Mikey Posted March 28, 2008 Posted March 28, 2008 If Nintendo are allowed to use Sega's GX engine, it'll look great. I have my doubts if Nintendo are developing their own engine though. I'm not saying they can't develop good looking games, I just don't think they're as good as other devs like Capcom and Sega when it comes to visuals. (Just finished Resi 4 on my GC again for the 7th time, still blows every game on the Wii away graphically. Yes, including Galaxy.)
DCK Posted March 28, 2008 Posted March 28, 2008 If Nintendo are allowed to use Sega's GX engine, it'll look great. I have my doubts if Nintendo are developing their own engine though. I'm not saying they can't develop good looking games, I just don't think they're as good as other devs like Capcom and Sega when it comes to visuals. (Just finished Resi 4 on my GC again for the 7th time, still blows every game on the Wii away graphically. Yes, including Galaxy.)What a load of nonsense. I don't get why people keep on requesting the reuse of old GameCube engines anyway, when it's clear that the Wii has more potential. Nintendo is the only that has pushed the Wii so far. The fact that you're naming Sega as developing great visuals is really far out, too, there's nothing but crap coming from their in-house devs nowadays. Resident Evil 4 is a great looking game, but it's really bland and colorless throughout the game. They're more a technical achievement than they are attractive visuals. Galaxy is both. That, and we musn't forget that is a five-year old engine. The Wii could probably push twice the detail and add some bloom while keeping up the same framerate. Nintendo knows its own system, and they'll find a team up for the challenge. Who knows, it may be Amusement Vision again. They've not announced anything since Super Monkey Ball: Banana Blitz, released in 2006.
Mikey Posted March 28, 2008 Posted March 28, 2008 Galaxy is pretty overrated graphically. The Geometry is very small, plus, it's easier to make a game like Galaxy look that good compared to a more realistic looking Resi 4. The jaggies are out of control as well. I don't know how you can use colourless or blandness as an arguement against Resi 4, it wasn't supposed to be all cheery and pretty. If Capcom had bothered to improve the Wii edition's graphics over the GC version's, then Resi 4 would have been even more better looking over Galaxy than what it already is. You also criticise F Zero's engine for being 5 years old, yet it shits all over Mario Kart's, which isn't even out yet.
Hellfire Posted March 28, 2008 Posted March 28, 2008 Galaxy is pretty overrated graphically. The Geometry is very small, plus, it's easier to make a game like Galaxy look that good compared to a more realistic looking Resi 4. The jaggies are out of control as well. I don't know how you can use colourless or blandness as an arguement against Resi 4, it wasn't supposed to be all cheery and pretty. If Capcom had bothered to improve the Wii edition's graphics over the GC version's, then Resi 4 would have been even more better looking over Galaxy than what it already is. You also criticise F Zero's engine for being 5 years old, yet it shits all over Mario Kart's, which isn't even out yet.
DCK Posted March 28, 2008 Posted March 28, 2008 Galaxy is pretty overrated graphically. The Geometry is very small, Small geometry? I recommend playing the game instead of repeating what IGN said... Galaxy's geometry is very complex and a real challenge to render.plus, it's easier to make a game like Galaxy look that good compared to a more realistic looking Resi 4.That's not true. A realistic game can copy many things out of the real world, and doesn't allow as much room for creativity and talent.The jaggies are out of control as well.Super Mario Galaxy is one of the few (only?) games that use anti-aliasing... I play it one one of the most jaggy-prone screens there is (an LCD monitor), and it's really fine. I don't know how you can use colourless or blandness as an arguement against Resi 4, it wasn't supposed to be all cheery and pretty.That's not what I'm saying. Resi 4 is a murky brown and gray game. The real world does have color, you know.You also criticise F Zero's engine for being 5 years old, yet it shits all over Mario Kart's, which isn't even out yet.I don't criticise it, it's just an observation really. Point is, if any effort is to be made, I don't see why they should reuse the GX engine. The only thing Mario Kart and F-Zero have in common is that they're racing games, but they're on opposite sides of the genre, anyway, I don't see the point in comparing a bright fun racer to a futuristic speed racer.
Mikey Posted March 28, 2008 Posted March 28, 2008 Sit down. ****. Small geometry? I recommend playing the game instead of repeating what IGN said...I HAVE the game. Most of that screen is sky box, thanks for proving my point. Even the places where it is flat aren't even that big. Galaxy's geometry is very complex and a real challenge to render. Based on? They're just small pieces of land. That's not true. A realistic game can copy many things out of the real world, and doesn't allow as much room for creativity and talent. If it doesn't allow for talent, how come it's not been matched so far? Super Mario Galaxy is one of the few (only?) games that use anti-aliasing... I play it one one of the most jaggy-prone screens there is (an LCD monitor), and it's really fine. I don't care if it uses anti aliasing, it's jaggy. That's not what I'm saying. Resi 4 is a murky brown and gray game. The real world does have color, you know.I don't criticise it, it's just an observation really. Resi 4 is SUPPOSED to look like that, it's a horror game. Point is, if any effort is to be made, I don't see why they should reuse the GX engine. Fine. The only thing Mario Kart and F-Zero have in common is that they're racing games, but they're on opposite sides of the genre, anyway, I don't see the point in comparing a bright fun racer to a futuristic speed racer. Neither Mario Kart of F Zero make an effort to look realistic, so it's a fairly good comparison. F Zero destroys MK Wii graphically.
Hellfire Posted March 28, 2008 Posted March 28, 2008 Congratulations your post shows a deep misunderstading of videogame graphics! Let's ignore that round surfaces need a lot of polygons, depth of field, draw distance, bloom, transparency, refraction, the quality of the textures and shaders, the lighting effects, a smooth framerate among other things and we are left with a game that has overrated graphics! Also, RE4 was made to look like that yes, it's not supposed to be colorful, but the textures are bland, muddy and have very few colors and that has a huge impact on what the rest of the graphic engine can do. Also, it's pretty ovious since DD, that MK on home consoles isn't supposed to be a graphic powerhouse, who the hell cares about that? It looks really good in motion and it's apparently smooth with 12 players, that works for me.
... Posted March 28, 2008 Posted March 28, 2008 Super Mario Galaxy is one of the few (only?) games that use anti-aliasing... SMG does not have anti-aliasing. Sunshine does. Resi 4 is a murky brown and gray game. The real world does have color, you know. Yes, but the tones of RE4 are artistic. You know Tim Burton or David Fincher films? Those directors also use lighting and colour palettes that differ from reality for artistic purposes.
Mikey Posted March 28, 2008 Posted March 28, 2008 Congratulations your post shows a deep misunderstading of videogame graphics! Let's ignore that round surfaces need a lot of polygons, FoV, the quality of the textures and shaders, the lighting effects, a smooth framerate among other things and we are left with a game that has overrated graphics! Also, RE4 was made to look like that yes, it's not supposed to be colorful, but the textures are bland, muddy and have very few colors and that has a huge impact on what the rest of the graphic engine can do. Also, it's pretty ovious since DD, that MK on home consoles isn't supposed to be a graphic powerhouse, who the hell cares about that? It looks really good in motion and it's apparently smooth with 12 players, that works for me. SMG does not have anti-aliasing. Sunshine does. Yes, but the tones of RE4 are artistic. You know Tim Burton or David Fincher films? Those directors also use lighting and colour palettes that differ from reality for artistic purposes. Exactly. It's an art style choice.
Hellfire Posted March 28, 2008 Posted March 28, 2008 Yes, but the tones of RE4 are artistic. You know Tim Burton or David Fincher films? Those directors also use lighting and colour palettes that differ from reality for artistic purposes. RE4? Artistic? XD Mikey, funny stuff, did anyone not save that image when I posted it a few months ago?
Mikey Posted March 28, 2008 Posted March 28, 2008 All games have their own art styles, so yes, it's artistic.
... Posted March 28, 2008 Posted March 28, 2008 RE4? Artistic? XD Dude, when I say artistic I mean its tonality and other stuff. I mean "artistic choice" for mood and purpose. Like Mikey said, RE4 is horror, and it follows "artistic rules" for horror, from monochromatic tones of the photography in general to the "sets" used. Wood cabins lit by warm light, old castles, etc. All of that is artistic choice for a final purpose. It doesn't have to be abstract art or wacky wild stuff to be considered art. What I meant was that RE4 departs from realistic colours for an artistic purpose. That said, this is all that I'm saying, I'm not taking part in the rest of the discussion. I agree with certain points made by both sides of this discussion.
Hellfire Posted March 28, 2008 Posted March 28, 2008 All games have their own art styles, so yes, it's artistic. Indeed, artistic! Well, you brought up Tim Burton, so... :P I'm not saying RE4 graphics are bad, they're phenomenal and I did say they used those tones on purpose, but color is a huge factor in graphics, that's my point.
Mikey Posted March 28, 2008 Posted March 28, 2008 Crap art, but still art. Indeed, artistic! Well, you brought up Tim Burton, so... :P I'm not saying RE4 graphics are bad, they're phenomenal and I did say they used those tones on purpose, but color is a huge factor in graphics, that's my point. I'm not saying Galaxy looks crap either, it's one of the best looking games on the system, I just think there are better looking games. This is why I think it looks overrated. Resi 4 looks almost 360 quality at times, especially during the cutscenes. The fight against Salazar at the end of the first disk is jaw dropping for example.
... Posted March 28, 2008 Posted March 28, 2008 Well, you brought up Tim Burton, so... :P Well, yeah, just to compare the tones. I know Burton's work is mostly fantasy, but on the other hand you have David Fincher who shoots reality. Yet he uses a very monochromatic photography also. Artistic purposes, given the tone of his films. Ridley Scott is another one who goes for that sort of look.
pedrocasilva Posted March 28, 2008 Posted March 28, 2008 Might I say that we are comparing apples to oranges in here? (and without much merit might I add) Resident Evil 4 was done on GC, Mario Galaxy would be impossible to do on the GC. This already pretty sums it up. Then we could go into another realms, like how RE4 doesn't even throw a contest at Mario Galaxy in Geometry (yes, you heard me right), lightning, shaders, color. Regarding geometry... You might think they're small places, but they're completely rounded nevertheless (which takes a bucketload more polygons than flat terrain) and if you noticed right, when you're on the planet you often have others lying around instead of getting "turned off" for the sake of sparing the hardware... it's very intensive geometry-wise to keep track of such objects in space you know. You might say that RE4 is artistically using ocres, but you can't go around on the fact that the game runs at 16 bit's of color; is that a option; or a limitation? Mario Galaxy? full 32 bits. RE4 might use some bumps here and there and do light scattering (a achievement for last gen) but Mario galaxy is doing bloom, fur shaders, water, rim lightning, bumps, normal maps... often all at once. RE4 also runs at a lower resolution (even on the Wii) than that of super mario galaxy in 4:3, let alone the full 16:9 480p that Mario galaxy does. All this while Mario Galaxy keeps 60 frames, and RE4 is locked at 30. Seriously... there's no contest here, and shouldn't, RE4 is a GC game; Galaxy is not.
Mikey Posted March 28, 2008 Posted March 28, 2008 Might I say that we are comparing apples to oranges in here? (and without much merit might I add) Resident Evil 4 was done on GC, Mario Galaxy would be impossible to do on the GC. This already pretty sums it up. Then we could go into another realms, like how RE4 doesn't even throw a contest at Mario Galaxy in Geometry (yes, you heard me right), lightning, shaders, color. Regarding geometry... You might think they're small places, but they're completely rounded nevertheless (which takes a bucketload more polygons than flat terrain) and if you noticed right, when you're on the planet you often have others lying around instead of getting "turned off" for the sake of sparing the hardware... it's very intensive geometry-wise to keep track of such objects in space you know. You might say that RE4 is artistically using ocres, but you can't go around on the fact that the game runs at 16 bit's of color; is that a option; or a limitation? Mario Galaxy? full 32 bits. RE4 might use some bumps here and there and do light scattering (a achievement for last gen) but Mario galaxy is doing bloom, fur shaders, water, rim lightning, bumps, normal maps... often all at once. RE4 also runs at a lower resolution (even on the Wii) than that of super mario galaxy in 4:3, let alone the full 16:9 480p that Mario galaxy does. All this while Mario Galaxy keeps 60 frames, and RE4 is locked at 30. Seriously... there's no contest here, and shouldn't, RE4 is a GC game; Galaxy is not. Load of technobabble. Just because there are things in the game Resi 4 couldn't have done, doesn't make it the better looking game. Gran Turismo 4 looks better than Forza on the Xbox, yet Forza couldn't be done on the PS2.
Hellfire Posted March 28, 2008 Posted March 28, 2008 Just give it a rest dude, you can say you prefer the looks of certain games, but saying it looks better or not isn't that relative. And that technobabble is exactly what you needed to know, because, frankly talking that big about graphics without knowing anything about them isn't a good idea. Again prefering game X graphics over game Y != game X's graphics are better than game Y
Mikey Posted March 28, 2008 Posted March 28, 2008 Yet, Gran Turismo 4 clearly looks better than Forza, but there are things in Forza that the PS2 couldn't do.
pedrocasilva Posted March 28, 2008 Posted March 28, 2008 Load of technobabble. Just because there are things in the game Resi 4 couldn't have done, doesn't make it the better looking game.And you refute "technobabble" with that? "so what, just because there are things RE4 couldn't have done"... Galaxy is superior technically, full stop. (and you're not even refuting it anymore it seems, you're going the "so what, I like RE4 more") Anyway, you like RE4's approach (realistic) better than Galaxy's (cartoony). That's obvious, but that's your personal preference; doesn't mean realistically one has better graphics than the other. But all this to come to that conclusion... is a little too... pointless. I have preferences too you know (we all have), but even if I like OoT's style better than Wind Waker I'm not gonna say OoT has the better graphics (exaggerated point, for impact), that's more than a little similar to what you're doing to a certain extent though. Gran Turismo 4 looks better than Forza on the Xbox, yet Forza couldn't be done on the PS2.Does it? doesn't look like that at all for me, by a mile. And if we go into a technical discussion with that GT4 would take the beating of his life.
Mikey Posted March 28, 2008 Posted March 28, 2008 That's my point. Forza has things like higher resolution textures, and more polygons, yet....GT4 looks easily more realistic.
Hellfire Posted March 28, 2008 Posted March 28, 2008 tbh I played both, but not much, but what I remember is that GT4 had more attention to detail in each car despite a lower poly count, while forza was insconsistent, some looked better, some looked worse. However with the effects, physics, colision and damage (its primitive but GT doesnt have it :P) Forza gained the upper hand. It's a tough call, tecnhically, Forza is better, but I don't know which one I prefer. We're really going off topic lol. Well we're at racing games again, so it's closer to Ferrari...
Guest Maase Posted March 28, 2008 Posted March 28, 2008 Give up, for god's sake You have no chance, we are in a Nintendo Fanboy Forum xD Edit: Im talking to Mikey
Hellfire Posted March 28, 2008 Posted March 28, 2008 Give up, for god's sake You have no chance, we are in a Nintendo Fanboy Forum xD Edit: Im talking to Mikey I think these discussions are good, it's a great chance to learn things and they're pretty interesting. I mean, we're discussing XBOX and PS2 games now, it doesn't even have a thing to do with Nintendo. Try not to make this kind of posts so often specially when they're uncalled for, considering we're posting pure hard facts not defending anything.
Recommended Posts