Wii graphics improving?

I think the new sonic game looks even better than that. I mean nothing super awesome but better than what we have so far...
 
even though they say it is similar to the GC it will still be like most new consoles when they come out, it will take some time for the devs to get all they want out of it for it be used at fullest.
 
I think its a great system so dont take this the wrong way, but I doubt as far as graphics are concerned we will be seeing any major leaps for the Wii. Definitely a few great looking games, and small improvements but nothing to really write home about.

That isn't to say the games won't get better....I think it other areas though.
Just my humble opinion:)
 
Once all the GC/PS2 ports dry up I think the games will start looking much better.

Sadly the best looking GC games still meet or beat the current best looking wii games.:(
 
Supposedly the Wii has power comparable to the first Xbox. If that's the case then we should eventually see some games that look like Ninja Gaiden.

...or so I hope :)
 
Maybe I am just getting old but who cares how the games look as long as they are fun? I got over the "Oooooh, Shiny!" aspect of video game graphics a long time ago and I wish developers would too. Creating fun and inventive game-play to me is a much better area to spend time in then using inordinate amounts of time building and texturing models and creating engines to animate them.

I play games to escape reality, the last thing I want is a simulation labeled as a game that reproduces the exact thing I am trying to escape... If I want to see and interact with objects and environments that look "realistic" all I have to do is take a look around me and pick something up.
 
Remember though that the Wii's hardware isn't this 'unknown' 'untapped' resource like general next gen consoles. 99% of developers already know how to push the Wii graphically.

You will not see Wii's graphics progressively get better like you will the PS3/360s. Guaranteed.
 
Goofball said:
Maybe I am just getting old but who cares how the games look as long as they are fun? I got over the "Oooooh, Shiny!" aspect of video game graphics a long time ago and I wish developers would too. Creating fun and inventive game-play to me is a much better area to spend time in then using inordinate amounts of time building and texturing models and creating engines to animate them.

I play games to escape reality, the last thing I want is a simulation labeled as a game that reproduces the exact thing I am trying to escape... If I want to see and interact with objects and environments that look "realistic" all I have to do is take a look around me and pick something up.
Click to expand...

I feel the exact opposite. If I just wanted average graphics and "fun" - why are we even bothering with new consoles and HDTV and go back to 8-bit games and rabbit ears for our TV?
There's no rule that graphics and fun have to be mutually exclusive. I'd rather play a game with good graphics and realism and immersion than something average looking that's supposed to be "fun."
There are hundreds of thousands of older fun games out there that all of us have never played. I could go back and play all of them for a fraction of the cost of buying any of the current consoles.
I want visuals AND fun and I see no reason to settle for one or the other.

(Edit: Back on topic...) Anyway, back to the Wii...hopefully we'll see some improvement. I agree with theNoid about not getting the same scaling, but hopefully we'll see something like RE4 where you actually wonder if you're playing the right console :)
 
What games currently out there have really tried to exploit the Wii at all? Zelda is a GC title graphics-wise. Red Steel was OK, but almost a technology demo more than anything. FarCry was an abomination. Elebits is a cutsey title. Madden is... EA, nuff said.

I think that as we see games that are meant to look awesome, the graphics will improve. Sonic and SSX are evidence of this.
 
The Gamepro hands-on with Metroid Prime for the Wii said that the "graphics looked amazing -- better than Halo 2 on the Xbox without a doubt -- "

Almost every title available for it now is either a port or an obvious launch title cash-in. Nobody who owns a Wii is expecting it to be a graphical tour-de-force, but it will improve. I've got a PC for GFX wow-factor.
 
http://media.cube.ign.com/media/552/552060/vids_1.html

SSX 3 on Gamecube, it looks almost the same.

And it seems Blur is a combination port of the older SSX games (the mountain runs in Blur look just like the mountains in 3) but they seem to have cartoonized the characters (big heads) to fit the Nintendo style.
Click to expand...

Sorry but blur has noticeably better lighting, that and sonic look to be the best looking games coming out soon. I agree with the whole-"graphics are over rated and are 2nd to gameplay", but that does not give devs an excuse to be lazy. Which they have been if you look at the wii games.

What games currently out there have really tried to exploit the Wii at all? Zelda is a GC title graphics-wise. Red Steel was OK, but almost a technology demo more than anything. FarCry was an abomination. Elebits is a cutsey title. Madden is... EA, nuff said.

I think that as we see games that are meant to look awesome, the graphics will improve. Sonic and SSX are evidence of this.
Click to expand...
Agreed
 
Goofball said:
Maybe I am just getting old but who cares how the games look as long as they are fun? I got over the "Oooooh, Shiny!" aspect of video game graphics a long time ago and I wish developers would too. Creating fun and inventive game-play to me is a much better area to spend time in then using inordinate amounts of time building and texturing models and creating engines to animate them.

I play games to escape reality, the last thing I want is a simulation labeled as a game that reproduces the exact thing I am trying to escape... If I want to see and interact with objects and environments that look "realistic" all I have to do is take a look around me and pick something up.
Click to expand...

I kinda get where you are coming from, but it is a far cry. With today's generation of gamers, especially those between the ages of 15 and 20, you are looking at a generation of people brought up on television, the booming computer age and visuals unlike any other generation before it. Great visuals is not even something that can be half ass'd, they better be at the very least good or people won't be happy.

I grew up on shitty graphics ya, but not by the standards of the time I played them. The visuals of gaming today are EXTREMELY tied into the fun of a game, they are barely even separated anymore IMO.

The Wii is fun ya, but the graphics aren't horrible on it. If they graphics truly sucked people would hate it, and I think thats just the cold hard truth.

I don't want to speak for anyone other than myself, but I think this whole "Its about the game play" movement is a joke. Game play has a huge deal to play of course, but graphics are a part of that.

Thats just my feelings on that:) Cheers
 
that's the truth copy cat. To all you people thinking that nintendo is only focussed on gameplay, you're dead wrong. Nintendo said, they feel they reached the level where making a system with super graphics isn't as important anymore. They're not saying graphics don't matter, they're just saying that once at the level of gc/xbox is all that's needed graphics wise./
 
Domingo said:
Supposedly the Wii has power comparable to the first Xbox. If that's the case then we should eventually see some games that look like Ninja Gaiden.

...or so I hope :)
Click to expand...


no, the GAMECUBE was comparable to the xbox, the wii is significantly more powerful
 
No dude, the Gamecube compared to the Xbox? Not even close. The Wii is supposedly on par with the first Xbox.
 
Domingo said:
No dude, the Gamecube compared to the Xbox? Not even close. The Wii is supposedly on par with the first Xbox.
Click to expand...

Uh, no. The XBOX was more powerful than the GC, but not a giant leap ahead of it (nothing like the XBOX to PS2).

The Wii is considerably more powerful than the GC and therefore, quite a bit more powerful than the original XBOX.
 
Domingo said:
I feel the exact opposite. If I just wanted average graphics and "fun" - why are we even bothering with new consoles and HDTV and go back to 8-bit games and rabbit ears for our TV?
There's no rule that graphics and fun have to be mutually exclusive. I'd rather play a game with good graphics and realism and immersion than something average looking that's supposed to be "fun."
There are hundreds of thousands of older fun games out there that all of us have never played. I could go back and play all of them for a fraction of the cost of buying any of the current consoles.
I want visuals AND fun and I see no reason to settle for one or the other.

(Edit: Back on topic...) Anyway, back to the Wii...hopefully we'll see some improvement. I agree with theNoid about not getting the same scaling, but hopefully we'll see something like RE4 where you actually wonder if you're playing the right console :)
Click to expand...

If you go back and play some of those 'fun' games, think combat tanks, pong, enduro, pacman etc.

They are fun for about 3 minutes. Xbox live arcade will tell you that. They are bringing back these old titles. The demos are free and by the time I'm done playing a level or two in the demo I'm already bored. I grew up with these games, I remember them as fun, but in reality those are just good memories because we were young. Games today are much better 'in general'. Most of the titles I really remember fondly. I can't stand to play today - it taints the good memories.
 
The important thing is to keep the graphics from detracting from the experience. They've decided that gameplay will drive the experience rather than technical muscle, so they just need to keep graphics at a level where it doesn't drag it down.

I can still play games several years behind as long as the game is immersive enough that the graphics fade into the background and you stop seeing a screen with images on it, and you find yourself "in the game". I played System Shock 2 for the first time about a year and a half ago. I had a blast. Sure the graphics were old as hell, but after you get into it, you stop noticing it.

Quake 1 had awesome graphics. What kind of graphics does it have today? The SAME graphics. If you don't compare a game's graphics to other games, all you see is that one game's graphics and what it does with respect to the game's quality. If it fulfills its purpose as a reference cue, then that's good enough. If it can wow you, that's better, but not necessary.
 
Rocketpig said:
Uh, no. The XBOX was more powerful than the GC, but not a giant leap ahead of it (nothing like the XBOX to PS2).

The Wii is considerably more powerful than the GC and therefore, quite a bit more powerful than the original XBOX.
Click to expand...

The problem is that the Wii is NOT considerably more powerful that than the GC. All of the specs and pretty much every magazine article places it at having approximately the same juice as the first Xbox. Also, the first Xbox was significantly stronger than the GC in the first place, too.
You'd think that since Nintendo is having success now that people want to re-write history.
 
Domingo said:
The problem is that the Wii is NOT considerably more powerful that than the GC. All of the specs and pretty much every magazine article places it at having approximately the same juice as the first Xbox. Also, the first Xbox was significantly stronger than the GC in the first place, too.
You'd think that since Nintendo is having success now that people want to re-write history.
Click to expand...

Do I need to explain to you the difference between RISC, CISC, and RAM speed? If you glance at the specs of the systems and don't understand what you're looking at, they look similar. But, trust me, a 733mhz Celeron is nothing compared to a 730mhz PowerPC chip. And that's not even including the 200mhz XBOX RAM vs. the 500mhz or so Wii RAM speed...
 
Rocketpig said:
Do I need to explain to you the difference between RISC, CISC, and RAM speed? If you glance at the specs of the systems and don't understand what you're looking at, they look similar. But, trust me, a 733mhz Celeron is nothing compared to a 730mhz PowerPC chip. And that's not even including the 200mhz XBOX RAM vs. the 500mhz or so Wii RAM speed...
Click to expand...

...yes, but it still is doubtful that the graphics chip in the Wii beats the graphics chip in the original Xbox. I mean, at least the Xbox supported pixel shaders. At the very least, they are equal in regards to graphics chips.
 
PWMK2 said:
...yes, but it still is doubtful that the graphics chip in the Wii beats the graphics chip in the original Xbox. I mean, at least the Xbox supported pixel shaders. At the very least, they are equal in that regard.
Click to expand...

True, that is one advantage it had. But it should be overcome with the additional clock speed, additional bus speed, additional RAM, and additional RAM speed in the Wii.

The Wii should be able to process A LOT more information than the XBOX with those increased speeds, though the shaders are a real knock on it.
 
So the fact that for the first time EVER a company released a totally new generation of hardware and NO games released look any better than it's previous console is just an elaborate ruse? Somehow it's all just a big trick and that the machine is somehow significantly more powerful than they let on?
I mean, lets look back to every major system release ever. Did the SNES games look and act better than the NES? How bout the Master System to the Genesis to the Saturn and Dreamcast. Even throw the 32X in there.
The games that are out for the Wii are literally NO better looking than anything for the GC, but somehow it's significantly stronger?
I don't buy it. If it were really that much more powerful it wouldn't be too hard to make it look better immediately would it?
I'd like to think it's a numbers game, but everything else says NO.
The whole "we just want it to be fun" thing only goes so far. If it's significantly stronger, they could make the games look better.
 
The games that are out now are basically GC graphics games.

No one has put any effort into Wii development except Nintendo for Zelda. Look at reports of Metroid Prime 3 or Super Mario Galaxy or even SSX and Sonic. Everyone is saying those are way better than Gamecube level.

Get over it and quit bitching.
 
Domingo said:
So the fact that for the first time EVER a company released a totally new generation of hardware and NO games released look any better than it's previous console is just an elaborate ruse? Somehow it's all just a big trick and that the machine is somehow significantly more powerful than they let on?
I mean, lets look back to every major system release ever. Did the SNES games look and act better than the NES? How bout the Master System to the Genesis to the Saturn and Dreamcast. Even throw the 32X in there.
The games that are out for the Wii are literally NO better looking than anything for the GC, but somehow it's significantly stronger?
I don't buy it. If it were really that much more powerful it wouldn't be too hard to make it look better immediately would it?
I'd like to think it's a numbers game, but everything else says NO.
The whole "we just want it to be fun" thing only goes so far. If it's significantly stronger, they could make the games look better.
Click to expand...

Actually, launch games rarely look significantly better than their late-generation counterparts for the previous system. Sure, there are exceptions like Halo, but for every Halo there are loads of launch games that look like crap.

How much better did most of the 360 launch games look than Ninja Gaiden for Xbox? Not much (if at all), once you compensate for increased resolution. Remember that this generation is the first to ever expand upon the accepted lethargy of 480i of previous generations. That has A LOT to do with how good new games look.
 
Domingo said:
So the fact that for the first time EVER a company released a totally new generation of hardware and NO games released look any better than it's previous console is just an elaborate ruse?
Click to expand...

Nobody is saying it's some kind of joke or something, it's just that this generation a lot of people are making multiplatform games and just trying to make a quick buck with a minimal investment. Almost every launch game for the Wii is a port, and the few that aren't either don't shoot for graphics (Trauma Center) or are obviously just poorly done (Far Cry Vengeance).

This is a tired subject, and I hate that this is still being argued. Barring any architectural enhancements to the CPU, it is clocked 65% faster than the Gamecube. Barring any performance-minded architectural enhancements to the video subsystem (which apparently there were), it is clocked 67% faster than the Gamecube. It has more than double the amount of available RAM, and it's faster GDDR-3 as well as the original 1T-SRAM. So yeah, while not worlds beyond, it is undoubtedly faster.

Anyway, the hands-on with the beta/alpha whatever of Metroid Prime from GamePro stated that they thought it was much better looking than Halo 2.
 
i thought Wii wasn't supposed to be a gfx central system? nintendo even said that....so i dont see the point in this, but its a known fact that as a console matures it games look better and better.....i wouldn't be surprised to see games look significantly better on the Wii than on original Xbox or GC.
 
miskari said:
i thought Wii wasn't supposed to be a gfx central system? nintendo even said that....so i dont see the point in this, but its a known fact that as a console matures it games look better and better.....i wouldn't be surprised to see games look significantly better on the Wii than on original Xbox or GC.
Click to expand...



No, like I said before.. nintendo said that at a certain limit graphics aren't that important anymore. That limit is GC, however with most wii games looking worse than gc games well... :rolleyes:

The problem is that the Wii is NOT considerably more powerful that than the GC. All of the specs and pretty much every magazine article places it at having approximately the same juice as the first Xbox. Also, the first Xbox was significantly stronger than the GC in the first place, too.
You'd think that since Nintendo is having success now that people want to re-write history.
Click to expand...

Actually, most mags I read who interviewed devs said it's roughly 1 to 1.5 times the xbox in terms of power. IGN, EGM and a couple other articles I read said that. So, it's at least as powerful as the xbox in worst case scenarios, and most likely a good bit more powerful.
 
theNoid said:
Remember though that the Wii's hardware isn't this 'unknown' 'untapped' resource like general next gen consoles. 99% of developers already know how to push the Wii graphically.

You will not see Wii's graphics progressively get better like you will the PS3/360s. Guaranteed.
Click to expand...

Wow, now that's a bunch of bullshit if I've ever read any. The Wii, at least according to the rumored "leaked" specs, has 4 times the memory--plus approximately half the flash memory (256MB) available to devs for caching (and if you plug in a 256MB SD card and compare it to the empty flash memory of the Wii, they're within just a couple blocks of each other in available space, which certainly lends credence to the claim that half the internal flash is for developer use) and roughly double the CPU/GPU speeds of GC, as well as a few other refinements.

Wii is *just* like every other console ever released in that yes, you WILL see the graphics improve over time as Devs figure out what they can do with the available resources. Will it be as dramatic as 360 has been? Probably not, but that doesn't mean we won't see some nice improvements along the way. It's also quite likely that we'll see some highly creative art design that will help to mask the lower levels of detail.
 
Domingo said:
No dude, the Gamecube compared to the Xbox? Not even close. The Wii is supposedly on par with the first Xbox.
Click to expand...

Actually, the GC *was* comparable to the Xbox. Not quite as powerful, obviously, but certainly close--far closer than PS2 is, for starters.

Wii is a bit more powerful than Xbox 1, with more and faster memory, at least if the rumored specs are to be believed. We shouldn't expect 360/PS3 quality visuals any time soon, to be sure, but neither should we expect trash.
 
quadnad said:
Nobody is saying it's some kind of joke or something, it's just that this generation a lot of people are making multiplatform games and just trying to make a quick buck with a minimal investment. Almost every launch game for the Wii is a port, and the few that aren't either don't shoot for graphics (Trauma Center) or are obviously just poorly done (Far Cry Vengeance).

This is a tired subject, and I hate that this is still being argued. Barring any architectural enhancements to the CPU, it is clocked 65% faster than the Gamecube. Barring any performance-minded architectural enhancements to the video subsystem (which apparently there were), it is clocked 67% faster than the Gamecube. It has more than double the amount of available RAM, and it's faster GDDR-3 as well as the original 1T-SRAM. So yeah, while not worlds beyond, it is undoubtedly faster.

Anyway, the hands-on with the beta/alpha whatever of Metroid Prime from GamePro stated that they thought it was much better looking than Halo 2.
Click to expand...

Correct except that Wii has roughly 4 times the amount of RAM as GC, not 2. GC had 24MB, Wii is reported to have 88 or 92MB, depending on which rumor you read. It's also said to have 256MB of the built-in flash dedicated for developer use, which, based on what I see when comparing a 256MB SD card with a freshly formatted Wii memory block count, seems pretty damn accurate.

Also, I've played the Metroid Prime 3 demo at E3 this past year, and yes, it DOES look better than HALO 2.
 
DragonMasterAlex said:
Correct except that Wii has roughly 4 times the amount of RAM as GC, not 2. GC had 24MB, Wii is reported to have 88 or 92MB, depending on which rumor you read. It's also said to have 256MB of the built-in flash dedicated for developer use, which, based on what I see when comparing a 256MB SD card with a freshly formatted Wii memory block count, seems pretty damn accurate.

Also, I've played the Metroid Prime 3 demo at E3 this past year, and yes, it DOES look better than HALO 2.
Click to expand...

Gamecube has 43MB total. Wii has 88MB total (not a rumor, Wii has been out for a while now). 43x2= 86, which is pretty close to 88.
 
sabrewolf732 said:
Actually, most mags I read who interviewed devs said it's roughly 1 to 1.5 times the xbox in terms of power.
Click to expand...

I've read that too. The PS3/X360 must be at least 4-5 times more powerful than what they replaced. For SDTV resolution, the Wii should make out nicely. I'm sure Metroid 3 looks fantastic. I hope other devs besides Nintendo go to the effort to push the hardware.
 
PWMK2 said:
...yes, but it still is doubtful that the graphics chip in the Wii beats the graphics chip in the original Xbox. I mean, at least the Xbox supported pixel shaders. At the very least, they are equal in regards to graphics chips.
Click to expand...
The cube may not have had pixel shaders in the same sense as the xbox or computers but it does have shading capacity albeit in a none standard way.
 
Darakian said:
The cube may not have had pixel shaders in the same sense as the xbox or computers but it does have shading capacity albeit in a none standard way.
Click to expand...

Yes, it does, through software. Still, you won't be getting some of the awesome shading effects present in, say, Halo 2 on the Wii without a good amount of slowdown. That's the problem.
 
well after graphics like farcry, I doubt they can get WORSE :p
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top