I think Super Swing Golf is freakin awesome, although it's not an ultra realistic golfing game the mechanics are far better than the Wii Sports Golf game. I think the controls are set up nicely. More importantly it's just fun as hell.

yea, the controls in the Wii Golf do leave a lot to be desired.

I really don't like how you set your power first, then take a shot. Seems like cheating to me

Hooked up the Wii with the generic component cable to the Component 1 on my 56" DLP (Componet 1 supports up to 480p/480i, while Component 2 and 3 up to 1080i).

I set the Wii's setting to 480p, the display became blurred a bit. Switching to 480i, the display is more clear.

I never used the composite cable, so can't tell you the difference. However, if you're a graphic whore, you gonna hate the Wii... The fun part really distract you away from the details on the screen, but if you're not playing (i.e. not your turn), as you pay attention of various objects on the screen in detail, most likely you gonna say "huh, not much better than the GameCube." (assuming you're a heavy GameCube player).

If you played the X360 or PS3, forget it... don't compare the Wii's graphic with those two. You just can't b/c you get what you pay for duh!

I brought the Wii for fun and the family enjoyed it very much (although i kept telling them not to release the wiimote and double checked the strap like the guy/gal checks for seatbelts on the rollercoaster). Hey, 56" DLP...

However, for games like Marvel UA and Call of D, i will get them on the PS3 (as soon as they are available on-line, no taxes). Nintendo makes jagged characters fun, but mature games almost always score higher on the other consoles. e.g. where's the fun seeing jagged boobs? Don't even bring up the wiimote jokes (the one with the shaking bottle is sick, sick as in something wrong, not as in "cool").

Firstly, that is a moot point as we are talking about diminishing returns of graphics improvements, nothing more.

At least it is fresher than playing the exact same types of games with mildly better graphics if you only have an SDTV.

But I'll agree that Nintendo hasn't done a good job of getting some really innovative games out to show off what the controller can do.

But I pretty much expected that for the first year. The only reason I own one now is I was able to pay for it and Zelda with store credit and cash from selling games in the forum here. That and Nintendo only priced it $50 over my self-imposed $200 limit for video game consoles (though that price would make me wait for a price drop if I'd had to buy it out of pocket.).

But I expect things to pick up. With the controller, and less emphasis on top notch graphics, the Wii has much more potential for having exciting, new, innovative games.

I don't expect the 360 or the PS3 to do anything but the same types of games they've been doing, and the same types of games that were on the PS2 and X-box. That's not a bad thing per se, but I was near the point of quitting gaming all together (or taking a gen off at least) towards the end of last gen.

The DS has kept my interest sparked with some innovative games and some old school throwbacks, hopefully the Wii can further this for me. I see no hope that the PS3 or 360 will (nor do I see them in my $200 price limit for the non-tard pack versions anytime soon).

I'm not sure that it's moot because this thread turned into, "Yeah the graphics aren't all that, but it doesn't matter because playing the wii is fun with the new controls."

That's all I'm saying. I'm not bashing wii fans or the wii. Hell, one may be in my future. But people here started talking about how the same games are being put out with nothing more than a prettier presentation and like I said, it seems Nintendo did the same thing but they're getting a pass because one can swing swing a controller to hit something instead hitting Button "A".

I have no doubt about that.


Ok, fair enough. No one says you have to like PS3 or 360 games. You like what you like and I certainly wouldn't hold that against you.

If it makes you feel better Giantrobo, I agree with you. The Wii is great and is a lot of fun, but the graphics are a disappointment. I mean the whole time they were saying it was supposed to be a Gamecube times two. So far it's just a Gamecube.

If you have a 360 and a Wii it's tough to not feel this way. The games that are similar (Call of Duty for example) really make a difference. It's not just a clearer picture we're talking about here. More enemies, better effects, everything sucks you into it.

In the end, though, Nintendo is great at what they do and I love almost everything they make.

It's not a free pass per se. Playing the same games with a new coat of paint on the 360 and PS3 doesn't excite me at all.

Playing the same games on the Wii with the same coat of paint and the new motion controls does excite me.....for now. We'll see how long that lasts.

I'm saying its not a free pass as I'm not bashing either strategy. It's just a differing opinion based on what excites me when I fire up a game.

You see that's just it. Although I joke about it I'm not simply a "graphics whore" for the sake of a prettier picture. To me better graphics are a part of the overall effort to advance the technology. But I realize that doesn't mean that lesser graphics can't be fun and the wii is proof of that.

I dunno. Analog sticks changed the way you can play games pretty drastically (with some games). Just like the d-pad setup on the NES did.

Like the DS - the touchpad controls created utterly unique types of gameplay. Kirby Canvas Curse - maybe it was a platformer, but the touchpad-only control setup made it fricking awesome. Rolling Kirby along lines you paint on the screen made for a VERY different platforming experience.

IMO the Wii is doing that. Drastically different games.

The extra horsepower COULD bring a few different kinds of games. Mainly piles of enemies, for example (I'm thinking Dead Rising), but they managed that (albeit choppily) on the PS2 with games like Dynasty Warriors.

I agree that graphics are at that diminishing returns of fun point IMO. A FPS on the 360 is just a shined-up version of a FPS on the xbox1. Prettier graphics at this point are not changing the gameplay like they did with the jump from the SNES->PS1 or even PS1 -> PS2. I can't think of a single 3D PS1 game I like besides Tekken 3 - which is only barely a 3D game. Limited draw distances, limited basic textures, fog, etc all plagued PS1 games and n64 games - something mostly fixed with the DC/PS2/Xbox/GC era.

Then again, there's a reason my PC is running a socket754 single-core 2.4 (2.7ghz overclocked) processor and an older x850xt card. I don't see the benefits of all the extra horsepower in the last few year's videocards.

It used to be that each gen of consoles had very different controllers. NES->SNES - an extra 2 buttons, 2 shoulder buttons. N64 -> analog stick. Etc. It was part of the generational leap. Somewhere around the PS1-dual-shock era controllers stopped changing.

With regard to Dynasty warriors, it's not so much a graphical issue, more an AI issue. The soldiers there will essentially stand like stuffed dolls, waiting for you to cut them down, throwing the occasional attack. It would be nice to one day see the additional cpu power used towards making these heavily populated games more interesting and realistic.

That is just it though, Call of Duty is a bad example. That game is set in reality so the graphics should show that to bring you deeper into the experience. Do you need super "Cell-tastic" graphics for Rayman, Monkeyball or Mario type games? No. Just a minor upgrade that looks more polished and have better framerates.

Nintendo consoles have never been home to "realistic" looking games, with a few exceptions like RE & Eternal Darkness.

Gears of War is a lot of fun. I thought Wii sports was just a tech demo/novelty act. It made me look forward to a Mario Tennis or a Mario Golf, but it was too one-dimensional to really occupy a lot of play-time.

Do we want to start a pool for when we'll see Mario Bowling? They'd have to really make it crazy with different lanes and items to make a full fledged game out of it, but I expect it with the buzz around Wii Sports Bowling.

More horsepower is a big deal. The higher resolutions absolutely bring new possibilities into play. It's obviously not going to be as dramatic as the shift from 2D games to 3D games, but it's a big deal.

First of all, more horsepower means more characters onscreen, which means more players in multiplayer games. More horsepower and more resolution also means you can push back draw distances. The sniper fights in a game like GRAW couldn't be done in SD.

Second, hardware advances also allows for more complex physics models and other subtler aspects of games. It allows things like dynamic animation instead of pre-scripted motion-captured animation. You may not care much that a character in a newer game dies a unique death and slumps realistically onto whatever he dies on instead of clipping through a wall, but people had a lot of fun just throwing shit around in Oblivion.

Third, the integration of the online capabilities into the console has been a big innovation on Microsoft's part. Everybody else follows Nintendo's hardware innovations, but Microsoft has clearly grasped the significance of online for consoles ahead of its Japanese competitors.

Nintendo decided to compromise on the hardware power because the system was designed to push the controller. Nintendo also has a larger audience of younger gamers and expects to be able to sell this device outside of the traditional gamer audience, and a lower price point allows that flexibility. But that absolutely doesn't suggest that there's nothing fun to be done with HD or more polygon pushing power.

That should refute the example of "diminishing returns of graphics" in some cases then, shouldn't it? I'd say it doesn't apply to certain genres, particularly those that are based on the real world. Sports games are another that are greatly enhanced by graphics, especially when you begin to play with characters that actually look and move like their real world counterparts, realistic stadiums, crowd.

Your right though, for the games Nintendo mostly pushes, it doesn't seem to need as much of the beefy hardware that MS and Sony put out there.

Again the diminishing returns point is not that graphics don't matter. I mean it from diminishing returns for my dollar as I don't feel the improvements are as great (at least on SD TV).

In the past we went from NES/SMS to SNES/Genesis to N64/PSX to GC/PS2/X-box. The leaps were huge and the prices were $199 at launch up until PSX (which dropped very soon to $199 due to the N64 price) and then went up to $299 with the PS2/X-box with Nintendo staying at $199.

This gen you have the non-tard pack 360 at $399 and the 60GB PS3 (which seems to be all they are making now--at least all you can find and buy) for $599. That's a big price jump, for less of a graphics improvement on an SDTV (which was all that was needed in the past). If you have an HDTV the improvement is arguably on part with past gens, but you're knocking your price up another $600-2,000 depending on what kind of HDTV you want.

That's what I mean by diminishing returns. We're paying more and getting less of an upgrade IMO. Compounded by the fact that many of us have to buy an expensive new TV to really get the most of the upgrade.

Well you'd better start warming up to the idea because these companies (Nintendo Included) aren't going to be concerning themselves with the SDTV user for much longer. In fact the Wii is the last console that will ever be designed with the SDTV user in mind. Once all the consoles are made for HD I think I'll have more sypathy for this "diminishing return" bullshit.

True.

But 5 years from now when the next Nintendo console comes out HDTV's will be much cheaper.

And I'll be done with my Ph D and making real money.

It was a generation too soon for this HD leap in gaming IMO. The sets are still too pricey for the more future proof 1080p sets and none of the HD technologies are near perfect yet as they all have their drawbacks.

5 years from now, prices will be down, all will be 1080p, and all the HD types will have improved. I'll be happy to jump in then.

It encompasses that though. Others have clearly said that previous gen graphics were "good enough" and you've repeatedly said that the graphics jump isn't as great as before. Regardless of cost, I'm simply trying to fight the supposed notion that the graphics difference between the Wii and the 360/PS3 is inconsequential or no longer is at the point where it doesn't improve gameplay.

Having owned NBA 2K7 on PS2 and now on the 360, I'll gladly tell anyone they're crazy if they think there's on a slight difference or a small upgrade. Crazy I tell you, crazy!

Take Wii Bowling for example. Put that same game on the 360 with 1080i HD graphics and blah blah blah. The Wii version will always be more fun, despite the lesser graphics.

also, that "big jump" would imply that you are playing on a TV that handles 720p +, which a lot of us don't have access to

Of course, I never said otherwise.

The Wii controls are awesome for certain things like Bowling... i'd say Boxing and Tennis are others where it'll be awesome since they're simple and easy. Football is a stretch though... Madden didn't come out too great, although that was the first shot at it. Soccer? Basketball? Off the top of my head i'm not so sure motion controls will improve gameplay for those, let alone make me feel I couldn't go back to a standard controller.

Gears of War certainly wasn't any less fun despite playing one of the shooters on the Wii.

Diminishing returns doesn't imply that the change is inconsequential and doesn't make a difference.

It just implies the jump isn't as great in some people opinion as in past generations, and is a diminishing investment on our purchase as the machines cost around twice as much as previous machines.

And again, to beat a dead horse, the diminishing returns is even more relevant if you consider the HD part to be due to the TV technology rather than then new console like I do.

So to sum for the last time, I don't think the jump is inconsequential its just not worth the $400-600 to play on an SDTV for sure, and not worth the $1600-3,000 it would cost me to get a nice 50"+ 1080p set (which is what I want when I upgrade) plus one of the consoles right now. Just not enough bang for my buck at the current console and TV prices.

Others differ as many people are much more into video quality and graphics than me, especially here since this is a DVD site.

I've had a 27" Sony Wega and a crappy Sony 5.1 sound system for 8 years or so and I'm still fine with it, so I'm obviously not an audio or videophile.

I'd love a big HDTV, but 50"+ 1080p sets need to drop in price a good bit, and I need to finish the Ph D and get a job before I can make the investment.

Hopefully by that time the 360 will be $150-200 and have a bunch of 20 games available.

Agreed...and Wind Waker remains the best looking game I've seen on any system...though I haven't played Okami yet.

Funny you should mention RE, because RE4 might have been that exact moment that I thought "graphics are as good as I ever need them to be." Just a gorgeous game.

I'd give a slight edge to Okami just because the art design is much more stylized and creative, rather than just looking like a bright and happy cartoon.

On technical merits they are probably about the same.

Okami is a much better game as a whole IMO though.