Phil Fauble

THANK YOU

@darkrandomkid

It's funny because you're right.

That was the Nintendo 64's purpose (to display high-end graphics I mean).. it destroyed anything PS1 could ever consider doing graphically... it rendered games in higher resolutions.. was capable of rendering full 3D environments. PS1 just can't do that... though developers did use a bunch of tricks to make it seem like it could...

Well the Gamecube was more powerful then the Xbox

I'm sure the hardware was capable of it... Just software didn't support it.

I dunno if everyone knows this.. but a processors clock speed and the amount of memory aren't as important as the cache size, FSB, and the speed of the memory.. and things like that... I mean yeah.. definately clock speed and amount of RAM are indeed important... but do some research...
Now.. I think the Gamecubes "FSB with the GPU" was slower then the Xbox's... and Xbox had a faster GPU then the Gamecube did, but the Xbox's FSB was slower then the GPU.. unlike Nintendo's console...

what I'm saying is a bunch of nonsense that I think means that the Gamecube was just built better then Xbox.. it's faster memory and more properly put together hardware just made it more capable... I'm pretty sure it was mostly crippled by that damn "super homega small DVD thing".... size does matter ya know.

Probably scale them... even though as you know it's completely possible (and not that hard if using similar hardware) to render games in higher resolutions.

Xbox and PS3 games are scaled a lot...

"HOMG THIS GAME IZ 1080P"

when really it's really rendered around (or way under.. think Halo 3) 720p
When it comes to that though, all I can think to say is "Thank Al Gore for the internet and anti-aliasing!"
Now.. I wonder if all Wii games are actually rendered at 640x480 or if they're scaled up to that... Hmmmmmmmmmm

@tmac

That could have been me...
haha...

I think The Conduit is a fantastic game.. it's just to damn short

@Moptimus Slime

lol

That made me cackle .. a lot...

LOL STFU PLZ

@Cody

Agreed. I'd like to see how it controls on Wii, that's about it though. I really like FPS controls on me Wii.. honestly I'd like a bit better graphics though. I mean most of the time I don't mind what a game looks like as long as the graphics don't affect gameplay, but sometimes I just want to play a pretty freaking game.

I just call CoD4 for PC not to long ago and thought the same thing...
I have it running on super omega high everything...

My PC, if you can believe this is 6 years old.
Now that being said it's been upgraded through the years, but still...

I dunno... I guess it's still pretty decent..

3.0GHZ, 512KB Cache, 533MHZ FSB P4 (OH AND IT HAS HYPHER THREADING! WAI COOL RITE?!)
2GB DDR RAM (PC3200)
512MB ATI Radeon 3850 (Core clock is overclocked at 709MHZ, Memory overclocked to 939) Sits at about 55 degrees Celsius during games

As far as today's standards go ... some of that is pretty weak, and I run it very smootly on high everything at 1680x1050. So why can't the Wii version look a little better? First off considering it's a game console... which can always run things better then PC's of way greater power (Damn OS Takin' all my resources) Esepcially when it's only running at 640x480.. I don't get it

@Giroro

Actually, you're wrong there...

Xbox may have had a faster CPU and GPU then Gamecube, and it did indeed have more RAM

But aside from that ALL of Gamecubes hardware was faster (FSB was faster, RAM was faster, it has a much larger CPU Cache)

In reality, when clock speeds are that close, they don't matter, it's the little things like the FSB and cache that do. so in reality Gamecube was capable of a lot more then Xbox, and a lot more then people really ever saw. The thing that prevented it from having great looking games (for the time) was those little 1.8GB discs.