Wii games look like "ass" on HDTV's myth

CrackTiger · 12/27/2006, 02:05 AM

Anyone who says that the Wii looks awful on HDTV's is an idiot who probably only hooked their system up using composite.

Just as 480p Xbox games look great on HD and 'regular' progressive scan TV's and Dreamcast games look amazing via VGA, the Wii looks fine.

Seldane · 12/27/2006, 03:43 AM

Wii games look like "ass" on any tv.

grahf · 12/27/2006, 12:28 PM

I was happy with Gamecube 480p on my 50" hdtv. Metroid Prime for example looks fantastic. Zelda TP looks excellent too, but you can tell its a gamecube game. Not that thats a bad thing, since the gameplay is solid.

GUTS · 12/27/2006, 01:21 PM

Twilight Princess has some pretty mediocre graphics, especially the animations. Link walks like a damn robot.

Seldane · 12/27/2006, 08:17 PM

Quote from: grahf on 12/27/2006, 12:28 PMI was happy with Gamecube 480p on my 50" hdtv. Metroid Prime for example looks fantastic. Zelda TP looks excellent too, but you can tell its a gamecube game. Not that thats a bad thing, since the gameplay is solid.

A Gamecube game indeed, but it is the best-looking game on the system.

I totally like the animations in that game. ESPECIALLY Link's animation. I don't know what you're talking about!

Keranu · 12/27/2006, 09:30 PM

Some spots in Twilight Princess look absolutely stunning while others aren't so special. Still to me it looks as good as any 360 or PS3 game really.

GUTS · 12/28/2006, 01:25 AM

Then you haven't seen any 360 or PS3 games other than Ridge Racer. Zelda looks ok for a Gamecube game (including the Wii version since both look the same) but it's not even in the same galaxy as something like Gears of War or Resistance.

CrackTiger · 12/28/2006, 04:14 AM

Quote from: GUTS on 12/27/2006, 01:21 PMTwilight Princess has some pretty mediocre graphics, especially the animations. Link walks like a damn robot.

Link's 'running' animation is just awful, especially considering how nice pretty much the rest of the animation in the game is. It's basically his low key walk cycle, only faster.

This was okay in 2D 16-bit RPG's like Phantasy Star, but sticks out like a sore thumb in a top tier game like TP.

The graphics aren't pushing anything revolutionary by Gamecube standards technically. But the most important part of any visuals is the actual artwork. And TP looks beautiful overall, with only some generically shaped levels/environments.

Keranu · 12/28/2006, 03:43 PM

Quote from: GUTS on 12/28/2006, 01:25 AMThen you haven't seen any 360 or PS3 games other than Ridge Racer. Zelda looks ok for a Gamecube game (including the Wii version since both look the same) but it's not even in the same galaxy as something like Gears of War or Resistance.

I've seen various 360 and PS3 games and I can honestly say that this generation has the weakest leap in terms of graphics. Odonadon (however you spell his name

) made a good point on his message boards saying that graphics haven't really improved much since the Dreamcast came out. I can admit that 360 and PS3 games do look a little sharper than the previous generation, but it's hardly a jump at all and certainly not worth $400-600 for.

CrackTiger · 12/28/2006, 04:56 PM

Quote from: Keranu on 12/28/2006, 03:43 PM
Quote from: GUTS on 12/28/2006, 01:25 AMThen you haven't seen any 360 or PS3 games other than Ridge Racer. Zelda looks ok for a Gamecube game (including the Wii version since both look the same) but it's not even in the same galaxy as something like Gears of War or Resistance.
I've seen various 360 and PS3 games and I can honestly say that this generation has the weakest leap in terms of graphics. Odonadon (however you spell his name ) made a good point on his message boards saying that graphics haven't really improved much since the Dreamcast came out. I can admit that 360 and PS3 games do look a little sharper than the previous generation, but it's hardly a jump at all and certainly not worth $400-600 for.

Although I agree that the jump to 360/PS3 isn't as big as from 16-bit to 32-bit, I think that it's no more weak a leap than from 8-bit to 16-bit.

And I'm talking about the real next gen'ers like Gears Of War, not the pile of shovelware(don't judge the 360 by that stuff Keranu) that's a result of the next gen starting with a single system. It's exactly what happened with the Dreamcast. Except there were at least enough next gen'ish enough titles early on in it's lifespan.

I do however, believe that the 360 is already worth it now(if you can afford it) and that the PS3 will be as well eventually(maybe in a year?).

Maybe the next wave (I can't call them generations anymore) will be the major step we're due.

At least we got a nifty weird controller with the Wii.

GUTS · 12/28/2006, 06:46 PM

Holy hell man, have you PLAYED a Dreamcast game lately? I love the Dreamcast, but to say the 360 isn't any kind of gigantic leap is pure madness. It's like the difference between NES graphics and 2D graphics on the Saturn.

CrackTiger · 12/28/2006, 08:29 PM

Quote from: GUTS on 12/28/2006, 06:46 PMHoly hell man, have you PLAYED a Dreamcast game lately? I love the Dreamcast, but to say the 360 isn't any kind of gigantic leap is pure madness. It's like the difference between NES graphics and 2D graphics on the Saturn.

I think it's more like the difference between NES and SNES or 16-bit and Saturn.

Take a Dreamcast game like Ferrari blankety blank and compare it to Ridge Racer 360. It's more like Rad Racer versus... did they even have any non F-Zero racers for SNES?

Anyways, it's not like SMB3 versus Keio Saturn.

Even if you take like Quake 3 DC versus Quake 4 360(or even Gears Of War), it's not like X-Men NES versus X-Men VS Street Fighter.

Joe Redifer · 12/28/2006, 09:49 PM

Quote from: guestdid they even have any non F-Zero racers for SNES?

Yes, of course they did. They had that one game.... ummmm.... yeah. Oh yeah it was called "Top Gear" and it set the world on fire with its awesomeness.

guyjin · 12/28/2006, 11:55 PM

Quote from: guest on 12/28/2006, 08:29 PMdid they even have any non F-Zero racers for SNES?

yeah, but nothing special.

http://www.gamefaqs.com/console/snes/list_driving.html

I take that back. How could I forget Mario Kart?

GUTS · 12/29/2006, 01:17 AM

3D graphics really have to be seen in motion to be fully appreciated since 90% of what makes them look good is frame rate and texture detail which doesn't show up well (or at all for framerate) in screen shots. The quake IV screen shot for one doesn't even begin to show the texture detail, lighting, and all the other effects that are going on that make it leagues beyond the Dreamcast Quake III.

I'll agree though that my nes/saturn comparison was off, the snes/Saturn comparison you made is on the mark.

PCEngineHell · 12/29/2006, 11:54 AM

Well,considering Power VR2 was fully Direct X 7 spec the 360 and PS3 are about 3 Direct X generations ahead yea the new stuff is looking better,but I agree with Keranu that it isnt worldy better. The jump is bigger,but mostly because of Pixel Shader support being advanced further and fill rates going way higher then the Power VR and Voodoo 5/Geforce 2 GTS days.

For people out of the loop its possible to get Doom 3/Quake4 and Half Life 2 to run on a Voodoo 5. Problem is Voodoo 5 doesnt do enviromental bump mapping so areas of the games glitch out or look plain,plus the game runs slow. If the driver support was there it would also be possible to do the same on a Kyro/Power VR card,esp considering this card Does support Enviro Bump mapping. But alas the Kyro cards do not have the following the 3DFX stuff does.

All that being said the most important things being done hardware wise on 360 and PS3 are pixel shader work and higher res graphics then 640x480-800x600. Considering that and considering Ive been heavy into pc gaming since the beginning of 2001 trough all the hardware advancements I am truely not blown away by 360 and PS3. Ive been playing games in 1280x1024 on up for years now with Pixel Shader 2-3 support and compared to what Ive been playing and on what hardware Ive been using the new game systems are doing nothing special.

Then again if your not a pc gamer and all you do is stick to consoles I can see how youd think the leap from a Dreamcast and PS2 or Xbox to a 360 and PS3 would be big as you missed a generation at least of Direct X hardware upgrading and had to settle for lack luster pc ports.

grahf · 12/29/2006, 02:17 PM

Quote from: Joe Redifer on 12/28/2006, 09:49 PMYes, of course they did. They had that one game.... ummmm.... yeah. Oh yeah it was called "Top Gear" and it set the world on fire with its awesomeness.

Top Gear 2000 was f'in awesome. I love that game.

CrackTiger · 12/29/2006, 07:16 PM

Quote from: PCEngineHell on 12/29/2006, 11:54 AMWell,considering Power VR2 was fully Direct X 7 spec the 360 and PS3 are about 3 Direct X generations ahead yea the new stuff is looking better,but I agree with Keranu that it isnt worldy better. The jump is bigger,but mostly because of Pixel Shader support being advanced further and fill rates going way higher then the Power VR and Voodoo 5/Geforce 2 GTS days.

For people out of the loop its possible to get Doom 3/Quake4 and Half Life 2 to run on a Voodoo 5. Problem is Voodoo 5 doesnt do enviromental bump mapping so areas of the games glitch out or look plain,plus the game runs slow. If the driver support was there it would also be possible to do the same on a Kyro/Power VR card,esp considering this card Does support Enviro Bump mapping. But alas the Kyro cards do not have the following the 3DFX stuff does.

All that being said the most important things being done hardware wise on 360 and PS3 are pixel shader work and higher res graphics then 640x480-800x600. Considering that and considering Ive been heavy into pc gaming since the beginning of 2001 trough all the hardware advancements I am truely not blown away by 360 and PS3. Ive been playing games in 1280x1024 on up for years now with Pixel Shader 2-3 support and compared to what Ive been playing and on what hardware Ive been using the new game systems are doing nothing special.

Then again if your not a pc gamer and all you do is stick to consoles I can see how youd think the leap from a Dreamcast and PS2 or Xbox to a 360 and PS3 would be big as you missed a generation at least of Direct X hardware upgrading and had to settle for lack luster pc ports.

Technically, every new generation is probably exponentially greater than the last. But that's part of technological evolution.

When it comes down to gameplay experiences and how visuals relate to gameplay(can I make out that pixelly blob from the rest), The jump from Atari'ish stuff to 8-bit consoles was a major one. We got most of our established genres then. But 16-bit was just more of the same, but with more detail.

The jump to 32-bit consoles gave us primitive 3D gameplay, which was another major step but still left room for the Dreamcast to give us the first solid distinguishable 3D graphics.

Since then, we're not really seeing anything that revolutionizes 3D gameplay. Most games still have straightforward environments and 3D characters running around. The improvements are mostly in the details.

I still think that the real next gen games like Gears Of War are amazing. Even though the original Playstation could do an ugly port of it that retains all the gameplay.

Keranu · 12/29/2006, 07:28 PM

I still stand by what I said, I still think the graphic leap is very small. To me it's like the jump between Coleco Vision to NES.

PCEngineHell · 12/29/2006, 07:33 PM

Quote from: Keranu on 12/29/2006, 07:28 PMI still stand by what I said, I still think the graphic leap is very small. To me it's like the jump between Coleco Vision to NES.

Game system wise same here.

CrackTiger · 12/29/2006, 07:33 PM

Quote from: Keranu on 12/29/2006, 07:28 PMI still stand by what I said, I still think the graphic leap is very small. To me it's like the jump between Coleco Vision to NES.

Yeah, but although the Collecovision rocked in the right hands, if you take the average Colleco game and the average NES game, thats still a fairly decent leap. Not that I don't think it's a good comparison.