IGN and Spot are saying the Wii is GameCube 1.5

[Anthony1]

When I'm at work all day, all I can really do is listen to headphones, so I download alot of podcasts and listen to them while I'm at work. I was listening to a number of IGN and Gamespot podcasts, and there seems to be this general feeling from them, that the Nintendo Wii's technology is very much like a GameCube 1.5. This one girl on IGN, don't know her name, kept wondering why they even decided to make the Wii, when they could have released their special controller as a perepheral for the Cube, and it would have worked just the same.

One of the shows had a long talk about Madden on the Wii, and they thought that Madden on the Wii was a very bad thing, because if sports gamers buy a Wii and Madden, they are likely to return both in disgust because the graphics are so poor. Before any hardcore Nintendo people get super pissed at me, I'm simply mentioning what they discussed on these podcasts. They were saying that madden for the Wii is going to give gamers a very bad impression of the Wii, and it's going to make them think that the Wii isn't even really a next-generation system in terms of power.

I can't remember all the comments that I heard, but all of the editors are still excited about the Wii, but they are saying that mass market consumers might be in for a shock in terms of how "not quite Next-Gen" the Wii's graphics look. Sure graphics are just one part of the equation, but you know how shallow people can be. These guys are saying that the only game they saw that really looked like it was running on something more powerfull than the GameCube was Mario Galaxy. A few thought Metroid looked pretty close to next-gen, but that the other games looked like GameCube games, for the most part.


Man, I was planning on buying the Wii if it launches for $199.99, but now I'm not so sure. They were talking about the control mechanisms for Metroid and Red Steel, and they said that both control styles need to be dumped for a more Halo style control. You can't do quick movements and stuff, they said the control is just awkward and doesn't make sense. They were hoping that there is enough time before launch that their controls could be salvaged. Hmm, I'm not so sure about this. Man, why the F didn't Nintendo at least to try to add some Next-Gen technology to this thing? Even at $199, it should look considerably beyond the Xbox 1. IGN and GameSpot both think the tech of the Wii is somewhere inbetween the Cube and Xbox 1. The Xbox 1 was released 5 years earlier, the Wii should have a much better GPU than this, even at $199. What the fuck did they do? x_x

[Emuaust]

do you honestly think that there is a big enough gap
in hardware specs between a GCN and a Xbox for it to fit
in? O_O

Honestly this hardware spec business is bullshit as the GPU's
act differently due to different cpu architecture and everyone
is completly fucking paranoid about this.

[s1lence]

Does it really matter as long as the games are fun to play?

[Push Upstairs]

Beats being N64 1.5.

[GrandAmChandler]

Does it really matter as long as the games are fun to play?

Thank you. I will be purchasing this system for fun factor. Not graphics. Anyone who purchases a Wii for graphics are gonna be sad. Get a Wii because you like playing with your Wii. Not to look at your wii. No one likes just looking at a Wii, a Wii is meant to be played with and enjoyed.

[milhouseOFpain]

This one girl on IGN, don't know her name, kept wondering why they even decided to make the Wii, when they could have released their special controller as a perepheral for the Cube, and it would have worked just the same.




Jag CD
32X
Sega CD
Nintendo DD
3D goggles

[digitalmouse]

Does it really matter as long as the games are fun to play?

Thank you. I will be purchasing this system for fun factor. Not graphics. Anyone who purchases a Wii for graphics are gonna be sad. Get a Wii because you like playing with your Wii. Not to look at your wii. No one likes just looking at a Wii, a Wii is meant to be played with and enjoyed.

And I thought we were passed this Wii joke stage. I guess you are never too old to make a joke about a Wii. ;)

[Zadoc]

Does it really matter as long as the games are fun to play?

Thank you. I will be purchasing this system for fun factor. Not graphics. Anyone who purchases a Wii for graphics are gonna be sad. Get a Wii because you like playing with your Wii. Not to look at your wii. No one likes just looking at a Wii, a Wii is meant to be played with and enjoyed.

Thank you. You won't be purchasing Wii games for very long if the mass majority of gamers don't support the console. You also won't have a varity of games if third parties feel that Wii software won't sell.

I predict that Wii 3rd party support will be the worst for any Nintendo console based on the cost of designing games specifically for the Wii's controller, and the low install base that the Wii will achieve do to it's power problem.

[DreamTR]

That's the problem with most people. They only want eye candy. Anyone who is buying the XBOX 360 for games right now other than Table Tennis, Tops Spin 2, and a handful of others only want the graphics.

Wii is actually unique because it is a different type and style of gaming. Look at Nintendo DS and PSP. Completely different systems, it's like comparing apples to oranges.

[NightHawk777]

That's the problem with most people. They only want eye candy. Anyone who is buying the XBOX 360 for games right now other than Table Tennis, Tops Spin 2, and a handful of others only want the graphics.


As long as your "handful of others" include Call of Duty 2, Oblivion, and Dead or Alive 4, I can't argue with that.

[Anthony1]

The point of this discussion, is not to say, "Well, if all you care about are graphics, then the Wii isn't for you". The purpose of this discussion is to debate whether or not the Wii really is a GameCube 1.5 from a technological standpoint. The editiors, with their personal takes, made it really clear that they think that the Wii is very close to the GameCube in capabilities, and they are quite suprised by that, but still interested in getting a Wii. The question is..... Is the Wii really this underpowered? Or are the current games being designed on a GameCube and then ported over, and the only game "really" using any of the Wii specific technology (I'm not talking about the controller at all) is Mario Galaxy. The consensus, is that Mario Galaxy is the only game that appears to be beyond the GameCube's capabilities.


I'm not saying that somebody should avoid the Wii just because it isn't a technological powerhouse, but I have to admit, I'm wondering why the Wii isn't significantly more powerfull than their previous system. I mean if it's going to essentially be a GameCube 1.5 in terms of power, why the hell did they make it? Why not just release the new joystick as a peripheral? Why make people spend almost 3 times as much money for basically the same technology, shrunken down, with wi-fi and a virtual console tacked on? Is the Wii basically just a GameCube in a different case with Wi-Fi added to it? And some kind of flash drive or whatever?


I'm just trying to figure out if these people are really telling the truth in how weak the graphics looked. I know that the Wii isn't going to be competing against the 360 or PS3, but it should clearly be "far" beyond the Xbox 1 in graphics, simply because it's 5 years newer technology. Didn't ATI do the GPU in the Wii? They did the GPU in the 360, how could the Wii's GPU not at least be up to the standard of Nvidia's original GPU on the Xbox 1? Doesn't the Wii have much more memory than the Xbox 1? This just doesn't make since, unless developers are designing their games on GameCube development systems, and the only one that has a real Wii development system is the team working on Mario Galaxy. I'm not trying to talk smack about the Wii, I'm trying to understand why it's like this, if this is really true. I'm assuming they are telling the truth, because they are normally very pro-Nintendo, and not anti Nintendo, so I don't think they are making it up. I didn't actually go to e3, and it's hard to tell with online videos, so I can't really comment on what they are saying.

[cyberfluxor]

Get a Wii because you like playing with your Wii. Not to look at your wii. No one likes just looking at a Wii, a Wii is meant to be played with and enjoyed.
LOL Well stated.



Thank you. You won't be purchasing Wii games for very long if the mass majority of gamers don't support the console. You also won't have a varity of games if third parties feel that Wii software won't sell.
Key word if. I beg to differ since most people I've talked to are going in the direction of Wii due to price and inventive gameplay. As for third parties, I think it'll improve due to the dynamics of what they can do with a game. Companies will want to jump on the bandwagon and be different to put their name out there.



I predict that Wii 3rd party support will be the worst for any Nintendo console based on the cost of designing games specifically for the Wii's controller, and the low install base that the Wii will achieve do to it's power problem.
Not as bad as the GameCube. Because it's not as high tech as the Xbox360 or PS3 it's a softer game machine for companies to program for. It shouldn't take quite as many hours to produce and money to spend for the highest graphics and gameplay in the world. About the controller though, it's not that hard. I'm sure Nintendo has an easy programming method of I/O communications, they wouldn't want to make it difficult.

Just wait and see what'll happen, lets not have crazy debates. If you really sit back you'll see this will be a very interesting consule battle comming up. :)

[unwinddesign]

That's the problem with most people. They only want eye candy. Anyone who is buying the XBOX 360 for games right now other than Table Tennis, Tops Spin 2, and a handful of others only want the graphics.

Wii is actually unique because it is a different type and style of gaming. Look at Nintendo DS and PSP. Completely different systems, it's like comparing apples to oranges.

Hardly true about the Xbox 360. I found Table Tennis to be quite dry and boring -- and not because of the graphics (which are pretty good, actually). Simply put, real ping pong is much better, and much more intense. It may be an amazing representation of ping-pong, but nothing beats holding a paddle in your hand. And honestly, I can go and play ping-pong for free without stupid focus shots and ridiculously cheap and annoying AI.

The game I play most is Geometry Wars Evolved. Because it's fun. It's almost worth a 360.

I didn't like the DS, and I don't think the Wii is going to bring anything really "new" to the table. People will say it's the newest and most bestest way to play games, like the DS, but if you look at it, Nintendo is kinda suckering people. The DS just isn't fun to play. It's just straight up not.

I'm not holding out much hope for the Wii, to be honest. I'll buy one at launch and give it a fair shake, but the whole premise seems gimicky. Maybe I'll be surprised. But I'm fully expecting a lot of "slightly better looking" Gamecube style games playable with the regular 'Cube controller and with special WiiMote functionality enabled.

[ProgrammingAce]

Is the Wii just gamecube 1.5? From a developer's standpoint, yes.

Early on in Revolution game dev, Nintendo came out and said that developers should just make gamecube quality games and they'll hash out the hardware specs later. Well, here we are later, and we still have gamecube quality games... and here's why.

The Revolution devkits were just G-Devs with an addon board. For those who don't know, a G-dev is a gamecube devkit. So up until developers received the final dev hardware, all they were really using were gamecube devkits with a wand attachment. That's why the first gen of wii games look like they'll work on a gamecube... because in many cases they would.

[Darren870]

Does it really matter as long as the games are fun to play?

Thank you. I will be purchasing this system for fun factor. Not graphics. Anyone who purchases a Wii for graphics are gonna be sad. Get a Wii because you like playing with your Wii. Not to look at your wii. No one likes just looking at a Wii, a Wii is meant to be played with and enjoyed.

Thank you. You won't be purchasing Wii games for very long if the mass majority of gamers don't support the console. You also won't have a varity of games if third parties feel that Wii software won't sell.

I predict that Wii 3rd party support will be the worst for any Nintendo console based on the cost of designing games specifically for the Wii's controller, and the low install base that the Wii will achieve do to it's power problem.

Do you read any articles on this subject or just sit down on the shitter and come up with these theories yourself? A lot of companies have said they are looking forward to working on the wii and are love how its a low cost system to develop for.

IE Nintendo DS

In terms of graphics im not worried, if they can get stuff like RE 4 and other stuff on gamecube ill be happy, i play my gamecube all the time and don't have anything bad to say about it.

This might actually be the first madden game i buy...ever...

[Bronty-2]

Is the Wii just gamecube 1.5? From a developer's standpoint, yes.

Early on in Revolution game dev, Nintendo came out and said that developers should just make gamecube quality games and they'll hash out the hardware specs later. Well, here we are later, and we still have gamecube quality games... and here's why.

The Revolution devkits were just G-Devs with an addon board. For those who don't know, a G-dev is a gamecube devkit. So up until developers received the final dev hardware, all they were really using were gamecube devkits with a wand attachment. That's why the first gen of wii games look like they'll work on a gamecube... because in many cases they would.

Cool. So there is some untapped power that will hopefully be used in year 2..

[Icarus Moonsight]

The question is..... Is the Wii really this underpowered? Or are the current games being designed on a GameCube and then ported over.

It's not underpowered, it's simply less powerful (in specs) than the 360 and PS3.

Back when Nintendo first launched the DS I was confused as to what they were going for. There was this little voice in the background of my mind - and it chanted "Virtual Boy" over and over. This time around I'm not going to be so skeptical. I'm gonna grab my Wii and play the hell outta it. :P

I have some thoughts on the questions you posed;


I mean if it's going to essentially be a GameCube 1.5 in terms of power, why the hell did they make it?

No matter how much I love the lunchbox, Nintendo sorely needed a new image and a clean slate for the console market. With the lines that Wii drew at E3 can you seriously ask why not Gamecube with a straight face? No one would have cared about the remote control peripheral for the cube.


Why not just release the new joystick as a peripheral <for the cube>?

Secondly, peripherals DO NOT catch on with the consumer or developers. They needed a new platform to introduce the new control interface as the standard - not the option. They also needed to be taken seriously... trying to put the Cube on life support via a bold new control peripheral is (sadly) laughable.


Why make people spend almost 3 times as much money for basically the same technology, shrunken down, with wi-fi and a virtual console tacked on?

Even at 3 times the price of a Gamecube the Wii will be cheaper than a 360 and nearly half the cost of the PS3. I think a previous poster was right on with the "Apples and Oranges" comment.


Is the Wii basically just a GameCube in a different case with Wi-Fi added to it?

Nope, it's a Wii, Gamecube, N64, SNES, Genesis, TG-16, NES and God knows what else!


Didn't ATI do the GPU in the Wii? They did the GPU in the 360, how could the Wii's GPU not at least be up to the standard of Nvidia's original GPU on the Xbox 1? Doesn't the Wii have much more memory than the Xbox 1?

The Gamecube came close to the Xbox in graphical power, and if Wii is only Gamecube factor 1.5 (though from what I've heard it's more like 2 to 3 times GC) then yes, it would have to be faster than the Xbox GPU. I can't remember if the memory for Wii was 128 or 256mb... it will be expandable, or so I hear. Even at 128 that is double the original Xbox... and I'm leaning tward 256.

I think alot of gamers like the Wii but are afraid that Nintendo won't hit the target that they set for themself. With the run of N64 and Gamecube, the concern is well founded. However there is a "little handheld that could" that broke the mold, shrugged off the cynism (I'm even guilty of it) and is now doing very well. DS proved the model solid - now all they have to do is get them Wii kiosks out in the stores and let the public play. I'm sure after that, graphics won't be an issue.

[Zadoc]

Key word if. I beg to differ since most people I've talked to are going in the direction of Wii due to price and inventive gameplay. As for third parties, I think it'll improve due to the dynamics of what they can do with a game. Companies will want to jump on the bandwagon and be different to put their name out there.



I don't know about you, but most gamers who I talk to are hardcore gamers like us, and they all own a PS2, Xbox and a Cube.

Most gamers are not the gamers who you and I talk to. The general public has no idea what a Wii is. We do because we're hardcore gamers.

Look at the market. How many copies of that 50 Cent game sold? No one but us care about inventive gameplay, the public wants cool gameplay with cool graphics. It's the same crap that sells in the movie industry; XXX = case in point. No substance, just special effects.





Not as bad as the GameCube. Because it's not as high tech as the Xbox360 or PS3 it's a softer game machine for companies to program for. It shouldn't take quite as many hours to produce and money to spend for the highest graphics and gameplay in the world. About the controller though, it's not that hard. I'm sure Nintendo has an easy programming method of I/O communications, they wouldn't want to make it difficult.


I am sorry, I will clarify. I am not talking about the cost of programming the game to work with the controller, I am sure that is realitively simple, I am talking about the cost of programming a whole game designed around the use of the controller. Over 80% of Gamecube games were ports.

It will be expensive for developers to create games specifically designed for the Wii's control scheme. If the Wii preforms only as well as the Gamecube did, I don't think that developers will support it.

The ports will also look pretty bad;and I imagine that many games won't be able to be ported from a 360 or PS3 due to Wii's technical limitations.

I do not expect the device to sell well in the US market. I'll be getting one when it comes out, I just don't think that will be doing well six months after its launch.

[Griking]

What I'm hearing was that you were all hyped up to buy a Wii until someone said something bad about it on a podcast and gave you second thoughts. I say turn off the podcasts while in work and listen to music instead. Ignore all the hype (both good and bad) and base your purchasing decision on the actual finished product when it's finally released.

[studvicious]

Just wait until the 2nd or 3rd wave of games for it to come out. I have no doubt that it will look good. If the cube put out visually stunning games like RE4 and StarFox Adventures then having a system that could take that and push "it to eleven" doesn't worry me at all.

And Nintendo even said that when they feel that the market is really ready for a high-def system they'll release one. And it wouldn't necessarily be 5+ years from now.

[bazariah]

who gives a shit about graphics in this day and age when they've virtually hit a technological brick wall in terms of graphics... whatever happens it's gonna look loads sweeter than what we had 10 years ago

and to tell you the truth i couldnt give two fux about processer powers, cpu's, gpu's, ram, storage capabilities, whatever as long as the games are fun... thats all i want fun games... like we had back in the 80's/90's

[gjb-sensei]

Does it really matter as long as the games are fun to play?

So freakin' true. I'm not buying any of the next-generation consoles specifically for the visuals they are potentially capable of producing, I'm buying them because they look like they could offer plenty of enjoyable experiences.

[GrayFox]

OMGZ those Graphicz are so like the N64z! Killzonez for the PS3 LOKKED soo g00dz !!!11eleven!!


Seriously, when did graphics mean a shit? PS2 is weak compared to the Xbox and Cube.

That didn't matter.

The DS doesn't look nearly as good graphically as the PSP. But yeah, that didn't mean jack shit in Japan where the PSP is literally being pooped on. The DS wasn't stopped by superior graphics.

The DS is now the fastest selling console overthere, or something like that.

Good games for the win? Yep.

A literal poop by the way, not figurative. I saw it happen. Gross. But in America, who knows. Americans just want boobs, good graphics, blood, boobs, blood, and Madden/Grand Theft Auto/Halo. We're not smart here.

[Muscelli]

i personally predict the wii will flop, just my 2 cents

[NE146]

Well to be fair, that's what everyone was saying about the 360 too.. as "Xbox 1.5" wasnt it ;)

They're probably right about the Wii though. Although in this day and age of lessening returns as far as graphics go, it doesn't really matter much I guess.

[gepeto]

i personally predict the wii will flop, just my 2 cents

Last year I would have agreed. This year I am not so sure. I just knew the ds would flop with the psp being launched. I thought the whole stylus wand was a gimmick.

But must give respect where respect is due I won't underestimate them again. I had them down for the count.

As far as graphics go in gaming. I really don't understand the post and comments from gamers that clamor for graphics so much that everything not in hd or graphically amazing is a turd. I still enjoy playing the xbox and ps2.

When the 64 and psx era died there was a noticable leap in graphics. Older games that were eye candy then are harder on the eyes now. I am nowhere near that point with the xbox or ps2. I think alot of people aren't at that point.
It puts an overall emphasis on the next big thing and I think it causes companies to focus too much on candy and not substance. Where are we headed? Maybe nintendo has it right. People need more innovation and get back to what made games fun.

I use to have a friend early in the ps2 life always complain about jaggies this and jaggies that. I was thinking Play the game enjoy the game. the jaggies will go away. They are like subtitles in movies. Alot of people hate them but after 5 mins you almost forget there there.

[YoshiM]

Look at the market. How many copies of that 50 Cent game sold? No one but us care about inventive gameplay, the public wants cool gameplay with cool graphics. It's the same crap that sells in the movie industry; XXX = case in point. No substance, just special effects.

True..to a point. Just like Enter the Matrix, people bought the bejeezus out of it and then traded the game in not long after. Because it sucked. Hard. Same deal with Fitty Cent's game-my local Gamestop and EB have a bunch on the used shelf.

The casual audience will grab onto what's "hip" at the time but after being bitten too many times, they will graze other gaming pastures. With a low dollar entry point, less expensive games and a unique type of control, the financial risk factor is pretty low.



I am not talking about the cost of programming the game to work with the controller, I am sure that is realitively simple, I am talking about the cost of programming a whole game designed around the use of the controller. Over 80% of Gamecube games were ports.

It will be expensive for developers to create games specifically designed for the Wii's control scheme. If the Wii preforms only as well as the Gamecube did, I don't think that developers will support it.

Why would it be more expensive? I'm sure the dev kits have code that takes care of rudimentary tasks the Wiimote would be used for (operating a pointer like a mouse, etc). For example: if I'm not mistaken, last year's and this year's Madden games use the same kicking functionality as modern golf games (using the second analog stick to control power and then accuracy). Using the Wiimote's motion sensing capability for a situation like this shouldn't be that big of a stretch: instead of a stick and a spring you're using radio and pentometers.

The games also don't absolutely have to use the special control. Games like Trauma Center (which is totally based on the stylus) and New Super Mario Bros (which is not) for the DS got rave reviews.


The ports will also look pretty bad;and I imagine that many games won't be able to be ported from a 360 or PS3 due to Wii's technical limitations.

Granted, but then again many a person said games like Doom 3 or Half Life 2 couldn't be ported to the Xbox or couldn't be ported well. I've got a couple boxes of Crow those people could eat. If a company actually spends the time and does the port right, there will be no problems.

Also, "looking bad" is in the eye of the beholder. As negative as it may sound, the less expensive Wii probably won't be under as much graphic scrutiny as the 360 or PS3. I pay $400 and $600+ respectively, I want some automatic return on my investment. Many people have those same feelings.


I do not expect the device to sell well in the US market. I'll be getting one when it comes out, I just don't think that will be doing well six months after its launch.

I think many people said the same thing about the DS. I was one of them. I ate a whole box of Crow, taking time out between spoonfuls to play some Animal Crossing or Mario Kart DS.

It's summer, it's slow gaming time, it's the season to predict doom and gloom for everything interactively entertaining. Let's wait until fall before we play the dirge :D

[Anthony1]

What I'm hearing was that you were all hyped up to buy a Wii until someone said something bad about it on a podcast and gave you second thoughts. I say turn off the podcasts while in work and listen to music instead. Ignore all the hype (both good and bad) and base your purchasing decision on the actual finished product when it's finally released.


I'm not going to let their opinions make my decision for me. I'm still very interested in Mario Galaxy, but I'm slightly concerned about the Wii. I was only going to purchase one if it's $199.99 or less. If it's over that amount, I wasn't going to purchase it anyways. I'm simply going to have to wait for the kiosks and see what the reviews are like. Unfortunately, I haven't had a chance to actually see the Wii in person, and I can only go on the online videos I've seen, and the takes from the people that have experienced it first hand.

One of the above posters said that the initial run of Wii games were developed on Gamecube development stations, so if that is really the case, then this isn't something to worry about. Mario Galaxy is supposedly the one Wii game that actually looks next gen, so it's very possible that the team that is working on that, had the first "real" development kit for the Wii, and that is why Mario looks like a real deal next gen game, while all the other games look current gen.

Again, for me, the price has to be $199 or less, otherwise it's a non issue. By the way, on one of the podcasts that I was listening to, this one dude was talking about how he feels that the Wii should be $149.99 and if it's more than $149.99 it's going to fail pretty bad in the U.S. He said that if it is $149.99 he thinks it will do very well, and be a major player, and he said considering the Wii is basically a GameCube 1.5, it shouldn't cost any more than $149.99. Now, this is just one editor dude from IGN or whatever, and it's not like his opinion is gold or anything, but I find it kinda interesting that these people are willing to second guess Nintendo in public. They don't seem to do it on the site, only on the podcasts. They must know that alot of people don't listen to the podcasts, so they don't worry about getting a ton of hate mail or something.

By the way, the are talking very negatively about the PS3 too, so don't think that IGN and Gamespot are just talking smack about the Wii. They are very much talking about alot of negative things in relation to the PS3.

[NintenDk]

Damn I must find a gamecube 1.5 that you keep comparing the wii to. It must be rare because I can't seem to find one anywhere..

[Princess-Isabela]

who cares about someone opinions?
I've been Nintendo supporter for years - they have games that others dont, you wont be able to play Mario, Zelda, Metroid and dozen of other N franchises on 360 and PS3, - its the ultimate gaming experience.
I own 360 and its awesome, I will buy PS3 as well, Wii is of course on the list.
Wii wil have beautiful graphics, not as beautiful as other two systems but ultimately still beautiful.
Mario, Zelda - they are look awesome.
and I predict - if system will cost $250 or anywhere that price point, it will sell like cereals - period.
Nintendo certainly wont be on 3rd place in this next-generation.

[zerohero]

When I'm at work all day, all I can really do is listen to headphones, so I download alot of podcasts and listen to them while I'm at work. I was listening to a number of IGN and Gamespot podcasts, and there seems to be this general feeling from them, that the Nintendo Wii's technology is very much like a GameCube 1.5. This one girl on IGN, don't know her name, kept wondering why they even decided to make the Wii, when they could have released their special controller as a perepheral for the Cube, and it would have worked just the same.

One of the shows had a long talk about Madden on the Wii, and they thought that Madden on the Wii was a very bad thing, because if sports gamers buy a Wii and Madden, they are likely to return both in disgust because the graphics are so poor. Before any hardcore Nintendo people get super pissed at me, I'm simply mentioning what they discussed on these podcasts. They were saying that madden for the Wii is going to give gamers a very bad impression of the Wii, and it's going to make them think that the Wii isn't even really a next-generation system in terms of power.

I can't remember all the comments that I heard, but all of the editors are still excited about the Wii, but they are saying that mass market consumers might be in for a shock in terms of how "not quite Next-Gen" the Wii's graphics look. Sure graphics are just one part of the equation, but you know how shallow people can be. These guys are saying that the only game they saw that really looked like it was running on something more powerfull than the GameCube was Mario Galaxy. A few thought Metroid looked pretty close to next-gen, but that the other games looked like GameCube games, for the most part.


Man, I was planning on buying the Wii if it launches for $199.99, but now I'm not so sure. They were talking about the control mechanisms for Metroid and Red Steel, and they said that both control styles need to be dumped for a more Halo style control. You can't do quick movements and stuff, they said the control is just awkward and doesn't make sense. They were hoping that there is enough time before launch that their controls could be salvaged. Hmm, I'm not so sure about this. Man, why the F didn't Nintendo at least to try to add some Next-Gen technology to this thing? Even at $199, it should look considerably beyond the Xbox 1. IGN and GameSpot both think the tech of the Wii is somewhere inbetween the Cube and Xbox 1. The Xbox 1 was released 5 years earlier, the Wii should have a much better GPU than this, even at $199. What the fuck did they do? x_x

Very interesting, but not surprising. You see I made a post about this very thing a while back. The "Next Gen" needs more than just 5 years to be "Next Gen" this generation in particular. Imagine if each gaming company waited 1 more year from now to finaly release their product to the public. But no it has to be fast, now, and over priced.

Xbox 360 - cheapest right now - Most games look like they could have been made for Xbox.

Wii - Graphics are obviously not going to be PS3/360 quality no matter how much the push the system (Unless the pull a N64....)

Ps3 - Overpriced, with unnecessary technology that ups the price of the system.

You be the judge.

[j_factor]

PS2 was technologically inferior to its competition. Playstation was technologically inferior to its competition. NES was technologically inferior to its competition.

Worse graphics don't mean worse sales.

As far as calling it "Gamecube 1.5", in my opinion Xbox 360 so far isn't really beyond "Gamecube 1.5" itself.

[Lothars]

Well to be fair, that's what everyone was saying about the 360 too.. as "Xbox 1.5" wasnt it ;)

They're probably right about the Wii though. Although in this day and age of lessening returns as far as graphics go, it doesn't really matter much I guess.

exactly that's a good point

I was guilty of thinking the 360 was xbox 1.5 and i still honestly think other some features and specific games, it is an xbox 1.5

Is it still worthwhile to get absolutely but it's just one of those things.

and I will have an xbox 360 in less than a week

I think the Wii will do a lot and I know some people here think it will flop but honestly I think they are wrong

I do think the Wii will do alot more and sell alot more than it's given credit for.

[zerohero]

PS2 was technologically inferior to its competition. Playstation was technologically inferior to its competition. NES was technologically inferior to its competition.

Worse graphics don't mean worse sales.

As far as calling it "Gamecube 1.5", in my opinion Xbox 360 so far isn't really beyond "Gamecube 1.5" itself.

PS2 set the standard though and was signifigantly more powerful than the playstation. The Playstation came out before the N64 last time I checked as well, so of course the system that comes out later will have the edge in terms of graphics (Even then, the Playstation graphics still looked better).

The problem is that with this gen, Nintendo is deliberatly neglecting that department.

We are / have never implied worse graphics = worse sales either. At least I Know I havent. But both DO go hand and hand.

[Anthony1]

PS2 was technologically inferior to its competition. Playstation was technologically inferior to its competition. NES was technologically inferior to its competition.

Worse graphics don't mean worse sales.

As far as calling it "Gamecube 1.5", in my opinion Xbox 360 so far isn't really beyond "Gamecube 1.5" itself.


Personally, I don't agree that the Playstation was inferior technology, to what? The N64? The use of cartridges basically ruined anything the N64 had over the PS1, so I don't think you can say the PS1 was technologically inferior. As for the NES, it was somewhat inferior to the Master System, but not dramatically inferior, same thing with PS2. But if the Wii really is only at a Xbox 1 level, then that would mean that it's at the level of the previous generation. You can't say that about the NES, PS1 or PS2. Even if they were inferior, they were no where near being at the same level as the most powerful system of the previous generation. (xbox 1 level)



As far as the Xbox 360 not really being beyond GameCube 1.5, you must not have played Prey or Oblivion or the Lost Planet demo on a really nice HDTV. All 3 games are absolutely stunning visually. I don't think the Wii could handle any of those 3 games, if it tried to, they would be extremely watered down versions. And then of course, there is a game called Gears of War that's coming in like 4 months.

[Kuros]

Well, I for one am sick and tired of companies going "Look at the graphics! Aren't they the greatest!?!?! There is more shrapnel in our bombs than their bombs therefore our game is better!"

This mentality that graphics = gameplay will eventually wound or kill the industry if everyone followed it.

I've seen too many games that just burn people because they were hyped to hell and back because they have the most mindblowing graphics ever seen.

Case in point: Madden

I know many of you guys love the series and I'm not going to knock you for that but I just can't see what the big deal is. I look at Madden and see some updated graphics, a couple of useless updates such as "Create your own jockstrap" and an updated roster. It's the equivalent of me copying and pasting my old report, making it prettier and going "I dun made a new report for you teacher!"

And yet, there are people who come into my work practically slobbering saying "I want my Madden NOW! GIMME IT EARLY!"

While this happens, titles such as Psychonauts, Dragon Quest 8, ICO, Tales of Symphonia and Katamari Damacy sit idly by waiting to be purchased by the person who goes "Yea, they may not have the best graphics, but they are damn fun."

[Anthony1]

I think the Wii will do a lot and I know some people here think it will flop but honestly I think they are wrong

I do think the Wii will do alot more and sell alot more than it's given credit for.

I don't think the Wii will flop, it will do very well in it's home country, and decent in Europe and U.S., but I don't think it has a realistic chance at the No.1 spot in the U.S. Some analysts have even been suggesting that it isn't completely out of the question that the Wii couldn't grab the overall No.1 market share and that the PS3 could fall all the way to 3. I personally don't agree with that take, I think if Nintendo did everything perfect with the Wii, then it has a chance at second place, but I don't see it getting the No.1 overall installed base. It could very well tie Sony for second place though.


I honestly think that Microsoft would have to absolutely fumble this opportunity to not claim the No.1 spot in the U.S. Everything is working out absolutely perfect for them. They would basically have to self destruct to not take the No.1 spot in the U.S. I fully expect Microsoft to do a last second $50 price drop on both their 360 options. The premium will drop to $349.99 and the Core will drop to $249.99. This move will cause potential Wii owners to think twice about passing up an opportunity to pick up a 360. Especially if the Wii is $249.99 as well. I'm sure that Microsoft won't even hint at a price drop until Nintendo announces their price. I know that they aren't competing for the same kind of customer, but $250 to spend is $250 to spend. If you have $250 for a system and $50 for a game, do you take home the Wii and Mario Galaxy or do you take home a 360 and Gears of War? (will Mario Galaxy be out this Xmas? I was reading somewhere it isn't coming to 2007, but that doesn't seem right)

[studvicious]

(will Mario Galaxy be out this Xmas? I was reading somewhere it isn't coming to 2007, but that doesn't seem right)

Q1 2007 I believe, along with Smash Bros.

[Anthony1]

Q1 2007 I believe, along with Smash Bros.


That's too bad. Then I guess I won't be getting a Wii this Xmas after all. To me, Mario is the one killer app, so with no Mario, I can't really fade it. Man, how unfortunate. You would think that Nintendo would have learned from their mistakes with the GameCube. The GameCube was the first Nintendo home system to not launch with a "real" Mario game on day one.

I know there is Zelda, but Zelda is essentially a GameCube game with last second Wii enhancements tacked on. I consider Link to the Past to be one of the 10 greatest games in the History of gaming, maybe even top 5, but for whatever reason, I just haven't been a big fan of Zelda in the 3D realm. So Zelda doesn't really do anything for me.

[Joker T]

As far as the Xbox 360 not really being beyond GameCube 1.5, you must not have played Prey or Oblivion or the Lost Planet demo on a really nice HDTV. All 3 games are absolutely stunning visually. I don't think the Wii could handle any of those 3 games, if it tried to, they would be extremely watered down versions. And then of course, there is a game called Gears of War that's coming in like 4 months.

I totally agree, except I'm playing my 360 on a 5 year old 27 inch TV and it STILL looks mindblowing.

Though I still am getting a 46 inch DLP to replace it, it's pretty hard to deny that the quality is pretty damn good on lower end sets.

[snes_collector]

As far as the Xbox 360 not really being beyond GameCube 1.5, you must not have played Prey or Oblivion or the Lost Planet demo on a really nice HDTV. All 3 games are absolutely stunning visually. I don't think the Wii could handle any of those 3 games, if it tried to, they would be extremely watered down versions. And then of course, there is a game called Gears of War that's coming in like 4 months.

Remember, not everyone has an HDTV though. So most people don't get the "true experience" out of it.

Anyway, I think the Wii will do just fine. I'm not expecting it to be the next SNES, but I hope I will get as much enjoyment out of my GC.

[badinsults]

I think the DS vs PSP battle goes to prove that gameplay trumps pretty graphics.


As for your complaints Anthony1, who freaking cares. Not everyone has a huge projector screen in their garage to fully appreciate the 1080p graphics that all these HD consoles are braging about. Most modern computer monitors run at higher resolutions than that anyway, so if you want a true HD expericence, play the latest computer games. You want to know a game that has freaking sweet graphics? Paper Mario: Thousand Years Door. To me, that is the game with the most awesome graphics ever made. And it was on the Gamecube. Even something as sweet looking as Fight Night on Xbox 360 does not compare to how awesome Paper Mario's graphics were. You may claim that graphics aren't that important to you, but face it. Look at all the freaking posts you make about your "RGB" and say that you aren't a graphics whore and keep a straight face. The fact that old games look like crap on an HDTV without tweaking makes getting an HDTV very undesirable, in my opinion. I have no idea if the Wii controller will prove to be the great saviour of gaming that many people hope, but surely the hardware should not be a concern to produce graphics that look sweet. I mean, look at a game like Fzero GX and tell me that looks like crap. If you do, you must be on freaking smack or something. The graphics are the last thing that is wrong with that game (the main thing is the insane difficulty). And again, people point out that the PS2 had the worst graphics, and the majority would agree that it is by far the most dominating console of this generation! And you know why? Because it had the most games, and the most good games. People will avoid buying the PS3 over the xbox 360 because it will have the least games and possibly the least amout of good games (though that certainly can't be said now). One thing I can applaud for the rise of Nintendo from the ashes is that there is a revival of 2D platformers. They do not require fancy high definition graphics too look freaking awesome, and in fact they might look like crap in high definition because they will reveal the limitations of hand drawing. So yeah, screw you for being a graphics whore, and screw you for your overly long and long winded posts, like this one I have just made as a parody.

[Dangerboy]

I've played my PSX and DS more in the last 6 months than any PS2, XB360, or XB.

I don't care if I can see the flesh tone on Kasumi's nipple or read the serial number of the shot gun in Halo. After initial shock, graphics become the first thing out dated in the mind.

My DS has provided more game play variety and excitement than anything the 360 could ofer me. I want a 360 badly, but between Normandy Game #155 and PC Port #12, I'll spend my $400 on more DS games and the downpayment on a Wii.

I don't care if it's a Game Cube 1.5...Nintendo got me to pre-order Madden Wii for the new control scheme, and I FUCKING HATE SPORTS GAMES.

That alone speaks volumes for a system.

Bring on the Wii. Viva la game play!

[unwinddesign]

People are putting way too much stock in the Wii's gameplay before trying it. They're almost declaring Nintendo the winners before the showdown has become.

I mean, c'mon. Saying graphics mean nothing isn't true. If that was the case, we'd all be playing Pong to this day or Adventure, or heaven forbid, E.T. Or games like them. I mean, yes, some people still play those games -- that's fine. But in all likelihood, they also play some more recent games, and are looking for a different experience -- be it graphical, aural, or interaction based -- and having the same old thing isn't cool.

I can't see anyone buying a Wii alone. I just don't think it has enough substance to it. Maybe I'm wrong -- I hope I'm wrong.

On another note, have the sound specs for the Wii been released? Can it do optical out? If it can't...sadness.

[Anthony1]

So yeah, screw you for being a graphics whore, and screw you for your overly long and long winded posts, like this one I have just made as a parody.



Gee, a little bit of Nintendo fanboyism in you Evan? Please don't be insulted by this post like I'm trying to bash the Wii. I could care less who wins this console war. In fact, the company that I like the least, Sony, is the one that I would actually like to see win, just because in the year 2009, the PS3 will be able to bring the most amazing video game experiences possible. You see, that's what I'm most interested in. The most amazing video game experiences. Being taken to the next level, to an untold new height in gaming. I could give a rat's ass which company brings me that experience. I honestly don't know where the Nintendo Wii stands in terms of technology, and probably won't know for a little while, but this whole thread started because I was pretty shocked at what I was hearing from the Gamestop and IGN editors on these podcasts. It was pointed out much earlier that the current crop of games are being made on Cube development systems, so this whole discussion could possibly be moot. Once Wii kiosks arrive, then I will actually get a "hands on" opportunity with the system, and I'll have a much better idea.

The whole graphics whore thing is just so tired. First off, any true graphics whore wouldn't be caught playing old school retro games that haven't aged well. They would be way too shallow for that. Just last nite I was playing a Saturn game called Virtual Hylide, which is about as chunky as you get, and total pixel city. If I was really a true graphics whore, I would take one look at that game and immediately turn off the Saturn. Do I appreciate great graphics? Hell yes I do. But I also want great gameplay. I don't understand why people always think these two things need to be in conflict? If I said it once, I've said it a million times, great graphcis and great game play is not mutually exclusive. They can actually both be present in the same game. There are so many games with outstanding gameplay, as well as graphics, that I don't need to suffer with horrible graphics just to get good gameplay.

[j_factor]

[quote=j_factor]PS2 was technologically inferior to its competition. Playstation was technologically inferior to its competition. NES was technologically inferior to its competition.

Worse graphics don't mean worse sales.

As far as calling it "Gamecube 1.5", in my opinion Xbox 360 so far isn't really beyond "Gamecube 1.5" itself.



But if the Wii really is only at a Xbox 1 level, then that would mean that it's at the level of the previous generation. You can't say that about the NES, PS1 or PS2. Even if they were inferior, they were no where near being at the same level as the most powerful system of the previous generation. (xbox 1 level)

That's a whole different argument from what I've been hearing so far. Xbox is no Gamecube 1.5, it's only slightly above Gamecube in the graphics department. And I've been hearing people call Wii Gamecube 1.5, which isn't the same as calling it Gamecube (or Xbox).

The notion of Wii being at Xbox level is not one I've heard before. I think it's hogwash.


As far as the Xbox 360 not really being beyond GameCube 1.5, you must not have played Prey or Oblivion or the Lost Planet demo on a really nice HDTV.

I haven't played Prey or Lost Planet, but I have played Oblivion. I've even played it on an HDTV, but I don't think it's valid to compare one system on HDTV to one system on SDTV. That's like comparing Dreamcast on VGA to PS2 on composite; it's an unequal comparison.


All 3 games are absolutely stunning visually. I don't think the Wii could handle any of those 3 games, if it tried to, they would be extremely watered down versions.

I think that's an extremely premature judgment on your part. We haven't even seen a single Wii game completed yet, and you're already convinced it's not at all capable of early 360 games? I think that's quite a leap.

[j_factor]

I mean, c'mon. Saying graphics mean nothing isn't true. If that was the case, we'd all be playing Pong to this day or Adventure, or heaven forbid, E.T. Or games like them.

I don't think anyone is saying graphics mean nothing, but I'm gonna play devil's advocate for a moment. Supposing graphics really do mean nothing, we would not still be playing Pong. The difference between Pong and, say, Virtua Tennis isn't just graphics.


I mean, yes, some people still play those games -- that's fine. But in all likelihood, they also play some more recent games, and are looking for a different experience -- be it graphical, aural, or interaction based -- and having the same old thing isn't cool.

And here's Wii's strength. Xbox 360 seems, at least to many people, to be the same old thing with a new coat of paint. Some nicer textures, some more polys. We've seen nicer textures and more polys before; but now it's really nicer textures and really more polys. Wii, on the other hand, is not the same old thing. Anybody looking for newness is going to be attracted to the Wii.

[Lord_Magus]

If the graphics in a game are good enough as to not limit the gaming experience in any way, then I myself will not care how many colors they use, how many polygons the models consist of and whether they are running on HDTV or not. The graphics on the Wii perhaps will not be the best available, but they will be good enough to allow quality games to be made without significant limitations. (and additionally, allow us to purchase the "underpowered" Wii for less than half the price of a PS3)

I understand impressive graphics are important to a game (yes, for those full 10 first minutes), but in the end, how much do they truly enhance the gaming experience?

Take Oblivion as an example of a "next-gen" game. While its graphics are jaw-droppingly beautiful (yes, I've played it on HDTV), they add absolutely nothing to the substance of the game - they're just eye candy. Putting the graphics aside, the game itself could easily be done on a PS2 and maintained most (if not all) of its gameplay elements. For that reason, I don't see this particular game as being next gen, because other than more polygons and nicer pictures, it offers nothing Computer RPGs haven't been doing equally well for the last 10+ years.

Hell, ever since Mario 64, there hasn't really been a single game which has utilised the more powerful hardware to offer a new and fresh gaming experience. I believe this is why Nintendo is focusing less on graphics and more on new ways to play, because if anything, the industry desperately needs it.

For this reason, I personally see the Wii as the only console which will at least attempt to be next gen. Even if it doesn't succeed alongside the XBOX 1.5 and PS2 1.5, Nintendo will forever have my respect for having the balls to try something new.

[j_factor]

Hell, ever since Mario 64, there hasn't really been a single game which has utilised the more powerful hardware to offer a new and fresh gaming experience.

What about Shenmue?

I agree with you otherwise, but there have been a few games since Mario 64 to do that. They're just few.

[badinsults]

So yeah, screw you for being a graphics whore, and screw you for your overly long and long winded posts, like this one I have just made as a parody.



Gee, a little bit of Nintendo fanboyism in you Evan? Please don't be insulted by this post like I'm trying to bash the Wii. I could care less who wins this console war. In fact, the company that I like the least, Sony, is the one that I would actually like to see win, just because in the year 2009, the PS3 will be able to bring the most amazing video game experiences possible. You see, that's what I'm most interested in. The most amazing video game experiences. Being taken to the next level, to an untold new height in gaming. I could give a rat's ass which company brings me that experience. I honestly don't know where the Nintendo Wii stands in terms of technology, and probably won't know for a little while, but this whole thread started because I was pretty shocked at what I was hearing from the Gamestop and IGN editors on these podcasts. It was pointed out much earlier that the current crop of games are being made on Cube development systems, so this whole discussion could possibly be moot. Once Wii kiosks arrive, then I will actually get a "hands on" opportunity with the system, and I'll have a much better idea.

The whole graphics whore thing is just so tired. First off, any true graphics whore wouldn't be caught playing old school retro games that haven't aged well. They would be way too shallow for that. Just last nite I was playing a Saturn game called Virtual Hylide, which is about as chunky as you get, and total pixel city. If I was really a true graphics whore, I would take one look at that game and immediately turn off the Saturn. Do I appreciate great graphics? Hell yes I do. But I also want great gameplay. I don't understand why people always think these two things need to be in conflict? If I said it once, I've said it a million times, great graphcis and great game play is not mutually exclusive. They can actually both be present in the same game. There are so many games with outstanding gameplay, as well as graphics, that I don't need to suffer with horrible graphics just to get good gameplay.

So sayeth the man who is questioning getting a Wii because it "isn't next gen enough".

Look, I could care less about the Wii until some solid 2D platformers and rpgs come out on it. Right now, the DS is where it's at. If I buy a new system anytime soon, it will be a Playstation 2. The DS has fucking Yoshi's Island 2 coming out. Yoshi's fucking Island. The sequel to arguably the best platforming game out there. Could this have come on the PSP, nonwithstanding that it is not a Nintendo machine. Hell no, Sony is still goddamned anti-2D. Why do you think that SNK is releasing the Metal Slug series on the Wii? It was because Sony will not freaking allow it to be released. Seriously. I'm sure that if the Xbox 360 was popular in Japan, they would have put it on there and Microsoft would welcome it, but that isn't happening. You may be pissed that the Wii is an inferior system, but hell, if it means that 2D games come back, then I say, fuck next gen. It boggles my mind that someone who claims to love classic system gives two shits about how "next gen" a system is. I know that a 2D platformer lover like myself is certainly not in the mainstream, but hell, we are on a forum where classic gaming is the main topic of discussion, but until the 2D platformer is given proper attention (which the DS does admirably), then I don't care about "next gen".

[JJNova]

People are putting way too much stock in the Wii's gameplay before trying it. They're almost declaring Nintendo the winners before the showdown has become.

I mean, c'mon. Saying graphics mean nothing isn't true. If that was the case, we'd all be playing Pong

Actually, this is precisely what I think a lot of us want. Pong, on the Wii.

[Garry Silljo]

You see, that's what I'm most interested in. The most amazing video game experiences. Being taken to the next level, to an untold new height in gaming.

The whole graphics whore thing is just so tired. First off, any true graphics whore wouldn't be caught playing old school retro games that haven't aged well.



If you are really into amazing new experiences, then the wii should be more appealing to you because it is doing the most to be be different and push gaming into new frontiers. There may be bigger graphics whores out there, but just because you arent the biggest one, doesnt mean that you aren't one at all. By considering the wii a passable non-next gen system because of it's visuals or capacity for visuals shows that graphics are your number 1 consideration for "The most amazing video game experiences." Sorry to tell you, but polishing the graphics has been done to death. The future is in expanding gameplay.

[JJNova]

DAMN YOU GARRY SILLJO, I WAS TYPING THIS OUT WHILE YOU POSTED!!



You see, that's what I'm most interested in. The most amazing video game experiences. Being taken to the next level, to an untold new height in gaming.

Let me get this straight, just to make sure we are on the same level. Themore polygons, shadowing, fogging, and colors being pumped through anti-alias is taking you to the next level of gaming, while I more interatctive, intuitive and natural game control is keeping you at the current level of gaming?

[zerohero]

Why is everyone turning this into a graphics vs gameplay debate? Thats not the issue here.

[badinsults]

Why is everyone turning this into a graphics vs gameplay debate? Thats not the issue here.

Yes it is.

[Garry Silljo]

Why is everyone turning this into a graphics vs gameplay debate? Thats not the issue here.

Yes it is.

Maybe it's not the ENTIRE issue, but it's definately not out of the issue either.

[Ed Oscuro]

Every console presents unique artistic opportunities and challenges. Heroes has me enthusiastic about the direction developers are taking to develop games for that system.

In Anthony1's defense, graphics power helps immersion in a very direct manner. It's not about "thermidor polygons" (or whatever JJNova was talking about :-P ), but about seeing a city unfold before you into the distance - and being able to pull it apart brick by brick. That's what the direction the 360 and the PS3 are taking means to me. This extra complexity comes at the cost of a very thin wallet and a potential house fire, but I think it's worth it, personally (at least the 360 has me interested, anyway).

But check out Heroes (and Killer7 before it). Heck, you have to work to see many of the textures in the game. These games are an experiment in focus; they show that not every game needs to bring everything into view all the time to keep you interested throughout their length (well, okay, most of their length - I still haven't managed Killer8 mode, and I hope there isn't anything like it in Heroes). This isn't about being arty for the sake of it; it's about realistically assessing the limits of what you can do for $250 and finding ways to engage the player. Let's not forget that Nintendo promises to have the most advanced control scheme out of the different controllers at release.

Alternate reply to Anthony1 I typed out earlier but didn't post (but I'll put it in for a laugh):

OH MY THE WII* WON'T HAVE THE GRAPHICS POWER WHAT WILL I DOOOOO??

Anthony1, stop being such a tool. Thanks for the reminder that IGN and GameSpot are staffed with corporate whores, though.

*fuck Wii puns

[Nez]

The wii will be more powerfull then the xbox. But then again did the xbox really look all that bad. Hell I dont even think we need a new generation yet.

Ninja gaiden could easily pass as a next gen title.
RE 4 remake 0
Pikmin 2
God of War
Halo 2
DQ 8
Soul Caliber
Panzer Dragoon Orta
Silent Hill 3-4
Pince of Persias
Stangers Wrath
Metal gear Solid 3
GT 4
Metriod prime echos
Baten Kaitos

All of those games and many more are incrdible visual experiances. Developers dont need the best newest tecnology amazing visuals, just talent and skill.

[slip81]

In terms of technical specs the Wii is most definately next gen compaired to the GCN. 480p on all games, DD sound, more RAM, faster CPU, I don't know what planet those editors are on, but on Earth even Madden 07 on the Wii looks years ahead of Madden 06 on the GCN.

Anything an editor says has to be taken with a grain of salt anyway. They're completely spoiled in terms of hardware. The People at game spot sit around and review 360 games on 42' HD LCD TV's, of course to them the difference between 720p and 480p will be huge, but to most it isn't. Most people who own a 360 don't even have an HDTV.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that it seems their idea of next gen is a bit skewed because they have the latest in technology available to them and can get the most out of everything they view.

So the Wii might not be as big of a step up as the PS3 is over the PS2 in visuals, but it's not trying to be.

I wouldn't say is the most next gen system just because it's controll scheme is wacky, but the Wii definately deserves to sit alongside the next big two because it's making a huge step foward, just in a different area.

I think people may also have a hard time accepting the Wii as next gen because in the past graphics really have been the determining factor of next gen stuff. Really when you think about it, untill Nintendo came out with the the idea of touch and motion controll the only major updates were to the graphics. the games on the NES and SNES weren't all that different in terms of gameplay, but things sure looked a heck of a lot better on the SNES.

Final Fantasy I and Final Fantasy X play pretty similarity, but no one would dispute that X isn't next gen compaired to I, the mnajor difference? Graphics.

[Anthony1]

The bottom line for me is if the Wii is $149.99 I'm buying it at launch, if it's $199.99 I'm buying it when Mario Galaxy is available, and if it's $249.99 I'm going to sit on the sidelines and wait for them to make me an offer I can't refuse. (like lowering the price to $199 and putting Mario Galaxy in the box)

[studvicious]

The bottom line for me is if the Wii is $149.99 I'm buying it at launch, if it's $199.99 I'm buying it when Mario Galaxy is available, and if it's $249.99 I'm going to sit on the sidelines and wait for them to make me an offer I can't refuse. (like lowering the price to $199 and putting Mario Galaxy in the box)

Just go ahead and buy one at launch, you won't regret it. If only to keep your early adopter streak going. ;)

[badinsults]

The bottom line for me is if the Wii is $149.99 I'm buying it at launch, if it's $199.99 I'm buying it when Mario Galaxy is available, and if it's $249.99 I'm going to sit on the sidelines and wait for them to make me an offer I can't refuse. (like lowering the price to $199 and putting Mario Galaxy in the box)

Then do that. Don't complain about tech specs.

[exit]

Wern't people saying the same similar things about the DS when before it's release? I remember a few accounts where people were saying it would bomb, the graphic sux, it's VR Boy all over again, the PSP will pwnerz it and burry it to hell ect.

Just goes to show you that people are idiots.

I'm really looking forward to the Wii, since it's going to be the first(if not only) console I get this generation.

[Ed Oscuro]

Wern't people saying the same similar things about the DS when before it's release? I remember a few accounts where people were saying it would bomb, the graphic sux, it's VR Boy all over again, the PSP will pwnerz it and burry it to hell ect.
Yeah, though I was one of the people who didn't see how it would work. For the type of games I like to play, I still don't see the advantages of the second screen LOL Regardless, as you may remember IGN led the charge, with their immediate reaction being to post a picture of two TV sets connected side-by-side to a very small base, with the words "Teh Fun #1!" and "Teh Fun #2" MSPainted inside their borders. It's nice that they haven't repeated this unsightly behavior for the Wii.

[JPeeples]

Wern't people saying the same similar things about the DS when before it's release? I remember a few accounts where people were saying it would bomb, the graphic sux, it's VR Boy all over again, the PSP will pwnerz it and burry it to hell ect.

Just goes to show you that people are idiots.

I'm really looking forward to the Wii, since it's going to be the first(if not only) console I get this generation.
While I'll definitely be getting the 360 at some point, the Wii has me more excited than any system since the DC, and much of that is due to the innovation the hardware instantly provides for developers. I'm not too concerned about the graphics on the Wii - I'm more concerned with the overall quality of games, and if the PS2 can still dazzle me with games like God of War and Shadow of the Colossus, then the Wii's power will be more than adequate for me.