The difference between Wii & PS2 graphics?

[Jenova65]

I thought wii games looked bad because a lot of games are rushed pieces of shit trying to hope a 40 year old mom will buy it.

Brawl looks great because there was actual time put into the game, same with Super Mario Galaxy.

Grrrrr, stop blaming me, people! *shakes fist* We've been through this before don't make me send you to your room ;-)

For the record, Nintendo are not aiming any games at ME! Trust me on this. My current consoles are 360, PS2, PS3, DSi, GC, Wii and a PSP (gave my Xbox away) I am 44, a mum of three and do not play any of these mysterious 'mom games', I keep hearing about on here, so stop stereotyping every time this sort of question comes up, it makes my little gamer soul sad, OK? I think they are aiming at getting families to play together (hence their advertising) they certainly aren't attempting to appeal to just mums cos that would be dumb, not to mention a very poor ploy that would not have made the profits that they are currently making if only mums were buying.
Nintendo did state (over and over again) during development of the Wii, that it was not attempting to be a next gen console, rather it was supposed to change the way we play and the way we play together, making gaming a more social experience, and encouraging the non gamer to play, which I guess it has. There are good games on the Wii, but there certainly isn't much there amongst the genres I enjoy.
It makes us pretty shallow if we keep banging on about the graphics, though.

 

[More Fun To Compute]

Spoiler: This

I love SotC and I think it is a great achievement in many ways.

But, the graphics were very limited by the PS2 and many people noticed even at the time. Many of the textures are too low resolution and blurry. There are a lot of "jaggy edges" on polygons that were noticeable. The game had very noticeably bad framerates.

If the game was made for hardware that performed closer to their vision for the game, even for the Wii, it would have been a superior experience.

 

[Are.Oh.Why]

Well I finally get to finish Tales Of Symphonia, and Metroid Other M doesn't look too bad on the eyes

 

[blankedboy]

Is this how we judge games? On graphical merit?

I certainly hope not. I hecka don't. Crash Team Racing is still the third best game of all time for me, and it has SHIT graphics.

 

[derelict]

I don't know what the technical differences are between them, so I can't tell.

I guess we could compare Okami on the PS2 to the Wii.

I'd say that's unfair, given how good Okami was, and how much better it works on the Wii, but then I'd figure the opposite is true for the GT series on Sony platforms.

 

[chozo_hybrid]

The graphics look fine to me. I've never had a problem reading words on the Wii. Can't say that with my 360.

Same here, the Wii is standard tv friendly.

That's right, I don't even have a flat screen...

 

[ethaninja]

So are you talking about the console or the game for the console? I know the title says graphics.. eh I'm overthinking again. Hmm as far as I can tell nothing. I never bought one then and I won't now

 

[muffincakes]

I actually think that the PS2 has better graphics. I mean...

Spoiler: This

is undeniably better than

Spoiler: this.

What? Really? You mean that you can't see the shading lines or breaks in texture in the PS2 game? Or more noticeably the lack thereof on the Wii. I mean, it's pretty obvious to anyone who actually looks at the pictures that the detail put into the...oh.
*Bemused look*
*Puts hands on hips*
You let your seeing-eye-dog on the computer again didn't you? Wow, you almost had me going there. If I hadn't figured out that you were blind then I would have, well, I don't know, thought you were really ignorant and stupid or something. Well, now that that's over with, do you mind not letting your dog on the forums anymore? He's kind of mucking up our discussion. Thanks!

Back to the Future! Topic!: No, the PS2 does not have better graphics than the Wii. If it does, then the Wii has better graphics than the PS3. It's just not possible because of the technical limitations. Anyone who cannot figure that out is just too busy playing in their own little world to notice. They are usually easy to spot too, with their signature straight-jackets and face-masks to prevent them from biting and scratching others. Kind of cute, in a Nintendogs meets Manhunt kind of way.

 

[MrWhippeh]

Ever since the Gamecube, Nintendo seem to distance themselves from the xbox/ps graphics war. Nintendo's next gen stuff always seem to be more of a revolution (exploring new concepts) rather than the xbox/ps's evolutions (improving on what they previously had). They also seemed to pride themselves on the fact that they didn't need over-used violence and great graphics to make a fantastic game, just a compelling story, brilliant design and solid gameplay.

That's why I have always stuck with Nintendo...well until the decent game shortage they seem to be having in which I got a 360, but I will try to remain loyal to Nintendo until the decent game shortage becomes a drought

 

[The Cake Is Annoying]

I thought it was taken as a given that the Wii was never designed to compete with the 360 or Ps3 on graphics? This isn't exactly news

Certainly it has not the most advanced graphics. But significant graphics improvements are becoming increasingly more expensive to achieve, and since consoles are sold at a loss this is an increasingly big problem.

Nintendo is trying a different route. Graphical comparisons are meaningless unless another company is pursuing a similar strategy. And the PS2 was never designed to attract to grow the market like the Wii, they hit the market at too different times.

 

[leady129]

Well made Wii games can look quite a bit better than PS2 games. The problem is that most Wii games seem to be either slapped together for the sake of making a quick buck or are a really dodgy port.

 

[Volafortis]

The Wii has last gen graphics tech, but the processing power is much greater in the Wii than any last gen console, allowing the Wii to do more with game mechanics, and can run more smoothly while pushing the dated graphics technology. The thing is, a lot of shovelware blows all of that extra power on managing meaningless motion controls that are poorly optimized, but companies that know how to make proper use of that extra power will receive a pay-off in the form of better graphics on the Wii.

Also, good graphics cards are huge (Anyone who has built a PC can vouch for this,) and this is why the Wii is capable of being incredibly small, while the 360 and PS3 are considerably larger.

So yes, the Wii has bad graphics, but it has decent processing power. Sure, it isn't on the same level as the 360 or PS3, but hey, gameplay has to count for something. Unfortunately, most games on the Wii have terrible controls, and shoddy gameplay, with a few exceptions, like Super Mario Galaxy, LoZ:tTP, and No More Heroes. While it is the gimp of the current generation, it still is better than last generation.

 

[jaketheripper]

really dude, i dont personally like the wii, except for madworld...that game was epic.... but they made god of war epic because they wanted to make it better than the first, and even though i dont like racing games gran turismo has always been pretty good with that stuff, i guess the wii is more family based and graphics dont really mater as much to the casual gamer

 

[achilleas.k]

lets break it down to some tech specs

Ps2
Graphics: 147 MHz
CPU: 295 MHz (launch model) 299 MHz (slim model)

Wii
Graphics: 243 MHz
CPU: 729 MHz

Well the wii is the clear winner it blows the ps2 proccesing speed clear out of the water and has almost 100MHz more GPU than ps2. But compare it to say ps3 however is a much different story

Ps3
Graphics: 550 MHz
CPU: 3.2 GHz

The ps3 has more than double the graphic power and has three times more proccesing speed than that of the Wii. Making the wii seems like pretty ancient tech in comparison.

Now comparing the wii to the gamecube makes it ring true about it being a gamecube with a little extra power

Gamecube
Graphics: 162 MHz
CPU: 486 MHz

I think you can tell alot about a console with the tech specs.

Processor clock speeds != Tech specs
Well, it is an element of the technical specifications, but listing clock speeds doesn't really help much.
By that logic, the Intel P4 @ 3GHz is comparable in processing power to the Core i7 @ 3GHz. Maybe I'm not following the same logic, given that the P4 is a single core CPU vs the i7 which is a quad, but ignoring everything else and focusing on clock speeds is just as wrong.

Furthermore, even if we do regard clock speeds as an accurate measurement of processing power (which we never should), you still can't claim to say much about the console itself by looking at the specs alone.

As for the main topic of the thread, I think most of the other posts covered the fact that the Wii never aimed towards graphical improvements. It was a relatively small improvement over the 'cube graphically, which allowed them to keep production cost down (and in effect, the retail cost) and focus on the control innovation. This strategy was followed in order to appeal to a much wider audience, both because of the way the game is played (the WiiMote resembles a TV remote which everyone is accustomed to, hence the name) and because of the console cost. And in my very humble opinion, the sales figures indicate that the strategy worked.

 

[XIV]

I think Nintendo made a choice of going with style rather than cutting-edge realism.

Yea, to bad that if Sony's new motion controllers turns out to be very successful then the Wii will have almost nothing worth bragging about.

nintendo still has it's franchises, and even if you don't like these games, they still sell by the bucketload.

I know, but my point was that the motion controls were the Wii's major selling point and all of that will be for nothing if Sony and/or Microsoft successfully replicate or even improve on the Wii mote.

i don't think the motion controllers will get that much new players buying PS3 or Xbox360, since the people who specifically want motion controllers already have wiis. and an improvement wouldn't garner that much interest either, since wii is cheaper (last time i checked, this may have changed).

Add to all that the fact that Nintendo has raised its reputation (and profit margins) for the first time since the launch of the N64, and I think that 'all of that will be for nothing' statement is fortunately mistaken. In the unlikely event that Wii's sales will drop incredibly after Microsoft and Sony's counterparts come out, Old Ninty has some incredibly sturdy ground to move forward from. I just hope that when that time comes they keep up the backward compatibility.

 

[Sky Captanio]

Wait a minute.

What Difference?

 

[Doth]

It is obviously a trick question.

 

[ProfessorLayton]

What? Really? You mean that you can't see the shading lines or breaks in texture in the PS2 game? Or more noticeably the lack thereof on the Wii. I mean, it's pretty obvious to anyone who actually looks at the pictures that the detail put into the...oh.
*Bemused look*
*Puts hands on hips*
You let your seeing-eye-dog on the computer again didn't you? Wow, you almost had me going there. If I hadn't figured out that you were blind then I would have, well, I don't know, thought you were really ignorant and stupid or something. Well, now that that's over with, do you mind not letting your dog on the forums anymore? He's kind of mucking up our discussion. Thanks!

Back to the Future! Topic!: No, the PS2 does not have better graphics than the Wii. If it does, then the Wii has better graphics than the PS3. It's just not possible because of the technical limitations. Anyone who cannot figure that out is just too busy playing in their own little world to notice. They are usually easy to spot too, with their signature straight-jackets and face-masks to prevent them from biting and scratching others. Kind of cute, in a Nintendogs meets Manhunt kind of way.

Shading lines and breaks in the texture? So, if a game doesn't even try to add shading or textures, all of the sudden the graphics are better? That makes absolutely no sense at all. I have no idea how you could possibly think that the PS1 grade graphics of the Conduit look anything at all better than SotC. And honestly, there is no reason to insult me because I pointed out that the PS2 game obviously has better graphics. So there were some slight technical problems, but there is no way that you could say that it looks better.

 

[muffincakes]

What? Really? You mean that you can't see the shading lines or breaks in texture in the PS2 game? Or more noticeably the lack thereof on the Wii. I mean, it's pretty obvious to anyone who actually looks at the pictures that the detail put into the...oh.
*Bemused look*
*Puts hands on hips*
You let your seeing-eye-dog on the computer again didn't you? Wow, you almost had me going there. If I hadn't figured out that you were blind then I would have, well, I don't know, thought you were really ignorant and stupid or something. Well, now that that's over with, do you mind not letting your dog on the forums anymore? He's kind of mucking up our discussion. Thanks!

Back to the Future! Topic!: No, the PS2 does not have better graphics than the Wii. If it does, then the Wii has better graphics than the PS3. It's just not possible because of the technical limitations. Anyone who cannot figure that out is just too busy playing in their own little world to notice. They are usually easy to spot too, with their signature straight-jackets and face-masks to prevent them from biting and scratching others. Kind of cute, in a Nintendogs meets Manhunt kind of way.

Shading lines and breaks in the texture? So, if a game doesn't even try to add shading or textures, all of the sudden the graphics are better? That makes absolutely no sense at all. I have no idea how you could possibly think that the PS1 grade graphics of the Conduit look anything at all better than SotC. And honestly, there is no reason to insult me because I pointed out that the PS2 game obviously has better graphics. So there were some slight technical problems, but there is no way that you could say that it looks better.

Yes, I could. Yes, I did. Yes, I will again. It is obviously not better, and you should wear glasses. Also, claiming that a game 'doesn't even try to add shading or textures' when it has instead not been able to after its technical limitations have been met is just ludicrous. I shall just go ahead and assume that you are a ravenous fanboy who lacks reason, and like Old Yeller, I must put you down.[End Scene]

[Camera backs away as the shotgun is loaded. As the screen fades to black, a single shot rings out]

[Roll Credits]

 

[ProfessorLayton]

Yes, I could. Yes, I did. Yes, I will again. It is obviously not better, and you should wear glasses. Also, claiming that a game 'doesn't even try to add shading or textures' when it has instead not been able to after its technical limitations have been met is just ludicrous. I shall just go ahead and assume that you are a ravenous fanboy who lacks reason, and like Old Yeller, I must put you down.[End Scene]

[Camera backs away as the shotgun is loaded. As the screen fades to black, a single shot rings out]

[Roll Credits]

Because it can't doesn't mean it's better. Saying that Hitler was a great painter because it was the best he could do doesn't make him a better painter than Michelangelo. Technical limitations or not, it's not relative to the system's hardware, it's relative to each other. It seems like you are the fanboy in this situation and that you are ignorantly accusing me. In fact, Professor Layton and the Curious Village is only available on the Nintendo DS which is in fact a Nintendo console which is also held back by graphical limitations. But saying that Professor Layton has the best graphics ever would be untrue. Although it does look amazing if I do say so myself, that doesn't make it the best just because it's pushing the limitations of a handheld console.