Wii a major disappointment in one way...first time?

rickonker

rickonker

CAGiversary!
I got a Wii with Zelda and the controller is as interesting as it looked, but the graphics are even worse than I thought. We all knew it would be worse than the 360 and the PS3, but it's even worse than the original Xbox so far. I posted about this in the Wii forum and got called a whore, but it looks like I'm not the only one who thinks so. Gamespot's Madden review says
[quote name='GameSpot']To make a direct comparison, this version looks closest to the Xbox version of the game, though maybe not quite as good overall.[/quote]
I think this may be the first time a new console wasn't a major improvement over every last gen console graphically. Has this ever happened before?
 
We all know the Wii isn't much more powerful than a Gamecube in the graphics department and Zelda is a port of a GameCube game. What are you trying to accomplish with these posts?
 
I am 99% sure Miyamoto said that they were purposely not fixing the graphics, so that the only thing that would be different would be the 16x9 and the controls
 
First let me say, I don't think this really belongs here. Anyways though, the graphics are better than the first xbox but not by too much. I know what you are saying though, the graphics can be really ugly at times. Im not asking for 360 graphics or anything but would it kill them to give it a little more power? When the core 360 is only $50 more it's hard to want to get a Wii. It's probably just me though...
 
[quote name='Thunderscope']First let me say, I don't think this really belongs here.[/QUOTE]

It's a thread about the Wii in the Wii forum...
 
I posted about this in the Wii forum and got called a whore, but it looks like I'm not the only one who thinks so.

See, it's the overall tone of civility and respect that keeps bringing me back to the Internet 'community' time and time again.

P.S. Psst!...don't say anything bad about Nintendo where their, um, 'legions' might hear you. They may be nice in line, but not online.
 
I don't think he called you a whore, he called you a graphics whore - meaning your primary interest in games is the visual appeal (that's what he took away from your posts, I assume - which wouldn't be unfair, given what you said).

Regardless, discussing Madden, I posted this in your other thread before seeing this thread:

[quote name='Oops! I did it again.']Wii Madden looks absolutely NO WORSE than Xbox Madden, let's get that out of the way real quick. I've been playing it on Xbox since it was released, and the Wii version at its WORST looks the same as the Xbox version, and at best (framerate and textures especially) comes in looking a good bit clearer and cleaner. Though clearly the Wii version is a port of the same build used in the last generation...a port that plays about a million times better and more fun than any other version of the game released.[/quote]
I don't see what the GameSpot guy is seeing, clearly. Having put in plenty of hours into both games on the same television with the same connections, where does it not look "quite as good overall"? If anything, like I said, the Wii version looks NO WORSE while in some areas even looking better. I must be missing the boat here in a big way, unless the GameSpot guy is digging for the same reasons to be negative that you're hunting for.
 
Personally I think it looks pretty rough too. And I'm just coming up from a cube and PS2. I tried playing around wit some stuff last night and got Zelda looking a little better. I made sure I had all the updates then went and turned off the 480p, confirmed it, exited to the Wii menu then went back in and set it up again. It could be that I'm further along in the game but it looks a lot better now. Still a little jaggy but not nearly as much.
-G
 
I am also disappointed in the graphics. Nintendo is putting all their chips on the controller and the ease of use. And we can thank the small price tag for the not-too-updated graphics.

We all want fun games, but graphics cannot be ignored. We all have a choice, and we should vote with our dollars.
 
If you want to complain about the graphics, at least wait until the second generation games. I'd be surprised if any of the launch titles were improved beyond the capabilities of the GameCube. Madden most definitely uses the same character models as the Cube version. I'm sure the improvement won't be mind-blowing, but at least you can then complain about what the Wii is actually capable of, not what the developers have thrown at it so far. Personally, as long as they keep games running at a solid 30 or 60 fps, it's good enough for me.
 
[quote name='hufferstl']We all want fun games, but graphics cannot be ignored. We all have a choice, and we should vote with our dollars.[/quote]
Very true. Graphics can't be ignored, but let's not pretend Nintendo is giving us a Super NES here - the hardware is capable of generating some awesome graphics, just as it has already...and we have not seen what it's capable of yet, obviously. It can generate better, and it will. We're seeing GameCube-esque stuff so far, and that will improve a bit, undoubtedly.

That said, the graphics bar in consoles has been raised higher than Nintendo is capable of reaching (with regards to photo-realistic graphics, I mean...in visual appeal, I'd argue Nintendo still is right there at the top), so I understand that some people don't want to experience graphics that don't match up to the photo-realistic nature of the other next-gen consoles. That's fine by me, I don't personally agree, but we all enjoy different things about games.

So I don't think Nintendo is wrong for going this route, because there are a lot of people who are perfectly content with the level of horsepower that Nintendo has popped into this console, just as long as the gameplay and the experience itself has a lot to offer - which, so far, it has clearly proven to have.

The people more interested in graphical horsepower won't buy it, and that's cool - like I said, we all enjoy different aspects of games, movies, music, etc...but I do wish the negativity would die down, considering we're not discussing anything we didn't already know about Wii's capabilities.
 
[quote name='jollydwarf']P.S. Psst!...don't say anything bad about Nintendo where their, um, 'legions' might hear you. They may be nice in line, but not online.[/quote]
Yeah, the Nintendamentalists are quite a fearsome lot.

But I don't think LoZ:TP is a good vehicle for your argument -- as others have said, it doesn't look like a GC game -- it is a GC game, at least graphically. Now, if you want to kvetch about graphics, talk about games that were purpose-built for the Wii and are disappointing, like Rayman.

I know -- blah blah blah, the art direction's fantastic -- but all the art direction in the world can't hide a stuttering frame rate and remarkably jaggy characters. Rayman Raving Rabbids looks like a reasonably pretty GC game, but I want the Wii to at least look like the best GC games, if not a little better. The Nintendo fanboys all rightly cite RE4 as an example of the GC's graphical prowess and say that Wii's games will look better -- but right now, they really, really don't.

I'm hoping that this is a launch problem, and, as I've seen someone else say, things will improve after Wii stops getting PS2 ports and starts getting custom-built games that take advantage of what the system has to offer. If it doesn't, I think I might keep the Wii for the fun stuff and get the 360 for the eyecandy.
 
[quote name='hufferstl']I am also disappointed in the graphics.

We all have a choice, and we should vote with our dollars.[/quote]
Fortunately there are two systems that focus on graphics so everyone has options to satisfy whatever it is they want.

I think graphics can be ignored. I'd rather buy Twilight Princess in Ocarina of Time graphics for $20, same with Red Steel if it looked like Shadow Warrior.
 
I don't care. Why is it that GC graphics were acceptable before, but now it's so bad somebody bitches every 5 seconds. It doesn't have better graphics, it's not supposed to, get over it.
 
[quote name='botticus']If you want to complain about the graphics, at least wait until the second generation games. I'd be surprised if any of the launch titles were improved beyond the capabilities of the GameCube. Madden most definitely uses the same character models as the Cube version. I'm sure the improvement won't be mind-blowing, but at least you can then complain about what the Wii is actually capable of, not what the developers have thrown at it so far. Personally, as long as they keep games running at a solid 30 or 60 fps, it's good enough for me.[/QUOTE]
I don't buy that argument, when the 360 launched, many complaints on the lack of major differences between great looking xbox games and xbox 360 games were logged on this website. Graphics are a part of the game and they should be discussed. As should gameplay, audio and story. All of those parts add to being immersed in the game. Don't give game makers a pass because it is a new system or the game was made for the cube. They have been making it for the wii for at least 6 months. The wii is a souped up gamecube tech wise, and is allegedly very easy to develop for.
 
Zelda looks great to me.

But I don't care in the slightest about Graphics, and spend a lot of time playing 8 bit and 16 bit games, and don't have an HDTV or plans to buy one anytime soon (waiting until 1080p DLP sets in the 51 inch range can be had for $1000 or less on sale--maybe next year's black friday or the year after).

Plus we were all expecting this. The Wii is just a slightly more powerful GC with an innovative controller. Everyone should have been expecting that, so there was no call for dissapointment among anyone that read anything about the system before buying it.

I get that some people care a lot about graphics, and that's fine. The Wii is simply not the system for you. Nintendo is not after that demographic. The PS3 and 360 excel in the graphics department, and that's where such gamers should be going with their gaming $$$.
 
[quote name='hufferstl']I am also disappointed in the graphics. Nintendo is putting all their chips on the controller and the ease of use. And we can thank the small price tag for the not-too-updated graphics.

We all want fun games, but graphics cannot be ignored. We all have a choice, and we should vote with our dollars.[/QUOTE]

I voted with 250 of my dollars. :applause:
 
I don't get how PS2 can have these gorgeous games, yet the system be so outdated.

If the Wii can offer me graphics like Okami, God of War or Devil May Cry style graphics, I will be MORE then content.

Can the Wii pull that off?
 
[quote name='Sexbomb']I don't get how PS2 can have these gorgeous games, yet the system be so outdated.

If the Wii can offer me graphics like Okami, God of War or Devil May Cry style graphics, I will be MORE then content.

Can the Wii pull that off?[/QUOTE]

Of course it can pull it off. It is a souped up Gamecube and the GC was already more powerful than the PS2. Most multiconsole games had graphics that ranked in this order last gen: X-box--->Gamecube----->PS2. Though of course there were exceptions were developlers did shoddy ports and the order is thus different.
 
[quote name='ryanbph']I don't buy that argument, when the 360 launched, many complaints on the lack of major differences between great looking xbox games and xbox 360 games were logged on this website. Graphics are a part of the game and they should be discussed. As should gameplay, audio and story. All of those parts add to being immersed in the game. Don't give game makers a pass because it is a new system or the game was made for the cube. They have been making it for the wii for at least 6 months. The wii is a souped up gamecube tech wise, and is allegedly very easy to develop for.[/quote]My claim is that most of these developers probably made these games as if they were making them on the GameCube; a lot of these games had to be fairly well along in development to hit launch, and early dev units were basically GameCubes. Not to mention most developers spent more time adding in good controls than polishing up the visuals. If you want to discuss the graphical quality of the games, that's great. My point was, don't bitch about what the Wii CAN do until it does it. Which will probably be when developers actually develop a game on the system it will be released on. THEN if you can't stand the Wii because its graphical capabilities aren't any better than the Xbox, you have good standing to say so.
 
I want to point out that I didn't post this in the Wii forum originally, I guess a mod moved it. The point of my post was to ask if this kind of lack of improvement has been seen in any other generation shift, so I posted in the general gaming forum.

Look, graphics are NOT all I care about, or I would NOT have gotten a Wii. I think it's reasonable to expect some improvement though, even with launch titles. The Wii may be cheaper than the 360 and the PS3, but it still costs a lot more than a GameCube.

In fact, now that I think about it, they probably should have just repackaged the GC with the new controller, a wifi attachment, and a new name, and sold the whole thing for $125 or something. They'd sell a shitload. I mean if the graphics are going to be about the same, why make a brand new console and charge $250?
 
In my opinion, graphics does not matter as much as gameplay. Heck, I enjoyed playing text-based games back in the BBS days, and that kept me entertained for hours. The awe factor from high-definition graphics will not last that long. When the Sega CD and 3DO came out, everyone was impressed with their graphics, but eventually, it all boiled down to how much fun you can have with the game. I'm sure there are plenty of gamers who still play games on the old school systems just to enjoy it again.
 
[quote name='rickonker'] The point of my post was to ask if this kind of lack of improvement has been seen in any other generation shift, so I posted in the general gaming forum.
[/QUOTE]

The answer to that question is no, and that holds true for the X-box 360 and PS3 as well.

The jump from PS2/X-box/GC to 360/PS3 isn't near as large as the jump in past generations either (i.e. in going from PS1/N64 to PS2/Xbox/GC).

3D graphics are getting "maxed out" to an extent. About all they can do is move more toward photo realistic graphics, and that's something I have no interest in as I play games to play a break from the real world. As such I like more stylized games, cartoonish games etc. So graphic quality is getting to be a moot point for me as even the last gen consoles were more than adequate in that regard as evidenced by stuff like Okami, Wind Waker and now the Twilight Princess (which is a GC game graphically).

[quote name='rickonker']
I mean if the graphics are going to be about the same, why make a brand new console and charge $250?[/QUOTE]

Straight profit for them. Sucks for us, but makes perfect business since for them as they are making a nice profit on each one sold from day one that will grow and grow as production costs decline.
 
[quote name='Mookyjooky']I thought the Wii was like 2x as powerful as the Gamecube?[/QUOTE]

It's more powerful, but unclear really how much so in fact at this point. And the first gen games won't show it since many were developed for the GC, or on early Dev Kits that were really just GCs.
 
I think Zelda looks like crap on my TV but that's only because Nintendo decided to be stupid and not have component cables available.
 
GC was a great system...

Nintendo failed at marketing it and is trying a redo... and people are actually paying for their mistake. 250 dollars? Come on now.

I have purchased every Nintendo system near launch, but this is a hard pill to swallow. I think the next few years are going to be kind to my wallet and my backlog.
 
I'm a long time member of a few other videogame forums and I have to say the constant complaining about the wii's visuals is starting to get really old now.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Straight profit for them. Sucks for us, but makes perfect business since for them as they are making a nice profit on each one sold from day one that will grow and grow as production costs decline.[/quote]
Sure, but there's more to consider from OUR end than just "Well Nintendo is doing it this way because they can and because they'll profit from it." From the gamer's perspective, several factors have to be kept in mind: this console IS a legitimately new console because it is not a GameCube (it's a bit more powerful, it's got built-in WiFi, it's got built-in memory, it's got flash card capability - all factors that make the Wii's unique features unique to the Wii and not to the GameCube), we're paying for the ability to play with this new technology (so we're rewarding Nintendo for the R&D and providing us with this new technology they've developed), and we're paying for the ability to use the software that will work with Wii's features unique to that of a GameCube - and that goes beyond just the controller, we're talking the memory, the increased speed, the internet capabilities, all of it.

So no, making an attachment of sorts for the GameCube for $120 would NOT be sufficient; that's not a matter of Nintendo looking out for number one, asking for that is a matter of gamers being selfish and unrealistic - a package featuring all I mentioned above would/should never be an attachment to a console, especially one for that cheap. That's not what Wii is. It's a legitimate independent home console in its own right...and all things considered (every factor I mentioned above) makes it such. Therefore, Nintendo charges market value for a next-gen console, $250. It's a fair price for what we're getting. Nintendo generates a profit, naturally - but as the consumer, we're paying what we should be paying...IMHO.
 
[quote name='Oops! I did it again.']Sure, but there's more to consider from OUR end than just "Well Nintendo is doing it this way because they can and because they'll profit from it." From the gamer's perspective, several factors have to be kept in mind: this console IS a legitimately new console because it is not a GameCube (it's a bit more powerful, it's got built-in WiFi, it's got built-in memory, it's got flash card capability - all factors that make the Wii's unique features unique to the Wii and not to the GameCube), we're paying for the ability to play with this new technology (so we're rewarding Nintendo for the R&D and providing us with this new technology they've developed), and we're paying for the ability to use the software that will work with Wii's features unique to that of a GameCube - and that goes beyond just the controller, we're talking the memory, the increased speed, the internet capabilities, all of it.

So no, making an attachment of sorts for the GameCube for $120 would NOT be sufficient; that's not a matter of Nintendo looking out for number one, asking for that is a matter of gamers being selfish and unrealistic - a package featuring all I mentioned above would/should never be an attachment to a console, especially one for that cheap. That's not what Wii is. It's a legitimate independent home console in its own right...and all things considered (every factor I mentioned above) makes it such. Therefore, Nintendo charges market value for a next-gen console, $250. It's a fair price for what we're getting. Nintendo generates a profit, naturally - but as the consumer, we're paying what we should be paying...IMHO.[/QUOTE]


I agree, but there isn't enough technology to justify it being $50 more than any prior Nintendo console. Especially for me as I don't care about a lot of the new stuff (SD slots, the news, whether etc. channels, internet browsing etc).

Don't get me wrong, I love the system. But if I hadn't been able to amass $300 of GS store credit I'd probably have just bought Zelda for the GC and waited for a price drop.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']I agree, but there isn't enough technology to justify it being $50 more than any prior Nintendo console.[/quote]

Inflation, Inflation, lol.

NES is like $600 now.
 
Wow, I can't believe the Wii discussion has devolved to like 6 months ago. The damn thing is out now. If you don't like it, don't buy it. If it's too expensive for you, wait till next year for a price drop. For the rest of us, it's a pretty sweet console for $250.
 
graphics not as good in launch titles, be patient, zelda's too good to worry about it's graphics etc. etc.
 
How can you be happy with a system when you can't see individual beads of sweat on a players forehead? What was Nintendo thinking? No way can you enjoy the game if you don't have that.
 
The graphics? The fucking graphics? It's not about the fucking graphics. IT'S NOT ABOUT THE fuckING GRAPHICS!!!!

How many times does this need to be said exactly? How many ways? If you want suped up graphics buy a different system. What's so hard to understand?

I play DS games and my eyes don't bleed. I could play a NES game and have fun even though its not in HD. I can play a N64 and not give 2 shits that the game is jaggy. Just play the damn game and stop bitching already!

Link could look like a fucking stick figure but I would still have fun with it because its a good game.

This shit is really getting old!
 
I admit I was a bit dissapointed when I first started playing Zelda, the CG was great but when it was time to play I thought I was playing a PS2 games(kinda reminded me of Shadow of the Colossus). After an hour of playing, It really didnt matter to me..I was hooked. As for the Wii, Im supirsed of how well it works with its unusual controller. I never like the GameCube but I loved the N64, maybe it just skips a generation hehe. I do plan on buying a 360 to satisfy my FPS needs and my graphical whorism.. when I get the funds :).
 
[quote name='jkam']The graphics? The fucking graphics? It's not about the fucking graphics. IT'S NOT ABOUT THE fuckING GRAPHICS!!!!

How many times does this need to be said exactly? How many ways? If you want suped up graphics buy a different system. What's so hard to understand?

I play DS games and my eyes don't bleed. I could play a NES game and have fun even though its not in HD. I can play a N64 and not give 2 shits that the game is jaggy. Just play the damn game and stop bitching already!

Link could look like a fucking stick figure but I would still have fun with it because its a good game.

This shit is really getting old![/quote]

So you are saying beads of sweat and flowing hair don't make the game?
 
[quote name='Dr Mario Kart']Inflation, Inflation, lol.

NES is like $600 now.[/QUOTE]


To be fair, the NES came out in 1986, the SNES 1991, the N64 1996 and the Gamecube in 2001 and all cost $200 in actual dollars at launch.

Inflation doesn't apply to technology. Technology gets better and cheaper to produce at the same time which is why you see technology prices drop or stay the same rather than increase like other things.
 
Once they reach a certain point, graphical improvements don't make or break a game.

Fun factor is what's important.

I know I had a blast playing Diddy Kong Racing last night, and I didn't need a $250 motion sensor or insane Blu-Ray power.

I would have no problems with the Wii if it did not force the ridiculous controller on fans who just want to play the newest games.
 
[quote name='willardhaven']
I would have no problems with the Wii if it did not force the ridiculous controller on fans who just want to play the newest games.[/QUOTE]

Except its NOT ridiculous.

Zelda feels as good as it ever has, and BETTER in certain areas.

If anything the Wii controls have a minimalist feel, keeping things simple and very intuitive.

What exactly is ridiculous about it?
 
Can you please stop going on and on about the graphics.

We already knew what to expect when going in. We know Zelda TP isn't the hottest looking game on the market.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top