Owen Posted March 5, 2007 Share Posted March 5, 2007 Ngamer do tell it how it is, most of the time. So them praising it may well mean it's no-where near as bad as people may think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zechs Merquise Posted March 6, 2007 Share Posted March 6, 2007 My lord, this reminds me of Rainbow Six on the N64. it's appalling. Goldeneye looked better, at least the textures didn't look like they were captured on an 8 year old 0.3 mega pixel camera phone. Very embarrassing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
triforcemario Posted March 6, 2007 Share Posted March 6, 2007 My lord, this reminds me of Rainbow Six on the N64. it's appalling. Goldeneye looked better, at least the textures didn't look like they were captured on an 8 year old 0.3 mega pixel camera phone. Very embarrassing. Wait, there were phones with cameras 8 years ago? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hellfire Posted March 6, 2007 Share Posted March 6, 2007 It's funny how people exaggerate. I'm not saying it looks good, but cmon, try not to make fools of yourselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zechs Merquise Posted March 7, 2007 Share Posted March 7, 2007 Oh sorry, I had the Nokia 7650, it came out in 2002, and is thusly 5 years old not 8. But it defo had a better resolution than those shitty textures. This game is appalling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcj metroid Posted March 7, 2007 Share Posted March 7, 2007 i think though they were the worst screenshots ever. if you look at the new trailer on ign it doesn't look that horrific Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zechs Merquise Posted March 9, 2007 Share Posted March 9, 2007 I can't understand for the life of me why a developer who wants to sell games would release those screens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mario_jr Posted March 9, 2007 Share Posted March 9, 2007 Games of this quality should be turned away. They only degrade the system, or any system that can do better. Or at least be told to better it, or it won't be published. I mean what the hell are their bosses thinking that this could be even considered for "Gold", hey look at Mario Galaxy 'nough said. Maybe its all just one big conspiracy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shyguy Posted March 9, 2007 Share Posted March 9, 2007 Mario Sunshine, End of Topic :P Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daftada Posted March 9, 2007 Share Posted March 9, 2007 How does a game go from great to shit looking despite better hardware? Well for a start Res Evil 4 was in development for what four years? GF: Blackhand has had something like a year to 18 months dev cycle. The budget for each would have been significantly different, given that RE was intended from the start to be a remiagining of the series; GF is just a port. Plus i'm sure RE had a bigger art team working on it, whereas GF would have consisted of a team in charge of porting the title, then another to implement Wii controls, therefore the graphics won't be any different to the PS2 version due to sharing art material. Game development, especially in terms of graphics, isn't quite so easy as 'they can't even be arsed to make great graphics' you have to consider things like budgets and team sizes which is why, i'd wager, the early wii third party games have looked so poor (that and the quick dev-cycle). I'm hoping the initial batch of third party games have sold just enough for Publishers to give the next set more respectable budgets. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cube Posted March 9, 2007 Share Posted March 9, 2007 Well for a start Res Evil 4 was in development for what four years? If you take the fact they they totally scrapped the game and started from scratch 3 times, it wasn't actually that long. Game development, especially in terms of graphics, isn't quite so easy as 'they can't even be arsed to make great graphics' you have to consider things like budgets and team sizes which is why, i'd wager, the early wii third party games have looked so poor (that and the quick dev-cycle). TBH, I think that's one of the great things about the Wii - developers don't have to compete for graphics...I think we'll see plenty of "hidden gems" on the Wii. On the PS3/360, power it it's main advantage, and some developers may find the power daunting - and may just use inefficient models just to use up the power. More and more polygons ain't the future - the efficiency of the graphics will probably start to count for more and more in the future. Working to a very limited "budget", and amount of polygons can churn out some lovely things that don't use up a lot of resources. Take Super Mario 64 DS. The Mario looked much better than in the original, but in fact it used less polygons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daftada Posted March 9, 2007 Share Posted March 9, 2007 If you take the fact they they totally scrapped the game and started from scratch 3 times, it wasn't actually that long. The game structure and level design may have gone through several iterations but the art catalogue wouldn't have gone through the same drastic changes. There were a lot of textures in the final build that were fairly generic (not intended to be read as 'crap') and therefore easily interchangeable (wood/brick textures for example). Character models and some environments may also have been reused but as there were only brief glimpses of the early versions you can take that as pure conjecture. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts