GameTavern - View Single Post

Shadow Fox · 02-04-2008, 12:09 PM

Recent uninspiring ports may lead you to think that way, but even the GameCube was FAR superior to PS2, and with Wii's added bandwidth and main memory, it is much closer to 360 and PS3 than you think. The only difference between the three is the size of the framebuffer and clockspeed, whereas PS2 doesn't even have a dedicated GPU and most effects are done in software.

Wii and PS2 are night-and-day, whereas 360/PS3 are more of an update to what was already revolutionary in Xbox and GameCube last generation.

"HD" is a gimmick. NO ONE, and I repeat, NO ONE cared about SNES and Genesis when they DOUBLED the resolution of graphics (the same as 360 vs Wii resolution now), they just cared about the effects. No one cared when N64 did FOUR TIMES the amount of pixel draw (which no console has done since), in addition to adding polygons. NO ONE cared when PC started doing resolutions well above 1080p nearly six years ago. This hype about HD is creating illusions that really should be thought out.

PS3 and 360 are just powerful enough to do what was done last gen at a higher resolution, which is more of an evolution than a revolution.

And with a game like Rock Band, who the hell cares? That's like complaining about the best turd out of the toilet bowl. It's not like the title's pushing polygon or lighting limits- I have no doubts a capable team like Factor 5 could not only do this title on Wii exactly the way it is now (minus native resolution, of course), but I wager they could also do the same on GCN and Xbox 1.

02-04-2008, 12:09 PM	#8
Shadow Fox Official GameTavern Ninja Shadow Fox is offline Location: Antaria, Southern Atronia Now Playing: SWTOR, Xenoblade Posts: 388	Re: BREAKING: Rock Band on Wii confirmed! Recent uninspiring ports may lead you to think that way, but even the GameCube was FAR superior to PS2, and with Wii's added bandwidth and main memory, it is much closer to 360 and PS3 than you think. The only difference between the three is the size of the framebuffer and clockspeed, whereas PS2 doesn't even have a dedicated GPU and most effects are done in software. Wii and PS2 are night-and-day, whereas 360/PS3 are more of an update to what was already revolutionary in Xbox and GameCube last generation. "HD" is a gimmick. NO ONE, and I repeat, NO ONE cared about SNES and Genesis when they DOUBLED the resolution of graphics (the same as 360 vs Wii resolution now), they just cared about the effects. No one cared when N64 did FOUR TIMES the amount of pixel draw (which no console has done since), in addition to adding polygons. NO ONE cared when PC started doing resolutions well above 1080p nearly six years ago. This hype about HD is creating illusions that really should be thought out. PS3 and 360 are just powerful enough to do what was done last gen at a higher resolution, which is more of an evolution than a revolution. And with a game like Rock Band, who the hell cares? That's like complaining about the best turd out of the toilet bowl. It's not like the title's pushing polygon or lighting limits- I have no doubts a capable team like Factor 5 could not only do this title on Wii exactly the way it is now (minus native resolution, of course), but I wager they could also do the same on GCN and Xbox 1.