Topic: Cant EAD make decent graphics?

[BlkPaladin]

RABicle has been here for awhile. I can vouch for that much.

[RABicle]

Thanks alot mate. Anyway Michael8983 is right when he says that the N64 was technically superior to the PSX and that Nintendo were the only company to squeeze the juice from the machine (Well and Rare too)
I would just like to see EAD just push their next few titles more graphically, because we they probably could and the games would benfit from them.

[Grey Ninja]

Their games are already better than 95% of what's out there.  Some of the games you mentioned in your initial post are the best in their field, bar NONE, such as Zelda and Luigi's Mansion.  I really have no idea what you are bitching about, and you are doing nothing to let me in on it.  I get the impression that you are crying because the gameplay is better than the graphics, and the graphics are mindblowing?

Am I also to assume that the only game left on your list of games with subpar graphics is Pikmin?  Because that's the impression I got from one of your earlier posts.

[KDR_11k]

I think the lack of graphics in EAD games is caused by the boring world. Their special effects are always top of the line (Face boss in Wind Waker, anyone?), but when there are no effects around, you notice the boring characters (which often have large one-colored areas) and worlds. I mean, whenever I think of Wind Waker, I think of worlds consisting of mainly green, grey and brown. While those are clearly the main colors in any medieval/fantasy game, it's still boring. In Sunshine, the worlds often had quite blurry textures, which made wandering around in them rather uninteresting. Sure, it's not important while action is there, but the game rarely has much action going on.
The environments are really important for the first impression, but they seem to lack in most EAD games. This is true for other games as well, but those aren't part of this debate.

[egman]

KDR_11k--I can see what you are saying with that point. All that open ocean in Wind Waker did worked against the brilliant dungeons. I still find the animation and effects mindblowing, but sometimes I forget how sparse things are.

In the end, I think technical power is often confused with design. I can see how some people are not enthralled with Nintendo's art direction, but to say that their games are technically weak without some knowledge of what has to be done to achieve the look of their games is folly.

[Grey Ninja]

KDR, Wind Waker has a fairly limited color palette, this is true.  But think about MGS2 for a second.  The game also has a trademark green and blue color palette dating all the way back to the SNES.  The thing is that if you put some games in fully realistic color, they just wouldn't feel right.  Personally, I found the world of Wind Waker to be excellent.  Fields of grass, lush forests with all kinds of activity, and rainy times at sea complete with lightning and big waves all serve to enhance the game for me.  Boring is not the word I would use to describe Wind Waker.

I think it's like egman says.  It's the artwork you don't like.  There's nothing wrong with the amount of stuff that Nintendo does in their games.

[Infinitipo]

I agree with RAB and KDR on this. I think games like Wind Waker, Mario, etc are excellent in terms of gameplay and style, and the graphics are great, but in some ways I really think they could be better. I'm not saying they should be "realistic" or anything, but perhaps more detail could be put into them, like KDR said. The characters in Wind Waker had awesome animations and whatnot, but sometimes they just seemed too...simple, I suppose. I know that was the style Nintendo was going for, but they could have still kept the "cartoony" style while at the same time adding more detail, such as sharper textures. In real cartoons, (at least the ones I've seen) even most Disney movies, the backgrounds are very detailed and the characters--though somewhat simplistic in design--have a lot of detail too (for Wind Waker, I always imagined it to be almost like the art style in Emperor's New Grove, only not as exaggerated). Not too sure if that makes a lot of sense, but yeah...

Basically, what I'm saying is that some parts (not all of it) of Wind Waker and other recent Nintendo games seem to be lacking a lot of detail in environments and characters. In Sunshine, I really don't have any gripes about the graphics; it's a platformer, so the lack of detail doesn't distract gamers (I played SMS just a couple hours ago--still think it's an awesome game). With Wind Waker, however, there is a lot less jumping and more walking/sailing around and looking at things. In my opinion, the designers put the most effort into Ouset Island, what with moving grass, lots of characters and houses, etc. But on Windfall, there isn't any slashable grass at all (you can check for yourself), just dull clumps of bushes that don't move unless you swing your sword at them. Even then, you can't cut down the bushes like the ones at Outset and some of the smaller islands in the game. I know this isn't a very big part of the game (not by far, lol), but when you just want to wander around the town it's somewhat disappointing when you bump into plantlife and it doesn't even wobble, or you just walk right through the graphics.

Anyway, to get this over with, my point is that in some of Nintendo's games it seems like they leave out detail that could have otherwise been easily added. I'd post more of what I mean exactly, but I have to go. And if none of this makes sense, I don't know what to say.

[mouse_clicker]

Anyone who thinks Wind Waker could have been better graphicaly should recall the first time they entered the pool area on Ralroost Island with all the particles flying around. If they still think it could be better, it's quite obvious the party in question has been looking at videos and screenshots rather than playing the game.  

[Infinitipo]

MC, sorry, I'm not trying to bash Wind Waker or anything. In fact, I preordered it in August last year and have beaten the game a lot--I still play it, 'cause it's pretty much my favorite. I'm just saying that after playing it so much, you just sorta notice some things. Nothing big, just little graphical things here and there that could probably have been done better, if more time had been spent on them. These things really don't affect how the game plays as a whole, but to me, it would have been cool if there was more slashable grass on Windfall, or something extra down in Hyrule other than a path to ((spoiler, I suppose))Ganon's tower((um, end spoiler)). The grass blowing in the wind on Outset is really cool--it gives a sense of life to the island. On Windfall, other than some flowers in front of a grave, there isn't any "windy" grass, which is odd; the name Windfall suggests that it is a very windy island, so trees, bushes, etc blowing in the breeze are something I'd expect to see there. Again, none of these things are very big compared to the rest of the game. I just think the little details, such as "windy" plantlife, are what makes some games so enjoyable--to me, at least.

Oh, and about the lava pool area. Yes, that was definitely awesome; the only way it could have been better is if there were more places like it.

[kennyb27]

Infinitipo, you are mentioning the art direction or layout of the game,  which is very different than graphics.  And, in my opinion, if all the islands on WW had the same plantlife that wouldn't make it a very convincing "world" to me.  

[Infinitipo]

My mistake, then, sorry. I usually consider the art/layout as simply the designs, such as characters and buildings, while graphics are the actual models and animations. I'm probably wrong about that, though. I get what you mean by it not being a very convincing world if every island had the same stuff, I just think the bushes and plants in Windfall should have been animated to react to the wind and you bumping into them, rather than remaining still and very un-lifelike. Still, they're only small details, so they don't matter much. I just thought these types of things should be brought up in this thread, as there isn't much else to talk about concerning EAD's "bad graphics." Which, of course, is a good thing.

[blackfootsteps]

Quote
Originally posted by: Gup
...The only game from EAD I don't like graphically is Pikmin, the character designs just ruined that game for me.  If I wanted to see a 100 low-detailed and ugly character models wonder around the screen, I'd rather go play Mystic Heroes/Dynasty Warriors with 50+ reasonably detailed characters onscreen hacking and slashing one another.

What about the actual settings / landscapes? The 'garden' was just beautiful.

[WesDawg]

I was trying to fill up my Nintendo Gallery in WW up until last week when I realized I'd forgotten a one time charactor, but I didn't find the charactor models low-poly at all. In fact, if you look at some of 'em in the gallery, you'll see tattoos and stuff on 'em that you can't even ever look at in the game. They're on their backs or places you can't really get too. Anyways, I was impressed that none of the charactors in the game are ever really duplicated. Each one is fairly different. Each one has their own personality and story behind 'em. Even the Ruto. It's pretty cool if ya' ask me. I don't know why you guys keep saying that they're dull. Windfall wasn't meant to be a place where you run around cutting grass. It's a busy town, like Hyrule castle in OOT. More for interacting than chasing down pigs (although you can do that). Outset is more to make you feel adventurous, and to make you wonder just how long your footprints will stay in wet sand before they disappear.

Anyways, I wasn't disappointed with the graphics in the game ever until my second time through. Then I finaly started to get picky and noticed that sometimes forests were nothing more than textures painted on a wall, or that the camera wasn't always placed very well, or the frame rate dropped. Still, go down that crazy labrynth to the room with tons of those goat-kids or the one with the million little slime guys in it, and you've gotta be impressed. I don't know how high-poly those models are, but they're more than enough to give the game all the expression it needs. Why waste polygons that aren't going to be used, when you can use it to add more enemies?

[Infinitipo]

Those little goat-kid demons are awesome.

[Gup]

Quote
Originally posted by: blackfootsteps
What about the actual settings / landscapes? The 'garden' was just beautiful.

I can't remember well, but I thought it was okay, nothing mind-blowing for sure.  It doesn't stand out in my mind and I usually notice stuff like that such as each blade of grass in Halo, diversity of areas in Metroid Prime, or destructible levels in DOA3.

[Grey Ninja]

Quote
It doesn't stand out in my mind and I usually notice stuff like that such as each blade of grass in Halo

I seem to remember every blad of grass being individually rendered in Wind Waker.

Besides, I never really saw what was so pretty about Halo.

Whereas, it was completely obvious what was so pretty about Zelda

I can't wait for the cries of "fanboy" in response to this post, but I will say this in advance.  Show me a screenshot that is actually PRETTY in Halo.  I can't find any.  Most of the scenes I have seen are very lacking in the texture work, and don't have a lot of detail at all.

[mouse_clicker]

I was about to point out that your screenshot of Halo wasn't too good, but then I noticed you didn't exactly pick a great screenshot of Zelda, either.

Seriously, Halo looks great, but I don't see how anyone could think it achieves it's graphical style better than Wind Waker does. Wind Waker is one of the best looking games around, in my opinion, and I just can't fathom anyone thinking Halo looks better.

[Grey Ninja]

Hey, that was the best I could find of Halo with my non-insider account at IGN.  I looked at about 10 shots, and picked the best of what I saw.  The others featured even more blurry textures, and the most drab, boring terrain I ever saw.  I picked one that at least had something in the background, even if they are some seriously hurt looking trees and some low poly buildings.

[Gup]

Quote
Originally posted by: Grey Ninja

Quote
It doesn't stand out in my mind and I usually notice stuff like that such as each blade of grass in Halo

I seem to remember every blad of grass being individually rendered in Wind Waker.

Besides, I never really saw what was so pretty about Halo.

Whereas, it was completely obvious what was so pretty about Zelda

I can't wait for the cries of "fanboy" in response to this post, but I will say this in advance.  Show me a screenshot that is actually PRETTY in Halo.  I can't find any.  Most of the scenes I have seen are very lacking in the texture work, and don't have a lot of detail at all.

There's really no way to compare Wind Waker vs. Halo graphically since they both use completely different styles, but the grass(actually bushes) in WW is kind of cheap if you think about it.  It's just three sharp blades stuck together times fifty where as in Halo's grass, you can see each blade of grass stuck onto the area.

And yes, I consider you a Nintendo fanboy AND a microsoft hater.  I am too, but I give credit to where it deserves and Halo, DOA3 deserves credit.  I've never seen you compliment anything on xbox, yet games on GCN by Nintendo or any other big games(ToS) are always lush and beautiful.

And(last time), those pics you showed were both horrible, and it ain't completely obvious that Wind Waker looked nicer.  The graphical beauty of WW(to me) are from the enemy/boss fights and the special effects in it.  The http://www.gamespot.com/gamecube/adventure/legendofzeldathewindwaker/screens.html?page=411">environments of WW weren't really weren't detailed much(due to cel-shading) with exceptions to some places like Hyrule Castle.  Halo's environments were repetitive as hell though.

[AgentSeven]

Comparing Halo to Zelda is ridiculous!  Apples and oranges my friend.

The animated style of Zelda :Wind Waker is pure genius, whereas Halo, although a great game, is just a marketing driven product that rips off other successfull franchises quite heavily. I.E. "Aliens" and "Half Life", especially Half Life.  I'm suprised nobody sued.  

By the way "Master Chief," even though it's a military rank, is the most stupid name I have ever heard for a video game character.

 

[mouse_clicker]

Gup: I'm fairly certain Halo's grass was just a nice texture- I've played through the entire game several times in co-op, and I don't recall any fields with each blade of grass individually rendered. True WW's grass was groups of 3, but it was much more breathtaking to see a field of grass in Wind Waker than a field of nice textures in Halo.

[NinGurl69 *huggles]

The grass generated through StarFox Adventure's "fur rendering" is downright freaky, even though you run over it like any other texture, yet it's so lush and has optical depth.

[kennyb27]

Quote
where as in Halo's grass, you can see each blade of grass stuck onto the area.

That, my friend, is a nice looking texture, not individually rendered grass blades.

[Grey Ninja]

Quote
I've never seen you compliment anything on xbox, yet games on GCN by Nintendo or any other big games(ToS) are always lush and beautiful.

I am not a graphics person.  I thought I made that clear by now.  I kept a DOA XVB desktop background for quite some time though.  Other than that, I have nothing nice to say about Xbox.  It has no games I want.  It's really that simple.  I consider the Xbox to be about as useful as an empty box of beer.

In this thread, I am defending EAD from an attack that I think is injust.  I am attacking Halo because it was used as an example of better environments, and I am simply saying that I think the environments are pathetic.   I am not attacking all Xbox games.  I think Panzer Dragoon is quite good looking for instance.

Regarding ToS, I don't think I've ever commented on its graphics.  I want it because it's a great RPG.

[RABicle]

*retires from thread disscussion*