grandjedi6
Master of the Google Search
Hatorade said:
Matt knows alot and gossips like a schoolgirl
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
IGN Wii-k in Review (5/25/07)
- Thread starter ZealousD
- Start date
Matt knows alot and gossips like a schoolgirl
ghostlyjoe
Member
Hollywood_mIRC said:
No game has to be "vastly inferior" on the Wii. The Wii is a capable little machine in its own right, with a unique set of limitations. I think what we all want is games that take advantage of the Wii's resources as they are.
ghostlyjoe
Member
Amir0x said:
Calm down. We all know where you stand on "ambition" and graphics. The Wii is capable of good-looking games with engaging interactivity. Do you doubt that?
Eteric Rice
Member
Eh, 2 x is a nice chunk, really. Hell, if it wasn't, adding RAM to my PC would have been pointless.
It helps a lot, trust me.
EverQuest II tells me so.
It helps a lot, trust me.
EverQuest II tells me so.
Hollywood_mIRC
Banned
Hatorade said:
You are pointing out one company and saying no one topped it, exactly. Factor 5 made a good looking game, apparently even they couldn't top with RS3 - and it was a space action game. Not exactly a game design you have to push a lot of intensive effects - much in the same way Mario Galaxy is doing with the space background. Sure a lot of companies are really being lazy and sucking and just pushing crap over to make a buck - like Spider-man 3, and often times the other versions of the games weren't good either.
Games like SSX, Sonic, Manhunt 2, etc do not look bad by what the Wii can do. People act like they are being lazy that these completely different genre's of games and develoeprs do not looks like either a) Resident Evil 4 or b) Rogue Squadron .. or Nintendo's own games.
Bitching at cash ins like Spider-man 3 or other assorted ports is fine - but the former mentioned games are what you can expect, don't expect them to be awesome looking, they look about the same as what versions on GC/PS2 look like.
AzureNightmare
Banned
tetrisgrammaton said:
titiklabingapat
Member
To those still complaining about third party support, what are you guys talking about? It's only been six months and the announcements have already picked up.
March and April were very good to the Wii in terms of the volume of announcement. Most are still crappy, non-megaton games but it still illustrates the fact that publishers ARE noticing. It could be better, but mini E3 is just right around the corner.
It could only be better from here on out. Remember the old adage of install base>games>install base>games? Game announcements should pick up even faster from here on out. The argument used that sales just don't abruptly end for a leading console with momentum but snowballs applies to third party game support, me thinks.
March and April were very good to the Wii in terms of the volume of announcement. Most are still crappy, non-megaton games but it still illustrates the fact that publishers ARE noticing. It could be better, but mini E3 is just right around the corner.
It could only be better from here on out. Remember the old adage of install base>games>install base>games? Game announcements should pick up even faster from here on out. The argument used that sales just don't abruptly end for a leading console with momentum but snowballs applies to third party game support, me thinks.
Hollywood_mIRC said:
Eggebrecht disagrees big time
Stop using that BS argument to discredit a game that takes place in space vs a more terrain planetary environment not even worth as RL/RS have levels that take place on planets. A scene doing 20mil polys is still doing more 10milpolys despite what you try to say about how visuals work. By the way Rebel Strike is doing way more than other game did last gen for a variety of reasons.
Another argument you used which is BS is us griping about PS2 or GC ports. If the majority of GC games are PS2 multiplatform ports and PS2 could never run a game say RE4 like GC do see why most aren't interested in devs going this way? Let's be more fair PS2 can't do water and physics like wave race, can't do transparencies and lighting like luigi's mansion, can't do bump mapping or displacement maps like rouge, and it can't do texturing like star fox adventures all 1st generation gamecube games that still look better than ps2 port crap we see coming out in loads on Wii.
Eteric Rice
Member
Hatorade said:
Err, mind quoting the article. It's a premium feature I think.
Eteric Rice said:Err, mind quoting the article. It's a premium feature I think.
Crap forgot about that. It's 15 minute vid interview, more like a very long walk through of changes in rebel strike and what not. I could just post a self made transcript of what was said but I don't know how to format and if that's acceptable at the site.
Oblivion said:
That was exposure control (done by hand-placed triggers) and bloom. While HDR makes them easier to implement, those effects aren't HDR.
HDR means storing color values in the framebuffer without them being limited to the 0.0->1.0 range (you can have values like 1.5, 10.0, 1000.0 or even negative values).
This allows light to be represented a bit more realistically, but doesn't directly translates into in-your-face visual effects like normal mapping does.
The only way you can "see" the HDR in a game is during effects which modulate the light somehow (exposure changes, dark glass, reflections) or effects which happen due to overbright (bloom), but all of those can be faked somehow with situation-specific tweaks.
"SMT Series" was on a list from TGS 2005. Not exactly what I'd call a "formal announcement". And let me quote an interview with Kaneko from September 2006:ethelred said:
So, they actually wanted to make a MegaTen game for Wii even before they knew how well the system would perform compared to the PS3.
On hardware....
I have 0 tech knowledge, But i've accepted that any visual improvements on wii will be modest in most cases. Seeing how small the jump was with 360/ps3 even with 10x the power lets me know that any improvements won't be massive.
But still, I have a question for anybody out there that understands graphics technology and hardware stuff.
Let's assume that developers never make games on the wii with lots of bumpmapping or any fancy texture work. Let's assume that matt and peer's premise in this podcast is totally accurate..
In what ways can developers exploit the increased ram and processing power that would allow them to improve games.
Not nessecarily just visuals. Can we have better draw distance than the original xbox? More enemies on screen? More stuff going on? More polygons?
If anybody would like to give me an answer, i would love to hear it.
Also, why does mario galaxy look so much better than any gamecube or xbox game, and why does everyone assume that no other developer will ever reach that visual level?
I suppose it's arguable on the xbox with games like Conker, but it looks noticeably better than GC titles and IMO it surpasses xbox as well. i'm not sure what it's doing specificly that makes it look so good. I don't think it has that much to do with textures.
I would love to know the secret of that games good looks.
I have 0 tech knowledge, But i've accepted that any visual improvements on wii will be modest in most cases. Seeing how small the jump was with 360/ps3 even with 10x the power lets me know that any improvements won't be massive.
But still, I have a question for anybody out there that understands graphics technology and hardware stuff.
Let's assume that developers never make games on the wii with lots of bumpmapping or any fancy texture work. Let's assume that matt and peer's premise in this podcast is totally accurate..
In what ways can developers exploit the increased ram and processing power that would allow them to improve games.
Not nessecarily just visuals. Can we have better draw distance than the original xbox? More enemies on screen? More stuff going on? More polygons?
If anybody would like to give me an answer, i would love to hear it.
Also, why does mario galaxy look so much better than any gamecube or xbox game, and why does everyone assume that no other developer will ever reach that visual level?
I suppose it's arguable on the xbox with games like Conker, but it looks noticeably better than GC titles and IMO it surpasses xbox as well. i'm not sure what it's doing specificly that makes it look so good. I don't think it has that much to do with textures.
I would love to know the secret of that games good looks.
brain_stew
Member
Eteric Rice said:Eh, 2 x is a nice chunk, really. Hell, if it wasn't, adding RAM to my PC would have been pointless.
It helps a lot, trust me.
EverQuest II tells me so.
In real terms the Wii's RAM increase is much more than 2x. The 16MB ARAM in the GC was very slow and could never be effectively be used for graphics or similar things, that is not the case with the 64MB GDDR3 RAM which replaced it in the Wii. Once devs really start investing in the Wii, the extra (quicker) RAM will make a difference.