Speaking of tessellation, I just heard that the Xbox 360 will employ a rendering technique called "mega meshes" that will supposedly take advantage of the tessellation unit that I never knew the console had.

Here's a tech demo.

I'm not sure if this is anything to really be excited about. AMD's in hardware tessellation unit in the Radeon HD 4XXX series of GPU's wasn't very efficient. To do anything meaningful with the tessellation unit in the 4XXX series you practically needed the raw computing power of Radeon HD 4850x2 or 4870x2 both of which are practically a full generational leap from Xbox 360's Xeon. I don't see how a tessellation unit on the Xbox 360's Xeon would be any different. Notice how lifeless majority of that tech demo was for instance. This may be too taxing on the hardware for the Xbox 360 to utilize this in any meaningful way in games.

Well, Microsoft plans on using this rendering technique in their upcoming exclusives. In fact, this tech demo was derived from Peter Molyneux's Kinect project, Milo and Kate.

Then its likely that you won't see a whole lot done with this at least not on Xbox 360. They may be able to utilize this technique to a certain degree in real world situations, but something else has to take a hit to utilize it to any real effect. At this point developers don't have much left over processing power to throw into this rendering technique regarding Xbox 360 hardware.

Hey, Jikayaki, what did you think of the Zelda tech demo?

It was impressive in its own right. The highlights of HD Experience Zelda Tech demo was the lighting, shadow, particle effects, and resolution of the animations. It looked impressive from the beginning so I really haven't given it much of a second look, but compared to the Japanese Garden Tech demo there wasn't as much going on. I'd safely say that like the Japanese Garden Tech demo the effects done in the Zelda demo was beyond anything you can do with current consoles short of the PC right now. I'm interested in seeing how Zelda Wii U ends up looking like as historically Zelda tech demos are always worse than the final product.

My impression is that its graphics capabilities are not far beyond the current competition. That is probably plenty enough power anyway, but at the same time they don't want to reveal specs because people would judge the system on the fact that the specs are similar to five year old products, despite that you shouldn't.

We're rapidly approaching a threshold where graphics across the board are going to be impressive and they simply won't matter anymore. There will still be improvements, but they won't be defining systems like they were a decade ago, when everybody was debating what system had the best capabilities.

The industry in the modern era is about marketing, software, and services. Hardware matters more in form than raw tech specs.

What's most important about Wii U on the technical side is its architecture. Work on the system to an extent carries over from the current generation. Don't expect visuals of Wii games to get much better than you see in their first year. Developers already know how to achieve results with the hardware because they've worked on the Xbox 360 for years. Of course they aren't identical, but they're going to find all the ins/out/tricks a lot faster this time.

Your impression is quite off then. Both demos to some degree showcased effects simply impossible to replicate with current generation consoles. That's without mentioning that both demos where running at 1080p native resolution in real time while pulling off Global Illumination, high quality textures, and ext. Literally only a few PC games on their highest settings can do some of the things being done in both demos. The more impressive demo the Japanese Garden Demo is specifically stated as being based on an older version of the hardware and Zelda tech demos always are worse than the final product. Their choice regarding the demos perhaps wasn't the best. It would of helped get the capabilities of the console around to specific crowds of individuals if one demo had been a realistic urban setting (a FPS ext). We've more or less already meet the threshold where most individuals have a hard time telling several of the current improvements in graphics compared to the capabilities of the current consoles. That has a lot to do with the fact majority of it is very subtle and that no developer has really embraced tessellation. What improvements can be seen for next generation consoles also really need to be seen in person or the original video files as recordings lose quite a bit of detail.

Something to look into the version of this demo used during the conference isn't the full version of the demo and the demo itself is far more impressive if you can find a good quality video. Something missing in this version for instance is the hawk or falcon part of the demo, which shows in real time the seasons changing and the falcon interacting with the environment( pulling a leaf from a tree, rain dripping of the falcon, and the falcon playing in the snow). This demo is actually very impressive once you stop to think about it even in comparison with some of the latest PC games like Witcher 2. You can't play this using current home consoles, and according to Reggie this demo was based off an earlier developer kit, thus doesn't represent the full capabilities of the console. I have higher hopes for Wii U graphically than I did originally. The CPU is likely based on info from IBM based on Power 7 architecture. This means in layman's terms there is a chance that the CPU at least is a full generational leap a head of Xbox 360, so it wouldn't make sense for the GPU to lag behind. It still won't be capable of graphics to the level of that recent EPIC demo, but neither will any next gen consoles.

Extremely unlikely.

Looking at the currently rumored specs of the Wii U this is nothing short of impossible without the PS4/720 costing well over 900$ USD to produce (That sounds outrageous, but keep in mind that manufacture cost of a launch 60GB PS3 was $950 USD!). Sony is too smart to make the mistake they did this last generation of releasing a vastly over expensive console that is difficult to develope for, and Microsoft would lose market going this route as well.

Prehaps if either console was release say some 4 years after the Wii U, such of a gap would be expected, but I doubt Microsoft/Sony are being serious about the "10 year lifecycle".

Its impossible for the next Sony and Microsoft consoles to be so above the Wii U in tech to repeat this generation, but its rather easy even regarding the higher spec rumors for PS4 or Xbox 720 to be more powerful machines. It all depends on how these devices are designed and their intended market and price point. If PS4 follows Vita its going to be more powerful, but perhaps not as much as some would like to think as Vita is mostly a device created to budget with little R&D based on current advancements in mobile tech. The next Xbox is harder to speculate about we've heard rumors that Kinect is going to be a heavy focus next gen for the Xbox brand. That eats into revenue to produce the device since that would seem to point to a mainstream product something that could easily be within the ball park of Wii U. So its sane to say that these systems will end up more powerful than Wii U, but by how much we can't say.

Individuals shouldn't worry too much about how Wii U will compare to Xbox 720 or PS4. If these consoles launch a year after Wii U technical issues would keep them from jumping anymore than fifty percent more powerful than Wii U if indeed the console is about equivalent to a Radeon HD 4850. Even if these consoles launch nearly two years after Wii U it would still be impossible to place Wii U in the same situation as the Wii.

Actually, I'm thinking along the lines of... Well... What do you usually do when you go to a gaming Cafe? That's right, play online games. (At least, that's what I heard.)

That means that it will have awesome online features...

Plus...

If that box photo is real...



People, we're looking at an MMO console.

Its fake don't ever trust so called leaked photos. They are always fake.

You can't say for sure. Even if no leaked real photo's have ever come up for past console releases, there's nothing saying that this one can't be real either. This is the first time a Nintendo console has been leaked to this extent, is it not?


Everything involving pre-release leaks and rumors can be compared to Schrödinger's cat. Just as the cat is both alive and dead, these rumors are both true and false. Until the box is opened, figuratively and literally, we can't tell.

Besides, current rumors and previous examples show that at least the first two rumors are likely... The similar build to the 360 and Spotpass, respectively.

A poster at Neogaf examined those photos and determined it was fake from the way Nintendo is printed in the image. Plus according to IGN you has broke a considerable amount of info on the device its the size of the original Xbox and looks like a updated Super Nintendo.

The Wii U likely runs four to five times as hot as the Wii without being any more than 42% larger in volume. The design of the Wii U simply has to accommodate design choices that keep this thing from melting or breaking while in use.

Forget the rumors.... lets talk about the my first question. I asked a question which i thought had facts to back it up. we know nintendo made billions off the Wii. so can they not afford to put more up to date tech into their console. i was just posing a question and every nintendo fan on here took it as a personal attack on them. open up your mind people!

This is merely Nintendo creating console hardware based on the same principles that went into the creation of practically every console ever made. Individuals forget or simply don't realize that using the latest tech has never been within the equation of creating console hardware before the Xbox 360 and PS3. The tech behind consoles in the past was old by time the consoles hit the market often by several years. The gap on the age of the technology within a console has steadily decreased since the Nintendo Entertainment System, but still for instance the age of the GPU technology rumored to be used in the Wii U is rather equivalent with what we saw in the previous generation of consoles at launch.

This isn't anything really to be worried about itself neither Sony nor Microsoft are likely to use bleeding edge tech in their consoles though certainly more up to date than Nintendo. How far behind the capability of Nintendo's Wii U is to their competition really depends on what sort of memory they use, clock speeds, amount of customization, ext. Technical issues will greatly limit the capability of consoles this coming generation primarily because of high wattage from chipsets. I certainly expect Sony and Microsoft to have an edge regarding power, but it isn't going to be anything like the Wii in regards to the Xbox 360 or PS3.

Because there's no reason why they can't make Monster Hunter for both handhelds and home consoles so they might as well cover both markets even if the handheld one is bigger.

The point is that not only is the market for handhelds larger, but the market for console games within Japan isn't large enough to warrant development on next gen HD hardware. There isn't a financial reason for Capcom to develop a game within the franchise for the Wii U. The Wii U has to enlarge the console market in Japan, the monster hunter series is going to need to find a western audience, or Nintendo needs to foot the bill otherwise Monster Hunter Wii U is very unlikely.

http://gamrreview.vg...ble-3rd-hd-ver/

Really? And that's just an HD port.



That's what I was saying, sort of.

An HD port is an entirely different beast than creating a new entry within the franchise for an HD console. There isn't anywhere near the cost involved with your average port than creating a game from scratch for more capable hardware. I hold to my statement Monster Hunter Wii U is very unlikely unless Nintendo foots the bill, or Wii U creates a larger market internally for console franchises. Capcom isn't going to just create a Monster Hunter game for Wii U for **** and giggles. Capcom is a company and like any company needs a financial reason above all to go forward with a project. There simply isn't any reason financially for Capcom to create a Monster Hunter game for the Wii U.

My point was that Monster Hunter sells great no matter what. Also Nintendo has said they're willing to invest in third-party exclusives for the 3DS and Wii U some I'm sure they'd give a moneyhat for Monster Hunter on Wii U. In fact I bet that's how they got Monster Hunter 4.

I don't rule out Nintendo potentially footing the bill for a Monster Hunter for the Wii U. My point is merely that Capcom doesn't have an incentive to create an entry within the franchise on the Wii U otherwise really unless Wii U proves to drastically increase the size of the console market in Japan. For what it would cost to develop a single Wii U title they could likely create several entries and spin offs for the handheld market, which ultimately would prove more profitable. Then footing the bill for a proper Monster Hunter for the Wii U would be considerably more expensive than footing the bill for the 3DS. Financially Nintendo may not see the point for footing the bill for such an expensive purchase especially when majority of the console market is the west where majority of their troubles are likely to occur.

I was just going by the official press release.

Those sort of things are often full of PR. I'm merely speculating on the reasons that Wii got a Monster Hunter and how that compares to the possibility that Wii U will get a Monster Hunter release based both on official statements and common sense. The Wii U has to create a larger audience within Japan for Japanese console games or the Monster Hunter games for the 3DS have to create a reasonable audience within the west if they are going to be localized. Otherwise a Monster Hunter for the Wii U isn't really guaranteed. Outside this Nintendo would have to money hat to Capcom for a console version.

My other point was that Monster Hunter isn't the kind of game that needs the hardware to have good sales for it to sell well because Japanese gamers will buy the hardware for it. Also Nintendo said they're willing to invest in third party exclusives for the 3DS and Wii U so I'm sure they'd give a moneyhat to Capcom for Monster Hunter on Wii U. In fact I reckon they paid for Monster Hunter 4 to be exclusive to the 3DS as well.

Still why would Capcom create a Monster Hunter game for Wii U when they could simply make sequels for the Monster Hunter franchise and spin-off titles for 3DS and Vita. Handhelds are increasingly the preferred gaming devices for the Japanese market, where in their console market selling over 200,000 copies is extraordinary. Major Western franchises would crash at current dev costs within a similar sized market. The audience for Monster Hunter is completely complacent with a handheld experience. In other words there is no driving force for Capcom to develop a Monster Hunter game outside handhelds within its current market. The Wii U has to place itself as a major force in Japan like no console has done in recent memory or Nintendo has to foot the bill. Otherwise Monster Hunter for Wii U doesn't make financial sense for Capcom.

Not now since the price and constant flow of great games but earlier on they were pretty poor with even the PSP topping it. And my point was that Monster Hunter Tri came to the Wii because PS3 development costs were too high not because the Wii had higher sales. Monster Hunter fans will come to any console if it has Monster Hunter so even on a console with terrible sales Monster Hunter would still sell immensely well. That's Monster Hunter is so important companies like Nintendo and Sony because it gives consoles a massive boost in Japan.

I'm not sure I'm explaining myself completely. HD console development costs being a factor in why Wii got a Monster Hunter isn't something I have argued against. There simply so much more to why Capcom didn't create a Monster Hunter for the PS3 at the time than simply the high developer costs of HD development. It has to do with the market within Japan where Monster Hunter contains majority of its audience. The investment wasn't worth it compared to the market that existed for HD consoles within Japan at that time or now for that matter. Wii had a larger market, it wasn't too difficult to share resources from the PSP, and it represented a lower investment. The Japanese market is far too small today for extensive development on a franchise unless it has some significance in the West.

Not really the 3DS is getting to Monster Hunters despite poor sales. Wii got Monster Hunter solely for cheaper development costs not because of sales. I'm pretty sure it will, Monster Hunter's on PS2, PSP, Wii, 3DS, PS3 and even the Xbox 360 so I think are chances are pretty good. Heck Capcom said they were going to put it on the Nintendo DS but it wasn't powerful enough so they went for PSP.

The 3DS sales haven't been poor. Currently the handheld looks to out pace the first year sales of DS. The thing is regularly the top selling hardware in Japan since the price drop. Nintendo simply didn't push hard enough with the 3DS to maintain momentum at its previous price, but the DS suffered similar handling. Monster Hunter is a Japanese focused franchise. This is why I stated that the only way Wii U would get a Monster Hunter release is if the Wii U sells well in Japan. So much of the Japanese market is handhelds thus why this franchise with most of its focus in Japan has for the most part stuck with handhelds this gen. Monster Hunter for the 3DS is a natural fit for the Japanese Market. Monster Hunter for Wii U not so much. We'll have to see if the new controller helps the console create a market significant enough to warrant Capcom making a Monster Hunter game for the console.

Monster Hunter originally went to the Wii because of the franchise's Japanese market focus. There simply wasn't enough of an audience for the franchise to warrant HD developing costs because primarily the Japanese console market is too small to warrant that sort of investment. Wii U is going to have to over come that issue if Monster Hunter is ever going to grace its library. The touchscreen controller may very well help the console in that regard.

Monster Hunter going to the Wii U depends greatly with how good the Wii U sells in Japan. So much of the Monster Hunter's market is Japanese, which is why when the Japanese market moving toward handhelds instead of consoles the series moved to being a handheld focused franchise. Wii got a version of Monster Hunter partly because of its sells compared to PS3 and it represented far less of an investment for Capcom. The Wii U's presence in the Japanese Market is going to have to be significant for this franchise to ever see a console launch.

It says right in the article that these are for the March 2011 devkits. The real Wii U will likely be much more powerful.

If this rumor is true this is extraordinary actually. 768 MB of embedded dram is outrageous, much less this also states that another version is experimenting on 1 GB of embedded dram. This is actually not a bad thing if this would happen you can do a lot more with 768 MB to 1 GB of embedded dram than the 1-1.5 GB of rumored and speculated ddr3/gddr3/gddr5. This would greatly increase the performance of the rumored R700 GPU and the CPU considerably. This also sounds like complete unicorn tongue. 768 MBs of embedded dram would be extremely expensive much less if the other version of 1 GB would end up being the final amount.

Edit:

Coming from Neogaf if this rumor is true the site who give the information may of gotten their terms wrong. Instead of 768 MB it could be 768 Mb, which would be 96 MBs of edram, which is more realistic though still expensive. There would still have to be main memory of some lesser ram.

Can't see much truth in those.

Surely if there is any truth to these rumours then it's 768Mb(96MB) and not 768MB. However I don't even see that as been true as one thing that we do know is that the chip and eDram will be made using IBM's 45nm node, not 32nm which is where I believe that the 1Gb of eDram becomes possible.

Also from what we have heard about the overall Wii U performance then a quad-core 3Ghz CPU seems overkill. Bear in mind the Xbox triple core isn't comparable to an Out of Order chip. A proper dual-core coming in about ~2.5Ghz would surely be more than enough to feed what will most likely be a custom Redwood core(400SP).

Actually using IBM's edram the maximum amount of edram that can be embedded per core is 32 MBs. That means embedding a total of 96 MBs to 128 MBs is completely possible at the 45nm process. A dual-core wouldn't be enough. For one thing I have no idea where you came up with the idea that the Wii U uses a custom 400SP GPU. All the leaks and rumors point to something more around 640SP to 800SP. A custom gpu around the capability of a 4770 or 4850 is highly likely.

the ps3 looked 50% better on paper then the xbox 360 but it wasnt just remember that ppl

Don't get overly carried away with the silliness of this info's source say that the Wii U is 50% more powerful, because that is completely impossible given their own rumored specs. Alpha dev kits are created with of the shelf parts for the most part, so the only 40 nm 4000s series card is the 4770, which is four times more powerful than the Xbox 360, and a more modern quad core would completely outperform the Xbox 360.

We still don't know the final specification of the Wii U. Nintendo don't make a loss on consoles and the Wii U console itself is quite small only marginally bigger than the Wii. I've read comments from developers that have sounded at times its less powerful, the same power or more powerful than 360/PS3.

For example the GPU will more than likely be bottom of the range similar to Xbox 360 and may be underclocked to prevent overheating in the Wii U case but the fact it will be using slightly later technology and have more high speed video memory will give it advantages. One comment I've read is it can use higher resolution textures.

Until we get a final specification we won't really know the power of the console. Remember the Wii was launched well after the original Xbox and yet was far less powerful.

Nintendo were happy to use PS3/360 graphics to showcase the Wii U at E3. You would think if the console was as powerful as modern PCs they would have used PC graphics to showcase Wii U graphics. I think we need to put our realistic hats on.

I do believe Skyrim will be fantastic on Wii U though and as its got to come later to the format it will probably come with many of the bugs already fixed. Bethedsa games always seem to have major issues and require patches. I just hope the patches the Wii U version will need don't fill up the Wii U's flash memory.

Nothing supposedly from developers have placed Wii U at or below current HD consoles. For the most part developers aren't willing to talk about graphical horse power and more than likely Nintendo has told them to say nothing regarding this issue. How the console relates in power to the other HD consoles has been practically a no comment issue. Practically all developers have said is that it is an HD console and that its architecture fits their current business model. Currently by piecing together information regarding current Dev Kits that's leaked it seems because of a heating issue they had to be down clocked because under too large a load the kits crashed. Otherwise the GPU for instance is supposedly from multiple rumors within the range of a Radeon HD 4850. We'll have a better idea of the consoles actual abilities sometime this month once the new Dev Kits get into the hands of developers willing to leak info.

The Wii wasn't far less powerful than the Xbox. In fact it was noticeably more powerful than the Xbox. The only capability Wii lacked was programmable shaders a feature Nintendo at the time really didn't like.

Nintendo apparently used PS3 and Xbox 360 footage because Wii U footage available to them from 3d party developers wasn't noticeably better than the PS3 and Xbox 360 footage. This was Nintendo trying to prevent the issue that occurred to Microsoft when showing early Xbox 360 footage that lead to the belief that Xbox 360 wasn't noticeably more powerful than Xbox. Many of the rumors regarding the GPU should allow Wii U to play any modern PC game at high. Perhaps it would of been smart to showcase some of the latest PC games as an example of what the console is capable of, but it is obvious that their focus was the controller.

How on earth do you consider the Wii noticably more powerful than Xbox? The xbox had high resolution graphics upto 1080i resolution, 32bit colour not 24bit colour, true 5.1 sound, a more advanced gpu, a faster cpu, 64meg of main memory not 24meg plus 3 meg video, a built in hard drive with the ability to cache in extra game data quickly. How are you gauging the Wii has more power than the Xbox? I've got both and the best Xbox graphics easily beat the wii. Games like Soul Caliber II run at 720p on xbox. Some games run at 1080i. Have you actually seen Far Cry on the original xbox? Still a stunning game visually.

The 64MB of unified memory within the Xbox was for everything while the 88MB on Wii is split. The unified memory is superior that's certainly not something I'm arguing, but if you think all that 64MB is for GPU work you need to do more research. On average I doubt Wii has less memory available to the GPU, and at the resolutions used by the Wii it really doesn't matter. Wii's GPU however is superior in some ways to the Xbox while inferior in others. Overall however the Wii is more powerful than the Xbox its not even arguable. The only significant advantage the Xbox had over the Wii is programmable shaders. A hard drive hardly has anything to do with the capabilities of a console so that's a mute point. Developers choosing not to really push the Wii really doesn't make this any less true. I'm gauging the Wii's power based on info that's been found by various sources. You have to realize that in real life applications the Xbox wasn't extremely more powerful than Gamecube and the enhancements to the architecture from Gamecube to Wii as lack luster as the console was surpassed what was actually capable on the Xbox.

Firstly the extra 64 megabytes on the wii is buffer memory for the dvd drive and sound. The gamecube only had 16meg of slow buffer memory but it only had to buffer a single layer 1.4GB optical disc. The wii makes use of a full dvd disc so it was increased. The xbox replaces the dvd buffer memory with 768meg of cached hard drive memory for each game. Remember the hard drive itself has some cache memory. So that 64 meg is there because of a lack of hard drive and its still much slower but does mean the wii can load level data continously and doesn't need to pause to load new level data in the same way as the dreamcast for example.

The wii has 24 meg of main memory and 3 meg of video memory. 2meg of video memory is the frame buffer and 1meg for textures. The 2meg limits the resolution of the wii to 480p and the 1meg texture memory creates heavy restrictions on the amount of textures that can be used. Hence why many of the wii's best games are cartoon type graphics due to the texture limitation.

Xbox has 64meg of unified memory of which upto 12meg can be used for graphics. I guess that would be needed for 1080i games. Most games only use about 6meg I believe. 3 meg frame buffer and 3 meg textures I guess. Remember the Xbox has 32bit colour where as wii is only 24bit colour so xbox needs 33% extra memory for the frame buffer.

If you want to believe the wii is more powerful than the original xbox back it up with facts. You haven't made any case at all. Of course the hard drive is important. Maybe you believe the powerpc chip at 720mhz is more powerful than the Celeron at 733mhz in the xbox. Benchmarks proof otherwise. The xbox gpu is much more powerful than the gamecube/wii gpu.

The wii has more memory bandwidth overall but its a very limited console. The soundchip in the xbox was state of the art for the time producing a huge number of channels and with true 5.1 sound, the wii has a 2 channel sound chip.

There is nothing like Half life 2 on the wii. That game on the xbox had a full physics engine. We are certainly going off topic with the discussion but its clear the wii is inferior. Can you think of a single wii game with realistic graphics that is superior on wii to a similar title on xbox? Something like Call of Duty 3 on the wii has lost the excellent 5.1 soundtrack, its lost the 32bit colour range and been downgraded to 24bit colour. Some of the detail in the game is missing to fit into the 24meg memory of the wii. Treyach really went to town with the wii version and it's the wii's most successful first person shooter selling over 2 million copies but its still inferior to the xbox version. Far Cry is far superior to Call of Duty 3 on xbox but it would be unfair to compare Far Cry xbox to Far Cry Wii.

The fact is people assumed the wii was more powerful than xbox because it came out later, the reality is that it isn't. Many xbox games are hugely ambitious and the likes of which have never been seen on the wii due to limited memory and lack of hard drive.

Just to summarise;

Xbox is best for;

GPU
CPU
Memory
hard drive
sound

wii is best for

memory bandwidth

Your still not getting it. Certainly there are some features the Xbox GPU has that the Wii's doesn't, but overall in raw capability the Wii surpasses the overall capabilities of the Xbox. The hard drive on the Xbox isn't capable of acting like RAM. You can load game data onto the hard drive and pull it directly from there, but you still have to run game data through the slower memory bandwidth. It may or may not be faster to load data from the hard drive I'd have to do further research than I think this topic requires. A hard drive hardly has any effect on the capability of a console its a nice feature that's quite welcomed in the case of the PS3 because of the slow Blu-Ray drive, but its not going to magically improve a console's capabilities. Wii is a console only meant for standard definition obviously and fixed function so the feature set of Hollywood and Xbox's GPU is quite different. You again have to understand that regardless of what you may find on the Xbox's GPU in real world situations because of one restraint or another it wasn't considerably more powerful than the Gamecube. Architecture improvements and a higher clock more than makes up the difference. The largest advantage of the Xbox over the Wii your going to find is programmable shaders. Its possible as quoted by devs to reproduce the shader effects of the Xbox, but most don't bother to do so.

Its been considerably more difficult to search up some of those old threads and news releases regarding the capability of the Wii compared to the Xbox than I thought it would be, but still using Google you should be able to find sources that explains why Wii is technically more powerful than Xbox in far more detail than I can. The CPU Broadway is more powerful and regardless of its own limitations Hollywood has several advantages and technically capable of more in regards of real world situations. The Wii simply hasn't been pushed graphically. Majority of third party developers focus more on making Wii games as cheaply as possible since they haven't been historically successful on the console and many developers have admitted to the fact they don't really try to push the console.