WiiGeePeeYou (Hollywood) what IS it ?

Nice that DS has the ability to do higher frame rates than the N64, but it's really annoying to see those horrible pixelated looks. Wish it had some better AA abilities.


Anyhoo, what do you guys think of this pic?

http://gonintendo.com/wp-content/photos/h_103_66432_s3_jpg.jpg

Seems pretty nice.

Also, this one has Sonic's hand looking really smooth:

http://gonintendo.com/wp-content/photos/h_103_66432_s2_jpg.jpg

 

Most things look smooth on such small screens. You can only get a good idea on normal sized screenshots.

 

Nothing much more but interesting, I guess this "insane fill-rates" are more than 50%.

 

What of interest would there be? It would just be a shiny rectangle similar to what you see from the old PentiumIIIs. You wouldn't be able to see the circuits etc. like you do from a micrograph.

 

I knew seconds after I posted that I should have been clearer. LOL

I want to see this for the Hollywood (with or without overlay)



Just to see them side by side.

Oh well... I'm sure at some point all will be revealed. I (like everyone else I'm sure) just want to know exactly what it is and end all the speculation... Of course it won't though... I have a feeling people will still be debating this 10 years from now... I've even run across messages with people still arguing over what Dreamcast was capable of. LOL

In the meantime I've been enjoying the argument on Wired forum about S3TC texture compression... I might not have a clue what it is, but I find it hilarious to watch people melt down sometimes.

Link If anyone hasn't been reading this, but may wish to.

http://boards.thewiire.com/index.php?showtopic=18639

 

Well fill rate determines how many pixels can be thrown out the screen at a time. Advanced shaders make s system fill rate take a big hit in performance. I think what he is saying is since there are no Wii games with heaver shader support, then the fill rate of those games should be extremely high... but they are not. Hence the developers are being lazy.

I'm telling you guys, the Wii may not end up with graphics of high end 360 games but it will end up with graphics that excceed all 360 launch titles. At least. For it's size, Wii is a beast.

Once games like Resident evil UC and Final fantasy CC are shown, the wool will be pulled from your eyes. Developers pulled a fast one us this launch just like they did with the 360 launch.

 

The fillrate is always the same, whether you use it or not. Julian criticises that developers don't use the available fillrate for anything interesting. According to Capcom, fillrate is a bottleneck for PS3 and Xbox360, while Wii seems to have lots of fillrate to spare - problem is, it's hardly used, except for some DoF here and there (Pokemon seems to be an exception). You can do lots of cool stuff if you have an insane fillrate.

 

Nothing shown so far on Wii (including SMG and MP3) comes even remotely close to PGR3 or Kameo, to quote 2 360 launch games. If you extend that to 360 games that couldn't make launch and were pushed a couple of months, you add Ghost Recon and Oblivion to the list.

While I'm relatively confident that some Wii games will end up very good looking, I would appreciate if you didn't imply that everyone weary of Wii performance somehow has "wool on the eyes". That kind of comment is totally uncalled for.

 

What I meant is that you dont get "insane fill-rates" with 50% + GC, in fact you barely get more than XB/GF2 fillrates and once he (or anyone else) never said that those have "insane fill-rates" then Wii should be more than 50% + GC.

 

In playing Excite Truck, you can tell that Wii fill-rate is pretty high. One of the platinum tracks has a section that when triggered engulf surrounding tree's in flames. Without much of a noticeable slow down.

It would have been nice if Matt had suggested Julian license they're Wii specific engine to publishers.

 

Factor 5 really needs to license their GC engine out to devs!

 

Well those shots were from the GC section of IGN, so I don't know why they're linking to PS2 media, very proffesional IGN ... Anyway those shots you've posted (which are pretty much the two best shots of the game I can see) are still not close to as good as those Driver shots. The polygon counts are noticably lower, textures are lower resolution and the lighting is none exsistant (compared to some very nice lighting in the Driver shots). Of course a term like significant leap is totally down to interpretation so there's no point in my arguing with you there. But surely you can't deny that those Driver shots look better then any other game of its genre on GC/PS2 or XBox? To the point where its instantly noticable.

 

http://www.hidebehind.com/5CBD1279

If anybody have illusions about the quality of the future ps3 and xb2 games IF the wii will be the "winer", pls check this RE4 shots.
the creenshoots of the 6 year old GC platform is far superior than the quality of the up-to-dat pc platfomr.Why?because the developer exactly know where is the money.

 

It uses a programmable matrix processor. Exactly what level of programmability it has I don't know, I'm sure its not up there with new vertex shaders. But it is a lot more flexible then Flipper's T&L unit.

Some tech forum eh All they would have to do is compare DS games to NGage (which has a faster ARM processor then DS) to see that DS must have some kind of GPU working in there. As it is I know for a fact that there is a GPU and the specs given in this thread are correct.

Its actually 4 million, but that is a raw polygon trasform number. That will drop as you add effects, lights ect The reason for the 120,000 per second limit is down to the amount of polygons the system can display per line (its a scaneline based renderer). But while it can only display 120,000 per second that doesn't mean the 4mpps transform is useless. It just means there is a lot you can do with the 120,000 polygons you actually display.

 

Pretty much the biggest dutch tech forum. But it was in a DS topic in the gaming section and the guys there dont seem to be half as knowledgable as most people here. Exept for the guy that said the DS didnt had a gpu, he seem like he usually copy pastes his info from sites like b3d so I thought he might be right.

 

No they need to make a Wii engine then license it out.

 

Not if it's true. It's gotten so bad that people didn't even think the Wii would be capable of normal mapping even thought a GC launch game used it. BTW I said "end up" meaning by the end of Wii's life cycle. There will definately be better looking Wii games than Kameo. That's for sure.

 

That sounds like a lot of faith. Kameo had some great parallax maps with real depth, and busy scenes.
There's some serious shader crunching involved and nothing so far about Wii suggests it can manage that. Capturing the same look and style, perhaps, but I'll be (pleasantly) surprised if Wii has that much leg room to grow.

 

Well it depends on if you think shaders = better. I think a game can look better on Wii with or without the use of extensive shaders.

 

But than you are talking about the artistic point of view and not the technical point of view as we are talking about.