system_error Posted August 24, 2006 Posted August 24, 2006 I am yet undecided wether I should hysterically laugh or start to cry. I guess that is why I try to distract myself from the reccent screenshots and write this based essay on my subjective opinion. I admit in games, TV, DVD, ... I can't help myself but I have to look and analyze how the picture looks. I have digital TV and even on a regular SD TV I can spot the difference between 2 channels because one has the better looking picture. Now before I end up in flames I have two definitions of "impressive graphics" and the easiest way to describe them is to name examples: Technically impressive graphics: Rogue Squadron 3 (high polygon level, effects, models, shading) Stylish impressive graphics: Killer 7 I believe both games look equally good whereas in Killer 7 the style makes the graphics look good not polygons or textures. Or look at GTA which looks not really stunning but there are so many people and cars around that it comes pretty close to a living city. That makes it a good game in my eyes. I assume we can say that the Wii will be at least twice as powerfull as the Gamecube was. We know that Nintendo focused on easy development and to maintain full backward compatiblity they based the Wii again on the powerfull PowerPC archittecture and ATI supplies the GPU. BC with software emulation would not be possible due to technical reasons - the Wii would have to be a lot more powerfull. So basicly (even though most people don't like that word) we have a Gamecube Turbo. A console which uses a very efficient and powerfull console as the base and upgrades it and caps bottlenecks. Many developers made games for the GC and Miyamoto reccently confirmed that with little adjustments Gamecube code can run 1:1 on the Wii. That means in theory a developer need a few weeks to port a GC game to the Wii using the Classic Controller. Now the hard part starts. I am disappointed by most screenshots and videos of Wii games so far. I admit it some even look horribly old and even worse than Playstation 2 games. Furthermore I also admit that there are a many games I really like. Elebits doesn't look next-gen maybe but I am sure it plays like a next-gen game. You can fool around with a whole house and everything reacts to you with pretty accurate physics. That is cool - I guess that wouldn't be possible on the Gamecube. So Elebits uses the Wii to create realistic physics and to give the player the feeling that he is really throwing the dishes around with the Wii controller. Another game which is quite cool is Mario Galaxy - it looks gorgeous and so far not a single Mario game disappointed me. Obviously graphics can be on a high standard on the Wii - after all it is more powerfull than the Gamecube. Now if I look at NFS: Carbon, Downhill Jam and also Red Steel I somehow miss the visual improvement from GC standard to Wii standard. Red Steel for example could be a top notch shooter game - maybe visually not as impressive as FEAR but in terms of gameplay, style, story and controlls it could easily beat it. But so far RS doesn't look impressive to me ... not technically and not when it comes to style. RE4 was a exclusive game (at least for some time) aswell and look what Capcom did with the GC. Ubisoft already developed software for the Gamecube - good looking software and now they have been selected as third party developer to create a exclusive shooter for the Wii with access to early devkits and that is the result? I don't know how anyone can be mad at me for saying that RS is underwhelming. And please don't believe that developers can optimize a game that much that it looks seriously different in only 3 months. Bug fixing, gameplay tweaks, controller issues, printing and packing discs takes a while too. Especially because Nintendo will have QA aswell. Now ask yourself what happens if the RS controlls are not as fun as everyone expects. After all it is one of the first Wii games - so the possibility that the controlls are slow or not accurate enough are high. What do we have then? A average shooter.... and the only way I could play a average shooter is when I can at least spot the different effects and look at the levels and think how good they made this and how realistic that looks. Moreover many people believe that graphics are only more polygons but with a strong GPU/CPU combination or at least a efficient one you can do so much more. Elebits is only the start in my eyes. Physics in gameply will become more and more standard because it adds realism to a game. Games can be more realistic in a way which may cause more fear if you play a survival horror game or it adds more fun when you have to swing a baseball bat. Well so far that is it and I only have one favour I ask everyone which reads it. Please if you are mad or angry at me just write me a PM and tell me what you like but lets try to keep this a serious discussion. I made my viewpoint pretty clear - Wii games have to get better visually or else I won't buy many third party games for the Wii. Now feel free to correct my grammar and spelling mistakes or tell me what you think - I open for founded criticism!
Kazzahdrane Posted August 24, 2006 Posted August 24, 2006 Anyone who is "mad or angry" at your post is a moron, let's get that straight first off. I have no idea why anyone would be, everything you said is sensible. Graphics do matter, not just to Joe Public but to Nintendo fans too. Some people act high and mighty and claim that they don't care about graphics but it's nothing to be ashamed of. Graphics are just one facet of games, claiming you don't care about them is like claiming you don't care about the gameplay, or the audio. Example: Darwinia on the PC. Amazing game that uses very simple shapes and has a very retro feel. However, the graphics are actually of a very high quality and feature many clever touches and graphical techniques. I too have been disappointed with some of the Wii footage I've seen so far, but as you said some of the games like Mario Galaxy look truly incredible.
YenRug Posted August 24, 2006 Posted August 24, 2006 Well, I would say for starters, go back and dig out some of the pre-release RE4 videos; it's rare that videos of games really give me a genuine feel of what visual impression the game will give once it's playing on your TV screen. I'll be honest and say I didn't think RE4 looked that special, in videos, but once I finally had it running on my GC there were moments where it just sucked me in completely and what was on screen seemed almost real. I'm at the point where I take video clips to be the basis for evaluating the gameplay, not the visual impact it might have. Red Steel? I'm trying to figure out if it's the kind of game I'd like to play, first and foremost, not whether the graphics are good enough; it looks good enough, if not exactly amazing, I'll give the final judgement once I see it running. Your example of Rogue Squadron; it looked amazing, but I just couldn't find anything to enjoy in it. The surprise Wii game, for me, is Super Mario Galaxy; probably signing my own death warrant, here, but I've never really enjoyed a Mario platformer and I can't understand why everyone raves about them. (Please don't get hung up on that, anyone, that's not the point of discussion.) But after watching the long playthrough video, on IGN, I'm actually looking forward to buying this one; there was just something that came across, in the video, that struck a chord with me and makes it look like a game I'll actually get something out of, at last.
Ten10 Posted August 24, 2006 Posted August 24, 2006 Well we can't really say too much about graphics at the moment, since most of them are still work in progress. You can't really put anything in stone until the final stamp is on it. But in terms of something like wii sports, there is much point in doing much to the graphics with that
Teppo Holmqvist Posted August 24, 2006 Posted August 24, 2006 Well we can't really say too much about graphics at the moment, since most of them are still work in progress. And especially when most bitching is based on heavily compressed video that runs in 320 x 240 and has mono sound. Usually film was also recorded using shaky cam-recorder, because Nintendo hasn't released official videos yet. Or bitch basing their "opinion" on one, overscaled screenshot that is from early beta.
DiemetriX Posted August 24, 2006 Posted August 24, 2006 I think it will take some time untill Thirdparty games looks "good" on Wii. Untill then we have a lot of good games from Nintendo.
Hellfire Posted August 24, 2006 Posted August 24, 2006 It's true that most developers are being incredibely bad at making graphics, I don't see the problem with Red Steel though, since it was mostly made on a GC, but whatever. We all know that Wii can do better graphically, but if devs don't do it at the moment, get over it, they're just graphics. Buy a 360 or a PS3 and a Wii and there problems solved. However, most people can't stop comparing Wii graphics to PS3 and 360 graphics and that's ridiculous. Most games we've seen don't looke worse than PS2 games in motion. Actually none of them do (unless Wii Sports and THQ games), we just have been treated to a lot of bad screenshots. Also dev kits were handed to late and devs have been investing their time into what matters: the controller. The Wii will exist for at least 4 years, there's time for everything to evolve both graphically and in controls.
Rick Dangerous Posted August 24, 2006 Posted August 24, 2006 I think games should start looking pretty good on the wii just due to the fact we never really saw the cube being pushed much last generation as the PS2 was the lead platform for most games. So the Wii with it extra power and room for less compressed textures on the disc should look even better. Once we get an experianced GC developer like capcom releasing shots im sure we wont be dissapointed.
system_error Posted August 24, 2006 Author Posted August 24, 2006 I agree with Hellfire it would be stupid to compare 360/PS3 graphics with Wii graphics because not only do those console cost a lot more (even though both MS and Sony pay most of the technology) they also run on high definition screens. A lot of old games look quite good when you just increase the resolution. Teppo please tell men when developers are done and when can I judge a picture or movie? In about 3 months the Wii will be in stores (at least in Japan) and that means games have already been printed, packaged and shipped to retailers. Those games have been tested by the quality assurance of the developers, publishers and Nintendo themself (similar thing happens on 360 games - everyone is tested that certain things work). Now how much time of those 3 months are spent to make a game look better and how much time will be spent on the things I mentioned above and for finetuning the gameplay or to get rid of bugs? A launch normally does not feature first class games when it comes to graphics (Rogue Squadron is a exception but beside the graphics I found the game rather average) but I except solid games from Nintendo and third party developers. Right now most Wii games look either similar to their Gamecube counterparts or some even a little bit worse. A game like Super Monkey Ball fits the Wii perfectly and I can overlook that it seems to use the Gamecube engine - as long as the game is fun I couldn't care less about graphics in a party game (same goes for Wario Ware, Mario Party, ...). But if I look at the good looking obviously "tuned" RS screenshots and the high-res videos I have watched I am disappointed by textures and lightning. Also did anyone notice the complete lack of AntiAliasing in nearly every game? I can live without the HD era for another couple years but AA on a standard definition TV is something which should be a standard. In a game like Super Mario Galaxy you won't notice the lack of it that good but in other games you do. I still believe the Wii hardware can do more than what is shown so far and I wonder why Nintendo doesn't push the third party developers a bit more. I understand their new approach and as much as I like those "casual" games and the new controller why does it mean that the games can't look better than Gamecube games with a few exceptions so far. Maybe I am all wrong and the Wii hardware is really not capable of more and therfor extremly cheap but that is something I would not want to justify if I would be a Nintendo spokesperson.
Shino Posted August 24, 2006 Posted August 24, 2006 After the appearence of Mario Galaxy, is pretty obvious that the Wii is more than capable graphics wise, but mario has been in the making for years, it's an internal product and we probably won't see it at launch. What were seeing here is what we saw a year ago with Xbox360, it's a rush of first generation games to meet the launch timeline, yes their not ports from previous generations, but they have a new control method which is even worse for pioneering devs. In the specific case of Red Steel, they're trying to make a inovative quality game in less than a year! In conclusion, this is happening mainly due to Nintendo's bad timing and Sony's release date (that's obviously bullshit) that's pressing devs.
Kazzahdrane Posted August 24, 2006 Posted August 24, 2006 In conclusion, this is happening mainly due to Nintendo's bad timing and Sony's release date (that's obviously bullshit) that's pressing devs. Offtopic I know, but what did you mean by that?
mcj metroid Posted August 24, 2006 Posted August 24, 2006 What we must remember though is that xbox 360 games started off with average enough graphics too...fifa on it looked underwhelming. i really think red steel looks meh at best,same with galaxy.galaxy looks no better than sunshine so far anyway,thats my opinion but i could just be blind. i'm disappointed also but i prefer stylish always.I loved wind wakers graphics,viewtiful joes and tony hawks on ds(though i havent played it but it still looks lovely) i think wii games will start off looking average but it will get better
Shino Posted August 24, 2006 Posted August 24, 2006 Offtopic I know, but what did you mean by that? The console is scheduled for release on November 11, 2006 in Japan and November 17, 2006 worldwide and they haven't even started producing it. And now there's this http://ps3.ign.com/articles/727/727810p1.html .
DCK Posted August 24, 2006 Posted August 24, 2006 I wonder how much we'll really see of this. Sure the Wii's calculation power compared to the GameCube doesn't seem to have increased all that much (polygons are still showing sometimes) but we can also see that there's some pretty powerful shaders and textures have had a good deal of improvement. Textures and especially shading make far more of a difference than polygons, so as long as we get sharp design and beautiful lighting and explosions, I doubt I'll mind the occasional edge here and there. Quite frankly I find the biggest problem with Cube graphics nowadays (especially third party ones) is that the textures are badly compressed and shading hasn't really been succesfully ported. With Wii, there's no reason these things should exist any longer.
knightendo Posted August 24, 2006 Posted August 24, 2006 you're basing this on videos that blur (maybe just a little on some computers but a lot on others) when they're running full-screen on your computer, and screenshots that LOOK like there's no anti-aliasing but they're just bad screenshots!! you can find good versions of most screens if you look hard enough. happens all the time, always has, no need to blame Wii! red steel looks amazing, as does galaxy, and i think GCN's graphics, when done properly, are more that sufficient. to know Wii is more powerful i'm happy enough with! DS is under-powered graphically if you look at tech-specs, and it suffers in screenshots most of the time but once it's in your hands you go "wow" instead! and then the gameplay takes over anyway!
system_error Posted August 24, 2006 Author Posted August 24, 2006 I wonder how much we'll really see of this. Sure the Wii's calculation power compared to the GameCube doesn't seem to have increased all that much (polygons are still showing sometimes) but we can also see that there's some pretty powerful shaders and textures have had a good deal of improvement. Textures and especially shading make far more of a difference than polygons, so as long as we get sharp design and beautiful lighting and explosions, I doubt I'll mind the occasional edge here and there. Quite frankly I find the biggest problem with Cube graphics nowadays (especially third party ones) is that the textures are badly compressed and shading hasn't really been succesfully ported. With Wii, there's no reason these things should exist any longer. I am still undecided in what form the Wii will even support shaders. On the texture compression issue I can only say that texture have to be compressed even on a HD DVD because it is faster to load and uncompress a texture then to load a uncompressed one.
DCK Posted August 24, 2006 Posted August 24, 2006 Shader effects are pretty heavy in Red Steel and Mario Galaxy so I trust there's plenty of shader capacity. Also RRR and SMBB are showing off plenty of shiny effects. The texture compression was pretty bad on the Cube sometimes because of lack of memory it seems. Textures while standing still things look pretty bad sometimes. Also the texture porting was done pretty badly in a lot of third party games.
system_error Posted August 24, 2006 Author Posted August 24, 2006 Shader effects are pretty heavy in Red Steel and Mario Galaxy so I trust there's plenty of shader capacity. Also RRR and SMBB are showing off plenty of shiny effects. The texture compression was pretty bad on the Cube sometimes because of lack of memory it seems. Textures while standing still things look pretty bad sometimes. Also the texture porting was done pretty badly in a lot of third party games. Well the point is the Gamecube has different functions to achieve shader like operations. It is all bit unclear for myself - I really hope that the GPU will be revealed after the launch. I guess some tech site will rip apart a Wii even though that makes me cry.
... Posted August 24, 2006 Posted August 24, 2006 Just watch the first 15 seconds of the video posted on "05/26/2006": http://media.wii.ign.com/media/748/748589/vids_1.html
Konfucius Posted August 24, 2006 Posted August 24, 2006 I agree with you. I'm also underwhelmed by the Wii's graphics. I tell myself that it's the gameplay that matters and in the end it really does but good gameplay with GC graphics won't cut it actually. Lighting, high res textures and high polygon count all add up to the experience of a photorealistic world and at the moment especially FPS are the reference graphics-wise. And graphics are the most important thing when you start a game. Until you get to grips with the controls there'll be the graphics that will make the first impression on the player. I recently started to play Half-Life 2 and during the first part I was constantly appreciating the - still - beautiful graphics. It was only when the action started that I noticed how good and fluid the gameplay was, how awesome the level design etc. but until then the only thing that mattered to me were the graphics; and the intro section takes some time. I'm actually asking myself why these games don't look better with all the extra power they should have over GC games. I found a few explanations: a) lazy/bad coders b) late/weak Devkits c) the thing about stereoscopic 3D will turn out to be true and in order to work properly they need to reach framerates of around 120 fps.
Rick Dangerous Posted August 24, 2006 Posted August 24, 2006 I recently started to play Half-Life 2 and during the first part I was constantly appreciating the - still - beautiful graphics. It was only when the action started that I noticed how good and fluid the gameplay was, how awesome the level design etc. but until then the only thing that mattered to me were the graphics; and the intro section takes some time. Well if your using half life 2 as the bench mark and that can run on the xbox, and the wii is more powerful there should not be much to worry about really
knightendo Posted August 24, 2006 Posted August 24, 2006 everyone moaned coz at the start of the DS' life it was "new gameplay with n64 graphics won't cut it" or stuff to that effect. those people were proved wrong from the word "go!" so shall it be again! and now the DS is handling even better graphics, but my point is about before that...
dabookerman Posted August 24, 2006 Posted August 24, 2006 There isnt a reason to be pissed of about graphics, its when Nintendo bullshits about having graphics no different to the 360 and ps3, and claiming to have spent 5 years on the the processors, and then coming out with this shit.
Shyguy Posted August 24, 2006 Posted August 24, 2006 IMO Half Life 2 is the border for gfx in a game, theve really hit the nail on the head with it. Steam and the ability to just buy mods for it is a fantastic idea. Nothing graphicly impressive than half life 2 will make me want that game over it, in terms of gameplay and physics, HL2 will be here for along time benchmark wise, especialy with Portal around the corner and TFC2.
system_error Posted August 24, 2006 Author Posted August 24, 2006 everyone moaned coz at the start of the DS' life it was "new gameplay with n64 graphics won't cut it" or stuff to that effect. those people were proved wrong from the word "go!" so shall it be again! and now the DS is handling even better graphics, but my point is about before that... Well on a handheld I prefer gameplay over graphics and therfor I don't mind that many games look like the GBA ones - on a small screen it is different than on a TV set. Just ask yourself would you pay 50€ (I won't translate that into Victorian silver Guinees or whatever the new island currency is ) more for the Wii to see every game look as good as Super Mario Galaxy or at least similar?
Recommended Posts