Well, I guess the article clearly talk about a game controlled \
Many games won't work all that well with a different input method. What I'm really saying is that one shouldn't expect anywhere near all games to be ported, and some will get bad ports.
Interior: Dolly through glass doors, pan across Bosendorfer piano.
Zoom to double doors, open, revealing tall figure, fifty-ish, close cropped grey hair, blaf mock turtleneck, stonewashed jeans, no belt.
POV reverses.
Waist-up shot, two asian men, black suits, hands outstretched, palms up, one holds a WII controller, the other a small pile of papers. They bow at the waist, simultaneously.
"Wii would like to sue you."
I don't know who really owns the patent on this tech, but I have used digital whiteboards that utilize the infrared bar with the camera in the pen. This technology has been around for a longtime now, how do you think motion capture works?
I could see Apple making simple games for it, but I don't think it will happen anytime in the near future. (I hope I'm wrong though.)
Apple really need to partner better with companies instead of trying to go it alone. Apple are struggling to sell ATVs because they are extremely bad value for money. Nintendo already aim for family entertainment. Now Apple want multi-motion remotes.
With an ATV Wii, Nintendo get movie content for family entertainment, Apple get better ITMS support due to a larger audience and the boxes sell more because they have way more functionality.
The Wii has a DVD drive so ATV users won't complain about that and the Wii is a lot more compact and cooler. All Apple really need to do is put their software on the Wii and sell it as a bundle like Wii-fit.
Maybe the Wii would need a hard drive addon or something though.
The main difference is not the graphics themselves, because all game graphics are about the same, though the PS3's is higher resolution, with greater detail. The difference is in the motion, and smoothness of the play.
It all looks artificial and fake, so it doesn't bother me either way.
So what else *is* there graphics technology-wise than resolution, detail, motion and smoothness?
I'm definitely of the school that puts gameplay first, but Wii runs out of steam in more ways than just pure graphics. Here's a simple example: Super Stardust HD. It's a straightforward arcade game, with simple geometry, but the Wii would not handle it just due to the amount of stuff that is pushed on the screen to create the desired gameplay pace and feel. All those itty bitty shards of rocks are significant game elements. Destructible environments are still on the way rather than standard, but they'll be huge. Shadows are very calculation intensive and can be used for great gameplay, not just graphics effect. Fluid physics have been a little too hard so far, but they'll definitely be used for gameplay in near future. Visible developments in AI have been few in the past years, IMO (probably because it isn't an easy selling point), but even in its current status it is sometimes hungry for power.
Resolution also matters beyond looking good. Sometimes you need a lot of information to fit on the screen. Just look at RTS games' evolution, or even FPS's like TF2. For meaningful gameplay, making decisions in the game, you have to be able to recognize lots of stuff on the screen at a glance. 480p only stretches so far.
Games you can buy straight from Home without going to a retailer makes a lot of sense. Apple tv has a intel chip inside so am pretty sure it can do a lot move than served as a portal to rent movies
& watch youtube videos. A year ago everyone Laugh on how it couldn't handle HD, and this year they solve that with a simple Update
Now Apple has it's own chip company (PA Semi) which is specialized in high efficiency low power drain PowerPC chips who is to say they won't be able to throw one or two of these chips in the AppleTV and give it as much horse power as a Xbox360 or PS3? From memory both Xbox360 and PS3 chips are also PowerPC based (Cell) architectures which would make porting games to AppleTV running a Power Architecture not too hard for developers.
Then again there was recent talk of PA Semi getting taken over by Apple to Apple could fund the completion of their next gen processor. Perhaps the next gen chip is planned for use in AppleTV as well as Time Capsule (which runs too hot and needs processor that throttles down for the 99% of time it's not in use)
Many games won't work all that well with a different input method. What I'm really saying is that one shouldn't expect anywhere near all games to be ported, and some will get bad ports.
I disagree, just because current games uses conventional does mean that it is the one and only. Just look at how the iPhone used touch technology in a way no one else did. We will never know how good ported iPhone games will be until we try them.
What I was talking about was games ported from iPhone to possible AppleTV. I don't think the input method will be different. A game controller with motion sensor and few buttons won't be any different from the iPhone. Games that uses the iPhone multi-touch feature can also be done easily some way or another without having to "rub" your TV.
So what else *is* there graphics technology-wise than resolution, detail, motion and smoothness?
I'm definitely of the school that puts gameplay first, but Wii runs out of steam in more ways than just pure graphics. Here's a simple example: Super Stardust HD. It's a straightforward arcade game, with simple geometry, but the Wii would not handle it just due to the amount of stuff that is pushed on the screen to create the desired gameplay pace and feel. All those itty bitty shards of rocks are significant game elements. Destructible environments are still on the way rather than standard, but they'll be huge. Shadows are very calculation intensive and can be used for great gameplay, not just graphics effect. Fluid physics have been a little too hard so far, but they'll definitely be used for gameplay in near future. Visible developments in AI have been few in the past years, IMO (probably because it isn't an easy selling point), but even in its current status it is sometimes hungry for power.
Resolution also matters beyond looking good. Sometimes you need a lot of information to fit on the screen. Just look at RTS games' evolution, or even FPS's like TF2. For meaningful gameplay, making decisions in the game, you have to be able to recognize lots of stuff on the screen at a glance. 480p only stretches so far.
I'm not saying that the Wii is up to the standards of the 360 or the PS3. All I'm saying is that the graphics aren't that bad when compared to the others.
You were complaining about how you couldn't even look at them, and that they were only good enough for casual gamers.
That's clearly not true, even if it lags behind.
It really doesn't matter if some games for the other platforms wouldn't play well on the Wii. for what it is designed to do, it does well, and that's all that matters.
I'm not saying that the Wii is up to the standards of the 360 or the PS3. All I'm saying is that the graphics aren't that bad when compared to the others.
And I'm saying the Wii suffers from lack of power in gameplay, not just graphics. The graphics gap itself will only grow further, BTW. Wii, being the same hardware as GC, is largely tapped out. The other consoles' titles still have room to improve graphically.
The graphics are in an entirely different class when you can't port other consoles' games on it - not to mention when you can't even make a particular *type* of game work. There are two reasons for why everything doesn't look bad on it: 1) the games come from a small subset of games that are judged viable on it, and 2) almost everything good on Wii is first party which gives the devs a special incentive to make it fit, to make it work.
Quote:
You were complaining about how you couldn't even look at them, and that they were only good enough for casual gamers.
I wasn't, you got people mixed up. The little I have seen of Wii's graphics (SMG, Excite Truck, Wii Sports) was not irritatingly ugly, maybe a little spartan at times.
Quote:
It really doesn't matter if some games for the other platforms wouldn't play well on the Wii. for what it is designed to do, it does well, and that's all that matters.
It doesn't get so many good games. Of course that matters.
And I'm saying the Wii suffers from lack of power in gameplay, not just graphics. The graphics gap itself will only grow further, BTW. Wii, being the same hardware as GC, is largely tapped out. The other consoles' titles still have room to improve graphically.
The graphics are in an entirely different class when you can't port other consoles' games on it - not to mention when you can't even make a particular *type* of game work. There are two reasons for why everything doesn't look bad on it: 1) the games come from a small subset of games that are judged viable on it, and 2) almost everything good on Wii is first party which gives the devs a special incentive to make it fit, to make it work.I wasn't, you got people mixed up. The little I have seen of Wii's graphics (SMG, Excite Truck, Wii Sports) was not irritatingly ugly, maybe a little spartan at times.It doesn't get so many good games. Of course that matters.
Hmmm!
It seems I'm carrying on conversations with two people at once about the same thing.
You're right, I got you mixed up with Lukaz.
Ok, now I've got it straight.
The only point I was trying to make, to Lukaz, was that the graphics weren't so bad that they were difficult to look at.
Make games for Apple Tv and I'll buy one. But i have to have a need first.
I suspect the implementation of games for the AppleTV will basically be so the iPhone users can come home & continue their game they started earlier in the day on the large screen comfort of their TV. I could be wrong but I very much doubt it will directly compete with game consoles marketing to high end 3D gaming or multiplayer consoles like the Wii. The features of this remote indicate more that it will support these features that will likely be deployed by some game developers to use the accelerometer & gyro-position of the iPhone. Can't exactly continue your racecar game from your iPhone if on your AppleTV you have no way to steer your car.
This is going to get very interesting, Apple has a way of bringing technologies to markets that no one thought would even want it & making it into a success. Their rapid growth has largely been in their appeal to bringing the average computer user into the world of complicated multimedia & making it simple for them.
But my point is that Nintendo should have made Wii a *bit* more graphically powerful. As Gon said, the hardware is the same of the GC...
But the hardware isn't the same, just not as big of a rev as the other systems did. The CPU is clocked 50% faster. The graphics is also clocked 50% faster and has another die added within the package. There's little information on the changes to the dies, but it's still a lot faster. There's a lot more memory too.
Even though I don't think I'd buy one, I think it's a nifty system. If I had an SDTV, then I'd probably consider it.
But my point is that Nintendo should have made Wii a *bit* more graphically powerful. As Gon said, the hardware is the same of the GC...
Nintendo did exactly what they should have done.
It really doesn't matter that you aren't happy with that. They really don't care.
They are the biggest seller of game machines by far, using some sales numbers, and that proves them right.
All the Wii is, is a warmed over Cube. And that's all it was intended to be, and that's all it has to be.
By doing that, they were able to come out with the machine on time, and on price, so that they make a good profit on each one, as well as the games and accessories (even for the ones they don't make themselves).
Most people don't care about the higher quality of the 360 and PS3. That's just the facts.
We are having a related discussion on other threads about why Blu-Ray isn't selling many stand-alone players. At the price, many people won't buy them. They are buying the PS3 for that purpose though.
But, as a pure game machine, so far, both the 360 and PS3 aren't challenging the Wii too much, though the Ps3 is doing better at times in that.
Perhaps if both the 360 and PS3 weren't quite so advanced, their price would have been more in line with the Wii, and they would have come out sooner, with less programming problems, which would have resulted in both selling more units. But, it is what it is for now. Later, as their prices drop, and I expect the PS3 to eventually drop more than the 360, this will change. But, Nintendo could very well have a new unit out by then.
No, the Wii is exactly what it has to be. It has great games, people love the controllers, and it's very popular.
You can't argue with that and hope to be credible.
I hate to tell you but two different companies can patent two different ways to accomplish the same thing. Moreover, the supporters of Konfabulator in my view are acting like a bunch of hypocritical crybabies. Apple didn't copy the idea. Moreover, Konfabulator didn't patent their idea because it was an old idea. In fact, it was one Apple used itself in System Seven called Desktop Accessories (way before Konfabulator came along). Apple often drops ideas and brings them back later. Timemachine is a good example of a revisited idea. Apple for the most part buys ideas that it wants to use.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clive At Five
hahahaha *swish*
Undoubtedly Nintendo must hold the patent to this technology........ RIGHT??? You'd think, at least.
Either this will be denied by the patent board and Apple will have to license the technology, or they'll bully their way in *somehow*. I can't see how this is different enough from the Wii interface to warrant its own patent...
The Apple remote, however, lacks accelerometers... so at least it's not a dead knock-off... (or as I like to call them... "Konfabulators").
Still... leave it to Apple to bully their way into Nintendo's gaming scene. I will be very upset if Nintendo suffers at Apple's hand.
I hate to tell you but two different companies can patent two different ways to accomplish the same thing. Moreover, the supporters of Konfabulator in my view are acting like a bunch of hypocritical crybabies. Apple didn't copy the idea. Moreover, Konfabulator didn't patent their idea because it was an old idea. In fact, it was one Apple used itself in System Seven called Desktop Accessories (way before Konfabulator came along). Apple often drops ideas and brings them back later. Timemachine is a good example of a revisited idea. Apple for the most part buys ideas that it wants to use.
I've often thought of giving up on explaining this to people.
They don't seem to understand that ideas, and concepts, aren't patentable. Only products and processes are.
The idea that a 3D controller, such as the one Nintendo has, is locking out anyone else is laughable.
what about the Gyro Mouse, which came out years before Nintendo ever got the idea for theirs?
People have to understand the fact that there can be "more than one way to skin a cat", to use an unpleasant expression.
There are no doubt, numerous ways of implementing this with both the software and hardware. I wouldn't be surprised if several companies come out with their own methods, all patented.
All the Wii is, is a warmed over Cube. And that's all it was intended to be, and that's all it has to be.
After using a Wii more, I agree. It won't play GTA 4 but for its target audience, it was designed correctly.
I found the games to be quite boring after about half an hour but for parties and quick games, it seems to work well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
Perhaps if both the 360 and PS3 weren't quite so advanced, their price would have been more in line with the Wii, and they would have come out sooner, with less programming problems
Actually the XBox 360 is almost exactly the same price as the Wii:
some bundles are cheaper. AFAIK, the 360 has no development issues. It uses a generic 3 core processor.
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
No, the Wii is exactly what it has to be. It has great games, people love the controllers, and it's very popular.
They made a decision to favor controls over performance and it works in certain situations. That method means that interactivity is key to the gameplay. The performance of the other consoles means that developers don't have to worry so much about game scale and can focus on the story. Both methods have advantages.
It seems clear that Apple prefer the Nintendo route in their products. Less features, less power, more compact, higher premium for the spec, family oriented, intuitive controls. Again, this works for certain situations but not all of them.
Some people like the Wii/iMac, others prefer the XBox/xMac.
Whether the Apple TV needs that kind of control, I don't know. I don't think it will really add anything to it. The Wii makes the controller the core of the gameplay, Apple TV is for media, which does not need a 3D controller.
I still think that rather than adding stuff to a bad product, they need to get rid of it and just turn ipods into Apple TVs using a dock. An ipod classic with a bigger HD than ATV is cheaper. Have a dock where you can sit an ipod on it and watch the movies or listen to the music and then you can take it to work with you without having to do extra syncing.
After using a Wii more, I agree. It won't play GTA 4 but for its target audience, it was designed correctly.
I found the games to be quite boring after about half an hour but for parties and quick games, it seems to work well.
I think you;l have to admit to being a bit prejudiced here. The games for the Wii are aimed at a somewhat different audience. not necessarily a casual gaming audience, but simply different games.
It's just notyour cup of tea.
Quote:
Actually the XBox 360 is almost exactly the same price as the Wii:
some bundles are cheaper. AFAIK, the 360 has no development issues. It uses a generic 3 core processor.[/quote]
Most bundles are more expensive. What I've read is that the lower level of the machine isn't for serious gamers.
A three core PPC which is special to the 360, and modified as well is not a generic chip, and cost a good deal of development time, though not as much as the more sophisticated Cell.
Quote:
They made a decision to favor controls over performance and it works in certain situations. That method means that interactivity is key to the gameplay. The performance of the other consoles means that developers don't have to worry so much about game scale and can focus on the story. Both methods have advantages.
It seems clear that Apple prefer the Nintendo route in their products. Less features, less power, more compact, higher premium for the spec, family oriented, intuitive controls. Again, this works for certain situations but not all of them.
Some people like the Wii/iMac, others prefer the XBox/xMac.
Whether the Apple TV needs that kind of control, I don't know. I don't think it will really add anything to it. The Wii makes the controller the core of the gameplay, Apple TV is for media, which does not need a 3D controller.
I still think that rather than adding stuff to a bad product, they need to get rid of it and just turn ipods into Apple TVs using a dock. An ipod classic with a bigger HD than ATV is cheaper. Have a dock where you can sit an ipod on it and watch the movies or listen to the music and then you can take it to work with you without having to do extra syncing.
It's all a matter of personal preferences. Right now, it seems that the choices, and compromises, Nintendo made, were the better ones, as can be seen by the sales figures.
That may change in the future, as prices drop across the board, and more games come out for the PS3.
some bundles are cheaper. AFAIK, the 360 has no development issues. It uses a generic 3 core processor.
Most bundles are more expensive. What I've read is that the lower level of the machine isn't for serious gamers.
The Premium XBox package, which is the "everything" package, is currently on par with a Wii+basic accessories in most markets. On the site you guys are linking for some reason, the XBox is £200, Wii £180 (without component cable or memory card, which I understand matters much more for the Wii than a HD-based system). So price is, for all practical purposes, out of the equation between the two.
The Premium XBox package, which is the "everything" package, is currently on par with a Wii+basic accessories in most markets. On the site you guys are linking for some reason, the XBox is £200, Wii £180 (without component cable or memory card, which I understand matters much more for the Wii than a HD-based system). So price is, for all practical purposes, out of the equation between the two.
I don't know why you are making that comparison. The XBox Elite costs $449.
Comments
Well, I guess the article clearly talk about a game controlled
Many games won't work all that well with a different input method. What I'm really saying is that one shouldn't expect anywhere near all games to be ported, and some will get bad ports.
Exterior: Mariani Avenue, Cupertino CA.
Interior: Dolly through glass doors, pan across Bosendorfer piano.
Zoom to double doors, open, revealing tall figure, fifty-ish, close cropped grey hair, blaf mock turtleneck, stonewashed jeans, no belt.
POV reverses.
Waist-up shot, two asian men, black suits, hands outstretched, palms up, one holds a WII controller, the other a small pile of papers. They bow at the waist, simultaneously.
"Wii would like to sue you."
I don't know who really owns the patent on this tech, but I have used digital whiteboards that utilize the infrared bar with the camera in the pen. This technology has been around for a longtime now, how do you think motion capture works?
I could see Apple making simple games for it, but I don't think it will happen anytime in the near future. (I hope I'm wrong though.)
With an ATV Wii, Nintendo get movie content for family entertainment, Apple get better ITMS support due to a larger audience and the boxes sell more because they have way more functionality.
The Wii has a DVD drive so ATV users won't complain about that and the Wii is a lot more compact and cooler. All Apple really need to do is put their software on the Wii and sell it as a bundle like Wii-fit.
Maybe the Wii would need a hard drive addon or something though.
The main difference is not the graphics themselves, because all game graphics are about the same, though the PS3's is higher resolution, with greater detail. The difference is in the motion, and smoothness of the play.
It all looks artificial and fake, so it doesn't bother me either way.
So what else *is* there graphics technology-wise than resolution, detail, motion and smoothness?
I'm definitely of the school that puts gameplay first, but Wii runs out of steam in more ways than just pure graphics. Here's a simple example: Super Stardust HD. It's a straightforward arcade game, with simple geometry, but the Wii would not handle it just due to the amount of stuff that is pushed on the screen to create the desired gameplay pace and feel. All those itty bitty shards of rocks are significant game elements. Destructible environments are still on the way rather than standard, but they'll be huge. Shadows are very calculation intensive and can be used for great gameplay, not just graphics effect. Fluid physics have been a little too hard so far, but they'll definitely be used for gameplay in near future. Visible developments in AI have been few in the past years, IMO (probably because it isn't an easy selling point), but even in its current status it is sometimes hungry for power.
Resolution also matters beyond looking good. Sometimes you need a lot of information to fit on the screen. Just look at RTS games' evolution, or even FPS's like TF2. For meaningful gameplay, making decisions in the game, you have to be able to recognize lots of stuff on the screen at a glance. 480p only stretches so far.
Games you can buy straight from Home without going to a retailer makes a lot of sense. Apple tv has a intel chip inside so am pretty sure it can do a lot move than served as a portal to rent movies
& watch youtube videos. A year ago everyone Laugh on how it couldn't handle HD, and this year they solve that with a simple Update
Now Apple has it's own chip company (PA Semi) which is specialized in high efficiency low power drain PowerPC chips who is to say they won't be able to throw one or two of these chips in the AppleTV and give it as much horse power as a Xbox360 or PS3? From memory both Xbox360 and PS3 chips are also PowerPC based (Cell) architectures which would make porting games to AppleTV running a Power Architecture not too hard for developers.
Then again there was recent talk of PA Semi getting taken over by Apple to Apple could fund the completion of their next gen processor. Perhaps the next gen chip is planned for use in AppleTV as well as Time Capsule (which runs too hot and needs processor that throttles down for the 99% of time it's not in use)
Many games won't work all that well with a different input method. What I'm really saying is that one shouldn't expect anywhere near all games to be ported, and some will get bad ports.
I disagree, just because current games uses conventional does mean that it is the one and only. Just look at how the iPhone used touch technology in a way no one else did. We will never know how good ported iPhone games will be until we try them.
What I was talking about was games ported from iPhone to possible AppleTV. I don't think the input method will be different. A game controller with motion sensor and few buttons won't be any different from the iPhone. Games that uses the iPhone multi-touch feature can also be done easily some way or another without having to "rub" your TV.
So what else *is* there graphics technology-wise than resolution, detail, motion and smoothness?
I'm definitely of the school that puts gameplay first, but Wii runs out of steam in more ways than just pure graphics. Here's a simple example: Super Stardust HD. It's a straightforward arcade game, with simple geometry, but the Wii would not handle it just due to the amount of stuff that is pushed on the screen to create the desired gameplay pace and feel. All those itty bitty shards of rocks are significant game elements. Destructible environments are still on the way rather than standard, but they'll be huge. Shadows are very calculation intensive and can be used for great gameplay, not just graphics effect. Fluid physics have been a little too hard so far, but they'll definitely be used for gameplay in near future. Visible developments in AI have been few in the past years, IMO (probably because it isn't an easy selling point), but even in its current status it is sometimes hungry for power.
Resolution also matters beyond looking good. Sometimes you need a lot of information to fit on the screen. Just look at RTS games' evolution, or even FPS's like TF2. For meaningful gameplay, making decisions in the game, you have to be able to recognize lots of stuff on the screen at a glance. 480p only stretches so far.
I'm not saying that the Wii is up to the standards of the 360 or the PS3. All I'm saying is that the graphics aren't that bad when compared to the others.
You were complaining about how you couldn't even look at them, and that they were only good enough for casual gamers.
That's clearly not true, even if it lags behind.
It really doesn't matter if some games for the other platforms wouldn't play well on the Wii. for what it is designed to do, it does well, and that's all that matters.
I'm not saying that the Wii is up to the standards of the 360 or the PS3. All I'm saying is that the graphics aren't that bad when compared to the others.
And I'm saying the Wii suffers from lack of power in gameplay, not just graphics. The graphics gap itself will only grow further, BTW. Wii, being the same hardware as GC, is largely tapped out. The other consoles' titles still have room to improve graphically.
The graphics are in an entirely different class when you can't port other consoles' games on it - not to mention when you can't even make a particular *type* of game work. There are two reasons for why everything doesn't look bad on it: 1) the games come from a small subset of games that are judged viable on it, and 2) almost everything good on Wii is first party which gives the devs a special incentive to make it fit, to make it work.
You were complaining about how you couldn't even look at them, and that they were only good enough for casual gamers.
I wasn't, you got people mixed up. The little I have seen of Wii's graphics (SMG, Excite Truck, Wii Sports) was not irritatingly ugly, maybe a little spartan at times.
It really doesn't matter if some games for the other platforms wouldn't play well on the Wii. for what it is designed to do, it does well, and that's all that matters.
It doesn't get so many good games. Of course that matters.
And I'm saying the Wii suffers from lack of power in gameplay, not just graphics. The graphics gap itself will only grow further, BTW. Wii, being the same hardware as GC, is largely tapped out. The other consoles' titles still have room to improve graphically.
The graphics are in an entirely different class when you can't port other consoles' games on it - not to mention when you can't even make a particular *type* of game work. There are two reasons for why everything doesn't look bad on it: 1) the games come from a small subset of games that are judged viable on it, and 2) almost everything good on Wii is first party which gives the devs a special incentive to make it fit, to make it work.I wasn't, you got people mixed up. The little I have seen of Wii's graphics (SMG, Excite Truck, Wii Sports) was not irritatingly ugly, maybe a little spartan at times.It doesn't get so many good games. Of course that matters.
Hmmm!
It seems I'm carrying on conversations with two people at once about the same thing.
You're right, I got you mixed up with Lukaz.
Ok, now I've got it straight.
The only point I was trying to make, to Lukaz, was that the graphics weren't so bad that they were difficult to look at.
Everything I've said was just focussed on that.
Make games for Apple Tv and I'll buy one. But i have to have a need first.
I suspect the implementation of games for the AppleTV will basically be so the iPhone users can come home & continue their game they started earlier in the day on the large screen comfort of their TV. I could be wrong but I very much doubt it will directly compete with game consoles marketing to high end 3D gaming or multiplayer consoles like the Wii. The features of this remote indicate more that it will support these features that will likely be deployed by some game developers to use the accelerometer & gyro-position of the iPhone. Can't exactly continue your racecar game from your iPhone if on your AppleTV you have no way to steer your car.
This is going to get very interesting, Apple has a way of bringing technologies to markets that no one thought would even want it & making it into a success. Their rapid growth has largely been in their appeal to bringing the average computer user into the world of complicated multimedia & making it simple for them.
all their games would become much more fun.
Hmmm!
It seems I'm carrying on conversations with two people at once about the same thing.
You're right, I got you mixed up with Lukaz.
Ok, now I've got it straight.
The only point I was trying to make, to Lukaz, was that the graphics weren't so bad that they were difficult to look at.
Everything I've said was just focussed on that.
Ok, I exagerated... sorry.
But my point is that Nintendo should have made Wii a *bit* more graphically powerful. As Gon said, the hardware is the same of the GC...
But my point is that Nintendo should have made Wii a *bit* more graphically powerful. As Gon said, the hardware is the same of the GC...
But the hardware isn't the same, just not as big of a rev as the other systems did. The CPU is clocked 50% faster. The graphics is also clocked 50% faster and has another die added within the package. There's little information on the changes to the dies, but it's still a lot faster. There's a lot more memory too.
Even though I don't think I'd buy one, I think it's a nifty system. If I had an SDTV, then I'd probably consider it.
Ok, I exagerated... sorry.
But my point is that Nintendo should have made Wii a *bit* more graphically powerful. As Gon said, the hardware is the same of the GC...
Nintendo did exactly what they should have done.
It really doesn't matter that you aren't happy with that. They really don't care.
They are the biggest seller of game machines by far, using some sales numbers, and that proves them right.
All the Wii is, is a warmed over Cube. And that's all it was intended to be, and that's all it has to be.
By doing that, they were able to come out with the machine on time, and on price, so that they make a good profit on each one, as well as the games and accessories (even for the ones they don't make themselves).
Most people don't care about the higher quality of the 360 and PS3. That's just the facts.
We are having a related discussion on other threads about why Blu-Ray isn't selling many stand-alone players. At the price, many people won't buy them. They are buying the PS3 for that purpose though.
But, as a pure game machine, so far, both the 360 and PS3 aren't challenging the Wii too much, though the Ps3 is doing better at times in that.
Perhaps if both the 360 and PS3 weren't quite so advanced, their price would have been more in line with the Wii, and they would have come out sooner, with less programming problems, which would have resulted in both selling more units. But, it is what it is for now. Later, as their prices drop, and I expect the PS3 to eventually drop more than the 360, this will change. But, Nintendo could very well have a new unit out by then.
No, the Wii is exactly what it has to be. It has great games, people love the controllers, and it's very popular.
You can't argue with that and hope to be credible.
hahahaha *swish*
Undoubtedly Nintendo must hold the patent to this technology........ RIGHT??? You'd think, at least.
Either this will be denied by the patent board and Apple will have to license the technology, or they'll bully their way in *somehow*. I can't see how this is different enough from the Wii interface to warrant its own patent...
The Apple remote, however, lacks accelerometers... so at least it's not a dead knock-off... (or as I like to call them... "Konfabulators").
Still... leave it to Apple to bully their way into Nintendo's gaming scene. I will be very upset if Nintendo suffers at Apple's hand.
-Clive
I hate to tell you but two different companies can patent two different ways to accomplish the same thing. Moreover, the supporters of Konfabulator in my view are acting like a bunch of hypocritical crybabies. Apple didn't copy the idea. Moreover, Konfabulator didn't patent their idea because it was an old idea. In fact, it was one Apple used itself in System Seven called Desktop Accessories (way before Konfabulator came along). Apple often drops ideas and brings them back later. Timemachine is a good example of a revisited idea. Apple for the most part buys ideas that it wants to use.
I've often thought of giving up on explaining this to people.
They don't seem to understand that ideas, and concepts, aren't patentable. Only products and processes are.
The idea that a 3D controller, such as the one Nintendo has, is locking out anyone else is laughable.
what about the Gyro Mouse, which came out years before Nintendo ever got the idea for theirs?
People have to understand the fact that there can be "more than one way to skin a cat", to use an unpleasant expression.
There are no doubt, numerous ways of implementing this with both the software and hardware. I wouldn't be surprised if several companies come out with their own methods, all patented.
Nintendo did exactly what they should have done.
All the Wii is, is a warmed over Cube. And that's all it was intended to be, and that's all it has to be.
After using a Wii more, I agree. It won't play GTA 4 but for its target audience, it was designed correctly.
I found the games to be quite boring after about half an hour but for parties and quick games, it seems to work well.
Perhaps if both the 360 and PS3 weren't quite so advanced, their price would have been more in line with the Wii, and they would have come out sooner, with less programming problems
Actually the XBox 360 is almost exactly the same price as the Wii:
xbox 360
Wii
some bundles are cheaper. AFAIK, the 360 has no development issues. It uses a generic 3 core processor.
No, the Wii is exactly what it has to be. It has great games, people love the controllers, and it's very popular.
They made a decision to favor controls over performance and it works in certain situations. That method means that interactivity is key to the gameplay. The performance of the other consoles means that developers don't have to worry so much about game scale and can focus on the story. Both methods have advantages.
It seems clear that Apple prefer the Nintendo route in their products. Less features, less power, more compact, higher premium for the spec, family oriented, intuitive controls. Again, this works for certain situations but not all of them.
Some people like the Wii/iMac, others prefer the XBox/xMac.
Whether the Apple TV needs that kind of control, I don't know. I don't think it will really add anything to it. The Wii makes the controller the core of the gameplay, Apple TV is for media, which does not need a 3D controller.
I still think that rather than adding stuff to a bad product, they need to get rid of it and just turn ipods into Apple TVs using a dock. An ipod classic with a bigger HD than ATV is cheaper. Have a dock where you can sit an ipod on it and watch the movies or listen to the music and then you can take it to work with you without having to do extra syncing.
After using a Wii more, I agree. It won't play GTA 4 but for its target audience, it was designed correctly.
I found the games to be quite boring after about half an hour but for parties and quick games, it seems to work well.
I think you;l have to admit to being a bit prejudiced here. The games for the Wii are aimed at a somewhat different audience. not necessarily a casual gaming audience, but simply different games.
It's just notyour cup of tea.
Actually the XBox 360 is almost exactly the same price as the Wii:
xbox 360
Not when it's equipped at the required level. It costs at least $349 that way.
Wii
some bundles are cheaper. AFAIK, the 360 has no development issues. It uses a generic 3 core processor.[/quote]
Most bundles are more expensive. What I've read is that the lower level of the machine isn't for serious gamers.
A three core PPC which is special to the 360, and modified as well is not a generic chip, and cost a good deal of development time, though not as much as the more sophisticated Cell.
They made a decision to favor controls over performance and it works in certain situations. That method means that interactivity is key to the gameplay. The performance of the other consoles means that developers don't have to worry so much about game scale and can focus on the story. Both methods have advantages.
It seems clear that Apple prefer the Nintendo route in their products. Less features, less power, more compact, higher premium for the spec, family oriented, intuitive controls. Again, this works for certain situations but not all of them.
Some people like the Wii/iMac, others prefer the XBox/xMac.
Whether the Apple TV needs that kind of control, I don't know. I don't think it will really add anything to it. The Wii makes the controller the core of the gameplay, Apple TV is for media, which does not need a 3D controller.
I still think that rather than adding stuff to a bad product, they need to get rid of it and just turn ipods into Apple TVs using a dock. An ipod classic with a bigger HD than ATV is cheaper. Have a dock where you can sit an ipod on it and watch the movies or listen to the music and then you can take it to work with you without having to do extra syncing.
It's all a matter of personal preferences. Right now, it seems that the choices, and compromises, Nintendo made, were the better ones, as can be seen by the sales figures.
That may change in the future, as prices drop across the board, and more games come out for the PS3.
Not when it's equipped at the required level. It costs at least $349 that way.
Wii
some bundles are cheaper. AFAIK, the 360 has no development issues. It uses a generic 3 core processor.
Most bundles are more expensive. What I've read is that the lower level of the machine isn't for serious gamers.
The Premium XBox package, which is the "everything" package, is currently on par with a Wii+basic accessories in most markets. On the site you guys are linking for some reason, the XBox is £200, Wii £180 (without component cable or memory card, which I understand matters much more for the Wii than a HD-based system). So price is, for all practical purposes, out of the equation between the two.
The Premium XBox package, which is the "everything" package, is currently on par with a Wii+basic accessories in most markets. On the site you guys are linking for some reason, the XBox is £200, Wii £180 (without component cable or memory card, which I understand matters much more for the Wii than a HD-based system). So price is, for all practical purposes, out of the equation between the two.
I don't know why you are making that comparison. The XBox Elite costs $449.
http://www.bestbuy.com/site/olspage....ci_sku=8301492
The