ATI: Wii Graphics at E3 "Tip of the Iceberg"

[score]

From GameDaily Biz (http://biz.gamedaily.com/):

Although by many accounts Nintendo stole the show at this year's E3 with an impressive Wii showing, the graphics of the Wii games were far from impressive. That said, we spoke with an ATI representative who explained that what we saw was just the "tip of the iceberg." The "Hollywood" GPU may be more powerful than we think.
Read More (http://biz.gamedaily.com/industry/feature/?id=12859)

[Serapth]

Wow, just read that entire thing and beyond suggesting the chip may be more powerful then we expected, it said NOTHING, absolutely nothing. No ifs whens whys whats or hows.

[Neoexidous]

Isn't this like the whole speculation of when the 360 games last year were all running on G5's and they were going to look better... no one can comment until we see final code.... that just gives us something to look forward to..
Cheers..

[Blade]

Is it possible that Nintendo has set people up for disappointment intentionally? :)

[Heretic Machine]

Everyone talks big in this industry, and rarely do they have anything to back it up with. I'm still buying a revolution, and I think the graphics look fine, but give me a break.

[StoneGut]

Interesting stuff... more Nintendo secrets.

[TKO]

Yeah, the interview told us nothing. But that's what we always get from these 'higher-up' people in the company, right? Besides which, I'm sure they must have some agreement with Nintendo that doesn't allow them to give exact specs (or comparitive ones.) Nindendo is adamant this time that it's not about the hardware specs, it's about the gameplay. I'm sure ATI knows full well to play along with this.

I know I'll be happy with the machine. I was always happy with my brothers GameCube (there just wasn't enough on it to interest me), and the Wii is certainly going to be a good bit better than that. I'm buying one. No question.

[Rirath]

Well, like any machine I would expect the graphics later in the console life span to be better than the graphics at the start. That said, whatever. PR, hype, bleh.

[Savok]

2nd gen look better then first, 3rd look better then 2nd. The way it's always been.

[Demize99]

Is it possible that Nintendo has set people up for disappointment intentionally? :)
An interesting thought... if we expect the graphics to suck, and then they are on par with a 360, the press would go batshit crazy about that. The more I learn about this industry the more I realize that its not what you deliver, its delivering what people expect you to deliver...or more.

[benig]

The way I see it, the Wii's graphical capabilities at e3 being under-shown was intentional on Nintendo's part. Maybe the Wii can perform near what we have seen from the other next generation systems, but showing up at e3 with graphics that good may have detracted from the experience of using the controller. Note the general consensus around the game critic community - Their previews of the games focused almost entirely on the gameplay, maybe mentioning simplistic graphics once or twice. When you think about it, e3 was the first time most of the less hardcore of us gamers had seen the Wii. The strategy of downplaying the graphics allowed them to discover why the system is different.
That said, I expect the Wii to perform very well graphically.

[Wolfgang]

An interesting thought... if we expect the graphics to suck, and then they are on par with a 360, the press would go batshit crazy about that. The more I learn about this industry the more I realize that its not what you deliver, its delivering what people expect you to deliver...or more.

They can not be on par with the 360 or PS3. Just look at the specs, they might be better than E3, but you simply can not make it look as good as a game designed for the PS3/360. The 360/PS3 have 512MB of RAM compared to the Wii's suggested 96MB of RAM. It is that simple.

They will make nice graphics on the Wii, but you will have to compress all the art assests that much more for the Wii than the 360/PS3 require.

[Evil Avatar]

They will make nice graphics on the Wii, but you will have to compress all the art assests that much more for the Wii than the 360/PS3 require.

Which means that if you take a game like Ghost Recon Advanced Warfighter, the Wii version will look like the Xbox version and not the Xbox 360 version.

Oh yea, I'll pay $299.99 for that. NOT!

[benig]

I wonder what Evil is going to do when every single other person on his forum is buying the Wii and he's the only one on Xbox-Live.
I wish Evil could be reborn like Doctor Who, so that maybe the face of this website wouldn't be a jackass without an ounce of journalistic integrity.

[Rirath]

Oh yea, I'll pay $299.99 for that. NOT!

I expected better of you, Evil. That's very 90's, and it wasn't even cool back then. And yeah, I /would/ take the 360 version over the Xbox version, but I won't be buying the Wii for games like GRAW. (And I doubt it'll be $299.)

I'll be buying it for games like MP3, SSBB, Z:TP, and Mario Galaxy.

[Rook34]

Maybe we'll be lucky enough to have every wii game look as good as RE4 standards.

If I had to guess, I'd guess wii graphics will be somewhere in between xbox and xbox 360. And I sympathize with the article in that I'd sacrifice some graphics for unique gameplay - especially if it is still more powerful than the Gamecube, of which some of the Gamecube games did look amazing anyway.

[holysin]

Which means that if you take a game like Ghost Recon Advanced Warfighter, the Wii version will look like the Xbox version and not the Xbox 360 version.

Oh yea, I'll pay $299.99 for that. NOT!

I'd guess it's pretty safe to say "Don't buy the Wii version of multi-platform games, unless you know it will actually use the controler in a way that's fun, and not just tacked in to make it work."

let's make it a rule :)

[Feltoar]

I think Nintendos attitude towards utilising the Wiis full power is no different to how they are treating the DS. Look at how many games they have published on the DS that utilise its full power? Most of them arnt even 3D.

It makes sense to me at least. I wouldnt honestly expect ATI to work on a new chip if it was going to be equal in power to one which is already in mass market. It just appears to me that Nintendo dont give two tosses wether they use the full power with their games or not. It saves time and money, which fits with their goals this generation. Plus it reflects everything they have done with the DS. So I dont think for a second its a bunch of media hype hoo-haa.

[holysin]

I think Nintendos attitude towards utilising the Wiis full power is no different to how they are treating the DS. Look at how many games they have published on the DS that utilise its full power? Most of them arnt even 3D.


Well, that's a good thing! The DS's 3D capabilities suck, very few games don't look like crap. I'd rather see a lot more 2D games there.

[benig]

It boggles my mind sometimes on the DS. You have some games with brilliant 3D, like Mario Kart and Metroid, then other games look awful.

[Rook34]

I'd guess it's pretty safe to say "Don't buy the Wii version of multi-platform games, unless you know it will actually use the controler in a way that's fun, and not just tacked in to make it work."

let's make it a rule :)

I don't believe we'll see hardly any cross ptforms that go to the wii, due to it not being grahically on par with the newer systems, but I do expect wii games to other systems. At least, publishers will try, anyways. The wii will be the home of many exclusives I think because of the control scheme they will demand.

[Heretic Machine]

Which means that if you take a game like Ghost Recon Advanced Warfighter, the Wii version will look like the Xbox version and not the Xbox 360 version.

Oh yea, I'll pay $299.99 for that. NOT!

$200, and would likely play different. Well, that is the theory anyway. The game itself probably wouldn't set you back $60 either.

And to the guy who said that Evil will be the last one I XBOX Live... I'll still be there. I'm not sold on this Wii thing. There are many questions up in the air right now, and I have my doubts. But the concept itself seems like a good idea, and I thought Nintendo delivered pretty well in the last generation (barring the increadible game droubt of 2005-2006.)

Nintendo isn't above failure, and they certainly aren't above screwing their customers. Never forget the general asshattery that was behind the SNES, and don't forget the N64 Memory Card, or the original model of the American NES that was inherently flawed in it's design. Just like all companies, you have to take everything they say with a grain of salt.

[Evil Avatar]

I wonder what Evil is going to do when every single other person on his forum is buying the Wii and he's the only one on Xbox-Live.

I guess I'll be so busy playing Gears of War, Halo 3, Dead Rising, Forza 2, Brothers in Arms 3, Call of Duty 3, Too Human, Rainbow Six Vegas, Bioshock and Alan Wake that I wouldn't even notice if I was the only one on Xbox Live. But, since there are like a Million or more people on Xbox Live 360 right now, I doubt I'll be the only one.

After all, didn't you read the article I got from Nintendo about the Wii shortages? Nintendo is putting LESS Wii systems on store shelves than Sony is putting Playstation 3 systems. I would put good money down that you don't even get a Wii this year.

Figure that one out. :D

I wish Evil could be reborn like Doctor Who, so that maybe the face of this website wouldn't be a jackass without an ounce of journalistic integrity.

Good thing I'm not a journalist then, eh?

[holysin]

I guess I'll be so busy playing Gears of War, Halo 3, Dead Rising, Forza 2, Brothers in Arms 3, Call of Duty 3, Too Human, Rainbow Six Vegas, Bioshock and Alan Wake that I wouldn't even notice if I was the only one on Xbox Live. But, since there are like a Million or more people on Xbox Live 360 right now, I doubt I'll be the only one.


And others will be busy playing the 360, the PS3 and the Wii. Myself included.

[RMan]

Which means that if you take a game like Ghost Recon Advanced Warfighter, the Wii version will look like the Xbox version and not the Xbox 360 version.
As you likely already know, that game was not technically a port and was developed with another team and engine, it's pretty much the same game only by name. It’ll still likey continue to be held up by 360 fanatics as proof of the system’s superiority, even though it doesn’t prove anything of the sort (fanatics are seldom logical though). Realistically, the truth will fall somewhere between this, and the difference between the half-assed sports ports and the like that weren’t significantly better on the 360. A game will look better on the 360/PS3 if it’s close to maximizing it’s capability, no doubt, the lack of RAM and lower resolution will definitely make a difference. However, it’s still a newer processor core and will likely have all the features of the 360, if not more since it’s actually newer. Like comparing the NVidia 6600 to a 7000 series card, the difference is purely speed, the features on the far less expensive version are still the same. It would be clearly unfair to compare the 6600 to a GeForce 3, even at the same ‘speed’ the 6600 will whomp it and content designed for the 7000 series chip will run on it fine, whereas scaling to the GeForce3 would be more limiting.

I think Nintendo has been VERY wise in the way they handled this from a development standpoint. By having people working with essentially gamecubes with the new controller for some time, they’ve likely been able to focus primarily on the controller and not trying to utilize the new graphics tech or whatever else the Wii has. The downside is that they ended up with games for E3 that are graphically not impressive, but frankly, that’s better than games that look nearly as good as PS3/360 games but don’t use the controller well and are less tweaked overall. In the end, keeping the focus off graphics is wise all around, they need as much focus put on the controller’s development as possible, that’s what makes the machine desirable.

By all the talk I’ve heard, I still think there is a good chance that the thing’s new enough to have what it takes for the physics simulation. It’s a tough call, and ATI doesn’t have any demos even for the PC as far as I know, so it’s not surprising that they wouldn’t have anything for the Wii yet. But I’d still give it a 70% chance that it has what’s needed to do physics processing once the software’s in place (ATI has been working on this for some time) and if that does happen it’ll obviously go a long way to making the system more powerful in real life (won’t affect the ‘stats’).

[51|RandoM]

Is it possible that Nintendo has set people up for disappointment intentionally? :)

no, since the graphics were lackluster. Setting people up for disappointment is showing pre-rendered and calling it actual gameplay. :p

Maybe you meant that they're setting them up to be pleasantly suprised?

[51|RandoM]

They can not be on par with the 360 or PS3. Just look at the specs, they might be better than E3, but you simply can not make it look as good as a game designed for the PS3/360.

Tell that to the guys who put RE4 out on the gamecube. Looked better than anything on xbox, and it was on 'weaker' hardware.

The reality is that there is a greater difference between development houses than there is between hardware platforms. Just another reason Nintendo has a loyal fanbase.

[RMan]

Nintendo is putting LESS Wii systems on store shelves than Sony is putting Playstation 3 systems.
Hehe, so you're willing to believe Sony's promises if it can make Nintendo look bad. Interesting.

[jeffbax]

Wii isn't going to look like 360 or PS3. Simple as that.

You guys just set yourself up for disappointment when it turns true. All the "secrets" in the world won't mean Nintendo can pull power out of their butts. I'm sure it'll be a nice, efficient machine like Cube was, but there are limitations of the form factor at work too.

It's gonna be a simple machine that makes nice looking games, but they won't be doing the stuff 360 and PS3 will be doing.

[automaton]

All Nintendo has to do to change Evil's opinion is send him some free stuff. Then he will instantly become the biggest evangilist they've ever had. Doesn't even have to be anything nice like a free console. Any freebie will do the trick. Some Mario keychains or yoshi chip-clips. A wario beer coozie would definitely do the trick.

[Wolfgang]

Tell that to the guys who put RE4 out on the gamecube. Looked better than anything on xbox, and it was on 'weaker' hardware.

The reality is that there is a greater difference between development houses than there is between hardware platforms. Just another reason Nintendo has a loyal fanbase.

I am not going to debate that. That is subjective and we all know that the Cube and Xbox had great looking games.

Though apparently you haven't given your statement much thought. The Gamecube was not that much weaker than the Xbox. The Wii is much weaker than the 360. The Cube had I believe 48MB of RAM and the Xbox had 64MB of RAM, that is not a huge difference.

The Cube could also be argued to have been a better designed system for gaming since the Xbox was basically a PC -- CISC CPU and all.

Going on last generation to this is not a good comparsion.

Just like the 360 and PS3 will probably end up being close graphically, the tech leaps are much different this time around.

If a game is designed from the ground up by good developers for the 360 it will look better on the 360 than a game designed in the same manner for the Wii -- Nintendo has all but said that.

[SexualChoc]

Wii graphics just the tip of the iceberg? That's nice to hear, though not necessary. Nintenod have proven you don't need good graphics to make good games. And at a $250 price tag, I didn't expect too much. But it's nice to hear. Though I am wondering what can make full use of it. The Resident Evil title maybe?

[crashedout]

Again, if there are going for "also ran" in the graphics and sound deptartment. Then it better be cheap.

[SnappyCrunch]

$200, and would likely play different. Well, that is the theory anyway. The game itself probably wouldn't set you back $60 either.

And to the guy who said that Evil will be the last one I XBOX Live... I'll still be there. I'm not sold on this Wii thing. There are many questions up in the air right now, and I have my doubts. But the concept itself seems like a good idea, and I thought Nintendo delivered pretty well in the last generation (barring the increadible game droubt of 2005-2006.)

Nintendo isn't above failure, and they certainly aren't above screwing their customers. Never forget the general asshattery that was behind the SNES, and don't forget the N64 Memory Card, or the original model of the American NES that was inherently flawed in it's design. Just like all companies, you have to take everything they say with a grain of salt.

Perigon, you know we're not allowed to have insightful and informed discussion on the EA forums. I mean hell, just look at Evil on this very thread. Do you know what kind of place this would be if we all thought logically like you? Evil would have to find somewhere else to troll instead of his own forums! We can't have that happen...

[Kelegacy]

Which means that if you take a game like Ghost Recon Advanced Warfighter, the Wii version will look like the Xbox version and not the Xbox 360 version.

Oh yea, I'll pay $299.99 for that. NOT!
Well, hopefully the Wii doesn't have too many games like GRAW. And the Xbox version could have been great had they focused on it more than they did, rather than putting all their resources into the 360 title. If it was just the graphics that differentiated the Xbox version from the 360, that wouldn't have been a problem; it was the gameplay that hurt the Xbox title, because Ubi ignored everything but the 360 version.

And who really cares what videogames look like, as long as they are fun? The DS is selling like goddamn hotcakes, at 129 bucks and those games look like they are from the N64 era. With the Wii you get a home console that looks much better and offers new potential for gaming (instead of more of the same that the 360 and PS3 are offering) for about 100 bucks more. That's nothing to scoff at.

[Evil Avatar]

All Nintendo has to do to change Evil's opinion is send him some free stuff. Then he will instantly become the biggest evangilist they've ever had. Doesn't even have to be anything nice like a free console. Any freebie will do the trick. Some Mario keychains or yoshi chip-clips. A wario beer coozie would definitely do the trick.

Um... I already got a free Gamecube when the system launched. It didn't suddenly make good games appear out of thin air.

[schnodder]

I don't care for graphics. It's all about gameplay!!!

[benig]

Um... I already got a free Gamecube when the system launched. It didn't suddenly make good games appear out of thin air.Yes, the dozens of fantastic exclusives that the Gamecube enjoyed had to be developed first, of course.

[MajSheppard]

maybe this means that they are upping the price to 250 and upping the power?

[Pumped'Up]

Without 3rd party support, Nintendo can have all the best graphics in the world and still suck like the GameCube.

[RMan]

Without 3rd party support, Nintendo can have all the best graphics in the world and still suck like the GameCube.
Yes, but substituting Nintendo with Sony or MS would make the statement equally true (actually, it’d be worse for MS or Sony since Nintendo has far stronger first party developers and IP). Not sure if you’re suggesting they won’t get this support, or if you’re just making an observation about that which is obvious.

[Kelegacy]

Without 3rd party support, Nintendo can have all the best graphics in the world and still suck like the GameCube.
The Gamecube sucks? I didn't know this.

[Schnoogs]

ATI is handling Wii's graphics?

Hmmm...I guess Evil Avatar won't be buying one. ;)


ATI Cards suck

[Mason]

The way I see it, the Wii's graphical capabilities at e3 being under-shown was intentional on Nintendo's part.
That's insane. Everyone knows that Nintendo has intentionally de-emphasized graphics, but they still want all of their stuff to compare favorably. They have absolutely zero to gain from misrepresenting their console as a graphical pussy. Everyone would've been primarily interested in the controller at E3 even if the Wii rivaled the 360's power.

Nintendo's stance at this point is slightly awkward: "We don't care about graphics, but they'll still be good enough." Intentionally underselling the system's power would be very, very foolish, because regardless of what other consoles do, the Wii still has to demonstrate that it's a sizable jump above the Cube, or consumers will feel (rightfully) gypped.

Hell, the Red Steel footage was notably less impressive than the magazine scans we got several months ago. If anything, developers have been slightly overrepresenting what they are immediately capable of doing with the Wii.

[IRONGUSTAV]

ppl really expect gfx much different from the ones showed on e3?

[Slack3r78]

The more I think about it, the more it occurs to me that those that love to bash on the Gamecube as 'sucking and not having any good games' may have something to do with them being either much older and/or lacking friends they hang out with socially around the house. Hear me out before you take that as a flame.

Every console last gen could be found represented among my group of friends. However, when a bunch of people were hanging out, it was almost always the Gamecube that got fired up. Games like Mario Kart and Super Smash Brothers are just plain fun with a large group of people sitting around playing. The 'cuteness' of many of the games that gets flak from people that are determined to represent themselves as hardcore is exactly what makes them approachable and unintimidating to people that aren't 'hardcore' - IE: most girls. ;-)

I just never had that experience with the X-Box or PS2. They had fun games, but it was honestly really amongst a couple of the guys playing some FPS (that won't have appeal in a party atmosphere) or alone via Live. And the X-Box and PS3 are really looking like more or the same in that regard. And the Wii is looking like more of the same from Nintendo, but with a weird, totally different controller that can add a new level of goofiness to the act of playing these games. Sounds *perfect* for the environment the Gamecube excelled at to me.

But if you never found yourself in a situation like that, I could see both the Gamecube and the Wii losing a lot of their appeal. The Gamecube was always the most inclusive of the systems and throwing the net wider seems to be Nintendo's entire goal with the Wii. I can't emphasize how much fun it is to be able to get your gaming fix in with a bunch of friends without anybody (and especially the girls) feeling like they're getting left out. This is why I'll be buying a Wii as soon as I can get my hands on one.

[Busted_Astromech]

ppl really expect gfx much different from the ones showed on e3?
ya dey do watcha make of 7ha7?

I don't mind newbies so much as I mind im-speak (and I believe I am speaking for most of the people here on this point). Please add your comments in a language consisting of periods and words represented in an actual dictionary.

[holysin]

It won't be HD and it won't be as powerful as 360 or PS3.
Did nintendo say how much ram it'll have? I'd say a lot of memory would be the best improvement. a LOT.

[Ailer]

Hell, the Red Steel footage was notably less impressive than the magazine scans we got several months ago. If anything, developers have been slightly overrepresenting what they are immediately capable of doing with the Wii.
When gameplay looks as good as screenshots from several months earlier, then we will be living in a utopia. I don't think i've ever seen a game that looked as good as the screenshots made it look.

And whoever made the dev team comment, I agree whole heartedly. You don't need piles of RAM to make a game look awesome, you could just do procedurally generated textures. There are a bunch of tricks to make games look awesome without needing RAM, and since that is the most notable upgrade from the xbox to the 360, it wouldn't surprise me if some Wii games looked right awesome.

Oh, and since this is Microsofts first console transition, does anyone suspect how they are going to deal with their previous console? Are they going to continue to make games for it as Sony seems to have happen... or are they going to drop everything and make stuff for the 360 as is nintendos way? I haven't been paying attention....

[Vanthar]

The Wii's games might hit RE4 standards someday. Don't expect much(anything) better than that though.

[EternalGamer]

because regardless of what other consoles do, the Wii still has to demonstrate that it's a sizable jump above the Cube, or consumers will feel (rightfully) gypped.


This statement is crazy. Consumers have shown no such trend where technology has been concerned. In fact, they have shown they are willing to go to lesser quality products in terms of fidelity if grants them other benefits (8 track and Cassettes). The average person doesn't scrutinize graphical effects the same way gaming enthusiasts on message boards do.

But this is beside the point. It is incredibly easier to demonstrate its advantages to someone over a Gamecube that it is to demonstrate the advantages of an Xbox 360. What consumers will see will be the obvious--that the Wii plays incredibly differently than the other systems (including the Gamecube) and that it does things the Gamecube doesn't do. My grandmother could easily see that. Could she tell the difference between the Xbox and the 360? No way in hell.

The graphical difference is a much less "obvious" distinction. I am convinced if I took a good looking Xbox game (or say RE4 on the Gamecube) and put it infront of the same consumer and told them how impressive it was, they would look at it and agree with me and talk about how much better it was. Especially if we are talking about on a standard (and/or small sized) television display. Hell, if I didn't know the game you were showing me, I'm not sure I could always tell you the difference--alright, maybe most of the time I probably could, but not always, and I have alot more knowledge and experience with game graphics the average consumer.

For someone that doesn't buy into the cult of technology and it's gadgets elsewhere, Mason, you sure have seem to bought into the revolutionary differences between current and next gen systems. To the average consumer, this distinction only exists because it's been given to them as a marketing bulletpoint.

Assuming consumers will reject the Wii because it lacks graphical prowless is like assuming "Bob the Mechanic" down at the filling station is going to reject my $10 bottle of table wine because the grapes were harvests from the East, not the West side, of the hill. It is a statement that has no basis in reality whatsoever.

[shnastybiznastic]

<a huge post that reads with so much common sense and logic that it was like a divine machine being delivered through my screen>
EXACTLY!

The average consumer is more willing to buy something whose advantages are obvious. Better graphics are (somewhat) obvious to people who are looking for them, but not even near obvious to some guy in a walmart; What is obvious to people looking at game consoles in a walmart is that they do something more tactile to control one console, but less tactile to control another one.

[schizoslayer]

The thing about Wii and 360/PS3 graphics hardware is that Wii isn't going to be going for the HD thing. So while it won't be as sharp a picture with high res textures n such there probably won't be any reason why it would look any less attractive on a regular TV.

Although I still think Shadow of The Collosus and Ico look WAY better than any 360 or PS3 title so I'm pretty firmly in the "Art direction over Raw Grunt" camp these days.

[dotbomb]

Um... I already got a free Gamecube when the system launched. It didn't suddenly make good games appear out of thin air.

I hear the PSP makes things magically appear out of thin air. :D

[shnastybiznastic]

I hear the PSP makes things magically appear out of thin air.
It's a fact, folks, look it up.

[Siraris]

The Gamecube had a lot of great party games, but only a handful of single player games worth playing. I don't think that justifys the system sucking at all. People could also make an argument that it sucks in that only sold around 15-20 million units compared to X-Box's 30 mil and the PS2's 100 mil, but even then, it doesn't suck, it just wasn't embraced by the public.

There's an article on Gamasutra with analysis of the PS3, and the last analyst makes a point a lot of people online need to realize. The vast majority of the general public, at least 95%+ don't have any clue what E3 is, or really know anything about gaming other than it's a machine that makes games appear on their TV. Nintendo could have the most innovative, incredibly, off the wall cool games ever made, but if the general public doesn't pay attention to them, they won't sell. In the US especially, people are more interested in Madden than Mario and so those will be the systems that will sell.

There are also a lot of people who get off only on great graphics, and that could spell doom for Wii amonghst other things. I highly doubt that the Wii will have graphics any better than the Gamecube which could put it at a severe disadvantage against the 360 and PS3. People may see the Wii and say "Ew it looks like crap, this isn't next generation" and not even pay attention to it's new controller.

It's complete speculation, obviously, until the system launches and we see the trends, which is another point that the analysts made. E3 is really unimportant in the vast scheme of things. It's just a rehersal for this fall, and anything can happen.

[Evak]

My guess is that it will at least have pixel shader support, which should raise the bar over Gamecube and is enough to make a huge difference.

[tombofsoldier]

whats funny is people keep mentioning "suggested specs" when all we have is hearsay and rumor. A machine that could run say, Doom 3 at max settings shouldn't be that hard too build for cheap now. Heck I ran it with a 9800pro at max settings (that was my old card) so I think the Wii will be fine.

[Zanzibar]

The Gamecube had a really nice GPU, but not enough RAM to allow lots of texture memory. A large part of the GC RAM was Audio RAM (16mb of the system's 40mb total) , and the architecture wasn't fast enough to allow games to use the A-RAM for textures. So, the game code and textures all had to run in the base 24mb, which is actually LESS memory than even the PS2 has available. Thus, a lot of GC games (particularly the multiplatform games) didn't blow us away with bump mapping and hi-res textures.

The Wii solves that problem. They've got a LOT of RAM on the machine, even more than the original Xbox, so get ready to see a lot of hi-res normal mapped goodness. The Hollywood chip isn't on par with anything the X360 or PS3 GPUs can handle, but it's more powerful than the GC and Xbox chips by a far cry. Personally, I think the ATI rep is correct, simply because the Wii dev kits didn't show up until a few weeks before E3. Up until then, the devs were using Gamecube kits.

[Serapth]

There are a bunch of tricks to make games look awesome without needing RAM, and since that is the most notable upgrade from the xbox to the 360, it wouldn't surprise me if some Wii games looked right awesome.

Say what?!?!?! I suppose if we completely ignore the fact its core processor is 3 times faster... and well, there are 3 of them instead of one, oh, and each processor has a vector unit to boot, that RAM is the most notable upgrade. Well, also ignoring that the bus is something like 6 times faster, and the GPU has a 10 meg frame buffer that allows pretty much free AA and has an obscene number of pixel/vertex units in a unified architecture... Hardware wise, the 360 is a huge step up on the Xbox.

Also, RAM is a huge deal and not just to graphics. Giant seamless worlds just wont be as giant or seamless, without a huge amount of RAM. Also, by constraining the processing ability of machine, devs will have to work harder to eke decent performance out of it, especially cross platform titles.

[IRONGUSTAV]

ya dey do watcha make of 7ha7?

I don't mind newbies so much as I mind im-speak (and I believe I am speaking for most of the people here on this point). Please add your comments in a language consisting of periods and words represented in an actual dictionary.

maybe is just because im german and english is not my first language?

i wanna see u triying on a foreing forum some german

[Serapth]

The Gamecube had a really nice GPU, but not enough RAM to allow lots of texture memory. A large part of the GC RAM was Audio RAM (16mb of the system's 40mb total) , and the architecture wasn't fast enough to allow games to use the A-RAM for textures. So, the game code and textures all had to run in the base 24mb, which is actually LESS memory than even the PS2 has available. Thus, a lot of GC games (particularly the multiplatform games) didn't blow us away with bump mapping and hi-res textures.

The Wii solves that problem. They've got a LOT of RAM on the machine, even more than the original Xbox, so get ready to see a lot of hi-res normal mapped goodness. The Hollywood chip isn't on par with anything the X360 or PS3 GPUs can handle, but it's more powerful than the GC and Xbox chips by a far cry. Personally, I think the ATI rep is correct, simply because the Wii dev kits didn't show up until a few weeks before E3. Up until then, the devs were using Gamecube kits.

Not sure I consider < 100 megs ALOT of ram, personally. Compared to the cube sure, but compared to the 360 and PS3, it has less then a fifth the ram as those systems.

[Zanzibar]

Not sure I consider < 100 megs ALOT of ram, personally. Compared to the cube sure, but compared to the 360 and PS3, it has less then a fifth the ram as those systems.

Agreed wholeheartedly. I meant that the level of graphics that they WANTED to do with the Gamecube is now easily attainable with the Wii, and then some.

[Busted_Astromech]

Assuming consumers will reject the Wii because it lacks graphical prowless is like assuming "Bob the Mechanic" down at the filling station is going to reject my $10 bottle of table wine because the grapes were harvests from the East, not the West side, of the hill. It is a statement that has no basis in reality whatsoever.
I'd like to throw a monkey wrench in here: a system's "cool" factor moves systems, right? Now, this cool factor is determined to a large part by how powerful the system appears. For example, many, many people thought the PS2 was a more powerful system than the GameCube. Now I only heard these arguments used in a fanboyish case about which system was better, but I know that those arguments were used to sink the GameCube in the US.

I don't know how much this will matter when the prices range from $250 to $600, but I think that the appearance of power in a gaming system has been important before.

And never forget:
"No one in this world, so far as I know—and I have researched the records for years, and employed agents to help me—has ever lost money by underestimating the intelligence of the great masses of the plain people. Nor has anyone ever lost public office thereby."
-H.L. Mencken

[Kamalot]

An iceberg sunk the Titanic, an expensive, luxury liner that was considered to be fast and unsinkable by the design team and overconfident, poppus bridge crew.

Titanic's design used some of the most advanced technology available at the time and the ship was popularly believed to be "unsinkable". It was a great shock that, despite the advanced technology and experienced crew, Titanic sank with a great loss of life.

Does this sound familiar to anyone?

Damn icebergs.

[Kamalot]

I'd like to throw a monkey wrench in here: a system's "cool" factor moves systems, right? Now, this cool factor is determined to a large part by how powerful the system appears. For example, many, many people thought the PS2 was a more powerful system than the GameCube. Now I only heard these arguments used in a fanboyish case about which system was better, but I know that those arguments were used to sink the GameCube in the US.

I don't know how much this will matter when the prices range from $250 to $600, but I think that the appearance of power in a gaming system has been important before.

And never forget:
"No one in this world, so far as I know—and I have researched the records for years, and employed agents to help me—has ever lost money by underestimating the intelligence of the great masses of the plain people. Nor has anyone ever lost public office thereby."
-H.L. Mencken

Well, this depends why people buy a system. Do people buy a system for power, or to have fun? If people want to buy a system in order to have fun, all the appearance of power in the world won't help if the system does not have the appearance of fun.

[Busted_Astromech]

Well, this depends why people buy a system. Do people buy a system for power, or to have fun? If people want to buy a system in order to have fun, all the appearance of power in the world won't help if the system does not have the appearance of fun.
I hope they do buy based on that. I just don't have enough confidence in it working after seeing watching the slow and painful death of the GameCube (I'm a recovering Nintendo fanboy who, through PC games, came to appreciate third-party titles and now owns a 360).

[Goronmon]

The "Hollywood" GPU may be more powerful than we think.I'm looking forward to the Wii as much as the next guy, but what kind of statement is this? "May" be more powerful than we think? This useless comment and the fact that he doesn't back it up with any specifics means he prolly knows its just a load of BS anyways...

[schizoslayer]

To people who point out that the general public don't know what E3 is and have no idea about the price of the PS3 yet:

The day after the Sony conferance they were talking about E3 on BBC Radio 4 and there were comments surrounding the price of the PS3 and how high it's price was in comparison to a 360. News stories also appeared in the entertainment sections of several large circulation Newspapers in the UK.

It might just be a British thing but the word is being put out in the channels parents listen to (Hell Radio 4 is the station the Prime Minister listens to and old ladies with parrots) that the PS3 costs alot more money than an Xbox.

So to say the purchasing public don't hear about this stuff is just not as true as you think it is. Maybe in the Americas Fox and that ignore it but I can safely say E3 has been covered in mainstream UK media this year.

Probably the first time I can think of actually.

I have no idea if The Sun have covered it though and I'm betting that would have a bigger impact than say The Guardian on Sonys sales over here.

[TrainwreckX]

I don't believe we'll see hardly any cross ptforms that go to the wii, due to it not being grahically on par with the newer systems, but I do expect wii games to other systems. At least, publishers will try, anyways. The wii will be the home of many exclusives I think because of the control scheme they will demand.


That doesn't stop companies like Ubisoft from putting ports of Splinter Cell on the DS and on mobile phones. Your arguement holds no ground. They have to develop the game seperately and you would be surprised at how few art assets can even be cross-used in both the Xbox 1 and PS2.

If a developer wants to make a game cross-platform, usually the only thing that stands in their way is demographic. You see a lot of games like 50 Cent Bulletproof going to XBOX/PS2, but not GCN. Why? Who would buy that game on the Gamecube?

However, a game like Metal Gear or Splinter Cell, a more adventure-like action game, may do very well on a Nintendo platform. It just depends on the game and demographic. A company the size of EA doesn't mind putting the resources on another version if they can make money on it. Graphics are a moot point.

[Mason]

For someone that doesn't buy into the cult of technology and it's gadgets elsewhere, Mason, you sure have seem to bought into the revolutionary differences between current and next gen systems. To the average consumer, this distinction only exists because it's been given to them as a marketing bulletpoint.

You perhaps misunderstood my point. I was responding to the notion that Nintendo could sensibly ugly up their graphics intentionally just to get people to focus on the controller and play mechanism. That's nonsense; as I stated, the Wii stuff could've been the most jaw-droppingly beautiful at the show and people still would've been lining up primarily to test out the controller.

Nowhere did I say that it's a waste of time to be selling hardware that isn't at least 360-caliber, or any graphiphallocentric stuff like that. All I said was that the early Wii games should clearly be a "sizable jump", which is a very strange statement to disagree with. Hell, given the published Wii specs, it should be 100% capable of such a jump, even on early titles.

So my point was not that graphics are so vitally important that Nintendo is screwed, or any such imaginary statement. Rather, my point was that it would be crazy for Nintendo to intentionally show off bad graphics. Which seems intuitively obvious. Nintendo's marketing strategy has never been "the controls and gameplay will be awesome, but the graphics will make you yearn for your Atari 2600".

No, they've always represented it as a modest step up, and perfectly capable of putting out impressive graphics without straying into the MS/Sony dick-measuring competition. What they showed at E3 reinforces this; none of the titles made the GC seem like a distant memory, but they were certainly on par with the upper crust of Cube games.

And if I may be so bold, your grandmother is never buying a goddamn Wii, so let's just stop with that whole marketing meme. Nintendo's best customers will still be real gamers. Non-gamers who aren't swayed by the likes of Guitar Hero or Katamari Damacy probably aren't going to purchase a console until you can have sex with one. And note the prices involved there. Mario or Link aren't suddenly going to have 95% household penetration because they're on a funky broken-up controller that you occasionally get to aim with.

The Wii will be a success, but until Nintendo shows off a Kasual Konsumer Killer App(tm), let's not base all of our arguments on just what a groundbreaking cultural phenomenon it's going to be. It'll be good, but it will not have mystical powers over the disinclined. Thus, no more telling gamers that they're not allowed to have opinions, because non-gamers-yet-future-Wii-fanatics are the only ones that matter now. There's no amount of Kool-Aid which can make that a reasonable edict.

[EternalGamer]

Nowhere did I say that it's a waste of time to be selling hardware that isn't at least 360-caliber, or any graphiphallocentric stuff like that. All I said was that the early Wii games should clearly be a "sizable jump", which is a very strange statement to disagree with. Hell, given the published Wii specs, it should be 100% capable of such a jump, even on early titles.

I never disagreed with this, and you are right. It is beyond the realm of logic to think they would intentionally underrepresent their product at the world debut when everyone is watching. I was instead taking contention with a subpoint you made and that was your argument that it has to demonstrate a substantial graphical leap in order to succeed. I stand by my original statement. I don't think you've said anything to address the points I made in it.

As far as my grandmother goes, I am well aware that Nintendo's marketing dream of universal gaming is far far from a reality at this point. I was only using that example to debunk the idea that consumers wouldn't be able to see the difference in a product if it didn't have graphics that were a significant advanced. My point was that most consumers don't know enough about graphical advancement to even know what looks impressive at this point, but even if you take someone who knew absolutely nothing about games, they would still be able to see a considerable difference in what the Wii does and what the Gamecube does. That same person would have a near impossible time deciphering the difference between the 360 and the previous generation.

People might not like the Wii or find it useful to them. They might think it is completely silly. But no matter what the graphics look like, there is no way in hell someone is going to watch someone using that crazy controller flailing their arms about and go "Hey, that's just like those other systems. What can it do that the Gamecube can't?"

[Wasson_]

The same thing can be said for all consoles when they're first being exposed.

[Busted_Astromech]

maybe is just because im german and english is not my first language?

i wanna see u triying on a foreing forum some german
I have no problem with some spelling and grammar mistakes. However I'm quite sure in Deutschland they capitalize the first letter of a sentence, use punctuation, and have complete thoughts. I mean you're clearly not even trying...

The forums are like a public park: when you litter, I can easily avoid it but it is more pleasant for everyone if you have to courtesy to not do it in the first place.

[Mason]

I was instead taking contention with a subpoint you made and that was your argument that it has to demonstrate a substantial graphical leap in order to succeed. I stand by my original statement. I don't think you've said anything to address the points I made in it.
Well, my contention was complex. First, I noted how the whole "ignore what games think/perceive, because it's all about non-gamers now" meme was a PR myth. Let's face it, Nintendo would have the same thing to fear from a hypothetical full-on gamer revolt that, say, Sony does. If the early-adopting gamers don't go for the Wii (for whatever reason), it won't have the cultural mindshare necessary to put the controller into non-gamer hands.

Thus, my point was that keeping gamers impressed is essential to the platform's success. Without gamer acceptance, there's no chance of non-gamer acceptance, excepting the possibility of an Apple-style media blitz (commercials 24/7/365, getting pointless Wii segments onto the local news, having Hollywood inexplicably put the Wii all over movies and shows, &c). But let's face it, nobody does those as well as Apple.

And needless to say, gamers most certainly will get pissy if:
-the price rises much above $200 ("why does my 'second console' cost as much as my first one?")
-the graphics don't notably stand out above a console we've had for many years
-the early games don't implement the controller in an intuitive or constructive fashion.

These aren't really scary points, a Nintendo fan might feel pretty secure from the E3 showing that none of them will turn off many gamers, and that with universal gamer praise and some media savvy, Nintendo actually has a shot at turning a few heads. Not an unreasonable opinion. But the point is, gamers are still relevant, and the collective judgment of the gaming community doesn't disappear just because some PR jockeys say it does.

If that were the case, someone would've wished us away a long time ago.

[RMan]

a system's "cool" factor moves systems, right? Now, this cool factor is determined to a large part by how powerful the system appears.
Although I agree that people can’t judge a system’s power well, I’d still say that game enthusiasts vastly overestimate how much the general public cares about power. Clearly, at least the last two console and current handheld generations indicate that the actual power matters little (or not at all), but besides assumption where is the evidence that the PS2, for instance, sells to the public more because of this mistaken perception of power. The perception of power is far more important to game enthusiasts than the general public, but game enthusiasts often want to explain how the general public chooses systems the same way they do and that the general public cares deeply about power but just can’t evaluate it properly. IMO, the obvious truth is they don’t care much.
I'm looking forward to the Wii as much as the next guy, but what kind of statement is this? "May" be more powerful than we think? This useless comment and the fact that he doesn't back it up with any specifics means he prolly knows its just a load of BS anyways...
Although I agree the statement is vague, if you’re going to make an assumption, the safer and more logical one is that the system will be much more capable than the Gamecube because it’s newer tech. If you buy a $100 video card now it’s naturally much more powerful than a $100 video card bought 5 years ago, this same thing will naturally apply to the Wii.

The reason that the E3 stuff looks only a little better than Gamecube stuff is that it was developed on Gamecubes, and the controller was the focus of that development (this is not directed at you, but people in general). With the 360, for instance, they didn’t have final hardware until pretty close to release, just like the Wii, but it’s focus was firmly on graphics, and the development stuff they had previously was either very high end PC stuff or otherwise “built to spec” systems. Regardless, the 360’s focus, well before they got their hardware, was almost entirely on graphics. If Nintendo had told people to develop to the Wii’s graphic spec and concentrate on the best graphics they could get, the games would have looked much better, but again, they would have sacrificed the concentration on the controller which is far more important. So, instead of having them work with spec hardware they just had them work with Gamecubes so their focus was all but guaranteed. In short, the graphics shown at E3 are not representative of the system’s power because the graphics were not a focus like they were with the other systems.
Non-gamers who aren't swayed by the likes of Guitar Hero or Katamari Damacy probably aren't going to purchase a console until you can have sex with one.
Umm, that’s just absurd. So you’re saying that Guitar Hero or Katamari Damacy are the ultimate in non-standard games and had the same capacity to overcome this generation’s hardcore perception as the Wii? Guitar Hero, regardless of how well it may be implemented is going to naturally have a very limited audience, and Katamari is much more appealing to gamers that are tired of tired games, it’s control is not nearly intuitive enough or it’s style appealing enough for the mass appeal you suggest it’d be entitled to. Seriously, if you believe that you have a HUGE lack of imagination, and are seemingly completely ignoring the DS.
Mario or Link aren't suddenly going to have 95% household penetration because they're on a funky broken-up controller that you occasionally get to aim with.
I can agree with that, but you are again completely missing the point. Do I have to say it? Guess so, NINTENDOGS. Now, explain to me how that one fits in with your assumption that non-gamers are not playing games solely because they don’t like games as a concept. Not all games that can ever be made have been made, and new game abilities like the touch/dual screen on the DS or the motion controller on the Wii will naturally allow newer game types.
The Wii will be a success, but until Nintendo shows off a Kasual Konsumer Killer App(tm), let's not base all of our arguments on just what a groundbreaking cultural phenomenon it's going to be.
This again misses the point of why casual gamers aren’t attracted to game systems, I think. The Wii absolutely does not need this to attract a large amount of “non-gamers” to it’s system. For instance, it’s pretty easy to imagine being a Golf enthusiast and be completely uninterested in golf games. Golf games are a projection of the sport into a game, and it loses most of what makes the sport fun to play, like putting a movie into comic book form and thinking that everyone that could like the movie should like the comic. Anyway, doing a golf game on the Wii could conceivably not only be a FAR more intuitive and immersive experience for golfers, but contain software that analyses their swing and helps their golf game. There is no way a product like that does not sell to many non-gamer golf enthusiasts (and I’d wager there are many of those), and I’m sure even the most adamant Nintendo haters won’t attempt to argue it, but it also would never be considered a “Killer App”. Again, the “Killer App” requirement is what a hardcore gamer often require to buy a system (generally one system over another), someone that’s not interested in games right now just needs to see something that interests them.

[IRONGUSTAV]

I have no problem with some spelling and grammar mistakes. .

Dont worry,i have no problem with stupid gramatical talibans too

[Megalith]

Tip of the joke.

[devicelimit]

Because I don't want to read every post on this topic, I'll just post this link anyways. It seems like the rant of a crazy man, but with ATI saying 'tip of the iceberg' maybe this guy knows something. (http://www.armleg.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=4487&mforum=mozlapunkmessag&sid=b352d219ae63108f948a3c8545381def)

I doubt it though.

[EternalGamer]

Because I don't want to read every post on this topic, I'll just post this link anyways. It seems like the rant of a crazy man, but with ATI saying 'tip of the iceberg' maybe this guy knows something. (http://www.armleg.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=4487&mforum=mozlapunkmessag&sid=b352d219ae63108f948a3c8545381def)

I doubt it though.j

I was actually willing to believe some of that due to the specificity and some of the odd (but logical) details. And then it kept getting crazier. And crazier. And then he even went and got all science fiction crazy with that Project Reality stuff. So the Wii has a super-graphics chip nobody has ever heard of that will do everything programmers could ever want and it will do all of it for them. Uh... right. That ranks right up there with the PS3's 4D capabilities. Your in fairy land, man. Nevertheless it was fun piece of fiction and pretty well written.

[Mason]

Umm, that’s just absurd. So you’re saying that Guitar Hero or Katamari Damacy are the ultimate in non-standard games and had the same capacity to overcome this generation’s hardcore perception as the Wii?
My point was reasonable, its hyperbolic phrasing was just because I found the idea funny. Truth is, we already have some great games that you can put into anyone's hands and they will totally groove on them, regardless of their opinion of gaming. Guitar Hero and Katamari are fine examples of this. And yes, the presence of these universally appealing games does give a fine metric for the success of the Wii. Is there some reason you think that innovative and approachable games can only succeed if they bear the Nintendo imprimatur?

I can agree with that, but you are again completely missing the point. Do I have to say it? Guess so, NINTENDOGS. Now, explain to me how that one fits in with your assumption that non-gamers are not playing games solely because they don’t like games as a concept.

It's a matter of identity. People who don't think of themselves as someone who would like games can rock out to Guitar Hero for hours and still never once consider buying a PS2+GH of their own. It takes a very well-designed PR campaign to convince people that a new device/activity is, in fact, a very natural part of their current identity. Nintendo's American DS campaign really didn't do that too well, and while the DS has done well it hasn't crossed the demographic and generational barriers into the promised land of Nintendo's marketing legends.

Again, the “Killer App” requirement is what a hardcore gamer often require to buy a system (generally one system over another), someone that’s not interested in games right now just needs to see something that interests them.

Nonsense. All consumers will only buy Wiis to get at a particular game. No one would disagree that Nintendo will likely need a variety of killer apps for a variety of untapped demographics, but all the same, the need for said apps can't be dismissed. And no, very little of the sort was shown at E3. The tennis game would do okay, and WarioWare could possibly work (if they rebrand it, the obscure Mario connection and juvenile humor probably won't help), but almost everything else we saw was targeted at gamers.

I don't give any company credit for things that they don't show. Nintendo showed at E3 an awful lot of loving for its old-school fanboys, but its whole non-gamer conversion project just was given a lot more rhetorical attention than developer attention. Which is perhaps understandable, gamers will be the early adopters, but all the same there's no point in railing about Nintendo's success when most of what you have to offer are hypothetical possibilities.

[Mason]

Because I don't want to read every post on this topic, I'll just post this link anyways. It seems like the rant of a crazy man, but with ATI saying 'tip of the iceberg' maybe this guy knows something. (http://www.armleg.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=4487&mforum=mozlapunkmessag&sid=b352d219ae63108f948a3c8545381def)

I doubt it though.
An Ichi the Killer game on a Nintendo platform...wow...hard to imagine someone even bothering with writing this.

[EternalGamer]

That wasn't nearly as crazy at the "Knight Rider"-esque automatic sensor that was going to life the lid to the hidden compartment on the Wii so the camera could kick on.

[EternalGamer]

I don't give any company credit for things that they don't show. Nintendo showed at E3 an awful lot of loving for its old-school fanboys, but its whole non-gamer conversion project just was given a lot more rhetorical attention than developer attention. Which is perhaps understandable, gamers will be the early adopters, but all the same there's no point in railing about Nintendo's success when most of what you have to offer are hypothetical possibilities.


I'll agree with you somewhat here. Nintendo hasn't really shown much of a break out hit that is going to achieve what their marketing claims as being their goals. But I do think they have put themselves in a position to at least attempt to accomplish it. In other words, they are much closer to breaking through that barrier than either Sony or Microsoft, but then again neither of those two are claiming that as a goal.

It's probably just my experience with the DS speaking. The reactions of non-gamers I've shown it to (Nintendogs and Brain Training) lead me to believe Nintendo knows how to think outside of the traditional genres to reach for ideas that have more universal appeal. So far, though, you are correct. THey haven't shown a "Brain Trainning" or a "Nintendogs" for the Wii. But I think the ground is fertile with possiblity.

[Kamalot]

THey haven't shown a "Brain Trainning" or a "Nintendogs" for the Wii. But I think the ground is fertile with possiblity.I have to agree with you. While games like Wii sports look like they could be fun for everyone, Nintendo will have to show a range of games coming out on a regular basis that attract non-gamers. They seem to have done that with the DS, so they are in the right mindset for accomplishing the same thing with Wii.

[RMan]

Truth is, we already have some great games that you can put into anyone's hands and they will totally groove on them, regardless of their opinion of gaming. Guitar Hero and Katamari are fine examples of this.
I’ll totally agree on GH, but not Katamari (it’s controls are not intuitive or simple, unless you’re a gamer). Of course, it’s likely worth noting that GH is only really that approachable because it has a controller suited to it’s purpose (just like the old light gun shooter games were more approachable than a modern FPS).
Is there some reason you think that innovative and approachable games can only succeed if they bear the Nintendo imprimatur?
I think it’s definitely easier since Nintendo’s new system isn’t being promoted as the high end system for the ‘professional gamer’. We don’t think about it in those terms, but many people do since games have gotten gradually more complicated over the years and even if the PS3/360 comes out with equally approachable games the assumption will be that they are, like most games on the systems, highly evolved and complicated games that are designed to appeal to the hardened gamer.
It takes a very well-designed PR campaign to convince people that a new device/activity is, in fact, a very natural part of their current identity. Nintendo's American DS campaign really didn't do that too well, and while the DS has done well it hasn't crossed the demographic and generational barriers into the promised land of Nintendo's marketing legends.
The DS, from what I’ve been hearing, is selling better than any other handheld ever, even in the US, unless that’s not true then I’m not sure how high your bar is for Nintendo proving it’s strategy is valid. I’m not sure what you’re expecting, but it’s pretty early in it’s life and it seems to be very strong. As far as being a natural part of their current identity, I believe you’re over thinking it. Nintendo doesn’t have to produce zealots like you may see on game enthusiasts on this board, they just have to sell systems and games, and I think just showing the system is fun enough to warrant the price is enough. They’re not converting to a new religion.
Nonsense. All consumers will only buy Wiis to get at a particular game. No one would disagree that Nintendo will likely need a variety of killer apps for a variety of untapped demographics, but all the same, the need for said apps can't be dismissed. And no, very little of the sort was shown at E3. The tennis game would do okay, and WarioWare could possibly work (if they rebrand it, the obscure Mario connection and juvenile humor probably won't help), but almost everything else we saw was targeted at gamers.
Then you will need to clarify what a killer app is to you. For many gamers, MGS4, and FFXIII are killer apps, yet they will bring in virtually no new gamers. The golf game I mentioned, if implemented well, would bring in more new gamers than both of those combined, but would not sell as many copies as either and would almost assuredly not be considered a ‘killer app’. So, what is a killer app to you? Heck, the tennis game will attract more new gamers than FFXIII or MGS4 but you don’t seem to consider it a killer app. What I’m saying is that what we normally think of as a killer app is one that can drive sales among gamers, Nintendogs is the closest thing we’ve seen to a killer app for non-gamers, if there is one (again, would you consider that a ‘killer app’?).
Besides the golf example (which is likely the best), here’s some other games that are not traditional or killer apps that would bring in many new gamers…
Baseball hitter/analyzer
Fishing (unique only because of implementation)
Boxing (also unique only because of implementation)
Painting/sculpting (I could really enjoy some ice sculpting, using a chainsaw in a game where I’m not killing :))
The music conductor thing (which I think is actually a pretty neat one)
Drum machine (I'm sure many parents would like this one since their kids could learn the drums relatively quietly).
None of these things are going to be considered killer apps, but it’s easy to imagine people interested in these things as a hobby to spend the money to get the Wii version (I’m sure they’ve spent much more on these hobbies if they’re really into them.)

As far as the material being targeted at gamers, it was in fact E3, a gamer’s expo. Even if they have great casual entertainment products, I doubt that would have been the place to try and push them.
I don't give any company credit for things that they don't show.
Now, there’s a sizeable difference between not giving them credit for things they haven’t proven, and saying that things can’t be done because they haven’t done it yet.