I have both consoles and use a projector and its clear to me the wii doesn't compare. Both are connected by component. I don't understand how anyone could believe the wii was superior.
Because from what you are saying the wii is just as strong as the gamecube, and that was on equal terms of power for the most part with the original xbox.
Its basically like your saying the wii has made no improvement whatsoever over the GameCube, of which it would only need a little more power to outclass the xbox to begin with.
Edited by Misterrrrrr ECHO3!, 15 May 2012 - 11:17 AM.
Firstly the Halo vs Conduit comparison shows a huge difference graphically. Halo presents a realistic portrayal of a real world where as the conduit uses a huge number of repeated textures and even plain textures on occasion. Its relatively flat and unrealistic and you can see its quite cartoony and unrealistic. Its similar to PS2. However where Halo really scores is the more sophiticated engine with far larger level areas thanks to the hard drive quickly bringing in new data. Conduit is not a good game to compare to Xbox its got flashy graphics with lots of colour etc but it doesn't take much of an eye to see the difference. That said Halo pales in comparison to Half Life 2 on xbox which has a full physics engine and many other fantastic features. The Conduit is a very primitive limited fps game with fairly poor scores.
This site lists the game titles that are 720p and 1080i on original xbox.
Half Life 2 is amazing on xbox. Not the best visually but very good but with a full physics engine.
As previously stated it doesn't make any sense to compare the wii to xbox. Its a slaughter. However as previously stated if you think the wii is better in its specification state what you think is better?
I have both consoles and use a projector and its clear to me the wii doesn't compare. Both are connected by component. I don't understand how anyone could believe the wii was superior.
Again, you are omitting the Gamecube and also that the Wii was not pushed by developers.
Halo 1 vs Conduit 1? Technically Conduit is better, it has normal mapping, better lighting, animation, better character models, more advanced shaders etc... In art design Halo is a little bit better, I think.
What's your definition of "realistic" though?
Half Life 2 on Xbox has poor framerate by the way because of the physics engine and it doesn't look as good as the PC version... I wouldn't say Half Life 2 is the best example of what the Xbox could do.
Roque Squadron was written by Factor 5 one of the best developers ever. Those german coders were amazing. They managed to get higher resolution graphics out of the N64 without the memory expansion for example and the graphics were still great for the time. Truly brilliant developers. Definitely the best graphics on gamecube and possibly better than anything on wii too. Awesome, I have that game just to the left of me on my shelf.
However that said it still doesn't compare to what is available on xbox. Its a fairly simple shooting game. The gamecube was most definitely not as powerful as the xbox.
GC 485mhz powerpc chip, Xbox Celeron 733mhz cpu (Celeron is about 2x as fast)
24bit colour 160mhz gpu with 2 meg frame buffer, 1 meg texture cache vs 32bit 233mhz gpu using upto 12meg memory. Xbox gpu has many additional features over gamecube.
GC 24meg main memory, 3meg video and 16meg slow memory (43meg total), Xbox 64meg unified.
GC low capacity optical disc requiring most of the 16meg slow memory as a data buffer, xbox 8gb hard drive plus optical disc for 2 channel loading of game data.
GC limited 2 channel sound chip with ability to create pseudo surround sound using prologic, xbox dedicated 5.1 sound chip
End result xbox truly massacres gamecube on just about every level. There simply wasn't a decent space combat game written for it to compare to rogue squadron.
Wii is basically a gamecube but the gpu, cpu and memory speed is speeded up 50 percent and the 16meg of slow memory is replaced with 64meg of ddr memory. However most of the 64meg is dedicated to buffering the optical drive which is now 5x as large requiring more buffering.
The wii still doesn't match the xbox, still no 32bit colour, no 5.1 sound, no high definition support, no hard drive, still a weaker cpu and gpu.
I'm not sure where this fps issue came from. Soul Caliber II is silky smooth at 720p on xbox let alone 480p. Half Life 2 definitely is a bit weak in fps but then it has a engine of complexity that has never even been attempted on gamecube or wii. It was certainly pushing the xbox.
I'm not knocking the wii but it simply makes no sense to compare it to the original xbox. I'm not biased its just a statement of fact. A hard drive for example gives the xbox a massive advantage. It use a cache of 768meg for each game you load that acts as very fast virtual memory to quickly load in new areas etc. In addition its 64meg of memory and simultanous optical loading allows a huge amount of data to come in quickly to make games much more ambitious. Its practically has the flexibility of a pc.
You take Half Life 2. Firstly the game would have to be visually simplified to work on wii. Many textures would have to be reduced in quality, the sound output would be reduced to 2 channel not 5.1. The physics engine would probably be lost or simplified . The areas would be smaller and have constant pausing to load new areas and these areas would be slow to load. I know Far Cry was weak on wii as it was based on the unreleased ps2 code but Far Cry on the xbox was truly fantastic. Looked amazing, great frame rates, long interesting levels, very little compromises over the original PC version.
In the days of multiformat games ps2, gamecube, xbox the xbox versions were almost always the best versions by far. Lets not forget the ps2 had some 5.1 support, had 32bit graphics and even a few high definition games. None of which is possible on wii. Gran Turismo on 4 ps2 had 1080i support.
