Support NeoGAF

[DrGAKMAN]

Everyone keeps complaining about Wii's lack of graphical prowess or whatever...thing is, the GCN was never even fully exploited either. Same could be said about the first X-BOX...PS2 (like the SNES & NES before it), truly did get exploited 'cos more developers had more time on those machines. The GCN & X-BOX were both short-lived for various reasons and thusly, we never saw their true potential. Before we complain about how 'Nintendo is holding us back' maybe we should factor in that the longer a hardware (whether you call it a GC turbo or a Wii) is available, the more you're gonna get out of it and see it's true potential.

It is without argument that X360 & PS3 are more powerful than Wii...so what. If developers truly put effort on GCN they could still make visually impressive games. So Wii, with more power, more memory & more on-chip instructions can definatly do more...why even argue it? To boot, the learning curve & capital needed on Wii hardware is alot less than other systems.

Miyamoto once said he wished the GCN would last 7 to 8 years...I think he more/less got his wish and I welcome it if it means cheaper hardware/software & that the hardware's full potential may be realized...like the SNES had it's Star Fox (polygons), Super Mario RPG (2.5D) & DKC (pre-rendering) swan songs. I think some games/game-makers work better with limitations (Factor 5 & Nintendo being prime examples).

 

[OG_Original Gamer]

Ask yourself this question. Would you go to Intel/AMD to overclock you CPU or Nvidia/ATI to do the same to your GPU?

You obviously wouldn't. None of the launch titles look to be using 88MBs of main memory or 24bit color and higher texture resolution. I wonder why.

 

[GitarooMan]

The GCN & X-BOX were both short-lived for various reasons and thusly, we never saw their true potential.

Seriously though, how long does it really take to unlock "true potential" if you put some effort in (see RE4, Ninja Gaiden, Rebel Strike etc., which I think tapped the "true potential"). You get to a point where you'll see small improvements, but the payoff is minimal because you're still well short of what modern tech can bring.

My guess is most devs wont waste time maxing out dated tech when the end result won't look as good as an average next-gen game. (not saying that's good or bad, just the reality of Nintendo's choice to stick with similar tech for another gen).

 

[Shin Johnpv]

You make a game with transform animated space craft made up of less than 1000 polys,

The ships were much higher than 1000 polys in the RS games, infact in the 3rd game the big star destroyers if I recall where each 50,000 polys and there was a level where you fight 2 of them at once

 

[wazoo]

The ships were much higher than 1000 polys in the RS games, infact in the 3rd game the big star destroyers if I recall where each 50,000 polys and there was a level where you fight 2 of them at once

The star destroyer was a bit more than that, but then, you have LOD algorithms working in the background.

Most scenes were 12-15M pol/sec (peak, I presume)

 

[wazoo]

Seriously though, how long does it really take to unlock "true potential" if you put some effort in (see RE4, Ninja Gaiden, Rebel Strike etc., which I think tapped the "true potential"). You get to a point where you'll see small improvements, but the payoff is minimal because you're still well short of what modern tech can bring.

My guess is most devs wont waste time maxing out dated tech when the end result won't look as good as an average next-gen game. (not saying that's good or bad, just the reality of Nintendo's choice to stick with similar tech for another gen).

Look at the Jak series or WRC on the ps2. It is very interesting, because they come every year.

Jak1 was labelled as a 2nd gen ps2 game, and Jak2 did even better (WRC2 pushed 3 times the pols of WRC), Jak3 introduced Bump mapping, the biggest jump was from 1 to 2 and the ps2 was a beast to master unlike the GC.

 

[DrGAKMAN]

Seriously though, how long does it really take to unlock "true potential" if you put some effort in (see RE4, Ninja Gaiden, Rebel Strike etc., which I think tapped the "true potential"). You get to a point where you'll see small improvements, but the payoff is minimal because you're still well short of what modern tech can bring.

My guess is most devs wont waste time maxing out dated tech when the end result won't look as good as an average next-gen game. (not saying that's good or bad, just the reality of Nintendo's choice to stick with similar tech for another gen).

Look at the Jak series or WRC on the ps2. It is very interesting, because they come every year.

Jak1 was labelled as a 2nd gen ps2 game, and Jak2 did even better (WRC2 pushed 3 times the pols of WRC), Jak3 introduced Bump mapping, the biggest jump was from 1 to 2 and the ps2 was a beast to master unlike the GC.

Both good points. This is the thing, we can't change what Wii already is, it's too late...so might as well work on maxing it out...especially if Nintendo's future portable will be using similar technology...the investment would be time/effort/money well spent!

 

[Squeak]

Same could be said about the first X-BOX...PS2 (like the SNES & NES before it), truly did get exploited 'cos more developers had more time on those machines.

What makes you think that? As much as time is a factor, attitude towards the machine you are working with is perhaps more important.
Many developers, I get the strong feeling, approached the PS2 hardware with a negative attitude almost from the get go.
Afterall you only get out of a machine what you think you can get out of it.

If the approach is something like: "Why did they have to go do that?! I don't want to have to revise all my old habits" or "This machine is crap, just look at the specs and all those processors, it was made by an insane asylum" etc., then you just aren't magically going to get technically impressive results out of it.

And with regards to time, developers probably made a quick mental calculation, that five years it would take to get decently accustomed to the PS2 way of doing things wasn't really worth the big intellectual investment. Because after that time a new system would be on the way anyway, making all their hard work in vain.
Five years is not long enough to get to know an almost complete new "naked" architecture well. That takes 10 years or more.
Xbox and to a lesser extent GC didn't suffer from that problem since they shipped with very very well known and "safe" APIs (DX and Nintendo OpenGL) and tools.

 

[wazoo]

What makes you think that? As much as time is a factor, attitude towards the machine you are working with is perhaps more important.
Many developers, I get the strong feeling, approached the PS2 hardware with a negative attitude almost from the get go.
Afterall you only get out of a machine what you think you can get out of it.
.

I do not get your point.

I think devs approached the ps2 like "it is horrible, it is a mess, but it is the market, we have to do with it"

In fact, if Sega did the ps2, all the industry would have laughed at how they were thinking people would invest time into mastering such a beast.

At the end, ps2 games were mostly impressive and GOW2 is not the last game to back up this idea.

 

[MadOdorMachine]

I think that the games we're seeing right now are just developers trying to get games out as quickly as possible. They're concentrating on learning the new controller. I'm sure there are titles that are in development that will look better than what we're seeing now. We know the Wii is capable of much more. There's a lot of room for improvement, it's just a matter of whether or not a developer wants to take the time to take advantage of it. Is there any reason we can't see titles in the future look much more detailed with normal mapping, sharper textures and increased anti-aliasing?

 

[Shin Johnpv]

The star destroyer was a bit more than that, but then, you have LOD algorithms working in the background.

Most scenes were 12-15M pol/sec (peak, I presume)

I remember one of the guys from factor 5 saying the first game was 15 - 16m pol/sec and that with the second game they were able to double that number

 

[wazoo]

I remember one of the guys from factor 5 saying the first game was 15 - 16m pol/sec and that with the second game they were able to double that number

They have unlocked the 4th core ....

You know that GC max poly count is approx 32M and this is quite not realistic to think you can reack the peak number.

 

[Squeak]

I do not get your point.

I think devs approached the ps2 like "it is horrible, it is a mess, but it is the market, we have to do with it"

But that was my point. And that's not the right approach.

At the end, ps2 games were mostly impressive and GOW2 is not the last game to back up this idea.

But even devs who made games that were impressive for PS2, only got to make 1 - 2, maybe 3 games tops. That's not a lot of experience.

 

[Shin Johnpv]

They have unlocked the 4th core ....

You know that GC max poly count is approx 32M and this is quite not realistic to think you can reack the peak number.

Guess what man I believe a developer over you. I know from being on the Maya list serve where a couple people from Factor 5 post since they use Maya, that they said the first game was doing 15 - 16m poly/sec and the second game was doubling that. There is no reason for the developer to lie about that.

 

[wazoo]

Guess what man I believe a developer over you. I know from being on the Maya list serve where a couple people from Factor 5 post since they use Maya, that they said the first game was doing 15 - 16m poly/sec and the second game was doubling that. There is no reason for the developer to lie about that.

Ok, then, we have a new record in term of efficiency.

 

[[Nintex]]

Just looked up Nintendo's specsheet.
Polygons: 12 M/sec (fully textured,shaded etc.) according to Nintendo.
Rogue Leader's peak was 20M if I remember correctly, 60fps with some normal mapping and crazy lightning effects to. The sequel pushed even more poly's and had a stable framerate.

 

[Instigator]

I find it ironic people would complain about developers bieng sloppy and lazy with Wii software when Nintendo has been lazy with Wii hardware from the get-go. The big N leads by example in this case.

 

[elostyle]

Isn't 90% of the problem with Wii games currently that all the devs were caught with their pants down and have rushed out any game they can whilst having to start from scratch on their Wii engines? It isn't like PS3 + 360 where devs were probably starting on their pipelines back in 2005 if not before, these games were started after TGS'05 or E3'06 and were for the most part started on GC kits. I think people will generally be surprised by how good Wii games start looking by 2008, not PS3@SD good, but a really appreciable jump from xbox considering the cost of the console.

This is pretty much correct. Publishers just missed the boat though nintendo wasn't exactly helping with promptness.

 

[Squeak]

I find it ironic people would complain about developers bieng sloppy and lazy with Wii software when Nintendo has been lazy with Wii hardware from the get-go. The big N leads by example in this case.

What! Does that mean that since PSP isn't more capable than the three year older PS2 or GC?!
It all depends on what you are aiming at, form factor, budget and, peripherals etc.
After all, a pencil is high technology.

 

[Me_Marcadet]

What! Does that mean that since PSP isn't more capable than the three year older PS2 or GC?!
It all depends on what you are aiming at, form factor, budget and, peripherals etc.
After all, a pencil is high technology.

WoW !

 

[Oblivion]

Ask yourself this question. Would you go to Intel/AMD to overclock you CPU or Nvidia/ATI to do the same to your GPU?

This is the thing that really makes me wonder. If Nintendo was just going for an incremental increase in power, why bother at all if you won't see too big an improvement over GC? I wonder if whatever extra horsepower Wii has was due to it being able to handle the VC software.

By the way, Nintendo should have scrapped GC compatibility. That probably might have been the biggest factor, even more than size.

 

[ELS-01X]

The Rouge games were perfect concepts for visual design for a last gen console. You make a game with transform animated space craft made up of less than 1000 polys, set it on a low memory quick rendered height field (or in what amounts to a void), place a bunch of instanced geo trees and other objects around, run AI that is nearly completely stupid, and you are guaranteed a certain level of visual polish. I'd be surprised if such a game didn't run at an incredible frame rate.

The moment you add boned and skinned meshes with vertex weighting, animations and animation transitions, collision that is more than simple primitives or height map based you'll find that your overall visual quality begins to drop substantially. Even Resident which was a gorgeous looking game was limited to pretty small environments to make up for what they wanted to put on screen.

Everything is checks and balances. The more you want to do one thing the more something else will suffer.

All the ship models in Rogue Leader/Rebel Strike were made of about 10k to 12k polygons with 4-8 texture layers each. The Star destroyers were 150k+. Now add the per pixel lighting, shadows and SELF SHADOWING, lots of lights, particles, and detailed environments (Kothlis for example).

Now, in regards to animation, you have to check the AT ST Endor mission in Rebel Strike. Lots of enemies of this quality running in an uneven terrain, each with their own per pixel shadow and self shadowing, using IK. All that in a FULLY BUMP MAPPED environment (both the trees and the soil are BM) casting dynamic soft shadows onto EVERYTHING.

If you don't know what you're talking about, please STFU.

 

[Pud]

By the way, Nintendo should have scrapped GC compatibility. That probably might have been the biggest factor, even more than size.

What?? Not only is that a value preposition (sell your gamecubes without worry - not like the xbox... or if you didn't own a Gamecube, now you can play all its good titles!), and a good marketing tool (backwards compatible with every nintendo system in history!)... but the damn CPU and GPU in the Wii are a superset of the GC's! As I said earlier in the thread, the CPU in the GC was a mid-range PPC 750, and in the Wii it's a high-end 750. The GPU is likely a beefed-up, sped-up Flipper with extra memory... why WOULDN'T they keep BC?!

 

[Ristamar]

BC rocks. There's quite a few good, cheap GC games (a lot of which I already own, yet haven't had the chance to play).

 

[Instigator]

What! Does that mean that since PSP isn't more capable than the three year older PS2 or GC?!
It all depends on what you are aiming at, form factor, budget and, peripherals etc.
After all, a pencil is high technology.

Spin, spin, spin.

Portables are different beasts whereas all consoles compete for a spot under your TV. Wii is basically five-year-old technology sold at a premium price.

And of course, when I talk about hardware, I talk the chips that create graphics. The same type of hardware that Julian Eggebrecht was talking about with developers being sloppy and underutilizing. It's what most people are arguing about in this topic comparing NGC launch games (and their graphics) to launch Wii games.

To add more to what I already said, I can't really say I'm really surprised with Wii underperforming in the graphics area. Most developers were already shunning the NGC, obviously not putting much effort in many of their games. Yes, you can find notable exceptions, but those exceptions were far from what was typical on the platform. With Wii setting the bar even lower for Nintendo this gen, I don't see why most developers would change their approach with this new Nintendo platform.

 

[underfooter]

I think people overlook artistic direction. If they were still pumping out games like Yoshi's Island on SNES, I'd still be playing them.

 

[Squeak]

Spin, spin, spin.

Portables are different beasts whereas all consoles compete for a spot under your TV. Wii is basically five-year-old technology sold at a premium price.

Old technology does not equal poor technology. I can think of many cases where the opposite is true.
"New features" in hardware are more often than not just relabeled age old features (an example is Hyper Treading which was first used on supercomputers back in the 50s) or long used software techniques given an "official" name in an API (pixelshading etc.).

Nintendo most likely makes money on Wii, but the Wiimote with all the extra hardware associated, WiFi as standard (not in any of the tardpacks on the competitors) and a 500Mb build in memcard is not cheap.
As Nintendo has stated on multiple occasions, their emphasis was in making the Wii affordable while revolutionizing the interface, rather than just equaling their competitors in brute force.

And of course, when I talk about hardware, I talk the chips that create graphics. The same type of hardware that Julian Eggebrecht was talking about with developers being sloppy and underutilizing. It's what most people are arguing about in this topic comparing NGC launch games (and their graphics) to launch Wii games.

Well we are a bit OT but sometimes you have to look at the big perspective to understand the other aspects.

 

[666]

From the sound of things, there's also a new Turrican underway

Awes! I hope they get this guy to do the soundtrack.

 

[Me_Marcadet]

Not only is that a value preposition (sell your gamecubes without worry - not like the xbox... or if you didn't own a Gamecube, now you can play all its good titles!)

But you must (re)buy a gamecube pad and memory card.
There's no little profit with nintendo.

 

[Instigator]

Old technology does not equal poor technology. I can think of many cases where the opposite is true.

Playing with semantics. Every new gen brings new technology and the Wii's contribution is weak and poor, in comparison.

As Nintendo has stated on multiple occasions, their emphasis was in making the Wii affordable while revolutionizing the interface, rather than just equaling their competitors in brute force.

Nintendo's goal for Wii is not affordibility, but profitability. Of course, it is the goal of every hardware manufacturers, but Nintendo royally cheats gamers with Wii. The console is way overpriced. Not expensive per se like the PS3, but overpriced for the tech you're getting. Crackers at double or even triple the normal price may be still cheaper than caviar, but it's definitely no bargain.

Everyone knows Gamecube could have gotten Wii controls as an add-on, nothing technical prevented it and it was certainly the most affordable way to revolutionize the 'interface'. The whole Wii business is essentially repackaging the NGC as a new console and benefitting from new marketing and the allure of next gen. So far, it seems to have worked. Kudos to Nintendo for pulling it off, but as a veteran gamer, I'm not impressed. Capcom's comments on the Wii are dead-on.

Well we are a bit OT but sometimes you have to look at the big perspective to understand the other aspects.

Yet it doesn't apply in this case.

 

[AlternativeUlster]

Crackers at double or even triple the price may be still cheaper than caviar, but it's no bargain.
.

Id rather eat crackers than fish abortions.

 

[E-phonk]

Everyone knows Gamecube could have gotten Wii controls as an add-on, nothing technical prevented it and it was certainly the most affordable way to revolutionize the 'interface'.

That would 've been a total failure and could've made the handbooks of marketing mistakes 101.

Also, as i've said before: nintendo has NOTHING to win with a technology race. They are not in it for the tech, they are in it for delivering a good platform to release their games on, where they have total control over the hardware.

A HD enabled Wii would mean they would have to support HD for all their games, increasing not only the budget for the hardware, but also for every single title they would produce in the next 5 years.

 

[wazoo]

That would 've been a total failure and could've made the handbooks of marketing mistakes 101.

Yes, but this was planned and announced by Iwata before the Gc was dead overnight.

This rhetoric about the Wii being expensive (even if it is true) forgets that videogames are luxury items, totally unnecessary and so only worth of the money you are ready to pay for.

Nintendo is master of profitability (equal only to Apple or MS PC software division). They always have been.

 

[the thoroughbred]

In reference to the original quote, well said. He's absolutely right, and looking through the Wii screenshot thread confirms this--graphics run the gamut from decidedly "next gen" to sub-GameCube. There's no reason for a game to not look impressive on Wii outside of sheer laziness; though it's not nearly as powerful as its competitors, I don't feel as though it's "underpowered," as the excuse often goes.

Well said. Underpowered only when speaking relatively.

 

[DSN2K]

factor 5 were GC gods.

this shot is more impressive then pretty much any Wii game visually.

 

[the thoroughbred]

Spin, spin, spin.

Portables are different beasts whereas all consoles compete for a spot under your TV. Wii is basically five-year-old technology sold at a premium price.

And of course, when I talk about hardware, I talk the chips that create graphics. The same type of hardware that Julian Eggebrecht was talking about with developers being sloppy and underutilizing. It's what most people are arguing about in this topic comparing NGC launch games (and their graphics) to launch Wii games.

To add more to what I already said, I can't really say I'm really surprised with Wii underperforming in the graphics area. Most developers were already shunning the NGC, obviously not putting much effort in many of their games. Yes, you can find notable exceptions, but those exceptions were far from what was typical on the platform. With Wii setting the bar even lower for Nintendo this gen, I don't see why most developers would change their approach with this new Nintendo platform.

Well, if the Wii really is the most efficient a chipset at the performance, then in my opinion Nintendo engineers have actually taken strides that nobody except Apple have. Nintendo have stated that they put a lot of R&D into making the Wii more powerful, but using less power than even the GC. Now this is really important stuff, I would really lilke if some tech wizards open the damn thing up, and tinkered with it to give there opinion. In the next 10 years efficiency is going to become one of the biggest investment for chip makers. And the accomplishment of powering up and down in terms of how much power is being used is in itself a good acheivement, that few have done well. Even Apple has had 2 years of problems with this.

 

[travisbickle]

The whole Wii business is essentially repackaging the NGC as a new console and benefitting from new marketing and the allure of next gen.

Well said, and I agree. There's nothing wrong with Nintendo doing that, the only thing that bothers me is the Nintendites on here that claim "we don't need hi-def graphics", the first time I saw MGS4 I knew I "needed" it to look like that.

 

[E-phonk]

"we don't need hi-def graphics"

I don't have the money for those hi-def graphics : (

 

[wazoo]

Well said, and I agree. There's nothing wrong with Nintendo doing that, the only thing that bothers me is the Nintendites on here that claim "we don't need hi-def graphics", the first time I saw MGS4 I knew I "needed" it to look like that.

The problem with hidef graphics, beyond the obvious fanboys willing to repeat everything their company of choice will say, is the price of entry (expensive console, expensive TV) and thu they will bash the concept, even some will prefer nobody get hidef if they can not afford themselves.

Edi t :look post above

 

[the thoroughbred]

What has really surprised me in this thread, is that it hasn't become a fanboy battlefield. Everyone seems to be on a level with one another, and there is a good, interesting and civillised discussion being held.

Good on us people.

 

[E-phonk]

I don't think you can find a lot of posts of me "bashing" HD gaming.

I used to be very graphics-centered ten years ago, always buying the latest 3D cards and keeping my computer up-to-date while I laughed at how poor games looked on consoles.
At the moment I can't afford a HDTV + 400 euro console - there is no spin or defending here, I would prefer to have both a Wii and a 360 (just for the upcoming worms game alone).

 

[Instigator]

That would 've been a total failure and could've made the handbooks of marketing mistakes 101.

Because the NGC was already dead. Duh. But the idea of add-on peripherals and controllers is nothing new to Nintendo history so the claim that this is a marketing mistake from the get-go is flawed.

But what Nintendo did is basically the same, except repackaged the NGC as a new console and at nearly triple the price. Not impressed,

Also, as i've said before: nintendo has NOTHING to win with a technology race. They are not in it for the tech, they are in it for delivering a good platform to release their games on, where they have total control over the hardware.

There's also the long term to win. Unless Nintendo monopolizes the market again, the very obvious hardware inferiority will be a factor.

At the price range and demographics the company was shooting at, they couldn't blow the competition out of the sky (I don't think they realistically could anyway), but they had a chance to make the Wii decent next-gen hardware. The Xbox360 tard pack proves it is possible.

Now I expect you to say this would undercut Nintendo's profit margin and all. You would be most likely right, but I'm arguing this point from the point of a view of a gamer and I don't give a damn about the company's financial earnings. It all comes down to the best console for the buck for me and regardless how different hardware manufacturers achieve that goal, Wii is a poor offering in that light. Keep telling yourself anecdotal stories of aunts and other non-gamer types loving the Wii, but that's not me.

Back in the early nineties, the TurboGrafx-16 initially seemed like a great deal for like 40 bucks with a pack-in game, but it was definitely no Genesis or Super NES despite their higher prices, where my money went to eventually.

A HD enabled Wii would mean they would have to support HD for all their games, increasing not only the budget for the hardware, but also for every single title they would produce in the next 5 years.

Again, not my problem.

 

[wazoo]

I don't think you can find a lot of posts of me "bashing" HD gaming.

I used to be very graphics-centered ten years ago, always buying the latest 3D cards and keeping my computer up-to-date while I laughed at how poor games looked on consoles.
At the moment I can't afford a HDTV + 400 euro console - there is no spin or defending here, I would prefer to have both a Wii and a 360 (just for the upcoming worms game alone).

I did not say that you were bashing HD ...

I said "some will not have the money to buy HD, and some among this pop will go as far as bashing what they can/refuse afford"

All what I said is that, at least, you seems to belong to the first category

 

[reggieandTFE]

factor 5 were GC gods.

this shot is more impressive then pretty much any Wii game visually.

If all Wii games were at this level, I'd be happy.

 

[E-phonk]

Because the NGC was already dead. Duh. But the idea of add-on peripherals and controllers is nothing new to Nintendo history so the claim that this is a marketing mistake from the get-go is flawed.

But what Nintendo did is basically the same, except repackaged the NGC as a new console and at nearly triple the price. Not impressed,

Except that it's not really a repackaged gamecube, it's more. It has wifi, the virtual console, it has it's internal memory and the wiimote, plus higher clockspeeds and extra memory.

 

[Instigator]

Except that it's not really a repackaged gamecube, it's more. It has wifi, the virtual console, it has it's internal memory

So you're saying it's a repackaged Gamecube with some extra stuff thrown in. The nickname Gamecube Turbo is very appropriate.

 

[TheWolf]

factor 5 were GC gods.

this shot is more impressive then pretty much any Wii game visually.

yeah, but that level and the rest of the ground stuff was so not fun.

 

[Pureauthor]

So you're saying it's a repackaged Gamecube with some extra stuff thrown in. The nickname Gamecube Turbo is very appropriate.

By that absolutely brilliant logic, the PS3 is a repackaged PS2 with a massive amp up in power, not to mention a HDD and Internet capabilities.

Get real.

 

[Instigator]

By that absolutely brilliant logic, the PS3 is a repackaged PS2 with a massive amp up in power, not to mention a HDD and Internet capabilities.

Get real.

PS3 and Xbox 360 have completely new hardware, Wii doesn't. To claim PS3 is just a PS2 with a slight increase in clock speed, memory and some extra fluff thrown in is a joke. The same goes for Xbox360. Those consoles may not be the most 'original' consoles in history, so to speak, but they're backed with a definite leap in horsepower, the same kind of leap that has defined previous generation cycles.

If you yourself would get 'real', you would understand why Wii has trouble exceeding standards set by Gamecube way back in 2001. The Xbox360 and PS3 don't have that problem for a very simple reason that you are somehow ignoring.

 

[Pureauthor]

You are claiming that the Wii is a repackaged Gamecube. It is not. It uses the same architecture as the Gamecube, but it's not the same hardware.

It would have been possible to use the same architecture as the Gamecube and still ramp up power a lot more than the Wii would've, you know.

And the reason the Wii appears to have trouble surpassing the GCN in graphics is because it's so close to the GCN in power. Shocking, I know.