Post by: wandering on October 22, 2006, 11:12:41 PM
Quote
Ah, but you persist. "Twilight Princess looks awesome! What are you talking about?" Let's try a thought experiment. Imagine that the premiere GameCube launch title was Majora's Mask. "Yeah, well it still would have been better than Luigi's Mansion!" some of you exclaim. You know what? I agree with you. But I also would have been sorely disappointed if the GameCube not only didn't launch with, but was simply not capable of handling a game like Rogue Leader, with its vastly increased size, scope, and detail over its predecessor.
Quote
I need that next-gen "wow" factor. I don't think hardware power is the be-all, end-all, but I do think it's an essential enabler. I love what Nintendo does with its first-party titles. I want to see what those same developers can do with next-gen hardware. What would the next Zelda title be like if given three times the RAM and polygon budget supported by the Wii? What would Wave Race be like with seven cores to compute wave action?
And physics—my God, physics! If ever there was an enabling technology perfectly suited to Nintendo's special brand of gameplay innovation, it's physics! What would a new Mario game be like running on hardware capable of much more advanced physics simulation? Imagine the possibilities for new Metroid beam weapons and destructible environments.
And yet....is the leap from the N64 to the GameCube really that comparable to the leap from the Xbox to the Xbox 360? 360 games don't make my jaw drop in amazement the way GameCube games did back then. I'm actually not sure the 360 really scratches that itch I have, either. Furthmore, does Wave Race really need better physics? Does Metroid need destructible environments?
Part of me feels that complaining about the Wii's graphics is like complaining that a VW Beetle, while fun, isn't the size of a tank and doesn't have great horsepower. Go buy a hummer already.
Oh, but at least he thinks the remote will "distract" him for a while:
Quote
As for the next-gen thing, I don't know what I'm going to do. For now, I'll try to wait it out. The Wiimote stuff is sure to distract me for at least six months. After that, UT2007 on a stacked Mac Pro will keep me occupied for a while. But eventually, I'm going to yearn to see Link running through vast, procedurally rendered forests, hiding in the realtime soft shadows to avoid the gaze of runtime-animated minions of evil hunting in AI-driven packs. Sigh.
Yeah, that's what I call wildly out-of-whack priorities. But to each his own.
The Wii may not scratch that next-gen itch for me, but it does scratch places that I need scratched far worse. A small part of me may always yearn for better hardware.....but I can suck it up.
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on October 22, 2006, 11:26:29 PM
Post by: Arbok on October 22, 2006, 11:29:57 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Professional 666
You could go back to the NES days, days where practically all games ran at 60fps.
Not Super Dodgeball, god bless...
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on October 23, 2006, 12:55:39 AM
Post by: Nick DiMola on October 23, 2006, 02:17:09 AM
Post by: Artimus on October 23, 2006, 03:33:09 AM
Post by: Bloodworth on October 23, 2006, 04:33:36 AM
Post by: Hostile Creation on October 23, 2006, 05:19:36 AM
Post by: Nick DiMola on October 23, 2006, 05:23:34 AM
Post by: trip1eX on October 23, 2006, 05:45:42 AM
Next-gen graphics are great. But they also do things like lead to longer loading times and crappier performance because developers always favor the graphics over the frame rate at least it seems like it. And they really don't make a game fun.
It's a bit of a mirage. I see the screenshots sometimes and yeah it's like Wow. But then you go to a 360 booth and after 5 minutes you're playing the same old game. AT least that's how it is for me.
I've had not trouble being a pcgamer in hi-res and then going to play 'Cube games on my regular Tv. I like the sharp resolution on the pc, but again it tends to wear away after 5 minutes. Then you're left with the game.
And really you say the same thing about the wiimote. It won't guarantee games are fun. Oh using it at first in any game will probably be fun. But if the game itself is boring then the wiimote won't change things. I think the wiimote will make games as next-gen as hd does tho. And maybe more so since games are built on interaction.
Post by: Galford on October 23, 2006, 05:54:40 AM
That article sums up what some of us dissenters have been saying.
A good developer will use more horsepower to do something.
Publishers are the ones who force endless sequels upon us.
Post by: Ceric on October 23, 2006, 06:42:19 AM
Games on the other hand can wow me with consistent graphics but if its just Hyper-Realistic Tic-Tac-Toe or like it wouldn't be the same as the TV.
If I want something for graphic sake only I'm better served by my HD TV channels.
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on October 23, 2006, 07:05:12 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Mr. Jack
I would agree with you Hostile if you have only seen 360 games on a standard tv. I have mine running on an HDTV and Kameo for instance and Ghost Recon look flat out gorgeous. The leap from the xbox to the 360 is bigger than you realize when you see both of them up on an hdtv.
I have to disagree with you there, I still don't think the leap is that great and the difference between HD-TV and standard is overblown a bit. I've played Ghost Recon, and yeah it is nice but it was always pretty nice visually last generation as well, so the leap is not that significant. Besides my PC is already a better machine for visuals than the Xbox 360, so if I want next generation visuals I'll play PC games, if I want some quality exclusive games with less emphasis on visuals I'll go with my Xbox 360 and Wii thank you
.
Post by: AnyoneEB on October 23, 2006, 07:37:30 AM
. I do not remember noticing that in GameCube games, and I would be very surprised if it was a problem on the Wii.On the other hand, some of the quotes in the first post reference AI and physics, which are areas where additional power could improve gameplay. I guess we will see how well developers actually use the additional power on the PS3 and 360.
Post by: Ian Sane on October 23, 2006, 07:54:41 AM
Still there are things can still be done. I haven't seen a 3D game do a forest right yet. It seems like something that would be really hard to do but I haven't seen it yet (though for all I know it exists in a PC game I haven't played).
One thing though that has kept me from being wowed by the Xbox 360 is the art design of the games. Call of Duty may be pretty but it looks dull. There's nothing about realism that really wows me. I need something with a little more fantasy to it. It can still look realistic but the setting needs dragons or aliens or something out-of-the-ordinary to get my attention. At the same time attention to detail is important. Super Mario Sunshine is a better looking game than Super Mario 64 but I wasn't wowed by it's graphics because to me it looked like it lacked polish and details. That made the game look bland to me. Graphics are all about the work that goes into them. MS isn't going to impress me with dull realism and Nintendo isn't going to impress me with simplified visuals regardless of how weak or powerful their hardware is.
Twilight Princess does excite me graphically but it did as a Cube title anyway. I've wanted it since 2000.
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on October 23, 2006, 09:44:05 AM
2) Art direction -- are the visuals inherently appealing?
3) Purpose -- do the damn graphics have any meaning within the gameplay experience? (MIND YOU THE GAMEPLAY HAS TO BE GOOD FIRST)
Wii may be a repackaged GameCube, but so far the PS3 and 360's idea of "next-gen" is about repackaged gameplay (or somewhat new and so-so executed gameplay). (and should I mention how awful Sonic Next looks? oh i just did. hell, it moves along slower than the first Sonic Adventure)
PS3/360: Using visuals (or tech geared toward some visual experience *blu rey VOMIT*) to justify the price. which is relatively high. EVEN THE GAMEPLAY isn't used to justify the price. THE VISUALS are used to justify the dev-platform choice! "chose 460 cuz it has ONREAL3 enjin support and pretty imposter-mapping!"
Wii: Using gameplay to justify the price (froth for TRAUMA CENTER).
The other guys sure aren't bringing anything ground-breaking. We didn't jump into 3 generations of 2D home gaming (excluding transition from Atari to NES). But we ARE jumping into the 3rd generation of 3D consoles, and the inherent problem with that is WE KNOW WHAT TO EXPECT. Mario64 had that SPECIAL, PARTICULAR, UNIQUE surprise advantage, where it demonstrated a new generation of visual AND gameplay. [PC gaming has always been ever-evolving, but since "new badass tech" seems to always be gaged with FPS gaming, my eyes roll back and generation comparison becomes meaningless since the same core graphical expectations have been around as long as the 3D acceleration craze hit since the Pentium days -- add more of the same, to play more of the same? wtf?]
We're simply NOT going to see Mario64's unique "generation jump" until we hit another fundamental change in technology and game development. For the next/upcoming generation, graphics are not that jump. (i don't know if you've noticed, but Devil May Cry 4 doesn't look as good as its protoype footage as well as the long-forgotten RE5 trailer)
So, what exactly is one paying for?
I SURE AS HELL ain't paying the extra (YES IT'S "EXTRA") cash to invest in visual upgrades for games that still act too much like their last-gen predecessors (in the case of the latest Ghost Recon and Rainbow Six games, they're garbage in comparison to their forefathers despite "me-too" graphics technology; style and gameplay have been butchered by Ubisoft). FF12's recent gameplay fiasco likes to indicate future "gameplay" involves gaming that looks great and plays itself!
At least on Wii I won't (yes, i predict. dict. dic. naughty!) feel like I'm being cheated out of my money AND MY TIME. Visuals? Smooth and responsive and lively -- exactly what I ask for. As for development objectives, the graphics aren't being forced onto the console (which leads to poor game fluidity, which is not tolerable) this time around.
One side of the TV screen involves expensive tech and movie-class fluff and big BANG ANG BOOM for your little button presses. The other side of the screen GIVES A DAMN about WHAT you do, and HOW you do it.
What side of the screen are YOU on?
*This IGN-Pro Weekly Pro-Cast is not aimed at anyone in particular
Post by: zakkiel on October 23, 2006, 10:06:41 AM
Post by: JonLeung on October 23, 2006, 10:24:39 AM
Post by: couchmonkey on October 23, 2006, 10:39:13 AM
I've looked at some Xbox 360/PC games such as Oblivion and Test Drive Unlimited, and they still have a lot of problems. I think the biggest issue is scale. In most current high-powered games, the trees look pretty good individually, but when you view forests from a distance, the trees look like carbon-copies spread out over pristine grassy areas. It looks sterile and empty - Oblivion and Warhawk show some examples of this. Then a few games like Test Drive look quite impressive from a distance because they pack lots of trees close together like a real forest, but they achieve that by using simple geometric shapes, so once you view the trees close up they look flat and phoney.
Edit: I'm much happier with Wii than with 360 or PS3, but I sure wouldn't mind if Nintendo gave me everything PLUS Xbox 360 level graphics for another $100. There is definitely a difference...but it's not as big as it should be for that price.
Post by: KnowsNothing on October 23, 2006, 10:56:57 AM
So instead they make Monkey Ball. WIN.
Post by: decoyman on October 23, 2006, 11:43:53 AM
I DO agree with Wandering in that I am not "WOWED" by the graphics I've seen so far. Nintendo's been saying it for years now, but that graphical leap just can't happen with the same magnitude as it has before. (Though, I admit, when I first saw HDTVs on display in stores, I was blown away by the clarity. There were just random pictures of nature scenes, and yet I was compelled to stand before them, silently pawing at the glass as if it were some sort of window into another world /tycho.) It's sort of like I've gone into an ice cream shop, and the man at the counter takes my money, but then gives me a bowl of chilled pudding with a dollop of whipped cream on top. Is it quite scrumptious? Yes, indeed. But it is not ice cream. It is a new sort of scrumptious.
Something I DO think we'll notice this go-round (which the so-called graphics whores will appreciate) is more games running at 60fps or at least at a locked 30fps framerate. Fluidity of animation wows me only slightly less than HD.
EDIT: Crap, forgot to mention (and this was echoed by Ian and others): I agree that Excellent Wii Art Direction can easily trump the PS3/X360 hardware advantage any day. (Case in point: MP3:C)
Post by: mantidor on October 23, 2006, 11:46:06 AM
What I sure don't like is developers getting lazy with nintendo's console using the excuse that its not as powerful as the other two, at least is not a ps2, games should look way better than that.
Post by: Spak-Spang on October 23, 2006, 12:01:27 PM
I think here is the difference. With this generation of games we were able to move closer to seeing realistic characters without moving into hyper-realism which is really bad for animation.
We were wowed because it didn't matter about art direction, because the leap was able to give us graphics that we dreamed while playing the Nintendo 64 and Playstation. Then as the generation grew art direction brought games that were beautiful and truly artistic expressions to our games.
Now, we have seen what visuals can do, and we expect them to look as they do now. We aren't wowed, because we were actually expecting more. In this environment artistic expression and style are more important than realism...because now we are moving to hyper-realistic expression and our human eye natural points out the flaws of animation when it moves too close to reality...the fantasy aspect is gone.
To me, Wii Sports looks just as stunning as several of the generic Xbox 360 and PS3 games I have seen. I will admit that WiiSports technically is inferior but to my eye I am more impressed with Wii Sports.
This is why I think Nintendo's Wii will make a huge splash this holiday. Its experience is unique and different. Seperating yourself from your competition is important, because now to get the Wii experience you have to buy a Wii. To get the Xbox 360 or PS3 experience I could literally buy either system and be fine.
Post by: Kairon on October 23, 2006, 12:03:47 PM
There are some really technically impressive games out there, but I've never been the type to be impressed by them for more than 2 seconds. I just can't stare at Gran Turismo's cars in high definition and get excited: It plays the same doesn't it? So what's the deal?
~Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: Ceric on October 23, 2006, 12:10:57 PM
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on October 23, 2006, 12:38:01 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Kairon
I've been wowed more by Red Steel's artistic direction than StrangleHold's attempt to model the face of Chow-Yun Fat.
There are some really technically impressive games out there, but I've never been the type to be impressed by them for more than 2 seconds. I just can't stare at Gran Turismo's cars in high definition and get excited: It plays the same doesn't it? So what's the deal?
~Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Well, you can watch BRD movies when you're tired of being impressed at games for 2 seconds. Win-Win situation, don't you agree? You get impressive technology and non-gameplay entertainment as a backup! THAT'S A GOOD $600 PLUS TAX PLUS HDMI CABLE PLUS TAX WELL SPENT, RIGHT?
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on October 23, 2006, 03:22:58 PM
P.S. I don't know about you guys but I was definately wowed by the boss visuals in Mario Galaxy, they looked close to CGI (especially the spider one!) which looked next-generation!
Post by: Galford on October 23, 2006, 04:00:47 PM
I'll get right to the point, the Wii will suck dog balls when compared to
other systems in terms of graphics. That is the truth...
I fully expect someone else to say that graphics don't matter and gameplay
is everything.
So instead of waiting for another fifty posts I'll just push this thread to it's inevitable
conculsion.
Post by: KnowsNothing on October 23, 2006, 04:12:21 PM
Quote
P.S. I don't know about you guys but I was definately wowed by the boss visuals in Mario Galaxy, they looked close to CGI (especially the spider one!) which looked next-generation!
Indeed, and that's because the devs didn't go for ultra-realism. Face it, developers have a long way to go before photorealistic graphics come out, and until that happens (which would SUCK, in my opinion), they're just getting deeper into the uncanny valley, and that's just gross. That's why I ALWAYS prefer whimsical/stylized games because they can achieve graphical "greatness" without making me feel icky.
Post by: Bloodworth on October 23, 2006, 04:40:21 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Galford
I'll get right to the point, the Wii will suck dog balls when compared to
other systems in terms of graphics. That is the truth...
I fully expect someone else to say that graphics don't matter and gameplay
is everything.
So instead of waiting for another fifty posts I'll just push this thread to it's inevitable
conculsion.
Actually, Galford that's not what I am going to say. I don't think it's possible for the Wii's graphics to suck unless developers churn out junk like Necro Nesia (and that junk comes on every platform). The multiplatform Activision titles I saw looked the same on Wii and PS3 except on PS3 they look like they've been shrinkwrapped. Now I'm not saying that PS3 doesn't completely outperform, especially when it comes to texture effects, but the Wii is powerful enough for every game to still look great.
Post by: Kairon on October 23, 2006, 05:10:28 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Galford
I fully expect someone else to say that graphics don't matter and gameplay
is everything.
Graphics don't matter. Art does.
Katamari Damacy > Elebits
~Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on October 23, 2006, 08:11:39 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: KnowsNothingQuote
P.S. I don't know about you guys but I was definately wowed by the boss visuals in Mario Galaxy, they looked close to CGI (especially the spider one!) which looked next-generation!
Indeed, and that's because the devs didn't go for ultra-realism. Face it, developers have a long way to go before photorealistic graphics come out, and until that happens (which would SUCK, in my opinion), they're just getting deeper into the uncanny valley, and that's just gross. That's why I ALWAYS prefer whimsical/stylized games because they can achieve graphical "greatness" without making me feel icky.
I'm not sure if you've seen Crysis in motion or not, but that is almost photorealistic, but it also does not look like fun either! Not to mention the framerate and animations are not fluid enough in the current builds which I see as a big problem when approaching photo realism, but regardless we are getting close. Personally I find it a bit silly to say Wii will suck compared to Xbox 360 or PS3, because at the moment not even Xbox sucks visually compared to them! I'm not sure Wi can compete well with realstic visuals at 480p (though Red Steel is doing a fine job at the moment) but I think we could be seeing similar visuals for more artistic game designs that are not based on realism (again I refer back to the gorgeous boss designs in Mario Galaxy), like Mario Galaxy or other games not based in our reality and have a more "Cartoony" or out of this world theme.
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on October 23, 2006, 08:21:50 PM
RE4 accomplished A LOT in terms of a tangible or photo-realistic style (without looking outstandingly plastic either), on last year's hardware. We simply have yet to see a developer with Capcom's brand of artistic and engineering talent try something similar on Wii. Granted, we don't want too many games to share RE's modern style. But Capcom's approach to achieving a photo-realistic IMPRESSION was quite successful.
Post by: Svevan on October 23, 2006, 09:37:08 PM
Post by: Smash_Brother on October 23, 2006, 10:17:36 PM
Let me give an example: World of Warcraft is a visually complex 3D game which is intended to immerse the player in a fantasy world. Clan Lord is a 2D sprite based game with the same intention. I've played both for a reasonable length of time and I was more immersed by Clan Lord and its 2D goodness than WoW ever immersed me because the GAMEPLAY made me feel more a part of the Clan Lord world than WoW did for its own world.
Which do you focus more intently upon: the latest Hollywood sh*tfest with multi-million dollar CGI and eye candy everywhere, or the hand drawn works of a flash designer who tells a gripping story?
It's ALWAYS been the latter. I get wrapped up in story-rich movies, TV and anime which makes me want to see what happens to their stories and characters. I do NOT feel the same way about flashy movies with tons of pretty CGI.
Look at the Matrix sequels, look at SW: Episodes 1-3. Despite being graphically stunning, many people thought these movies sucked a whole pile of ass because they had garbage for storyline.
As for the "next gen", the only thing which makes me feel like I'm playing something fresh and new is the idea of pointing an object at an enemy as though it were a gun and squeezing what feels similar to a trigger instead of pushing down on an analogue stick and squeezing a shoulder button.
People will choose their system and games accordingly, especially after they try the Wii at kiosks.
Post by: Bloodworth on October 23, 2006, 10:45:55 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Svevan
Zelda: Moonshine Bracelet
Evan what are you doing? I told you not to mention the second Zelda game coming out next year.
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on October 23, 2006, 11:31:24 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Professional 666
What the? Was RE4 erased from your world or something?
RE4 accomplished A LOT in terms of a tangible or photo-realistic style (without looking outstandingly plastic either), on last year's hardware. We simply have yet to see a developer with Capcom's brand of artistic and engineering talent try something similar on Wii. Granted, we don't want too many games to share RE's modern style. But Capcom's approach to achieving a photo-realistic IMPRESSION was quite successful.
You are right, I was mainly referring to overall visuals, RE had great character models but the scenary wasn't exactly photo realistic. Personally I am someone who doesn't care that much about photo realism and in fact kind of fear where it will take gaming (Post apocalyptic, FPSers here we come) though RE4 did do a great job visually.
I think we will be seeing photo realism in both visuals, framerate and animation in about two generations of PC cards (so the Geforce 10000 or whatever), by that time I see console systems really struggling because already we are seeing signs of the dimishing returns of graphics in regards to next generation hardware. Not to mention the photo realism hardware will come staggering costs to create games for it! This will be a prime time for Nintendo to flip the industry on its head, if it doesn't do so with the Wii.
Post by: zakkiel on October 24, 2006, 07:05:41 AM
Quote
Err, this thread is going to retread points we've made a million times more.
I'll get right to the point, the Wii will suck dog balls when compared to
other systems in terms of graphics. That is the truth...
I fully expect someone else to say that graphics don't matter and gameplay
is everything.
So instead of waiting for another fifty posts I'll just push this thread to it's inevitable
conculsion.
Raving Nintendo Fanboy: Graphics don't matter, Gaemplay does!
Ranting Nintendo Fanboy: Graphics don't matter, art direction does!
Deluded Nintendo Fanboy: The Wii is simpler to program for, so developers will get graphics almost as good!
Blind Nintendo Fanboy: The 360 and PS3 games aren't much of a leap forward, either!
And with this plus random whiners, you can summarize every graphics thread that will ever appear in this forum.
Post by: couchmonkey on October 24, 2006, 08:56:26 AM
I fall into the Raving, Ranting and Blind fanboy categories. I know simple programming is never going to fix Wii's graphical shortcomings, but I believe in the other three to varying degrees. Right now I feel like the Ranting fanboy!
Art direction can't completely substitute for better graphics. The NES's best looking games are all crap today. I'll still play them because they're fun, and there is a certain charm to those 8-bit graphics, but looking at Nintendo's Bit Generations line on Game Boy - though they look neat, I'd never pay full price for any of them because the graphics aren't up to par.
That said, graphics do eventually reach a point where art direction is more important than power. PS3 and Xbox 360, IMO, have definitely reached that point. Current-gen system and Wii are very close, if not already there. Computer animated movies are where it becomes quite apparent. They have all the resources they need, but various art direction issues bring out the flaws. Currently, too much realism exposes the flaws - Polar Express looks creepy when you see the almost-but-not-quite photorealistic characters talking. Poor character design and the tendency towards uniformity in computer animated characters is another problem - Doogle, Monster House and Hoodwinked all look kind of generic (and in some cases just plain silly) due to so-so designs. That's where 2D animation has some neat advantages - it doesn't have to conform to any physical laws. Spongebob Squarepants can be any shape you want and it can change at will.
Post by: wandering on October 24, 2006, 09:12:22 AM
Post by: JonLeung on October 24, 2006, 09:17:22 AM
Post by: Smash_Brother on October 24, 2006, 09:32:51 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: zakkiel
Raving Nintendo Fanboy: Graphics don't matter, Gaemplay does!
Ranting Nintendo Fanboy: Graphics don't matter, art direction does!
Deluded Nintendo Fanboy: The Wii is simpler to program for, so developers will get graphics almost as good!
Blind Nintendo Fanboy: The 360 and PS3 games aren't much of a leap forward, either!
And with this plus random whiners, you can summarize every graphics thread that will ever appear in this forum.
Historic Nintendo Fanboy: Historically, the graphics have never won a console war. The GB beat the GameGear, the PS1 beat the N64, the DS beat the PSP, the PS2 beat the Xbox and GC.
You're probably going to say, "Yeah, but the circumstances blah, blah, etc." Doesn't matter. The point is, if graphics actually mattered, then these console wars would either be a great deal closer in the running or SOMEWHERE along the lines, one of these consoles would have won by producing more impressive visuals than its competition.
It hasn't happened yet and I don't see why it would happen this gen, either, especially not when the premium people will pay for "better graphics" will be so much higher.
Post by: vudu on October 24, 2006, 09:32:56 AM
QuoteNo; we can't. You're a fan, you're a boy--you're a fanboy.
Originally posted by: JonLeung
Can't we be fans without being fanboys (or fangirls)? FanBOY sounds so negative, or at least somewhat condescending.
JonLeung is my boyfriend.
Post by: Kairon on October 24, 2006, 09:37:45 AM
I'm a fanboI. There's a difference!
Seriously though, I'm not saying this out of fandom. There are NES games I'd pay more money for than some of today's more graphically endowed offerings. And I STILL love the graphics of those days. Videogames are an ART, not a science. Beauty is not how many polygons or pixels you have, it's what sort of emotions you inspire.
I admire technical achievement, I really do. But if that was all, I'd be in a general Computer Science major. Instead, I'm at a risky, fledgeling Game and Simulation Programming course and feel like my entire life has been gearing me for this medium: my reading, my sports, my music, my third-seat clarinet, my acting, my amatuerish investigations into science and religion and philosophy, my Calvin & Hobbes series, my depressing foreign independent movie netflix rentals, my civic socio-political background and environment... ALL these things are there NOT to drive me to inject more polygons into gaming, but to want to craft a game into something more culturally, socially, and personally relevant.
... I refuse to see this industry as being driven by special effects houses and not the creativity of auteurs (however, these visionaries definitely may have their vision driven by special effect's possibilities. Point-in-case: George Lucas).
[/ranting Nintendo fanboi]
~Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: bustin98 on October 24, 2006, 09:40:48 AM
Quote
JonLeung is my boyfriend.
Jon is such a man whore
Post by: JonLeung on October 24, 2006, 09:42:18 AM
Post by: Smash_Brother on October 24, 2006, 09:43:02 AM
It's just that pretty games haven't won a console war yet so I don't see why they'd start now.
Post by: JonLeung on October 24, 2006, 09:48:49 AM
I'm not saying that for their sake they should've stayed "inferior". They've just banked way too much on power now.
Oh, whatever. They keep screwing up no matter how you look at it, so I guess if (and at this rate, more likely just a question of when!) they go down they'd rather be remembered for having this uber-powerful PS3 instead of a wimpy PS3.
But power's not good if the hardware will keep failing. BURN!
Post by: Smash_Brother on October 24, 2006, 10:05:44 AM
If they had kept it reasonable and not shot for the goddamn moon, the blasted thing wouldn't cost $600 and they wouldn't be so immensely difficult to manufacture.
Post by: JonLeung on October 24, 2006, 10:10:28 AM
Considering all those stories about shoddy PSXes and PS2s, I think it'd be downright scary to get a PS3 because their attempt to cram so much power in there sounds like it will probably result in practically guaranteed hardware failures.
I remember hearing how the PS2 had inflated sales numbers because some people ended up buying two or three to replace ones that failed. Not sure how true that is, but if Sony has always been as stupid as they sound now, maybe it's not so farfetched after all.
Post by: Ian Sane on October 24, 2006, 10:17:10 AM
I'd say a Nintendo fan is someone who likes Nintendo because they make quality products. A Nintendo fanboy thinks a product is of high quality because it is made by Nintendo.
Post by: Kairon on October 24, 2006, 10:37:48 AM
A Fan starts with a Nintendo game and, realizing it's good, decides to pay attention to Nintendo.
A Fanboy starts with a Nintendo game and, realizing it's make by Nintendo, tries to figure out how it's good.
Of the two, the fan is more generally interested and the fanboy is almost exclusively specialized, like people who write their college theses on specific authors, artists, or fields.
~Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on October 24, 2006, 10:48:00 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: zakkielQuote
Err, this thread is going to retread points we've made a million times more.
I'll get right to the point, the Wii will suck dog balls when compared to
other systems in terms of graphics. That is the truth...
I fully expect someone else to say that graphics don't matter and gameplay
is everything.
So instead of waiting for another fifty posts I'll just push this thread to it's inevitable
conculsion.
Raving Nintendo Fanboy: Graphics don't matter, Gaemplay does!
Ranting Nintendo Fanboy: Graphics don't matter, art direction does!
Deluded Nintendo Fanboy: The Wii is simpler to program for, so developers will get graphics almost as good!
Blind Nintendo Fanboy: The 360 and PS3 games aren't much of a leap forward, either!
And with this plus random whiners, you can summarize every graphics thread that will ever appear in this forum.
It is pretty much a fact that there has been diminishing returns when it comes to graphical leaps from Xbox to Xbox 360 (Heck the racing simulations are good examples of that). The difference is not nearly as great as it was between the N64 and GC/Xbox/PS2. So I do think people are fooling themselves when they state the visuals are a big leap over the previous generation, though that could change a bit down the line, but as of now the difference isn't anything to shout about if you are comparing games on 480p. In a way this new generation has been a bit of a dissapointment for me, every other generation I almost drooled over the visuals, but not this one.
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on October 24, 2006, 10:50:53 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Ian Sane
"Can't we be fans without being fanboys (or fangirls)? FanBOY sounds so negative, or at least somewhat condescending."
I'd say a Nintendo fan is someone who likes Nintendo because they make quality products. A Nintendo fanboy thinks a product is of high quality because it is made by Nintendo.
Well NIntendo does have a good track record when it comes to quality games and hardware (at least when it comes to durability), but I do see what your saying.
Post by: ShyGuy on October 24, 2006, 11:48:01 AM
Post by: Ian Sane on October 24, 2006, 11:55:27 AM
That isn't a fanboy in my mind. A fanboy can't be proven otherwise. He will make excuses and defend a lousy product.
Post by: JonLeung on October 24, 2006, 12:39:27 PM
But yes, just about any other piece of Miyamoto work is a masterpiece.
I'm a fan, if I like what I like and most of what Miyamoto makes happens to be what I like. But I'm not going to defend Miyamoto or Nintendo if I didn't like a particular game that they made. I might say "but they usually make good games" and still support them in general, but I won't lie about that one game in particular.
Fanboy is condescending. I'd rather be called a fan. (Boy/Girl sounds immature. And no one says "fanman".) But when people call me a "Nintendo fan" even that can be in a condescending manner, I'd say, "what? So you buy a PS2 but don't want to be called a PS2 fan? Why the heck did you get a PS2 if you don't want to be a fan of it (i.e. enjoy it)?"
Common sense is lost.
Post by: Ceric on October 24, 2006, 12:48:22 PM
Function: noun
Etymology: probably short for fanatic
1 : an enthusiastic devotee (as of a sport or a performing art) usually as a spectator
2 : an ardent admirer or enthusiast (as of a celebrity or a pursuit) <science-fiction fans>
Main Entry: boy
Pronunciation: 'boi
Function: noun
Usage: often attributive
Etymology: Middle English
1 often offensive : a male servant
2 a : a male child from birth to adulthood b : SON c : an immature male <separate the men from the boys> <boy genius> d : SWEETHEART, BEAU
3 a : one native to a given place <local boy> b : FELLOW, PERSON <the boys at the office> c -- used interjectionally to express intensity of feeling <boy, what a game>
So in fun recap fanboy is:
An ardent admirer or enthusiast Beau.
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on October 24, 2006, 12:58:05 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: JonLeung
I love Miyamoto's work. But did he do Luigi's Mansion? Let me say that I think that game sucks.
But yes, just about any other piece of Miyamoto work is a masterpiece.
I'm a fan, if I like what I like and most of what Miyamoto makes happens to be what I like. But I'm not going to defend Miyamoto or Nintendo if I didn't like a particular game that they made. I might say "but they usually make good games" and still support them in general, but I won't lie about that one game in particular.
Fanboy is condescending. I'd rather be called a fan. (Boy/Girl sounds immature. And no one says "fanman".) But when people call me a "Nintendo fan" even that can be in a condescending manner, I'd say, "what? So you buy a PS2 but don't want to be called a PS2 fan? Why the heck did you get a PS2 if you don't want to be a fan of it (i.e. enjoy it)?"
Common sense is lost.
I'm not sure how involved Miyamoto was with Luigi's Mansion, but I personally found the game quite enjoyable and above all else unique, albit a tad bit too short.
Post by: zakkiel on October 24, 2006, 01:28:11 PM
QuoteDifferent argument, but I guess if we want to make the list complete, we should put it in.
Historic Nintendo Fanboy: Historically, the graphics have never won a console war.
Quote
The superior Nintendo Fanboy: I can predict exactly what will happen in this thread, you're all wasting your time!
Quote
Where does "I don't want to pay $400 for a console and $60 for games" come in? Frugal Nintendo fanboy?
These shall be added to the official compendium.
Post by: Ceric on October 24, 2006, 01:30:52 PM
Post by: SixthAngel on October 24, 2006, 05:01:53 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: zakkiel
Raving Nintendo Fanboy: Graphics don't matter, Gaemplay does!
Ranting Nintendo Fanboy: Graphics don't matter, art direction does!
Deluded Nintendo Fanboy: The Wii is simpler to program for, so developers will get graphics almost as good!
Blind Nintendo Fanboy: The 360 and PS3 games aren't much of a leap forward, either!
And with this plus random whiners, you can summarize every graphics thread that will ever appear in this forum.
Is their any point I can make where I won't be belittled because you grouped everyone into negative categories where their opinions don't follow yours?
Unlike most people here I owned a nes but not a snes or an n64. Xbox was my first purchase this gen with a gamecube a year ago. I thought about picking up a 360 but I was not impressed by the graphics. They look better now then a year ago but I still hardly see a leap from the great looking games of last gen like Ninja Gaiden. There is no itch to scratch anymore. A great parallel is Pixar, the fur in Monsters Inc. sure looked cool but Toy Story is still an amazing looking movie despite being older. The remote wowed me and is the only thing that has me even remotely (haha) excited about the new consoles.
Post by: zakkiel on October 24, 2006, 08:20:43 PM
QuoteI'm belittling the tendency of people to say things that have been said 57 times in the last month as though they were delivering fresh steamy wisdom from the Espresso Machine of Knowledge. It may be a part of human internet nature, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't make fun of it.
Is their any point I can make where I won't be belittled because you grouped everyone into negative categories where their opinions don't follow yours?
Post by: Smash_Brother on October 24, 2006, 09:17:15 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: zakkiel I'm belittling the tendency of people to say things that have been said 57 times in the last month as though they were delivering fresh steamy wisdom from the Espresso Machine of Knowledge. It may be a part of human internet nature, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't make fun of it.
Sadly, we don't have much else to do but wait for more Wii news, laugh at bad Sony news, and when none of that pans out, we drag a dead horse out of the pile and have a go at it with our whackin' sticks (OMG, great Wii game idea!!!!).
I'm not a fan of it, either, as counting the days to the Wii launch sucks ass, IMHO, and it would help if I thought about it less...
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on October 24, 2006, 10:12:05 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: SixthAngelQuote
Originally posted by: zakkiel
Raving Nintendo Fanboy: Graphics don't matter, Gaemplay does!
Ranting Nintendo Fanboy: Graphics don't matter, art direction does!
Deluded Nintendo Fanboy: The Wii is simpler to program for, so developers will get graphics almost as good!
Blind Nintendo Fanboy: The 360 and PS3 games aren't much of a leap forward, either!
And with this plus random whiners, you can summarize every graphics thread that will ever appear in this forum.
Is their any point I can make where I won't be belittled because you grouped everyone into negative categories where their opinions don't follow yours?
Unlike most people here I owned a nes but not a snes or an n64. Xbox was my first purchase this gen with a gamecube a year ago. I thought about picking up a 360 but I was not impressed by the graphics. They look better now then a year ago but I still hardly see a leap from the great looking games of last gen like Ninja Gaiden. There is no itch to scratch anymore. A great parallel is Pixar, the fur in Monsters Inc. sure looked cool but Toy Story is still an amazing looking movie despite being older. The remote wowed me and is the only thing that has me even remotely (haha) excited about the new consoles.
Well you replied in a much nicer fashion than I would of, I really hate condescending BS like that post. I'm in a similar boat as you except I got all 3 of the last generation systems on or right around launch, even the PS2 when it first came out was pretty stunning (though not a huge leap from DC). I'm just not getting that vibe anymore, though I do own an Xbox 360 but that is for the game experiences. WIth the Wii however I am wowed, and haven't been this giddy since the N64 days
.
Post by: Nick DiMola on October 25, 2006, 04:45:24 AM
Ian, I think that is an awesome explanation of the difference between a fan and a fanboy. Over time it seems the fanboy branding has become very negative in nature, and I personally hate being labeled with it. I am a FAN of Nintendo above other gaming companies, but this doesn't mean only Nintendo can make a good game, or publish a good game. I am a fan of gaming which includes all systems, games and companies, it just happens to be that Nintendo is my favorite. I would say the only company I outright hate is Sony, but that hasn't stopped me from buying their system or games on it.
Post by: Galford on October 25, 2006, 05:37:20 AM
Granted I will give some 3rd party games look the same across all next gen systems.
When I say next gen graphics, I'm thinking Halo 3, MGS 4, and FF13. All these games
have graphics we will never see on the Wii. I've come to terms with that. How well will
the Wii age graphicly, my guess is not good.=
To zakkiel
You summed up what I was trying to say in my last post. This thread is retreading ground
talked about many times before.
There really isn't any new Wii news so what else are we going to do?
Post by: Ceric on October 25, 2006, 05:46:08 AM
Like This:
Did you know that the shopping channel will tie into the home shopping Network? It's only logical.
Also that some of the themes you may choice may be adult in nature?
or we could talk about accessories again.
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on October 25, 2006, 07:09:44 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Galford
To Bloodworth
Granted I will give some 3rd party games look the same across all next gen systems.
When I say next gen graphics, I'm thinking Halo 3, MGS 4, and FF13. All these games
have graphics we will never see on the Wii. I've come to terms with that. How well will
the Wii age graphicly, my guess is not good.=
To zakkiel
You summed up what I was trying to say in my last post. This thread is retreading ground
talked about many times before.
There really isn't any new Wii news so what else are we going to do?
Wii will age fine graphically, as will the Xbox/GC along with PS2 to an lesser extent, we are no longer in the generation where horrible framerate and less than realistic visuals hampered games on systems like N64 (or for games that didn't have realistic visuals but still looked terrible). LIke I stated I think you'll see probaly see a much smaller gap in games that don't have to rely on the most realistic visuals to get the job done like SMG, Rayman etc. Heck shortly after GC/XBox/PS2 coming out N64/PSX were already severely dated visually, we have not seen that yet with Xbox 360. I think a best way to think of the visuals is the graphical gap between DC and Xbox.
Post by: Galford on October 26, 2006, 04:59:04 AM
The Wii interface is very similar to those used on many Motorola and General Instruments cables boxes.
I personally like SA's interface better, but Nintendo is going with an interface that is well known to many people.
I have to give them a little credit for that.
About shopping, I suppose it could be done. Both WebTV and my cable company had a program where you could shop through the cable box.
To VGRevolution...
Dreamcast comparisions? We will never see a jump like we did between PSX and PS2, but even the Dreamcast's best looking games are outdated by today's standards. The Dreamcast became outdated the second the Devil May Cry demo went public.
Post by: Ceric on October 26, 2006, 05:18:31 AM
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on October 26, 2006, 11:28:20 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Galford
New things to talk about on Wii, here's an odd one.
The Wii interface is very similar to those used on many Motorola and General Instruments cables boxes.
I personally like SA's interface better, but Nintendo is going with an interface that is well known to many people.
I have to give them a little credit for that.
About shopping, I suppose it could be done. Both WebTV and my cable company had a program where you could shop through the cable box.
To VGRevolution...
Dreamcast comparisions? We will never see a jump like we did between PSX and PS2, but even the Dreamcast's best looking games are outdated by today's standards. The Dreamcast became outdated the second the Devil May Cry demo went public.
Shenmue, Sonic, Code Veronica, Ecco, Soul Calibur all look fine even by today's standards. Yeah they are "outdated" visually but they still have aged pretty well, it is nothing like the N64 which was outdated the second the first PS2 game was shown because of choppy framerates, blurry visuals and super blocky looking characters/levels. Dreamcast was a generation ahead of N64 in visuals, it is just that PS2/Xbox/GC had a tad bit more time to trump it. I'll admit it is unfair to compare PSX to PS2 in a visual jump, which is why I think N64 to GC is much more fair and I still do not see that kind of jump from Xbox 360 and Xbox. I fail to see why my DC comparison isn't fair, I am saying Wii is like DC in visuals compared to the other systems. Yeah you can find better visuals on the other ones but it won't be instantly "Ugly" to play.
Post by: couchmonkey on October 26, 2006, 11:56:35 AM
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on October 26, 2006, 12:05:09 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: couchmonkey
I pretty much agree with you on all points, VGRevolution. The graphics aren't improving as much.
Which is why I purchase systems based on games, not visuals
. I love my Xbox 360, but I'm not going to defend it as a being a huge leap from Xbox, but the games make it more than worth the purchase!
Post by: Galford on October 26, 2006, 03:53:53 PM
Quote
Shenmue, Sonic, Code Veronica, Ecco, Soul Calibur all look fine even by today's standards. Yeah they are "outdated" visually but they still have aged pretty well, it is nothing like the N64 which was outdated the second the first PS2 game was shown because of choppy framerates, blurry visuals and super blocky looking characters/levels. Dreamcast was a generation ahead of N64 in visuals, it is just that PS2/Xbox/GC had a tad bit more time to trump it. I'll admit it is unfair to compare PSX to PS2 in a visual jump, which is why I think N64 to GC is much more fair and I still do not see that kind of jump from Xbox 360 and Xbox. I fail to see why my DC comparison isn't fair, I am saying Wii is like DC in visuals compared to the other systems. Yeah you can find better visuals on the other ones but it won't be instantly "Ugly" to play.
I think I sorta kinda get what your saying. The Dreamcast was an inbetween system kinda like the Wii.
On paper the PS3 and 360 are at least 10x more powerful then there forefathers much like the GC and PS2 were 10x more powerful then the N64 and PSX.
The reason the jump isn't apperant is we are reaching the limit of polygon tech. I'm not saying there isn't more room for polys to grow. I think then next jump in graphics will occurs when we have a system that can render polys, fracticals, and do raytracing all in one package.
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on October 26, 2006, 04:10:52 PM
Post by: IceCold on October 26, 2006, 05:27:03 PM
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on October 26, 2006, 08:13:56 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: IceCold
On a standard TV, the gap will be much less than that from the Dreamcast to Xbox or the best GameCube games.. I'd say it would be more like from PS2 to Xbox for the normal person..
Hmmm not sure about that, but then again it is tough to tell so early on. I still think there will be pretty noticeable gap between games with more realistic visuals than ones that are more "cartoonish". I would like to know if a game like Gears of War could be made by Wii and how much sacrifice would need to be made.
