Post by: GoldenPhoenix on August 13, 2006, 01:54:19 AM
That leap is not nearly as profound as it was in previous generation, the improvements appears to be marginal at best. Yes we may have better physics or more detail, but besides that there is not a whole lot to distinguish between the generations. For example, I was recently playing Forza for Xbox, and then popped in Project Gotham Racing 3, both games are visually attracting and I would not say Project Gotham is a big leap over Forza. You also have games like the Madden series, or the Fight Night series where the visual difference is once again limited; there is nothing that makes you go “Wow what a jump”. Some may argue that this next generation will bring us better AI, and that may be the case, but there also has been tremendous AI with this last generation (Half Life 2, and Halo being good examples). AI is determined more by how much work the programmer puts in it, more so than the power they have to work with.
Another goofy example that I hear is that this next generation you can have more characters on the screen. Well I hate to break any hearts, but Dynasty Warriors already did that and with similar AI as well! So that can’t be a good distinction, since it is possible on this current generation. If a developer truly wants to do something on an Xbox, GC or PS2 chances are they can do it, especially when it comes to multiple enemies and smart AI.
Now you all are probably wondering what my point to all this is, and is none other than Wii. I’ve heard whining and complaining about the lack of power, and even if IGN’s rumored specs turn out to be true I am willing to bet it will not matter. When we are only seeing a marginal difference in graphics, then what is the fuss about? If a developer wants to put in tremendous AI in a Wii game I’m sure they can do it, or if they want to make a mindless hack and slash game where hordes of enemies attack you, they probably can do that as well.
So for all your hardware nuts out there, the Wii will have more than enough power to do some great stuff if a developer is willing to try it. If you take away the HD capabilities of Xbox 360 and PS3 (which I think is overrated, HD is nice but not what I would call a big difference) Wii will be more than capable of holding its own, heck the Xbox is holding its own. Really this generation feels more like the leap from the Dreamcast to the Xbox, there is a difference but not one of huge importance. Things are going to fine, even with the supposed low specs of Wii, I am willing to bet that the Wii will have some really neat looking games by the time the system has finished its run. Will a few games be comparable to Xbox 360 or PS3? I’m not sure but when the difference appears so minute, I wouldn’t count out the possibility. The trick is getting past the specs and seeing what is on screen, specs mean nothing, it is what you see and how you play that is truly a testament to the graphics of the system.
In conclusion, is ridiculous when I hear individuals say the Wii will look ugly when that is not the case with Xbox, GC or PS2. There have been some visual stunning games for all systems that can even rival some of the games on Xbox 360, so to say that the Wii will be ugly in comparison seems to be a ludicrous statement. Maybe you should fire up RE4, Splinter Cell, Madden and a host of other games, then tell me how ugly they look even in comparison to this new generation of games. I am beginning to understand why Nintendo decided to not focus on the hardware, because frankly this next generation is going to have to rely more on game play than any other generation before it. The leaps from one generation to the next have gotten much smaller, and so gameplay must start taking over. It seems Nintendo understands that, now if only the competition and some closed minded gamers could understand it too!
Post by: Dasmos on August 13, 2006, 04:11:28 AM
Post by: Ceric on August 13, 2006, 05:48:34 AM
Quote
In conclusion, is ridiculous when I hear individuals say the Wii will look ugly when that is not the case with Xbox, GC or PS2.
You're right. That small form factor. Shiny white exterior. Blue glowing light in the disc tray. It's a pretty console.
Seriously enough though. We've talked about this a lot. If we had a better search system I link all the discussions. Suffice it to say it will look fine.
Post by: BigJim on August 13, 2006, 09:08:39 AM
The graphical benefits of the other platforms aren't completely apparent yet, but I think they'll start to as 2nd generation titles creep in, particularly for PS3. But since 2 of the platforms aren't out yet, it's hard to place judgement. Horsepower won't matter as much until more HDTVs are adopted and HD games mature, anyway. That's not to say standard TVs won't see any benefit from the horsepower, because they will to some extent. But the early games as of yet aren't a great demonstration of power. I definitely agree there.
I've never been sold on the, "Wii won't look as good, but gosh darnit it'll be more fun!" because that is entirely subjective and dependent on the developer. The controller is different. Beyond that, nothing is fact. Nintendo's always had a gameplay focus, so the song and dance isn't much different now than before, IMO.
For the hardware itself, they're targetting different markets and they're doing what's best for their markets. They can only be compared directly in such that a $15K Ford Ranger might be compared to a $40K Mark LT. They're pickup trucks, there is bleed over, but they're clearly distinct enough in price and features to be going for different people.
I think we sometimes think too hard about Nintendo's direction and come up with reasons that support our feelings, rather than looking at simpler facts. Nintendo's predominant demographics are kids and mid-to-late 20-somethings that grew up with Nintendo. This is according to some comment someone at Nintendo made. So knowing this, they're not going to abandon kids and build something too expensive, or abandon the IPs that are strong with the 20-somethings. Their actions are deliberate for their audience, just as Sony's and MS's are.
If HD were cheap, we'd see it in Wii regardless of whether there were diminishing returns or not. Afterall, even though wireless routers have less penetration than HDTVs, wireless connectivity is built-in. Why? It's cheap. They're conscious about the cost of ownership and cost of entry, because the demos dictate the product.
Anyway, I guess my point is that discussions like this easily bend towards the "emotional" defense rather than the simpler answer. There are benefits to HD that aren't yet realized because HD games, IMO, haven't matured yet. But they'll get there eventually. In the meantime, the Wii should be just fine for who they target. For everybody else, they're looking at the competition anyway. So what's to defend? Our image as teh kidd!e fanbois, L0LL3rz?
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on August 13, 2006, 10:50:30 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Dasmos
Wow, you're only the billionth person to write something like this, but hey, at least you did it in a less convincing manner.
Thanks for contributing so much to the discussion. You would fit right in with the individuals at gamefaqs where they feel the need to insult someone who in no way attacked or was rude in any way. Like I said in a previous post, I realize there have been other topics on this, but I felt like I would give my opinion on it, didn't think there was anything wrong with that. If there is some constructive critisism or disagreement with what I said, I am fine with that, but I do not appreciated condescending and smart alik comments.
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on August 13, 2006, 10:54:17 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: BigJim
I look at HD the same way I looked at 2D and 3D graphics... they all took time to mature. Just as Nintendo's controller is not going to be perfect for every game out of the box either.
The graphical benefits of the other platforms aren't completely apparent yet, but I think they'll start to as 2nd generation titles creep in, particularly for PS3. But since 2 of the platforms aren't out yet, it's hard to place judgement. Horsepower won't matter as much until more HDTVs are adopted and HD games mature, anyway. That's not to say standard TVs won't see any benefit from the horsepower, because they will to some extent. But the early games as of yet aren't a great demonstration of power. I definitely agree there.
I've never been sold on the, "Wii won't look as good, but gosh darnit it'll be more fun!" because that is entirely subjective and dependent on the developer. The controller is different. Beyond that, nothing is fact. Nintendo's always had a gameplay focus, so the song and dance isn't much different now than before, IMO.
For the hardware itself, they're targetting different markets and they're doing what's best for their markets. They can only be compared directly in such that a $15K Ford Ranger might be compared to a $40K Mark LT. They're pickup trucks, there is bleed over, but they're clearly distinct enough in price and features to be going for different people.
I think we sometimes think too hard about Nintendo's direction and come up with reasons that support our feelings, rather than looking at simpler facts. Nintendo's predominant demographics are kids and mid-to-late 20-somethings that grew up with Nintendo. This is according to some comment someone at Nintendo made. So knowing this, they're not going to abandon kids and build something too expensive, or abandon the IPs that are strong with the 20-somethings. Their actions are deliberate for their audience, just as Sony's and MS's are.
If HD were cheap, we'd see it in Wii regardless of whether there were diminishing returns or not. Afterall, even though wireless routers have less penetration than HDTVs, wireless connectivity is built-in. Why? It's cheap. They're conscious about the cost of ownership and cost of entry, because the demos dictate the product.
Anyway, I guess my point is that discussions like this easily bend towards the "emotional" defense rather than the simpler answer. There are benefits to HD that aren't yet realized because HD games, IMO, haven't matured yet. But they'll get there eventually. In the meantime, the Wii should be just fine for who they target. For everybody else, they're looking at the competition anyway. So what's to defend? Our image as teh kidd!e fanbois, L0LL3rz?
I don't doubt HD has some benefits, then again I've been playing PC games for years where high resolution is the standard and frankly I have no trouble going back to standard TV. Even for my Xbox 360 I usually play it at 420p in order to get a smoother framerate. Regardless my main point is that these first generation games on Xbox 360 are not that big of a change from the previous generation, while other generations there were significant visual leaps even in the first generation.
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on August 13, 2006, 11:13:34 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: CericQuote
In conclusion, is ridiculous when I hear individuals say the Wii will look ugly when that is not the case with Xbox, GC or PS2.
You're right. That small form factor. Shiny white exterior. Blue glowing light in the disc tray. It's a pretty console.
Seriously enough though. We've talked about this a lot. If we had a better search system I link all the discussions. Suffice it to say it will look fine.
Lol, what is sad is that the Wii will probaly be about the same size as Xbox 360's power block
. About previous discussions about the graphics, I don't doubt there have been, but I felt like giving my take on it (in fact I probaly have read some of them).
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on August 13, 2006, 11:18:35 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: VGrevolutionQuote
Originally posted by: BigJim
I look at HD the same way I looked at 2D and 3D graphics... they all took time to mature. Just as Nintendo's controller is not going to be perfect for every game out of the box either.
The graphical benefits of the other platforms aren't completely apparent yet, but I think they'll start to as 2nd generation titles creep in, particularly for PS3. But since 2 of the platforms aren't out yet, it's hard to place judgement. Horsepower won't matter as much until more HDTVs are adopted and HD games mature, anyway. That's not to say standard TVs won't see any benefit from the horsepower, because they will to some extent. But the early games as of yet aren't a great demonstration of power. I definitely agree there.
I've never been sold on the, "Wii won't look as good, but gosh darnit it'll be more fun!" because that is entirely subjective and dependent on the developer. The controller is different. Beyond that, nothing is fact. Nintendo's always had a gameplay focus, so the song and dance isn't much different now than before, IMO.
For the hardware itself, they're targetting different markets and they're doing what's best for their markets. They can only be compared directly in such that a $15K Ford Ranger might be compared to a $40K Mark LT. They're pickup trucks, there is bleed over, but they're clearly distinct enough in price and features to be going for different people.
I think we sometimes think too hard about Nintendo's direction and come up with reasons that support our feelings, rather than looking at simpler facts. Nintendo's predominant demographics are kids and mid-to-late 20-somethings that grew up with Nintendo. This is according to some comment someone at Nintendo made. So knowing this, they're not going to abandon kids and build something too expensive, or abandon the IPs that are strong with the 20-somethings. Their actions are deliberate for their audience, just as Sony's and MS's are.
If HD were cheap, we'd see it in Wii regardless of whether there were diminishing returns or not. Afterall, even though wireless routers have less penetration than HDTVs, wireless connectivity is built-in. Why? It's cheap. They're conscious about the cost of ownership and cost of entry, because the demos dictate the product.
Anyway, I guess my point is that discussions like this easily bend towards the "emotional" defense rather than the simpler answer. There are benefits to HD that aren't yet realized because HD games, IMO, haven't matured yet. But they'll get there eventually. In the meantime, the Wii should be just fine for who they target. For everybody else, they're looking at the competition anyway. So what's to defend? Our image as teh kidd!e fanbois, L0LL3rz?
I don't doubt HD has some benefits, then again I've been playing PC games for years where high resolution is the standard and frankly I have no trouble going back to standard TV. Even for my Xbox 360 I usually play it at 420p on my HD in order to get a smoother framerate. Regardless my main point is that these first generation games on Xbox 360 are not that big of a change from the previous generation, while other generations there were significant visual leaps even in the first generation. I'm fairly certain the same will apply to PS3, since I have gotten the impression that PS3 really is not that much more powerful, if any, than the 360 just different architecture. The main thing jacking the PS3 price up is the blu-ray player.
Post by: Ceric on August 13, 2006, 01:51:43 PM
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on August 13, 2006, 02:23:48 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Ceric
I meant no offence VGRevolution. It's just those other post took hours of my time and I can't really duplicate them. Ironically enought though I summed them all up pretty much with the last sentence. With that being said I will say the difference between going from RCA to Component (or is it Composite I always get those confused) is like night and day. It's more of a leap then I've seen between some of the different HD and non-HD titles. It's amazing the difference a better connection can bring.
I think it is component, btw I took no offense in what you said, the only one I had a problem with was Dasmos because I felt his statement was unnecessary and rude. Could you possibly direct me to your posts? I've always had a respect for your views on different things so I would love to read your posts. My main reason for posting this is because I recently repurchased an Xbox 360 and what struck me was the lack of much of a leap between a game like Forza and one like Project Gotham Racing 3 while other generations showed drastic improvements, even in the first generation titles. Before I wasn't that concerned by the hardware issue, but still had SOME doubts which were mostly erased when thinking about it the other day since I was able to better analyze the 360 vs this current generation. I apologize if my little analysis was "overkill" but I figured it wouldn't hurt to give my view on it since I am better able to compare.
Post by: AnyoneEB on August 13, 2006, 03:37:46 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: BigJim
If HD were cheap, we'd see it in Wii regardless of whether there were diminishing returns or not. Afterall, even though wireless routers have less penetration than HDTVs, wireless connectivity is built-in. Why? It's cheap. They're conscious about the cost of ownership and cost of entry, because the demos dictate the product.
I do not have any input on the HD front, but I have a very different experience on wireless routers. Maybe they are just a lot more common around here, but I know one person who has an HDTV setup (two if you include my computer monitor with component-in), and three people who don't have wireless routers (all three have dial-up internet). On top of that, on college campuses, wireless access is very common.
BTW, 1 plug = composite (all mixed to together) and 3 plugs = component (separated into components). I hope that helps someone remember. Both starting with "comp" certainly does not make it easier to remember.
Post by: BranDonk Kong on August 13, 2006, 04:04:42 PM
Post by: BranDonk Kong on August 13, 2006, 04:05:54 PM
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on August 13, 2006, 04:09:32 PM
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on August 13, 2006, 04:15:47 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Brandogg
Xbox 360, when running in HD graphically wipes the floor with all of the current systems. If you take for instance a close-up to the main character in Dead Rising or one of the boxers in Fight Night Round 3, there's absolutely nothing on a "current-gen" system that even comes close. The next best looking title is probably Doom 3 or Chronic(wha?)les of Riddick on Xbox, and they aren't even in the same ballpark. Sure it's not like going from N64 to Gamecube or PS2, becuse there was nothing on the N64 or PSX that looked even remotely realistic.
Wipes the floor is a bit of an exagerration, yes the visuals may look more detailed close up but that is not what I would call wiping the floor with the last generation of games when you have to look at things closely to see a "big" difference. I've played Dead Rising on HD, and the visuals are nice, but they are not a big leap from previous Xbox games, even Half Life 2 looked great on the original Xbox. Graphical power is to the point where gameplay is going to have take presidence since graphics are less of an issue now than they were back in the N64/PSX era. Once you get over the shinier bump mapping or trees swaying in the wind (which does not take long. especially if framerate takes a hit) you will be stuck right back where you started, gameplay.
Post by: IceCold on August 13, 2006, 05:53:14 PM
QuoteThen someone had better tell Microsoft not to charge $130 CDN just for a WiFi adapter..
Afterall, even though wireless routers have less penetration than HDTVs, wireless connectivity is built-in. Why?
Post by: Nephilim on August 13, 2006, 07:31:42 PM
you cant be serious
half-life 2 xbox: http://www.playfeed.com/blogimages/halflife2.jpg
a 5200 (10bucks 2nd hand), from 3years ago has better graphics then that, its a HUGE step
let alone a 360 & Ps3 gpu
Post by: Athrun Zala on August 13, 2006, 09:17:48 PM
QuoteYOU can't be serious
Originally posted by: DeadlyD
you cant be serious
half-life 2 xbox: http://www.playfeed.com/blogimages/halflife2.jpg
a 5200 (10bucks 2nd hand), from 3years ago has better graphics then that, its a HUGE step
let alone a 360 & Ps3 gpu
the difference isn't all that noticeable (at least to me, I can barely tell the difference)
and the 5200 is utter crap, so that wasn't a good comparsion.....
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on August 13, 2006, 09:38:30 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Athrun ZalaQuoteYOU can't be serious
Originally posted by: DeadlyD
you cant be serious
half-life 2 xbox: http://www.playfeed.com/blogimages/halflife2.jpg
a 5200 (10bucks 2nd hand), from 3years ago has better graphics then that, its a HUGE step
let alone a 360 & Ps3 gpu
the difference isn't all that noticeable (at least to me, I can barely tell the difference)
and the 5200 is utter crap, so that wasn't a good comparsion.....
Yeah I was going to say the same thing, Half-Life 2 for both Xbox and PC are still good looking games (I really do not like people posting screenshots, especially when they pick some of the worse looking ones!). Like I said before I am not saying PS3 and Xbox 360 aren't better visually, but the gap between them and the current generation isn't what you would call astounding, or even large (at least not yet). To see any significant difference you have focus more on the little details (some of which can only be noticed close up) or added physics here and there (like PGR3's swaying trees, which you don't even notice after a bit). Gameplay probaly matters the most this coming generation than any before it, since developers no longer have the luxury of wowing with graphics as much. Not to mention the extreme costs it now takes to develop those shiny objects people love in a game. At least Microsoft appears to be trying to balance gameplay with visuals, PS3 on the other hand is something we'll have to wait on.
Perhaps I am of the minority, but I really did not purchase a 360 for its great visuals, but instead purchased it for some fun games (Dead Rising is amazing). Believe it or not back when Xbox 360 launched I made multiple posts in the Nintendo forumns DEFENDING Xbox 360 as a true next generation system visually. I realize now that I was pretty much in denial, because there still has yet to be a game I would place a next generation crown on for visuals. The closest game to come to that was Ghost Recon, which I admit is nice looking visually.
Maybe my opinion of visuals is different from others because I have a fairly high end computer (4200+ dual core and a Geforce 7900GTX) and it takes alot to impress me since my PC so far looks better than the 360. The thing is that I can play a GC game, and if the gameplay is solid the visuals are enough to keep me hooked (smooth framerate is a must). When I want to go back and play my Nintendo DS, my GC, PS2 or even Xbox instead of multiple Xbox 360 or PC games, that tells me something that visuals no longer detract from the experience like so many generations before. That is why I think people are overreacting with Wii, it will have more than enough power to put out some good games visually coupled with strong AI or even physics.
This is a bit off subject but what really worries me is the astromical costs (sometimes around 20 million) it is taking to develop alot of these next generation games, which could end up causing some of the smaller companies to go bankrupt.. I'm afraid that if things don't start balancing soon, we could see the gaming industry take a large hit, maybe even go into a recession of sorts.
Post by: Nephilim on August 13, 2006, 10:12:02 PM
"and the 5200 is utter crap, so that wasn't a good comparsion....."
not at all, im hearing guys saying a 2001 video card is as impressive as a 2006, im saying its not even impressive as a 2003-2004
im sorry u cant notice everything in the game has is half resolution compared to normal pc version & its all jaggied
Post by: Deguello on August 13, 2006, 10:24:11 PM
Quote
Xbox 360, when running in HD graphically wipes the floor with all of the current systems.
How about when it is NOT running in HD? What then? Because that is what it will look like on my TV and 95% of the world's TVs. If that's what it takes for these games to be considered NEXT GEN, the purchase of a new TV that I do not own, then count me out. It's not worth that kind of money to get EXTREEEEME Close-ups on character faces.
In fact, I'd like to know. Could somebody take a commonly thrown about HD shot of a game, De-Widescreen it, and put it in 480p or 480i so I can see what I will be geting for my $400 or $600?
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on August 13, 2006, 10:43:34 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: DeguelloQuote
Xbox 360, when running in HD graphically wipes the floor with all of the current systems.
How about when it is NOT running in HD? What then? Because that is what it will look like on my TV and 95% of the world's TVs. If that's what it takes for these games to be considered NEXT GEN, the purchase of a new TV that I do not own, then count me out. It's not worth that kind of money to get EXTREEEEME Close-ups on character faces.
In fact, I'd like to know. Could somebody take a commonly thrown about HD shot of a game, De-Widescreen it, and put it in 480p or 480i so I can see what I will be geting for my $400 or $600?
It is kind of funny but I play most of my Xbox 360 games in 480p due to the small text alot of games have. For my specific HD TV it needs to be in widescreen (it is not a widescreen HD TV) for you to get the full benefits which sucks when you are trying to read something with type that is like size 8 font. Even at that there seems to be an exagerration going on about how huge of a leap HD is from 480p or 480i because it isn't. Yes the visuals are smoother, but as you probaly know from the current generation of systems jaggies have not been a big issue (in fact some games are pretty smooth). Also take into account that most people play the games a fair distance from their TV also lessens the impact HD has. I'm at the point in gaming where I focus more on the framerate than visuals.
Post by: KDR_11k on August 13, 2006, 11:45:00 PM
Post by: Athrun Zala on August 14, 2006, 08:51:12 AM
Quotewell I don't have 20/20 so it might be that.....yeah......or maybe is that I can't simply tell the difference because it isn't so big......or maybe I don't care, who knows....
Originally posted by: DeadlyD
" I can barely tell the difference" you must be blind
Quotewell, the XGPU is based on the GeForce3, which despite not supporting DX9, still wipes the floor with the 5200....
Originally posted by: DeadlyD
"and the 5200 is utter crap, so that wasn't a good comparsion....."
not at all, im hearing guys saying a 2001 video card is as impressive as a 2006, im saying its not even impressive as a 2003-2004
im sorry u cant notice everything in the game has is half resolution compared to normal pc version & its all jaggied
Post by: The Omen on August 14, 2006, 09:10:39 AM
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on August 14, 2006, 09:17:26 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: The Omen
I don't disagree that the Wii will preform fine graphically, albeit less 'fine' than the two power houses. However, HD looks a lot better than standard res. Of course, you could just play the "what I don't know won't hurt me" card that many seem to abide by, and that's okay. But I for one have a very nice hd tv, and have seen HD programming, and HD games, and they are loads better than their standard counterpart. Necassary? No. But neither was 3d, rumble, cd , dual analogs or shoulder triggers. We shouldn't slag off HD just because Nintendo chose not to include it. Just as we shouldn't dismiss the Wii because of it's lack of hd.
Well I personally find a smoother more crisp image to be much different from the jump to 3D or those other things you mentioned. HD is a relatively minor step in comparison to some of those. I've seen HD programming as well and I have to agree there, I do notice a fairly significant difference in that, but that is probaly because it is a leap from standard resolution instead of 480p or i to HD.
Post by: JonLeung on August 14, 2006, 09:22:20 AM
If not, I hope I don't have to order component output cables online again, unless I can be sure to get them before launch. I'd hate to show my anti-Nintendo friends the Wii on the first day and show them that its graphics aren't even as bright and sharp as my GameCube's.
Post by: Smash_Brother on August 14, 2006, 09:22:33 AM
...and yet I've seldom seen a game which includes this type of gameplay and doesn't suck.
Dead Rising was good because of the survivor saving system and the storyline. The hordes of similar enemies which you have to hack your way through don't add much to the game because once you've sliced one zombie in half, you've already experienced the best killing blow the game has to offer.
In fact, pull out the zombies entirely and replace them with one of the cooler foes from Resident Evil, like the lickers or hunters, just in fewer numbers and which would require more depth and interactivity to kill and, IMHO, the game would have been immensely better.
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on August 14, 2006, 09:24:55 AM
NAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
Save your cash and spend it on MORE Wii games and cheeseburgers.
~~~~~
VIDEO GAME ENVIRONMENTS ARE LIKE HOUSES.
IT'S NOT ABOUT HOW BIG THE HOUSE IS, NOT REALLY HOW MANY ROOMS THERE ARE, NOT REALLY HOW DETAILED THE WALLS AND FLOORS ARE CRAFTED -- IT'S HOW YOU FURNISH IT.
LUSH CARPETS, PRETTY WALLPAPER AND GLASS CEILINGS ARE... "NICE."
AND YOUR FAMILY ROOM DOESN'T NEED 2,000 CHAIRS, 500 COFFEE TABLES, AND GLOSSY MARBLE SURFACES.
IT'S ABOUT THE OBJECTS INSIDE THAT YOU CAREFULLY CHOOSE, THINGS THAT ARE PRACTICAL, THINGS THAT YOU WILL ACTUALLY USE.
YOU ASK YOURSELF, WHAT ASPECTS ARE ACTUALLY MEANINGFUL TO THE GAMEPLAY EXPERIENCE?
-THE SELECTION AND ARRANGEMENT OF YOUR FURNITURE.
Post by: nemo_83 on August 14, 2006, 09:57:06 AM
The following quote from Keita Takahashi (Katamair Damacy) was eventually brought up.
"GS: What do you think of the Wii?
KT: I'm not really interested in it. I don't think a controller should have that much influence on the enjoyment of games. I see what [Nintendo is] trying to do, but they're putting such emphasis on the controller; 'Woah, this controller lets you do this!' and I'm thinking - are you messing with us? So, there's nothing I really want to do with it right now."
The problem with the above statement is that whether your controller is revolutionary or total rehash the transparency of the interface will have a direct influence on the enjoyment of your game. The N64 proved that something new like analog control can create that raw wow moment (unfortunately I see no Mario 64 type game on the Wii that puts the remote to brilliant use).
The Wii's interface has the potential to make some games that I'd normally not even glance at (like tennis) sound fun, but thus far the real games they have tried to make with it have fallen on their faces. They have failed to prove the remote works for traditional games.
Noone is going to argue that Twilight Princess will not be a polished epic adventure with gigantic bosses, skull fuker puzzles, and nonlinear level design; but the game is also going to control like complete shyt with the remote and that will ruin the enjoyment of the game. It's not like Tennis where you know right away what to do. Instead, in Zelda, you have to learn how they want you to use the remote abstractly and context sensitively for all kinds of totally different crap (you don't do what would make sense like swing the remote to swing the sword). You can't look at the controller and know right away what to do in Zelda (once again, like Tennis) and that defeats the whole purpose of improving the controller so we can think about it less. Instead of making it easier for players to forget about the controller many of the Wii games do quite the opposite and I think that is what KT meant to say.
on price: I think that if Wii has a fifth the bandwidth of 360, maybe it should cost one fifth the 360.
I feel more money goes into making the Wii small than making it powerful. It's the same thing with PSP, at a certain point, you aren't paying for power anymore but rather getting the power down to a portable size. But taking that portable hardware strategy and applying it to a console is like saying we need big console software on portables. Noone wants to play console games on a portable (that is why the DS is kicking PSP's unholy ass). The same goes for portability in consoles (the only time size becomes an issue with consoles is when it's a quarter the size of my minifridge, PS3).
Post by: Ceric on August 14, 2006, 10:15:10 AM
I like Cheeseburgers.
Also it's too early to tell if there is any game that sells the controller really yet till we use them. That goes for the PS3's controller as well.
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on August 14, 2006, 12:01:13 PM
The analog stick was "transparent" as you would argue probably because it's use was still limited to "Move here. Move here. Move there." -- character traversal. The Remote goes beyond that, more like it focuses on new avenues of control rather than simple character traversal. Analog sticks are already great for character movement, hence we left the "simple" jobs to the Nunhaku. But the Remote is about new possibilities, and therefore involves a different learning curve.
The simple games will be simple to pickup because Nintendo has done reasonably well with instructions and hand-holding this GC gen compared to the N64 gen. And I'm sure people can follow on-screen instructions. Learning to use the Remote may possibly be easier than "analoging" for the first time. When my friend tried out Ocarina of Time for the first time, she couldn't stay on the little bridge in the middle of Koriki Village without jumping off suddenly. And when she tried archery, she was ALL OVER THE PLACE. Talk about opaque.
The analog stick was sitting on top of 2 previous generations of "push this way to run" gameplay. Yeah it was obvious to seasoned gamers what they had to do. And hence many genres stayed intact, many games that were made were still about moving characters to some location, steering, or aiming (as what happens a large % of the time in actiony games). MANY of the Wii games demo'd at E3 included BEAUTIFUL tutorials before allowing the person to start playing. When I was at Nintendo's booth at E3 2001, HARDLY ANY of the GameCube demos had any bit of instruction whatsoever. They assumed we already had an idea how to play. That was related to the continuation of previous generations' control fundamentals -- and hence the repetoire of mechanics and genres presented were not much different from previous years.
That is in STARK CONTRAST to the mechanics and genres lined up for Wii's launch. It's exciting. What new mechanics did analog gaming help allow for in the past 2 generations? Aiming, and Super Monkey Ball.
I'd like to believe players can follow on-screen directions. I'd like to believe players can "forget about the controls" once the mechanics are pointed out to them.
The Remote already works for traditional games. Racing? We've got ExciteTruck to show us that, and it worked. Traditional gameplay in Zelda? Metroid? Red Steel? NO PROBLEM. Enter the Nunchaku. Push the analog stick, the character walks. BAM -- THAT WAS TRADITIONAL, AND IT WORKS. Need buttons? The Remote has buttons. BAM -- THAT WAS TRADITIONAL TOO, AND IT WORKED. I don't know much more traditional you can get than "Zeruda" with its "push this direction to walk and tap this button to murder things" gameplay, but the Remote+Nunchuck already has it covered.
"Walking slowly" was not transparent, and "steady aiming" was not transparent. More like an accident. The analog was just the latest in the long dynasty of up-down-left-right control gizmos that told your character to where to move. That transparency wasn't a benefit of the analog, we were just conditioned to expect Mario(64) to move when we pushed a particular direction, and we were pleasantly surprised/relieved that fundamental mechanic HAD NOT CHANGED -- but things have been that way ever since PACMAN. Analog sensitivity condirations by the player required considerable adjustment and practice, BUT we were still practicing within the confines of old objectives: push this way to run this way.
Nunchaku and D-pads satisfy traditional gameplay. The Remote satisfies new dimensions of gameplay.
If there was a control method to compare the Remote to, it's the first arcade joysticks. Why? Cuz their intentions were undeniably new.
~~~~~
AUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUGGGGHH I FELL FOR THE TRAP!!
WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS
I just finished my Wendy's for lunch and I'm at work.
Post by: Kairon on August 14, 2006, 01:30:59 PM
And he has screenshots
Seriously, only graphics whores could complain about these shots. I seriously can't tell much of a difference between them.
~Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: Kairon on August 14, 2006, 01:39:13 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: nemo_83
thus far the real games they have tried to make with it have fallen on their faces. They have failed to prove the remote works for traditional games.
...
Noone is going to argue that Twilight Princess will not be a polished epic adventure with gigantic bosses, skull fuker puzzles, and nonlinear level design; but the game is also going to control like complete shyt with the remote and that will ruin the enjoyment of the game.
...
Can you mail me your advance copy of TP when you're done playing it please?
Quote
on price: I think that if Wii has a fifth the bandwidth of 360, maybe it should cost one fifth the 360.
It does. It's just that Microsoft is hiding the bulk of that cost in their own red ink.
MS lost $6 billion last gen just for an XBox that was made using purely
off-the-shelf
mass-mass-produced
multi-use
year-old
without-research-costs
technology.
Can you imagine the bundle that they're losing now with custom designed tech and actual research going into it?
Analysts have guessed the X360's real price at around $700, but today it's most likely nearer to around $500, and that's being optimistic in my opinion.
I think the Wii is turning out to be priced very responsibly.
~Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: AnyoneEB on August 14, 2006, 02:16:54 PM
Ceric: You are right that most consumer internet connections do not max out 802.11b, but Optimum Online (CableVision's internet service) is 10/1 or 20/2 (megabits down/up) depending on how much you pay. That is definitely more than 802.11b can handle (11 megabits peak). On the other hand, gaming does not require anywhere near that much bandwidth and if downloads are done overnight via WiiConnect24, speed is not a big deal either.
Post by: nemo_83 on August 14, 2006, 02:34:44 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Professional 666
Nemo, you make it sound like the analog stick had no learning curve. When most people (YES, GENERALIZATION) picked up Mario 64 for the first time, they just RAN AND RAN AND RAN AND RAN, not realizing the benefits of analog sensitivity, and treating it more like an arcade joystick.
I believe the stick was an easy transition (at least for myself). I just ran around in the court yard for a while playing with my new found sensitivity; it was fun just playing with it and being able to tip toe. It was easier than learning to drive a car. Mario 64 got the analog stick right the first try for character movement (even today it is a standard that games like GTA can't meet). However, sticks were never accurate enough for things like aiming in first person.
The problem I see is there is not a traditional game for the Wii that says, this is how you do it. It's like the DS; we're going to be wading through experiments for the first two years.
Look at Metroid Prime 3: as immaculately as the adventure may be plotted out, the controls create more problems than they solve (at least with an analog stick the crosshair was fixed like in PC shooters).
"Can you mail me your advance copy of TP when you're done playing it please?"
Come on, did you not read the E3 impressions? The game was made for a pad. Or are you arguing the game design won't be genius as usual?
Post by: wandering on August 14, 2006, 02:44:53 PM
Quote
Look at Metroid Prime 3: as immaculately as the adventure may be plotted out, the controls create more problems than they solve (at least with an analog stick the crosshair was fixed like in PC shooters).
I dunno, I kind of believe the people who said aiming with the wiimote was better than aiming with an analog stick.
Quote
Come on, did you not read the E3 impressions? The game was made for a pad. Or are you arguing the game design won't be genius as usual?
I dunno, I kind of believe Miyamoto, who said he can't go back to playing the game on the cube.
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on August 14, 2006, 03:05:40 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Kairon
Mark Bozon of IGN has similar sentiments VGrevolution.
And he has screenshots
Seriously, only graphics whores could complain about these shots. I seriously can't tell much of a difference between them.
~Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Seriously, Rogue Leader (ref: GameCube 1st gen) brings more to the table than any of those flight games.
And thus I refer back to my "furniture" idea. Each of those flight games is an empty, lonely house.
Like last gen's launches, it appears the industry has to wait for Nintendo to show everyone what it means to take advantage of new hardware. It's not about adding bells and whistles -- those are expected cuz they're easy to implement: pay for upgraded hardware, stuff it into your new console and VWUHLAH! we have people claiming superiority as soon as they see the numbers on the spec sheet are bigger than yesteryear's.
Furniture, people. You're sitting on it.
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on August 14, 2006, 04:02:56 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Kairon
Mark Bozon of IGN has similar sentiments VGrevolution.
And he has screenshots
Seriously, only graphics whores could complain about these shots. I seriously can't tell much of a difference between them.
~Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Interesting article, and I definately agree with him. Also like him I really do like my Xbox 360 but also like him I feel like I'm playing the same games, some of which don't look or feel that much different! When I hear discussions of graphics and what is good and what isn't, I tend to roll my eyes. One recent example of this was Prey for the PC, I thought the graphics were quite stunning and some of the best I've ever seen, then I read how people say how they aren't that great. I guess I have become very disgruntled with the graphics obsession and don't care to notice all the minor details if a game runs smooth and looks decent.
To Nemo about the analog stick, I know for me it took awhile to get the hang of it. With the Wii mote I'm fairly certain you will see a similar learning curve, and I believe some of this fear is not justified since people did not get much time to spend on the Wii at E3. Things should be much different in the home where you are in a comfortable enviroment where you can spend all the time you want.
Post by: Ceric on August 14, 2006, 04:44:03 PM
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on August 14, 2006, 05:07:34 PM
Then you're being cheated and ripped off and should sell your 360 to someone so they can experience it break and they can go thru the trouble of replacing it.
Post by: Athrun Zala on August 14, 2006, 07:17:03 PM
I agree with what you said, and nice analogy with the furniture (maybe you should tell that one to Kojima
)
Post by: IceCold on August 14, 2006, 08:08:36 PM
QuoteYeah, I was against the idea of Zelda being turned into a Wii game from the beginning, but my faith in Miyamoto overrides this. If anyone can do it well, Nintendo can..
I dunno, I kind of believe Miyamoto, who said he can't go back to playing the game on the cube.
Post by: SixthAngel on August 14, 2006, 08:13:25 PM
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on August 14, 2006, 09:56:53 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: SixthAngel
Since Wii has a similar architecture to the gamecube we should also be able to expect more games by Nintendo this gen then last. They don't have to spend all that time getting used to it again unlike other upcoming consoles.
That is a good point, I never really thought of that!
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on August 14, 2006, 09:59:18 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Professional 666
"I feel like I'm playing the same games"
Then you're being cheated and ripped off and should sell your 360 to someone so they can experience it break and they can go thru the trouble of replacing it.
I still have Dead Rising and PGR3! Even though neither game feels like a true "next generation" title they are still fun. When I bought my Xbox 360 I got it more for the great games coming out, even if the experiences are similar to the old Xbox. Then again you may have a point with shoveling it off to someone so they can experience it breaking (which should be a fairly new experience).
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on August 14, 2006, 10:04:33 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Smash_Brother
The most argument I've seen for graphical horsepower is that the games can include hundreds of enemies on screen at once...
What is qute funny about that is from what I hear the game that flaunts around the hundreds of enemies (99 Nights) has tremendous slowdown. Nothing more satisfying than fighting hordes of enemies while your gameplay slows to slideshow quality, so long live the "next generation" of graphics!
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on August 14, 2006, 10:04:41 PM
Global assumptions: "Standard" NTSC TV, 720x480 max drawable rez, 640x480 console-rendering rez. 4:3 (fullscreen) ratio. No 16:9 (widescreen) mode. 4:3 480p allowable.
1. 480p, "fake" widescreen mode -- frames drawn at 640x360, with letterbox drawn-in by game system. Pristine picture clarity. Just like RE4-GCN at 480p, spec-wise, via component cables.
pic #1
2. 480i, "fake" widescreen mode -- frames drawn at 640x360, with letterbox drawn-in by game system. Slight loss of picture definition, slight loss of saturation. Negligible presence of noise. S-Video connection.
pic #2
3. 480i, "fake" widescreen mode -- frames drawn at 640x360, with letterbox drawn-in by game system. More loss of defintion, more loss of saturation. Noise is noticeable, dot-crawl is noticeable in-motion. RCA composite video connection.
pic #3
4. 480i, "fake" widescreen mode -- frames drawn at 640x360, with letterbox drawn-in by game system. More loss of defintion, more loss of saturation. Significant noise increase. Coaxial cable connection.
pic #4
EDIT: More noise added to Pic#4 for greater accuracy.
Post by: Deguello on August 14, 2006, 10:17:50 PM
Post by: IceCold on August 14, 2006, 11:29:03 PM
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on August 14, 2006, 11:41:16 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Professional 666
Back on topic to Deg's request on HD games in non-HD conditions. I took an MGS4 pseudo widescreen shot (1024x576) and simulated its appearance on a "standard television". I used PaintShopPro for the effects and IrfanView for Lanczos Resizing (Lanczos downsizing is accurate in such a way that it provides a pleasant anti-aliasing effect -- NEVERMIND that, for that is just a generous side effect). What should be noted are the differences in quality with each successive downgrade.
Global assumptions: "Standard" NTSC TV, 720x480 max drawable rez, 640x480 console-rendering rez. 4:3 (fullscreen) ratio. No 16:9 (widescreen) mode. 4:3 480p allowable.
1. 480p, "fake" widescreen mode -- frames drawn at 640x360, with letterbox drawn-in by game system. Pristine picture clarity. Just like RE4-GCN at 480p, spec-wise, via component cables.
pic #1
2. 480i, "fake" widescreen mode -- frames drawn at 640x360, with letterbox drawn-in by game system. Slight loss of picture definition, slight loss of saturation. Negligible presence of noise. S-Video connection.
pic #2
3. 480i, "fake" widescreen mode -- frames drawn at 640x360, with letterbox drawn-in by game system. More loss of defintion, more loss of saturation. Noise is noticeable, dot-crawl is noticeable in-motion. RCA composite video connection.
pic #3
4. 480i, "fake" widescreen mode -- frames drawn at 640x360, with letterbox drawn-in by game system. More loss of defintion, more loss of saturation. Significant noise increase. Coaxial cable connection.
pic #4
Wow that is cool, too bad I can hardly notice much difference
. The game still looks quite impressive graphically even in the lower resolutions. I'm going to have to get each of those pics and put them side by side.
Post by: Smash_Brother on August 15, 2006, 08:38:57 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: VGrevolution What is qute funny about that is from what I hear the game that flaunts around the hundreds of enemies (99 Nights) has tremendous slowdown. Nothing more satisfying than fighting hordes of enemies while your gameplay slows to slideshow quality, so long live the "next generation" of graphics!
I've played the demo: the entire game consists of mashing the X button and dodging arrows (for some reason, the only thing that can REALLY hurt you)...just like Mystic Heroes and Dynasty Warrior before it.
...Except 99 Nights has a cute little mage, ensuring a lot of Xbox gamers will buy it just for the hope of a panty shot at some point in the game.
Hell, there's ALMOST one in the promo picture.
Post by: BigJim on August 15, 2006, 09:11:11 AM
The pictures were taken on an ATI All-in-Wonder x1900. (The AIW x1900 card has the rough equivalent horsepower to x1800's, but with more pipelines). The photos were exported directly from the game and I made no alterations.
Below, the first shot was taken in 12x7 HD with all effects that the card allows on their highest recommended settings for the card. My LCD monitor doesn't support a full 1080, so I couldn't get "full" HD for a would-be PS3 comparison. So it's roughly 360's 720p.
For the second shot, if you want to fairly see what it looks like on a TV screen you have to blow it up to full screen. Settings are on low/medium.
1280x720 HD Effects on highest recommended settings for card.
640x480 SD Effects on low/medium settings.
And before anybody freaks out about "OMG low/medium settings for teh Wii you hat3r!" There's no chance the Wii has the same horsepower but just happens to lack HD... but I also did grabs of another scene, with details on high for both, anyway. Just in case you're one living in that fantasy.
1280x720 HD Effects on highest recommended settings for card.
640x480 SD Effects also on highest for card.
Draw your own conclusions, I was just curious myself to see what the difference would look like side-by-side.
Post by: Kairon on August 15, 2006, 09:26:50 AM
I can't get the widescreen shots the same size as the sd shots to compare them, and the comp I'm on virtually guarantees a loss of quality due to resizing such that the SD looks infinitely better than the widescreen.
But aside from a little blurrier wall textures in MGS4 and the urge to adjust my tv/monitor's color, I seriously am unable to tell any meaningful difference between all those shots.
~Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: BigJim on August 15, 2006, 09:57:31 AM
Resizing in either direction results in loss or noise that wouldn't replicate in the real-world. HD shots the same size as SD defies the purpose of HD. Heh.
But subjectively speaking, since I am here jumping back and forth between an in-game 640x480 and a resized to full-screen 640x480 image (2 computers on an KVM switch), while not exact, the flaws are apparent. The quality difference is clear in comparison to a full screen HD shot.
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on August 15, 2006, 11:16:27 AM
I also minimize glare in my room and tend to work at night time, making dark images on my monitor stand out better.
And I often stare 10-in from the screen when i examine details.
Setting one's resolution to 640x480 can help highlight the differences between the MGS4 shots.
Looking at shrunken 640x480 screens in a 1024x768 desktop isn't fair to SDTVs.
Post by: JonLeung on August 15, 2006, 01:18:24 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Professional 666
And I often stare 10-in from the screen when i examine details.
Would these "details" happen to be like, certain parts of Daisy? Hmmm?
Er...I mean, like Daisy's third eye. Yeah. Aheh.
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on August 15, 2006, 02:05:45 PM
Post by: Ceric on August 15, 2006, 03:05:58 PM
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on August 15, 2006, 04:54:01 PM
Any games come to mind?
Do you want to see aweful-playstation-style-i-can't-grow-out-of-the-SNES-era-RPG text?
Or do you want to see clean stylish text like you would get from Zelda or Tales of Symphonia?
Post by: nemo_83 on August 15, 2006, 04:54:25 PM
I believe Miyamoto when he says that the next Zelda (after TP) will be a drastic departure from the format we have become accustomed to in 3D Zeldas. I think they are going to strip away a lot of stuff, simplify the title (get ready for another Wind Waker type shock moment), and push the remote to its limits.
On 360 games not playing any different from last gen. Well, no ****. It's the same damn controller.
Microsoft has been talking about making a new controller (think Halo 3 bundle), and the fans are afraid it will fracture the 360 market.
Post by: Ceric on August 15, 2006, 05:50:43 PM
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on August 15, 2006, 10:24:24 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: nemo_83
On Zelda's controls on Wii; ultimately, I will have to play it to know what works and what doesn't. The fishing seems pretty common sense, but the nunchuck's sensors are nothing compared to the remote's so I have no idea why they want to use the remote for shield attacks and the nunchuck for triggering sword attacks. The nunchuck functionality is just a fancy way of pressing a button.
I believe Miyamoto when he says that the next Zelda (after TP) will be a drastic departure from the format we have become accustomed to in 3D Zeldas. I think they are going to strip away a lot of stuff, simplify the title (get ready for another Wind Waker type shock moment), and push the remote to its limits.
On 360 games not playing any different from last gen. Well, no ****. It's the same damn controller.
Microsoft has been talking about making a new controller (think Halo 3 bundle), and the fans are afraid it will fracture the 360 market.
I think those of us who said that the games aren't playing any different on Xbox 360 meant gameplay not the controller, there has been little in the way of innovation and instead the same old gameplay formulas (which still can be alot of fun, but nothing has struck me as true "next-gen" gameplay).
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on August 15, 2006, 10:25:39 PM
Post by: nemo_83 on August 15, 2006, 11:36:51 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: VGrevolutionQuote
Originally posted by: nemo_83
On Zelda's controls on Wii; ultimately, I will have to play it to know what works and what doesn't. The fishing seems pretty common sense, but the nunchuck's sensors are nothing compared to the remote's so I have no idea why they want to use the remote for shield attacks and the nunchuck for triggering sword attacks. The nunchuck functionality is just a fancy way of pressing a button.
I believe Miyamoto when he says that the next Zelda (after TP) will be a drastic departure from the format we have become accustomed to in 3D Zeldas. I think they are going to strip away a lot of stuff, simplify the title (get ready for another Wind Waker type shock moment), and push the remote to its limits.
On 360 games not playing any different from last gen. Well, no ****. It's the same damn controller.
Microsoft has been talking about making a new controller (think Halo 3 bundle), and the fans are afraid it will fracture the 360 market.
I think those of us who said that the games aren't playing any different meant gameplay not the controller, there has been little in the way of innovation and instead the same old gameplay formulas (which still can be alot of fun, but nothing has struck me as true "next-gen" gameplay).
The smaller simulations in Nintendo's Wii Sports are what I believe are the beginnings of next gen gameplay. I just want those kind of straight forward control models coupled with epic game design. For example, Knights, using the remote to fly like the Airplane demo from E3 or a first person Star Wars where you reflect laser blasts with your saber using the remote like a raquet.
Bigger games like Metroid need to be simplified to work with the remote. Could the grappling beam not simply be built into the right arm? Could we not just get in Samus' ship, grab the flight stick and have some fun? The fewer commands they try and cram in there the fewer buttons needed and the less we have to think about the controller. The nunchuck sensors only complicate things giving players another mechanic they are not accustomed to. If I were making a shooter, one hand would hold a nude remote and one hand would hold a small pistol shell with a remote plugged in.
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on August 16, 2006, 12:24:57 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: nemo_83Quote
Originally posted by: VGrevolutionQuote
Originally posted by: nemo_83
On Zelda's controls on Wii; ultimately, I will have to play it to know what works and what doesn't. The fishing seems pretty common sense, but the nunchuck's sensors are nothing compared to the remote's so I have no idea why they want to use the remote for shield attacks and the nunchuck for triggering sword attacks. The nunchuck functionality is just a fancy way of pressing a button.
I believe Miyamoto when he says that the next Zelda (after TP) will be a drastic departure from the format we have become accustomed to in 3D Zeldas. I think they are going to strip away a lot of stuff, simplify the title (get ready for another Wind Waker type shock moment), and push the remote to its limits.
On 360 games not playing any different from last gen. Well, no ****. It's the same damn controller.
Microsoft has been talking about making a new controller (think Halo 3 bundle), and the fans are afraid it will fracture the 360 market.
That sounds pretty neat, it would be great if NIntendo included a second Wiimote so companies will not be afraid to try that out!
I think those of us who said that the games aren't playing any different meant gameplay not the controller, there has been little in the way of innovation and instead the same old gameplay formulas (which still can be alot of fun, but nothing has struck me as true "next-gen" gameplay).
The smaller simulations in Nintendo's Wii Sports are what I believe are the beginnings of next gen gameplay. I just want those kind of straight forward control models coupled with epic game design. For example, Knights, using the remote to fly like the Airplane demo from E3 or a first person Star Wars where you reflect laser blasts with your saber using the remote like a raquet.
Bigger games like Metroid need to be simplified to work with the remote. Could the grappling beam not simply be built into the right arm? Could we not just get in Samus' ship, grab the flight stick and have some fun? The fewer commands they try and cram in there the fewer buttons needed and the less we have to think about the controller. The nunchuck sensors only complicate things giving players another mechanic they are not accustomed to. If I were making a shooter, one hand would hold a nude remote and one hand would hold a small pistol shell with a remote plugged in.
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on August 16, 2006, 07:26:53 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: VGrevolution
Pro do you think you could possible make a set of screens like 1080i, 720p, and 420p side by side so you can compare the difference?
It's "480p". There is no 420p.
I don't know of any modern game that runs in 1080i that actually takes advantage of the resolution. GT4 doesn't count.
And using a "side by side" comparison is flawed unless you had several monitors with the same screen dimensions running at the different resolutions. You need to show how the *smaller* pixels on the *same* viewing space make the difference. Otherwise, showing 1080 and 720 and 480 next to each other with same-sized pixels will only show that "hey, 480 is smaller than 720 is smaller than 1080".
Post by: Smash_Brother on August 16, 2006, 08:22:21 AM
You'd sell a lot of hardcore gamers as well as anime fans with that one alone.
Post by: Ceric on August 16, 2006, 09:23:15 AM
Post by: wandering on August 16, 2006, 10:05:48 AM
Quote
The nunchuck sensors only complicate things giving players another mechanic they are not accustomed to.
But once we become accustomed to it, I think said games will be easier for muscle memory related reasons. 'Move your left hand to the right' is easier to remember than 'push x while holding L and R'.
edit: spelling
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on August 16, 2006, 10:49:41 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Professional 666Quote
Originally posted by: VGrevolution
Pro do you think you could possible make a set of screens like 1080i, 720p, and 420p side by side so you can compare the difference?
It's "480p". There is no 420p.
I don't know of any modern game that runs in 1080i that actually takes advantage of the resolution. GT4 doesn't count.
And using a "side by side" comparison is flawed unless you had several monitors with the same screen dimensions running at the different resolutions. You need to show how the *smaller* pixels on the *same* viewing space make the difference. Otherwise, showing 1080 and 720 and 480 next to each other with same-sized pixels will only show that "hey, 480 is smaller than 720 is smaller than 1080".
Ah ok, sorry for the typo I meant 480p
.
Post by: Ceric on August 16, 2006, 12:44:40 PM
Yeah...
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on August 16, 2006, 12:50:36 PM
can't beat that. this is a message board. this is truth.
Post by: Ceric on August 16, 2006, 12:54:41 PM
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on August 16, 2006, 12:59:57 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Ceric
Cubetoons about Normal Mapping (Level 32)
Yeah...
Lol that is hilarious and sadly seems very close to truth as well.
Post by: nemo_83 on August 16, 2006, 02:27:00 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: wandering
'Move your left hand to the right' is easier to remember than 'push x while holding L and R'.
I've never been a fan of "push x while holding L" control setups to do something but I'd still rather streamline the game so each hand has a remote (one able to toggle between of the left hand of the character and free camera control, and the other remote always controlling the right hand of the character). The nunchuck can't do that.
Post by: ShyGuy on August 16, 2006, 03:53:13 PM
Post by: IceCold on August 16, 2006, 08:03:44 PM
QuoteWell, I'd assume that it would be very hard to control the remote with your non-dominant hand..
Originally posted by: Smash_Brother
I've always loved the idea of wielding dual Wiimotes and having your thumbs on the D-pads of each, controlling your lateral movement with the left one, your view of the screen with the right one (turning left/right and looking up/down) and then using both controllers as if they were guns.
You'd sell a lot of hardcore gamers as well as anime fans with that one alone.
Post by: 31 Flavas on August 16, 2006, 09:48:09 PM
QuoteGo back a couple of comics and read the "before and after" E3 comic
Originally posted by: VGrevolution
Lol that is hilarious and sadly seems very close to truth as well.
Post by: Ceric on August 17, 2006, 02:36:39 PM
lol... I hadn't seen Bonus Level 7
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on August 17, 2006, 05:15:55 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Ceric
Baten Kaitos comes to mind and Tales of Symphony. I was going to mention them but I didn't want stifle you. Baten Kaitos I played through going from my HDTV to a SDTV with Coaxial and I found the text very hard to read on the SD. I know Coaxial is the worse connection but you gave an example of it and I thought maybe if I had something I could reference it to that I've experienced before...
I have a new batch of comparison pics coming up. But first, are you using a GameCube RF Adapter directly between GC and the TV? Or, are you routing the GC thru a VCR or other modulator first?
Post by: nemo_83 on August 17, 2006, 07:49:04 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: ShyGuy
How would you move your feet?
Either a dpad or the stick on a pistol shell.
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on August 18, 2006, 09:52:44 PM
Global Assumptions: NTSC 720x480, 640x480 drawing canvas, 4:3 (fullscreen) ratio, No 16:9 (widescreen) mode
===Simulations
RED STEEL: Most screens released have an unusually large resolution. Is Ubisoft lying to us like they did last generation? I don't know. But if there's a chance Red Steel does operate at a higher-than-standard resolution, there's a possibility we can benefit from decent anti-aliasing after downscaling.
480p, As you would see it on TV:
Red Steel 1
Red Steel 2
Red Steel 3
Red Steel 4
ZELDA: TWILIGHT PRINCESS GCN: How I expect the GCN version to look, running at a normal rez with no anti-aliasing like previous 480p games.
480p, As you would see it on TV:
Twilight Princess 1
Twilight Princess 2
===Direct Screen Captures
Here are legit samples of S-Video VS. RCA(composite) VS. Coaxial(RF) I made. Here are my connection schemes:
Svid: GameCube(S-Video) ~To~ Vidcap Hardware
-- The best I can do. A hint of color bleeding present makes it a couple steps short of 480p quality.
RCA: GameCube(RCA) ~To~ Vidcap Hardware
-- Loss of saturation. A shimmering scanline pattern causes the "dot crawl" phenomenon along object edges (noticeable in-person).
Coax: GameCube(RCA) ~To~ VCR(coaxial) ~To~ Vidcap Hardware
-- Even less saturation. Substantial noise present in addition to dot crawl. Rapidly moving noise makes the image blurrier in-person than what is in the screen shot.
I do not have a GameCube RF Adapter.
Zelda: Wind Waker: Good game to demonstrate even shades of colors, plus show the effects on text.
Wind Waker Coax
Wind Waker RCA
Wind Waker Svid
Tales of Symphonia: More text plus cleavage.
Tales Coax
Tales RCA
Tales Svid
Resident Evil 4: A last-gen game with lots of polygons and carefully drawn textures given its console's limitations.
RE4 Cutscene Coax
RE4 Cutscene RCA
RE4 Cutscene Svid
RE4 Gameplay Coax
RE4 Gameplay RCA
RE4 Gameplay Svid
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on August 18, 2006, 09:58:38 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Professional 666
More comparisons.
Global Assumptions: NTSC 720x480, 640x480 drawing canvas, 4:3 (fullscreen) ratio, No 16:9 (widescreen) mode
===Simulations
RED STEEL: Most screens released have an unusually large resolution. Is Ubisoft lying to us like they did last generation? I don't know. But if there's a chance Red Steel does operate at a higher-than-standard resolution, there's a possibility we can benefit from decent anti-aliasing after downscaling.
480p, As you would see it on TV:
Red Steel 1
Red Steel 2
Red Steel 3
Red Steel 4
ZELDA: TWILIGHT PRINCESS GCN: How I expect the GCN version to look, running at a normal rez with no anti-aliasing like previous 480p games.
480p, As you would see it on TV:
Twilight Princess 1
Twilight Princess 2
===Direct Screen Captures
Here are legit samples of S-Video VS. RCA(composite) VS. Coaxial(RF) I made. Here are my connection schemes:
Svid: GameCube(S-Video) ~To~ Vidcap Hardware
-- The best I can do. A hint of color bleeding present makes it a couple steps short of 480p quality.
RCA: GameCube(RCA) ~To~ Vidcap Hardware
-- Loss of saturation. A shimmering scanline pattern causes the "dot crawl" phenomenon along object edges (noticeable in-person).
Coax: GameCube(RCA) ~To~ VCR(coaxial) ~To~ Vidcap Hardware
-- Even less saturation. Substantial noise present in addition to dot crawl. Rapidly moving noise makes the image blurrier in-person than what is in the screen shot.
I do not have a GameCube RF Adapter.
Zelda: Wind Waker: Good game to demonstrate even shades of colors, plus show the effects on text.
Wind Waker Coax
Wind Waker RCA
Wind Waker Svid
Tales of Symphonia: More text plus cleavage.
Tales Coax
Tales RCA
Tales Svid
Resident Evil 4: A last-gen game with lots of polygons and carefully drawn textures given its console's limitations.
RE4 Cutscene Coax
RE4 Cutscene RCA
RE4 Cutscene Svid
RE4 Gameplay Coax
RE4 Gameplay RCA
RE4 Gameplay Svid
Once again, thanks for such awesome comparisons. I hope Red Steel looks like those pics in your link because it looks quite stunning!
Post by: Berto2K on August 18, 2006, 10:07:17 PM
Post by: Deguello on August 19, 2006, 02:52:22 AM
Post by: Ceric on August 19, 2006, 04:44:58 AM
Through I am going to ask. No component? Not complaining. I'm sure you just don't have the equipment, it's expensive.
Great work! I'll probably refer to this thread different times.
Post by: SixthAngel on August 19, 2006, 06:30:21 AM
I bet that if someone here took an xbox360 game people hadn't heard of and posted it on anyboard claiming to be a Wii game it would get negative feedback about the graphics simply because people expect it to be that way.
Post by: BigJim on August 19, 2006, 10:23:03 AM
Post by: Ceric on August 19, 2006, 10:55:58 AM
But dang. I didn't know much about Lost Planet. Those are some nice looking screenshots.
Post by: AnyoneEB on August 19, 2006, 12:19:19 PM
Berto2K: How does the D-terminal hookup to your LCD work? I ran across a couple sites selling those when I was looking for a reasonably priced GCN component cable recently.
Post by: JonLeung on August 20, 2006, 05:49:30 AM
Good RE4 shots of Ada, there. <3
Post by: AnyoneEB on August 20, 2006, 05:55:01 AM
Post by: Berto2K on August 20, 2006, 09:11:27 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: AnyoneEB
Berto2K: How does the D-terminal hookup to your LCD work? I ran across a couple sites selling those when I was looking for a reasonably priced GCN component cable recently.
You will most likely have to get a gender adapter from you local computer store or Radio Shack which should run you a couple bucks. But it goes from the digital out on the cube, the the VGA input on my monitor. Thankfully my LCD has a DVI and VGA input so that I can leave my computer on and just switch the input selector.
Quote
Originally posted by: JonLeung
But wait, Pro, what about images of GameCube games using Component Output? I use that. I thought that was the best, but you don't even have that in your comparison! Or am I mixing that up with something else you already put up there?
Good RE4 shots of Ada, there. <3
I belive Pro is capturing through his computer hardware, of which I don't thinkg he has component connections for with his hardware. But yes, you are right, component is the highest quality option.
Post by: Athrun Zala on August 20, 2006, 06:45:46 PM
Quote....oO....
Originally posted by: Berto2KQuote
Originally posted by: AnyoneEB
Berto2K: How does the D-terminal hookup to your LCD work? I ran across a couple sites selling those when I was looking for a reasonably priced GCN component cable recently.
You will most likely have to get a gender adapter from you local computer store or Radio Shack which should run you a couple bucks. But it goes from the digital out on the cube, the the VGA input on my monitor. Thankfully my LCD has a DVI and VGA input so that I can leave my computer on and just switch the input selector.
the D-Terminal cable has a VGA connector?
Post by: Berto2K on August 20, 2006, 07:05:02 PM
Its this cable here http://www.play-asia.com/paOS-13-71-24-49-en-70-ll.html.
Post by: AnyoneEB on August 20, 2006, 08:20:26 PM
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on August 20, 2006, 08:28:10 PM
Notice around Ada's collar and left shoulder that the pixels aren't "perfectly" crisp. And on the shoulder there's a glow of color along the edge, and it's not bloom lighting. That's color bleeding, and its effect all over the screen is what still gives the S-Video shots a SMIDGEN of SOFTNESS. A SMIDGEN.
Ada Wong Svid (same as prev)
A component video connection won't (should not) cause bleeding. At 480p (and progressive scan in general), pixels would be well-defined and all the intended color would be displayed, as if your PC was generating the raw images and displaying it on your non-interlaced monitor. When I say RAW I mean the original image frame that's generated before it undergoes any sort of TV-image conversion that a console would shove it thru.
Nintendo sucked at making screenshots throughout the Cube life cycle. Their poor screenshots fueled misconceptions, kept them from becoming good liars, and limited their hype potential. About once a year Nintendo was able to release a handful of high-quality, raw screen shots.
These are official GameCube screens Nintendo released as press material years ago. They're RAW and unscaled (running at their real-life resolutions, not like phony high-rez Electronic Arts PS2 shots), which means this IS how they would appear on a TV running on a component(480p) connection. The pixels are well-defined, with no softening/bleeding. Compare this to the RE4 Svid shot.
RE4 Gameplay Svid (same as prev)
Final Fantasy: Crystal Chronicles 1 - 480p
Final Fantasy: Crystal Chronicles 2 - 480p
Final Fantasy: Crystal Chronicles 3 - 480p
Metroid Prime 2: Echoes 1 - 480p
Metroid Prime 2: Echoes 2 - 480p
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on August 21, 2006, 07:48:09 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Professional 666
If I had component/480p capture hardware, I'd provide legit, controlled examples. It'd be possible to do it with simply a GameCube devkit. Either way, they're both similarly priced -- god awful.
Notice around Ada's collar and left shoulder that the pixels aren't "perfectly" crisp. And on the shoulder there's a glow of color along the edge, and it's not bloom lighting. That's color bleeding, and its effect all over the screen is what still gives the S-Video shots a SMIDGEN of SOFTNESS. A SMIDGEN.
Ada Wong Svid (same as prev)
A component video connection won't (should not) cause bleeding. At 480p (and progressive scan in general), pixels would be well-defined and all the intended color would be displayed, as if your PC was generating the raw images and displaying it on your non-interlaced monitor. When I say RAW I mean the original image frame that's generated before it undergoes any sort of TV-image conversion that a console would shove it thru.
Nintendo sucked at making screenshots throughout the Cube life cycle. Their poor screenshots fueled misconceptions, kept them from becoming good liars, and limited their hype potential. About once a year Nintendo was able to release a handful of high-quality, raw screen shots.
These are official GameCube screens Nintendo released as press material years ago. They're RAW and unscaled (running at their real-life resolutions, not like phony high-rez Electronic Arts PS2 shots), which means this IS how they would appear on a TV running on a component(480p) connection. The pixels are well-defined, with no softening/bleeding. Compare this to the RE4 Svid shot.
RE4 Gameplay Svid (same as prev)
Final Fantasy: Crystal Chronicles 1 - 480p
Final Fantasy: Crystal Chronicles 2 - 480p
Final Fantasy: Crystal Chronicles 3 - 480p
Metroid Prime 2: Echoes 1 - 480p
Metroid Prime 2: Echoes 2 - 480p
I always considered that a fresh approach about Nintendo, they always seemed to avoid exagerrating whether it be their screen shots or the system specs.
Post by: JonLeung on August 21, 2006, 04:35:15 PM
I could stare at Ada all day in component output. <3 <3 <3
I do find it stupid that with all these options available, the component output cable for the GameCube was pretty much only available via Nintendo's web site. Even if they didn't think enough people would use it to make it worth having in stores, they really should've pushed the fact that it was an option (except for the newer-model GameCubes which supposedly don't have that).
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on August 21, 2006, 05:57:58 PM
Post by: JonLeung on August 21, 2006, 06:21:24 PM
But if you ever want to post more pics of Ada, I'm all for it.
Post by: Athrun Zala on August 21, 2006, 09:09:43 PM
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on August 27, 2006, 02:26:15 PM
By Squeak
If Nintendo (and the engineers at IBM and ATI) are clever and cut just the right corners and cheat in just the right places, it *should* be possible for Wii to output comparable graphics to at least 360.
Here’s why (among other things): One of the aspects of graphics, where the diminishing returns of increasing power, is most apparent is with regards to resolution.
320×240 looks a lot better than the legobrick resolution of the Atari 2600. 480i/p looks quite a bit better than 320×240, but not quite the aforementioned leap.
720p without AA looks a *little* better than 480p.
But, 480p with good AA and all effects on, actually looks better than a game where a lot of the power has gone towards achieving the high HD resolution.
720p takes up 3x the bandwidth, 3x the memory and 3x the fillrate of 480p, but it doesn’t look 3x better at all.
Even if Hollywood (the Wii VPU) is only half the overall speed of xenos, it would still be faster at filling it’s smaller resolution with similar quality pixels.
The CPU is a different story.
The CPUs major tasks are
- Keeping track of the gameworld
- Transforming geometry
- Physics
- AI
First of, there’s seemingly an awful long way from a singlecore 700-1000Mhz processor to a triple core 3,2Ghz processor.
For general purpose stuff though, access to memory as fast (low latency) as 1T SRAM, coupled with a healthy cache (at least 256kb) means that the CPU can be feed data continuously without having to stall all the time, waiting for the relevant “random” piece of data.
An important factor is also how much helper logic (OoOe and branch prediction etc.) the Broadway has, something which ms and sony has chosen not to have so much of in their CPUs.
Geometry transformation is of course done to a large degree on the geometry engine of the VPU, which can be fixed hardware and with very high polycount, or flexible but with less polygons per second.
ms and Sony chose the latter.
If Nintendo has a fixed geometry engine (like in the GC) it should be able to throw a lot of geometry around coupled with a CPU that’s good at floating point calc, for the more demanding geometry tasks.
In other words you won’t be getting pervasively destructible environments and models mapped with particles on the Wii, but comparable geometry complexity overall.
The CPU is also used for physics, something which can be very important for gameplay.
It would really be a clever move, to have a small part of either the Hollywood or Broadway dedicated to a physics processor, like it has been hinted by some developers in interviews.
Like geometry, physics calculations has characteristics that are very suited for implementing, at least partly, in fixed hardware, making it run cool and fast but of course losing some of the flexibility.
The last point, AI, isn’t suited for hardware implementation, but in the usual way of implementing it, it depends entirely on general-purpose power. What’s more, AI is one of the smallest posts on the CPU time allocation table.
Branching, scripted behaviour and not “genuine” AI, is still by far the most common way to do AI.
And then lastly to memory:
How much memory is really needed for impressive visuals? Well, that depends entirely on what you mean by impressive. But let me just point out that half of Wiis supposed memory size of ~100Mb is enough for 400 512×512 textures. More than I have ever seen any console game use in a single level!
If the drive is fast enough (as fast or faster than the GC one) it should be a relatively easy to use the DVD as a kind of very slow virtual memory.
Post by: BigJim on August 27, 2006, 04:35:14 PM
The game output is speaking for itself. 360 is more powerful and the games thus far are demonstrating it. Some folks just have to resign to that fact and stop with the defense scenarios.
Post by: Infernal Monkey on August 27, 2006, 05:57:28 PM
Post by: BranDonk Kong on August 27, 2006, 07:20:26 PM
Post by: Adrock on August 27, 2006, 08:58:12 PM
1. Nintendo tends to underscore their console's capabilities.
2. Art direction > Raw Graphics (i.e. Okami on the technically inferior PS2)
3. Sans HD ---> Cheaper, easier development ---> 3rd parties more likely to take a chance on Wii ---> More support ---> I benefit.
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on August 27, 2006, 10:02:33 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Infernal Monkey
Take anything you read on GoNintendo with an entire bag of salt. So much salt that you risk instant death. GoNintendo's slowly killing themselves by allowing anyone at all to get their five minutes of shame with horrible lies and insider janitor information.
Well this was a poster and I thought I would see what you guys had to say about it. Like I've said before I'm not really that impressed with 360's visuals, at least when it comes to first generation and I see no reason why Wii can't at least get close to matching the visual quality of first generation games on Xbox 360.
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on August 28, 2006, 07:56:06 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Brandogg
Shouldn't the "480" screens be in 720x480(WS)?
Not at all. Go back and read my display conditions/assumptions. Carefully.
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on November 18, 2006, 07:29:02 AM
They both run at 30fps.
PS3 isn't as strong as I thought.
PHAIL.
