Post by: the_zombie_luke on November 20, 2003, 10:09:17 AM
I really think that Nintendo is different in that regard. It seems like Retro made sure to get the gameplay and jumping down first in MP, before worrying about the engine. That's the way it should be. Geist doesn't look that great, but I really think that Nintendo and N-Space are tuning the gameplay first. If every developer would stop pushing "rag doll physics" and bump mapping, or any of their graphic PR we would be playing much better games. I'll still never forget the day when I chanced upon the new graphics of Prime. They looked so beautiful, and then I got the game, and the gameplay held up just as well. It was my first Metroid game, and I am grateful Nintendo and their second parties still push gameplay.
Post by: Ian Sane on November 20, 2003, 10:32:49 AM
This is somewhat unrelated but most screenshots that Nintendo themselves make often look terrible. Look at any screenshots in a Nintendo ad or on a game box and they rarely look as good as the ones that a web site like IGN will take themselves while playing. I remember when Nintendo released the first official screens for Super Mario Sunshine and everybody thought the game looked terrible because Nintendo's screenshots made it look jaggy and blurry.
I agree that gameplay is more important than graphics but at the same time I think Nintendo has to step up a bit in the graphics department. While games like Metroid Prime, Eternal Darkness, and SSBM look amazing most of the Cube Mario games look really bland and need to be polished a bit. The current Mario graphics don't look bad they just look lazy like Nintendo just went for the bare minimum. They just aren't using the Cube's graphics to the full potential. Mario for example should at the very least have pockets on his pants since he had them in Super Mario World.
Another presentation feature that Nintendo really needs to work on is sound and music. The sound effects in most of their games sound the same as they did on the N64. The N64 is an older console and is a cartridge based system. There's no excuse for an opitical disc based system with better sound capabilities to be using the same sound effects. Retro and Silicon Knights make use of the Cube's sound capabilities so EAD should too.
While gameplay is the most important part of a game I like the presentation and graphics to be good too. There's no rule that says you can't have both. Metroid Prime has both and it rocks so there's no reason why other Nintendo games aren't the same way.
Post by: the_zombie_luke on November 20, 2003, 11:07:09 AM
Post by: Bill Aurion on November 20, 2003, 11:12:26 AM
QuoteDoes that make the game any less fun? I know it didn't for me...
Originally posted by: the_zombie_luke
Super Mario Sunshine is underwhelming in the graphics department.
Post by: mouse_clicker on November 20, 2003, 11:14:46 AM
Aside, though, I completely agree with Ian- I'm so sick and tired of people saying graphics don't matter, and gameplay is the only thing that has any importance. Yes, gameplay is by far the most important, but just because you have good gameplay doesn't mean you HAVE to have bad graphics- it's like how everyone assumes handicapped people are nice. Graphics go a long way towards drawing you into the game's world, to take from your living room staring at your TV to actually being in the game, fending off enemies. Graphics set the tone and mood for the game, and can greatly heighten how you feel about certain characters or scenes. Gameplay is indeed the most important aspect of a game, since a bad game with good graphics is still a bad game, but a lot of people downplay the role that graphics do play in a game. The best games find a perfect harmony of stellar gameplay and extraordinary graphics, like Metroid Prime, Eternal Darkness, or Wind Waker.
Post by: Ian Sane on November 20, 2003, 11:35:41 AM
Oddly enough I don't really complain about Animal Crossing's graphics. I felt it fit the game pretty well. Higher resolution textures would have been nice but the blocky polygons fit pretty good.
"Does that make the game any less fun? I know it didn't for me..."
It does. Well it does for me anyway. mouse_clicker summed it up perfectly: "Graphics go a long way towards drawing you into the game's world, to take from your living room staring at your TV to actually being in the game, fending off enemies." The disappointing graphics in SMS made it harder for me to be excited about the world I was in. I need a few "wow! Look at that!" moments in a game to really enjoy it.
Post by: the_zombie_luke on November 20, 2003, 12:02:37 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: mouse_clicker
Graphics go a long way towards drawing you into the game's world, to take from your living room staring at your TV to actually being in the game, fending off enemies. Graphics set the tone and mood for the game, and can greatly heighten how you feel about certain characters or scenes. Gameplay is indeed the most important aspect of a game, since a bad game with good graphics is still a bad game, but a lot of people downplay the role that graphics do play in a game. The best games find a perfect harmony of stellar gameplay and extraordinary graphics, like Metroid Prime, Eternal Darkness, or Wind Waker.
But a game's graphics will not hold up as well as the gameplay ten years down the line. I didn't say graphics weren't important, I was just saying that many developers care more about graphics than gameplay. Nintendo does put gameplay over graphics, and that's the best way to go. Some companies, like Square, put too much emphasis on graphics, and you get a cut scene fest. That's really fun!
Just because NES games have bad graphics today, doesn't mean they aren't as good as today's games. I'll take awesome gameplay any day of the week.
Post by: the_zombie_luke on November 20, 2003, 12:07:38 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: mouse_clicker
I thought SMS looked magnificent, especially in the water effects (possibly the best in a game yet). Sure, it could've looked better in some place, but "underwhelming" is most definitely not the term I'd use for it. Animal Crossing had underwhelming graphics, but then again after 10 minutes you didn't care what it looked like, it was so fun.
How can you say that about Animal Crossing? It's an N64 port! I actually enjoyed the graphics, and the music is awesome.
Post by: Ian Sane on November 20, 2003, 12:26:14 PM
Yes but the best NES games often looked amazing for the time period. I'm well aware that graphics always change but they still should be at the time of release as good as possible. Super Mario 64 doesn't look great now but it looked amazing when it came out. I can't say the same about most of the Cube Mario titles. In the longrun gameplay is much more important but for when the game is current there's no excuse for it to not have solid graphics and presentation. Within a year of release is when most people play a game anyway so it should look good for that period of time.
Plus realistically graphics aren't going to get much better than they are now so I imagine the graphics in some of today's games will hold up for much longer. Many classic SNES games match up pretty well against modern 2D games. I imagine it will be similar for Cube games.
Post by: GoldShadow1 on November 20, 2003, 01:58:46 PM
That's interesting.. I remember completely drooling over what meager portions of Metroid Prime goodness I could get (E3 2001, I think).
"Plus realistically graphics aren't going to get much better than they are now"
I disagree - I think the next generation will be the last big improvement on graphics for most games. I mean, sure, GameCube games generally look good, but they could look better. Watch the mechs vs. sentinels battle of Matrix Revolutions - eventually games will look that good. Though personally I would prefer to stick with the hardware we have and simply come up with better games.. *sigh*
Post by: the_zombie_luke on November 20, 2003, 02:03:47 PM
Post by: Shadow Link on November 20, 2003, 02:24:19 PM
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on November 20, 2003, 02:30:51 PM
Funny how that Samus model, HUD, and environment aren't in the final game.
This is what early screens SHOULD'VE looked like:
http://www.metroid.jp/prime/s_shot/s_shot03.html
...nice frame capture directly from within video memory. For some odd reason, many Nintendo screen caps aren't acquired this way. Instead, they use video capture cards to take pictures AFTER the raw video stream has been converted to a TV-formatted stream (insert blur, insert clarity loss, etc).
I've also noticed the U.S. Metroid Prime site is needlessly complicated compared to the Japanese site, and I don't even read Japanese! Why is it so hard to get "screens" "movies" and "gameplay info" there?!
Post by: WesDawg on November 20, 2003, 07:44:19 PM
I remember thinking that pretty often in SMS. Maybe I just have low standards, but when you platformed to the top of one of them huge poles, or that big seashell in the Bay level, and looked out across the huge world with the windmill or whatever reflecting off the water, it looked pretty nice I thought. Or running around in front of the hotel when it was all sunset. Some of it wasn't great. Inside the hotel, or the theme park, but for the most part I enjoyed it. The buildings weren't hugely advanced. I never looked to see Mario's pockets. The islanders had no individual personality to themselves at all. Overall, it was nice looking I thought. Not FFX or nothing, but I guess I don't really care if graphics are that good. Just that they're smooth and stick with the theme. The thought of a realistic Mario game starring Captain Lou Albano causes me great fear.
Post by: Masterchief on November 24, 2003, 02:53:06 PM
Gamecube=Fuzzy jaggies, not as bad as ps2 link(graphics got a 9)
cubey link this is one of the very few "realistic" looking games for the cube. makes you wonder if the cube cant handel photo realistic renderings...
PS2= Jaggy(once again graphics 9) ps2 screeny
and xbox = best, VERY few jaggies or graphical incapabilities xbox screeny
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on November 24, 2003, 03:29:36 PM
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on November 24, 2003, 03:31:53 PM
Post by: Masterchief on November 24, 2003, 03:32:33 PM
Post by: Masterchief on November 24, 2003, 03:33:57 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Professional 666
First you list Final Fantasy: Crystal Chronicles and Final Fantasy X-2, then you change them to Rogue Ops and Manhunt.
and i changes it because i wanted them all to be realistic, not cartoony or anything... its alot easier to render a cartoon rather than a realistic object.
Post by: mouse_clicker on November 24, 2003, 03:35:31 PM
Rogue Ops has jaggies on the Gamecube, eh? Check out this screen shot of Rogue Ops on the XBox:
Rogue Ops - XBox
Looking for a good "realistic" Gamecube game, done in real time with all effects? Check out Resident Evil 4. Keep in mind, this game is over a year from release.
Post by: Masterchief on November 24, 2003, 03:38:39 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: mouse_clicker
You're comparing Rogue Ops to Project Gotham 2? Are you mad? Have you forgotten the biggest factor in graphical quality is developer talent and effort? You're comparing a half assed multiplatform game (meaning it was made for the PS2 then ported to the Gamecube and XBox) to an XBox exclusive? Try comparing Project Gotham 2 to F-Zero Gx. I think you'll have a far better comparison there. Jesus.
If you you werent illiterate, I said I wanted to compare games that were realistic. but for your mentally handicapped pleasure, heres a screenshot of F-zero gx...
...link...
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on November 24, 2003, 03:44:02 PM
Post by: mouse_clicker on November 24, 2003, 03:46:23 PM
HERE'S a proper F-Zero picture to compare to a proper Project Gotham Racing 2 picture.
Also, anything to say on the XBox Rogue Ops picture I posted? Or maybe the RE4 picture?
Don't even get me STARTED on Splinter Cell- the game was develop from the ground up for the XBox. Shanghai Studios then (very badly) ported the game to the PS2, then ported it to the Gamecube from that. Don't even consider multiplatform games unless they were built from the ground up for each system, such as Soul Calibur 2 or Prince of Persia.
Post by: Masterchief on November 24, 2003, 03:48:16 PM
and still. hell yes for pgr2
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on November 24, 2003, 03:50:39 PM
Developers will often doctor their screen shots by taking a high-rez frame cap of the game running at say, 1024x768, then giving it a bilinear or bicubic downsize it to "tv size" 640x480. This "might" explain the jaggie difference between the pretty PGR2 Xbox screen and the Rogue Ops Xbox screen (provided that the jaggie appearance is not a result of the respective developers' capabilities).
This does occur with "development" screens for all 3 systems.
[... i'm not thru yet!...]
Post by: mouse_clicker on November 24, 2003, 03:51:07 PM
In response to that "hell yes", the cars look significantly worse in game (your original picture was not in game), although they still look good. There's far fewer cars on screen. F-Zero is running locked at 60 frames per second with 30 racers, a much more active backround, and actual physics. Shiny doesn't mean better. Besides, do we have to even get to Rogue Leader and Rebel Strike, which push more polygons with more effects at a higher frame rate than any other console game to date?
And what proof do you have the XBox is "the best"? I'm rather interested in that.
Post by: Masterchief on November 24, 2003, 03:53:22 PM
Edit= actally the in game graphics are not that great. There are better, but i choose pgr2 because its a standard xbox game
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on November 24, 2003, 03:56:35 PM
MouseClicker, that F-zero race shot was also a slightly poor choice cuz that screen was also downsized to 500-something width. That won't properly illustrate polygonal sharpness or edges...
...where was I...
sit tight, i'll look for some good screens...
Post by: Masterchief on November 24, 2003, 03:59:08 PM
Post by: mouse_clicker on November 24, 2003, 03:59:39 PM
Post by: Masterchief on November 24, 2003, 04:01:05 PM
Post by: mouse_clicker on November 24, 2003, 04:01:45 PM
Is this guy serious?
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on November 24, 2003, 04:05:10 PM
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on November 24, 2003, 04:11:22 PM
640x448 Star Wars Rebel Strike -- DEV SHOT
http://www.lucasarts.com/products/rebelstrike/screenshots/images/screenshot_15.jpg
(it's on a flash site, can't find direct page)
640x480 F-Zero GX -- DEV SHOT
http://media.cube.ign.com/media/480/480123/img_1760515.html
(I know it's not realistic, but it's hear to clear up the previous ones)
720x540 Resident Evil 4 -- NOT A DEV SHOT: a PAL direct-feed DV frame capture, conversion reduces overal clarity
http://www.capcom.co.jp/bio4/img/pic/bio09.jpg
Post by: mouse_clicker on November 24, 2003, 04:17:48 PM
In any case, you're a lot better at finding screenshots than I am, Professional, so I'll leave that task to do when the situation calls.
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on November 24, 2003, 04:17:56 PM
http://www.capcom.co.jp/bio4/img/pic/bio10.jpg
http://www.capcom.co.jp/bio4/img/pic/bio15.jpg
Anyway, what I was trying to say was if you're going to compare screens across platforms, they should be required the same way like via dev kits; via component video capture; via s-video capture.
If we made S-video video captures (like, for making quicktime or divx movies and stuff) of all these games, the frame image quality will all turn out like that of the Resi4 screen caps. Then we could judge under these conditions, for example.
Post by: manunited4eva22 on November 24, 2003, 04:26:36 PM
Post by: Berny on November 24, 2003, 04:28:57 PM
Post by: Bloodworth on November 24, 2003, 05:26:06 PM
