WiiGeePeeYou (Hollywood) what IS it ?

[Fox5]

The metaphor of bolting on a turbocharger tells us almost nothing except that the Flipper's architecture hasn't been completely discarded. It does not mean that there have been no modifications at all. The metaphor is clearly just to illustrate that the current chipset used the old one as a base rather than starting from scratch. How hard is that to understand?

People try to read way, way, way too much into metaphors. Like when Mark Rein said "It's no Intel integrated graphics," people really went to town trying to decide which chipset he was talking about and what architecturally was specifically better...when any rational person knows he was just saying "It's no steaming pile of crap, but it's certainly not cutting-edge, either."

Stop trying to read detailed technical statements into or out of metaphors and marketing speak.

IMO, the latest intel integrated graphics could put out better graphics than the Wii has so far, so if epic says that the wii is noticably better than intel integrated graphics and it's not just a bs pr comment, that at least means the wii is more than an overclocked cube. The newest intel integrated graphics has decent speed, dx9 shaders, and better IQ than what the wii has shown.

 

[GwymWeepa]

I don't know exactly what are the capabilities of the Wii (graphic wise).
There is only one thing that wonders me : be the wii a "overclocked" GC, or even a little more, i don't understand long term plans of Nintendo.
In 2 or 3 years (maybe before), games on this platform will clearly look outdated (especially if you compare to X360, PS3, PC), even in the eye of the newbies (understand "normal" people). How will big N deal with that in the long term of a 6 years cycle ?

Understand me : i think short and mid-term strategy (2-3 years) around Wii is excellent. I just don't have a clue of what should happen between 3-6 years range, in Big N 's view.

Well I think Nintendo is actually relying on the fact they will look outdated, why else put in such an inferior graphics solution into their console? It'll be dirt cheap to manufacture and dirt cheap to develop for...much like the gameboy line and the current DS developers will simply be concerned about churning out games. I think if Wii is a huge success it'll be overwhelmed with quality titles, much like the DS is starting to be. This will be impossible for gamers to ignore.

Now what I wonder is, what will Nintendo do 6 years down the line for Wii 2 (Wii Wii), will they simply turbo charge the technology again, or use something at least close to the Xbox 360 or PS3? There's no way they'll have something more advanced than the current next-gen systems for their next machine, but I can say, they don't need to. From what I've seen from just first generation titles on these machines, they look sick, and at the end of their run quite a few major titles will look photo-realistic. Nintendo won't need more power than that, and they'll save money to boot.

 

[oli2]

There's no way they'll have something more advanced than the current next-gen systems for their next machine,

Why not ? i am not quite sure what you intended here. For Wii-Wii (i like so much this name !), if they use GC's technology again, your assumption is probably correct.
If not, why couldn't they find cute technology for their machine ? They succeeded in so in the past, no ?

Your post answered my questionning. Thanks.

 

[GwymWeepa]

Why not ? i am not quite sure what you intended here. For Wii-Wii (i like so much this name !), if they use GC's technology again, your assumption is probably correct.
If not, why couldn't they find cute technology for their machine ? They succeeded in so in the past, no ?

Your post answered my questionning. Thanks.

Well considering their decisions this generation, with Wii-Wii I just very strongly doubt they'll have anything more advanced than the 360 or ps3, just because they don't need to. I would be shocked if it were significantly more powerful than either those machines.

 

[Kaotik]

Well considering their decisions this generation, with Wii-Wii I just very strongly doubt they'll have anything more advanced than the 360 or ps3, just because they don't need to. I would be shocked if it were significantly more powerful than either those machines.

More powerful != More advanced

 

[fearsomepirate]

I think you guys get little too worked up about this
No offense to anybody, but based on the footage of different Wii games it's very hard for me not to think that it's just Gamecube with higher clocks.

These arguments keep getting more and more brilliant.

Person 1: Judging by Wii games, it's an overclocked Gamecube.
Person 2: But Xbox 360 launch titles looked like Xbox games with a few more normal maps and higher-res textures, and look how far the graphics have already come.
P1: That's because those were launch titles, and the developers hadn't really gotten into the new architecture.
P2: So how come we can't give Wii the benefit of the doubt? These are only launch games, so perhaps devs haven't begun to exploit any new features. Besides, a few of them, such as Excite Truck, have effects we never saw in Gamecube games.
P1: But Wii is different. These are really 4th-gen Gamecube titles, not 1st-gen titles on new hardware. So these new effects are things Flipper could do all along, but was hampered from by its clockspeed and the lack of main RAM.
P2: How the heck do you know that?
P1: Because Wii is just an overclocked Gamecube.
P2: So you're judging the architecture based on the screenshots, and you're judging the screenshots based on the architecture? Do you not see the flaw in that reasoning?
P1: No.
P2: *Head asplode*

 

[pc999]

Now what I wonder is, what will Nintendo do 6 years down the line for Wii 2 (Wii Wii), will they simply turbo charge the technology again, or use something at least close to the Xbox 360 or PS3? There's no way they'll have something more advanced than the current next-gen systems for their next machine, but I can say, they don't need to. From what I've seen from just first generation titles on these machines, they look sick, and at the end of their run quite a few major titles will look photo-realistic. Nintendo won't need more power than that, and they'll save money to boot.

They said that in (next) next gen they will care with gfx again, IMO this means something with a bit more of raw power of a 360/PS3 but as easy to work/efficient as Wii (which should be a low price as Wii), at that time most of the companys will already have their next gen tech, tool and many art work/models already made leading to a cheap dev of games again. More interesting is thinking in (assuming they will) what will they do with the interface(s).

 

[Skrying]

These arguments keep getting more and more brilliant.

Person 1: Judging by Wii games, it's an overclocked Gamecube.
Person 2: But Xbox 360 launch titles looked like Xbox games with a few more normal maps and higher-res textures, and look how far the graphics have already come.
P1: That's because those were launch titles, and the developers hadn't really gotten into the new architecture.
P2: So how come we can't give Wii the benefit of the doubt? These are only launch games, so perhaps devs haven't begun to exploit any new features. Besides, a few of them, such as Excite Truck, have effects we never saw in Gamecube games.
P1: But Wii is different. These are really 4th-gen Gamecube titles, not 1st-gen titles on new hardware. So these new effects are things Flipper could do all along, but was hampered from by its clockspeed and the lack of main RAM.
P2: How the heck do you know that?
P1: Because Wii is just an overclocked Gamecube.
P2: So you're judging the architecture based on the screenshots, and you're judging the screenshots based on the architecture? Do you not see the flaw in that reasoning?
P1: No.
P2: *Head asplode*

That pretty much sums up my entire feelings about this thread now.

 

[OtakingGX]

We know scant few details about Broadway, but from what we have heard, I believe we can discern which chip out of IBM's arsenal it is. Here is the relevant information thus far:

• 90 nm
• 729 MHz
• 25 mm^2
• 20% more power efficient than Gekko
• compatible with 750CXe code

The biggest giveaways are 90 nm and 25 mm^2. What chip would come in at 25 mm^2 on 90 nm and work with code written for the 750CXe? Well, I'll give you a hint, it starts with 750, but ends in GX. Shrinking the GX from 130 nm to 90 nm would shrink it from 52.5 mm^2 to 25.2 mm^2. The 750GL is the low power version of this chip and could undercut Gekko's power consumption by 20% on 90 nm.

What does this have to do with Hollywood though? Well, Flipper was the wonder behind the Gamecube. Gekko was there to make Flipper run. Similarly, Broadway is simply the brains and Hollywood is the Wii's muscle. I'm sure significant engineering effort would have gone into shrinking a 750GX/GL to 90 nm and getting the 60x bus up to 243 MHz (I'm assuming it's also 1.5x Gekko's). Similar efforts put into Hollywood should not have yielded simply an overclocked Flipper with duplicated pipelines.

I think right now developers are able to squeeze the best of what a Gamecube 1.5 could do out of the Wii. That's what is familiar, and the easiest way to produce decent graphics while tackling the challenges of the new controller. Once they get even more intimate with the hardware we'll see a climb in graphics quality just as with any platform.

 

[DuckThor Evil]

These arguments keep getting more and more brilliant.

What's your argument, wishful thinking?

Person 2: But Xbox 360 launch titles looked like Xbox games with a few more normal maps and higher-res textures.

There were games on X360 launch lineup that says otherwise like Kameo, and we had seen footage of games like Gears of War and Oblivion long before the launch, where is this amazing footage of upcoming Wii-titles that takes advantage of these hidden uber-features that you wishfully think exists?

 

[GwymWeepa]

More powerful != More advanced

I meant advanced as advancements in graphics on a technical level.

 

[GwymWeepa]

They said that in (next) next gen they will care with gfx again, IMO this means something with a bit more of raw power of a 360/PS3 but as easy to work/efficient as Wii (which should be a low price as Wii), at that time most of the companys will already have their next gen tech, tool and many art work/models already made leading to a cheap dev of games again. More interesting is thinking in (assuming they will) what will they do with the interface(s).

I don't see too much more raw power, perhaps more RAM which would be nice, which would only improve graphics without having to pay a lot more for more advanced CPU and GPUs. Honestly that level power is all Nintendo needs, already some games are looking photo-realistic early in the generation, now imagine Nintendo with their art style (mostly a simplistic cartoony look) on such hardware. So basically I totally agree with your post

 

[ninzel]

These arguments keep getting more and more brilliant.

Person 1: Judging by Wii games, it's an overclocked Gamecube.
Person 2: But Xbox 360 launch titles looked like Xbox games with a few more normal maps and higher-res textures, and look how far the graphics have already come.
P1: That's because those were launch titles, and the developers hadn't really gotten into the new architecture.
P2: So how come we can't give Wii the benefit of the doubt? These are only launch games, so perhaps devs haven't begun to exploit any new features. Besides, a few of them, such as Excite Truck, have effects we never saw in Gamecube games.
P1: But Wii is different. These are really 4th-gen Gamecube titles, not 1st-gen titles on new hardware. So these new effects are things Flipper could do all along, but was hampered from by its clockspeed and the lack of main RAM.
P2: How the heck do you know that?
P1: Because Wii is just an overclocked Gamecube.
P2: So you're judging the architecture based on the screenshots, and you're judging the screenshots based on the architecture? Do you not see the flaw in that reasoning?
P1: No.
P2: *Head asplode*

Circular logic. Fun isn't it.

 

[pc999]

We know scant few details about Broadway, but from what we have heard, I believe we can discern which chip out of IBM's arsenal it is. Here is the relevant information thus far:

• 90 nm
• 729 MHz
• 25 mm^2
• 20% more power efficient than Gekko
• compatible with 750CXe code

The biggest giveaways are 90 nm and 25 mm^2. What chip would come in at 25 mm^2 on 90 nm and work with code written for the 750CXe? Well, I'll give you a hint, it starts with 750, but ends in GX. Shrinking the GX from 130 nm to 90 nm would shrink it from 52.5 mm^2 to 25.2 mm^2. The 750GL is the low power version of this chip and could undercut Gekko's power consumption by 20% on 90 nm.

What does this have to do with Hollywood though? Well, Flipper was the wonder behind the Gamecube. Gekko was there to make Flipper run. Similarly, Broadway is simply the brains and Hollywood is the Wii's muscle. I'm sure significant engineering effort would have gone into shrinking a 750GX/GL to 90 nm and getting the 60x bus up to 243 MHz (I'm assuming it's also 1.5x Gekko's). Similar efforts put into Hollywood should not have yielded simply an overclocked Flipper with duplicated pipelines.

I think right now developers are able to squeeze the best of what a Gamecube 1.5 could do out of the Wii. That's what is familiar, and the easiest way to produce decent graphics while tackling the challenges of the new controller. Once they get even more intimate with the hardware we'll see a climb in graphics quality just as with any platform.

Per clock what is the advantage of the 750GX over the 750CXe?

While that is a very good theory (and quite possible the right one) I wonder I would they "waste" so much space and transsistores on cache, I mean I never heard anything bad about GC memory, ERP even said it would prefer if didnt had cut corners in other places than such a refined memory system*.
It doesnt make that much sense IMO that they had made a big investiment on cache but a very smal one on logic (given the limitations of flipper or some of the advances in games, like physics, it could be the better option (eg 512 Kb and the rest in logic)).

*Edit: here is his post

However I'd rather have had more conventional memory, I always felt the GC memory system was over engineered. They tried to solve the N64 issue in two seperate ways just having the L2 cache on the CPU was probably sufficient.

Same thing with the graphics chip, I really wish they hadn't cut some of the corners they did.

I don't see too much more raw power, perhaps more RAM which would be nice, which would only improve graphics without having to pay a lot more for more advanced CPU and GPUs. Honestly that level power is all Nintendo needs, already some games are looking photo-realistic early in the generation, now imagine Nintendo with their art style (mostly a simplistic cartoony look) on such hardware. So basically I totally agree with your post

I hope that Nintendo isnt the only one doing games for WiiWii . Anyway by raw power I meant higher overall specs or performance (this way is better), enought for a lot of HD 60FPS with 360/PS3 level of visuals/fxs games.

 

[darkblu]

rather OT

i know it's not the best place for venting anger, but does anybody else feel similarly pissed off from what happened to that biplanes game we commented on here once? from a beautifully-stylized, beautifully-lit, free flying relaxation experience it turned into a quakish-brown presentation where you have to fly a formation over ugly scenery and bomb stupid targets! i mean, WTF!!

that game should have never left the wii sports pack - it was just perfect the way it was! apparently somebody decided they could make more money from it if they released it as a separate 'full-blown' title, and assigned that task to a team of interns!



anybody in for a petition?

edit: sorry, false alarm - it seems wing island is not that wii ariplanes substitute i initially took it for- it's a not a intendo title at all, it's hudson's.

 

[OtakingGX]

i know it's not the best place for venting anger, but does anybody else feel similarly pissed off from what happened to that biplanes game we commented on here once? from a beautifully-stylized, beautifully-lit, free flying relaxation experience it turned into a quakish-brown presentation where you have to fly a formation over ugly scenery and bomb stupid targets! i mean, WTF!!

that game should have never left the wii sports pack - it was just perfect the way it was! apparently somebody decided they could make more money from it if they released it as a separate 'full-blown' title, and assigned that task to a team of interns!



anybody in for a petition?

edit: sorry, false alarm - it seems wing island is not that wii ariplanes substitute i initially took it for- it's a not a intendo title at all, it's hudson's.

Yeah, I was about to post that the two are not the same game. Perhaps we'll see the Nintendo demo as part of Wii Sports 2 someday.

 

[fearsomepirate]

What's your argument, wishful thinking?

Nothing that hasn't been said before. But since you apparently haven't been reading, I'll repeat it all:

1. Paying that much money and working that long for a 50% overclock and not being able to get final silicon to developers until a month or two ago is ridiculous.

2. A few launch titles are already going significantly beyond what Gamecube was doing, more than a 50% overclock would account for, specifically Excite Truck, Sonic, and Madden. For example, in Madden, you've got bloom lighting, fur-shaded grass, depth of field, some sorta perspective warping, high-contrast lighting, "shadow bleeding," 60fps, 480p, and widescreen. I don't think a few extra megahertz is enough to account for that, and this from a developer that never put any Cube-specific features in a single game.

3. At least a few developers when specifically asked in interviews about "Gamecube 1.5" have denied it. No developer has said it's just an overclocked Flipper when given the opportunity. An ATI rep said he thinks launch titles are just "scratching the surface." The most negative reliable remark we've got is that it's based on Flipper architecture. But you could just as well say that Geforce4 MX is based on Geforce2, which is based on Geforce 256AV, and none of those are simple overclocks.

4. Zelda looks about half a generation above most of the Wii titles cited as "proof" that it's just Gamecube 1.5. Zelda is also identical in graphical content to the Gamecube version, as Miyamoto specifically directed his team not to fiddle around with the graphics. Ergo, the ugly titles prove nothing.

Thus I have completely plausible reason to believe that Hollywood is an evolution of the Flipper chipset, and neither a simple overclock/die shrink nor a less-powerful version of a truly 'next-gen' architecture.

 

[ban25]

Where in any of those comments does it mention no changes other then clock speed and memory? Last time I checked "turbo-charged" wasn't an exact dictionary term for "add 50% clock speed and some ram".

There have been plenty of developer comments echoed in this thread, including ones from Factor 5, Epic, and Crytek. You are relying solely on wishful thinking here, with no evidence to support your hopes. So let's hear it from you then. What do you think is inside the Wii? PowerVR Series 4?

 

[StefanS]

that game should have never left the wii sports pack - it was just perfect the way it was! apparently somebody decided they could make more money from it if they released it as a separate 'full-blown' title, and assigned that task to a team of interns!

They might make into Pilotwings. I am sure that would get your blood boiling

 

[Fox5]

3. At least a few developers when specifically asked in interviews about "Gamecube 1.5" have denied it. No developer has said it's just an overclocked Flipper when given the opportunity. An ATI rep said he thinks launch titles are just "scratching the surface." The most negative reliable remark we've got is that it's based on Flipper architecture. But you could just as well say that Geforce4 MX is based on Geforce2, which is based on Geforce 256AV, and none of those are simple overclocks.

I wouldn't have a problem with that definition, considering that there wasn't much difference between those geforces besides performance. I think we can be certain of graphics hardware somewhere between 1.5x to 3x the performance of flipper, but it's not going to be r300 class hardware at all.