flameboy Posted July 5, 2009 Posted July 5, 2009 Well sort of; This really is quite remarkable. Not only has the Wii been successfully and competently emulated on the PC, but the graphics are being brought to us in shiny 720p HD. While it does have a few issues, the Dolphin emulator currently makes Wii games look far better than they do on the console itself, and gives you a taste of what could have been if Nintendo had bothered to make the Wii a bit more powerful. Looking at the images, all I can think is that this is what the Wii really should have been from the start. Fair play to the Nintendo designers, they've managed to make some really good looking games despite the Wii's limitations, but it could have been so much more. If emulation is your thing, perhaps you can enjoy this for yourself, but those of us in the realm of the law-abiding will have to simply dream of what might one day be real. There are loads of shots on NeoGAF. Check them out and imagine a world with Wii HD http://www.destructoid.com/hd-wii-emulator-is-actually-better-than-the-wii-a-bit-138610.phtml#comments More can be found on a neoGAF thread; http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=356785
Grazza Posted July 5, 2009 Posted July 5, 2009 That's fantastic. If Wii HD has a high-quality upscaler, existing games could look as good as that on TVs. The images are 1280 x 960, so they'd be somewhere between 720p and 1080p.
Shino Posted July 5, 2009 Posted July 5, 2009 I've commented on thos here before, can't be bothered anymore. Try this one texture heavy games.
Dante Posted July 5, 2009 Posted July 5, 2009 I've commented on thos here before, can't be bothered anymore. Try this one texture heavy games. Can you find that theard Shino? Nevermind i have found it myself. Link
Dante Posted July 5, 2009 Posted July 5, 2009 Hmmm imagine monster hunger 3 through this... MH-Tri is bad looking in 720p.
Deathjam Posted July 5, 2009 Posted July 5, 2009 MH-Tri is bad looking in 720p. Which one is which cos if it's the bottom pic, it doesn't look so bad to me.
mcj metroid Posted July 5, 2009 Posted July 5, 2009 ... er which image is the 720p one?. cause they're both completely different?
Dante Posted July 6, 2009 Posted July 6, 2009 ... er which image is the 720p one?. cause they're both completely different? first image: boom lighting on second image: boom lighting off
Nolan Posted July 6, 2009 Posted July 6, 2009 Bloom Lighting? It would look alot better in HD if you either through the Emulator software or even forced it through video card drivers applied some AA. The bloom hides some of the AA, and exacerbates the rest of it. It would look better though if it wasn't over saturated, does the Bloom fade out some as you "adjust" to the sunlight?
LostOverThere Posted July 6, 2009 Posted July 6, 2009 Be sure to watch it in HD (its pointless otherwise), but here is Super Smash Bros Brawl in 720p.
Josh64 Posted July 6, 2009 Posted July 6, 2009 The galaxy screenshots looks truly mind blowing, it improves the graphics dramatically. I never really realised what a difference HD made as at the time, when everyone was moaning about how the Wii has a lack of HD, my tv didn't have it anyway, so I didn't really look into it. Now though, my Wii looks pretty terrible on my TV, I often find it hard to see small writing as its just a fuzz.
Deathjam Posted July 6, 2009 Posted July 6, 2009 Both images Deathborn Im Deathjam but similar so ill let that slide. And yeah, it does look a little meh in HD.
Dazkarieh Posted July 6, 2009 Posted July 6, 2009 (edited) How can you like that crapy images? Damn... marketing is a powerful thing, indeed. It's awful! Petey in the second image looks like made of steel, or dived into an oil bath. The planets on the background are awful as well. Where's the detail? If you check the other photos, mountains' textures are awful (look made of glass)... It really depresses me that people read "Galaxy at 720p" and don't even look how crappy it is... they simply see light, bloom and exaggerated bump mapping and start "Teh HD consolezzz rulezzz" or "I wish Nintendozzz had put and HDMI portzzz"... Probably that's because both my HD consoles have a lot less use than the Wii (and the Wii was my first Nintendo console, while I had Xbox, PSx and PS2)... I don't care about the number of pixels... Edited July 6, 2009 by Dazkarieh
Sheikah Posted July 7, 2009 Posted July 7, 2009 (edited) How can you like that crapy images? Damn... marketing is a powerful thing, indeed. It's awful! Petey in the second image looks like made of steel, or dived into an oil bath. The planets on the background are awful as well. Where's the detail? If you check the other photos, mountains' textures are awful (look made of glass)... It really depresses me that people read "Galaxy at 720p" and don't even look how crappy it is... they simply see light, bloom and exaggerated bump mapping and start "Teh HD consolezzz rulezzz" or "I wish Nintendozzz had put and HDMI portzzz"... Probably that's because both my HD consoles have a lot less use than the Wii (and the Wii was my first Nintendo console, while I had Xbox, PSx and PS2)... I don't care about the number of pixels... No matter which way you look at it, the HD images look far better than standard resolution. Any problems you're pointing out are likely to do with the game not being have made for HD to begin with. Also, Mario Galaxy's graphics were defined by original lighting effects; the lighting in the game is just like in those HD pictures. It's a shame that Nintendo didn't make their console HD, as the Xbox proves that you can have HD graphics and a reasonably cheap console. Even if people (bizarrely) didn't want HD graphics, they could always set the thing to 480p instead via the settings. PS: Is just pure win. Edited July 7, 2009 by Sheikah
Shino Posted July 7, 2009 Posted July 7, 2009 It doesn't look better because its HD, it has more AA and AF, the actual resoltion didn't help much, and would help even less if it was a game with more textures instead of bland colours, like Metroid Prime 3.
Pit-Jr Posted July 7, 2009 Posted July 7, 2009 This is spiffy and all but im just gonna wait til the Super Wii is released, if i even have any interest left in Nintendo by then
Dazkarieh Posted July 7, 2009 Posted July 7, 2009 (edited) No matter which way you look at it, the HD images look far better than standard resolution. Any problems you're pointing out are likely to do with the game not being have made for HD to begin with. You're in contradiction. So you admit the pictures look crappy (because of the game not being have made for HD to begin with or not, don't care), but it's still better anyway. No it isn't. And I don't care why... they're simply awful and if the final result of Galaxy HD was that, I'm happy it isn't. For comparison, SSBB looked nice. These ones... everyone just say that because... well, I don't even know why. Probably because HD=good graphics in peoples' mind. Edited July 7, 2009 by Dazkarieh
Rummy Posted July 7, 2009 Posted July 7, 2009 Rather opinionated little fella ain't ya? I gotta say, I agree with Deathjam, the Galaxy ones look better(i wouldnt mind it looking like that when i played it!) and also the Brawl one is awesome. The MH3 one without the 'bloom' or whatever it's called is quite nice too, but that bloom was does indeed look mighty awful, but then I also don't know what the original looked like, so it might just be design fault there too.
Dazkarieh Posted July 7, 2009 Posted July 7, 2009 Well, at least the opinionated little fella knows what bloom is
Sheikah Posted July 7, 2009 Posted July 7, 2009 (edited) You're in contradiction. So you admit the pictures look crappy (because of the game not being have made for HD to begin with or not, don't care), but it's still better anyway. No it isn't. And I don't care why... they're simply awful and if the final result of Galaxy HD was that, I'm happy it isn't. For comparison, SSBB looked nice. These ones... everyone just say that because... well, I don't even know why. Probably because HD=good graphics in peoples' mind. How is that contradiction? You might want to look up the term contradiction, because nowhere does it not allow for what I've said. The pictures evidently don't look as good as they could, but there's no doubt that a crisper, higher quality image looks far better in the end. HD does NOT necessarily = good graphics, HD = non-smeared, crisp graphics that would otherwise look like turd on a good set. And I use a good set. If you want me to post up some HD vs non-HD comparison pictures to disprove you, just give the word. *Sigh*. Some people in this day and age really do still believe that HD makes no difference. Edited July 7, 2009 by Sheikah
Dazkarieh Posted July 7, 2009 Posted July 7, 2009 *Sigh*. Some people in this day and age really do still believe that HD makes no difference. Of course it makes difference. It brings lots of bloom, bump mapping and lightning And lack of proper work art... after all, all the budget goes to a great design of muscled healthy characters
Sheikah Posted July 7, 2009 Posted July 7, 2009 Of course it makes difference. It brings lots of bloom, bump mapping and lightning And lack of proper work art... after all, all the budget goes to a great design of muscled healthy characters HD implies none of those. Developers are free to apply whatever graphical effects they want; HD refers solely to the resolution that the game is displayed at. Naturally, any game that runs at a higher resolution will only look better than the same game ran at a lower resolution (even old games like Banjo Kazooie on XBLA are proving this). It produces, unarguably, a more detailed and sharper image. I don't even know why you're arguing this tbh. Anyone who linked up an Xbox 360 or PS3 to a HDTV via HDMI who toggled between HD and non-HD resolution would find this out very easily.
Recommended Posts