LazyBoy Posted August 24, 2006 Posted August 24, 2006 I'm not worrying. These are first generation games, rushed to launch, and the developers are probably spending most of their time getting used to the WiiMote. I paniked when GC and DS came out, and my fears were calmed when the 2nd/3rd generation games came out, so i'm staying calm and trusting this time. Once MP3 comes out you'll see what this thing can really do, if anything can push the Wii it'll be Retro. And honestly the problem of graphics not getting more photo-realistic is not a big thing for me. I mean I saw the video for Heroes yesterday, and I was thinking why there aren't more games taking risks with their graphics like that, and actually physically looking different. That's what I want to see, am I alone here?
Shino Posted August 24, 2006 Posted August 24, 2006 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? Yes, didn't know Mario Galaxy was considered an ugly game.
Nintenchris Posted August 25, 2006 Posted August 25, 2006 Heres some of the newest Tony Hawks screens... Now you can clearly see that they have polished it alot since we last see this game... but do you actualy think that because the graphics are better that this game is going to be more enjoyable? imo a crap game is a crap game... good graphics or not.
DiemetriX Posted August 25, 2006 Posted August 25, 2006 That looks a lot better But as Lazyboy sayed "These are first generation games" and games and developers need some time to mature.
YenRug Posted August 25, 2006 Posted August 25, 2006 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? You're talking rubbish, I'm afraid. The time between a game going gold and hitting the shelves is usually around a month, tops, to take any longer is delaying the revenue return on the finished product. Yes, some finished games have taken ages to hit the shelves, over the years, but they're rare occurrences and are usually down to contractual wrangles between the developer and publisher. As to the graphics, at this stage in development, I have read numerous developer reports and interviews; invariably, the final graphical polish comes in the last 2-4 weeks of development, in some cases this can change a game from looking pretty rough to amazing, but in others it can be just a case of making a very good looking game just shine that little bit more. Stop judging games by development screens, wait for it to be finished and then you can make a realistic call.
Teppo Holmqvist Posted August 25, 2006 Posted August 25, 2006 You're talking rubbish, I'm afraid. The time between a game going gold and hitting the shelves is usually around a month, tops, to take any longer is delaying the revenue return on the finished product. Indeed. You can see this by just watching various "game xxx went gold" news from Gamespot. For example: * Prey went gold june 22, ships 11th of july. * Hitman: Blood Money went gold may 18, ships 30th of may. * Rogue Trooper went gold may 13, ships 23rd of may. * Civilization IV: Warlords went gold July 9, ships 22th of july. and so on...
Kazzahdrane Posted August 25, 2006 Posted August 25, 2006 Wow...imagine thinking that retailers get games three months before they are released... Someone needs to actually get some info about the games industry.
knightendo Posted August 25, 2006 Posted August 25, 2006 lazy boy, you are spot on! and i have to say, in my honest opinion, the more realistic games on the 360 are trying to be, the less "real" they look, you know? look at table tennis, it tries so hard to be realistic, but to me it just makes it MORE obvious that they are computer-generated people, and they end up looking plastic, to me at least! when i play a game i want to lose myself in it, not be aware that this is trying so hard to be real, because games for the forseeable future will ALWAYS look like games, so stop trying to look photo-realistic, it takes away imagination and stops (me anyway) from gettng deep into it when the graphics disturb me lol. all that new technology in 360 and ps3 should be being used to expand gameplay as well as graphics. gameplay looks to be just the same as before on those systems, and i've only seen a few games that i think look good, ones that use the power for massive playing fields for just one example (instead of trying to make your character trouser bulge photo-real!). Wii will have superb graphics but won't try for photo-realism and that's great for me. it means i can be immersed within these games with the controller and my imagination won't be cut short by plastic ken doll wannabes with their "oh so life-like hair and shirts"! action man in the 70's had real hair and that was just wrong!! those tony hawk screens look awesome! and this is a 1st generation title from a 3rd party!! think what they'll be achieving next year and i must say i'm getting zelda after launch as i really wana play metroid as it has been built from the ground up for Wii.... trust me, Wii will be excellent to look at too. now stop juding by delopment screens and wait! lol.
DCK Posted August 25, 2006 Posted August 25, 2006 It takes two weeks from going gold to release. That means devvies have about two months left for developing their games now. Still the only game two games that have shown good graphics were top priority games from Nintendo. I wonder what's up with the third parties as Mario Galaxy is miles ahead of anything else.
knightendo Posted August 25, 2006 Posted August 25, 2006 It takes two weeks from going gold to release. That means devvies have about two months left for developing their games now. Still the only game two games that have shown good graphics were top priority games from Nintendo. I wonder what's up with the third parties as Mario Galaxy is miles ahead of anything else. did you even look at the screens above?? lol
DCK Posted August 25, 2006 Posted August 25, 2006 It doesn't go beyond GameCube. The character design is very edgy and textures are flat, no bumpmapping whatsoever.
McMad Posted August 25, 2006 Posted August 25, 2006 I hate bumpmapping so much, I was just so over used in Doom 3 and Prey it just put me off. The small amount of bump maps that were used in Half Life 2 was good.
DCK Posted August 25, 2006 Posted August 25, 2006 Bumpmapping > no bumpmapping anyday. I agree that it's overused too much, but it's necessary.
Fegan Posted August 25, 2006 Posted August 25, 2006 I'm just interested in the first party releases as of now.
BeerMonkey Posted August 25, 2006 Posted August 25, 2006 ...that i hope doesnt lead to problems with nintendos future with wii (everyone one wanting ninty games and not third party...well the sales will tell the story)
Ten10 Posted August 25, 2006 Posted August 25, 2006 Retailers normally only get a new release game about a week before it out. I should know I've been in the business before. Before this stage the retailer distribution centre would be the ones to get such items before that. But personally I feel nintendo need to drop the secretive stuff now. They've already been partially copied by sony, so there isn't much left to waste time hiding.
system_error Posted August 25, 2006 Author Posted August 25, 2006 Indeed. You can see this by just watching various "game xxx went gold" news from Gamespot. For example: * Prey went gold june 22, ships 11th of july. * Hitman: Blood Money went gold may 18, ships 30th of may. * Rogue Trooper went gold may 13, ships 23rd of may. * Civilization IV: Warlords went gold July 9, ships 22th of july. and so on... When a game has gone gold it is finished. That means booklets, manuals, covers are done. Also the code is final. Which tells us that bug fixing and quality assurance is over aswell. Gameplay is fine tuned and the level design is finished. That does take some time. So yeah from those 3 months you subtract the 2 week which a company needs to actually print the discs - but everything else is done BEFORE. So 3 months - 2 weeks - x weeks for gameplay related issues and QA. Now how much you will get for simple polishing? Furthermore I doubt that a developer will add the "good" textures 2 weeks before the game is about to be pressed on a disc. You also know what normally console games are tested a lot better than PC games because nobody (especially Nintendo) likes patches for a console game. As to the graphics, at this stage in development, I have read numerous developer reports and interviews; invariably, the final graphical polish comes in the last 2-4 weeks of development, in some cases this can change a game from looking pretty rough to amazing, but in others it can be just a case of making a very good looking game just shine that little bit more. Stop judging games by development screens, wait for it to be finished and then you can make a realistic call. You dont believe that yourself do you? Do you really think developer can add a few code lines in their engine to make a game look pretty? Do you really believe that it is a matter of a few days to create the new assets which look seriously better? Furthermore wouldn't it be easier to finish the engine, artwork and then create the levels and in the end just balance the game? Maybe I am wrong but I can't believe that unless you prove me. I worked on a few smaller projects and the only optimization we did in the end is to have our engine run faster more stable - the look and artwork was done months before that. That looks a lot better But as Lazyboy sayed "These are first generation games" and games and developers need some time to mature. I would agree with you if Ubisoft, EA, Activison never made a single Gamecube game - but they did. Plenty of them. Now do they need more time because the forgot everything they knew about the Gamecube or do they need more time because Nintendo was late in delievering the development kits? Because obviously most people are afraid to think about that maybe developers nowadays need money and are under big pressure - so what is easier: - spend a huge amount of time and money on a Wii project which might sell bad (strong Nintendo first party titles, low user base, ...) or will be a triple AAA game with strong sales - spend less money on a "decent" game or port a existing game to be on the safe side and look how it will do and AFTERWARDS decide on your future resource allocation "new Downhill Jam pictures" - I would say there are "enhanced". Where are the gauges, display and other stats which have been on the old pictures? Antialiasing suddenly was possible even though no other game uses it so far? If that is not STRANGE I really don't know how to convince anyone.
Kazzahdrane Posted August 25, 2006 Posted August 25, 2006 You dont believe that yourself do you? Do you really think developer can add a few code lines in their engine to make a game look pretty? I've done it myself, it's called optimisation. Let's face it, Nintendo's 3rd-party friends are clearly working really hard to get games ready for Wii launch, so I'd say it's very likely that they will only reach code-complete a month or so before launch. That last month will be spent getting rid of final bugs and optimising for performance. I think Nintendo basically didn't get dev kits out early enough (though I know they were pretty good with it compared with Sony), since Mario Galaxy looks fantastic and was already in a playable state a couple of months ago.
knightendo Posted August 25, 2006 Posted August 25, 2006 "new Downhill Jam pictures" - I would say there are "enhanced". Where are the gauges, display and other stats which have been on the old pictures? Antialiasing suddenly was possible even though no other game uses it so far? If that is not STRANGE I really don't know how to convince anyone. your antialiasing argument doesn't stand up i'm afraid. again, you are basing this on bad screenshots (there's been plenty of bad screenshots in magazines even after a game is released that make it look more blocky than it is, DS ones especially but its happened all over) and video footage filmed off tv screens. any "proper" footage or screens i have seen may still be unfinished but by heck it is antialiased!! I've done it myself, it's called optimisation. Let's face it, Nintendo's 3rd-party friends are clearly working really hard to get games ready for Wii launch, so I'd say it's very likely that they will only reach code-complete a month or so before launch. That last month will be spent getting rid of final bugs and optimising for performance. I think Nintendo basically didn't get dev kits out early enough (though I know they were pretty good with it compared with Sony), since Mario Galaxy looks fantastic and was already in a playable state a couple of months ago. well said. i know it doesn't work the same way, but just to show you how people misconceive things: in the tv industry people think tv shows are finshed months ahead of them being shown, but (in america especially!) quite a few shows can still be filming a few weeks before transmission. ok yes, off topic, but i had a point in there somewhere lol, musta got lost jk! anyway, we can't say anything until we have the games in front of us (same with the online system which i'm sure is also getting optimised up to launch). system error you seem to be ignoring anything that is officially a proper piece of footage or a proper screen. i've seen shots of some rayman screens that look like they've no anti-aliasing, yet you can see the same screen elsewhere and it looks lovely! some screens are taken badly, reduced or increased in size to fit web pages etc etc... you can't judge yet!
Teppo Holmqvist Posted August 25, 2006 Posted August 25, 2006 I've done it myself, it's called optimisation. Yeah. For example, it is fairly easy pump anti-alias up after rendering code is fast / stable enough. You just need to adjust few rows* in main renderer code and you are ready to go. This is even easier with consoles, because of unified development tools and architecture. * And that's is how it basically works with PC games where you can adjust details.
system_error Posted August 25, 2006 Author Posted August 25, 2006 Yeah. For example, it is fairly easy pump anti-alias up after rendering code is fast / stable enough. You just need to adjust few rows* in main renderer code and you are ready to go. This is even easier with consoles, because of unified development tools and architecture. * And that's is how it basically works with PC games where you can adjust details. Unless the game is a port from a different plattform. So if it is indeed that easy why don't developers show AA screenshots? Nobody would notice if the game is lagging because after all a picture is a still image. If the game then does not run at 30/60 FPS reduce it or disable it. So far I dont believe there are launch games with AA and 60FPS.
Teppo Holmqvist Posted August 25, 2006 Posted August 25, 2006 So if it is indeed that easy why don't developers show AA screenshots? Nobody would notice if the game is lagging because after all a picture is a still image. Because bullshots aren't good way to market your game. What if you can't deliver your promises? What if you final product can't have AA? Lying isn't smart way to go, even though Sony believes otherwise. Did you even know that both Activision and Ubisoft were sued in Great Britain for misleading marketing last year? LINK For Activision Piece . Both companies surely want to avoid same farce that happened with CoD2 and GRAW.
system_error Posted August 25, 2006 Author Posted August 25, 2006 Because bullshots aren't good way to market your game. What if you can't deliver your promises? What if you final product can't have AA? Lying isn't smart way to go, even though Sony believes otherwise. Did you even know that both Activision and Ubisoft were sued in Great Britain for misleading marketing last year? LINK For Activision Piece . Both companies surely want to avoid same farce that happened with CoD2 and GRAW. So those new screenshots from RedSteel are officially from Ubisoft - that means that cool lightning and AA in the RedSteel pictures is final. As a customer I get this or even better quality? Well then I am happy...
Recommended Posts