Its slightly more powerful than the Xbox, but not by much. Im not sure if that includes graphical effects though, or if that just applies to raw power. I think the problem is that, apart from Nintendo, nobody can really get the best out of the system. However, Factor 5 are working on a Wii game I think, and they are definitely the type of dev that can get results. This is one of the reasons Rogue Squadron looked so good on the GC. Again, a lot of Xbox screens have been compared to the Wii and look much better - but the potential is there for sure. Devs assume nobody cares about Wii graphics (partly true) so they dont feel they need to waste time and effort on them.Starfox Adventures
[QUOTE=''Nomad0404'']Now I'm no expert but I swear this looks as good as any current Wii game available even SMG. [/QUOTE]Dude, whatever you're smoking, I want some.
Me smoking? Sorry that's not alowed in my house - the wife would bash with her rolling pin or shoot me with her gun, luckily that's in South Africa and I live in England (NO! Not the wife, the gun!).Show me where SMG is better looking than Starfox Adventures, don't forget than it's coded by Rare and they seemed to have a good idea about coding for the GC.Phil
Actually the Wii is 2.5 times more powerful than the GC.
Show me a game that proves that?
[QUOTE=''Nomad0404'']Me smoking? Sorry that's not alowed in my house - the wife would bash with her rolling pin or shoot me with her gun, luckily that's in South Africa and I live in England (NO! Not the wife, the gun!).Show me where SMG is better looking than Starfox Adventures, don't forget than it's coded by Rare and they seemed to have a good idea about coding for the GC.Phil [/QUOTE]
Haha she sounds like fun mate.
If you have both games, play one then the other straight afterwards, or side by side if possible, and I think you'll see a fair difference. Don't get me wrong, SFA is a good looking game but Galaxy blows it out of the water. You're right about Rare, they did used to make some great (and great looking) games on Nintendo systems, but I think Nintendo themselves would also know a thing or two about coding for their own system.
rare had a gift of squeezing amazing things out of nintentdo hardware from a technical standpoint. starfox adventures made my jaw drop on multiple occasions (*slight spoiler* the water temple is something else). how they got the game running on the GC i just dont know. there wasnt even any loading screens if i remember. how cool was that?
the game wasnt particulary brilliant imho. a bit bring and repetative. but it was definately one of those games u used when wanted to show ure GC off.
is the Wii more powerful? yup. there are a few areas where adventures beats galaxy in the graphical department (like the moving grass) but overall galaxy is technically more sophisticated. the game has a bigger draw distance, a more sophisticated lighting, reflection and refraction system and it uses a hell of alot more shader tricks than adventures. the levels in galaxy are also alot more interactive than in adventures. galaxy wouldnt work on the GC without some compromises in the technical department.
then theres the conduit. first i will say that adventures has the conduit beaten in the art department (one of my gripes with the conduit at the mo). adventures is alot more consistent with the quality of its textures. bbut from a technical standpoint, again, the conduit puts adventures to the sword. it does everything adventures does (bar the nice grass trick in adventures) and more. better, more reactive water. more detailed alien enemies (the humam enemies in the conduit still look a bit narly imho...theres one of the consistency problem). better lighting and so on.
other games like monster hunter 3 (which looks very kewl) would also have adventures beaten.
it would be interesting to see what rare could do with the wii though. they really had a knack for getting the best out of ninty hardware, going all the way back to the snes. factor 5 (who also did amazing things on the GC) are putting there money where there mouth is though. they have commented in the past that developers were basically embarrasing themselves on the wii. now there making a wii game. so itll be interesting to see ho that turns out. apparently they already have the engine they made for lair on the PS3 working on the wii. thats not to say that we will see lair levels of visuals but its going to be interesting.
Now that was a well reasoned post and I will put them against each other and see what I think.I haven't played all of Adventures yet, barely played it for 2 hours so far, but I have to say I didn't realise how good it looks until I started playing it and it works perfectly well on my 37'' LCD tv as well.Phil
glad u enjoy the game. ive met a few others than myself that actually like it. but seriously, SMG? nothing in the gc could match that games visuals. adventures was a beautiful game (and i hope to see a sequal regardless what anyone says) but its nothing compared to galaxy.
Factor 5 and various blogs argue Gamecube was equal with Xbox when it comes to graphics. The Wii has a CPU three times faster then the NGC, it can produce four times as many Polygons in game with the effects turned on, it has better RAM and can produce shaders we enjoy on PS3 and Xbox 360. The problem is Nintnedo, they consider their hardware specs propriety and didnt even give third parties the specs for the remotes accelerometer so far only High Volatage have taken time to find out how Wii can work though we may really see what it can do through Factor 5.
The Wii is more powerful, that is a given. Though, I too enjoy how well Starfox Adventures looks, art-style and all, and I wish more Gamecube games looked as good as it. However, graphics alone (as previously stated) aren't the only things extra power can do. Better engines, draw distance, AI, etc. are improved through stronger hardware.Plus, other than Nintendo and a few other select companies out there, most don't utilize the true power of the Wii. Eventually, we'll see more developers utilizing it's hardware.
Starfox Adventures is a pretty GC game but it's not up to par with Super Mario Galaxy imo. Anyway yes the Wii is technically more powerful by 1.5x on the cpu and gpu and 64 mb more ram, which is a little more than 3x.
hmm... i remember hating SFA... and thats it.
and fox looked weird there...
and twilight princess (another GC game) looked better. and if galaxy looks better than TP, then galaxy looks better than SFA.
I'm sorry SFA absolutely looks beter than Twilight Princess and thats the Wii version.I was challenging people on the forums with my SMG comments although if SMG is the Wiis best looking game we need to hope for better in the future.
[QUOTE=''Nomad0404'']I'm sorry SFA absolutely looks beter than Twilight Princess and thats the Wii version.I was challenging people on the forums with my SMG comments although if SMG is the Wiis best looking game we need to hope for better in the future. [/QUOTE]Twilight Princess on Wii is a GC port game with Wii mote tacked on..unfortunately. If the specs produce by Ninti is correct, then obviously so far,,no one has manage to properly develop for Wii even Ninti themselves %26 so the myth that its similar to GC hence easier to develop has been a load of croc.. I agree with your last comment abt SMG. Or that Wii IS actually just a GC with motion sensing, %26 we've all been duped..hence why we're just getting GC level graphcis %26 ninti being so secretive abt the Wii specs.
[QUOTE=''BrunoBRS'']hmm... i remember hating SFA... and thats it. and fox looked weird there... and twilight princess (another GC game) looked better. and if galaxy looks better than TP, then galaxy looks better than SFA.[/QUOTE] Yeah I hated STA also and TP looked better and that was a GC title
Pics War!!Textures:
If the pics were taken from the same source on the same PC at the same time then I'll be happy to respond but I seriously think all of the Screens of Starfox online don't do it justice.Phil
Yeah that must be some pretty heavy hallucinatory gear!
No comments:
Post a Comment