> They are not wasting anything. They are that powerful in order to handel
> the HD, but they clearly have power to spare. Now the Wii is not 'held
> back' by such resolutions, so why are it's graphics not up to par?

Signature
This post is Sponsored by: www.overheadsoft.com
http://www.linkreferral.com/cgi-bin/linkreferal/adwel.cgi?oldrefid=20013
>
>> They are not wasting anything. They are that powerful in order to handel
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> they'd be able to produce much better graphics that look much more
> "next-gen" compared to last-gen consoles.
They already do. If you notice(which you have not) the first batch of 360
games were ports with touched up 360 features. The second batch got a more
into the power of the system and after that, future titles are starting to
take it to level beyond imagination. Their is no set standard of what
next-generation graphics or it's style of graphics are supposed to look
like, but they must look like something that cannot be done on the
PS2/Xbox/GC. This is why you see some game with a CG(movie) style graphics
and others with higher powered 3D arcade graphics. You know, your Gears of
War type(along with Riddick) or your Dead Rising type. It is up to the
producer to make the graphics a certain way.
higher resolution does not
> really make graphics better, only more pixels for a sharper image.
Higher resolution alone does not even do that! The textures must be high
resolution in order for a high-res sytem to display it with quality.
Current-gen systems cannot handle that. The GC had the advantage in
textures. Again, that was because it lacked the storage space of the other
two systems, so they had to make up for it with hardware decompression. It
just happened to work to their benefit.
If you think that al the 360 is capable of is higher resolution textures,
then you are sick. It can do a lot more. See if the current-gen systems
can put up hundreds of highly detailed zombies on the screen at once, in
720p, full action and no slow-down. Of course it can't. This is just the
start on things to come.
> the Dreamcast, PS2, Gamecube and first Xbox were all a large to massive
> leap beyond PS1 and N64. because a.) their graphics chips were a very
> large advance over the ones in PS1/N64, and the resolution increase
> was small, going from the lower-end of SDTV to the upper end of SDTV.
You are a fool. Each system always bumped up the resolution and they all
handled them in addition to providing next-gen graphics.
> this time, with Xbox 360 and PS3, the graphics chips are less of a leap
> in power
> (only about ~4x in fillrate and polygons)
You must be sick.
and they're required to
> output in resolution at least 3 times higher (720p) which required 3
> times the pixel performance.
You are sick. The videocards can handle that alone. These systems are
multi-core to aid in that. Do you really think that these people designed
things the way that you think?
what's left over is not very much in
> performance. with that said, we'll see SOME additional improvement
> because of shaders, that's the biggest strength of the new console
> GPUs. however shaders can only do so much, they're not a subsitute for
> geometry and pixel processing power or bandwidth.
These systems have al of that dude. If you don't know and if you think that
the Wii si your Nintendo savior, then you don't know jack sh.t.
> so while Xbox 360 and PS3 clearly offer better graphics than the
> consoles they're replacing, the leap is not huge.
..!
> Nintendo is playing it smart. even though Wii is not nearly as
> powerful in raw specs compared to Xbox 360 and PS3, it doesn't have to
> have high performance to show nice graphics at SDTV resolution.
Well the graphics are not spectacular.
> at SDTV resolution, Wii's graphics are not going to be many steps
> behind Xbox360 and PS3 which usually have to show games in HDTV
> resolution.
Lol! You are right, not steps behind, it is leaps behind them!
> now if developers made games on Xbox360 and PS3 in SDTV resolution, of
> course they could kick Wii's a.s all over the place in graphics, since
> Xbox360 and PS3 would instantly gain back 3x more performance not
> having to rendering in HDTV.
It does that now and will do it even better in the future. The systems were
designed to provide high resoltuion graphics.
> Nintendo Iwata and Miyamoto have stated that Nintendo will have an HDTV
> console in the future. I'll bet when Nintendo does make the leap to
> HDTV, it'll have enough spare graphics power to make a decent leap in
> graphics.
If it's designed like the Wii, it will be an overclocked Wii!
> but really, if it is only graphics graphics GRAPHICS that people care
> about with videogames, why bother ? I could watch flawless graphics
> in a CGI movie if I wanted to. with videogames, it's about
> interaction, gameplay, fun and addictiveness.
Well, it's because even a baby knows that you SEE graphics and PLAY the
games. You people act as if Nintendo's Wii is the only system capable of
playing games.
Cthulhu mang - 19 Sep 2006 22:15 GMT
>The second batch got a more
> into the power of the system and after that, future titles are starting to
> take it to level beyond imagination.
hoHO! a level 'Beyond Imagination' are you really, really sure about
that?
"Stupider and stupider..." said Alice.
Sir Chewbury Gubbins - 20 Sep 2006 11:42 GMT
"a point beyond the imagination"?
Jesus, what a marketing-whore you are.
Choobs

Signature
Sir Chewbury Gubbins <chewbury.gubbins@nelefa.org>
"Streaming through the starlit sky, travelling by telephone" - Syd Barret 1946-2006
http://www.nelefa.org - Game Diary, Fiction, and Ramblings
Guest - 20 Sep 2006 17:16 GMT

Signature
This post is Sponsored by: www.overheadsoft.com
http://www.linkreferral.com/cgi-bin/linkreferal/adwel.cgi?oldrefid=20013
>>
> "a point beyond the imagination"?
>
> Jesus, what a marketing-whore you are.
>
> Choobs
Lol.