Last-Gen Console Discussions (PS3, Xbox 360, Wii)

Originally posted by TricksterPriest
Xbox has but one or two trump cards at this point, Halo, and apparently gears of war. Xbox live is damn good, and they do have a good setup, however, sony making online free is tempting..... But I see xbox as the weak link and the least potentially interesting of the new systems.

While its true that you have to pay for XBL, you are also getting a top notch service. Remember, Microsoft pays to have the servers running for all developers who choose to have online service. So what this means is if there is a problem it will be fixed. Unlike Sony, although it may be free, if a problem arises you would have to complain to the developers who own the servers but wait isnt it free... so guess what they will tell you, "you get what you pay for". Also here is the most important thing to remember, since Sony doesnt support developers servers, developers can and will eventually charge you to play their games online. There is nothing stopping them from charging you the equivalent of XBL 1 year service to play 1 game. Who is to say they will support online play for example Resistance: Fall of Man for more than 1 year of its launch maybe less. So for Sony people who say online is free, you will eventually either pay Sony for a service or Developers, my money is on developers. So I am very happy with XBL because I can also go back and play Halo 1 and 2 anytime I want or G.O.W. 2 years from now.

Good point about the whole support after a couple of years.

Unlike PC's who have wonderous advantage to online, you cant have that with consoles.

Originally posted by BackFire
The Wiis graphics are okay for the short term. But imagine in 5 or 6 years from now, they will look downright ancient. Imagine if the Gamecube has graphics that were only slightly better than the N64 and how bad those graphics would look right now.

Hmmm...we are still on First Gen(First Generation). I do not know if I would categorize such CGI(Computer Generated Imaging) as ancient yet. Here is but one example(of the Wiis graphics) --

Splinter Cell - Double Agent

http://wiimedia.ign.com/wii/image/article/731/731810/tom-clancys-splinter-cell-double-agent-tba-20060908025625635.jpg

I do not think that Wii is getting nearly enough credit where it is due in the graphics dept(department).

EDIT: As not to take up to much space with the original images --

Originally posted by usagi_yojimbo
Hmmm...we are still on First Gen(First Generation). I do not know if I would categorize such CGI(Computer Generated Imaging) as ancient yet. Here is but one example(of the Wiis graphics) --

Splinter Cell - Double Agent

http://wiimedia.ign.com/wii/image/article/731/731810/tom-clancys-splinter-cell-double-agent-tba-20060908025625635.jpg

I do not think that Wii is getting nearly enough credit where it is due in the graphics dept(department).

EDIT: As not to take up to much space with the original images --

Originally posted by Ricodrayz
It has the same power that the original Xbox had 😈

Tis more powerful from what I've heard..

More screenshots(for Wii) --

Twilight Princess

Red Steel

Splinter Cell - Double Agent

These are live game screenshots - not just CGI movies(which many other companies(Sony, MS(Microsoft)) seem to be very keenly(and misleadingly) presenting to the consumer)

Yeah but still... they're barely a step above the Original Xbox graphics which pretty much sucks. I think Nintendo is focusing way to much on the actual gameplay than the graphics... I mean for me, playing Gears of War or Halo with a regular controller is fine. Sure the Wii mote might add a little extra touch, but I think I would rather have better graphics with a regular controller. The only reason I would get the wii would be more for the backwards compatibility, virtual console games, and the exclusives... Mario/Donkey Kong etc.

Many thanks, Usagi.

Spartan, as said, these are only first generation Wii games. Just like the 360 and PS3, the graphics will continue to get better as programmers figure out new loopholes through the course of the console's life.

They will most likely never be up to the same level of quality as the 360/PS3 at the same point, but in the final year before the next "console war" Wii games will, on the whole, probably look FAR better than the current images above.

The graphics on the Wii may not be superior to the 360(XBox) or PS3(Playstation 3) - but they should more than satisfy the apetite of the casual gamer, and appease most(not all) of the hardcores.

However - as to not sound too much like a Wii fanboy, I must say that I can appreciate Sony's boldness, particularly with the presumption of PS3(Playstation) replacing the PC(personal computer) in the near future. I would definitely buy one(PS3(Playstation 3)) for 600 dollars - if all of my PC amenities were included.

I would say those Wii screenshots definitely show that while the Wii's graphics may not compare to that of the 360 or PS3, they're still certainly good enough to hold their own. No one's going to be looking at them and saying "that looks like garbage".

And if they do, chances are they're either an MS or Sony fanboy ermm

Originally posted by usagi_yojimbo
Tis more powerful from what I've heard..

More screenshots(for Wii) --

Twilight Princess

Red Steel

Splinter Cell - Double Agent

These are live game screenshots - not just CGI movies(which many other companies(Sony, MS(Microsoft)) seem to be very keenly(and misleadingly) presenting to the consumer)

First review for Resistance - http://ps3.ign.com/articles/745/745206p3.html

Many Japanese people were disappointed with the PS3 launch.

http://www.gamespot.com/news/6161537.html?tag=latestnews;title;0

For a start, claiming that the Wii is only as powerful as the original Xbox is idiocy of the hgighest degree. Even a Gamecube had a very powerful graphics processor for its era (more powerful than the PS2 and at least as powerful as the Xbox), and the Wii is an efficient high performance machine- but a generation behind 360 and PS3, of course. Regardless, it is considerably more powerful than the Xbox.

Showing off Zelda won't exactly show that, though, seeing as it is a Gamecube game convered for controls only.

And secondly, I seriously cannot believe someone has actually complained that someone is concentrating more on gameplay than graphics. The reverse has been the largest complaint in the industry since Scooby Doo was released on the Spectrum in the early 80s. Sheesh! Good Lord, we need FAR more of that kind of thinking in the industry.

Sorry, I am a stupid idiot youpiyoupiyoupi forgive me youpi

Originally posted by Ushgarak
For a start, claiming that the Wii is only as powerful as the original Xbox is idiocy of the hgighest degree. Even a Gamecube had a very powerful graphics processor for its era (more powerful than the PS2 and at least as powerful as the Xbox), and the Wii is an efficient high performance machine- but a generation behind 360 and PS3, of course. Regardless, it is considerably more powerful than the Xbox.

Showing off Zelda won't exactly show that, though, seeing as it is a Gamecube game convered for controls only.

And secondly, I seriously cannot believe someone has actually complained that someone is concentrating more on gameplay than graphics. The reverse has been the largest complaint in the industry since Scooby Doo was released on the Spectrum in the early 80s. Sheesh! Good Lord, we need FAR more of that kind of thinking in the industry.

It's just ignorance and denial Ush, and what was "The Spectrum" exactly? An age old console?

Originally posted by Ushgarak
For a start, claiming that the Wii is only as powerful as the original Xbox is idiocy of the hgighest degree. Even a Gamecube had a very powerful graphics processor for its era (more powerful than the PS2 and at least as powerful as the Xbox), and the Wii is an efficient high performance machine- but a generation behind 360 and PS3, of course. Regardless, it is considerably more powerful than the Xbox.

Showing off Zelda won't exactly show that, though, seeing as it is a Gamecube game convered for controls only.

And secondly, I seriously cannot believe someone has actually complained that someone is concentrating more on gameplay than graphics. The reverse has been the largest complaint in the industry since Scooby Doo was released on the Spectrum in the early 80s. Sheesh! Good Lord, we need FAR more of that kind of thinking in the industry.

I think many are also missing the point that only so much rendering and pixilation can be used and/or really observed by the human eye during gameplay - and too much of it can slow down processing speed.(As will be seen on the PS3 - and I'm sure can already be observed on the 360)

This was Miyamoto's initial point when coming up with "Wii" concept. The overall product(or the more appropriately termed the overall "experience"😉 -- not just one aspect of it(like graphics) should be focused on when making a game.

If I might add - I've seen some of the next Gen PS3 games - and the gameplay graphics are not much better than the Wii's - if better at all. If anything - the biggest difference in all the First-Gen games will be in the CGI(Computer Generated Imaging) cutscenes and "mini movies."

Casual gamers(who will be Wii's main fanbase) won't really detect much of a difference - and if they do they won't really be that disgusted over it(as you can see in my above pictures - many of the Wii games, do indeed have stunning graphics)

Originally posted by Ushgarak
For a start, claiming that the Wii is only as powerful as the original Xbox is idiocy of the hgighest degree. Even a Gamecube had a very powerful graphics processor for its era (more powerful than the PS2 and at least as powerful as the Xbox), and the Wii is an efficient high performance machine- but a generation behind 360 and PS3, of course. Regardless, it is considerably more powerful than the Xbox.

Showing off Zelda won't exactly show that, though, seeing as it is a Gamecube game convered for controls only.

And secondly, I seriously cannot believe someone has actually complained that someone is concentrating more on gameplay than graphics. The reverse has been the largest complaint in the industry since Scooby Doo was released on the Spectrum in the early 80s. Sheesh! Good Lord, we need FAR more of that kind of thinking in the industry.

Originally posted by General Kaliero
Many thanks, Usagi.

Spartan, as said, these are only first generation Wii games. Just like the 360 and PS3, the graphics will continue to get better as programmers figure out new loopholes through the course of the console's life.

They will most likely never be up to the same level of quality as the 360/PS3 at the same point, but in the final year before the next "console war" Wii games will, on the whole, probably look FAR better than the current images above.

Well of course they will... but so will the 360's and PS3's graphics. The Wii's will probably be as good as the first generation 360 games by the time the next console's come out... if that good

What do you find more important in a game - graphics or gameplay?