mcj metroid Posted February 18, 2007 Posted February 18, 2007 which is the better game.Sonic on 360/ps3 or sonic on wii?This proves it. If we were in Last gen i say Graphics dont matter, but now that were into the HD era they do, Exshite trucks look terrible on LCD Tv's. Like utter terrible... why what has changed?
Guest Jordan Posted February 18, 2007 Posted February 18, 2007 Wii Sports looks awful in 480p, it is jagged to FUCK unless you really lower your sharpness on your set. Saying it, i've had more fun playing it than Gears of War or most other 360 games i own.
Caris Posted February 18, 2007 Posted February 18, 2007 which is the better game.Sonic on 360/ps3 or sonic on wii?This proves it. why what has changed? Read Jordans post.
Domstercool Posted February 18, 2007 Posted February 18, 2007 which is the better game.Sonic on 360/ps3 or sonic on wii?This proves it. why what has changed? That could work on anything though! It just depends on what the designers were doing with the license. E.G Like Super Mario 64 is better than Sunshine. Ridge Racer 6 and 7 are better than 5.
mcj metroid Posted February 18, 2007 Posted February 18, 2007 i guess you're all right.i am slightly disappointed with the grphics but for me(i actually prefer handheld gaming to console)graphics really dont matter as long as they're not hurting me like the zorro game
Domstercool Posted February 18, 2007 Posted February 18, 2007 I think one of the things is that with the people only owning the wii, is that they look at the other systems and have something that hangs in the back of their mind. It's like "Whoa, that looks very nice, just imagine that with Wii controls!" They play the Wii and think "This is hella fun!" But at the back of their mind they're still thinking, "Whoa be awesome if it looked like that other game I saw", guess the next wii will do that.
Konfucius Posted February 18, 2007 Posted February 18, 2007 I said this in another thread already but I'm going to elaborate on that point a bit more. First of all if the gameplay is bad everything else can be really good but the game won't be fun. For instance take an egoshooter with awesome graphics but difficult aiming, bad level design and unimaginative weapons. Or to get a concrete example think of Doom³. I know many people (me included) that were excited about the game because of what it looked like but quickly lost interested because the fascination of the graphics wore off and then it felt pretty dull. So imo Ninty certainly isn't wrong by saying "gameplay over graphics" but does this warrant bad looking games and poor hardware? I think not. Nobody can blame them when they don't want to make a loss but why did they have to make a profit instead of giving us a slightly more powerful machine. And what I still don't understand is, why did the Wii have to be so small? If they made it bigger they could easily put more powerful hardware in with little effect on the cost. And if the hardware was more powerful we could see some downgraded version of X360 games rather than upgraded PS2 versions and we wouldn't miss out on cross-platform developed games so much I think. Sure Nintendo used to be about graphics but they always cared about innovation as well. The analog stick, rumble pack even shoulder buttons and the like. You saw it on a Nintendo console first and now they seem to have concentrated on the innovative part entirely. I see a good game consisting of 3 elements: gameplay, story and graphics. If one of those element highly outweighs the other it can still be a good game but the ideal combination would be if there was an equal effort for all of the three.
Fierce_LiNk Posted February 18, 2007 Posted February 18, 2007 I think one of the things is that with the people only owning the wii, is that they look at the other systems and have something that hangs in the back of their mind. It's like "Whoa, that looks very nice, just imagine that with Wii controls!" They play the Wii and think "This is hella fun!" But at the back of their mind they're still thinking, "Whoa be awesome if it looked like that other game I saw", guess the next wii will do that. I don't. If a game looks nice graphically, then that's cool, but it's not something I desperately want in each game. Sometimes, I kinda like games to just be simple in a way, like tetris or wiisports if you get me. Doesn't need to be mindblowing to be enjoyable.
Cube Posted February 18, 2007 Posted February 18, 2007 If we were in Last gen i say Graphics dont matter, but now that were into the HD era they do, Exshite trucks look terrible on LCD Tv's. Wii Games look great using composite on my Step Dad's HDTV and HD Projector... I don't know why theres a massive fuss about HD...it's nothing new, and, like the Wii's Internet Channel, you probably won't care about after a few days (I didn't), bar the excuse to brag about it.
Domstercool Posted February 18, 2007 Posted February 18, 2007 I don't. If a game looks nice graphically, then that's cool, but it's not something I desperately want in each game. Sometimes, I kinda like games to just be simple in a way, like tetris or wiisports if you get me. Doesn't need to be mindblowing to be enjoyable. But then surely that means you're fine with a game like Farcry that looks like a N64 game and yet still suffers framerate problems and such? When it could of looked like a Xbox game instead and probably ran fine too? This is what I'm trying to get at. Ok it was down to the devs, but at the end the day you know something like it will come out on Wii looking better and you'll be more interested in it I bet. Don't get me wrong. I like both type of games. Lumines is simple looking and yet fucking amazing in how it uses the colour and contrast and music.
Fierce_LiNk Posted February 18, 2007 Posted February 18, 2007 But then surely that means you're fine with a game like Farcry that looks like a N64 game and yet still suffers framerate problems and such? When it could of looked like a Xbox game instead and probably ran fine too?[/Quote] I haven't played farcry yet, so I don't know what kinds of problems it has (apparantly there's quite a few haha) My point wasn't "it's nice for games to have bad graphics" but "It's sometimes nice to have simple graphics." Graphics which don't blow you away exactly, but do compliment the game quite well. For example, take a look at Wii Sports. Bowling, Golf and Boxing in particular. Nice visuals, and that's partly down to the graphical style and the simplicity of it all. In threads of this type, a lot of people talk about graphical style rather than realism or detail, etc. For example, Killer 7 by far appeals to me graphically more than a title like Gears of War ever can. Of course, it's down to opinion. So, I'd like games to not look terrible, that's obvious. I want to see games running smoothly and fluidly. You mention far cry and say it has a bad framerate. That is just not acceptable and is horrible work on Ubisoft's part. But, take a look at something like Excitetruck. Nice visuals, and it runs pretty well, which changes the overall feel of it all. So, all in all, I think there's more to this graphics argument than just good graphics and bad graphics. There's framerate/fluidity, graphical style and simplicity to take into account.
Domstercool Posted February 18, 2007 Posted February 18, 2007 Yeah totally agree. It's why I used Disgaea earlier as an example. Artstyle can totally turn around the look of a game. Just look at Okami. I've still really yet to see a game that made me just be in awe of how that looks.
Fierce_LiNk Posted February 18, 2007 Posted February 18, 2007 Yeah totally agree. It's why I used Disgaea earlier as an example. Artstyle can totally turn around the look of a game. Just look at Okami. I've still really yet to see a game that made me just be in awe of how that looks. I also think it's also easier for games to stand the test of time if they have a particular unique style to it. For example, I think the Wind Waker will appear to look "beautiful" for many, many years, but perhaps Twilight Princess won't? So yeah, glad we both agree. I'd like more developers to look into creating different artistic styles, rather than going down the "trying to get it as realistic as possible" route.
mariosmentor Posted February 19, 2007 Posted February 19, 2007 Well, I agree with most people here that graphics are not everything. However some developers I feel believe wii and grahpics are mutually exclusive. I don't care what anyone says, Zelda was beautifully done. Artwork was amazing and the gameplay was well done. Why can't they all be like this? It's not like all Wii games are incredible shitty graphics and super playable and all ps3/360 games are super pretty but unplayable? Infact, right now the majority of Wii games are just ugly and not fun with a few notable exceptions. It should pick up soon but right now developers are just ignoring graphics for the wii and developing crap anyway. When will games developers learn. Graphics don't need to be super realistic, but they need some effort put into them.
Pit-Jr Posted February 19, 2007 Posted February 19, 2007 im tired of the graphics debate as well. Especially since the Wii has so many other weaknesses to gripe about
Rummy Posted February 19, 2007 Posted February 19, 2007 I totally see where the original poster is coming from, and I also think Nintendo should have made a bit more effort with the wii, or maybe made it even cheaper because I'm sure they have turned mahoosive profits on wii sales alone. Then again, they are a business looking to make money, and may be funding that into something other than their pockets, who knows? Not me. When it comes down to it for me though, practically every single time it's gotta be Gameplay over Graphics. You can't have a beautiful game that plays shit, but you can have a shit looking game that plays beautifully. Graphics enhance gameplay though, but I think gameplay is more important(I have played runescape since a very long time ago, and it's one of my favourite ever games, despite being rather crap looking in its first incarnation). Having said all this, FFX was a really awesome game, and might not have been what it was without those excellent graphics and story, so...I'm not quite sure what my point is anymore.
Cube Posted February 19, 2007 Posted February 19, 2007 Nintendo have made enough of an effort with Wii graphics - it's 3rd Parties that haven't.
Balfron Posted February 19, 2007 Author Posted February 19, 2007 “Really gameplay is more important than graphics.â€- Dante They simply prefer that the resources involved in creating a game have a more even balance between gameplay and graphics. – King Mushroom But Dante and Mushroom we shouldn’t have to choose. I think people have got into this mindset because we have to choose either graphics or the Wiimote (by buying either PS3/360 or Wii). We could have had it both ways if Nintendo had invested a little more. “I'm getting the idea that you don't play games for the fun, and that's a sad thing.†– DCK I don’t know what gives you that idea. I’m at uni right now and don’t have any console with me, but I occasionally play Sim City 4 and my heart warms when the Sun rises (you get day/night) and my city comes to life. It looks beautiful, and gives me a great sense of reward. Of course I play games for fun, when I get the chance. Why else would I play them? “The Wii is seliing, a lot. Since release it has almost halved the sales of the 360, a machine which has been out a lot longer, at a prophit. The differentiation, this 'blue ocean' policy, is working. Sorry mate, you're wrong.†- Lazyboy Lazyboy who are you? A director of Nintendo? A shareholder? I’m a simple person wanting to play games – I don’t care about “prophitâ€s, so long as they have enough money to come and make games again, which Nintendo do. And finally Pit Jr said “im tired of the graphics debate as well. Especially since the Wii has so many other weaknesses to gripe about†Thank you for clicking on a thread specifically to say you don’t want to click on the thread. The mind boggles!
Menkor Posted February 19, 2007 Posted February 19, 2007 Graphics are important, but the physics are almost more important Physics can innovate how we play games way more than the Wiimote could ever imagine Just look at how it was when Half Life 2 was released...Instead of just taking cover when the helicopters dropped bombs, you could simply take your gravity gun and fire it back at the helicopters...Or simply just playing around firing tables and more Wiimote can give raise to some new games, but it can never change how we play FPS more than the physics could
Jasper Posted February 19, 2007 Posted February 19, 2007 Somewhere in his reasoning I seem to think he's bluntly wrong. I've seen the Xbox360 churn out beautifull graphics, but I wasn't as blown away as when I got my GameCube. Is it so wrong to deny these things? Am I a fanboy if I say that I don't need those fancy graphics? Nintendo has a good reasoning for this, and no, it's not 'gameplay over graphics'. it's the fact that HD telly's are just not in every house yet. So why hook up a too powerfull console with a too high price to a television on wich you'll barely notice the difference? In three years from now Nintendo will come with Wii2, because they can't survive with only the Wii graphics they have right now. But by then they will have a major advantage over Sony's mastodont and Microsoft's mega-box. When they lift themselves up to that level they will be above those two and use their last advantage for a new advantage. It's brilliant marketing.
Menkor Posted February 19, 2007 Posted February 19, 2007 Somewhere in his reasoning I seem to think he's bluntly wrong. I've seen the Xbox360 churn out beautifull graphics, but I wasn't as blown away as when I got my GameCube. Is it so wrong to deny these things? Am I a fanboy if I say that I don't need those fancy graphics? Nintendo has a good reasoning for this, and no, it's not 'gameplay over graphics'. it's the fact that HD telly's are just not in every house yet. So why hook up a too powerfull console with a too high price to a television on wich you'll barely notice the difference? In three years from now Nintendo will come with Wii2, because they can't survive with only the Wii graphics they have right now. But by then they will have a major advantage over Sony's mastodont and Microsoft's mega-box. When they lift themselves up to that level they will be above those two and use their last advantage for a new advantage. It's brilliant marketing. There is actually a huge difference between GC/XBOX/PS2 and PS3/XBOX 360 on a "normal" TV...It isn't mindblowing or such a big difference like between N64 and Xbox but the difference is still huge But isn't there a plus that your console supports HD even if you do not have a HDTV? It is future-compatible, you do not get punished for having a HDTV like you get with the Wii Everyone will get a HDTV in time, and then they will be able to use their console on it
Jasper Posted February 19, 2007 Posted February 19, 2007 There is actually a huge difference between GC/XBOX/PS2 and PS3/XBOX 360 on a "normal" TV...It isn't mindblowing or such a big difference like between N64 and Xbox but the difference is still huge But isn't there a plus that your console supports HD even if you do not have a HDTV? It is future-compatible, you do not get punished for having a HDTV like you get with the Wii Everyone will get a HDTV in time, and then they will be able to use their console on it Not if you can double your money, no. From a PR stance it just makes sense. In three years from now they'll sell the same number of Wii's again with HD. It's all based on the Apple-marketing system. You gradually do things. Apple's are pretty slow computers if you see what PC's can do but still they sell many of them, but they also make one hell of an operating system for it. Nintendo doesn't have the best console, but they make one hell of a system out of it. And now I know what was wrong in the thoughts here - Zelda was meant to be a GameCube title. Don't forget that! We all seem to think that Zelda is the best-looking game Wii will see, but wait untill you get your hands on Super Mario Galaxy. Now that looks Wii-gorgeous. For now, i'm content with nitnedo's approach and witht he fact that I'm not barfing out my entire wallet to get a sparkling new console.
Menkor Posted February 19, 2007 Posted February 19, 2007 Not if you can double your money, no. From a PR stance it just makes sense. In three years from now they'll sell the same number of Wii's again with HD. It's all based on the Apple-marketing system. You gradually do things. Apple's are pretty slow computers if you see what PC's can do but still they sell many of them, but they also make one hell of an operating system for it. Nintendo doesn't have the best console, but they make one hell of a system out of it. And now I know what was wrong in the thoughts here - Zelda was meant to be a GameCube title. Don't forget that! We all seem to think that Zelda is the best-looking game Wii will see, but wait untill you get your hands on Super Mario Galaxy. Now that looks Wii-gorgeous. For now, i'm content with nitnedo's approach and witht he fact that I'm not barfing out my entire wallet to get a sparkling new console. So what you are saying is that the people who buy a Wii today must buy a new Wii after some years just to get support for something they should have had from the beginning? I have seen SMG, but I was not impressed by neither the gameplay nor the graphics
david.dakota Posted February 19, 2007 Posted February 19, 2007 I think we'll hear this argument every so often. Maybe make this one a sticky... I don't think anyone will argue that they'd be disapointed if Nintendo had included HD, or an extra boost of power. However, its all secondary to what Wii is about. At the moment HD has limited market potential and it would make little sense for Nintendo to try to enter the same space as Microsoft and Sony. Wait 5 years or so and Nintendo will enter the HD space, until then lets be happy that we're not playing the same games we were 5 years ago only with HD support (for those who've chosen to spend £1k on a decent HD display)
Menkor Posted February 19, 2007 Posted February 19, 2007 I think we'll hear this argument every so often. Maybe make this one a sticky... I don't think anyone will argue that they'd be disapointed if Nintendo had included HD, or an extra boost of power. However, its all secondary to what Wii is about. At the moment HD has limited market potential and it would make little sense for Nintendo to try to enter the same space as Microsoft and Sony. Wait 5 years or so and Nintendo will enter the HD space, until then lets be happy that we're not playing the same games we were 5 years ago only with HD support (for those who've chosen to spend £1k on a decent HD display) Nah, we are playing the same games we have played since the 80´s but this time we have a remote
Recommended Posts