Treblaine said:
Better 2x AA than none at all. Wii has a SERIOUS lack of it for games that really really need it.
Eh, debatable. To my eyes there is little difference between the Wii and the Xbox's AA. One doesn't have it, the other's doesn't work. Of course if one is used to only low levels of AA they can probably spot the differences better.
That's a very convenient opinion for you to hold that AA isn't important... but PC gamers who have the choice to turn it on or off it's considered a WORTHLESS BENCHMARK to bbenchmark (test a game's performance) without AA set reasonably high as so many CHOOSE to have it on.
Of course you're going to benchmark with it on - it does have a minimal effect on FPS [Like a 1-2 FPS variance at worst most of the time], which is important to hardcore benchmarkers - and if you can handle it of course you're going to put it up to max - it does make it look that tiny bit better.
However, it is by far the least important aspect of graphics that you'll come across. Texture resolution, lighting, model detail, Depth of Field and such provide a much better variance in look, and is something your argument would be better focused on. AA is the fly of the graphics world. If it gets all up in your face it can be, at worst, annoying. Otherwise its pretty much unnoticeable.
Anti-aliasing is a HUGE problem with the low-resolution (480p) resolution of Wii games when upscaled the Anti-aliasing jagges get doubly deep. Wii games with a generally brighter and broader colour pallet the aliasing is more visible on "grimdark" games.
I'm going to take it that last sentence was meant to have an additional "Than" in it, as in "...broader colour pallet the aliasing is more visible than on "grimdark" games", otherwise you're saying its less noticeable on the Wii.
I'm going to be honest here, thanks to the art style most Wii games follow, I barely notice the aliasing in them. They don't try to be realistic, or even good. They go for extremely cartoony most of the time, and sometimes only mostly cartoony. When that's the case, aliasing really doesn't bother me. For the art style, its not important. When there's really bad aliasing in something like Halo, I'll notice, as it tries to look good, and somewhat realistic, and in contrast to the rest of what the game is showing such things can stand out. However, that usually takes me to be standing infront of a diagonal line, with it taking up half my screen for me to notice. Otherwise I'm too focused on the other things the game has to show me instead of the small line off to the side.
"If the WiiU has the graphics power to display 1080p with 30 or higher FPS with as many if not more objects on screen than a PS3 or X360, then it is superior."
Big "if".
Really, I don't think so. Sure, its an important if, but thanks to how crap the Xbox and PS3's graphics capabilities are you'd almost pay more to get the sort of card that goes into them as its 'Vintage' or something than you would to get something like a 9800GTX only smaller, which would handle such things easily.
And behold:
-snip-
1080x1920 NATIVE resolution and 60-frames per second.
Framerate and native-res alone is not enough as PS3 could do this back in 2008.
WiiU has had it's chance to prove it's next-gen it hasn't. It's a dumb bet to bet on WiiU being a generational leap over Xbox 360.
I don't think that quite proves a point, considering that video is in 720p. Acknowledged it does run at 1080p and 60FPS, however the rest of its graphics capabilities suffer for it. From what I see it does not look as detailed as other games, has fewer models on screen, occasionally has some pretty bland textures and other such things. I never said it was impossible for a game to run 1080p native on a current gen console at 60FPS, only that most don't because it means sacrificing other more important graphical aspects to do so.
