Former GameCube developer calls early Wii graphics sloppy
Developer Factor 5 is no stranger to Nintendo consoles. The company's Rogue Squadron II launch title for GameCube arguably pushed the purple box hardware further than most, right out of the gate. In its time (and perhaps still today) the game is a looker.That said, the company's CEO Julian Eggebrecht was critical of first-generation Wii graphics while speaking with IGN yesterday. In short, he called developer efforts "sloppy" as many Wii launch titles output worse graphics than some GameCube games, notably Resident Evil 4. From the interview: "I really have to say, boy, am I disappointed [with early Wii graphics]... I was digging out Rebel Strike the other day and was looking at it, and we had some people who were visiting ask, 'Why isn't anybody else doing this on Wii?' and I am at a loss."
Though Eggebrecht originally criticized Wii's hardware back in October of last year, it sounds like he's at least on board the fun train. "I love the Wii, absolutely... Everybody really should have one." Still, we can't help but echo his distaste for inexcusable sloppy graphics by some Wii developers.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
Fatass of Kickassness @ Feb 9th 2007 8:07PM
Can't wait for some idiot to post something stupid.
That having been said, I completely agree with Eggebrecht... but look at future Wii games, especially Galaxy, Brawl, and Secret Rings, and tell me they aren't starting to look way better than GC.
Jay @ Feb 9th 2007 8:13PM
It is true, people are abusing the Wii just like they did with the DS at launch.
Of course, to be fair, there are certain types of games that are easier to be flashy than other types.
For example, a space shooter like Rebel Strike has many polys but those are not moving models.
Everybody uses RE4 as a barometer, but one has to think that there are many developers that just aren't as talented in that field as the guys at Capcom. Not every game has the luxury of 4 year development cycles. Which is why they can just implement common shaders and DX9-level special effects on sloppy PS3 and X360 games and call it a day.
Rubang B @ Feb 9th 2007 8:15PM
Yeah the guy is right. Many developers jumped on board Nintendo's fun train and decided "Hey, if the system's not as powerful as the other 2, we don't even have to try, right guys?"
deaftly @ Feb 9th 2007 8:22PM
cant agree more, its just a place to dump a ton of minigames just like the ds. kinda glad i waited to pick up a wii, maybe when mario hits ill get it
Fatass of Kickassness @ Feb 9th 2007 8:27PM
The funny thing is, right now, Sonic and the Secret Rings looks just as good or _better_ than a good amount of first wave PS3 or 360 games.
Capt. Castellanos @ Feb 9th 2007 8:29PM
just give it some time.
and soon they will realize that they don't have to do a have-assed job on the wii, just because its not as powerful as the two other systems.
that doesn't mean they have to crap out on graphics.
Slaziman @ Feb 9th 2007 8:30PM
Developers just wanted to jump on the Wii money train, quick, and put this shit on the market :(
NintendoFanbot @ Feb 9th 2007 8:33PM
It's right... but then looking at Rogue Squadron III from towards the end of the GC's life, FACTOR 5 themselves pretty much didn't try as hard as they did with RSII (RSIII's in-game documentary even admits that most of RSIII was RSII-omitted filler-material).
Rubang B @ Feb 9th 2007 8:33PM
Right now Shigeru Miyamoto is saying:
"I invented all this gangsta shit,
And that's the muthafuckin' thanks I get?"
I think we'll see vast improvements in graphics throughout the rest of the year, but graphics-aside I still think Wii Sports, Trauma Center, Elebits, Zelda, and Metal Slug Anthology made for an excellent launch.
Dan @ Feb 9th 2007 8:38PM
What about Metroid Prime 3? Once that game comes out, people who criticize the Wii's capabilities will finally shut their damn mouths.
uglypimp @ Feb 9th 2007 8:40PM
Zelda is one terrible looking (but fantastic playing) game. I was truly disappointed. Not having a gamecube I figured maybe it was just a limitation of the Wii. Then I bought RE4 and popped it in for giggles (having heard it was great), and man, it makes everything on the Wii look childish.
Seriously devs (Nintendo included), graphics do matter. Don't kid yourselves thinking waving your controller around is enough to make up for these craptastic graphics we have to deal with.
carlos @ Feb 9th 2007 8:42PM
@ 5 wat are u on and can i have some wtfc are u talking about and for all the fanboys out there GRAPHICS matter
Striderhayasa @ Feb 9th 2007 8:43PM
I have a screen shot of from Hoth in Rogue Leader on my screen saver/desktop at work and I have to tell you, if you put that in 720p it would look like current gen graphics. This is gamecube we're talking and the game is still gorgeous to this day.
Graphically, Wii has done absolutely nothing to dispel worries of GC 1.5 quality. Nintendo has done nothing to help the situation. There isn't one game that truly shows the potential of the console from a graphics stand point. Yeah I said it. Let the graphic whores commence! I'm with you my brethren! Many Wii games do look worse than Gamecube games and that's inexcusable. I don't care how cheap it is.
I understand Nintendo wanted to keep costs down to maximize profits. I understand the business side of it. But look at the equation as a gamer. Xbox360 still got a damn gorgeous Call of Duty 2 and Project Gotham Racing at launch for 360. Gamecube had Rogue Leader to showcase the power of the console. Even PS3 has Resistance. Wii has what...?.. Zelda...a Gamecube port. ExciteTruck? which I think is fun to play but graphically, it's a joke. It can't even hold framerate for crying out loud. Tony Hawk's DHJ which has so much potential but suffers from graphical glitches, animation glitches and it doesn't hold a consistent frame-rate either. I know it's only been out for three months..but like I said...360 had a gorgeous Call of Duty 2 and Gotham Racing AT LAUNCH. Gameplay-wise Perfect Dark Zero is ass but graphically, it still showcased the potential of the 360.
Ps3 isn't he biggest rip-off this gen...it's looking more and more like the Wii is.
Thanks Nintendo...thanks a lot.
NintendoFanbot @ Feb 9th 2007 8:54PM
Comparing Wii Sports INTENTIONALLY-simple graphics to that of RE4 isn't a fair or really objective comparison.
It's like comparing Jack Kirby to John Cassaday and then calling Kirby's work crap, in comic book terminology.
But analogies suck, forgive me. :P
RE4 was fantastic. IMO it looks better than some of the earlier next-gen games, with many of them normal-mapped to plastic hell.
As for Zelda, from my understanding in past Nintendo interviews and experiences with other Zeldas, likely took hits to preserve the frame-rate and lack of load-times(like most Nintendo games) while maximizing character and object counts and keep a LARGE draw-distance (like in Wind Waker). TP had a ton of content, especially from the GC version's standpoint.
I'm not saying that TP's graphics were the best they could do, because that isn't true. But I believe that they were trying to be balanced with the limitations they had at the time.
tmmoore_nc @ Feb 9th 2007 9:03PM
It's because no one's tweaking the graphics from PS2 ports, when clearly the GameCube was more powerful than the PS2. Developers are keeping the graphics the same, and that's pure excrement right now, because they're not trying todo better graphics.
Some developers are, but most aren't. I'd say EA, Sega and Nintendo to some extent tried, but not much else. Maybe Atari did with DBZ, but I don't know.
People are going to pick up Sonic because it looks like one of the first great graphical games the system has.
jrieth50 @ Feb 9th 2007 9:03PM
So then this guy's working on a game that will blow us all out of the water right now right?
machewchew @ Feb 9th 2007 9:06PM
This may have just been a rumor, but weren't the first round of dev kits sent out to publishers just Gamecubes with Wii controller functionality? Maybe the developers were handicapped by not having access the the Wii's full potential.
As it is, Gamecube 1.5 doesn't seem to describe the graphics of the Wii so far, it's more like Gamecube 0.75.
jay @ Feb 9th 2007 9:14PM
I'll listen (once more) to Factor 5 when, as pretty as Lair looks, appears to have gameplay seen *in* his last gen games. Nothing more than a bastardisation of Rogue series and Panzer Dragoon, or at least that's what the trailers are telling me. If I'm wrong then they're doing a crap job of getting this "next gen" image across.
Anywho. I loved Factor 5. I was with them in the Amiga days. The superb Turrican series and the BC Kid and R-Type ports. Good games. They were geniuses especially where sound was concerned (practically inventing some systems sound chips and the best game soundtrack ever). But since Rogue Leader their skills haven't impressed me. It's more of the same from them.
That said, I'm less than impressed with Wii graphics too. But I've been having too much fun in WarioWare and Wii Sports to care. Mario World came out on the VC last night and I never bought a game this fast before. Never had this much fun before with a games system (never had a SNES too).
Prokaryote @ Feb 9th 2007 9:14PM
Wait, are you telling me graphics DO matter?
Fandel @ Feb 9th 2007 9:22PM
The problem with the Wii hardware wise, is that the system is actually weaker than the original XBOX. Unlike the Xbox's GeForce 3 GPU, the Wii's GPU has no hardware support for pixel or vertex shaders.
So while the original Xbox can do hardware support for shader model 1.4(Direct X 8.1), Wii developers have to do those same graphical effects in software. Making the games run much slower.
Bottom line, Nintendo made the Wii for the unique controller, not graphics. It's amazing that the same people who yell "GAMEPLAY OVER GRAPHICS!", are the same group of people who say, "You just wait, the upcoming Wii games graphics are going to blow you away!".
Look, enjoy the Wii, it's a good system, but don't delude yourselves into believing that the Wii twice as powerful as the Gamecube, because it is not.
Myke @ Feb 9th 2007 9:24PM
Hey, anyone who thinks the Wii is a ripoff should have no problem selling it (used) for as much, or more than you paid at retail, just FYI, so quit bitching =)
Revo @ Feb 9th 2007 9:25PM
"13. Graphically, Wii has done absolutely nothing to dispel worries of GC 1.5 quality. Nintendo has done nothing to help the situation. There isn't one game that truly shows the potential of the console from a graphics stand point."
Let me direct you all to a forum post that I think addresses this issue very nicely:
http://tinyurl.com/ytrwmp
It compares a Gamecube game, Super Smash Bros. Melee, to its Wii counterpart, Super Smash Bros. Brawl. This is a fair comparison because the screenshots were taken at roughly the same point in each console's lifespan. As you can see, the Wii version is much, much prettier.
Based on screenshots for upcoming games like Brawl, it seems to me that graphics for the final generation of Wii titles will certainly surpass at least those of first-gen of 360 titles. So perhaps not awe-inspiring, but definitely satisfactory as far as I'm concerned.
NintendoFanbot @ Feb 9th 2007 9:53PM
"Bottom line, Nintendo made the Wii for the unique controller, not graphics. It's amazing that the same people who yell "GAMEPLAY OVER GRAPHICS!", are the same group of people who say, "You just wait, the upcoming Wii games graphics are going to blow you away!"."
But isn't a given FOR ANY CONSOLE that the more time that goes into the generation that companies will be able to better utilize the graphical capabilities?
And yet people make the GC sound as if it was a slouch. Even a small multiple over what GC can do is going to accomplish a lot.
N64 and GC could make better water physics than either of their respective competition. Their respective WaveRaces and parts of Super Mario Sunshine can state as much. Making something LOOK like water is nothing compared to making it interact like water, and N64 and GC could pull it off.
Their philosophy on graphics is different from others, to the point where they almost hold back on the "aesthetics of the game". Nintendo games at their FULL GRAPHICAL potential we may never see. :P
Though Metroid Prime 1&2 were awesome.
Fandel @ Feb 9th 2007 10:03PM
"It compares a Gamecube game, Super Smash Bros. Melee, to its Wii counterpart, Super Smash Bros. Brawl. This is a fair comparison because the screenshots were taken at roughly the same point in each console's lifespan. As you can see, the Wii version is much, much prettier."
Not a accurate comparison, considering that the Wii and Gamecube architectures are so similar, with the only difference being a overclock of the CPU, GPU, and more RAM. You could probably do Super Smash Brothers Melee(graphics wise) on the GameCube with a reduced framerate, and doing that game on the original Xbox would be a snap.
The Wii is a good system, I'm not denying that. But people have to come to grips that the sole selling point of the Wii is the unique controller. Because graphics wise, the Wii would have trouble keeping up with the original XBOX.
Frankie @ Feb 9th 2007 10:10PM
Eh, Nintendo isnt concerned about cutting edge graphics right now. Their focus is to build on non-gamers and non-customers this early and the heavy hitters come later once the install base is overwhelming.
Look at the release schedule from Nintendo. All party/mini/casual games this half of the year. These will be enough to sustain the Wii Hype train in the eyes of the mainstream media and mainstream audience.
PurpleSfinx @ Feb 9th 2007 10:27PM
Having graphics only 1/4 as good as 360 or PS3 is fine with me....
...As long as they only cost 1 quarter as much.
...Until then, or they have much better graphics, (at least significantly better than Xbox) I'm going to hold off getting any more Wii games. Expecially after the steaming pile that was Red Steel.
Revo @ Feb 9th 2007 10:29PM
"26. Not a accurate comparison, considering that the Wii and Gamecube architectures are so similar, with the only difference being a overclock of the CPU, GPU, and more RAM. You could probably do Super Smash Brothers Melee(graphics wise) on the GameCube with a reduced framerate, and doing that game on the original Xbox would be a snap."
I have no idea what your point is about the similarities between Gamecube and Wii architecture. How would that make the comparison unfair?
My point was that those were screenshots of a Wii game in May 2006. They're good looking screenshots, and even you're willing to admit that the Gamecube couldn't handle a game like that as is. Now, that game will undoubtedly look even better when it's released later this year. Wii games two or three years down the line will look better than that, and at that point will start surpassing earlier 360 titles.
I don't care about abstract measures of console power like CPU, GPU, and RAM. I care about the screenshots I'm looking at right now on my computer screen. And based on those, I can tell you I'm satisfied with the graphical capabilities of the Wii. It's not mind-blowing, but it's good enough.
David @ Feb 9th 2007 10:30PM
I read this as "Our games are great, everyone elses are shit". If they think they suck so much than why don't they make a Wii game.
Terrak @ Feb 9th 2007 10:44PM
I have to agree with this guy in a way. As much as i want to disagree with him i don't think developers have really put enough effort into the games graphics on Wii games. The Wii still has time to improve although i'm hoping its sooner rather then later.
Fandel you are judging the Wiis graphics from a few games after its launch. What is your assumptions based on? A GC port (Zelda TP), A glorified tech sports (Wii sports) and ps2 ports with tacked on Wii controls (Rayman, Call of duty etc)? THis is what you use to base your assumption? Look by the end of the Wiis life if the graphics are the same as what we have now then i will agree with your comments, however the current crop of games should not be indicative of what the Wii will have in the future. When more games are built from the ground up to fully utilize the Wiis graphical potential then we can properly judge the graphics the Wii has to offer.
BTW if you have definative proof that the xbox can achieve 'everything' the Wii can then would you be kind enough to link the site so we can read the evidence for ourselves, that would surely help prove your arguement, if not stop making such baseless comments seeming based only on your biased opinions.
Borat @ Feb 9th 2007 10:52PM
Zelda has excellent graphics. Some of the areas look truly outstanding. For ex.: Lake Hylia. Just stand on an elevation high enough and look at the area...it just looks beautiful. The shimmering water, the huge draw distance.
Zelda may have weak textures in some places, but the game is very eye-pleasing. The bosses look excellent too. Of course you can't compare it to a 360 game but on its own merit it looks outstanding.
Soleyu @ Feb 9th 2007 10:57PM
@Fandel:
Where did you get that info? I mean sure graphically wise the wii is not as powerfull as the 360 and PS3 but damn man, from what I gathered the Wii IS more powerfull than the original Xbox, processor wise it's faster (It's a PowerPC which is way faster and more stable than a Pentium 3 at the same speed).
In the graphics department, well we know squat about the Hollywood, but beign made by ATI and considering the Gamecube GPU was fairly powerfull (sure it didnt have shaders but it had an equivalent) and this should be even a tad more powerfull, then well it should be if not twice then at least 1.5 more powerfull than the gamecube, which had good graphics.
Anyway its true the wii will not be a graphics powerhouse (compared to the other consoles), since it is designed around its control, but saying that the wii is weaker graphically than the original XBOX is wrong.
I agree with Eggebrecht, they are beign lazy with the wii, they should at least, i dunno, try to make the games look nice.
VanGuardian1 @ Feb 9th 2007 11:12PM
Well, to their respects, I think nobody, including developers, didn't see the Wii becoming as successful as it has so quickly. Honestly, if you said that the Wii would be outselling the PS3 on a 3-to-1 difference, what response could most people give but laughter?
VanGuardian1 @ Feb 9th 2007 11:15PM
A year ago before E3'06, I mean
OrionTheSmiter @ Feb 9th 2007 11:17PM
With all the comments here, you'd think he said, the Wii is a piece of garbage that can't produce quality graphics. If you'll go back and actually RTFA you might discover that he was saying that the Wii is capable of much more graphically and that the developers have been nothing short of sloppy, not even attempting to reach Gamecube level graphics much less so-called Gamecube 1.5 (which is a total misconception.) It is not an "overclocked" gamecube CPU & GPU as one commenter posted, its actually a faster, larger, more efficient CPU that was the result of nearly 4 years of toying with IBM's G4 technology. Which btw, is the same research that produced IBM's 360 solution, the 3-core copper-based G4. Is the Wii ever going to do 360 graphics, no. But you people seriously need to get over yourselves.
Anonymous @ Feb 9th 2007 11:17PM
The reason games look like crap for the Wii is that A:It's 480p B:It's a rebadged gamecube and C: You just payed 250 dollars for said rebadged gamecube. Don't you feel smart. What almost noone seems to grasp is that in the last generation (Xbox/PS2/GameCube) the limits of what could be done at 480i/p were reached. The Wii does absolutely nothing to improve graphics over the Gamecube. The ONLY difference this time around is that the extra clock speed on the CPU and the GPU will allow for more physics calculations. I'd be willing to bet that no Wii games will look better than some of the original Xbox games that came out in 720p. It's just not going to happen.
Eventually I will be forced to buy a wii. Zelda will come out for just the wii and not gamecube (like this time), a decent mario will come out (unlike Sunshine, Galaxies seems like it might offer atleast a little promise. I don't know why setting a mario game in the mushroom kingdom seems to be taboo these days for Ninty) and I'll be forced to drop the (hopefully) 200 dollars on the system (Since they make a profit, it has room to decrease in price, unlike the PS3).
kevinski @ Feb 9th 2007 11:29PM
You know, the problem with the graphics in most Wii games isn't so much how half-assed everything looks in general. The problem, for me, is the lack of anti-aliasing (in pretty much every game that I've seen, anyway). Sure, this is a problem within PlayStation 3 games, but it's still very annoying to see. In my opinion, a console shouldn't be touted as being able to render games at a particular resolution anymore unless it can do that with at least 4xAA enabled.
Striderhayasa @ Feb 9th 2007 11:33PM
@ jay
You get cool points for mentioning Turrican. I loved that game on my A500...good times...good times
----------------------------------------------------
When you look at games on Gamecube like F-Zero. It's hard to imagine Gamecube not being able to handle a Smash Brothers that looks close if not the same as Melee. F-zero handles 30 different cars on screen with full backgrounds and effects at 60 frames per second full tilt no slow-down. Show me a Xbox game or a PS2 game that did anything similar at a smooth frame rate. The point is Gamecube's hardware was proven...we saw the potential of that hardware at launch with Rogue Leader, it continued with RE, RE0, RE4, Metroid Prime, and if you really want to nitpick..Starfox Adventures was presenting Xbox quality graphics on Gamecube early. The models in Rogue Leader were being compared to the actual ILM models in the Star Wars films. THAT'S performance you can be proud of. Where is that for the Wii?
It's as if Nintendo and second-party developers were pushing the envelope to really show what the Cube could do AT LAUNCH. Again I ask, where is the equivalent on the Wii?
There was a time when no one development better games on Nintendo hardware than Nintendo. Are those days gone? All I'm saying is, I can accept the fact that the Wii will never look as good as the 360 or the PS3. That's fine, but how the hell can Nintendo tell their fans with a straight face that the Wii is all good when the graphics alone aren't even up to last gen standards? Is it going to get better...it has to, but this is a pathetic way to start the next gen in terms of giving an indication of the overall potential of the Wii.
Revo @ Feb 9th 2007 11:34PM
"37. What almost noone seems to grasp is that in the last generation (Xbox/PS2/GameCube) the limits of what could be done at 480i/p were reached. The Wii does absolutely nothing to improve graphics over the Gamecube. The ONLY difference this time around is that the extra clock speed on the CPU and the GPU will allow for more physics calculations."
I see. In that case, I suppose there's no reason to care about the superior graphics of the 360 and PS3 if you don't own an HDTV.
Seriously though, what you're saying is not only ridiculous, but demonstrably false. There are already Wii screenshots out there that look better than original any Gamecube game. I already said it, but I'll say it again: you can make all the claims you want about CPU and GPU, but I'm looking at screenshots for Brawl, Galaxy, etc. that are superior to anything the Gamecube put out, and games that'll come later will be prettier still.
Striderhayasa @ Feb 9th 2007 11:37PM
My bad...I meant to say Smash Brothers Brawl on GC. Not Melee.
UnDone14 @ Feb 9th 2007 11:45PM
It sucks that the Wii can't even compete with the last generations most powerful console (xbox). The Wii compares to the least powerful console, the ps2. That IS pretty sloppy.
The only reason Nintendo opted to not go into "hi-def" was because they wanted to keep profiting on hardware from 2001.
The thing that baffles me is that, the current games with the exception of Zelda, can't even compete with gamecube games when the hardware is designed as a "gamcube on steroids."
When Nintendo gives me zomething other then Zelda, I'll be purchasing one (I think I'll wait for the black Wii's). I don't see any reason to buy one right now for just one game. Especially when that one game is available on a console from 2001.
nazlfrag @ Feb 10th 2007 12:19AM
From another post somewhere on this board..
Wii is a Gamecube with
A) A processor with twice the power
B)Twice the IT-RAM
c)More storage from Standard DVD9
d) Built in WiFi
e) 512MBs of on board RAM
f) SD Card slot
g) Full backwards compatibility , mem cards included.
h) Controller
i) More powerful GPU
The Wii is backwards compatible with the GC. Not rebadged. Not GC 1.5. Backwards compatible, the way your P4 is to XT software. Sure, it doesn't go for the extreme high end of the market, but to call it a GC, or worse than origional Xbox is just ignorance and FUD.
Repeat after me.. backwards compatible does not mean equivalent.
Liraco @ Feb 10th 2007 1:23AM
Rogue Squadron, a first-gen GC game, is STILL prettier than most Wii titles. If it's a Gamecube 1.5... why can't we at least have those Gamecube 1.0 graphics?
Let's just hope it was a case of developers putting more resources into figuring out controls, because we KNOW things can look prettier. Sure, not every game can be RE4, but eventhe style of the game can help (Wii sports works perfect as is).
Let's see where they go.
jaysins @ Feb 10th 2007 2:00AM
@nazlfrag
Hey smart guy, that's 512 MB memory is flash NAND for storage not RAM. The wii has 88 MB of RAM, 24 MB internal 1T-SRAM integrated into graphics package, 64 MB external GDDR3 SDRAM. The part that hurts is only 3MB on the GPU for textures so they are going to have to put some effort into getting really nice textures out of it. I'm sure capcom is up to the job but we'll see what developers can do with it in a year. Oh, get your facts straight before you go off on people.
Luke @ Feb 10th 2007 2:07AM
I couldn't agree more. Developers cant just think that they can take a game and slap on Wii controls. I was so disappointed in the graphics on the Wii's launch. I cant wait until Metroid Prime 3 is here, I mean look at that game it looks amazing! It looks like a Xbox 360 title. And Retro Studios said it was going to be a launch title and they delayed it and im glad they did. GAMEPLAY AND GRAPHICS are both important!
Shockz @ Feb 10th 2007 2:26AM
Y'know, I'm tired of this. Yes, devs aren't really squeezing all the graphical potential out of the Wii. But you know what?
I've seen X360 and PS3 graphics. I've seen 'em running in b-e-a-utiful 720p. And you know what? I'm honestly not that impressed.
Sure, they're pretty. Sure, in technical terms, they're better than what the last generation could put out. But in the end, I was kind of too focused on blowing up that &*%^ing Widowmaker in Resistance to care much about graphics one way or another.
If it played the same, Resistance (I'm using it as an example, since it's the only non-Wii new-gen game I've played for an extended amount of time) would have been JUST AS GREAT even if the graphics were PS1 quality.
I'm going to say it. In my opinion, GRAPHICS. DO. NOT. MATTER. If they did, then why the hell are people buying games off of Virtual Console, or classic PS1 games for PSP? Going back and playing Zelda: Ocarina of Time, are you going to whine and b**ch and moan about how it looks like junk?! Not me. I'd play the game, and I'd LOVE it, dammit.
So I'm sticking to my Wii for now. I'm probably eventually going to get the 360, and Heavenly Sword and FFXIII will undoubtedly force me to get a PS3. But you know what? I'm happy with my cute little shiny white box with accompanying cute little shiny white remote.
....
Thinking about it, though, there are cases where graphics CAN matter. If they're so low-quality and blocky that you can't see what you're aiming at, that's a problem *coughRedSteelcough*.
Of course, I might just be saying all this because my tendency towards graphics-whoring is all channeled away towards the ORIGINAL game system--the PC.
SynikaL @ Feb 10th 2007 2:45AM
Strider:
"Ps3 isn't he biggest rip-off this gen...it's looking more and more like the Wii is.
Thanks Nintendo...thanks a lot."
*claps*
I couldn't agree more. I 've been echoing these sentiments ever since they announced the price. I was excited for the Wii until they blindsided me with a 100-150 dollar premium.
IMO, the Wii is the overpriced system this generation, not the PS3. Let's not even talk about the accessories.
To be fair though, it's not entirely Nintendo's fault the Wii is overpriced, it's Sony's.
-Kimosabae
Sly @ Feb 10th 2007 2:50AM
Last gen developers have new life with the Wii. And how about Nintendo themselves. How do we know if SSBB isn't GC port of SSBM? Put out any crap while the system hot.
Untamed @ Feb 10th 2007 2:59AM
Not everyone has an LCD/plasma TV or even a CRT capable of 480p/720p/1080i/1080p.
I just discovered how good an s-video connection looks, because for the first time in my life I have a TV with a god damned s-video input.
I tell you, I'm probably going to be blown away when I get my own 480p capable set.
SynikaL @ Feb 10th 2007 2:59AM
Also, I'd like to remind everyone how hard Nintendo tried to convince us that Wii's graphics would be "comparable" to 360 and PS3's prior to launch. I distinctly remember Iwata stating "I doubt you will see much of a difference when comparing Wii to the other next generation systems" (not an exact quote).
Just seems as though the general industry has forgotten the myriad promisespost-launch.
-Kimosabae
Terrak @ Feb 10th 2007 3:18AM
#51 a reputable link regarding Iwata saying the Wii has comparable graphics to the 360 or ps3 would be appreciated. I cannot for the life of me remember anyone at Nintendo even making such a claim. If you cannot find any link then please do not make such a claim which IMO is BS.