I don't understand why some even bothered keeping they're Wii when they're second guessing it, and dwelling on it's capabilities compared to 360 or PS3. "It's the gameplay, it's the gameplay." Apparently not. And what controversy are we speaking of? Nintendo was open from the beginning about it's performance, not like they pulled one over on everyone like Sony...

MedicMike66

I'm not sure about RS:V, but in the long term developers would have to deal with more than just downgrading the graphics. I imagine the Wii would choke on newer physics engines (what version is HAVOK up to now?) and AIs.ThePlothole

The Wii is believed and partially proven to have hardware extended from the Gamecube. But the G3 (if the Wii really has a G3 PPC CPU) architecture is more efficient per clock than Pentium 3 CPU architecture like seen in the Xbox. From what I've read it seems to be a fair estimate that the Wii's CPU is in the realm of being comparable to the Xbox's P3 clocked at 1.2 GHz. In comparison to the Xbox's specs that's a nice deal extra processing power. And for all I know, the CPU in the Wii could be even more powerful. Like I said previously, the PS2 and Xbox with relatively weak in comparison to PC CPUs, could pull of some nice physics. Havok may be up to version 4.0 about now, but 2.0 would be sufficient for Wii games, as there are much less points of articulation and detail to consider. Game engine wise, the Wii does run Unreal 2.5 in the form of Red Steel which graphically and game engine wise (considering physics and all) wasn't a bad looking nor bad running game (only the controls really sucked). I'm pretty sure a scaled back Unreal 3 is on the way (but not really necessary unless it has the benefit of greater efficiency for the same processes as UR2.5).

When it comes to the graphics side of things, the Wii can probably dish out much more than what we've had the privelage of witnessing. Rumors state that the Hollywood GPU in the Wii is essentially a "doubled-up" extension of the Flipper GPU from the Gamecube. Double the pixel units, texture units, TEV, rasterization capabilities and add a 50% higher clock speed (162 to 239 MHz) and we can pretty much theorize a tripling of capabilities in the Wii in comparison to the Gamecube. 8 pixel pipelines, 8 texture units, and 2 TEVs. Basically the Wii I think will be comparable to the performance of an Nvidia GeForce 6200, which is enough horsepower to run a more than decent version of Half Life 2, Call of Duty 2 on PC (in DX7 mode), or Battlefield 2 PC. Of course these are granted that the Wii can handle similar shaders as the Direct X 7/8/9 ones used in the mentioned games and has the vertex/polygon rendering power as well. Now how does the supposed Wii GPU stack up in comparison to the Xbox's GPU? Let us compare, and take note that this is raw theoreticals here, not taking shader programming capabilities into account nor the render API being used which would affect real world performance.

Xbox GPU Gamecube GPUWii GPU
233 MHz clock speed 162 MHz clock speed 239 MHz clock speed
4 pixel pipelines 4 pixel pipelines 8 pixel pipelines
8 texture units (2 per pixel pipe) 4 texture units (1 per pixel pipe) 8 texture units (1 per pixel pipe)
4 PP x 233 MHz = 932 MPixels/Sec 4 PP x 162 = 648 MPixels/Sec 8 x 239 MHz = 1912 MPixels/Sec
8 TU x 233 MHz = 1864 MTexels/Sec 4 TU x 162 = 648 MTexels/Sec 8 x 239 MHz = 1912 MTexels/sec

So basically and theoretically the Wii should possess twice the pixel processing capabilities of the Xbox, which should considerable give the Wii a real edge in pixel processes like bump maps, normal maps and other shader effects. Despite that the Wii possess barely higher texture processing but it matches well with it's ability to process pixels. We should see much more shadowing, bumpmapping, normal mapping and other various shader and texture effects as compared to the Gamecube where such effects were rarely implemented in the same regard as the PS2 which did possess such capabilities as well despite not being as good or prominently known.

or for roughly 7x that amount you can buy a ps3 and have graphics that really are better (laughs)CRAZIE_GUY

Theres just has much upgrading with consoles. None stop nicknacks to add to it and not long after all the people bought Xbox 360 they came out with hard drive you can add and the xbox 360 elite.

And there would never be an end to upgrading consoles or pcs its a business made to suck every penny out of you. Best you can do is just get a decent pc that will last you 2-3years before having to upgrade stuff on it.

Sleepyz

multiple warhead missiles aren't only on the US side, and thats why DARPA and whoever is involved in creating a missile defense system is scrambling with all kinds of ideas, mostly light-emitting chemical reaction weapons such as the one used on the YAL-1A (although the latter is used to shoot down missiles upon launch in a close battlefield).

The same concept has been proved to work on the ground by israelis by having the system shoot down katyusha unguided rockets, kind of like a land based CIWS system.

also i know the US is researching into a space based or very high altitude defense system which uses brute kinetic force to intercept ballistic missiles before they reach their apex, the speed of the two objects is so great, no detonation is required and the missile simply melts under heat.

WARxSnake