Wii vs xbox

[DracIsBack]

The wii is only marginally better than the gamecube was, and really, that's all it needs for it's games.

 

 

1) The Wii technically is twice as fast, has twice the memory and has substantially more storage space in its medium, all of which can make a difference in the end;

2) The GameCube was no slouch in the graphics department. It's sometimes regarded that way because of kiddy games and the shoddy ports from other systems, but there were examples of it shining. Resident Evil 4 was one of the best looking games in the last generation (IMO) and look at the Star Wars launch game and Zelda Twilight Princess.

 

3) The Wii also suffers heavily from developer/publisher laziness or conservatism. You hear a lot of jokes about the Wii being GameCube 1.5, but a lot of developers turn in a GameCube .05 performance on the Wii.

[Tr3vor]

Wii vs xbox 360 is a no brainer. I'm talking about xbox 1.

Though, in all fairness, my Wii pushes way more pixels than my 360 purchased the same month as the 360 went RROD within six months and gave up the ghost entirely a few months after it was repaired.

 

 

Imagine that .

 

I just love how Microsoft rushed the xbox and released it with a known problem that cost it millions.

[DracIsBack]

On the Gamecube most 480p titles were Nintendo titles.

 

You sure about that? Almost all of my GameCube games (Nintendo or 3rd party) supported 480p. I think I only had maybe 2 or 3 that didn't of 20 or 25. Wasn't consciously looking for that support either. Stumbled across it when I got my Wii and popped in GameCube games.

[DracIsBack]

(and I can't blame them after Mad World and Deadly Creatures bombed)

 

This has been a longstanding view for me that frustrates me a bit because it's never that cut and dry. For some reason, if a 3rd party, mature game doesn't sell a trillion copies on the first week on the Wii, it's labelled as 'proof that third party and mature games don't sell".

 

 

1. We don't know what the company's sales targets were to compare against how the game performed;

 

2. We don't know how much it cost to make the game vs. the revenue it brought in

 

3. Looking at the first week or month is only one part of the sales overall

 

4. Most games are not blockbusters

 

5. Sales figures quotes are often only in one market and in one channel

 

MadWorld sold over a half million copies. In the grand scheme of games, it actually sold not too badly.

 

To be fair, quite a bit better than Deadly Creatures though.

[Video]

I'll say it again....where are all the Wii games that look like starfox adventures? The effects in that game were amazing, and Wii (while technically capable) just doesn't do it.

 

On the Gamecube most 480p titles were Nintendo titles.

 

You sure about that? Almost all of my GameCube games (Nintendo or 3rd party) supported 480p. I think I only had maybe 2 or 3 that didn't of 20 or 25. Wasn't consciously looking for that support either. Stumbled across it when I got my Wii and popped in GameCube games.

 

Correct me if I"m wrong, but doesn't the wii upconvert everything to 480 if you have the right cable and settings anyways? As for the cube, the early ones had that second video port for "hi def (480p)" images, but the port was quickly axed to save money, and there's not much reason to program a game to support a feature that isn't supported.

 

(and I can't blame them after Mad World and Deadly Creatures bombed)

 

MadWorld sold over a half million copies. In the grand scheme of games, it actually sold not too badly.

 

To be fair, quite a bit better than Deadly Creatures though.

 

I don't know, half a million out of 100 million? That's only a .5% market penetration. And uh...I don't know ANY format that would consider that a success.

[Hyper_Eye]

I'll say it again....where are all the Wii games that look like starfox adventures? The effects in that game were amazing, and Wii (while technically capable) just doesn't do it.

 

Resident Evil 4 is easily considered one of the best looking games on GC. I started out playing it on GC but started over on Wii and completed it. The Wii version is fullscreen whereas the GC version is contained within a box. The Wii version has AA so all the edges in the game are much smoother. The Wii version also has sharper and more detailed textures. It is probably one of the best direct comparisons and it is obvious that the Wii version has elements the GC simply wasn't capable of. Another great game to compare is Super Mario Sunshine and Super Mario Galaxy. Really, Super Mario Galaxy is a fantastic looking game. Also, compare Metroid Prime and Metroid Prime 2 on GC to Metroid Prime 3 on Wii. You could even compare those two GC games to their counterparts in the limited trilogy that was released for the Wii. The improvements that were made to Metroid Prime 3 were inherited by the other two games in the trilogy so they provide a great direct comparison. I don't think the difference is as obvious as Resident Evil 4 but the difference is definitely there.

 

Any lack of clear advancement from the GC to the Wii belongs directly on the shoulders of developers or the people pressuring them to get games out the door. They could make stunning games for the Wii but they choose not to. It could be that they perceive the average Wii customer to be someone who simply does not care about the quality of graphics in the games they buy. They just want some fad game that allows them to bowl in their living room. I know this is argued against here all the time but I think that perception is correct for most of the people that purchased a Wii.

 

On the Gamecube most 480p titles were Nintendo titles.

 

You sure about that? Almost all of my GameCube games (Nintendo or 3rd party) supported 480p. I think I only had maybe 2 or 3 that didn't of 20 or 25. Wasn't consciously looking for that support either. Stumbled across it when I got my Wii and popped in GameCube games.

 

Correct me if I"m wrong, but doesn't the wii upconvert everything to 480 if you have the right cable and settings anyways? As for the cube, the early ones had that second video port for "hi def (480p)" images, but the port was quickly axed to save money, and there's not much reason to program a game to support a feature that isn't supported.

 

The Wii does not use emulation to play GC games. It basically switches into "GC mode" which involves, at the least, underclocking the CPU to match GC specs. You still have to hold "C" down on the controller to get the dialog that enables progressive scan in GC games and games that do not support it will not use it. Don't quote me on that as I could be totally wrong and I will admit as much should someone show me proof otherwise.

 

I have the component cables for my GC, which were very expensive to obtain at the time I got them, and I am glad I have them. GC games look great with them. Most of my games support progressive scan but most of my games are Nintendo games. Many of the third-party ones I have do not support it. Most of the Nintendo titles do. Mario Kart, Super Mario Sunshine, Metroid Prime/2, Eternal Darkness... all games I know for certain that have it and look great using it. Also, the Resident Evil games support it. Just like anything I could be wrong about the quantity of games that support it but I remember reading in numerous places that most of the games that have support for it were Nintendo games.

[madmax2069]

I don't know, half a million out of 100 million? That's only a .5% market penetration. And uh...I don't know ANY format that would consider that a success.

 

LMAO on the Zeebo it would probably be considered a success

[cimerians]

I think its up to the publisher\developer.

 

Most sequels and ports look better on the Wii as compared to the Gamecube.

 

Animal Crossing, Mario Party, Mario Galaxy and Metroid Prime 3 are perfect examples of looking waaaay better on the Wii.

 

The Gamecube has some nice looking games too though. I think though for the most part publishers have not taken the Wii seriously in the technical department. Its like its viewed as a cash cow and if the games are not 100% then no big deal.

 

Also in my opinion, I have never in my life seen that much shovelware for a system sold at retail. The DS is probably worse. Boggles the mind to think about it.

[DracIsBack]

I don't know, half a million out of 100 million? That's only a .5% market penetration. And uh...I don't know ANY format that would consider that a success.

 

I think if you were to do an mean, median and mode of all the games for all the consoles of this generation and last, you'll find that it's really not abnormal. The vast majority of games released on any platform are not million sellers.

[DracIsBack]

and games that do not support it will not use it. Don't quote me on that as I could be totally wrong and I will admit as much should someone show me proof otherwise.

 

You're right. I have a few GameCube games that have no progessive scan option like STARSKY AND HUTCH and ULTIMATE SPIDER-MAN. Almost all games I had supported Progressive Scan (Nintendo and 3rd party)

[vdub_bobby]

at NE146...Ninja Gaiden for the arcade was pretty cool, throwing guys through phone booths was awesome and amazing at the time. And the NES version was awesome also, though in a different way. But the Xbox NG is awe-inspiring - actually, I was just playing NG Black for the last hour and a half. I don't think I've ever played a game that was as fun for as long - it's in my top-five all-time.

[skaredmask]

Actrual the Wii and Game cube are more powerful than the xbox. The Wii and game cube both use a Version of ATI's 9700 radieon that can use pixel shader 2.0 and dx9.0 with alot more pixels with 400mhz risc processors. While the 400mhz might look slower compared to the Intel celeron processors clocked at 733 mhz in the xbox the risc processors are more effecint and can handle more operational sets than the Intel processors. Risc processors where used in Apple computers during the time . While the xbox uses a geforce 4 version graphic cards that only holds pixel shader 1.4 and dx 8.1.

 

However since the xbox was useing full DVD disc while the game cube was using DVD mini disc the xbox was able to push more infomation in the term of textures useage and space. You can see the difference in games like Rouge squardarn 1&2 and Resdent evil 1&4 and any shading heavy game on game cube. While Morrorwind on the xbox cant do the shading stuff of the Game cube it dose have more textureing due to its DVD storage. However the texturing on most non ported games on the Wii and Game cube do look more crisp just not as many textures are being used or stored.

 

 

Today the Wii might look more blocky in some games however this is mainly due to 16x9 tv compared to 4:3 tv of yesterday. Both Wii Game cube and xbox were and are mainly 480p systems. That means that 640x480 or (756x480 or something like that.) screen pixels so the Wii is going to look more pixelish due to it being still based on 480p and being streched to 16x9 screen and even though it not 720p its being streched to fill 720p space (like a rubberband being streched around somthing it barely fits). So if you change your wii setting to 4:3 you'll see less pixels.

Edited March 14, 2011 by skaredmask

[Atariboy]

On the Gamecube most 480p titles were Nintendo titles.

 

You sure about that? Almost all of my GameCube games (Nintendo or 3rd party) supported 480p. I think I only had maybe 2 or 3 that didn't of 20 or 25. Wasn't consciously looking for that support either. Stumbled across it when I got my Wii and popped in GameCube games.

 

I own 40 or so GameCube games with perhaps 10 of those being 1st party. And out of that, I own a grand total of three games that aren't progressive scan.

[xg4bx]

Id say in practice the xbox is more powerful than the wii. The xbox had ninja gaiden, doom 3, farcry, half life 2, etc. I haven't seen anything on the wii that looks comperable to those.

 

Id go so far as to say that the rogue squadron games on the gc look better than many wii titles.

[Atariboy]

I'd say something like Super Mario Galaxy would be on par with a nice looking Xbox game.

 

Just because most every developer outside of Nintendo hasn't taken advantage of the power of the system (As you noted, a GameCube launch title looks better than the vast majority of Wii releases) doesn't mean it's not there.

 

So if you change your wii setting to 4:3 you'll see less pixels.

 

The Wii's resolution is the same no matter if it's set at 4:3 or 16:9.

Edited March 15, 2011 by Atariboy

[vdub_bobby]

I'd say something like Super Mario Galaxy would be on par with a nice looking Xbox game.

 

Just because most every developer outside of Nintendo hasn't taken advantage of the power of the system (As you noted, a GameCube launch title looks better than the vast majority of Wii releases) doesn't mean it's not there.

 

So if you change your wii setting to 4:3 you'll see less pixels.

 

The Wii's resolution is the same no matter if it's set at 4:3 or 16:9.

And what the heck, the "480" in "480p" is the vertical resolution, so it shouldn't make any difference if the picture is stretched horizontally or not...or am I missing something?

Edited March 15, 2011 by vdub_bobby

[Tr3vor]

I'd say something like Super Mario Galaxy would be on par with a nice looking Xbox game.

 

Just because most every developer outside of Nintendo hasn't taken advantage of the power of the system (As you noted, a GameCube launch title looks better than the vast majority of Wii releases) doesn't mean it's not there.

 

So if you change your wii setting to 4:3 you'll see less pixels.

 

The Wii's resolution is the same no matter if it's set at 4:3 or 16:9.

And what the heck, the "480" in "480p" is the vertical resolution, so it shouldn't make any difference if the picture is stretched horizontally or not...or am I missing something?

 

the 480 stuff is the vertical resolution

the 4:3 or 16:9 is the wideness of the screen, it doesn't change the resolution, but it changes a setting in the game that renders things a little bit more skinny so it looks right on a widescreen tv, its not just upping the horisontal resolution.

 

at least, thats what I think. correct me if I'm wrong.

[vdub_bobby]

Id say in practice the xbox is more powerful than the wii. The xbox had ninja gaiden, doom 3, farcry, half life 2, etc. I haven't seen anything on the wii that looks comperable to those.

 

Id go so far as to say that the rogue squadron games on the gc look better than many wii titles.

First of all, HL2 doesn't look that good. Actually, in picking up Xbox games I've missed over the last few years, I'm surprised at how bad (relatively, of course) some of them look. HL2 looks like crap IMO, Morrowind the same. I just picked up and played Morrowind for the first time a few months ago and I was honestly shocked at how ugly the character models were. I kept cycling through them looking for something that wasn't hideous. The Capcom collection, while a ton of fun, is a muddy mess. Fable was a ton of fun, but was pretty rough, graphically, around the edges.

 

Of FPS I've played, The Conduit looked at least as good as any Xbox FPS I've played. Miles better than HL2, way better than Morrowind (which isn't a FPS, but whatev), better than Halo and Black, and as good and probably better than Halo 2. GoldenEye 007 isn't as good as The Conduit (or Halo 2), but it's in the same league.

 

And I'd say that Super Mario Galaxy is at least as good looking as Ninja Gaiden, Monster Hunter Tri also, and I think even Zelda: TP is up to that level and that was a Wii launch title.

 

I haven't seen anything that blows away Ninja Gaiden or Halo 2, but IMO the Wii has plenty of games that are up to that level and even surpass it.

 

I think the main difference in games that I own and have played is the in-game character models. The character models in even otherwise great-looking games (like Halo) just don't look that good. GoldenEye007's are light-years ahead of them.

 

Look at the cut scenes for Halo and GoldenEye's:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o6VAObgrGPk

Compare especially 1:00 in the Halo video with 3:00 or 5:00 in the GoldenEye video.

Edited March 15, 2011 by vdub_bobby

[Tr3vor]

Id say in practice the xbox is more powerful than the wii. The xbox had ninja gaiden, doom 3, farcry, half life 2, etc. I haven't seen anything on the wii that looks comperable to those.

 

Id go so far as to say that the rogue squadron games on the gc look better than many wii titles.

Of FPS I've played, The Conduit looked at least as good as any Xbox FPS I've played. Miles better than HL2, way better than Morrowind (which isn't a FPS, but whatev), better than Halo and Black, and as good and probably better than Halo 2. GoldenEye 007 isn't as good as The Conduit (or Halo 2), but it's in the same league.

 

yeah, I think the Conduit's graphics are quite good. The engine has potential. I do think that they need some better art. the doorknobs are like as high as your eye level in that game. some of the places are repeated, but whatever. They seem to be getting this fixed in Conduit 2

 

there are also some hacks for conduit 1 that make the framerate higher with no visible change in graphics. Its like reducing the amount of particles that can be on screen at one time, but the amount initally set makes the frame rate lag for some reason.

Edited March 15, 2011 by Tr3vor

[rxd]

Wow, a 2009 game on the Wii looks better than a 2005 game on the original xbox!

 

I'm convinced... Not

[Tr3vor]

Wow, a 2009 game on the Wii looks better than a 2005 game on the original xbox!

 

I'm convinced... Not

 

 

well, its impressive for the Wii I think...

[skaredmask]

Actrual the Wii and Game cube are more powerful than the xbox. The Wii and game cube both use a Version of ATI's 9700 radieon that can use pixel shader 2.0 and dx9.0 with alot more pixels with 400mhz risc processors. While the 400mhz might look slower compared to the Intel celeron processors clocked at 733 mhz in the xbox the risc processors are more effecint and can handle more operational sets than the Intel processors. Risc processors where used in Apple computers during the time . While the xbox uses a geforce 4 version graphic cards that only holds pixel shader 1.4 and dx 8.1.

 

However since the xbox was useing full DVD disc while the game cube was using DVD mini disc the xbox was able to push more infomation in the term of textures useage and space. You can see the difference in games like Rouge squardarn 1&2 and Resdent evil 1&4 and any shading heavy game on game cube. While Morrorwind on the xbox cant do the shading stuff of the Game cube it dose have more textureing due to its DVD storage. However the texturing on most non ported games on the Wii and Game cube do look more crisp just not as many textures are being used or stored.

 

 

Today the Wii might look more blocky in some games however this is mainly due to 16x9 tv compared to 4:3 tv of yesterday. Both Wii Game cube and xbox were and are mainly 480p systems. That means that 640x480 or (756x480 or something like that.) screen pixels so the Wii is going to look more pixelish due to it being still based on 480p and being streched to 16x9 screen and even though it not 720p its being streched to fill 720p space (like a rubberband being streched around somthing it barely fits). So if you change your wii setting to 4:3 you'll see less pixels.

 

 

I'd say something like Super Mario Galaxy would be on par with a nice looking Xbox game.

 

Just because most every developer outside of Nintendo hasn't taken advantage of the power of the system (As you noted, a GameCube launch title looks better than the vast majority of Wii releases) doesn't mean it's not there.

 

So if you change your wii setting to 4:3 you'll see less pixels.

 

The Wii's resolution is the same no matter if it's set at 4:3 or 16:9.

 

 

I'd say something like Super Mario Galaxy would be on par with a nice looking Xbox game.

 

Just because most every developer outside of Nintendo hasn't taken advantage of the power of the system (As you noted, a GameCube launch title looks better than the vast majority of Wii releases) doesn't mean it's not there.

 

So if you change your wii setting to 4:3 you'll see less pixels.

 

The Wii's resolution is the same no matter if it's set at 4:3 or 16:9.

And what the heck, the "480" in "480p" is the vertical resolution, so it shouldn't make any difference if the picture is stretched horizontally or not...or am I missing something?

 

 

I'd say something like Super Mario Galaxy would be on par with a nice looking Xbox game.

 

Just because most every developer outside of Nintendo hasn't taken advantage of the power of the system (As you noted, a GameCube launch title looks better than the vast majority of Wii releases) doesn't mean it's not there.

 

So if you change your wii setting to 4:3 you'll see less pixels.

 

The Wii's resolution is the same no matter if it's set at 4:3 or 16:9.

And what the heck, the "480" in "480p" is the vertical resolution, so it shouldn't make any difference if the picture is stretched horizontally or not...or am I missing something?

 

the 480 stuff is the vertical resolution

the 4:3 or 16:9 is the wideness of the screen, it doesn't change the resolution, but it changes a setting in the game that renders things a little bit more skinny so it looks right on a widescreen tv, its not just upping the horisontal resolution.

 

at least, thats what I think. correct me if I'm wrong.

 

Most common LCD HD tv's signals run at 640x480p(4x3), 720x480p(16x9), 1280x720p(16x9) or 1920x1080p(16x9). Yes again the Wii dose not chagne it's resolution of 640x480p(4x3).

 

However there are these signal 480p formats too.

 

640x480p 4x3 standard unless with Widescreen Anamorphic 16x9

720x480p 16x9 native 16x9 DVD's

 

The Wii's and GameCube output through hardware:(Wiki)

Custom 'AV Multi Out' port supporting composite video, component video, S-Video (NTSC only) and RGB SCART (PAL only)

480p (PAL/NTSC), 480i (PAL/NTSC) or 576i (PAL/SECAM), standard 4:3 and 16:9 anamorphic widescreen

 

About Anamorphic widescreen (Wiki)

A DVD labeled as "Widescreen Anamorphic" contains video that has the same frame size in pixels as traditional fullscreen video, but uses wider pixels. The shape of the pixels is called pixel aspect ratio and is encoded in the video stream for a DVD disc player to correctly identify the proportions of the video. If an anamorphic DVD video is played on standard 4:3 television without adjustment, the image may look horizontally squeezed.

 

Quote:"contains video that has the same frame size in pixels as traditional fullscreen video, but uses wider pixels". That is refering to 4x3 ratio

 

So yes it will look more pixelish on 16x9 settings

If your useing a 720p LCD HD TV it's not the Magic 1 to 1 pixel ratio.

Also if you useing HD TV its using about 1 Wii pixel is equal to 3.5 or 4 tv pixels on a 720p tv do to it already useing wider pixels.for 16x9.

it also affects the horizontal and vertical pixels.

Edited March 15, 2011 by skaredmask

[Rex Dart]

Part of the reason the Wii looks relatively crummy to me, I'm sure, is that I played Xbox on a CRT and I'm playing Wii on a huge LCD. Of course it's going to look jaggier & pixelated to me. Of course, I'm not speaking for anybody else, just myself here.

[Hyper_Eye]

It will not look better to run the Wii in 4:3 mode on a widescreen set regardless of whether or not the 16:9 support on the Wii is anamorphic. Unless you set your television to not stretch the image and play in a 4:3 box. That is the only condition where an improvement would be made and I think it would be pretty debatable as to whether or not that is an improvement. The reason why it doesn't make a difference is that whether or not you use 4:3 or 16:9 the output will still be 640x480 and the same amount of scaling will be required. BUT, in 16:9 mode the pixels are formatted so that you get a proper widescreen image when the scaling is complete. I don't want to play in a box and I don't want the image to look stretched either. Since the scaling is going to occur regardless I would much rather set the Wii to 16:9 than 4:3. There is simply no difference in picture quality at all but Princess Peach sure does look fat when stretching a 4:3 Peach onto a 16:9 screen.

[+wood_jl]

Does either the Wii or the Gamecube do 1080i, as the old Xbox did, with limited selection of games?