When do you think wii games will start looking good?

[quote name='lanzarlaluna']Metroid Prime 3 will be the true test. If Retro can't make a Wii game look noticeably better than a GameCube game, it can't be done.[/QUOTE]

Yep, and that will be the first major game built from the ground up for the Wii.

With Metroid, Mario Galaxy, and Smash Bros we should have a good idea about the Wii's capabilities.

Both from the graphics standpoint, and how good the controls can be.

I've been very unenamored with the Wii thus far, but I'm holding on to it until playing those three games in hopes that they'll change my opinion on it just like the first round of big DS games did a couple of years ago.

If I'm still not digging it after those, off to Craig's list it goes.
 
They will start looking good once more developers -- Nintendo included -- realize that compelling looks have very little to do with processing muscle and everything to do with art direction, and they start making really imaginative-looking stuff that is unique even though it's not ultra-super-mega-realistic. I can't think of any game, HD or not, that I think looks better than Wind Waker. It's way less realistic than your Gears Of Wars and your MotorStorms, but it's also prettier.
 
[quote name='dallow']Better graphics of course doesn't always mean more realistic.[/QUOTE]

Exactly. You can have good technical graphics while also having good art design.
 
will MP8 really benefit from Progessive scan?

I was going to say, they probably, wisely used development time to implement interesting new mini-games that use the wiimote in an innovative way instead of making the game run in widescreen/progressive scan ... but... not so much... they just made it suck instead.
 
[quote name='mang9432']will MP8 really benefit from Progessive scan?
[/QUOTE]

Any game benefits from it as things look much sharper.

The bigger issue is lack of 16x9 support. I refuse to buy any 4:3 games now that I have a 16x9 TV.

Honestly, I probably won't buy anything that's not 16x9 and 480p period. Luckily all the major games should have those features. I don't like mini-game crap like Mario Party anyway, so no skin off my nose.
 
[quote name='mang9432']will MP8 really benefit from Progessive scan?

I was going to say, they probably, wisely used development time to implement interesting new mini-games that use the wiimote in an innovative way instead of making the game run in widescreen/progressive scan ... but... not so much... they just made it suck instead.[/quote]

Yeah, the game sucks to boot! :bomb:
Widescreen is more important, but every game benefits from progressive scan.
Every game would benefit from both.
 
I feel like devs didn't really think the Wii would take off. It'll be nice when they start focusing on polishing a game, and not even necessarily more realistic looking, but for crap sakes get rid of the jaggies right! Instill some anti-aliasing perhaps. Just overall sharper looking stuff would be nice. That's all my point is. There are so many games, as we all know, that are just not all that aesthetically pleasing.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Yep, and that will be the first major game built from the ground up for the Wii.[/quote]

Wrong. Metroid Prime 3 was originally a GameCube title, as well.

Since I don't want to be accused of rumor-mongering, I'll sell this for what I bought it for. First off: two degrees of separation - a very good friend of mine knows a Nintendo employee (a lower ranking one, that). Before E32006, they were asked to demo a few Wii games, either as half-assed additional beta testing, or something among those lines. According to the "insider" the demo for Metroid Prime Corruption still had C-stick selector in it. Granted, this is "word of mouth bullshit," possibly partially or wholly wrong. I'm saying what I've heard, and you can most definitely make up your own mind about the game once you see it.

I will remind you, though, that MP3 was aimed to be a launch title, which means that it won't be representative of full capabilities of the Wii. If you want to choose ONE game that will be a super-pimp-demo of the system, put your money on Super Mario Galaxy, because yes that one was developed straight up for the Wii.

And last but not least, regardless of whether or not MP3 would be on the Cube or on a Wii, I know it will look and sound fucking awesome.
 
A blurb from a recent FIFA Wii interview (which is looking pretty good, btw):

Eurogamer: There's been a lot of talk about the Wii hardware and how much people can actually get out of it. Care to comment?


Tim Tschirner: It's about as powerful as the original Xbox. The video hardware unfortunately is not as powerful. There's just a couple of key things that you can do on Xbox like shaders which you just cannot do on the Wii. It's unfortunate in the sense that for a lot of things we can actually use some of the current-gen code, and other solutions that already exist in the building, where people have already come up with, for example, a shader for the pitch; we kind of have to re-implement this now, but can't use shaders and have to find a different way to make it work. Overall though it's pretty much what the original Xbox was.
Click to expand...
If all Wii games looked like Xbox efforts, I'd be happy. But for now, I guess we can blame it on rushed development, quick porting, and inexpeience with hardware. The last one shouldn't be much of an issue though.
 
[quote name='Lan_Zer0']If all Wii games looked like Xbox games, I'd be happy.[/quote]

Excellent quote, sir. Now, I will say that the original XBOX had serious flaws in terms of optimization and its architecture. It had excellent hardware, and it had extreme power that wasn't stream-lined in the way that all Nintendo hardware has been for games. Nintendo's benchmark tests have always had "typical game conditions" disclaimer on them, and I appreciate those specs more than Sony's very pretty real-time sphere.

And to finish it off, I'm perfectly satisfied with my Wii investment. XBOX1, or two GameCubes duct-taped together, or "last gen" system and all. In fact, I kind of prefer it that way.
 
[quote name='MarioColbert']Excellent quote, sir. Now, I will say that the original XBOX had serious flaws in terms of optimization and its architecture. It had excellent hardware, and it had extreme power that wasn't stream-lined in the way that all Nintendo hardware has been for games.
[/quote]

Good, so we can expect even more from the Wii?

[quote name='MarioColbert']
And to finish it off, I'm perfectly satisfied with my Wii investment. XBOX1, or two GameCubes duct-taped together, or "last gen" system and all. In fact, I kind of prefer it that way.[/quote]

Actually, I'm very happy with the Wii. While I'm not completely satisfied, we also have to remember that its only been little over six months. Right now, there are still plenty of games I want to play, and look forward to.

However, after the first year, I do expect the games to look better, and for Nintendo to do more with Channels, but that's a different topic.
 
Wow, that's terrible.
It can't even outpace the XBox? They should just release a Wiimote sensor add-on to the GameCube.

Oh well, games should still look nice, but that news is still disheartening.
 
[quote name='dallow']Wow, that's terrible.
It can't even outpace the XBox? They should just release a Wiimote sensor add-on to the GameCube.

Oh well, games should still look nice, but that news is still disheartening.[/quote]The Cube didn't have shaders either, I believe. They figured out tricks to implement the same effects without them. They can use the second duct-taped GameCube's processor to do those, leaving a whole Cube to do other stuff. :D

But seriously, enough about the GameCube. I rather like being able to send my record in BBA to someone without having to print it out and mail it to them so they can tape it on their TV if it were on the Cube.
 
who cares as long as it plays well and doesnt look like absolute crap. there are some good looking games (ssx blur, super paper mario) but as long as the game is fun that is what the wii is trying to sell.

its a system thats main draw is the innovative control. one the hype dies down on the wiimote and the developers have a few games under their belt and have the controls locked down, that is when they will focus on the graphics.
 
I knew someone was going to post that "worse than Xbox" quote. The fact is that developers talk out of their ass all the time and make off the cuff comparisons that they usually end up going back on.

I'd rather take the word of unbiased tech geeks who have disected the Wii and have concluded to the best of their knowledge that the Wii, for the most part, is more powerful than an Xbox.

At the end of the day, though, it doesn't matter since the Wii has already proven that graphics, HD and Widescreen don't mean shit even though the graphics whores won't shut up about it. They lapped up M$ and Sony's bullshit and bought overpriced Tv's that they now demand every game to be compatible with and can't stop whining about how games look.
 
[quote name='Lan_Zer0']Good, so we can expect even more from the Wii?[/quote]
I have looked at hardware comparisons for last gen systems a lot, and there is some stuff I don't understand completely in terms of architecture. I'll try to piece this together to the best of my ability, but if any proper computer architecture person (preferably a post-undergraduate) is wishing to correct me on any claims, I'd appreciate it the most.

The GameCube had a 485 MHz IBM "Gekko" PowerPC CPU, and a 162 MGz "Flipper" GPU (developed by ArtX). (SOURCE) If you compare this to XBOX 1 specs, you will see that in terms of pure numbers alone the system ought to out-perform GameCube to shit. (You can make your own comparison of what the actual products look like in comparison of the systems)

XBOX1 had a 32 bit 733 Mobile Celeron CPU, and a 233 MGz "NV2A" GPU. (SOURCE) The improvement over the GameCube is massive, but there are other items in the equation apart from the chip's ability to churn out numbers. I won't make a scientific claim (enelctrical engineers would be much better qualified for such), and instead will show just raw numbers for the Wii.

Oh, that's right. We DON'T HAVE THOSE AT ALL. Not officially, anyway. However, there's this IGN quote:

[quote name='IGN']Insiders stress that Revolution runs on an extension of the Gekko and Flipper architectures that powered GameCube, which is why studios who worked on GCN will have no problem making the transition to the new machine, they say. IBM's "Broadway" CPU is clocked at 729MHz, according to updated Nintendo documentation. By comparison, GameCube's Gekko CPU ran at 485MHz. The original Xbox's CPU, admittedly a different architecture altogether, was clocked at 733MHz. Meanwhile, Xbox 360 runs three symmetrical cores at 3.2GHz.[/quote]
And the outline of the other technical specs are found on the Wikipedia Wii page:

PowerPC "Broadway" CPU reportedly clocked in at 729 MHz.
ATI "Hollywood" GPU reportedly clocked in at 243 MHz.

Here's a very nice bit:

[quote name='IGN']Clearly, numbers don't mean everything, but on paper Revolution's CPU falls performance-wise somewhere well beyond GameCube and just shy of the original Xbox. However, it's important to remember that there is no way to accurately gauge the performance difference between GCN's PowerPC-based architecture and the the Intel-based CPU of Xbox. Further, even if we could, these numbers are only one part of the equation.

Revolution's ATI-provided "Hollywood" GPU clocks in at 243MHz. By comparison, GameCube's GPU ran at 162MHz, while the GPU on the original Xbox was clocked at 233MHz. Sources we spoke with suggest that it is unlikely the GPU will feature any added shaders, as has been speculated.


"The 'Hollywood' is a large-scale integrated chip that includes the GPU, DSP, I/O bridge and 3MBs of texture memory," a studio source told us.


The overall system memory numbers we reported last December have not greatly fluctuated, but new clarifications have surfaced. Revolution will operate using 24MBs of "main" 1T-SRAM. It will additionally boast 64MBs of "external" 1T-SRAM. That brings the total number of system RAM up to 88MBs, not including the 3MB texture buffer on the GPU. By comparison, GameCube featured 40MBs of RAM not counting the GPU's on-board 3MBs. The original Xbox included 64MBs total RAM. Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3 operate on 512MBs of RAM.[/quote]
 
[quote name='Scrubking']At the end of the day, though, it doesn't matter since the Wii has already proven that graphics, HD and Widescreen don't mean shit even though the graphics whores won't shut up about it. They lapped up M$ and Sony's bullshit and bought overpriced Tv's that they now demand every game to be compatible with and can't stop whining about how games look.[/quote]

Umm, yes, widescreen does mean something.
I'd shut up if every game supported widescreen like Zelda and a few others.
I hope you don't consider me a graphics whore, if you do, go back and read my posts.

MarioColbert:
Just the fact that it must be argued whether or not the Wii is more powerful than the the original XBOX is shameful.

Botticus:
Yes, built in network connectivity is nice. That's a big plus for the Wii.
No more lousy GC network adapter.
 
Thanks for the info. I do remember reading those numbers before. Of course, that is part of the reason why I expect at the very least a GC quality effort, and am appalled when it falls short.

But again, that is expected within the first year. It'll all iron out with time, when software won't be as rushed to cash-in on the Wii's success.
 
[quote name='dallow']MarioColbert:
Just the fact that it must be argued whether or not the Wii is more powerful than the the original XBOX is shameful.[/QUOTE]

It doesn't have to be argued, but the graphics whores won't shut up about it so what do you expect? There isn't a thread in this forum that doesn't have some bullshit comment about the Wii's graphics, HD or widescreen.

Again, it doesn't matter if the Wii is more powerful than an Xbox (though it is), because the Wii is not about Graphics. They've said this a million times yet we continue to get stupid threads like this.

This kind of crap makes me angry at the industry for feeding us the same bullshit line about how important graphics are and how better graphics is the standard for better games in order to drive sales. Well it isn't, and I'm disgusted that they've brainwashed so many gamers. Gamers of today are so brainwashed that they can't see the first real innovation to hit gaming in 3 or 4 generations - the Wii. Nintendo finally decided to break free of the "more buttons on the controller + better graphics = next generation" bullshit hamster wheel and I applaud them for it.
 
[quote name='dallow']Just the fact that it must be argued whether or not the Wii is more powerful than the the original XBOX is shameful.[/quote]
I disagree. I see at least some of Nintendo fans accusing the developers who speak out against the Wii as "talking out of their ass" which is clearly not the case. The facts are quite simple: pure hardware numbers show that the Wii is about as strong as an XBOX, with less graphical horsepower.

In a perfect world, all Nintendo fans would quickly jump away from the argumentation about Wii's graphical prowess, and instead focus on pointing out the subset of the Wii Game Catalog that makes the system worthwhile. Similarly, in a perfect world Sony purists would do the same, as would XBOX owners.

However, that simply isn't the case. Instead, we argue back and forth about stuff that really doesn't quite concern us. Despite the availability of the specs, the interpretation thereof would require knowledge of the console's SDK and deep knowledge of electrical engineering - something that is reserved for the TOOLS department of Game Development Studios (i.e. just because you're a level designer or a game coder, doesn't mean you know architecture from your own asshole). I never argued that the Wii is better or worse than XBOX, and I'm certain that software and hardware engineers can argue all day about which setup is the best, with or without cost-benefit analysis.

My fanboyism towards Nintendo comes from the fact that they bring in stuff that feels fresh, and their gameplay mechanics are varied enough for my short attention span. Those factors are not as dependent on hardware power as many seem to think, though they can be in certain cases. A lot of amazing RPG gameplay can be achieved with a pencil and paper. The ultimate strategy game of all time is Chess. Space Quest III is my favorite of Space Quests, despite 16 color graphics and the "ancient" text-parser interface.

[quote name='Maddox'] Blackley thought he had the formula for a great system because all the components were there for a great system (and they are): a powerful graphics chip, a beefy hard drive, a fast processor and DVD capabilities. What he failed to realize was that just because you have all the raw material to make a great system doesn't mean it's going to be great. Saying the Xbox is a good system because it's powerful is like saying you made a great painting because you used the best set of paints.[/quote]
 
[quote name='Scrubking']It doesn't have to be argued, but the graphics whores won't shut up about it so what do you expect? There isn't a thread in this forum that doesn't have some bullshit comment about the Wii's graphics, HD or widescreen.[/quote]

I didn't mean arguing in that sense.
I meant that the Wii should be, without question, more powerful than the XBox, it has yet to prove even that. That is what is shameful. That there is doubt as to whether that is true.
That brand new hardware, doesn't even compare to something from that many years ago. (even 1 year in technological terms is a long time).

Including a widescreen option into all games, (and gosh, at the very least first party games!) isn't bullshit.
When you have a new TV, even if it's years from now, you better not complain that you have black bars all over the place. (unless you actually like to stretch your games, yuck!)

MColbert:

I can certainly agree that Nintendo games are fresh, and can do so much with less.
I just pray that 3rd parties can as well more consistently in this generation.
 
[quote name='Scrubking']It doesn't have to be argued, but the graphics whores won't shut up about it so what do you expect? There isn't a thread in this forum that doesn't have some bullshit comment about the Wii's graphics, HD or widescreen.
[/QUOTE]

I'm pretty much fine with the graphics capabilities. Zelda, Paper Mario etc. look more than good enough in 480p and Widescreen.

However, games lacking 480p and Widescreen are just unacceptable in this day and age. That's not being a graphics whore, it's just wanting games that don't look like crap on 16x9 HD sets.

Gameplay is always king, but sidebarred 4:3 480i games on a nice HDTV is a travesty.

Fortunately, it looks like all the big games will have 16x9 and 480p, and it will just be third party crap and mini game crap like Mario Party that don't have it which is fine by me as I have no interest in sub par games anyway.
 
[quote name='dallow']
Including a widescreen option into all games, (and gosh, at the very least first party games!) isn't bullshit.
When you have a new TV, even if it's years from now, you better not complain that you have black bars all over the place. (unless you actually like to stretch your games, yuck!)
[/QUOTE]

No kidding. I bet many of the kids and poor people still playing on 4:3 sets will sing a different tune about the lack of widescreen when they try to play some of these games and get black bars on the sides, or have to stretch them, because the developer was too lazy to put in a widescreen mode.
 
[quote name='dallow']I didn't mean arguing in that sense.
I meant that the Wii should be, without question, more powerful than the XBox, it has yet to prove even that. That is what is shameful. That there is doubt as to whether that is true.
That brand new hardware, doesn't even compare to something from that many years ago. (even 1 year in technological terms is a long time).
[/QUOTE]


I have not been involved in this and maybe its been said. Many would argue what games were better than GC's Flagship (Graphics wise) title of RE4. And that it looks as good as most top end Xbox games... With that being said.

The thing to take into consideration here is

A) There were better looking games possible on Xbox and therefore Wii
B) The supposed transition from GC to Wii is supposed to be easy which should jumpstart graphics on Wii games that are developed for Wii

In the end I think we are going to see some impressive games on the Wii graphics wise... will it hold up to the 360 / PS3? NO. Will it outdo the Xbox I would say without a doubt it has to as nothing new is coming for that system 2-3 years from now.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']No kidding. I bet many of the kids and poor people still playing on 4:3 sets will sing a different tune about the lack of widescreen when they try to play some of these games and get black bars on the sides, or have to stretch them, because the developer was too lazy to put in a widescreen mode.[/quote]Well, honestly, I got used to the stretching about a day after I got my set. I watch every TV station stretched and play my PS2 stretched, so you acclimate pretty quickly. But obviously I'd prefer if games were in widescreen rather than not.
 
[quote name='botticus']Well, honestly, I got used to the stretching about a day after I got my set. I watch every TV station stretched and play my PS2 stretched, so you acclimate pretty quickly. But obviously I'd prefer if games were in widescreen rather than not.[/quote]

Heathen!
I can never acclimate.
On a very few select games and shows, the effects aren't that obvious.
But for the most part, it's wide stomachs and wide blocks.
 
Yeah, I hate the stretching. It's ok sometimes, namely stuff where the action is all in the middle and you can use the mode that just stretches the edges and not the middle.

But in general, I just put the TV in normal mode for 4:3 stuff as black bars are usually preferable to stretching it.

But from now on, aside from the VC, it's definitely only 16x9 and 480p games for me.
 
I hate stretching. I don't even own a widescreen TV, but I hate seeing games/movies/tv stretched. The last time I could tolerate it was playing Nights into Dreams stetched because I didnt know how to get the widescreen working.

I don't think this debate is about "graphics whores." If we all own a Wii here, I wouldn't think many of us fall into that camp. If we look back at the very first post, the question "when will Wii games start looking good?" was brought up in the context of:
1. Wii is more powerful than GC
2. Wii should be easy to start development for, techinically, because its a beefed up GC
3. Wii games, look generally worse than GC, and the hardware is obviously not being pushed at all

There is no comparison to ps3/360 here. Its a comparison to a weaker predecessor. I don't see how this question can be offending in any way to anybody.
 
I am not sure what podcast it was from, but I think it was ign's afk podcast from last week, where one of the nintendo ign guys didn't think that there would be a better looking game then twillight princess. The thing that concerns me most, is the wii is getting a lot of ugly rushed ps2 ports.
 
Attaboy Lan, that's what I'm talking about.

I'm not putting down the Wii at all. I just want the Wii to be all it can be.
(Or at least better than 6 year old hardware! :bomb: )

And for everyone to know, I feel the same way about my PS3.
Rushed, cheap ports of 360 games cause just about all those early PS3 games to have big framerate issues and other graphical glitches.

I can complain about PS3's output just as much as I can about the Wii.
 
From a technical standpoint, I wasn't too impressed with ZeldaTP. I think RE4 already looks better than it. On a side note, there were a couple of areas in Red Steel that I thought looked fanstastic.
 
[quote name='Lan_Zer0']
I don't think this debate is about "graphics whores." If we all own a Wii here, I wouldn't think many of us fall into that camp. [/QUOTE]

Totally. Even moreso for me, as the Wii is the ONLY next gen system I have right now.

I don't need PS3/360 quality graphics to enjoy a game, but on a 16x9 HDTV widescreen support and 480p are pretty much necessary.
 
I agree with most sentiment in this thread. Honestly, its ridiculous that every game isn't 480p / 16x9 aspect ratio - that's extremely lazy, period. I hook both my Wii and Xbox 360 up to the same HDTV and switch between playing games on them effortlessly. Super Paper Mario and Zelda look technically and artistically beautiful to me (even in light of DiRT or Gears). Yes, they're wildly different in graphic quality, but I've never once thought about how simple Wii Tennis is and how they should have upgraded the shaders on the court. (I have thought about using the nunchuck to move your character endlessly though... gah!)
I almost believe that the generation of games you grew up with determines how you accept a game with "good personality."
-Dr. Ugly
 
[quote name='Lan_Zer0']From a technical standpoint, I wasn't too impressed with ZeldaTP. I think RE4 already looks better than it. On a side note, there were a couple of areas in Red Steel that I thought looked fanstastic.[/quote]Red Steel 2 could be an astonishing game. With some polish, RS could have given Zelda a run for its money as best launch title, as far as I'm concerned. If they give the sequel the time it deserves, I will anxiously await it.

And I think the one thing that some people have mistakenly assumed is that because the architecture is similar to the GC, that everyone will instantly make RE4-beautiful games. But 1) a lot of developers completely ignored the Cube. So there isn't that small learning curve. And 2) not everyone was able to make RE4-beautiful games on the Cube yet, let alone a new piece of hardware (methinks last gen ended early, but that's a frequent argument for elsewhere).

And I put up with stretching because my TV manual (even though its an LCD) scared me about burn-in - said I shouldn't use it in 4:3 mode for more than two hours at a time. So I just leave it in 16:9.
 
Botticus:
Hmm, really odd your TV says that. But I'm sure you can find all sorts of crazy warnings.
Burn in isn't possible on LCD. Period.

I'm definitly not expecting a bunch of RE4s. But with a hardware boost, I would have thought that RE4 would have been that much easier to produce. (i'm glad RE4Wii has widescreen!!!)

Dr.Ugly: Games with 'good personality'. Hehe, that made me chuckle.
 
[quote name='dallow']Botticus:
Hmm, really odd your TV says that. But I'm sure you can find all sorts of crazy warnings.
Burn in isn't possible on LCD. Period.

I'm definitly not expecting a bunch of RE4s. But with a hardware boost, I would have thought that RE4 would have been that much easier to produce. (i'm glad RE4Wii has widescreen!!!)

Dr.Ugly: Games with 'good personality'. Hehe, that made me chuckle.[/quote]That's what I thought (about LCDs), but hey, who knows.
 
LCDs do have image persistance, which can be fixed I think. I know my laptop has 'burn-in' like after images from my start bar and buddy list always being up.

EDIT:
[quote name='botticus']Red Steel 2 could be an astonishing game. With some polish, RS could have given Zelda a run for its money as best launch title, as far as I'm concerned. If they give the sequel the time it deserves, I will anxiously await it.
[/quote]

Yes, I agree.
 
[quote name='Lan_Zer0']LCDs do have image persistance, which can be fixed I think. I know my laptop has 'burn-in' like after images from my start bar and buddy list always being up.

EDIT:


Yes, I agree.[/quote]

Wow, that's really weird.
How old is your laptop?;)

Botticus: Do what you feel is safe.
You gotta baby that new TV!
 
[quote name='rapsodist']As Lan_Zer0 said, LCD "burn-in" is actually image persistence and is definitely correctable. It nearly always disappears after leaving the LCD off for a period.[/quote]Good to know, thanks!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top