koaftder: The wii graphics will be a good step up from the GC graphics for sure.
I doubt it. First, demo kits are available now so you can see the difference, and there really isn't that much. Also, since the Wii dev kits are the same as the Gamecube dev kits, developers already know the architecture very well and probably know how to exploit its power fully at launch. What you see now is likely what it will be through the life of the console.
My biggest gripe about Wii graphics is visual quality. It's one thing to add a few more million polygons, but many Wii games don't use anti-aliasing. That's unacceptable for 2006 hardware at SDTV resolutions, regardless of price range. A $30 budget PC video card can do that.
Detail may not affect gameplay, but visual quality does.
Nintendo is probably making $80-$100 profit on each machine, and unlike Gamecube, customers are not enjoying the benefits of their cost cutting. The Gamecube was actually a good machine.
I refuse to buy a Wii until they bring the cost down, and resolve the trickle of software that plagued the Gamecube. Virtual Console titles do not count as launch titles.
tonyvdb: This has been the case with the X-box and its DVD output as well. The PS3 has no bench test reviews as of yet but it is almost a garentee that it will fall into the "spend alot of time developing the gaming graphics quality, CPU and not enough on the Video output quality" rut.
The XBox uses only software and no filtering on it's DVD playback, so it looks like crap. I think the XBox uses a derivitive of PowerDVD, which is crap by any standard. The DVD quality from my PS2 easily rivals a high-end $250 DVD player in terms of visual quality, because the filtering and color-correction is all done in hardware.
The main reason HD players are so expensive is because they are actual PCs, instead of purpose-built embedded hardware. Once they get rid of P4 processors and move to custom hardware, prices will drop REAL fast. $150 HD players in 3 years or so.
Tomas: The ps2 was mainly a horrible dvd player due to the sucky output.. The default output was only composite!!
Get a better cable. My S-Video cable cost $5 and the image is rock solid and beautiful. I never bothered to get component cables.
Then again, my PS2 was manufactured about two years after launch. I wouldn't be surprised if the cheaper PS2 slim has awful output.
tonyvdb: HD DVDs will still need to be decoded and that uses a different process then outputting the Game video. Sony will not have spent much time on this because of the price that the PS3 is marked at.
Um, Sony specializes in movie hardware. I thought the PS2 would be an awful DVD player (like my PC) until I tried it and found it to be a REAL DVD player.
It's all in the filtering and color-correction.
Also note that Blu-ray movies use a similar codec to DVD. The players don't look as good as HD-DVD, but that also means the codec technology from DVD will be carried over quite well. I expect the PS3 to be a good HD player. Of course, I have no interest in HD movies.
Lou: I think complaints about Wii graphics on some games is because lazy developers just recompiled GC builds for the Wii with no graphical updates.
You mean like what Nintendo did to Zelda, their flagship product and probably most important Wii release? With all the fanboys chanting "graphics don't matter", and Nintendo's ability to profit from recycling their biggest killer app of the year, I doubt that's going to give much incentive to other developers to even bother optimizing anything.
My take is that the Wii processor has the same geometry and AA engine as the Gamecube, and the same embedded video memory issues (probably 2-3MB of texture memory). They only sped it up and added some pixel shaders, as seen in Mario Galaxies. The CPU is a different story, but in any case, it's unacceptable by 2006 technology standards.
I'm going to pick up a 360 after the holidays, and continue gaming on my PC and PS2 for now.
