| Mail |
You might also like: WoW Insider, Massively, and more

Reader Comments (124)

Posted: Feb 2nd 2007 11:09PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
For me, at least, when it comes to graphics the STYLE is more important that the poly-count.

Great artists can do amazing things with simple styles. Nintendo seems to be able to get more emotion and character out of a Mii than a lot of developers can get out of much more complex characters.

Infact often the more simple characters in things like GBA rpgs, lemmings, elebits, etc.. have a lot more emotion involved in them than the advanced, but plastic and sterile looking characters of games like DOA4, etc..

A better analogy than the 24 on a 7 inch screen would be:

"Thats like saying that The Simpsons can be as good, and have as deep a range of emotion and characters as, Hope and Faith. Even though Hope and Faith has much higher detailed characters and more natural lighting."

Which is obviously garbage.

The two most emotional moments in any game were in Chrono trigger (tiny 16 bit sprites) and FFVII... nd with all the massive improvements in graphics quality since those games I can't think of any games that have come close in terms of conveying emotion.

Final thought: Wii sports with realistic, normal mapped, cloth-physiced, photo realistic characters = charmless and much less popular.

Posted: Feb 2nd 2007 11:18PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
doh, meant: "Thats like saying that The Simpsons can't be as good, and have as deep a range of emotion and character as, Hope and Faith. Even though Hope and Faith has much higher detailed characters and more natural lighting." as the dumb analogy

Posted: Feb 2nd 2007 11:35PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
here here, joystiq.

Posted: Feb 2nd 2007 11:45PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
the only reason taylor is saying this is cause the wii uses an ATI graphics card. probably just jealous.

Posted: Feb 3rd 2007 12:26AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I've never felt a bad game was any better because I could see a character's smile. I've also never felt a great game was any less because I couldn't count the hairs on someone's face in a cut scene. I agree that there comes a point where graphics are good enough. What you have to respect about Nintendo is that they decided to take the approach of making the experience more about interaction. And are the graphics really that bad? I've said it before and I'll say it again. If want the best graphics, I'll play games on my computer. The PS3 and 360 still don't come close to the current generation of computer hardware. The best graphical AND interactive experience comes on a PC. The Wii is simply a fun device that brings people together. I can't wait to have my first Wii party.

Posted: Feb 3rd 2007 12:53AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
What a freakin nut-bar. StarCraft has been out for 8 YEARS and I still think it's amazing, 3d or not

Posted: Feb 3rd 2007 1:35AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
"Put any one of Zelda's best scenes next to that GoW shot and the whole thing suddenly gets a different twist."

This just not true. I have both a 360 and a Wii. I play both of them on a Samsung 50" 720p TV with component cables. Zelda is tough to look at sometimes. Unfortunately for me, I don't find the gameplay with the Wiimote enough to override the graphics. So... I end up playing WiiSports or WarioWare for an hour a day. Why? Simple graphics that I'm not focusing on. I enjoy the gameplay. Sure the jaggies are brutal on the 480p widescreen setting, but when I'm bowling, playing tennis or baseball, I don't care as much. Sure the pins look like they were roughly chisled from a block of stone, it just doesn't bug me as much.

I wish that Zelda TP would have kept the same graphics style as Wind Waker. I'm not expecting near photo realistic graphics or something that will make me think of a real life situation. The JetSetRadio idea is a perfect thing. It still looks great on the Dream Cast, even today, because I'm not expecting a GRAW or GOW style game. Zelda TP is caught somewhere in between. Not cartoony enough and not "photo-realistic" enough. Now give me 360's Oblivion with a Wiimote and I'd be in from of my Samsung 50" for hours.

I think I'm still just a person who does value the graphical aspect of a game over all else. Eventhough, I do love Wii Sports.

Posted: Feb 3rd 2007 2:54AM samfish said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Personally, I feel that Nintendo is right over all with their philosophy, but they might have come out of the gate a little too early with it.
Graphics should ultimately, in this day and age, serve as the final coat of paint. A great finishing touch. A good game with great graphics is made just a little bit better...but a bad game with good graphics still sucks (Hi, Sonic 360!)

I felt there was a lot of room for improvement in Twilight Princess's graphics. The gameplay mechanics were pretty much perfect, so it's a good example in my mind of better graphics enhancing a game. In 10 years, TP is STILL probably going to be damn good to anyone who plays it (assuming they can get over the old school graphics look, which some people sadly can't).
But who WOULDN'T want to play TP with graphics that look like they're rendering FMV on the fly?
Because of that, I actually felt like Wind Waker is superior to Twilight Princess. Wind Waker's graphics set out perfectly to do what it wanted. In 10 years, TP's graphics might feel dated, but Wind Waker's won't.

I wish more studios would pick up on the cartoon/cell shading style, because there's just SO much potential there and it's a place where all the improvements to graphics processors really isn't going to make that much of a difference.

All that said, I still think actual processing power over all is more important that pretty graphics. I don't think you could port a game like Dead Rising, for example, to the Wii, even if the dumbed down the graphics significantly.

Posted: Feb 3rd 2007 5:24AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Meh, to me graphics are as important as the vision being realized. If for instance, I'm getting serious frame drops because I blew up a hundred different cars all at once in Crackdown, then graphics will need to improve. I predict one more generation of consoles will finally enable visuals to hit a level where it makes little sense to improve on them.

I mean look at MLB 2k7, we're already almost at photorealism!

Posted: Feb 3rd 2007 4:07AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Listen If graphics dont matter then really why all the support from nintendo?

I mean seriously I know there are a lot of nintendo fans around the world, but what would have happened if the resident evil remake on gamecube had the same graphics as the ps1 version?Does not everyone remember the hype about how good resident evil looked?I do, even in cases today when the last gen systems are compared resident evil is brought up by countless nintendo fans to prove that the cube could hold its own against the xbox.

But now graphics dont matter I guess.

Seriously most mario games are fun, but if every mario game from now till kingdom comes looks like mario galaxy, that will be a problem, and don't tell me that it wouldnt.A more extreme example is this.If mario galaxy had good 2d gameplay, but looked like mario on the nes(original mario bros.) Then every sony fan, m$ fan and everyone else should grill everyone that supports this practice that graphics arent important.Its not 45%-40% with 40% being graphics, thats bullshit.


Graphics are equally important.Katamari is a good game, but 20 years from now more than likely it wont be played anyway as it cant even sell today!

Its all about preference guys, thats it.I have never lived in a mansion, I have never driven a ferrari, so it would be crazy fro me to say that getting b etter performance out of something doesnt matter. All of this we have reached a point where graphics dont matter is bull!

Tell that to the countless pc fans that upgrade their pcs yearly.Or tell that to the millions of console fans that adopt new systems every generation.Now as of right now theres nothing on the wii that cant be done on the gamecube, so why does it cost 250$ again?I believe that now I will hear the potential argument that the same people drill sony fans for.As of now the wii does nothing that the cube isnt cabpable of.They gould have sold you a wiimote for 80$ if they liked, but why did you buy the wii?


Now since graphics dont matter and everyone that parrots this really believes this, then why is it that I have a gamecube, sega cd, ps1, saturn, n64, sega genesis, xbox, original nes etc., but I dont play them anymore?I now play my 360, and watch blu ray movies on my ps3.The simple point of you guys buying a wii proves that you really feel that graphics do matter.Nintendo has always brought new things to the console scene.But what will the nintendo fans have to say when the other next gen systems start supporting wii mot like functions?Do you really think that it wont happen?


Do you really think that sony and m$ arent at this time looking to implement these factors into the next gen system?I mean m$ was doing this years ago and could easily do it agaim.So that same call of duty will now support a wiimote like remote, but the game will have hd graphics.Will you still say that graphics dont matter?


I really dont like nintendo for the wii.I think that its a step back.Yeah you can flame all you want, but I have better things to do than argue and call another individual names that I know I wouldnt dare say to their face.The internet makes a ton of people brave.But nintendo is basically saying this.I will sell you something new that barely is marginally better than what I sold you last time(gamecube) But I will charge you an additional 150$!!!!Now I know that people will say yeah, but I like it!But shouldnt those same sony fans get to say the same thing.

What will happen when nintendo releases a stellar hit, and everyone else starts copying the control scheme?You will have a bunch of games that copy the original, but dont live up to it.In short mediocrity.


The same way gta had many clones that were not better, and some were disgraceful.The deal that nintendo has sold everyone on is that games have gotten more complex and need to go back to their roots.Thats an easy diagnosis when you buy a nintendo product they are already making a profit.Truth is if you bought a wii and no more games nintendo would still win.Nothings wrong with that strategy, but the problems is not games being to complex....Its compelling content.Its the devs! always have been.A car is just a car until a experienced driver gets behind the will.(think nascar driver)

Buy the hype if you want to.There will be many dark days ahead for the wii.Devs get to make the same games as last gen with different controls.Devs arent bored with how gaming is progressing.Devs are making more money deving for the wii!You will get the same games that you would have gotten last gen with just a new control scheme.You will still get mario, zelda, pikmin, metroid, etc.But whats different?If its about simplicity then the biggest titles from nintendo dont even cater to the casual gamers.Casual gamers cant play zelda well.The people that like zelda are the ones that remember link to the past, and ocarina of time.Mario sunshine wasnt exactly an easy game, neither was metroid.Do you think your mom will invite her friend over for a game of metroid?Its the same stuff just repackaged.I dont hate nintendo.You still had these same party games last gen that you are seeing now!The wii has offered a differnt control scheme for $250 dollars.Thats it.Nintendo is simply taking the simple games from the ds and tranferring them to the wii.Simplicity is always a good thing, I just dont think the price is justified.


Get a hdtv and a 360, and you will see the difference.You will be Scott Mitchell, or Logan.You will appreciate these graphical enhancements.And it will only be more relavent after more hdtvs are sold.

If you like a wii then yes get it.But dont argue futile points people.I would have bought a wii already had the graphics been better.Of course gameplay is importatnt, but without graphics you couldnt even see anything on the screen!

There were days when I looked at nes games and thought, man this game looks good.With all the legions of halo fans around the world I can tell you that most wouldnt buy halo 3 if it looked like the original doom, or if it looked like enforcers for the genesis.


Once again I dont hate nintendo as there is something wrong with every system.But to swallow what nintendo tells you while hating everyone that swallows what sony, or m$ tells them makes you a hypocrite.


What was funny is that most were like of course a guy that works for a company that makes graphics cards will say that graphics matter!Would he say anything else?Yet they fail to ask the same question with nintendo.Would you really expect nintendo to say that graphics are important and the better the graphics the better the system can perform!Dont expect nintendo to say that anytime soon.Dont expect m$ to say that yeah blu ray is awesome either!Dont expect sony to say well yeah most hd dvd movies look better than their blu ray counterpart.Dont be naive people.These companies will not point out their flaws to us.Tell me you wouldnt have need happy with a wii with 360 graphics, blu ray or hd dvd playback capability, and at least 5.1 surround.For say another 1$!Yes a dollar!But the point is this the current wii would still be selling as graphics dont matter to most wii owners and all they want is a gaming system.

Unbelieveable!Only with fanboys can wii lack these positive features and still not really matter.

Posted: Feb 3rd 2007 6:15AM DrXym said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Nintendo and its apologists would like you to believe that inferior graphics = more fun. Sadly that argument is bizarre and nonsense. If we follow that all the way back to its most logical conclusion then Pong is the most fun game you can buy.

Sure Nintendo might try to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear, but the simple fact is their system is just a modestly upgraded Gamecube. It has terrible graphics for a next gen console and it's going to look increasingly and embarrassingly bad by comparison as time moves on.

Posted: Feb 5th 2007 2:05PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Once again if the wii was sold for say 259 dollars, but you got a blu ray player, 5.1 surround and 360 graphics then you would love that its a great deal and it would make the wii better, and this post probably would have had the lowest post count or never existed.If you cant afford it thats a shitty way to say it doesnt matter.I mean honestly i cant understand how people are flocking and gushing over the wii when theres nothing new about it.Theres noting new about the control scheme that hasnt been done before.What games have revolutionized the industry again for the wii?

In short all the systems are like this this gen none offer anything new they just offer better ways of doing proven things wether they are graphics or online play.Theres a reason the wii isnt called the revolution, because it isnt a revolution.

Fanboys or rather blind fanboys mees up everything.

To prve thisd point its okay to be a fanboy, you're just being a fan of something, but blind fanboys bandon all reasoning.So you get to swing a remote big deal!!!Thats not gonna change the industry.The industry wont just start making simple party games with no halo, jax and daxter, ninja gaiden, metroids etc.Eventually the same causal gamers will want better experiences or tougher more complicated games so it really doesnt matter I just wanna know why we are paying 250$?Honestly the wii is almost like the cool thing to say amongst gamers today because of nintendo, but the tried and true methods of gaming will wipre the floor with the wii.I grew up on nintendo, and that seal of quality means something to me, but 250 for a gamecube.And nintendo fans actually state that there are no good games on the 360, but if the wii didnt have the wii mote and was like m$ and sonys systems would you guys still be saying these lame comments?

what if the 360 was the wii?would nintendo fanboys be deeming it unworthy?If we all got the systems free then I would bet that everyone would just play games.Wouldnt be that graphics dont matter etc.They dont matter if thats what you can afford.(for most not all)I mean people still downplay hdtvs, and even hd dvd and blu ray, but these things are the future.These are enhancments people.

I know IMO THAT WII SPORTS, HALO3, OR HEAVENLY SWORD WOULD NOT GET PLAYED BY ME ON A BLACK AND WHIOTE TELEVISION.

Posted: Feb 3rd 2007 6:29AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Turkdaone:

"Now since graphics dont matter and everyone that parrots this really believes this, then why is it that I have a gamecube, sega cd, ps1, saturn, n64, sega genesis, xbox, original nes etc., but I dont play them anymore?I now play my 360, and watch blu ray movies on my ps3."

All you've established here is that you're a graphics-whore. We get it. You're their target market. No problem with that. Have fun.

"As of now the wii does nothing that the cube isnt cabpable of."

Wireless internet, firmware updates for new features, the Virtual Console (46 games already), WiiConnect24 in standby so you can trade Miis in your sleep, 512 MB of flash memory, an SD slot to transfer photos/music/saves/VC games, Bluetooth, and the optional ability to glow while in standby mode to let you know you have a new message. The GameCube can't do any of those. Oh yeah, and the motion sensing stuff's pretty neat too.

Posted: Feb 3rd 2007 6:34AM BurntMeatloaf said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Well, DUH. Graphics doesn't matter as much as gameplay, but to suggest that graphics don't matter at all is lunacy.

There are two ways to judge graphics: visual detail and visual quality. Detail is how much you can render, and quality is how WELL.

Most of the people (mostly Nintendo fans, of course) who criticise graphics are talking about detail, such as the number of polygons. This almost never affects gameplay, and I don't care too much about it.

Quality includes things like HD resolutions, more texture memory, better filtering, anti-aliasing, framerates, and the like. This generally does affect gameplay, or rather, the lack of quality will affect it.

My biggest beef with the Wii is that Nintendo has seriously pulled back on quality. That's bad, and unacceptable for 2006 technology, let alone $250. But, hey, the brainwashing has worked marvelously.

If only the PS3 didn't cost so much, and came with crappy composite cables (WTF). Then, there wouldn't be so many people bitching that HD graphics is somehow the path to Satan, or even worse, lost profits. Oh noes!

Posted: Feb 3rd 2007 10:10AM erh said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@DrXym "Nintendo and its apologists would like you to believe that inferior graphics = more fun."

No one said inferior graphics are better, and this argument doesn't even need to include Nintendo.

Which is more enjoyable: Grand Theft Auto Vice City on the PS2 or Sonic the Hedgehog on the 360? Metal Gear Solid 3 on the PS2 or N3 Ninty-Nine Nights on the 360? God of War on the PS2 or Bomber Man Act Zero on the 360?

I'd prefer to play a last-gen game with low-res jaggy graphics and good gameplay, over a next-gen game with flashy graphics and no substance. High definition graphics don't make a game enjoyable, good gameplay makes a game enjoyable!

Posted: Feb 3rd 2007 5:04PM SpiralGear said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
GRAPHICS ARE ALL THAT MATTER DUH!!!





which is why for example i refuse to watch south park until its in FULL 3D and HD and surround sound

cmon guys... content is for pussys

Posted: Feb 3rd 2007 6:42PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Well i'm a grafx whore that likes good games. On 360 we have both. All the great looking games play very well. Oblivion, GOW, GRAW, COD2 all look pretty great and play very well. I couild accept wii in standard def but it lacks more than HD it is what i call retarded and sickening. Can the Wii match Xbox1? I'm not convinced but i think it needs to do this to justify it's existence. Control is the only other aspect as vital to enjoying a game and the Wii-mote is unproven. Wii-sports is very shallow and boring. Top spin or tiger woods golf leave it for dead! Zelda would have been better played with a wavebird. Wii makes me vomit. Oh yeah, shortly after getting HDTV i realised 720p would not be enough. Neither will be 1080p. There will never be enough resolution or horsepower or memory. And I'm far from convinced that wiimote is the end of controller evolution. It's too crap.

Posted: Feb 3rd 2007 6:59PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@ Turkdaone

This is what I got out of your 19 paragraphs: If Sony or MS came out with a similar controller to the Wii, it would kill Nintendo.

The reality is they wont until the next gen, so this point is moot. Nintendo's new system will have the current gen graphics of the 360 and PS3. Of course, by then your going to be saying Gears of War looks like shit.

Posted: Feb 3rd 2007 7:44PM Sponge said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Why would NVIDIA, the graphics card manufacturer, think that graphics are very important?

Posted: Feb 3rd 2007 9:32PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Yeah well eventually, and probably sooner than you think, the 360 will be 250$ and the games coming out for it will look even better than they do now.

Then, how do you think the Wii will measure up without the price advantage?

Posted: Feb 4th 2007 2:30AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
ninja gaiden on PS2=shanobi nuff said. why is everyone bitching about wii/360 and that nvidia doesnt make their ship so "of course they have to say that" Ummmmm WRONG How about the thousands of cards they sell for PC's lets see couple of console vs the hundreds of millions of Pc's out there running Nvidia cards you do know they sell more than ati right? not to mention the motherboards that run nvidia north and south bridges......point is consoles could be extinct ed tomorrow and nvidia and ati would be ok.....considering they sell cards for the cost of the ps3 and 360 by itself

Posted: Feb 4th 2007 5:24AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Where does art direction fall in all this? World of Warcraft doesn't look good because it has high-end graphics, it looks good because a lot of effort has been put into a distinct aesthetic. As much as I like looking at Crysis, I would be a lot more excited about it if I thought it was going to give me something more than a generic sci-fi aesthetic. Half-Life 2 has a very muted, desolate feel, and the game wouldn't be half as good if it had just relied on the strength of the Source engine applied to unremarkable settings.

Posted: Feb 5th 2007 1:35PM h0mi said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Regarding the 360, some of the most popular games on XBLA are non-graphics intensive games- Uno, Hex-something or another, Bejeweled...


Posted: Feb 8th 2007 11:46AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Nintendo isn't trying to replace the entire market. They're trying to expand the market, and it's working with the Wii as it worked with the DS, more than anybody could have imagined. You'll still get your Halos and Metroids and Penultimate Fantasies, but now you'll also get Wii Sports, Wii Play, Mario Party 8, Rayman: Raving Rabbids, Super Monkey Ball: Banana Blitz, Elebits, and other motion-intensive games. We as gamers have more options now. This is good.

If all I had was a black and white TV, I would be playing all my consoles on it (although I have actually picked up working color TVs from the sidewalk, and if you can't find one there, you can get a used one for balls-cheap on Craigslist). For a while I had my N64 hooked up to my main TV (color) and I had my NES hooked up to a smaller B&W TV so my friends and I could play both at the same time. I'm sorry we don't play interactive software to drool at visuals. We play them to have fun, and it works.

I used to care about graphical improvements because they used to be big enough for me to care about. Each system would double the amount of colors or moving sprites available in the system before it. The jump from 2-D to 3-D games was huge, but it was the last major leap. Since then it has been slight increases in resolution for over a decade, and I'm not willing to pay for that anymore unless I have to (i.e. my computer assplodes and I'm buying a new one anyway).

And the black and white TV comparison is a bit of a stretch. Comparing B&W to color TVs is comparing 2 types of TVs that are very cheap and affordable. Comparing SDTVs to HDTVs is comparing a TV that the majority of the planet has to a TV that the majority of the planet can't afford.

Featured Stories

Engadget

Engadget

TUAW

TUAW

Massively

Massively

WoW

WoW