I don’t like this guy.
A certain forum is trying to debunk the “rumors” that the Wii has worse graphics than other systems and that it is, in fact, more powerful than the GameCube. Sure, it’s more powerful than the GameCube but only just. It’s almost a joke to what the Wii is compared to in the post, I like to call it “Wii Graphics Myths (Not) Debunked.”
He starts with saying the N-Gage didn’t have a 3D accelerator chip or support for hardware bump mapping which the Wii can do. Okay, so maybe the Wii can do it, so what, that’s like saying my PSP can’t run Folding@Home and the PS3 can. This point does not impress me but it sure did the fanboys.
Perhaps the second point has more support in that the ATi Hollywood graphics chip has been underestimated, I’ll paint that with a maybe but if it can do what the post claims then the graphics should at least be marginally better. Let’s not forget that it still lacks support for HD output (of any kind).
I have to quote directly here, “Don’t make assumptions by what early Wii games display.” But the early games on the Xbox 360 looked pretty good, not as good as they do now but still, it was impressive. The Wii, not so much and I’m not making the comparison to the Xbox 360 here. I’m saying that if the Wii is as “powerful” as the post claims then the games should look better than they currently do.
The last one I’ve never heard before where some say the Wii controller requires so much processing overhead that it holds back the graphics. I certainly wouldn’t want to defend the Wii but what is right is right and what is wrong is wrong and that people, is just wrong on so many levels that it’s not funny. Though I wouldn’t have gone so far as to say the Wii has “advanced effects” because it simply doesn’t. Maybe if you do like the poster and compare it to the GameCube, Xbox or PS2 then sure, it has “advanced effects.”
The Wii falters if you attempt to compare it to the current generation of consoles. When compared to the PS3 or Xbox 360 (and granted, it’s not a fair comparison) but since the Wii is apparently “better than the N-Gage,” I have the right to make such a comparison, it looks awful. I already mentioned the lack of HD outputs or support for any kind of HD resolution which is a major oversight in and of itself the Wii just cannot compete with the Xbox 360 or PS3 in graphics territory. I don’t think that’s what Nintendo was trying to do, instead aiming for price points and “fun factor.”
Nintendo made a good party console which is fun in groups but it’s not a solo gamers’ console and the $250 price should have at least included support for 720p which is basic HD resolution. But you know what, the Xbox supported 720p and in some cases still has better graphics than the Wii. If the Wii is so great, how is that possible?
I Have a Wii and I mostly play single player games like Zelda and the Godfather. In-fact I own about ten games and seven of them I bought for the single player or don’t even have multilayer.(also one of the games is Wii Sports).
No Comments Yet
No comments yet.
Comments RSS TrackBack Identifier URI
Leave a comment
