Former GameCube developer calls early Wii graphics sloppy

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.

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

#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.

Just want to say two things.

#1- Wii graphics look good. They do not look like crap. Do ps2/dreamcast/xbox/gamecube graphics look like crap? I say no. Especially since thats such a broad generalization. Some games look worse than others, some better than. In general, the Wii has good graphics. Unless the graphics effect gameplay in a manner that hinders it, the graphics work. They look fine, they are good.

#2- A LOT of the Wii games so far have been sloppy. They have been ports. They haven't been pushing the console graphically. Blame it on the developers, they're half-assing the games because they can get away with it. Simple as that. They arn't going to work harder just yet if the games will sell on the Wiimote controls alone.

@ 51

Iwata was referring to HD versus SD. For many of the people who do not own HD and have a SD-based perspective and end up playing on SD setups, the difference isn't that much and arguably negligable, considering the games for the other systems have a SD-compliant format alongside HD.

@52

It was in an interview with G4 at TGS 06, If I remember correctly.

However, like a lot of things Nintendo says, they are usually taken out of context.

**********

"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)."


Iwata was HARDLY saying that Wii would have comparable/superior graphics. He did say that people would be surprised at what Wii could do though.

Look at SynikaL make big deals out of things he's not being completely invested in! Exaggerating, like how he claims Nintendo did about graphics.

Lol!

But yeah, back to the topic, as I said earlier, Eggebrecht is right, that people haven't been utilizing Wii as well as they could have. But I'd love to see Factor 5 take a clean shot at making a Wii title, just to prove their skills again. :P

I think far too many of you are trying to compare the Wii graphics with that of the X360 or PS3. As KC said, they graphics are not crap, they are good - nothing more, nothing less.

How you can compare a small amount of games released on the Wii to an entire library of previous gen graphics is beyond me - i've seen games on the Xbox/PS2&GC which look better than some PS3/X360 games - does that therefore make those consoles crap?

There's no way to argue that alot of the third party developers Wii games are pretty poor, BUT, to have people say that Zelda's graphics are crappy is unbelievable - sure it'd be great if we got it in HD, but it still looks amazing.

The Wii having alot more publicity can only be a good thing aswell - continuing to sell out, it must be doing something right - I'd say that would be people just wanted to have FUN playing games and try something DIFFERENT from the same business model the industry has gone on for so long (Console power over creativity).

It may be the case that alot of developers are just cashing in whilst the Wii is 'hot news' but it's not any different to what they've always done (on EVERY console)

Launch titles don't look that great, the system has untapped power? This surprises people?

I've been too busy playing Super Mario World to care (never had an Snes)

Just a couple of notes...

Not all current Wii games have been ports (even though was was incorrectly labelled as one in the thread).

Rayman Raving Rabbids was stated to have been built from the ground-up on Wii. In fact, it was the original version of the game, all others came second.

Trauma Center: Second Option, is a remake of sorts of TC: Under the Knife for DS.

Super Swing Golf by Tecmo, although a sort of remake of Ntreev's PangYa/Albatross18 for the PC, is also built from the ground-up for Wii. The game's textures and models are much higher detailed than the PC version, though it suffers from poor framerates and loading times (which is why I hope for a SSG2 to have more content from the PC game, as well as better framerates and loading).

Do ports from PS2 or whatever suffer in the graphics department? Yes. But how do you think most multi-playform games are done? For the most part, they're designed with one system in mind, then ported to the rest (in the case of the last gen, most multi-platform games were made for the PS2, then ported to GameCube and Xbox).
But, it's more of a problem now than it was with GameCube/Xbox, since more expected from Wii. It's more powerful than the last gen (even if only twice the power).

But... the Wii is no different from any other system. Just because it's the same architecture as GameCube (but stronger chips) doesn't mean anyone can just jump into Wii development and pump out things that look twice as good as RE4.

Heck, even for GameCube, RE-like graphics were not the rule, but the exception. And RE4 was in development for several years!

To really see what Wii can do graphically, it's still going to take a top-notch developer some time. And we're seeing that in Smash Bros., Metroid, and Mario Galaxy.

Heck, Sonic and the Secret Rings is looking really good, and it comes out pretyt soon.

And what's with the dumping on Twilight Princess? I think it's a beautiful game. While not my favorite Zelda, I still think the art direction in the game was grand.

Did anyone get Gears of War-like graphics at 360 launch, or even within the next couple of months?
Does anything on the PS3 look nearly as detailed as MGS4?
No.

Wii is no different from any system. To get a good glimpse of its graphical prowess, you just have to wait and see...

The thing I dont get is that most GAMECUBE games didn't push THAT system. As a GC owner it was really frustrating that devs always made a high quality Xbox version.. and a low quality PS2 version.. and then just ported the PS2 one across to the GC.

The GC was way more powerful than the PS2.. but almost all the games it got made it look pretty similar.

And NOW the Wii is producing games that don't look much better (or in some cases worse) than PS2-on-GCN games. It makes no sense i'm telling you!!! ;-)

I think maybe the problem is that devs are trying to include too many next-gen shader effects in software.. which then compromises the graphical quality and framerate elsewhere. They should look at RE4 and see that a game can look better without all those shaders.

Note: style shouldn'y be mistaken for complexity. WiiSPorts might be very simple.. but it has buckets of style and personality.. and therefor looks better than a large number of 360/ps3 games that have neither.

Why are gamers such a pathetic cluster of nerd raging assholes over the internet? And why are you all so goddamn passionate about these internet "console war" arguments that you'd polemically denounce anything that doesn't mesh with your belief systems?

Sraight up question: Has ANYONE posting in this thread EVER experienced the wonders of pussy? EVER?

******

"Urrmm, n0 l1nky d@t's bS!1!1"

You're on the fucking INTERNET. Do some fucking research yourselves you antisocial, parental basement dwellers.

Tarrak and Nintendofanbot (har.), I'm about to jar your selective retention rates. Ready?

Joystiq.com on Nintendo's Jim Merrick:

http://www.joystiq.com/2005/10/31/revolutions-graphical-abilities-to-equal-competition/

IGN.com in an interview with Miyamoto and Iwata:

"I don't think the Revolution's [graphics] will be inferior in any fashion to Xbox 360 or PS3," said Iwata. "Even if you look at Zelda on GameCube, I don't think that looks inferior to what the competition is touting as 'next generation' visuals."


http://cube.ign.com/articles/636/636350p1.html

Iwata at e3 2005:

"When you turn on Revolution and see the graphics, you will say 'wow!'"

http://cube.ign.com/articles/615/615089p1.html


Yeah, this was all before the name change, but the fact stands that Nintendo didn't even come close to delivering on these publicly made promises with the final product.


"Look at SynikaL make big deals out of things he's not being completely invested in!"

What the hell does this mean? That I can't be critical of Nintendo because I don't own a Wii? You're screen name parallels your zealotry and your logic epitomizes it. Now that I think about it, it's a GOOD thing you probably don't get laid.

"Exaggerating, like how he claims Nintendo did about graphics."

Oh, you mean kinda like you just did, by tagging on "Superior" in your reference of me in a subtle attempt at discrediting my statements?

Slander much?

Fucking idiot.

-Kimosabae

Yeah, I was pretty much joking. I really wouldn't revel (such as the slander you pointed out) in such a way and was probably tasteless to begin with.

Good response though. I was owned.

@synikal

I'm with you and I own a Wii and thanks for the links because I sure as hell remember Iwata saying the graphics on Wii would be comparable to 360 and PS3.
--------------------------------------------------
We've all been through the launch window blues with nearly every console in the history of the industry. Many developers tend to be predictable beasts, shoveling bullshit at launch for a quick cash in. DS was no different and I bitched about that too. To be honest, Metroid Prime Hunter/FF III level of graphic quality should be the rule not the exception on DS but other than a few titles...we don't see DS being pushed all that much either. Wii has the potential to be as big as DS commercially, but I don't want to look back on this a year from now and say wow, the Wii "coulda shoulda woulda, but didn't" Wii games should look better than GC games, not worse. That's just pathetic.

Oh yeah, I forgot to mention...Rogue Leader for the Gamecube, that gorgeous launch title was developed

in


NINE (9) months. Nine damn months. The Wii has no excuse. Thanks Nintendo, Thanks for nothing...
http://www.gamasutra.com/gdc2002/features/chen/chen_01.htm

Holy crap Synikal, talk about the pot calling the kettle black..

And for the record, my girlfriend plays my Wii often (lame pun intended)

Rebel Strike was cookie-cutter compared to Rogue Leader. Also, the organic models (as part of the new 'on-foot gameplay' in Rogue Strike animated and controlled like crap. Then you have the fake voiceovers juxtaposed to video and audio from the movies, making a very jarring experience.

And Rebel Strike was the other half that was cut off from Rogue Leader. Probably if it had more time it would have been shipped as a "more complete" game, but Rogue Leader was an excellent game as-is.

In all I agree with the Factor 5 guy that more consideration could have been made for many of the games, but that's up to the companies.

I'm not going to say anything on the matter but ask a question towards what other people think: How much pressure or how could Nintendo get companies to cooperate without 'twisting their arms'? Though I would admit to the risk of a development scenario like for Wii would be that it's probably a pretty lax situation.

Look, the Wii's graphics are not revolutionary... but is it fair to compare with the 360 or PS3 when all they give you is some crappy composite cables?

I picked up some HD cables for my Wii, being quite optomistic it would make the Wii games look better... and let me tell you, it did. The games look gorgeous with my HD cables plugged in, and comparing them to the composite cables, it shows the limits that the composite cables have.

So before you compare them to the 360 or the PS3, grab some component cables.

What you all don’t understand is that we are all video game nerds (we read and post on Joystiq). Of course we care about graphics but the average Joe doesn’t and that is whom Nintendo is going for. When my 60 year old parents get a Wii and call me up telling me about how much the enjoy it, they don’t care about the graphics. They never owned a system in there life they don’t even watch TV, just read literature. I think this argument really is moot point when Wii is on its way to sell 6 million units in just the first 4 months. Nintendo is crying about its strategy all the way to the bank.

@ Nintendofanbot

I see your point but we're not talking about gameplay or voiceovers. This is strictly about the graphical capability of the Wii or lack thereof. From a gameplay standpoint, I love Resistance online. It harkens back to the days of Goldeneye except there are 40 people running around shooting each other to hell instead of 4, on maps that are multiple times larger than the biggest map on Bond. But...I'll be the first in line to tell you Call of Duty 3 on Wii has superior controls than Resistance in every way. It's embarrassing how much better the Wiimote controls in CoD3 than dual analog in Resistance or any other console FPS for that matter. Wii has shown great potential in the gameplay catorgory but fails miserably in graphics presentation. Like I mentioned before, it's going to get better obviously but how much better is the determining factor.

Back on topic

I look at SSX Blur and it looks like it could have been done on Gamecube. Sure it looks good and runs at a smooth clip but it still looks like a Gamecube game. I look at Virtual Fighter 5 and I think there's no way in hell that can be done on PS2. Not with those graphics.
--------------------------------------------------
@ Boston

I play Wii on a computer RGB computer monitor. The resoultion isn't HD but it's better than SD. If Sega could give me a F-Zero that looks as good as the GC version does and run it at 60 frames per second without skipping a beat in SD, then I want the Wii to be better than that at launch in 480p STANDARD. Is that too much to ask for?
---------------------------------------------------
@ virgil

yeah and from a business standpoint Nintendo are marketing geniuses and pimps of the industry. Sega couldn't hock their wares as well as this under such competition and Sony couldn't do it either without an army of 3rd parties. Nintendo pimped it.

Let's cut the crap, Nintendo straight up said "We're going to give you some bullshit that doesn't even compare to the competition. We're going to overcharge you for it, rape you on the VC downloads and you're GONNA eat it up." How'd that turn out?

Wiis are flying off the shelves to the point that the media is talking about the Wii (how great it's doing) and the PS3 (how poorly it's doing) and ignoring the 360 (the best deal right now). Awesome, that's serious marketing muscle at work. I can't knock the hustle but what I can knock is the fact that Nintendo said the Wii would be comparable. 3rd parties are going to be lazy bastards at time like these for that quick cash in but Nintendo has always shown the potential of their hardware at launch....except with the Wii. THAT'S my problem. Where is the killer "can't get this anywhere else" Wii launch title. Zelda doesn't count because it's a GC port. Why can't I have better graphics AND the hot Wiimote controls with a smooth framerate? It doesn't have to be 360 or PS3 level...I just want better than GC.

I must admit i have not read those comments from anyone from Nintendo regarding the Wii, hence i asked for links. I did honestly believe they would not say something stupid like that, however it seems they have.

I'd like to point out he believes the Wii will appeal only to those that don't have True HD TVs (ie 480p or less) from one of your links

"Iwata went on to say that most people who will be playing the Nintendo Revolution won't be doing so on high-definition compatible television sets anyway, and that 480p (progressive-scan) will remain the standard. Bottom line, according to Iwata, is Nintendo's desire to create a system capable of attracting as many people as possible."

If he truely beleived that the Wii can (technically) compete with the 360 and ps3, but obviously such comparisons are meaningless (ie visually crippling the 360 or ps3 by using only 480p) and the assumption that 480p will be the standard.

In any case Nintendo has seriously overstated the graphical potential of the Revolution/Wii with such a statement.

@50

I had a 32" Panasonic 480i set connected to my 360 with component cables. The picture looked fantastic. Last week I upgraded to a 50" Samsung 720p DLP, and all I can say is WOW!!!!!!!

If you think 480p will blow you away, check it out in 720p, it'll blow your fuckin' mind.

P.S. VGA cables = 720p upconvert of Standard DVD's!

I'd like to point out that all the links Synikal pointed out are mid 2005. The Wiis hardware was still being finalized in Mid 2006. Link-

http://www.errormacro.com/2006/05/index.php?page=3

It is 'possible' that the Wii could have been more powerful then what is currently available (can only dream) hence Iwata making the claim that the consoles would be graphically comparable. Remember even the ps3 recieved a very late change (HDMI in all versions when before only the 60GB would have HDMI), so it is possible the Wiis graphics was expected to be comparable to the 360 and ps3 but was later changed for some reason or the other (reduce costs). Also when did the 360 launch? Nov-Dec 2005? Iwata may have seriously underestimated the 360s graphical abilities as much he over estimated the Wiis. How much did Iwata really know about the 360 in Mid 2005?

I'm not trying to defend Iwata's claims, because now the consoles are out its plain to see that the Wii is not comparable to the 360 or ps3 (and he is dead wrong), however Synikals links provided are so long ago (mid 2005), it is entirely plausable that the Wii was maybe at some point supposed to sport HD graphics &/or they didn't believe the 360 or ps3 were going to be as powerful as they turned out to be.

I'm just trying to give possible explainations Nintendo would make such a bold claim. In any event i don't beleive they have continued (recently) with this claim (if you have a more recent link, by all means).

Also note for your information i don't spend that much time on the internet. Its a pass time i enjoy on occassion, especially catching up on the latest gaming news on Joystiq. If i did spend enough time on the net i might have read those comments by Iwata and co. But thanks for the irony.

@ Striderhayasa

My main point wasn't the audio or sound, sure it added to my point about developer choices in design, but what I was getting at was that Rogue Leader (RSII) was an incomplete game. At least half of Rebel Strike (RSIII), (specifically, on-foot gameplay) was leftovers from the prior game. The big point I was going to say that an early-gen game, especially for launch, is going to take a hit somewhere. In Rogue Leader it was the amount of content. Some games and specifically for Wii took a hit in the graphics department.

I agree though that graphics (more than aesthetically) should be one of the first showcases of a system's launch. For Wii, it was also important that Nintendo also get the motion-controlled games to mesh with gamer and non-gamer expectations as well.

My first impressions when first playing the 360 and PS3 at their respective store debuts were that they took last gen games, upped the display resolution, enhanced the lighting techniques and slapped normal maps on EVERYTHING. For example, PS3's NBA 07 looked like a basketball game, but filled with animated action figures, just like one might say Wii takes a GC game and adds copious amounts of bloom-lighting.

Understandably also, you might not see a game in the quality and effort of RE4 for Wii for a while. 360 had Oblivion, but Oblivion was also on PCs, as was Call of Duty 2.

You know, comments like these make me worry about the future of the Wii

Then i go look at screens from Sonic and the Secret Rings (>2 weeks to go, yay), and play Wii sports

And all those fears melt away (the fun distracts you from the poor graphics, except in golf, you're too involved with the game to think, "damn, look at those HIDEOUS scaling jaggies)

And if you want proof?
http://media.wii.ign.com/media/800/800277/imgs_1.html
And
http://media.wii.ign.com/media/826/826840/imgs_1.html

Both 3rd party, and both looking better than
http://media.xbox.ign.com/media/482/482228/imgs_1.html

However, i still subscribe to the fact that graphics DO help make the gameplay more enjoyable, but they are more important to SELL a game
(how many of you looked at Gears screens, said wow, and said, if i had a 360, i'd totally buy this?)

Is this a suprise? Factor 5 is developing stricitly for the PS3 and is in Sony's pocket of course they're going to take pop shots at Nintendo because that seems to be what Sony has been focusing on the past month and a half since the PS3 is getting mopped up by the Wii! lol

dude, azorean, Factor 5 DOES want to develop for Wii, read the IGN article

They're not dumping on Nintendo, they're dumping on most 3rd parties developing for Wii (although EA, surprisingly, seems to be putting some effort in)

I do agree, developers were caught flat-footed by the Wii's success, and scrambled to port all their failed PS2 and Xbox titles over, hoping that they might get some success with no extra work

Good lord, any graphics chip from the past 7 years has vertex shaders. And if you think the Cube can't do pixel shading, I suggest you look at the invisibility refraction in Super Smash Bros Melee and the distorted water in Star Fox Adventures. Impossible to do without pixel shaders.

But, um, if graphics mattered that much why was ps2 as successful as it was when the x-box and 360 were out?

You grown ass graphic whore's need to remove your underoos and move on.

Video games are for kids, not grown ass men.

These graphic whore's remind of the freaks you see at NFL games with painted faces, their emotions controlled by the players on the field who don't give a damn that you've spent a tenth of your income to support "your team."

I still play double dragon on MAME and its graphic aren't horrible. I don't play Ghouls and Ghosts and cringe because the graphics aren't in HD. The games are fun.

You graphics whore's probably think Fantastic Four is better than the original Star Wars because the special effects are better.

I'd rather play Super Mario Bros. than these stupid first person shooter, war games, crack the mother over the head like a barbarian games that grown ass, underoo wearing punks play in their living rooms to make them feel like men.

The Wii is what a game console is supposed be; entertainment for kids.

How old we you when Super Mario Bros., Zelda and Metroid captured your imagination, do you remember?