WiiGeePeeYou (Hollywood) what IS it ?

[Teasy]

I'm not sure what people go bonkers about here (probably some sort of self-prepetuating mass delusion / Nintendo = religion fan boy-dom).

Tell me your joking... You don't honestly believe that your taste/opinion equals the truth and everyone else must just be delusional not to agree?..

I am fairly horrified by how god-awful CoD3, GT racing, and Far Cry look. There is no way I'm putting down $50 on those games, especially since they don't even look/sound fun (ports).

http://uk.wii.ign.com/articles/747/747745p1.html

Not great looking, definitely, but not fun, completely the opposite. According to IGN Far Cry's controls are easily the best they've played so far and make it a very fun game.

And I'm not going to sit here and pretend it is entirely because the devs had absolutely no clue what the real hardware would be. That is extremely unlikely IMO.

I doubt anyone believes that. Though for whatever reason these games certainly are nowhere close to what Wii can achieve, since they look no better and a lot of them even worse then GC games.

 

[fearsomepirate]

YIt's basically a really simple RPG in many ways I suppose, more an action adventure tho.

I'm sure there are plenty of menu-based snoozefests coming to PS3 from Square-Enix for PS3 if that's your thing. I heard there's a chick in there with animated breasts, so hang in there.

since they don't even look/sound fun (ports).

Please tell me that you weren't one of the people criticizing Gamecube for not getting enough PS2 ports.

If I recall correctly, Ubisoft rushed out a number of very sub-par titles for Cube's launch as well, titles that no one remembers. GT Cube and Monster 4x4 are the kinds of titles parents buy for their kids, not anything anyone buys on purpose.

 

[swaaye]

I don't own any Sony consoles. I had PS1 for Gran Turismo back when it came out, then gave it to my bro after I burned myself out on that game.

For Cube, the games I enjoyed were: Eternal Darkness, RE4, Extreme G3, FZero GX, and well, that's it! heh. I own both Cube-based Rogue Squadron games, and while they look really nice, they suck as games. Also have Waverace Bluestorm (meh), SW Bounty Hunter (meh), Burnout (meh), some crap $5 4 wheeler game (walmart impulse buy). I think that's it. I owned Metroid Prime for a few weeks before selling it.

I'm much more of a PC gamer honestly, and primarily single player stuff.

 

[RocketMBA]

I am fairly horrified by how god-awful CoD3, GT racing, and Far Cry look. There is no way I'm putting down $50 on those games, especially since they don't even look/sound fun (ports).

There should be no reason for anyone to pay $50 for a game that is anything less than stellar. I don't think the developers expect you to actually pay $50 for their gaming abortions.
Additionally, buy an Xbox 360 already! Mine makes a fantastic headphone stand, lets me watch HD videos and stuff, and has some little gaming menu or something as well.

...some crap $5 4 wheeler game (walmart impulse buy).

So, any $5 4 wheeler game then?

 

[Ty]

The kid in GameStop can already see the clock speeds and other basic specs all over the place and conclude Wii's hardware 'sucks'. Magazines and websites already print this kind of stuff, as well as often perpetuating the "Wii is 50% more powerful then GC" myth. Developers being able to talk about the technical details of Wii's hardware isn't going to change that one bit. It'll have no effect on magazines and shopping sites or the general public. But it will let a lot of gamers know that the system isn't as weak as they've been lead to believe. How can that be a bad thing?

I haven't seen much specs written in magazines but then again, I haven't paid much attention to them. IGN (Matt) was certainly out there early about numerical specs - specs which one might naively conclude with that the Wii is indeed GCN 1.5. I don't know how developers speaking about specs will help Nintendo with the gamers that don't understand specs to begin with. Just about anything that would help the Wii, could be said regardless of the NDA. That is, I don't think one necessarily has to talk about Wii specs inorder to combat how poor the Wii looks on paper.

Also Wii sold out because there are loads of people who will buy it no matter how powerful it is. Not because there are lots of people who think its more then a 50% overclocked GC. These are the people that won't be effected one bit by developer talk.

Yes, this is very possible as well - that the group who bought all of the Wiis would have bought it anyhow. Still, if the reactions from the general public (anecdotal reports) are anything to go by, then Nintendo will do fine enough without playing to Sony's/MS' strengths, the PR spec war.

Once Nintendo enters those waters, they can only lose IMO because you can't easily explain away why the Wii has so much less RAM, runs at such a lower clockrate, etc. Developers speaking about it won't change the perception that the Wii is underpowered.

 

[swaaye]

I guess I think the serious problem is with ports. Ports will look like ass on Wii, in comparison to the same game on 360 and PS3. It is critical that Wii get exclusive originals. If you can't compare the games cross-platform, there is much less reason for specs to matter.

I don't really mind that it is vastly inferior. It doesn't affect the fun factor at all. But what I don't want is cash-in ports. I have a feeling Wii could become the ultimate bad port machine with its low-cost development advantage. And if it is perceived that Wii users don't care about graphics, that sure will show up as one way to cut devel costs even more.

We've never had such a vast chasm of difference in hardware in the main console market. The portables have seen such, with things like Gameboy vs. GameGear. And that worked out for Nintendo, obviously. So we'll see how it goes I guess.

 

[pc999]

BTW does anyone knows how is it done the flashlight in necronesia is made, it doesnt seem to be per vertex lighting, I guess it is CPU+TEV?

 

[Fox5]

There's 64MB of GDDR3 memory and IMO it will mostly be used for things not as reliant on lateny (graphics assets ect). The 512MB flash memory will be used both for downloads as well as probably some disc caching to speed up load times. I had no idea there was 2MB of Elpida SDRAM, maybe memory to hold the basic OS?, or for sound data? As far as we know there is the same 3MB of 1T-Sram inside the GPU and by the looks of it 24MB of 1T-Sram on the same package as the GPU. Used as GC ram for GC games and for data that requires low latency access such as game data in Wii games (IMO of course).

EDIT: Ah I see that the Elipida SDRAM is actually part of the optical drive's controller board. So its probably just used for caching data from the disc.

Lol, Wii was supposed to have 96MB in total according to IGN's old specs. (I think) 88 + 2 + 6 on flipper (Doubled edram) = 96MB.

 

[swaaye]

It might have double edram. The die is bigger and double edram isn't exactly a huge boost in size. Would that really matter though? I'd rather learn the transistors went to adding some more programmability to the thing.

 

[matrix960]

It might have double edram. The die is bigger and double edram isn't exactly a huge boost in size. Would that really matter though? I'd rather learn the transistors went to adding some more programmability to the thing.

Double the EDRAM is adding 25 millions transistors on a 51 millions transistors processor (the hollywood). But that double EDRAM is useless with the power of the machine and the need buffer for SD resolution.

 

[[maven]]

Well I don't think either of us is informed enough to speak about "the majority of gamers".

I think any of us is too informed to speak about "the majority of gamers"...

Could we stick to hardware dissection / speculation in this and Wii / game impressions in the other thread please?

I am actually quite interested in the set-up of the Wiimote and the Nunchuck sensors. Both have (from what I gather) a 3-axis linear accelerometer, but by different manufacturers (Analog Devices ST330 IIRC and one from STMicroelectronics) — maybe due to supply issues.
Reading up about inertial guidance systems on Wikipedia, the Wii remote seems to be missing the angular acceleration rates (the camera may be able to help a bit for roll, but it alone couldn't distinguish between a bit of movement to the left or right and some yaw).
Anyone know whether only the linear acceleration in the local reference frame of the controller is measured?

 

[MDX]

There's 64MB of GDDR3 memory and IMO it will mostly be used for things not as reliant on lateny (graphics assets ect). The 512MB flash memory will be used both for downloads as well as probably some disc caching to speed up load times. I had no idea there was 2MB of Elpida SDRAM, maybe memory to hold the basic OS?, or for sound data? As far as we know there is the same 3MB of 1T-Sram inside the GPU and by the looks of it 24MB of 1T-Sram on the same package as the GPU. Used as GC ram for GC games and for data that requires low latency access such as game data in Wii games (IMO of course).

EDIT: Ah I see that the Elipida SDRAM is actually part of the optical drive's controller board. So its probably just used for caching data from the disc.

Thanks for the breakdown. I think regarding the OS, wouldnt they have used the
Mask ROM by Matronix?

And what do you people think is going on here with Pokeman
What kind of effects are we seeing? Anything new?

 

[fearsomepirate]

I guess I think the serious problem is with ports. Ports will look like ass on Wii, in comparison to the same game on 360 and PS3.

That's only relevant if your a multi-console owner, which most people aren't. Many heavy gamers are, but every statistic I've seen says most people own only 1 console. Just because it looks worse than PS2/360 doesn't mean it has to look or play a thousand times worse than its immediate competitors: other Wii games. Of course, the remote is such that you can't just slapdash the controls together without breaking them, and that could be a problem.

In other news, there are new Pokemon shots up:
http://www.dengekionline.com/data/news/2006/11/30/9377a9f499b02d87306e305e53a8d749.html

Gamecube:

Wii:

At least we can convince ourselves that Wii games can look a fair clip better than Gamecube games.

 

[PeterT]

Any game looks better with bullshot levels of AA (that's why I like my PC). Would people please stop taking these Pokemon shots at face value? Except for the AA the textures and models don't look much improved over gamecube actually. A bit better, sure (about 1.5 times ). There's also no sign of any "advanced" lighting tricks, so - unless the game actually delivers this image quality (haha) - I fail to see the reason for excitement.

 

[fearsomepirate]

Except for the AA the textures and models don't look much improved over gamecube actually.

Actually, they do, actually (haha). I would point out details, but if you've got impaired vision (which you actually do, actually, haha), there's no point in saying anything. If it were just AA and higher res textures making the difference, then devshots from the two games ought to look about equivalent.

Pokemeon XD with devshot levels of AA, 800x600:
http://cubemedia.ign.com/cube/image...mon-xd-gale-of-darkness-20050920105355262.jpg

Pokemon Battle Revolution with devshot levels of AA, 760x532
http://www.dengekionline.com/news/200611/30/pbr/pbrhtml/n20061130_pbr_16.html

The difference is more than just higher-res textures. The lighting and filtering is obviously much improved, actually (haha).

 

[PeterT]

If you spent the time to read my post instead of impulsively lashing out at it (and actually trying to be funny, haha), you may have noticed that I said that textures and models are both a bit improved. I don't see more than that in the new screenshots you posted.

The filtering and lighting improvements you speak of are just the result of higher-res textures and higher-poly models, respectively. Of course bilinear filtering will look better if it has to do less upscaling, and of course vertex lighting will be improved with smaller polys. For the 2 specific shots you posted, one also has clearly more dramatic lighting, but that is more of a setting / art direction difference than a technical one I'd say.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

The filtering and lighting improvements you speak of are just the result of higher-res textures and higher-poly models, respectively...For the 2 specific shots you posted, one also has clearly more dramatic lighting, but that is more of a setting / art direction difference than a technical one I'd say.

I think the lighting overall is more complex, but isn't something beyond GC's capabilities. A combination of cubic lightmaps and some nice composition, along with the very obvious vertex lighting, would probably produce the Pokemon look.

Rather then comparing Pokemon GC with Pokemon Wii for system differences, we ought to look further afield. That is, unless Pokemon GC was the pinnacle of GC graphics, you may find better graphics from alternative games that show the same shading quality. The GC Pokemon might not be making the best use of the hardware. I don't know much at all about GC games, but a quick nose through IGN show Eternal Darkness with some good static shading. It'd really take some expect GC users to tell how much things were improved. Which they will be for sure, as you've got more powerful hardware and lots more RAM. But I don't see any technically different effects yet. It's all stuff GC was doing/could do.

 

[Megadrive1988]

Double the EDRAM is adding 25 millions transistors on a 51 millions transistors processor (the hollywood). But that double EDRAM is useless with the power of the machine and the need buffer for SD resolution.

I disagree-having more than 3 MB of embedded 1T-SRAM on Hollywood would not be useless. there are other conciderations besides resolution. in GamCube/Flipper there's 1 MB texture, 2 MB framebuffer.
certainly more than 1 MB of embedded texture memory would be of use, as would more than 2 MB of embedded framebuffer memory, for anti-aliasing and other things.

 

[Megadrive1988]

But it's not. We have enough details to know for sure that Wii is way below XB360 and PS3 in technical power. Specs will just 'confirm' that. Given specs, in your Argos catalogue you'll have the three consoles...

XB360
3 CPUs at 3 GHz each for a total of 9 GHz processing power
Amazing, over 256 GB/s system bandwidth

PS3
7 CPUs at 3 GHz for a mind-blowing 21 GHz of processing power
50 GB/s system bandwidth

Wii
1 CPU at 750 MHz
System bandwidth of 10 GB/s (or whatever it is)

In a specs sheet, Wii will look bad. Nintendo don't want specs being used to describe their product. It's not about specs. For those who care about numbers, even if they're underestimating Wii's power by a considerable degree (say it's 3-4x the performance of GC instead of their belief of 1.5x), it's still not going to help in the relative performance comparison. Wii will still be dramatically inferior in the power stakes to the rivals, such that those who choose by numbers will never buy into it. The people who are going to buy Wii don't give a hoot about the numbers, whether Wii is GC x 1.5 or GC x 3 or GC x 10 whatever.

Only if Wii was slightly less then XB360/PS3 would it matter, and it's not. Nothing like.

ahhh yes, but one could say that Wii has the most 'powerful' controller by far, lets you do things you cannot do on Xbox 360 or even on PS3 with its "sixaxis' controller

 

[Shifty Geezer]

I disagree-having more than 3 MB of embedded 1T-SRAM on Hollywood would not be useless. there are other conciderations besides resolution. in GamCube/Flipper there's 1 MB texture, 2 MB framebuffer.
certainly more than 1 MB of embedded texture memory would be of use, as would more than 2 MB of embedded framebuffer memory, for anti-aliasing and other things.

If there's more then 3MB of eDRAM, would not that elliminate 24 bit (dithered) graphics? The presence of dithered games to me says eDRAM is the same as GC.

ahhh yes, but one could say that Wii has the most 'powerful' controller by far, lets you do things you cannot do on Xbox 360 or even on PS3 with its "suxaxis' controller

Wii certainly seems the most powerful in the glass-destruction stakes . Doubt that'll be a feature to make it onto the store spec-sheets though!

All Nintendo really need is a Nintendogs for Wii with cross-DS interaction. Specs would become utterly irrelevant then (and not just totally irrelevant as they are now ).