Author Topic: 2-3 times powerful (Read 40194 times)

NinGurl69 *huggles · « **Reply #125 on:** May 11, 2007, 10:15:47 AM »

Why spend the millions of dollars on programming/graphics effort when you can go cheap and make highly profitable short easy non-games?

You'll only start seeing 3rd party games with effort when they run out of PS2 games to port.

GoldenPhoenix · « **Reply #126 on:** May 11, 2007, 11:07:16 AM »

Is it just me or is comparing the graphics of Smash Brothers to SMS silly? They are doing different things graphically, Super Mario Sunshine had amazing draw distances, amazing water effects and had a smooth framerate most of the time, so it is kind of pathetic to compare it to a dreamcast game. Mario Sunshine had quality visuals that took advantage of the GC hardware if you look at what it was doing graphically as a whole, not comparing the models to Smash Brothers. That is like comparing a fighting game or a sports game to an adventure game when it comes to visuals, they are doing COMPLETELY different things with their visuals and can focus more on the character models when it comes to details.

that Baby guy · « **Reply #127 on:** May 11, 2007, 11:34:17 AM »

I have to chalk up everything Ian says to him desperate to find something to complain about. When I used to read what he had to say, it would make sense, and have some logic to it. Now, I think he's gotten so used to disagreeing to what's going on with Nintendo, that he can't see what they are doing right, and has to force false problems out to complain about.

GoldenPhoenix · « **Reply #128 on:** May 11, 2007, 11:36:35 AM »

My only problem with Super Mario Sunshine's visuals is sometimes the textures were kind of blah, but besides that I think it is a good example of a game that pulls together a lot graphically and does everything quite well. I remember the final battle, even though it had framerate problems it was pretty impressive visually.

Terranigma Freak · « **Reply #129 on:** May 12, 2007, 03:12:23 AM »

Not to mention SSBM was actually a 2D game where as SMS was a 3D game.

Mikintosh · « **Reply #130 on:** May 12, 2007, 05:41:53 AM »

Quote
Originally posted by: Ian Sane
I find if a Nintendo first party game doesn't look that hot it usually is because of a lack of effort from Nintendo. For example of the Cube Super Mario Sunshine's Mario model looked worse than the SSBM model eventhough SSBM came out first. Super Mario Sunshine looked like a Dreamcast game. Then Nintendo took the graphics from Mario Sunshine and recycled them in pretty much every Mario spinoff. So more games were made with lazy graphics. But that had nothing to do with the hardware. On launch day Factor 5 demonstrated what the hardware was truly capable of if Nintendo put in the effort to make use of it and they did with Pikmin, the Zeldas, Metroid Prime, SSBM. With third parties it was the same way. Some quick PS2 port looked like crap but Resident Evil 4 and Rogue Leader looked great.

The reason Wii games so far don't look like anything beyond the Cube is because the effort just hasn't been there. Nintendo has mostly made non-games where they don't really put any effort into the graphics and the two big "gamer games" used to be Cube titles. Third parties also so far haven't really given the Wii their full attention yet. So we have to wait and see.

While on the whole they look similar the Mario in SMS was actually a little taller than the ones in Mario Tennis for the Cube, anyway:

http://www.gamergirlsunite.com/reviews/mariotennis/hammer.jpg

http://www.gamezero.com/offline/smbss/previews/mariosunshine01.jpg

Just as a matter of theory, though, I don't think they loaned out the exact models since the only spin-off game Nintendo made in-house was Mario Kart Double Dash!!, which by neccessity wouldn't use them anyway. Not saying Hudson/Camelot/Namco weren't all given the same model sheet, but I don't think the N was that lazy. Also, Nintendo didn't make SSBM, HAL did.

And comparing Mario to Rogue Squadron is not apt. Mario's stylized, a Star Wars game has to match up to a movie. Not saying SMS was as detailed as it could have been (SM64 had much better level and scenic design, IMO), but to hold it to another series' standard is ridiculous. No one was saying, "Man, I hope the next Resident Evil looks as good as Mario Sunshine" because it's apples and oranges, almost.

Tanookisuit · « **Reply #131 on:** May 12, 2007, 05:53:04 AM »

Remember, Mario was supposed to look more "mature" in Sunshine (Nintendo's words, not mine). This is probably the reason for the height difference. I think Mario Sunshine looked amazing. I get so upset when people say they're disappointed in that game. As for saying it looked like a Dreamcast game- sadly, Dreamcast games look better than Wii games so far.

that Baby guy · « **Reply #132 on:** May 12, 2007, 07:17:55 AM »

I loved how it looked too, Tanookisuit. I just wish people recognize the style Nintendo aimed for in the game, and appreciate how much this style was fulfilled, but I guess some do not. I also think people are misremembering the Dreamcast's games, as they looked closer to how most PS2 games looked, rather than most Gamecube games.

Deguello · « **Reply #133 on:** May 12, 2007, 08:36:32 AM »

Quote
I have to chalk up everything Ian says to him desperate to find something to complain about. When I used to read what he had to say, it would make sense, and have some logic to it. Now, I think he's gotten so used to disagreeing to what's going on with Nintendo, that he can't see what they are doing right, and has to force false problems out to complain about.

Don't try to reason with Ian. He lost his credibility eons ago. This is what causes him to say stupid crap like "Mario Sunshine looks like a Dreamcast game" which is apparently the pejorative of the day here at NWR. Wait, maybe I should phrase it like he used to...

He doesn't have the CREDIBILITY to be taken seriously.

mantidor · « **Reply #134 on:** May 12, 2007, 12:11:34 PM »

Mario Sunshine looked amazing, the problem was the setting, not the art. A beach scenario can only be interesting for a short period of time, then it gets boring.

Smash_Brother · « **Reply #135 on:** May 12, 2007, 12:43:34 PM »

I personally can't understand how people said SMS was "too hard" and demanded that Miyamoto scale the next one down a bit.

GoldenPhoenix · « **Reply #136 on:** May 12, 2007, 02:10:07 PM »

Quote
Originally posted by: Smash_Brother
I personally can't understand how people said SMS was "too hard" and demanded that Miyamoto scale the next one down a bit.

SMS's difficulty was quite balanced in my opinion, yeah it is probably the hardest Mario platformer but the difficulty didn't feel cheap either even the old school levels.

Smash_Brother · « **Reply #137 on:** May 12, 2007, 02:59:21 PM »

Agreed.

I think the biggest outcry was probably from the Japanese.

NinGurl69 *huggles · « **Reply #138 on:** May 12, 2007, 04:27:12 PM »

SMS lacked gambits.

ShyGuy · « **Reply #139 on:** May 12, 2007, 04:39:10 PM »

You know, I just spent the day playing some PS2 games that I had missed at my cousin's place. We played God of War, Black, and Shadow of the Colossus. Arguably three of the best looking games on the PS2. In my eyes, they looked just as good as many 360 games because they had great art style and were very polished. This is why I think graphical horsepower is a non-issue in the hands of the right developers.

Adrock · « **Reply #140 on:** May 12, 2007, 05:38:15 PM »

It's not that developers can't make graphically polished titles, it's that they don't want to. It's harder to make a visually impressive game like God of War II on inferior hardware like PS2. I have no doubt that 3rd parties can really push the Wii and make some stunningly beautiful games. I wonder if they're willing to put in the effort necessary to do so.

GoldenPhoenix · « **Reply #141 on:** May 12, 2007, 07:39:22 PM »

Quote
Originally posted by: ShyGuy
You know, I just spent the day playing some PS2 games that I had missed at my cousin's place. We played God of War, Black, and Shadow of the Colossus. Arguably three of the best looking games on the PS2. In my eyes, they looked just as good as many 360 games because they had great art style and were very polished. This is why I think graphical horsepower is a non-issue in the hands of the right developers.

Well besides Shadow of the Colossus's HORRIBLE framerate. I never played Black but I heard it is pretty much a slightly above average shooter, I've heard nothing about its art direction. God of War on the other hand does have good art direction and visuals.

GoldenPhoenix · « **Reply #142 on:** May 12, 2007, 07:41:32 PM »

Quote
Originally posted by: Adrock
It's not that developers can't make graphically polished titles, it's that they don't want to. It's harder to make a visually impressive game like God of War II on inferior hardware like PS2. I have no doubt that 3rd parties can really push the Wii and make some stunningly beautiful games. I wonder if they're willing to put in the effort necessary to do so.

You are right on the money there, it is all about effort. Hopefully as developers start running out of ports they will start making some games from the ground up for Wii with decent budgets.

oohhboy · « **Reply #143 on:** May 12, 2007, 09:20:54 PM »

Quote
Originally posted by: GoldenPhoenix

Well besides Shadow of the Colossus's HORRIBLE framerate. I never played Black but I heard it is pretty much a slightly above average shooter, I've heard nothing about its art direction. God of War on the other hand does have good art direction and visuals.

Black graphicly, isn't too different from games like Gears of War. Lots of grey, muted colors and brown.It is an above average shooter that is a blast to play through the first time, but the additional difficulties are not that great and are poorly implimented.

Terranigma Freak · « **Reply #144 on:** May 13, 2007, 04:26:52 AM »

I'm gonna have to disagree a bit on the part about it being harder to push the system -- at least if we're talking about the Wii/GC. You guys forget the the Wii/GC was disgustingly easy to program and develop for. The sad truth is that developers are lazy. They ported PS2 stuff onto GC and Xbox. Few ever bother to truly tap into it's power. Things like normal mapping, bump mapping, EMBM, light scattering, specular lighting, depth of field, indirect textures, FSAA, AF and some form of dynamic lighting are all quite possible on the GC.

Remember Factor 5 recently bitched about developers not even trying? They no longer work with Nintendo and they still know the hardware better than others. The effects I listed above will eat up fill-rate, but Factor 5 also noted that the Wii has insane fill-rate compared to the GC.

The Wii and GC doesn't use shaders, but they use TEVs. Most developers are more familiar with directx programming so shaders will be easy to use on the other hardware. The Wii/GC's TEVs are less feature rich compared to shaders, but can be just as powerful if they actually BOTHERED to try and get it to work. The GC is so well designed that it's almost impossible to get a code to run badly on it.

ShyGuy · « **Reply #145 on:** May 13, 2007, 06:33:10 AM »

Sometimes I think it may not be a factor of developers being lazy, just being rushed. I think Vicarious Visions does some good work, and they are probably one of my favorite Western dev houses. But Spiderman 3 Wii is really lackluster from what I can tell. I think it was more a matter of Sony telling Activision they need the game ready for the movie launch and Activision telling Vicarious Visions they had three or so months to get the job done.

Smash_Brother · « **Reply #146 on:** May 13, 2007, 06:37:02 AM »

I've had a vendetta against VV ever since they hyped Terminus for years and then it turned out to be pure crap.

I just figured SM3 for Wii was par for the course.

A good game from them will change my mind, though, just like RE changed my mind about Capcom which I previously called "Crapcom".

ShyGuy · « **Reply #147 on:** May 13, 2007, 06:43:59 AM »

The Tony Hawk games on the DS are technically impressive.

Terranigma Freak · « **Reply #148 on:** May 13, 2007, 07:10:34 AM »

Quote
Sometimes I think it may not be a factor of developers being lazy, just being rushed.

There's a difference between rushed and lazy. A rushed game is incomplete and full of bugs and other problems. Lazy is porting PS2 graphics to a system with much more power. How many Gamecube games have you seen with realistic looking water? The sad part is that the Gamecube is excellent at rendering realistic looking water, but they didn't bother cause they were just porting over PS2 data. Now, I haven't seen it myself, but I heard the water in the PS2 version of RE4 is flat unlike the GC version (which I did see).

Adrock · « **Reply #149 on:** May 13, 2007, 10:00:26 AM »

Quote
I'm gonna have to disagree a bit on the part about it being harder to push the system -- at least if we're talking about the Wii/GC. You guys forget the the Wii/GC was disgustingly easy to program and develop for.

"Easy" is a relative term. GCN/Wii architecture is easy to develop versus N64 or PS2, for example. However, I would argue that creating something like Resident Evil 4 from scratch isn't "easy."

News:

Author Topic: 2-3 times powerful (Read 40194 times)