steel Vs Halo, then Halo would win hands down but if we were to stack up Halo against Twilight princess, the award would go to the latter. On the other hand The Godfather on the Xbox looks miles better than the Wii edition, why are there such discrepancies in the games being developed.

Dev process plays a huge role in squeezing out the juice from the given hardware, the whole point of the discussion revolves around the amount of effort being put in the development of Wii games to make the most efficient allocation of its scarce resources as compared to its feature rich current generation counterparts. Hey, if they can pull of a game as fast and visually furious like God of War II on the ageing PS2, Wii has miles to go in that context (2010 is my bet before it releases its next gen). Metroid Prime 3, Super Mario galaxy and a bunch of other games will show it ain't far behind. Micro$oft can feel free to take pot shots at gaming most revered company but everyone's favorite joke at one point of time has sent Nintendo laughing all the way to the bank.

Avatar image for Squall18
Squall18

3756

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 8

User Lists: 0

#2 Squall18
Member since 2004 • 3756 Posts

I think Mario Galaxy looks better than xbox games.

But yeah, the Wii this gen hasn't really rallied my hardcore gaming at all. At first it did, but that lasted like 6 months.

Avatar image for SolidTy
SolidTy

49991

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#3 SolidTy
Member since 2005 • 49991 Posts

This is interesting, but I think that Devs know that if you are going to make a game on Wii, the Consumers aren't interested in the graphics as they are in the motion capablilities (I'm talking about the Wii Market.)

At this point, the Wii is almost 2, and it hasn't been able to seal the deal completely away from the Last Gen Counterparts, graphically. I know people will play specs all day, but what really matters is what we can play.

Avatar image for SolidTy
SolidTy

49991

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#4 SolidTy
Member since 2005 • 49991 Posts

I think Mario Galaxy looks better than xbox games.

But yeah, the Wii this gen hasn't really rallied my hardcore gaming at all. At first it did, but that lasted like 6 months.

Squall18

I don't. Not at all.

However, it was a fun game, and had certain elements that looked good. Nothing that beat off the last Gen.
Great game though.

Avatar image for FirstDiscovery
FirstDiscovery

5508

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#5 FirstDiscovery
Member since 2008 • 5508 Posts

I think Mario Galaxy looks better than xbox games.

But yeah, the Wii this gen hasn't really rallied my hardcore gaming at all. At first it did, but that lasted like 6 months.

Squall18

You obviously havent played half the XBOX games, Conker happens to be up to current-gen standards

Either way, you used ports as evidence, the 360s GPU is simply much better. The Wii cant compare

Avatar image for SpruceCaboose
SpruceCaboose

24589

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 9

User Lists: 0

#6 SpruceCaboose
Member since 2005 • 24589 Posts
Developers looking to graphics on the Wii as a selling point are clearly barking up the wrong tree.
Avatar image for Rahnyc4
Rahnyc4

6660

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#7 Rahnyc4
Member since 2005 • 6660 Posts
halo vs red steel? red steal looks better than halo in curtain parts of the game.




mind you, i pulled random pics off the net. i didnt even nit pick the pics what so ever.
Avatar image for SolidTy
SolidTy

49991

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#8 SolidTy
Member since 2005 • 49991 Posts

halo vs red steal? red steal looks better than halo in curtain parts of the game.Rahnyc4

I don't remember one curtain, that looked better in Red Steel, Not even One...don't get me started on the gameplay.

Avatar image for FirstDiscovery
FirstDiscovery

5508

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#9 FirstDiscovery
Member since 2008 • 5508 Posts

[QUOTE="Rahnyc4"]halo vs red steal? red steal looks better than halo in curtain parts of the game.SolidTy

I don't remember one curtain, that looked better in Red Steel, Not even One...don't get me started on the gameplay.

Halo 2 looks incredible in many places
Avatar image for che5ter666
che5ter666

703

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#10 che5ter666
Member since 2004 • 703 Posts
Doom 3 stands out in particular to me when it comes to graphics on the original xbox, those were great. Riddick also had great graphics. I don't think the Wee can do graphics like that, they're all 'cartoony' to me, but I'm being honest - I've never played a Wee.
Avatar image for BubbyJello
BubbyJello

2750

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#11 BubbyJello
Member since 2007 • 2750 Posts

[QUOTE="Rahnyc4"]halo vs red steal? red steal looks better than halo in curtain parts of the game.SolidTy

I don't remember one curtain, that looked better in Red Steel, Not even One...don't get me started on the gameplay.

You beat RedSteel? :o

Avatar image for Rahnyc4
Rahnyc4

6660

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#12 Rahnyc4
Member since 2005 • 6660 Posts
[QUOTE="SolidTy"]

[QUOTE="Rahnyc4"]halo vs red steal? red steal looks better than halo in curtain parts of the game.FirstDiscovery

I don't remember one curtain, that looked better in Red Steel, Not even One...don't get me started on the gameplay.

Halo 2 looks incredible in many places

and metroid prime 3 looks better. the fact that developers still dont pull the power out of the wii, is why people compare it to other consoles of past.
Avatar image for manicfoot
manicfoot

2670

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 12

User Lists: 0

#13 manicfoot
Member since 2006 • 2670 Posts

[QUOTE="Rahnyc4"]halo vs red steal? red steal looks better than halo in curtain parts of the game.SolidTy

I don't remember one curtain, that looked better in Red Steel, Not even One...don't get me started on the gameplay.

Red Steel actually had some pretty impressive environments in places. The problem is it could look amazing one minute and then you'd walk into an elevator and see a horrible N64 quality texture smeared across the wall.

Avatar image for FirstDiscovery
FirstDiscovery

5508

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#14 FirstDiscovery
Member since 2008 • 5508 Posts
[QUOTE="FirstDiscovery"][QUOTE="SolidTy"]

[QUOTE="Rahnyc4"]halo vs red steal? red steal looks better than halo in curtain parts of the game.Rahnyc4

I don't remember one curtain, that looked better in Red Steel, Not even One...don't get me started on the gameplay.

Halo 2 looks incredible in many places

and metroid prime 3 looks better. the fact that developers still dont pull the power out of the wii, is why people compare it to other consoles of past.

With corridors:|
Avatar image for SolidTy
SolidTy

49991

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#15 SolidTy
Member since 2005 • 49991 Posts
[QUOTE="SolidTy"]

[QUOTE="Rahnyc4"]halo vs red steal? red steal looks better than halo in curtain parts of the game.BubbyJello

I don't remember one curtain, that looked better in Red Steel, Not even One...don't get me started on the gameplay.

You beat RedSteel? :o


My buddy and I took turns, we were so happy to have Wii's at launch(We both bought them, but we played at my house that morning till night)...that enthusiam didn't last more than a week.

I remember every Drape, Curtain, and towel in that game, and none beat Halo's equivalents.

Avatar image for Rahnyc4
Rahnyc4

6660

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#16 Rahnyc4
Member since 2005 • 6660 Posts
[QUOTE="SolidTy"]

[QUOTE="Rahnyc4"]halo vs red steal? red steal looks better than halo in curtain parts of the game.BubbyJello

I don't remember one curtain, that looked better in Red Steel, Not even One...don't get me started on the gameplay.

You beat RedSteel? :o

the last part was actually graphically impressive, i must say.
Avatar image for SolidTy
SolidTy

49991

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#17 SolidTy
Member since 2005 • 49991 Posts
[QUOTE="SolidTy"]

[QUOTE="Rahnyc4"]halo vs red steal? red steal looks better than halo in curtain parts of the game.FirstDiscovery

I don't remember one curtain, that looked better in Red Steel, Not even One...don't get me started on the gameplay.

Halo 2 looks incredible in many places

Yeah, it did...especially the curtains. :)

Avatar image for SpruceCaboose
SpruceCaboose

24589

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 9

User Lists: 0

#18 SpruceCaboose
Member since 2005 • 24589 Posts

Doom 3 stands out in particular to me when it comes to graphics on the original xbox, those were great. Riddick also had great graphics. I don't think the Wee can do graphics like that, they're all 'cartoony' to me, but I'm being honest - I've never played a Wee.che5ter666

Ridick was a great game. I am really hoping that the remake makes it to daylight, as a current gen remake with new features would make my day.

Avatar image for Rahnyc4
Rahnyc4

6660

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#19 Rahnyc4
Member since 2005 • 6660 Posts
i mean one thing i can say about red steel. the environments look way better than what the conduit has been showing.





Avatar image for famicommander
famicommander

8524

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#20 famicommander
Member since 2008 • 8524 Posts
What people fail to understand when comparing the Xbox to the Wii is that you need to use a time line in order to compare systems fairly. To compare launch Wii games to the very best Xbox games is ridiculous. Compare launch Xbox games to the likes of the Wii's best launch games (Excite Truck and Twilight Princess) and it's not even close. Super Mario Galaxy and Metroid Prime 3 look almost as good as anything the Xbox produced, and they came out less than a year after the Wii's original release. Find me an Xbox game which came out within a year of launch that looks half as good as either of those games. The Xbox debuted in 2001. It's best looking games were Doom 3, The Chronicles of Riddick, Splinter Cell: Chaos Theory, and Ninja Gaiden Black. All of those games except Riddick came out four or more years after the Xbox launched, and Riddick came out three years after launch. The Wii hasn't even reached its second birthday yet. You're nuts if you think that Galaxy will not be improved upon in the next few years. There should be no doubt that the Wii is the more powerful system.
Avatar image for che5ter666
che5ter666

703

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#21 che5ter666
Member since 2004 • 703 Posts
Cool Rahnyc4, those environments sure look good.
Avatar image for SpruceCaboose
SpruceCaboose

24589

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 9

User Lists: 0

#22 SpruceCaboose
Member since 2005 • 24589 Posts

What people fail to understand when comparing the Xbox to the Wii is that you need to use a time line in order to compare systems fairly. To compare launch Wii games to the very best Xbox games is ridiculous. Compare launch Xbox games to the likes of the Wii's best launch games (Excite Truck and Twilight Princess) and it's not even close. Super Mario Galaxy and Metroid Prime 3 look almost as good as anything the Xbox produced, and they came out less than a year after the Wii's original release. Find me an Xbox game which came out within a year of launch that looks half as good as either of those games. The Xbox debuted in 2001. It's best looking games were Doom 3, The Chronicles of Riddick, Splinter Cell: Chaos Theory, and Ninja Gaiden Black. All of those games except Riddick came out four or more years after the Xbox launched, and Riddick came out three years after launch. The Wii hasn't even reached its second birthday yet. You're nuts if you think that Galaxy will not be improved upon in the next few years. There should be no doubt that the Wii is the more powerful system.famicommander

And again, that is missing the point of the Wii. The fact that its being compared to a system that has been dead for the last two years should be proof enough that talking about the Wii's power is to miss the point of the system completely.

Avatar image for che5ter666
che5ter666

703

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#23 che5ter666
Member since 2004 • 703 Posts

[QUOTE="che5ter666"]Doom 3 stands out in particular to me when it comes to graphics on the original xbox, those were great. Riddick also had great graphics. I don't think the Wee can do graphics like that, they're all 'cartoony' to me, but I'm being honest - I've never played a Wee.SpruceCaboose

Ridick was a great game. I am really hoping that the remake makes it to daylight, as a current gen remake with new features would make my day.

I remember times when walking through corridors with nothing but a flashlight, only seeing flickers of electric from a snapped wire in the distance. Thinking when is the next enemy going to jump out. Those were tension filled times. :)

Avatar image for famicommander
famicommander

8524

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#24 famicommander
Member since 2008 • 8524 Posts

[QUOTE="famicommander"]What people fail to understand when comparing the Xbox to the Wii is that you need to use a time line in order to compare systems fairly. To compare launch Wii games to the very best Xbox games is ridiculous. Compare launch Xbox games to the likes of the Wii's best launch games (Excite Truck and Twilight Princess) and it's not even close. Super Mario Galaxy and Metroid Prime 3 look almost as good as anything the Xbox produced, and they came out less than a year after the Wii's original release. Find me an Xbox game which came out within a year of launch that looks half as good as either of those games. The Xbox debuted in 2001. It's best looking games were Doom 3, The Chronicles of Riddick, Splinter Cell: Chaos Theory, and Ninja Gaiden Black. All of those games except Riddick came out four or more years after the Xbox launched, and Riddick came out three years after launch. The Wii hasn't even reached its second birthday yet. You're nuts if you think that Galaxy will not be improved upon in the next few years. There should be no doubt that the Wii is the more powerful system.SpruceCaboose

And again, that is missing the point of the Wii. The fact that its being compared to a system that has been dead for the last two years should be proof enough that talking about the Wii's power is to miss the point of the system completely.

I'm aware that the focus of the Wii is something entirely different. I'm more interested in correcting misconception than reinforcing Nintendo's point in the Wii.
Avatar image for manicfoot
manicfoot

2670

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 12

User Lists: 0

#25 manicfoot
Member since 2006 • 2670 Posts
The way I see it the only thing the Xbox has over Wii is its GPU, which is slightly powerful and much easier to work with thanks to its built in shader support. However, Wii uses much more efficient archetecture, has more RAM thats a lot faster and has a larger cache to take FULL advantage of its components. A lot of Xbox games had frame rate issues, the vast majority of good looking Wii games run at 60fps or at 30fps locked.
Avatar image for SpruceCaboose
SpruceCaboose

24589

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 9

User Lists: 0

#26 SpruceCaboose
Member since 2005 • 24589 Posts

I'm aware that the focus of the Wii is something entirely different. I'm more interested in correcting misconception than reinforcing Nintendo's point in the Wii.famicommander

In that case, the Wii is more powerful than the Xbox, but not greatly so.

Avatar image for FirstDiscovery
FirstDiscovery

5508

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#27 FirstDiscovery
Member since 2008 • 5508 Posts
The way I see it the only thing the Xbox has over Wii is its GPU, which is slightly powerful and much easier to work with thanks to its built in shader support. However, Wii uses much more efficient archetecture, has more RAM thats a lot faster and has a larger cache to take FULL advantage of its components. A lot of Xbox games had frame rate issues, the vast majority of good looking Wii games run at 60fps or at 30fps locked.manicfoot
Really. thats like saying the vast majority of Wii titles are ugly. You get good and bad looking games, as you get ones with good and bad framerates
Avatar image for manicfoot
manicfoot

2670

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 12

User Lists: 0

#28 manicfoot
Member since 2006 • 2670 Posts
[QUOTE="manicfoot"]The way I see it the only thing the Xbox has over Wii is its GPU, which is slightly powerful and much easier to work with thanks to its built in shader support. However, Wii uses much more efficient archetecture, has more RAM thats a lot faster and has a larger cache to take FULL advantage of its components. A lot of Xbox games had frame rate issues, the vast majority of good looking Wii games run at 60fps or at 30fps locked.FirstDiscovery
Really. thats like saying the vast majority of Wii titles are ugly. You get good and bad looking games, as you get ones with good and bad framerates


There are few good looking games on the platform. That trend is slowly starting to change. For example I bought Warioland: Shake it and De Blob on Friday and both look great. What I'm saying is the fact that the best looking Wii games are mostly 60fps or 30fps locked proves that the system isn't being pushed to breaking point.
Avatar image for FirstDiscovery
FirstDiscovery

5508

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#29 FirstDiscovery
Member since 2008 • 5508 Posts

[QUOTE="FirstDiscovery"][QUOTE="manicfoot"]The way I see it the only thing the Xbox has over Wii is its GPU, which is slightly powerful and much easier to work with thanks to its built in shader support. However, Wii uses much more efficient archetecture, has more RAM thats a lot faster and has a larger cache to take FULL advantage of its components. A lot of Xbox games had frame rate issues, the vast majority of good looking Wii games run at 60fps or at 30fps locked.manicfoot
Really. thats like saying the vast majority of Wii titles are ugly. You get good and bad looking games, as you get ones with good and bad framerates


There are few good looking games on the platform. That trend is slowly starting to change. For example I bought Warioland: Shake it and De Blob on Friday and both look great. What I'm saying is the fact that the best looking Wii games are mostly 60fps or 30fps locked proves that the system isn't being pushed to breaking point.

Who knows, it could be they are talented

Conker, Halo 2, Doom 3 as well as plenty other were amazing looking and ran at solid framerates.

Avatar image for famicommander
famicommander

8524

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#30 famicommander
Member since 2008 • 8524 Posts

[QUOTE="famicommander"] I'm aware that the focus of the Wii is something entirely different. I'm more interested in correcting misconception than reinforcing Nintendo's point in the Wii.SpruceCaboose

In that case, the Wii is more powerful than the Xbox, but not greatly so.

I think it is, greatly so. Galaxy, Metroid, Excite Truck, Resident Evil 4, Dewy's Adventure, and Twilight Princess are simply leagues ahead of anything that came out in the first year of the Xbox. I would be shocked if the Wii didn't produce something that greatly outshines Doom 3, Riddick, Ninja Gaiden Black, and Chaos Theory in the next five years. And I know, as you said, that great-looking games are not necessarily the first thing a developer thinks about when they go to make a Wii game. But Nintendo has already squeezed Galaxy out of it, and they'll only get better with more practice.
Avatar image for opex07
opex07

2236

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#31 opex07
Member since 2007 • 2236 Posts

What people fail to understand when comparing the Xbox to the Wii is that you need to use a time line in order to compare systems fairly. To compare launch Wii games to the very best Xbox games is ridiculous. Compare launch Xbox games to the likes of the Wii's best launch games (Excite Truck and Twilight Princess) and it's not even close. Super Mario Galaxy and Metroid Prime 3 look almost as good as anything the Xbox produced, and they came out less than a year after the Wii's original release. Find me an Xbox game which came out within a year of launch that looks half as good as either of those games. The Xbox debuted in 2001. It's best looking games were Doom 3, The Chronicles of Riddick, Splinter Cell: Chaos Theory, and Ninja Gaiden Black. All of those games except Riddick came out four or more years after the Xbox launched, and Riddick came out three years after launch. The Wii hasn't even reached its second birthday yet. You're nuts if you think that Galaxy will not be improved upon in the next few years. There should be no doubt that the Wii is the more powerful system.famicommander

You shouldnt compare both launch periods, when the original Xbox was launched Devs had to create new engines and assets for that gen, for the Wii all of those things are already avaliable. The transition guide giving to developers who had worked with the gamecube is only 10 pages long, and contains very minor changes from the gamecube. Devs dont need several years to learn how to work with the Wii, as they would with the original xbox, they have had almost 7 years of experience comming from the gamecube.

Avatar image for manicfoot
manicfoot

2670

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 12

User Lists: 0

#32 manicfoot
Member since 2006 • 2670 Posts

[QUOTE="manicfoot"][QUOTE="FirstDiscovery"][QUOTE="manicfoot"]The way I see it the only thing the Xbox has over Wii is its GPU, which is slightly powerful and much easier to work with thanks to its built in shader support. However, Wii uses much more efficient archetecture, has more RAM thats a lot faster and has a larger cache to take FULL advantage of its components. A lot of Xbox games had frame rate issues, the vast majority of good looking Wii games run at 60fps or at 30fps locked.FirstDiscovery

Really. thats like saying the vast majority of Wii titles are ugly. You get good and bad looking games, as you get ones with good and bad framerates


There are few good looking games on the platform. That trend is slowly starting to change. For example I bought Warioland: Shake it and De Blob on Friday and both look great. What I'm saying is the fact that the best looking Wii games are mostly 60fps or 30fps locked proves that the system isn't being pushed to breaking point.

Who knows, it could be they are talented

Conker, Halo 2, Doom 3 as well as plenty other were amazing looking and ran at solid framerates.


They do all look good, but they also came out 4/5 years into the systems life span. Granted, Nintendo, Factor 5 and Capcom are all veterans when it comes to developing on GC/Wii but other third parties are not and they need time to learn how to use Wii's TEV system for implementing shaders. The reason why Conker and Doom 3 look good is because they use shaders. Currently most Wii games do not.
Avatar image for famicommander
famicommander

8524

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#33 famicommander
Member since 2008 • 8524 Posts

You shouldnt compare both launch periods, when the original Xbox was launched Devs had to create new engines and assets for that gen, for the Wii all of those things are already avaliable. The transition guide giving to developers who had worked with the gamecube is only 10 pages long, and contains very minor changes from the gamecube. Devs dont need several years to learn how to work with the Wii, as they would with the original xbox, they have had almost 7 years of experience comming from the gamecube.

opex07
You're forgetting that most developers actually used Gamecube development kits for the Wii well into 2007. So those good-looking early Wii games were actually late Gamecube games, which further illustrates my timeline point. The Xbox was obviously more powerdul than the Gamecube. But late Gamecube games obviously looked better than early Xbox games.
Avatar image for Jamiemydearx3
Jamiemydearx3

4062

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#34 Jamiemydearx3
Member since 2008 • 4062 Posts

Okay, I own a Wii and Xbox.

I can honestly say, NO Wii game has come close to Ninja Gaiden, Halo 2, Doom 3, Unreal Championship 2, and HL2 on the original Xbox.

EDIT: Someone said "they came 4-5 years into the life span"

Halo 2 -2004

Ninja Gaiden - 2004

Btw even Halo:CE looks better then most Wii games. Excluding Zelda, Metroid and Smash Bros.

Avatar image for opex07
opex07

2236

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#35 opex07
Member since 2007 • 2236 Posts
[QUOTE="opex07"]

You shouldnt compare both launch periods, when the original Xbox was launched Devs had to create new engines and assets for that gen, for the Wii all of those things are already avaliable. The transition guide giving to developers who had worked with the gamecube is only 10 pages long, and contains very minor changes from the gamecube. Devs dont need several years to learn how to work with the Wii, as they would with the original xbox, they have had almost 7 years of experience comming from the gamecube.

famicommander

You're forgetting that most developers actually used Gamecube development kits for the Wii well into 2007. So those good-looking early Wii games were actually late Gamecube games, which further illustrates my timeline point. The Xbox was obviously more powerdul than the Gamecube. But late Gamecube games obviously looked better than early Xbox games.

It doesn't really matter if the developers used a gamecube kit or Wii kit, the Wii has been described as an overclocked Gamecube, and being about as powerful as a gamecube and a half or a gamecube 1.5, a developer could easily scale between the small changes, but to this day the only games that actually compete agaisnt xbox top tier games are those made by Nintendo themselves who would have had access to both dev kits.

Avatar image for ZimpanX
ZimpanX

12636

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 21

User Lists: 0

#36 ZimpanX
Member since 2005 • 12636 Posts

I think Mario Galaxy looks better than xbox games.Squall18



It does look better than most Xbox games but I've yet to see a game on the Wii that trumphs or even comes close to the Xbox version of Chronicles of Riddick: Escape from Butcher Bay from a pure technical perspective.

Avatar image for thegoldenpoo
thegoldenpoo

5136

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 5

User Lists: 0

#37 thegoldenpoo
Member since 2005 • 5136 Posts
[QUOTE="Squall18"]

I think Mario Galaxy looks better than xbox games.ZimpanX



It does look better than most Xbox games but I've yet to see a game on the Wii that trumphs or even comes close to the Xbox version of Chronicles of Riddick: Escape from Butcher Bay from a pure technical perspective.

or HALO2 for that matter.

Avatar image for johnnyblazed88
johnnyblazed88

4240

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#38 johnnyblazed88
Member since 2008 • 4240 Posts
OX
Avatar image for Shinobishyguy
Shinobishyguy

22928

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#39 Shinobishyguy
Member since 2006 • 22928 Posts
[QUOTE="Squall18"]

I think Mario Galaxy looks better than xbox games.

But yeah, the Wii this gen hasn't really rallied my hardcore gaming at all. At first it did, but that lasted like 6 months.

FirstDiscovery

You obviously havent played half the XBOX games, Conker happens to be up to current-gen standards

Either way, you used ports as evidence, the 360s GPU is simply much better. The Wii cant compare

no way man...Mario galaxy = 60 fps

Conker = 30 fps.

Avatar image for Meatwad_FTW
Meatwad_FTW

331

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#40 Meatwad_FTW
Member since 2006 • 331 Posts
Why are we comparing some Ubicrap games? Ubisoft is a dump
Avatar image for Shinobishyguy
Shinobishyguy

22928

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#41 Shinobishyguy
Member since 2006 • 22928 Posts

Okay, I own a Wii and Xbox.

I can honestly say, NO Wii game has come close to Ninja Gaiden, Halo 2, Doom 3, Unreal Championship 2, and HL2 on the original Xbox.

EDIT: Someone said "they came 4-5 years into the life span"

Halo 2 -2004

Ninja Gaiden - 2004

Btw even Halo:CE looks better then most Wii games. Excluding Zelda, Metroid and Smash Bros.

Jamiemydearx3

what?

halo 2

Image 9

Metroid prime 3 is on-par with halo 2

Galaxy looks clearly better than halo 2.

Avatar image for thegoldenpoo
thegoldenpoo

5136

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 5

User Lists: 0

#42 thegoldenpoo
Member since 2005 • 5136 Posts
[QUOTE="Jamiemydearx3"]

Okay, I own a Wii and Xbox.

I can honestly say, NO Wii game has come close to Ninja Gaiden, Halo 2, Doom 3, Unreal Championship 2, and HL2 on the original Xbox.

EDIT: Someone said "they came 4-5 years into the life span"

Halo 2 -2004

Ninja Gaiden - 2004

Btw even Halo:CE looks better then most Wii games. Excluding Zelda, Metroid and Smash Bros.

Shinobishyguy

what?


Metroid prime 3 is on-par with halo 2

Galaxy looks clearly better than halo 2.

no, just no.

Avatar image for Shinobishyguy
Shinobishyguy

22928

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#43 Shinobishyguy
Member since 2006 • 22928 Posts
[QUOTE="Shinobishyguy"][QUOTE="Jamiemydearx3"]

Okay, I own a Wii and Xbox.

I can honestly say, NO Wii game has come close to Ninja Gaiden, Halo 2, Doom 3, Unreal Championship 2, and HL2 on the original Xbox.

EDIT: Someone said "they came 4-5 years into the life span"

Halo 2 -2004

Ninja Gaiden - 2004

Btw even Halo:CE looks better then most Wii games. Excluding Zelda, Metroid and Smash Bros.

thegoldenpoo

what?


Metroid prime 3 is on-par with halo 2

Galaxy looks clearly better than halo 2.

no, just no.

have you ever even played metroid prime 3?
Avatar image for BradBurns
BradBurns

1169

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#44 BradBurns
Member since 2005 • 1169 Posts

To compare launch Wii games to the very best Xbox games is ridiculous. Compare launch Xbox games to the likes of the Wii's best launch gamesfamicommander

Developers have been studying and using the Wii's hardware since 2001. It's the exact same GameCube architecture only with a bump in processing power and speed. The programming routines remain the same.

There should be no doubt that the Wii is the more powerful system.famicommander

Halo 1 looks better than any Wii game to date. I don't mean artistically, mind you, I mean technically as in bump mapping effects, physics, and environment sizes, etc..

Avatar image for FirstDiscovery
FirstDiscovery

5508

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#45 FirstDiscovery
Member since 2008 • 5508 Posts
[QUOTE="Jamiemydearx3"]

Okay, I own a Wii and Xbox.

I can honestly say, NO Wii game has come close to Ninja Gaiden, Halo 2, Doom 3, Unreal Championship 2, and HL2 on the original Xbox.

EDIT: Someone said "they came 4-5 years into the life span"

Halo 2 -2004

Ninja Gaiden - 2004

Btw even Halo:CE looks better then most Wii games. Excluding Zelda, Metroid and Smash Bros.

Shinobishyguy

what?

halo 2

Metroid prime 3 is on-par with halo 2

Galaxy looks clearly better than halo 2.

Way to go and pick terrible shots:|

Halo 2 is a much more detailed game, and on top it has much bigger environments with much more going on.

Avatar image for FirstDiscovery
FirstDiscovery

5508

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#46 FirstDiscovery
Member since 2008 • 5508 Posts
[QUOTE="Shinobishyguy"][QUOTE="Jamiemydearx3"]

Okay, I own a Wii and Xbox.

I can honestly say, NO Wii game has come close to Ninja Gaiden, Halo 2, Doom 3, Unreal Championship 2, and HL2 on the original Xbox.

EDIT: Someone said "they came 4-5 years into the life span"

Halo 2 -2004

Ninja Gaiden - 2004

Btw even Halo:CE looks better then most Wii games. Excluding Zelda, Metroid and Smash Bros.

thegoldenpoo

what?


Metroid prime 3 is on-par with halo 2

Galaxy looks clearly better than halo 2.

no, just no.

Friggin joke i know, Halo 3 is one of the best looking games on the 360

Offcourse Cows were quick to bash it for jaggies and 'teh 640p' but soon as the same problems hit the PS3, it was all okay...

Avatar image for dcps210go
dcps210go

313

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#47 dcps210go
Member since 2009 • 313 Posts

Wii has more effects basically. Its just better because it is more capable to program for developers. More ability for bump-mapping etc. will make a console superior. Xbox 1 was good with gamecube but gamecube had the 8x bumpmapping going. Wii is technically the ps3 seventh gen system. It may be underpowered but so was dreamcast. Its equivalent to xbox 360 because of the ati processor but with nintendo games. One example is wii can do cartoon games better than xbox 360 and ps3 in my honest opinion. It does the effects with extra hardware bump-mapping, meaning its ram is not unified or shared. With ram strictly made for the ati hollywood video processer you get steady framerates and ability to have more particle effects. One example is the realtime motion blur on ps3, can be done on wii not on 360. ;)

Whoops!?! Sorry!:?


As for the thread i deverted topics into talking about xbox 360 accidently. Whoops! or maybe not.The problem with american consoles is they incorporate the unified ram theory. Robotics at work.Here's an example. Notice all the xbox 1 games look pretty but lack the environment? Noticethe environments are all small? There aren't really any large mario world games. Its more likesonic adventure because of lack of video ram. That's why fanboys call it the second dreamcast actually, cus itacts just like dreamcast in terms of graphics which are streamed from the ram (dreamcast graphics or data arestreamed from the disc). Besides Wii is an overly enhanced gamecube, therefore it's ram is a whopping88 mb putting far into the next gen era, compared to the 64 actually. 24 mb of ati video ram+64 mb of high speed 1.6 gb ram comparedto xbox's meager 200 mhz. Linear bandwagon downgraded pc games are not soo great sometimes, but i do have to admit xbox had nice nvidia lookingtextures for those realistic games like the textures of the robot in star wars battlefield and the shadow movements of splintercell. If wii could do rogue squadron again, i would consider your argument beat, butluckily no hit franchises that require those graphics from developers of that calibur came into play in that era. My argument though is its not an realistic fps made for franchise console. If you compare halo to like metroid you'll see what i'm saying. Two totally different consoles. Your argument is like me comparing crash bandicoot to like mario galaxy 2 or something. In the long run though..Yes, Wii is better.

PS: This is an interesting topic. It puts my theory of generation consoles as better than previous made consoles to rest. However, there is a reason why they are

in that generation and its not because of graphics alone...

Consoles of the current generation are historically equivalent in some fashion or technical capability due to the innovation of technical superiority or technicological leap in that current era of time. They are put there because the consoles in those categories can out perform each other in some specification of quality. For instance, the dreamcast can outperform xbox 1 in terms of realtime bump-mapping (basically, xbox 1 can't recreate sonic adventure's texture streaming or soul calibur's effects particle in the same manner as dreamcast). If you see jet grind radio, and compare it to jet set radio future, one is more colorful and brighter than the other, however xbox is clearly better because of the unified ram being naturally better for cell-shaded games. It also has more ability to manage shimmering textures accurately via the lighting effects BUT with less 'cartoon' glare do to the nvidia processor and its ati sega naomi counter-part (eg cannonspike or linear ps2-like games will appear less bright and smooth on xbox 1). Basically, once again mentioned. Dreamcast has no video card so it works like xbox in terms of data streaming (has an arcade hitachi sh4 power vr 2 naomi motherboard therefore ATI replicated with videoram). On a minor note Dreamcast has trail effects which are hardly used but seen in few times in shenmue, whilst xbox has the fade in blur effects which incorporates use of the whole environment and are taken into future consoles (a sad result of using unified ram, is lack of blur or accuretly made particle effects such as lighting reflected against the environment). If you see also test drive le mans compared to project gotham you get my drift. Xbox cannot do day-to-night transitions or weather made realtime due to lack of video ram (its ram is simply not fast enough). Its almost like the glare is pasted on the images in games. Shenmue is another example. It lacks the shimmer that realtime shenmue gave. An industry fopa. Every hair, tooth and nail can be seen in the original however, it can't be replicated on xbox 1 without sacrifices. Xbox lacks the glares and smooth shimmer due to its choice of nvidia. Gamecube lacks the data on the discs to do shenmue being a large game and ps2 lacks the AA and highdef. Every console has its thing. Bottomline though, xbox 1 was a marketing ploy, a gimmick to get into the game industry fast or an experimental test built like a pc and as big as one too! However xbox 360's test drive can outshine in almost every category via technical performance. To prove its specs are inferior in some retrospect, it lacks the 1.6 gflop pipeline that the dreamcast offers (dreamcast's CPU actually is equivalent to a amd soyo mb 1.0 ghz at that time or better, actually IS four times faster than the pII! it loads slow but outputs fast, however its gpu is small compared to the xbox's 5.8). It has wider pipelines and one processor directly made for the mb eg data streaming (did you ever notice how certain amd mbs are faster than other ones even with the same cpu, but load slower..thats pipelines at work to and from the cpu processor chip). One board consoles have their advantages you know. All the consoles excel in other areas basically. But if you made like a fps game on wii right, it could outshine in almost every category. Console gens are confined to their generation, not only in quality but in performance of the hardware by the developers, however they can mimick the games of previous generations much more effectively.

Links


Here are some source links for references.

-Notice the lack of color and polygonal shimmer in xbox's shenmue 2 (not a good example because its not in component, but when it zooms in close texture detail will not be added as effectively)http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8gqPQY9nn7I, Here is a reference to the unified ram theoryhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_video_game_consoles_(sixth_generation)

Avatar image for LegatoSkyheart
LegatoSkyheart

29733

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 16

User Lists: 1

#48 LegatoSkyheart
Member since 2009 • 29733 Posts

sometimes, I wonder why people go on expeditions to find old threads like these in the Sea of System Wars.

seriously, bumping a Thread that's from 2008?

They're using RED STEEL as defense for crying out loud.

Avatar image for navyguy21
navyguy21

17911

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 10

User Lists: 0

#49 navyguy21
Member since 2003 • 17911 Posts
LMAO, this is the first time Ive had one of my old threads bumped :P Please dont that to me :|
Avatar image for Cheleman
Cheleman

8198

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#50 Cheleman
Member since 2012 • 8198 Posts

garbage VS garbage

boy this is a hard question...