Syd Lexia wrote:

Because third party developers are lazy, assholes, or a combination of the two. The two biggest excuses tend to be: 1. It's hard to adapt controls for the Wii 2. The system is underpowered

I agree with #2. It's my same arguement I have with the DS. (Just replace "touch" with "motion") Just because it has touch controls doesn't mean you have to use them.

Well, lets look at #1 from a technical standpoint and see if holds any merit:

WII:
Processors:

CPU: PowerPC-based "Broadway" processor, made with a 90 nm SOI CMOS process, clocked at 729 MHz

GPU: ATI "Hollywood" GPU made with a 90 nm CMOS process, clocked at 243 MHz.

Memory:

88 MB main memory (24 MB "internal" 1T-SRAM integrated into graphics package, 64 MB "external" GDDR3 SDRAM)
3 MB embedded GPU texture memory and framebuffer.

Xbox 360

Processors:

CPU: "Xenon" - triple-core PowerPC-based, made with a 65 nm process SOI, clocked at 3.2GHz per core.Peak performance of 115.2 gigaflops and is capable of 9.6 billion dot products per second.

GPU: ATI "Xenos" GPU package contains two separate silicon dies, each on a 90 nm chip with a clock speed of 500 MHz; the GPU proper, manufactured by TSMC and a 10 MB eDRAM daughter-die, manufactured by NEC.

Memory:

512 MB of GDDR3 RAM clocked at 700MHz with an effective transmission rate of 1.4 GHz on a 128-bit bus.The memory is shared by the CPU and the GPU via the unified memory architecture.

PS3:
Processors:

CPU: "Cell" processor, utilizing seven of the eight "synergistic processing elements" running at 3.2 GHz.

GPU: "RSX" Nvidia based, 550 MHz on 65 nm process for current models.

The floating point performance of the whole system (CPU + GPU) is reported to be 2 TFLOPS.

Memory:

The PlayStation 3 has 256 MB of XDR main memory and 256 MB of GDDR3 video memory for the RSX.


Right away, even if you don't know computers, you can see a few gaps inbetween the Wii and the other two:

1. CPUs. Wii's single core CPU runs at 729 MHz. The X360's is using the same PowerPC instruction set architecture as the Wii's, but has 3 cores, each running at 3.2GHz. So processing power broken down in simplest terms would be:

Wii = 729 MHz CPU processing power vs X360 = 9800MHz CPU processing power.
The PS3's "Cell" is a completely different architecture, and is hard to make a apples to apples comparison, so we won't include it here.

2. Graphics. Again, let's just focus on Wii vs X360 since, again, they are using very similar GPUs. Both were made and developed byATI around the same time. Logic suggests that they are more than likely built around the same architecture, though, this cannot be confirmed, because Nintendo refuses to disclose many details regarding the Wii's "Hollywood" chip.

Wii's "Hollywood" runs at 243 MHz and has access to 64 MB of GDDR3 SDRAM.

The X360's "Xenos" runs at 500MHz and has access to 512 MB of GDDR3 SDRAM. (Though, since this is shared between CPU and GPU, it will never use it all at one time.)

PS3's "RSX" runs at 550 MHz and has access to 256 MB of GDDR3 SDRAM.

Again, the Wii falls short.

Conclusion:

I believe "The system is underpowered" is a fair statement in regards towards X360 and PS3.

Also, interesting to note. Whenever possible, developers prefer to port a PS2 version of a game over to the Wii, has it is far easier and less time consuming to do. So, that tells us, that perhaps the Wii is closer in power and ability to the PS2 then the X360 and PS3.

Nintendo never said they were going head to head with the others this generation. They went thier own way, and they were very, very successful. I do not think it's fair to complain about ports of games from the other systems, when the Wii isn't trying to be like them.

SC4, I could see, if they lighten up on polygons and made it look more like SC2 or SC3.

Not sure about SF4, though. I need to see it in action first.

Honestly, if you own a x360 or a PS3, you don't need the other, unless you have to have one a the few "exclusive" games. (Halo 3, Resistance, MGS4, Uncharted, Lost Odyssey,etc.)

I don't have either at the moment, but don't really need one becaause the PC has been getting most of the same big name games ported. (Granted they come out way later, but I can still play them.)

Let me tell you a tale about a little game system, from back in 1987.

It was called the PC Engine:


"Hi!"

The PC Engine was game system, that like many others, only came with a single controller. Not only that, it only came with a single controller port.

Which means to play multiplayer games you had to buy his friend the "TurboTap":


As well as the extra controllers. To play ANY multiplayer game.

Seems, like kinda a rip off, and that no one would bother to buy multiplayer games since they would have to shell out an extra $60+ to play them.

And, if no one was going to buy them, then why would publishers make them?

And, if there weren't any games, then the system probably didn't sell well did it.

Oh wait, it was one of the most successful systems of all time. The PC Engine was extremely popular in Japan, beating Nintendo's Famicom in sales soon after its release, with no fewer than twelve console models released from 1987 to 1993. New games were made for it up until 1999.

The moral of the story:

If it is worth it, people will buy it. No much how much extra crap they have to buy to have it.