[CoffeeJanitor]

Then it's a shame that no-one who had better hardware thought Monolith were worth buying, eh?

I don't know what you're saying? It still sucks.

Better visuals than what the PS3 and 360 are putting out are attainable with current PC hardware, do you hate on PS3 and 360 games for having shitty graphics compared to PC?

No, because I don't have a ridiculously powerful gaming PC. I do, however, have a six year old 360. There's no debate to be had here, I still don't know what your argument is.

[jimi_dini]

And for everybody who keeps arguing, can you not understand that some people would like to see better image quality on a game like xenoblade? This doesn't seem that complicated. The game would look better, and some people would enjoy it more, if it looked more like the Dolphin shots, rather than what the Wii outputs. It's that simple.

In that case, I would propose to all those people to go the whole way and just buy a fricking PC. I mean there is Dolphin, you can play Xenoblade in "pseudo-HD", if you really want to.

Xenoblade was made for Wii, so on Wii it can't be "HD", because Wii can't output HD graphics. That's a fact. Just like Uncharted 3 isn't outputting 1080p and is also not running at 60fps. You can complain all you want, it won't change it at all. So if you really just want game A on console B to look "better", then you should also complain about all sorts of games that get released on PS3/360 AND PC, because in that case, you even got the choice to get a better looking game with a smoother framerate that is even officially supported on that platform. But in those cases, the inferior console releases are just fine.

Uncharted 3 would theoretically be possible on some current PC doing 60fps and higher resolution. So naturally it also would look better. Does anyone argue about it? No. Because it's an exclusive console title, just like Xenoblade. One could also complain that if Sony released a better PS3 (like Sony told us E3 2006 "1080p, 1080p"), Uncharted 3 would also look much better and have a higher framerate as well.

But then, noone does this. Why not? Several PS3/360 games are not even real HD, but sub-720p, 60fps is also quite rare on those consoles. So there are plenty of things to complain about. But noone does it like in that article. I tell you the reason. The reason is "Nintendo hardware". It's perfectly described in that "I want Nintendo games on Non-Nintendo hardware, because Nintendo hardware is kiddie/weak/bad" posting. And when Wii U gets released and multiplatform titles look better on Wii U, everyone and their cat will say that it's "just looking a bit better, not that important" or "it looks the same to me". And then when PS4/720 get finally released the whole circle starts again. "If Xenoblade 2 would have been released on PS4, it would be 4k and 200fps."

[nincompoop]

I don't know what you're saying? It still sucks. No, because I don't have a ridiculously powerful gaming PC. I do, however, have a six year old 360. There's no debate to be had here, I still don't know what your argument is.

So right now you think Xbox 360 games look good, but if you went out tomorrow and bought a new PC that blows your Xbox 360 out of the water, you would suddenly think that they look bad? My position is that your position is idiotic.

[Durante]

Just like Uncharted 3 isn't outputting 1080p and is also not running at 60fps. You can complain all you want, it won't change it at all. So if you really just want game A on console B to look "better", then you should also complain about all sorts of games that get released on PS3/360 AND PC, because in that case, you even got the choice to get a better looking game with a smoother framerate that is even officially supported on that platform. But in those cases, the inferior console releases are just fine.

No, they are not. I'd never buy the inferior console version of a title that is also on PC.

But then, noone does this. Why not? Several PS3/360 games are not even real HD, but sub-720p, 60fps is also quite rare on those consoles. So there are plenty of things to complain about. But noone does it like in that article. I tell you the reason.

I'll tell you the reasons:
- PS3 and 360 hardware are weak today, but were more or less the maximum attainable when they were released, so it's hard to fault MS and Sony too much for their limitations.
- 720p with weak AA (your Uncharted example) is quite distasteful in terms of IQ on most 1080p screen. Anamorphic 640*480 without any form of AA, on the other hand, is utterly horrific.

[cartman414]

Yet they could, for not much more money than they probably costed in PS2 era. Better higher quality textures and upped resolution is really all anyone is asking for. It's not the hardware's fault that someone like Square is overly ambitious to the point of crippling their scope of gameplay in their game.

Wut? The PS3 is one of the most complicated consoles in history, if not the most. Not to mention it's been hell on multiplatform ports.

I hate to say, look at Witcher 2.. but.. look at Witcher 2. They did some great cities, in high resolution, it looks fucking fantastic, is a great RPG, and didn't cost anywhere near what FF13 did to make. Is it really all that wrong for someone to just wish that Nintendo had a console that could output to a big flat panel TV without looking like shit? The reason people get angry about it is that the games deserve better. They make great games, but they make them on shit hardware. It's a shame really.

The Witcher 2 was the exception, not the rule. Besides, it started out as a PC exclusive, and was later ported to the 360, which has similar architecture.

[aeroslash]

I've been modelling for some years, i've worked as a 3d designer for architects and i have all three current gen systems and an awesome gaming PC, and find Xenoblade amazing.

It really worries me the people who can't find graphics beautiful because the game is not on one of the "powerful" systems. Sorry guys, it's more important art than the number of shaders the game uses.

[encephalon]

Part of the blame should go to Monolith, given the character models with pasted on face textures are hardly a problem with the Wii's hardware. Monolith can and has done much better (impressive, even).

[RoninChaos]

In that case, I would propose to all those people to go the whole way and just buy a fricking PC. I mean there is Dolphin, you can play Xenoblade in "pseudo-HD", if you really want to. Xenoblade was made for Wii, so on Wii it can't be "HD", because Wii can't output HD graphics. That's a fact. Just like Uncharted 3 isn't outputting 1080p and is also not running at 60fps. You can complain all you want, it won't change it at all. So if you really just want game A on console B to look "better", then you should also complain about all sorts of games that get released on PS3/360 AND PC, because in that case, you even got the choice to get a better looking game with a smoother framerate that is even officially supported on that platform. But in those cases, the inferior console releases are just fine. Uncharted 3 would theoretically be possible on some current PC doing 60fps and higher resolution. So naturally it also would look better. Does anyone argue about it? No. Because it's an exclusive console title, just like Xenoblade. One could also complain that if Sony released a better PS3 (like Sony told us E3 2006 "1080p, 1080p"), Uncharted 3 would also look much better and have a higher framerate as well. But then, noone does this. Why not? Several PS3/360 games are not even real HD, but sub-720p, 60fps is also quite rare on those consoles. So there are plenty of things to complain about. But noone does it like in that article. I tell you the reason. The reason is "Nintendo hardware". It's perfectly described in that "I want Nintendo games on Non-Nintendo hardware, because Nintendo hardware is kiddie/weak/bad" posting. And when Wii U gets released and multiplatform titles look better on Wii U, everyone and their cat will say that it's "just looking a bit better, not that important" or "it looks the same to me". And then when PS4/720 get finally released the whole circle starts again. "If Xenoblade 2 would have been released on PS4, it would be 4k and 200fps."

You're putting a lot of words into my mouth and saying things I didn't say. At all.

The point comes down to image quality, something Xenoblade lacks, which is disapointing considering it's art direction. Most Nintendo games have been this way for two generations. Seeing some older games via Dolphin is practically a new experience. Games that looked terrible before, look fucking amazing, and the only thing that's changed is how the images are rendered. It's shocking how much better some games look. You can see the details, how precise the art direction is. It adds a level of enjoyment for some people, AND, more importantly, it gives people a taste of what could have been if Nintendo just beefed up their hardware a bit. I'm not sure how people can't understand this. It's really simple.

The problem is Nintendo used to care about releasing somewhat powerful, competent hardware. Now they don't. The Wii is a souped up GameCube, for fucks sake. The Wii U is what they should have released alongside the PS3 and Xbox 360 in terms of power. They can get away with stuff like the DS and the 3DS because they really have no competition, where as in the home console department, they have PLENTY of competition. What's worse, is Nintendo is most likely going to end up in the same position with the Wii U, that the Wii ended up in if the system isn't powerful. 3rd parties will stop making shit for the system because it's under powered. And that's a shame.

I would love to go back to a time where Nintendo was in the position it was with the Super NES but we probably won't ever see something like that, because Nintendo is content to act as if there isn't any competition from anybody else. Keiji Inafune has said this is THE problem with the game industry in Japan, that they act as if there isn't any competition. That same thought process is why Microsoft was able to push into the market against Sony. Sony literally thought that there was no one that could give them any competition. Look what happened.

Now with Nintendo, they've continued to act as if they don't have competition, but the software attach rate with the Wii compared to the other consoles is smaller, and points to an audience that has moved on from Nintendo's home consoles because there isn't any value there, with the exception of Nintendo releases. Reggie came out and said "We need to beef up the hardware next time around because there were games that we weren't able to put on the Wii because it wasn't powerful enough." If you look at the Wii U, supposedly it's comparable to current gen hardware. My guess is they're going to end up in the same position next gen as they are now- they'll have sold a lot of consoles, but there won't be a lot of support.

And that's a shame, because Nintendo is awesome.

Anyway, back to the main point, better image quality would be nice for Xenoblade. It would be nice if I didn't have to play it on PC because the Wii hardware isn't actually strong enough to not make shit look like a jagged mess. The game informer article might not have been the most articulate, but people coming in here and saying 'Graphics don't matter!" obviously didn't get the point that folks are trying to make, and probably won't going forward because they can't understand how Xenoblade looking like a jagged mess would hinder some peoples' enjoyment of it.

[nincompoop]

The problem is Nintendo used to care about releasing somewhat powerful, competent hardware. Now they don't. The Wii is a souped up GameCube, for fucks sake. The Wii U is what they should have released alongside the PS3 and Xbox 360 in terms of power.

That is what they should have done... if they wanted to languish in last place again instead of beating the crap out of the other systems for the first four years of the generation.

[RoninChaos]

That is what they should have done... if they wanted to languish in last place again instead of beating the crap out of the other systems for the first four years of the generation.

Guess you didn't see their last quarterly report.

The only reason Nintendo made the cash they did was because they didn't release a system that was comparable to the others. And it cost them gamers, and developers. They got a lot of people in with Wii Fit, folks who never bought a title after that either. They pushed more units sold, but their business model is the reason why they took a massive loss this past quarter.

I like how you ignored what I wrote though, which is to be expected considering your past responses not only to me, but any thread where someone speaks against Nintendo. Do you own stock in the company?

[nincompoop]

The rest of your post isn't really worth responding to since most of your argument is based on blatantly incorrect information about software sales and wild speculation about the Wii U's power level in comparison to the PS4 and Xbox 361.

[RoninChaos]

Thanks for the confirmation on what I thought, champ. Good show.

[l'eclisse]

The problem is Nintendo used to care about releasing somewhat powerful, competent hardware. Now they don't. The Wii is a souped up GameCube, for fucks sake. The Wii U is what they should have released alongside the PS3 and Xbox 360 in terms of power. They can get away with stuff like the DS and the 3DS because they really have no competition, where as in the home console department, they have PLENTY of competition. What's worse, is Nintendo is most likely going to end up in the same position with the Wii U, that the Wii ended up in if the system isn't powerful. 3rd parties will stop making shit for the system because it's under powered. And that's a shame. I would love to go back to a time where Nintendo was in the position it was with the Super NES but we probably won't ever see something like that, because Nintendo is content to act as if there isn't any competition from anybody else. Keiji Inafune has said this is THE problem with the game industry in Japan, that they act as if there isn't any competition. That same thought process is why Microsoft was able to push into the market against Sony. Sony literally thought that there was no one that could give them any competition. Look what happened.

Its not that Nintendo doesnt care about releasing competent hardware. Its just that they played that game and lost with both the N64 and GCN. With the Wii they simply decided they needed to be different, because releasing a "me too" console was just not working. So although their consoles have lost their relevance (for me), I cannot fault the approach they took, considering it worked beyond anyone's expectations...

So would we all like to see Xenoblade with better graphics? Sure... but to hate Nintendo for it is like hating Chris Nolan because Inception wasnt in 3D. Personally i think the article is childish. Just love the game for what it is or dont...

[Anonymous Tipster]

Final Fantasy XII would've looked so much better on the Gamecube. Thanks a lot Square.

[aliencowz7]

Final Fantasy XII would've looked so much better on the Gamecube. Thanks a lot Square.

Comparing the ps2 to gamecube leap and the wii to 360/ps3 leap is kind of absurd considering how much bigger a difference wii to HD consoles is at least in image quality. That's without even considering how the greater tech could allow for more potential in just about every area.

I really don't know why this stuff is so hard to grasp for people, The article wasn't meant to be some thought provoking narrative on the state of modern gaming, it was just some dude venting about how much he wished xenoblade was in HD.

[Crewnh]

Sure... but to hate Nintendo for it is like hating Chris Nolan because Inception wasnt in 3D...

This example would work if 3D actually added to image quality instead of taking away from it.

[Catchpenny]

It's not Nintendo's fault that HD JRPGs have been hugely disappointing.

It's fine to hate the Wii for its graphics output, but if you're pissed that you don't have a Xenoblade-quality game on PS3 or 360, try blaming those developers, publishers and hardware makers.

[RagnarokX]

The problem is Nintendo used to care about releasing somewhat powerful, competent hardware. Now they don't. The Wii is a souped up GameCube, for fucks sake. The Wii U is what they should have released alongside the PS3 and Xbox 360 in terms of power. They can get away with stuff like the DS and the 3DS because they really have no competition, where as in the home console department, they have PLENTY of competition. What's worse, is Nintendo is most likely going to end up in the same position with the Wii U, that the Wii ended up in if the system isn't powerful. 3rd parties will stop making shit for the system because it's under powered. And that's a shame. I would love to go back to a time where Nintendo was in the position it was with the Super NES but we probably won't ever see something like that, because Nintendo is content to act as if there isn't any competition from anybody else. Keiji Inafune has said this is THE problem with the game industry in Japan, that they act as if there isn't any competition. That same thought process is why Microsoft was able to push into the market against Sony. Sony literally thought that there was no one that could give them any competition. Look what happened. Now with Nintendo, they've continued to act as if they don't have competition, but the software attach rate with the Wii compared to the other consoles is smaller, and points to an audience that has moved on from Nintendo's home consoles because there isn't any value there, with the exception of Nintendo releases. Reggie came out and said "We need to beef up the hardware next time around because there were games that we weren't able to put on the Wii because it wasn't powerful enough." If you look at the Wii U, supposedly it's comparable to current gen hardware. My guess is they're going to end up in the same position next gen as they are now- they'll have sold a lot of consoles, but there won't be a lot of support. And that's a shame, because Nintendo is awesome. Anyway, back to the main point, better image quality would be nice for Xenoblade. It would be nice if I didn't have to play it on PC because the Wii hardware isn't actually strong enough to not make shit look like a jagged mess. The game informer article might not have been the most articulate, but people coming in here and saying 'Graphics don't matter!" obviously didn't get the point that folks are trying to make, and probably won't going forward because they can't understand how Xenoblade looking like a jagged mess would hinder some peoples' enjoyment of it.

Well, I don't think Nintendo expected Wii to be as successful as it was. It was more likely a stopgap measure intended to reverse the negative image they created with the GCN in preparation for an HD console which they would release once it became financially feasible and the HDTV market grew to sustain them. Wii took off like crazy and they pushed back their plans.

WiiU should have probably should have been released a few years ago, but you can't blame Nintendo for riding Wii's success. The HD jump from the other manufacturers may have been premature because it's caused problems like ridiculous cost increases. Wii games looked fine until my CRT broke and I replaced it with an LCD, but they don't look unbearably bad.

"Graphics don't matter" is a great strawman. They obviously do matter. It would be hard to play your game if you turned your TV off :P. But seriously, good graphics are good. The issue is what graphics people consider so bad that they refuse to play a game, and a lot of people have way too high standards. I have a PS3 and a Wii; I enjoy games on both. They only time graphics tend to hold me back are when I play something like a PS1 game on PS3. The framerates are terrible and it looks like I'm playing a low resolution magazine scan. I would have no problem playing those games, though, if they were properly scaled.

[l'eclisse]

This example would work if 3D actually added to image quality instead of taking away from it.

The author of the article was basically pissed that the game could have been far more immersive with cutting edge technology... so in that context despite what you and I may think of 3d, its a valid example.

[StevieP]

What's worse, is Nintendo is most likely going to end up in the same position with the Wii U, that the Wii ended up in if the system isn't powerful. 3rd parties will stop making shit for the system because it's under powered. And that's a shame.

If Nintendo released the Wii U at the same time as the PS360, it would've been >$599 with a MUCH heftier loss than Sony took on their console. Also, third parties still wouldn't really feed them any exclusive content.

Now with Nintendo, they've continued to act as if they don't have competition, but the software attach rate with the Wii compared to the other consoles is smaller, and points to an audience that has moved on from Nintendo's home consoles because there isn't any value there, with the exception of Nintendo releases.

The software attach rate for the Wii is 8.5. That's within spitting distance of PS3, and not too far off from the 360 (9.3 I think). Quite healthy, actually. Common misconception.

The author of the article was basically pissed that the game could have been far more immersive with cutting edge technology... so in that context despite what you and I may think of 3d, its a valid example.

Asset design from a cutting-edge-technology perspective would've prevented it from being the same game. Every time I change a character's armor set it is reflected in their design both in-game and in cutscenes. Needless to say, unless you've played the game you wouldn't understand how staggering the amount of content is - visually and otherwise.

[Effect]

Better graphics would have caused the game to have the same problems that Final Fantasy XIII had. After playing the game one should be able to see the game as it is now wouldn't have been possible. It being on lesser tech is actually a big advantage in it's favor. Prettier graphics isn't always best. If Nintendo were to make a sequel with graphics that were just sharper but similar on the Wii U I'd be happy. When you make something like Xenoblade there has to be a trade off if you want to make it with a budget that is anywhere close to being reasonable and in a timely manner.

[H_Prestige]

Better graphics would have caused the game to have the same problems that Final Fantasy XIII had. After playing the game one should be able to see the game as it is now wouldn't have been possible. It being on lesser tech is actually a big advantage in it's favor. Prettier graphics isn't always best. If Nintendo were to make a sequel with graphics that were just sharper but similar on the Wii U I'd be happy. When you make something like Xenoblade there has to be a trade off if you want to make it with a budget that is anywhere close to being reasonable and in a timely manner.

Yeah, cause FFX and X-2 were such wonders of open world game design with literally hundreds of hours worth of content.

This seems to be the popular argument how xenoblade would be a lesser game if it were targeting ps3 spec instead of wii. You're opening up a whole can of worms if you go down that road.

[Like the hat?]

Xenoblade is a beautiful game.

[KageMaru]

So right now you think Xbox 360 games look good, but if you went out tomorrow and bought a new PC that blows your Xbox 360 out of the water, you would suddenly think that they look bad? My position is that your position is idiotic.

So someone is an idiot for having standards? lol

So if next Gen makes current Gen look like shit, I'm an idiot for thinking this?

Man, you guys will say anything to justify your way of thinking.

Better graphics would have caused the game to have the same problems that Final Fantasy XIII had. After playing the game one should be able to see the game as it is now wouldn't have been possible. It being on lesser tech is actually a big advantage in it's favor. Prettier graphics isn't always best. If Nintendo were to make a sequel with graphics that were just sharper but similar on the Wii U I'd be happy. When you make something like Xenoblade there has to be a trade off if you want to make it with a budget that is anywhere close to being reasonable and in a timely manner.

So you know, for a fact, that xenoblade would have experienced horrible production and development issues if it was produced in HD? That's not saying much about Monolith if you really believe this.

So is it a coincidence that you guys keep picking same game with a troubled dev cycle, even after people tell you how it's a flawed argument, or are you just ignoring all the other content filled games?

[StevieP]

Yeah, cause FFX and X-2 were such wonders of open world game design with literally hundreds of hours worth of content. This seems to be the popular argument how xenoblade would be a lesser game if it were targeting ps3 spec instead of wii. You're opening up a whole can of worms if you go down that road.

So someone is an idiot for having standards? lol So if next Gen makes current Gen look like shit, I'm an idiot for thinking this? Man, you guys will say anything to justify your way of thinking. So you know, for a fact, that xenoblade would have experienced horrible production and development issues if it was produced in HD? That's not saying much about Monolith if you really believe this. So is it a coincidence that you guys keep picking same game with a troubled dev cycle, even after people tell you how it's a flawed argument, or are you just ignoring all the other content filled games?

Considering the budget and scope of the title, I'd like for someone to tell me otherwise. Producing assets at a much higher quality would eat into both, one way or the other. One can say "so don't produce assets at a much higher quality, simply render the exact same game at a higher resolution" - but there are plenty of threads on GAF and elsewhere and plenty of press reviews and gaming "journalists" out there that would pounce on "n64 textures in my HD game" ad nauseum. This thread is a testament to it.

[Omegasquash]

I had hoped this thread dead. Oh well.

Yep, it'd be nice if Xeno were in ridiculous nice HD. It's not. Maybe later it will be, maybe later it won't. If that impacts your enjoyment level, then so be it, but I have to say that no one was promised HD.

[H_Prestige]

Considering the budget and scope of the title, I'd like for someone to tell me otherwise. Producing assets at a much higher quality would eat into both, one way or the other. One can say "so don't produce assets at a much higher quality, simply render the exact same game at a higher resolution" - but there are plenty of threads on GAF and elsewhere and plenty of press reviews and gaming "journalists" out there that would pounce on "n64 textures in my HD game" ad nauseum. This thread is a testament to it.

There are plenty of open world games on the ps3/360. Xenoblade isn't unique there. Armor pieces that are all modeled and show up in cutscenes? I just played Dark Souls that does the same exact thing, and From wasn't on some gigantic budget either. There are literally hundreds of armor pieces and weapons, maybe even a thousand, all uniquely modeled. So that element of xenoblade wouldn't have to be compromised either.

[massoluk]

So you know, for a fact, that xenoblade would have experienced horrible production and development issues if it was produced in HD? That's not saying much about Monolith if you really believe this. So is it a coincidence that you guys keep picking same game with a troubled dev cycle, even after people tell you how it's a flawed argument, or are you just ignoring all the other content filled games?

Yes, yes. I think it would. Xenoblade was already behind schedule that developers were contemplating cutting down contents before Nintendo told them to forget about the deadline. It's not as if Monolith was some studio with a very high budget and staffs of several hundreds. A prettier HD Xenoblade could have been made, but would it sink Monolith, that is the question.

[KageMaru]

Considering the budget and scope of the title, I'd like for someone to tell me otherwise. Producing assets at a much higher quality would eat into both, one way or the other. One can say "so don't produce assets at a much higher quality, simply render the exact same game at a higher resolution" - but there are plenty of threads on GAF and elsewhere and plenty of press reviews and gaming "journalists" out there that would pounce on "n64 textures in my HD game" ad nauseum. This thread is a testament to it.

Rising budgets is a given, it's still laughable that everyone keeps picking the same RPG with a poor development cycle as a good example of what happens to games developed in HD. It's a very narrow view on the possibilities. They are making extreme assumptions and cherry picking what to believe in order to fit their argument. No one said they are expecting FFXIII, Uncharted, Gears, etc. level graphics. Looking "better" is not the same as looking the best it can.

If these people are so convinced that games suffer when produced in HD, or Nintendo won't provide necessary budgets for quality games, then why is anyone even excited for the Wii-U in the first place?

The tone of this thread is in contrast to the Wii-U hype/speculation threads where many of the Nintendo fans who are defending and excited about the Wii-U's graphical capabilities are also downplaying HD graphics in this thread. It's hard for me to take people serious when they are so quick to change their opinion purely based on the company they are blindly defending.

Edit:

Yes, yes. I think it would. Xenoblade was already behind schedule that developers were contemplating cutting down contents before Nintendo told them to forget about the deadline. It's not as if Monolith was some studio with a very high budget and staffs of several hundreds. A prettier HD Xenoblade could have been made, but would it sink Monolith, that is the question.

That all would depend on Nintendo if they were funding the project.

[Hero]

This is again assuming if Monolith Soft had an appropriately sized and experienced staff to make an HD game years ago when Xenoblade Chronicles was still in development, which they probably weren't.

[mclem]

That all would depend on Nintendo if they were funding the project.

So you're stating categorically that you do not believe enough money was spent on making Xenoblade?

Do you also believe that spending more money on the game would have increased the sales figures?


That's the catch-22, isn't it? We've seen several times this generation that spending more money on development doesn't reliably result in sufficiently more sales to offset that increase; heck, that's a major reason why many HD dev houses have fallen apart this generation. That's why I brought up upthread the crucial question of whether Xenoblade earned a profit.


After all, despite crying out for a prettier game, you're not saying it's unjust that Nintendo didn't make a loss on the title, are you?

[M3d10n]

The characters are a bit on the low-polygon side, but it's not offensive at all. Their textures are acceptable and the resolution problem can be "fixed" with Dolphin and an i5 2500K.

When played on proper resolutions, this game does looks better than many of the Asian F2P MMOs I see my friends playing, and those games have quite steep system requirements.

[KageMaru]

So you're stating categorically that you do not believe enough money was spent on making Xenoblade? Do you also believe that spending more money on the game would have increased the sales figures?

I'm not sure how you got any of this from my posts.

Of course they spent enough money on Xenoblade since it got made in it's current form.

Also what equates to better sales depends on a lot more than how much is spent on the game itself. There are budget games that sell great while other high budget games bomb.

Not sure what any of this has to do with my point that it should be acceptable for people to want/wish for better graphics and that graphics do matter.

[mclem]

Not sure what any of this has to do with my point that it should be acceptable for people to want/wish for better graphics and that graphics do matter.

Yeah, but I don't believe it's okay to want/wish for better graphics if that would force the project to make a loss. We don't know that's the case here, but it's possible, we know the game didn't do brilliantly.

[fallingdove]

Yeah, but I don't believe it's okay to want/wish for better graphics if that would force the project to make a loss. We don't know that's the case here, but it's possible, we know the game didn't do brilliantly.

I don't think that has ever been the argument (is it ok for games to have best in class graphics regardless of the cost). The article was written without P&Ls in mind. Any fan of any game has to think from time to time about what may have been done to the game to make it "perfect". In the case of Xenoblade, one of the more glaring issues with the game comparitively to other games on the market today is its poor graphics textures/models/animation).

With Xenogears, many fans have wished that the second disc had been more developed. The Xenoblade HD argument is similar - though the challenge was not only time+budget but hardware.

[KageMaru]

Yeah, but I don't believe it's okay to want/wish for better graphics if that would force the project to make a loss. We don't know that's the case here, but it's possible, we know the game didn't do brilliantly.

I also wouldn't want any studio or game to take a loss, however how poorly Xenoblade was marketed (at least in the US), there's no telling how good it would have done it if advertised properly.

I don't like the idea that a lower budget is an excuse to poorly market and sell a product. Not saying that's your point here, but that's basically the case IMO.

[Rokal]

The characters are a bit on the low-polygon side, but it's not offensive at all. Their textures are acceptable and the resolution problem can be "fixed" with Dolphin and an i5 2500K.

It can be "fixed" using a fairly cumbersome emulator on an entirely different system? I guess it doesn't matter that it looks so poor on its native console then!

The game does look great on Dolphin, but that isn't a counter-argument to the article which is mostly talking about how the Wii hardware lets Xenoblade Chronicles down. Dolphin really just drives the point home: the game could have looked amazing if the Wii was released with with some thought given to HD support.

[Jokeropia]

But that Wii doesn't support HD has been known for over six years. It seems pretty silly to bitch about it at this point, now that there's even a solution for people so hung up on graphics that it impedes their enjoyment of the game.

[M3d10n]

It can be "fixed" using a fairly cumbersome emulator on an entirely different system? I guess it doesn't matter that it looks so poor on its native console then! The game does look great on Dolphin, but that isn't a counter-argument to the article which is mostly talking about how the Wii hardware lets Xenoblade Chronicles down. Dolphin really just drives the point home: the game could have looked amazing if the Wii was released with with some thought given to HD support.

But the Wii was not released with some though given to HD support, and that was six years ago. What is there to discuss? The Wii won't change into outputting HD visuals, so the bitching is as much of a waste of energy as complaining about how it's cold in the winter or hot in the summer.

What point does the author wants to make? That Nintendo shouldn't have released the game? When I clicked this thread I was truly expecting criticism on some of the game's mechanics. Finding bitching about how bad a Wii game looks on a HDTV in 2012 was unexpected.

[CoffeeJanitor]

But that Wii doesn't support HD has been known for over six years. It seems pretty silly to bitch about it at this point, now that there's even a solution for people so hung up on graphics that it impedes their enjoyment of the game.

Just because it's been six years doesn't mean it doesn't suck.

[Rokal]

It's still going to be discussed because there are still games like Xenoblade or Skyward Sword coming out that look increasingly poor as HDTV adoption climbs. There haven't been many major 'core gamer' releases on Wii in the past few years and I think multi-console/PC gamers forget how Wii games look and get disappointed all over again when a game like Xenoblade or Skyward Sword comes along.

I also think the discussion has been reignited by the rising popularity of Dolphin, as now people can actually see screenshots or video of what these games could have looked like with HD support and better hardware. I noticed the lack of AA and a general fuzziness when I was playing Skyward Sword on a regular Wii/HDTV, but seeing those beautiful Dolphin screenshots was enough to make me stop playing. I wanted to experience that game, but getting Dolphin working is a lot of work in a grey area (not to mention that motion control gaming isn't going to work great in most PC spaces/setups).

Agreed that it's a bit silly to write an article about it after 6 years, but I can understand the author's sentiment. I passed on Xenoblade Chronicles because Wii games look bad on modern HD televisions and I don't want to do Dolphin emulation with all that it entails. Graphics impact your immersion, and for a lot of people enjoyment, of a game. Seeing jaggy edges all over an otherwise wonderful looking environment makes it that much harder to appreciate and reminds me that I'm playing a videogame. I can completely understand being frustrated with short-sighted Wii hardware decisions, even after 6 years.

[StevieP]

Getting Dolphin to work is piss-easy, and a $5 bluetooth adapter will allow you to connect your Wii peripherals to your PC (a $10 wireless sensor bar will allow you to bypass turning the Wii on entirely). There is no gray area if you use your Wii to rip the games.

My PC is hooked up to my amplifier via a single HDMI cable in my living room - which is being beamed to a 120" 1080p projector.

I now do most of my Wii gaming in Dolphin this way, however even when playing many games on the *actual* Wii this generation blown up that large it wasn't as horrific as described in hyperbole here - certainly not as jaggy-laced as playing my PS2 or Dreamcast this way. It does help that unlike most TVs, my amplifier and projector both have semi-decent scalers.

[freddy]

Getting Dolphin to work is piss-easy,

That's not true at all. You have to mess with configs for diff games and even use different builds of the emulator. Sure it will work eventually, but piss easy it is not. In the end I couldn't be bothered with all the bullshit and just stuck the disc in the Wii and played. I'm not a graphics whore though so it didn't really worry me.

[Jokeropia]

Just because it's been six years doesn't mean it doesn't suck.

It should've been enough time for you to get over it.

[LaserBuddha]

Better graphics would have caused the game to have the same problems that Final Fantasy XIII had. After playing the game one should be able to see the game as it is now wouldn't have been possible. It being on lesser tech is actually a big advantage in it's favor. Prettier graphics isn't always best. If Nintendo were to make a sequel with graphics that were just sharper but similar on the Wii U I'd be happy. When you make something like Xenoblade there has to be a trade off if you want to make it with a budget that is anywhere close to being reasonable and in a timely manner.

This is the biggest accidental indictment of Japanese game development I've seen in a while. If this apologist assessment of their industry is true, then they are truly done.

[nincompoop]

That's not true at all. You have to mess with configs for diff games and even use different builds of the emulator. Sure it will work eventually, but piss easy it is not. In the end I couldn't be bothered with all the bullshit and just stuck the disc in the Wii and played. I'm not a graphics whore though so it didn't really worry me.

It's not nearly as bad as you make it sound. I still use the same revision that I originally downloaded when I got my PC a year ago, which works for around 90% of my games. There are only a few different settings that you have to mess around with because they cause certain things to break in certain games.

[Margalis]

This is the biggest accidental indictment of Japanese game development I've seen in a while.

That expansive games cost a lot to make in HD is hardly an indictment of Japanese game development unless Western developers have secretly discovered a tree that produces money.

Replace "FFXIII" with "Dragon Age" or "Mass Effect" if you'd like. The latest incarnations of both of those had high sales expectations and still suffered from obvious budget limitations. DA2 in particular is basically the polar opposite of an expansive game.

[LaserBuddha]

That expansive games cost a lot to make in HD is hardly an indictment of Japanese game development unless Western developers have secretly discovered a tree that produces money. Replace "FFXIII" with "Dragon Age" or "Mass Effect" if you'd like. The latest incarnations of both of those had high sales expectations and still suffered from obvious budget limitations. DA2 in particular is basically the polar opposite of an expansive game.

Saying that using extremely dated hardware is what it takes to make an expansive game possible ignores the fact that other developers do it with current-gen graphics all the time. You're basically holding Japan to indie developer standards at this point.

If Skyrim looked like shit because Bethesda couldn't handle making such a large game with contemporary graphics, they'd be rightfully scolded for overreaching. If a developer can't make a large game without using 10+ year old technology, then they need to scale back their ambitions to be in line with their capabilities.

Not that I'm saying games shouldn't be developed for the Wii. People are proposing that using old tech is necessary to make the game, and this is what I think of that.

[mclem]

Saying that using extremely dated hardware is what it takes to make an expansive game possible ignores the fact that other developers do it with current-gen graphics all the time. You're basically holding Japan to indie developer standards at this point.

How many of those other developers did so with Xenoblade's budget? How many of them made a reasonable profit with that venture?

[Antagon]

Saying that using extremely dated hardware is what it takes to make an expansive game possible ignores the fact that other developers do it with current-gen graphics all the time. You're basically holding Japan to indie developer standards at this point. If Skyrim looked like shit because Bethesda couldn't handle making such a large game with contemporary graphics, they'd be rightfully scolded for overreaching. If a developer can't make a large game without using 10+ year old technology, then they need to scale back their ambitions to be in line with their capabilities. Not that I'm saying games shouldn't be developed for the Wii. People are proposing that using old tech is necessary to make the game, and this is what I think of that.

But Xenoblade is among the Wii's best looking games.