RyanWare's forum posts

Avatar image for RyanWare
RyanWare

12113

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

69

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#1 RyanWare
Member since 2002 • 12113 Posts

At first I thought that Edge giving a 9 to No More Heroes must mean something, but then I saw that they also gave the same score to Burnout Paradise and now I'm not so sure.

UpInFlames

EGM also gave Burnout Paradise 9.0 so I don't think EDGE's score is a fluke.

Avatar image for RyanWare
RyanWare

12113

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

69

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#2 RyanWare
Member since 2002 • 12113 Posts

Just checked my cousin's two-week old Wii yesterday and yup, same vetical lines in the Wii Menu, Super Paper Mario, Mario Galaxy and Metroid. I guess that settles it, it must be natural after all. Maybe some people can see the lines, others can't.Nintenboy01

It's not "natural" it's a hardware problem that Nintendo will fix if you give them a call. The Wii isn't as reliable as Nintendo's past consoles, but their repair service is still top-notch.

Avatar image for RyanWare
RyanWare

12113

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

69

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#3 RyanWare
Member since 2002 • 12113 Posts
You could have saved a whole lot of time and just sent them this link.
Avatar image for RyanWare
RyanWare

12113

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

69

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#4 RyanWare
Member since 2002 • 12113 Posts

EGM's rumours are 99.99% BS. Don't trust them.

kieranb2000

Not really. I'd say they get at least half if not more of them right, which is pretty good for rumors.

Avatar image for RyanWare
RyanWare

12113

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

69

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#5 RyanWare
Member since 2002 • 12113 Posts
I have no doubt that Miyamoto had the idea long before Insomniac. The director of SMG said in an interview that the spherical worlds were thought of back in the N64 days as a way to eliminate 3D camera problems (since there are no dead ends that require turning the camera around). Obviously the actual execution of this idea within Mario Galaxy had to draw from some inspiration, although I still doubt R&C was among them. If anyone has actually played R&C's spherical worlds and Galaxy's, they would know that there really is no comparison. R&C's are laughable compared to Galaxy's. You could say Galaxy is lightyears ahead...
Avatar image for RyanWare
RyanWare

12113

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

69

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#6 RyanWare
Member since 2002 • 12113 Posts
I do floss every day, as tooth problems seem to run in my family. And I've already had a couple cavities, so go figure. But I'm not surprised most people don't floss daily. For some people it may not be necessary, others find the process aggravating or painful, and still others are just plain lazy and probably don't brush their teeth more than once a day either. :?
Avatar image for RyanWare
RyanWare

12113

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

69

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#7 RyanWare
Member since 2002 • 12113 Posts
I've never used that site, but there are lots of trading sites out there. GameTZ and Tradegamesnow are my favorites.
Avatar image for RyanWare
RyanWare

12113

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

69

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#8 RyanWare
Member since 2002 • 12113 Posts

I have never heard of it having any kind of frame rate issues or problems running well. There is no real proof that it is pushing the Wiis limit. There is also no proof that it was made with the Wii specs in mind. But if you are right about it lagging or suffering from frame rate issues then maybe it could have been made for the Wii in mind. But I don't think so. I haven't experienced any frame rate issues when playing. The GCs not as weak as you may think. Just because it was weaker then the Xbox it was able to pop out some better looking games like for example RE4 which was the best looking game for last gen consoles.

zaku101

The GameCube had highly efficient hardware. But the Xbox was still more powerful overall - and RE4 being the best-looking last-gen game is arguable. Ninja Gaiden Black, for instance, could never have been done on GameCube.

But as for Mario Galaxy - my theory for why it seems to tax the Wii hardware more than its graphics let on, is that there may be more going on behind the scenes that we aren't aware of. Perhaps the planetoids' individual gravitational fields do take up significant resources to calculate. Or maybe the shear amount of polygons necessary for rendering spherical shapes is taxing the hardware more than we'd think.

I don't know the answer, so all I can do is look at what is in front of me - Mario Galaxy running at 30 fps on Wii with no AA. I have no reason to believe it's poorly optimized, so I can only deduce that it's making good use of the Wii's hardware. And therefore, the less powerful GameCube would not be able to handle it without some sacrifices.

That's my reasoning, that's my conclusion... and now I'm going to bed. :)

Avatar image for RyanWare
RyanWare

12113

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

69

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#9 RyanWare
Member since 2002 • 12113 Posts

Just because a game lags does not mean the system is being pushed to its limits,it just means its poorly optimized, if they truley optimized it corectly then they could of ran it at 60 FPS with even some AA (again i note MP3) look I love nintendo and i love galaxy but the fact of the matter is they didnt take the time to optimize this game at all

PyroPice

How could it not be optimized? The Wii has the exact same architecture as the GameCube. Which means Nintendo has known the ins and outs of the Wii's hardware since 2001! It's highly unlikely that any Nintendo game will be poorly optimized on hardware that they've been familiar with for the past half decade. They purposely built the Wii on the same architecture as the GC so developers wouldn't need to re-acquaint themselves with new hardware.

So I personally find it very hard to belive that Nintendo wouldn't be able to optimize their flagship title on six-year-old hardware. That's a pretty far-fetched assumption. So unless you have some sort of proof, I'm inclined to not believe it.

Avatar image for RyanWare
RyanWare

12113

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

69

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#10 RyanWare
Member since 2002 • 12113 Posts
[QUOTE="RyanWare"][QUOTE="zaku101"][QUOTE="RyanWare"][QUOTE="zaku101"]

GC+No AA=Galaxy. GC+AA=sunshine+with lower graphics then Galaxy of course. Turn it off and you could have made Galaxy.

zaku101

But there is a fundamental flaw with your argument. If the Wii - which is roughly twice as powerful as the GameCube - can only run Mario Galaxy at 30 fps, then how on earth could the GameCube run it at a playable framerate?

And yet you say Mario Galaxy is possible on the GameCube. For this theory to be true, then you must be claiming that Mario Galaxy only uses half of the Wii's power. You must think that half of the Wii's RAM is sitting idle, unused. You must think the Wii's CPU and GPU are both working at only half their capacity.

Right? If I'm wrong, then please - with your infinite wisdom - explain how.

The game can run in 60 FPS of course np. Developers often lower the FPS to make sure that the game does not have any lag or slow downs. They also did this with Halo 3 were they didn't make the game run at 60 FPS but it can run in 60 FPS of course. If you really take the time to look at the specs of the Wii and Xbox there almost the same so yes. There're processors are almost the same but the Xbox has a better graphic card with better shadier support. The real question is why does this game have no AA at all for a Wii game? It leaves me to think it was developed with the GC specs in mind.

But see, there's something that you're lacking here that is kind of imporant... it's called PROOF. You're pulling things from your ass and calling them fact. Point me to where Nintendo says they intentionally lowered Galaxy's framerate to 30fps, or I have absolutely no reason ot believe you.

Not that it matters anyway, because let's pretend for a moment that Galaxy's framerate really was lowered on purpose. You say this is to ensure a stable framerate, yes? Then the same would have to be done on the GameCube to enable a stable framerate... and yet, again, the GameCube is only half as powerful as the Wii. It can't do it. Therefore, Galaxy on GameCube would not be at a playable framerate.

See? It's really simple - you're wrong. The sooner you accept that, the better. :)

It won't even matter if the game was running at 30 or 60 FPS. Since the two systems are almost the same. But I believe that this could have also like I said been done to keep the GC specs in mind. As the Wii not even as powerful as the Xbox(6 years old now I think) so I won't really call it half as powerful but more of a 1.5 GC. If for a fact it was made for the Wii specs in mind or if there was a 2 times jump in power you would at least see 2X of AA but you see none.

Please Read.

http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/levelup/archive/2007/05/08/geek-out-xbox-uber-boss-robbie-bach-takes-a-shot-at-nintendo-s-underpowered-wii-does-he-manage-to-score-a-bulls-eye-or-just-shoot-himself-in-the-foot.aspx

I'm fully aware of the Wii's graphical capabilities. Why do you keep bringing the Xbox into this? The Xbox was clearly more powerful than the GameCube was. Comparing it to the Wii is harder, however, because the Wii actually has a much faster processor (can't just look at MHz), plus more and lower-latency RAM than the Xbox. The only area that the Xbox beats the Wii is in the GPU - and that's largely because the Xbox's has better support for programmable shaders than the GC's and Wii's. This allowed for extensive use of shader effects in Xbox games (bump mapping, normal mapping, etc.) that cannot be used so liberally in GC or Wii games.

But enough about Xbox. We're comparing the GC and Wii - which is very easy to do since they both run on the exact same architecture. The Wii is essentially an overclocked GameCube with twice as much RAM. The CPU and GPU are roughly 50% faster.

So on to Galaxy. Galaxy only runs at 30 fps, and it does in fact have minor framerate problems in some areas (read reviews if you don't believe me). This, to me, signifies that Mario Galaxy is in fact using the Wii's hardware to the best of its abilities at this point in time. So much so that the Wii actually struggles sometimes to maintain a steady 30 fps framerate. Another indicator of this is the very fact that Galaxy has no AA - it would have AA if the Wii had extra horsepower left over. But the Wii is being pushed to its current limits with Galaxy.

And since the Wii is more powerful than the GameCube, then it's fair to say that GameCube would struggle to produce the same results at a playable framerate. I know the Wii isn't significantly more powerful than the GameCube - but it is more powerful, and you have to remember that. As a developer infamously said, it's essentially "two GC's duct-taped together."

And if two GC's duct-taped together can only run Galaxy at 30 fps, with occasional framerate dips, and with no AA... then it's quite obvious (to those of us who are rational) that a single GC could not pull off the same feat.

But if you still believe that somehow that purple box with only 43MB of RAM and a 485MHz CPU can run Mario Galaxy as well as the Wii... then i don't know what to say. Your thinking defies logic.