I take it no-one else except me felt the urge to download the demo and try it out.
You know something I've never understood is how people look at a screenshot and judge how something will look real-time. That might've been possible 7years ago, or on the Playstation2. Problem is that since then Shaders have come along and there's just as much that you can't see in screenshots. Most of the time low-resolution at that, rather than full-resolution on a screen the same size as most peoples TVs.
Biggest one I still find tickles my funny bone is Resident Evil 4. So many people panned that on the GameCube and said that MGS3 had better graphics (which while they were nice, they were BLOOM related; it's like the benchmark game for bloom making up for lacking texture quality, etc.) despite what RE4 truely offered graphically. Was more retarded when it finally hit the PS2 and the graphics didn't come close to the GC version, but low'n'behold people mentioned how it looked better than MGS3.
All of those niggles people notice when looking at a screenshot, just aren't there when you're playing.. unless it's a HD television and the game is HD. (cough:resistance:cough)
I'm close to breaking down things about the Wii and what it could graphically do.. while sure processing and graphics wise it isn't quite in the same league, it certainly isn't a slough.
Yes, physically speaking it is only clocked 2x quicker than the GameCube; remember the hardware inside is current generation.
Processor is not 32-bit Embedded (cut-down) version but a 64-bit full processor. The GPU is identical, just lower core speed to the Xbox 360 one.. but then given the only HD resolution is 480p, this actually doesn't matter. Cause it doesn't need to do AS much work.
I reckon, it would be possible to get Gears of War running on the Wii with similar graphics. Getting the physics and ai on the other hand would be a challenge. That said I've not worked with the console yet, so no idea what it can do realistically; only what the technical specs would suggest.
