Comparison screen shots are all nice and good, but there's nothing like a great video comparison to show the drastic difference between the power of real next-gen consoles and the new-gen Wii. Think it doesn't matter? When you're still playing PS2 and GameCube-looking games in a couple years and the Wiimote gimmick has worn off, you just might care a little ... maybe a smidgen. I encourage you to go to GameTrailers and check out the HD version of this vid as well.
That's a big difference but what I really want to see right now is a comparison between Xbox visuals and the Wii. Because if the Wii can't even out do the Xbox, then Nintendo can take that new gen crap to the recycling station and let them make something better out of it.
Come on the wiimote isnt a gimmick just like the DS touchscreen, personally graphics dont mean much to me when im playing although they do add something but if the gameplay isnt there then whats the point?
Summa, I hate all the people who flame you for all your wii-bashing, but sometimes they have a point. I think the main focus of this video should be the xbox360/ps3 comparison. It's not designed to showcase the wii's lack of power. We already know it's weak. You're flogging a dead horse.
Yayoo, I have a question for you and other Nintendo apologists: Why do you think the Wii is the only place for great gameplay? You guys act as if this isn't possible on the 360 or PS3. That you need a Wiimote to have good gameplay. This has always made very little sense to me. Does this mean the GameCube and other Nintendo consoles before the Wii lacked good gameplay? I'm just curious as to how you would explain this.
BLAH BLAH BLAH I HATE THE WII BLAH BLAH BLAH BRING ON THE FANBOYS BLAH BLAH BLAH
Indoctrinating your "unbiased" views to the easily swayed hardcore gaming public (yeah, I said it) must be a pretty fun gig, yes?
BTW, none of that really convinced me to get off my ass and pick up a 360 right this second, or go off searching for a PS3. Nevermind that it was a single game (at least that's what I'm assuming, unless that opening vid is for something else). There are far better reasons to pick up the other systems besides graphics, yet that seems to be the only bullet point you can cling to. Perhaps it's time to rename Destructoid to "SUX2BWII" (trademark pending), because this has become virtually 50% of the site's content. Certainly not the site that I remember months ago (yes, even when Nintendo was still getting shit...I'm not a fanboy, I'm not a fan of hypocricy, though).
"Yayoo, I have a question for you and other Nintendo apologists: Why do you think the Wii is the only place for great gameplay? You guys act as if this isn't possible on the 360 or PS3. That you need a Wiimote to have good gameplay. This has always made very little sense to me. Does this mean the GameCube and other Nintendo consoles before the Wii lacked good gameplay? I'm just curious as to how you would explain this."
Because if we all believed that garbage, we'd still be playing PONG, because evidently that was fun back in the day, and if we bought that flawed logic we would have had no reason to evolve past that title. The Wii offers something new, while the other systems still offer the familiar experience we've had for the past two decades. There's good no matter where you go, but obviously you don't think so. I'm personally sick of all the console bashing. Bunch of whiners.
Wow, Summa. Did Nintendo kill your father or something? Step on your science project? I've never seen a man so thoroughly embroiled in a quest to shit all over anyone who likes the system regardless of its flaws. :D
the 360 has some great games (dead rising, gears etc), and I'm sure the ps3 will too. Gameplay isn't down to the controls, they just make it better (moreso, imo, than graphics). Controls haven't exactly been the same over the years - they've evolved (analogue, rumble, wireless etc). The wii remote is the next step in their evolution.
By calling the wii remote a "gimmick", you're just begging to get flamed. My theory is you're just doing this to weed out the nintendo fanboys and upset them because, generally, they're pathetic. Which is good. But there's no need to insult a perfectly good console.
There are definately diffrences there, you should have shown some other game comparisions than mostly just ultimate alliance. I think for a while the wii will be fun once I get one but for now ill stick with my 360.
its already wearing off on me, jsut this morning i realized that motorstorm kills excite truck, i was liking both, but now im sick of excite truck yet still love the motorstorm demo over it.... and im realizing how its better in every aspect
i still love remembering how last gen GC crazies (i own gc, but wastn crazy) were OMG why would you play RE4 on ps2 when the graphics are better on GC, GC grapics own PS2 blah blah...
Same thing with CoD3 James. I was playing the Wii version, and not only did it make me kind of sick (motion sickness issues) but the graphics and controls on the Wii completely distracted from the experience. I quickly went back to the 360 version which is more immersive and, ahem, has online play.
This video is a perfect example of what I'm talking about.
Its clear that the Wii version is not as detailed or quite as sharp looking. I'm sure that its accentuated on a big screen even more. But honestly, is this graphical difference enough to make you wish you had spent $300 more then what you did if you already own a Wii? The answer to me is "no". If I wanted this game (which I don't) I would happily buy it on the Wii if I own a Wii even though the graphics are not the best. If this graphical difference is the main difference between a $250 console and a $500-$600 console, then I feel the Wii is the right choice for sure.
Fortunately for PS3 and 360 there are other differences as well, whether or not you would know this by reading most of Summa's rants is another story.
I'm not calling Summa biased or anti-nintendo or whatever (thats been done to death), but it's undeniable that this particular topic of Wii's graphics is an important one to him as he posts on it pretty regularly. I won't guess as to why he does it, I'm just saying that these types of posts are pretty common for whatever reason.
Nah, you didn't make the video. I wouldn't suggest that. But when the topic comes up you tend to beat your point into the faces of readers everywhere. Now do you care? *THWACK* Look, the graphics suck! *POW!* A lot! *THWACK* Goddamnit, why aren't you playing your 360?
Just sayin', maybe it's not a gimmick. Some people (me) are having genuine fun with the Wii, and even though these same people (still me) might have recently picked up Gears of War (last night), played it on their LCD monitor with a VGA cable (1280x1024) and realized just to what degree the Wii graphics sucked (quite a bit), it doesn't make Super Monkey Ball any less fun.
But in the end, yeah, time will tell. Let's make a deal: I won't jump the gun with a verdict if you don't.
Cruds, yeah it's a crappy framerate on the PS3 version. That was the first thing I noticed.
I call myself a graphics whore, when I play PC games, if I can't crank the settings all the way up or if the framerate stutters, I'm pissed and it's time to buy new equipment. Yet when I play my with my Wii (not my penis), I enjoy it thoroughly.
Summa, is it the fanboys you're against or the Wii itself? Because I thought that a few weeks ago you were all about the Wii.
Way to make sweeping generalizations based on the ignorant comments of a few; I was actually excited that RE4 was coming to the PS Deuce. And personally, these graphics don't matter. I don't find the jump that significant, unless you are one of the few people who laid down the cash on a solid LCD TV setup and then I suppose you need to justify the purchase of stronger hardware and component cables and all that HD mumbo jumbo. Quick question, how does one measure "immersion" between two different games? Just saying "it is more immersive" doesn't really do any justice. I could say Red Steel is more "immersive" than Gears of War because of the involvement you have with the controls.
Also, what loquax and subnet said. And BonesBrigade is one of the few people that I've seen happy with what he has, rather than endlessly bitching about it.
Ok, so I've been playing shooters on my PC for several years at 1280/1024. Games with fantastic graphics like FarCry, Doom3, HL2, etc. Yet, somehow I prefer Halo on xbox (aside from the KB/M issues). In fact, I have put far more time into the original Halo than I have into all the above PC games. Yet Halo has no where near the graphics that Farcry/Doom3 on PC has. How is this even possible?
I didn't notice the framerate problem on the PS3 until I saw people pointing it out (flash based video often runs poorly on my computer so I've gotten used to occasionally seeing poor framerates) but it's true, the PS3's framerates are really poor in this video. Since we all know the Wii isn't even attempting to be king in the graphics area, while the PS3 is pretty much banking on doing just that, it leads me to wonder why Summa focused on that aspect of the video...
...Oh yeah, because this is Summa we're talking about. There's nothing he loves more than trying to convince us the Wii will fail.
I am really surprised by the post accompanying this video. The real issue here is clearly the PS3 version. It's significantly less fluid than the 360 version, which should be the real graphical disappointment. We all know the Wii is less powerful, but a large amount of the difference in these videos is the resolution. If the Wii game were high def it would certainly look a lot closer to the other versions. If you have a standard definition TV the difference in graphics between the 3 platforms is certainly going to be much less. Additionally, many TVs are notoriously bad at upscaling 480 inputs. Honestly, I don't think the Wii version looks half bad for a 480 title... the PS3 was the big disappointment for me.
"Ok, so I've been playing shooters on my PC for several years at 1280/1024. Games with fantastic graphics like FarCry, Doom3, HL2, etc. Yet, somehow I prefer Halo on xbox (aside from the KB/M issues). In fact, I have put far more time into the original Halo than I have into all the above PC games. Yet Halo has no where near the graphics that Farcry/Doom3 on PC has. How is this even possible?"
Excellent point. The logic of the arguments that are commonly made are pretty much flawed all the time. Like the "did I make the video?" comment, playing coy even though there is definitely a point to this entire post. Who said that showcasing how "awful" the Wii graphics are was the point of the original content creators anyway? It's all in context.
I personally think that the Wii graphics look the best.
WTF you might say. Makes no sense? Well, because of the power of the 360/PS3, the developers decided to "realize" the game. So all the colors look bleh and washed out. The Wii video sports much more vivid colors, and it looks like a more appealing style, at least to me.
Add on to that the action seems to be smoother than the other two systems, and for me at least, it's a no-brainer.
See, I think that now with the PS2/GC/XBox generation and beyond graphics are 90% design and 10% power. I think that I'm in the minority on this, and what that means is that without the Wii, games that I find graphically pleasing are going to become far and few between.
You guys should work for the oil companies. Global warming? Nah, it's better that way, less clothes to buy. Pollution? Nah, that's just a new way of making the world look cool.
i understand the fact that people love the gameplay aspect of the Wii, and i am one of the biggest Nintendo fans ever, but i dont think everyone(fanboys) should be jumping on summas back for showing a comparison video for graphics on each platform. Sure everyone knows the Wii isnt as powerful as the PS3 or the 360, but theres no need to give summa shit for it. Hell i remember reading his posts when he first got his Wii, how he hated Elebits and now he is starting to like it adn how he likes the fun aspect of the Wii. Oh and for the record, i used to HATE the 360 but ever since my buddy brought it over to my house to play it on my HDTV ive been a fan ever since and that takes a lot coming from a HUGE nintendo fan.
Why because we don't bow to your opinion? It seems destructoid has a lot of free thinking readers who disagree with you. Why insult people just because they disagree. That makes a lot of sense.
Summa: Yeah, you guys don't agree with me, so therefore you all suck and must be robots who can't think.
I've been sayin this all along... Sony and Microsoft can always add a motion sensing controller/peripheral (Sony's already halfway there) for like 50 bucks later, but Nintendo can't exactly add a new graphics chip, processor... Just sayin, you probably will never see a game like Dead Rising on the Wii... the Wii simply can't draw that many zombies onscreen, the game's textures were even toned down for the 360. In a game where processing and graphical power is necessary, this is why the Wii is gonna age real fast... and it would totally suck if Nintendo were to release a Wii 2 within a couple of years, and all this talk about them releasing an upgraded DVD-enabled Wii definitely makes you wonder.
So what next Summa, now your gonna post the CoD3 comparison video, your tricks getting old. Got one for you, it's called "What they promised and what you'll get", Ouch.
Karkamin may be missing something, but he does have a point. I own Marvel for the Wii, and have logged quite a few hours into it, I will admit that the more next-genny versions look a lot smoother, better textures, etc - we knew what we were getting into here. However, it's a freaking comic book game. Your characters are supposed to be decked out in bright shiny colors fighting against poorly detailed backgrounds, it's how the genre kinda works. Plus, the characters in M:UA, like the XMen Legends games before it, are tiny, and not terribly detailed. This game is a big leap over its predecessors I played on the PS2, and honestly that's all that matters to me. Plus, the Wii's gesture system actually lets you execute moves faster than the menus used on the other consoles. Don't wanna seem like a generic Wii fanboy, but it is more fun to play on the Wii from my experience. That's not true of everything though, and if I wanted to play Splinter Cell or Call of Duty it wouldn't be on this system. I'll probably be picking up a 360 sometime in the new year to play most other multi-console games. Comparative graphics are a big selling point - just not, IMO, with this game. And Summa? I know polarizing language gets you hits but try to cool it on the fanboys, huh? You won't change their minds and my heart hurts when they hate ya so much.
Also, everyone go look at the CoD3 comparison. yes, the Wii looks the worst, but surprisingly, there are several parts where the PS3 doesn't look much better. The 360 version looks damn nice though.
Yay Summa as graphics whore! We love him that way so we don't have to feel awkward when he praises the Wii!
Maybe I should watch that video more than once, because frankly the biggest issue I noticed was the atrocious PS3 framerate. Maybe I wouldn't have if I didn't read it on Kotaku first, where the author put a different spin on it.
Maybe I should watch it in HD instead, because my TV supports HD, right? Oh wait. It doesn't. So I guess this doesn't apply to me anyway?
Your argument is that the PS3 will get better and better until it's cheap enough and good enough to warrant purchase in three years or so, while the Wii will get worse and worse until it's graphically outdated and gimmicky enough to never turn on again (obviously absolutely EVERYONE will the 360 by then so it doesn't matter what people think of it). My question is whether any of this is based in fact, or whether you just like writing off consoles based on launch titles? Like the PS3? OH NO WAIT AND SEE.
If developers just rely on the Wiimote, I have no doubt that the fun will wear off. After all, if one FPS nails the controls, and subsequent games don't bring anything new to the table, why buy them? But by the same token that the Wiimote itself does not automatically make games either good or innovative, neither do ZOMGAMAZING graphics. Unless a game has completely over-the-top beautiful stuff going on (Gears of War), and as long as they don't actually detract from the gameplay (which honestly has not been an issue for me since the PS1), they probably aren't going to be the focus of the experience. If in the three years or whatever, the Wii gets a lot of developer support, I fully anticipate that great games will come to it despite my eyes totally bleeding out from its not looking crisp at 1080p.
For me, the low framerate I see in the PS3 version is MUCH more concerning, since that kind of issue frustrates me and ruins my enjoyment of the game. But it IS a launch game, so I'll give it the benefit of the doubt. I'm not going to therefore proclaim that all PS3 games will have such bad slowdown that in two or three years people will throw it in the closet and lock it up.
MOST people don't take one look at a game and go, "that looks like Xbox graphics NO BUY FOR ME" unless there's an equivalent version for a console they own that is obviously better. Is that what you're saying? That people won't buy the Wii for ports? Do people ever buy a console for ports?
I seriously forget the point I was trying to make. You win, Summa. Everyone, buy Elebits on the 360! it has enhanc3d grafix and its not gimicky cause 360 dosent do that mootion crap! lolz ps360 4 life!
loquax: What does the PSP/DS war have to do with anything? Nintendo has always dominated the handheld space which is completely different from the console space.
The DS is better cause it has better games that work for it on it's space. So?
I don't think this is a matter of "making excuses" for the Wii. I simply don't think there is any need for an article pointing out that the Wii is less graphically capable than the PS3 and 360. Not even Nintendo claims that the Wii is a graphical powerhouse, why should we?
I think that if this video was going to be brought to our attention it should have been for the PS3/360 comparison. Of course the Wii looks "bad," but why the HELL is the PS3 that choppy? Sony, unlike Nintendo, DOES claim that their machine is the most powerful on the market. Shouldn't we be scrutinizing that claim instead of beating up on the little guy who never had any illusions of grandeur?
Destructoid is an open discussion community. You don't need to "audition" to post a comment - just speak your mind. We respect differing opinions on the site, so have at it. Be smart, funny, insightful, clueless, or cute -- but back it up with substance. Keep your cool, keep it fun. We only ask that you act respectfully and above all: don't be a troll and ruin it for everyone else. Don't bring down gamers or we'll, you know, gently shoot you in the face and stuff you into a flaming mailbox. Each comment is your opportuntity to make this community awesomer. Is that even a word?
Avoiding the banhammer only requires common sense: spamming, trolling, racism, NSFW stuff, and other forms of sucking will not be tolerated. If anyone is griefing please report abuse. Be good. Don't suck!
Contest:
1:49 PM on 12.02.2006
| 
Indoctrinating your "unbiased" views to the easily swayed hardcore gaming public (yeah, I said it) must be a pretty fun gig, yes?
BTW, none of that really convinced me to get off my ass and pick up a 360 right this second, or go off searching for a PS3. Nevermind that it was a single game (at least that's what I'm assuming, unless that opening vid is for something else). There are far better reasons to pick up the other systems besides graphics, yet that seems to be the only bullet point you can cling to. Perhaps it's time to rename Destructoid to "SUX2BWII" (trademark pending), because this has become virtually 50% of the site's content. Certainly not the site that I remember months ago (yes, even when Nintendo was still getting shit...I'm not a fanboy, I'm not a fan of hypocricy, though).
Because if we all believed that garbage, we'd still be playing PONG, because evidently that was fun back in the day, and if we bought that flawed logic we would have had no reason to evolve past that title. The Wii offers something new, while the other systems still offer the familiar experience we've had for the past two decades. There's good no matter where you go, but obviously you don't think so. I'm personally sick of all the console bashing. Bunch of whiners.
Thank you. That is all.
By calling the wii remote a "gimmick", you're just begging to get flamed. My theory is you're just doing this to weed out the nintendo fanboys and upset them because, generally, they're pathetic. Which is good. But there's no need to insult a perfectly good console.
now wii people say graphics don't matter
oh how the time have changed :)
Its clear that the Wii version is not as detailed or quite as sharp looking. I'm sure that its accentuated on a big screen even more. But honestly, is this graphical difference enough to make you wish you had spent $300 more then what you did if you already own a Wii? The answer to me is "no". If I wanted this game (which I don't) I would happily buy it on the Wii if I own a Wii even though the graphics are not the best. If this graphical difference is the main difference between a $250 console and a $500-$600 console, then I feel the Wii is the right choice for sure.
Fortunately for PS3 and 360 there are other differences as well, whether or not you would know this by reading most of Summa's rants is another story.
I'm not calling Summa biased or anti-nintendo or whatever (thats been done to death), but it's undeniable that this particular topic of Wii's graphics is an important one to him as he posts on it pretty regularly. I won't guess as to why he does it, I'm just saying that these types of posts are pretty common for whatever reason.
Just sayin', maybe it's not a gimmick. Some people (me) are having genuine fun with the Wii, and even though these same people (still me) might have recently picked up Gears of War (last night), played it on their LCD monitor with a VGA cable (1280x1024) and realized just to what degree the Wii graphics sucked (quite a bit), it doesn't make Super Monkey Ball any less fun.
But in the end, yeah, time will tell. Let's make a deal: I won't jump the gun with a verdict if you don't.
I call myself a graphics whore, when I play PC games, if I can't crank the settings all the way up or if the framerate stutters, I'm pissed and it's time to buy new equipment. Yet when I play my with my Wii (not my penis), I enjoy it thoroughly.
Summa, is it the fanboys you're against or the Wii itself? Because I thought that a few weeks ago you were all about the Wii.
Way to make sweeping generalizations based on the ignorant comments of a few; I was actually excited that RE4 was coming to the PS Deuce. And personally, these graphics don't matter. I don't find the jump that significant, unless you are one of the few people who laid down the cash on a solid LCD TV setup and then I suppose you need to justify the purchase of stronger hardware and component cables and all that HD mumbo jumbo. Quick question, how does one measure "immersion" between two different games? Just saying "it is more immersive" doesn't really do any justice. I could say Red Steel is more "immersive" than Gears of War because of the involvement you have with the controls.
Also, what loquax and subnet said. And BonesBrigade is one of the few people that I've seen happy with what he has, rather than endlessly bitching about it.
Ok, so I've been playing shooters on my PC for several years at 1280/1024. Games with fantastic graphics like FarCry, Doom3, HL2, etc. Yet, somehow I prefer Halo on xbox (aside from the KB/M issues). In fact, I have put far more time into the original Halo than I have into all the above PC games. Yet Halo has no where near the graphics that Farcry/Doom3 on PC has. How is this even possible?
...Oh yeah, because this is Summa we're talking about. There's nothing he loves more than trying to convince us the Wii will fail.
Excellent point. The logic of the arguments that are commonly made are pretty much flawed all the time. Like the "did I make the video?" comment, playing coy even though there is definitely a point to this entire post. Who said that showcasing how "awful" the Wii graphics are was the point of the original content creators anyway? It's all in context.
I personally think that the Wii graphics look the best.
WTF you might say. Makes no sense? Well, because of the power of the 360/PS3, the developers decided to "realize" the game. So all the colors look bleh and washed out. The Wii video sports much more vivid colors, and it looks like a more appealing style, at least to me.
Add on to that the action seems to be smoother than the other two systems, and for me at least, it's a no-brainer.
See, I think that now with the PS2/GC/XBox generation and beyond graphics are 90% design and 10% power. I think that I'm in the minority on this, and what that means is that without the Wii, games that I find graphically pleasing are going to become far and few between.
Don't worry, you're still my hero
Summa: Yeah, you guys don't agree with me, so therefore you all suck and must be robots who can't think.
but karamakin, the 360 and ps3 colors are vidid adn are washed out...... man og man, such denial... someone shout start WA (WiiDelusions Anonymous)
The dude just can't get enough of it apparently.
Also, everyone go look at the CoD3 comparison. yes, the Wii looks the worst, but surprisingly, there are several parts where the PS3 doesn't look much better. The 360 version looks damn nice though.
Maybe I should watch that video more than once, because frankly the biggest issue I noticed was the atrocious PS3 framerate. Maybe I wouldn't have if I didn't read it on Kotaku first, where the author put a different spin on it.
Maybe I should watch it in HD instead, because my TV supports HD, right? Oh wait. It doesn't. So I guess this doesn't apply to me anyway?
Your argument is that the PS3 will get better and better until it's cheap enough and good enough to warrant purchase in three years or so, while the Wii will get worse and worse until it's graphically outdated and gimmicky enough to never turn on again (obviously absolutely EVERYONE will the 360 by then so it doesn't matter what people think of it). My question is whether any of this is based in fact, or whether you just like writing off consoles based on launch titles? Like the PS3? OH NO WAIT AND SEE.
If developers just rely on the Wiimote, I have no doubt that the fun will wear off. After all, if one FPS nails the controls, and subsequent games don't bring anything new to the table, why buy them? But by the same token that the Wiimote itself does not automatically make games either good or innovative, neither do ZOMGAMAZING graphics. Unless a game has completely over-the-top beautiful stuff going on (Gears of War), and as long as they don't actually detract from the gameplay (which honestly has not been an issue for me since the PS1), they probably aren't going to be the focus of the experience. If in the three years or whatever, the Wii gets a lot of developer support, I fully anticipate that great games will come to it despite my eyes totally bleeding out from its not looking crisp at 1080p.
For me, the low framerate I see in the PS3 version is MUCH more concerning, since that kind of issue frustrates me and ruins my enjoyment of the game. But it IS a launch game, so I'll give it the benefit of the doubt. I'm not going to therefore proclaim that all PS3 games will have such bad slowdown that in two or three years people will throw it in the closet and lock it up.
MOST people don't take one look at a game and go, "that looks like Xbox graphics NO BUY FOR ME" unless there's an equivalent version for a console they own that is obviously better. Is that what you're saying? That people won't buy the Wii for ports? Do people ever buy a console for ports?
I seriously forget the point I was trying to make. You win, Summa. Everyone, buy Elebits on the 360! it has enhanc3d grafix and its not gimicky cause 360 dosent do that mootion crap! lolz ps360 4 life!
The DS is better cause it has better games that work for it on it's space. So?
I think that if this video was going to be brought to our attention it should have been for the PS3/360 comparison. Of course the Wii looks "bad," but why the HELL is the PS3 that choppy? Sony, unlike Nintendo, DOES claim that their machine is the most powerful on the market. Shouldn't we be scrutinizing that claim instead of beating up on the little guy who never had any illusions of grandeur?