StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Kotaku wrote:Pictures are surfacing of what Nintendo really rolled out at E3. It wasn't the Wii console folks were playing, but next-gen development kits stuffed in GameCube casings. Ninty fanboys are *surprise* getting a little too excited about this, claiming that the graphics shown at E3 were not real Wii graphics, that the system's graphics card is still in development, blah, blah, blah. Empty hopes and wet dreams aside, most likely what the world saw at E3 will set the tone for how first-gen Wii games are gonna look. Chin up, because that's not necessarily a bad thing. —Brian Ashcraft

Here is the thread on Nintendo's forums: Nintendo N-sider: It has pics, too!

If they don't know what the hardware was, why is the quote all 'lolz fanboi'? They're dev kits, not Wii hardware... so who knows how they compare?

Stark wrote:If they don't know what the hardware was, why is the quote all 'lolz fanboi'? They're dev kits, not Wii hardware... so who knows how they compare?

Dev kits generally offer performance comparable to that of the final hardware.

Obviously, but crying 'lolz teh fanbois' based on incomplete information seems a bit excessive.

Then again, I don't post on console forums, so maybe it's a justified reaction.

Stark wrote:Obviously, but crying 'lolz teh fanbois' based on incomplete information seems a bit excessive.

Then again, I don't post on console forums, so maybe it's a justified reaction.

My point is that claiming that the Wii's final hardware will provide vastly better graphics based on this evidence is pretty stupid. Laughing at the fanboys, based on what everyone knows, it qualifies as laughable that people would argue that the final graphics will be much better than what currently exists.

The article states that they claim the graphics hardware is still in development - do we know that it's finalised? I don't keep track, but the article says 'maybe it's not representative of final hardware, lolz fanbois'. What's the point of the article? It wasn't 'real' Wii hardware... but it's the same, and there's no difference to final hardware? Gee, thanks for telling us nothing. Anyway, enough hijack from me!

I doubt the developers would create two sets of models and textures for all the games, one for E3 and one for the actual hardware.

NO SHIT. So what's the point of the article? It wasn't real Wii hardware at E3, lol on the fanbois... but it won't be different on shipday! DOUBLE lol on the fanbois! I don't get it. If it's the 'final hardware', than it IS Wii hardware, wouldn't you say?

The only system that was on real hardware at E3 was the Xbox 360, which, coincidentally, is the only one that's actually out. The lack of real Wii hardware should come as no surprise to anyone. If they had real final hardware to show at E3, they'd be releasing the fucker!

Still crossing my fingers for something beyond an overclocked Flipper.

Haha, cookies on dowels

Master of Ossus wrote:

Stark wrote:If they don't know what the hardware was, why is the quote all 'lolz fanboi'? They're dev kits, not Wii hardware... so who knows how they compare?

Dev kits generally offer performance comparable to that of the final hardware.

Microsoft claimed that their dev kits were 1/5th the performance of the final model however.

Anyway, the devs at Blitz I interviewed said that the Wii is basicly a mega-overclocked GameCube (GPU and CPU wise) with more and faster RAM and other necessary hardware. He also said that while the GPU at this point has no new shaders, it was significantly faster so they could do stuff like bloom in software.

Praxis wrote:

Master of Ossus wrote:

Stark wrote:If they don't know what the hardware was, why is the quote all 'lolz fanboi'? They're dev kits, not Wii hardware... so who knows how they compare?

Dev kits generally offer performance comparable to that of the final hardware.

Microsoft claimed that their dev kits were 1/5th the performance of the final model however.

Anyway, the devs at Blitz I interviewed said that the Wii is basicly a mega-overclocked GameCube (GPU and CPU wise) with more and faster RAM and other necessary hardware. He also said that while the GPU at this point has no new shaders, it was significantly faster so they could do stuff like bloom in software.

Wii is effectively an X-Box1. I'd write off any possible 'OMG IT'LL BE BETTER!' as fanwank. It'd probably at best, have marginally better framerates, as both systems looked pretty much alike at times.

It's probably going to be about twice as powerful as the XBox. This is the impression I get from the devs.

Wii's hardware looks like an X-Box 1.5 in the graphics department. But graphics are going to become less important as we plateau.

SirNitram wrote:Wii's hardware looks like an X-Box 1.5 in the graphics department. But graphics are going to become less important as we plateau.

And more detailed graphics do not equal a better game.

DPDarkPrimus wrote:

SirNitram wrote:Wii's hardware looks like an X-Box 1.5 in the graphics department. But graphics are going to become less important as we plateau.

And more detailed graphics do not equal a better game.

Put in perspective, I had more fun playing The Minish Cap on my Gamecube's Gameboy player than I did playing Wind Waker.

DPDarkPrimus wrote:

SirNitram wrote:Wii's hardware looks like an X-Box 1.5 in the graphics department. But graphics are going to become less important as we plateau.

And more detailed graphics do not equal a better game.

Quoted for truth.
I've played OFP more than pretty much any other game lately, and have gotten more fun out of it than many modern games. And its five years old and looks like complete ass.

Frankly I think we reached the point a couple years ago where graphics have gotten to a quality that they don't really need any further improvement, with examples like Halo 2, the recent Metal Gear Solid games, and Resident Evil 4. I mean a sort of pinnacle has been reached with a greater emphasis being on gameplay and story innovation, in terms of interactivity.

I'm not really sure about that. Graphics have gotten very impressive, to be sure, and it's true they haven't improved hardly at all since Doom 3 was released in '04, but when I'm playing a racing game, I still sometimes screw up a turn because I couldn't see the track ahead clearly enough. And let's face it, no one would ever mistake even a carefully edited screenshot for a real photo. When CG graphics become so realistic that you can sometimes mistake them for live action, that's when we'll know we're close to perfection. When gameplay graphics do the same, that's when we'll know we've reached it. We're still a very long way away from that.

Yeah graphics, for me, plateaued with Resident Evil 4.

Arthur_Tuxedo wrote:I'm not really sure about that. Graphics have gotten very impressive, to be sure, and it's true they haven't improved hardly at all since Doom 3 was released in '04, but when I'm playing a racing game, I still sometimes screw up a turn because I couldn't see the track ahead clearly enough. And let's face it, no one would ever mistake even a carefully edited screenshot for a real photo. When CG graphics become so realistic that you can sometimes mistake them for live action, that's when we'll know we're close to perfection. When gameplay graphics do the same, that's when we'll know we've reached it. We're still a very long way away from that.

I'm not saying that they've reached the point of realism to rival reality: what I'm saying is that current graphics have generally reached the point of realism where they'll be good enough for an extended frame of time.

Basically, right now it's more or less good enough.

Graphics haven't plateau'ed. They certainly are harder to distinguish, but we still need better hardware to do various effects to make something more real. Shadows, reflections, etc.

I admit that for the most part, graphics have reached a point where they will not compensate for inferior design, which may not be the case years ago. System Shock 1 for example was a brilliant game, but it looked like trash compared even to a modern gen's biggest pile of crap.

But really, better physics and other such things will make a difference. Increased resolution and view distance certainly will help things in the future... but pretty much with the latest PCs, 360 and PS3, it makes things pretty much rely more on the developers than any hardware limitations for the near future.

Nintendo confirmed what was going on:

he Wii hardware we exhibited at E3 2006 was made specifically for the E3 show and is not the final mass-production version. Some of this hardware was cased in Nintendo GameCube housing," the company explained.

"So will the system specs change? The answer is they're still finalizing it. But as far as what you saw at E3 we think that was very indicative of the experience Wii will offer... It was Wii hardware."

So what we saw at E3 is basically what the final product should be like.