Support NeoGAF

[Rvaisse]

Can someone explain me how is it relevant to compare a game actually in dev. with retail games ?

Of course it has glitches and low textures here and there... Does Just cause 2 was perfect before release ?

The thing is for a first HD game on a new system : it´s impressive ! Good job Monolith

 

[Interceptor]

Some people REALLY are in denial here.

It's like they've never seen an HD game before.

It's more like people are personally offended just because a single Wii U game has a better combination of draw distance, overall iq, detail than comparable efforts on the HD twins.. Wii U is marginally more powerful than the last gen and X shows.

Deal with it.

 

[LiquidMetal14]

Some people REALLY are in denial here.

It's like they've never seen an HD game before.

I agree. I think the game looks fine for a current gen game and it's Monolith. I'm automatically interested but not in the irrational OMG like comments.

It's more like people are personally offended just because a single Wii U game has a better combination of draw distance, overall iq, detail than comparable efforts on the HD twins.. Wii U is marginally more powerful than the last gen and X shows.

Deal with it.

This game is not the game you want to bastion if that's going to be your reasoning.

You may as well replied, "quit being butthurt you hater".

I'm going to say it's a decent looking current gen game and leave it at that.

 

[BLACK AMERICAN PSYCHO]

It's more like people are personally offended just because a single Wii U game has a better combination of draw distance, overall iq, detail than comparable efforts on the HD twins.. Wii U is marginally more powerful than the last gen and X shows.

Deal with it.

Just cause 2?
Gta5?

 

[GhostTrick]

Some people REALLY are in denial here.

It's like they've never seen an HD game before.

Because they don't agree with you ?

 

[dglavimans]

Ow please gta 5 you didnt see any game play yet and i got just cause 2 but it doesn"t look that good.. Graphics are fine

 

[Glorified G]

Just cause 2?
Gta5?

As good as X looks it really does seem for some people that this is their first exposure to hd. Some of the posts here are baffling.

LOD is very aggressive, even for sprite based foliage and that means bandwidth problems of WiiU

Yeah, its on pair with midtier current gen open world games, but even that is generous. What is good in this footage? Characters/NPCs models, materials and HDR.

I wouldn't go that far. We don't know how far along this game is in development. I wouldn't expect this in the final prodcut.

 

[omonimo]

Some people REALLY are in denial here.

It's like they've never seen an HD game before.

They really come from Wii, seems. No one said graphically is bad, but tech wise is nothing of better which we have yet seen ps360 & to be honest, X shows a lot of smart tricks very cheap.

 

[Plinko]

LOL at the criticism of the graphics of a game that isn't even close to finished yet. Is that where we're at now?

 

[KKRT00]

I can't tell if that is supposed to be a joke post or not.

"Low polygon terrain" = one obvious corner

"Sun height doesnt affect shadows at all. Here sun is about in 30 degree, but shadow is cast from 80 degree. So lighting is static, mostly prebaked."

The only shadow I can make out in this picture is of the vehicle which obviously isn't pre-baked. Someone already pointed out a shadow from the environment casing onto an enemy. There is probably some amount of pre-baking - just like there is in KZ2 and Rage among a million other titles.

"Particles quality is on pair with pre PS2 era, alpha texture resolution 64x64?" - ok yeah, this is a joke post.

Good one, you had me going for a while.

So You dont know how prebaked shadows works and that they can occlude geometry?
My prebaked lighting comment was about environment geometry in general, because characters and trees seem to have same shadows cast every time, like many PS2 game had for example.
BTW I dont know any open world current gen game with prebaked lighting for environments, do You?

That corner in shore isnt exception, he then runs further and You can see next two from that lake, but other geometry isnt better either. Most of terrain is flat and then is covered with sprited based foliage like Xenoblade 1 was, nothing really to talk about and of course nothing impressive, rather unimpressive i would say.

About particles. Can You show me current gen game with such low quality alpha textures? Because i tried to think of any example and i couldnt, but i could easily point quite many examples of higher res ones from PS2 era [GT 3/4, God of War 1/2, MGS 2/3, Halo 2, ZoE, Jak 3, Black, Killzone 1, Monster Hunter and many more].

--

LOL at the criticism of the graphics of a game that isn't even close to finished yet. Is that where we're at now?

So You can praise game, in state You mentioned, with sentences like 'its better than anything on current gen consoles', but You cant disprove that with examples? Ok...

 

[LiquidMetal14]

LOL at the criticism of the graphics of a game that isn't even clohse to finished yet. Is that where we're at now?

WiiU doesn't get special treatment just like we have Digital Foundry or threads to discuss visuals on other platforms. I think that falls in line with the overall discussion. Of course it's early and I have no doubts the game will look better.

Today, the game looks likely a decent looking current gen game.

 

[phosphor112]

It's more like people are personally offended just because a single Wii U game has a better combination of draw distance, overall iq, detail than comparable efforts on the HD twins.. Wii U is marginally more powerful than the last gen and X shows.

We've seen games with similar draw distances while having much more on screen. Things much far off in the distance for this game seemed detail, but there isn't much on screen to have to LOD in the first place.

We've also seen games with better image quality.

Yes, Wii U is more powerful than last gen consoles, but X doesn't show it. Something will though, so I wouldn't get too upset about it.

Deal with it.

Heh.

 

[wsippel]

Ok, time to open some eyes i think.

lol?

I mean, it's easy to point out small flaws in anything. 3D graphics are all smoke and mirrors - and tradeoffs. Look too closely at individual details and everything that isn't a carefully crafted techdemo falls apart. You always have to look at the result as a whole.

 

[Kimawolf]

Because they don't agree with you ?

Yes I think that's the issue. Some people are REALLY trying hard to convince others that "no you only THINK it looks great! It really doesn't!". I find it interesting that these self styled savior of "amazing looking" games have taken up their crusade to prove other people wrong.

Again it's a great looking game, does it compare with the highest level PC games? LOL of course not... but guess what neither will Durango or PS4. And considering it's still in development and is being compared to the highest level current generation games says something. And when people have to nitpick angular water effects, then you know it's getting to the point of "that pixel there, its not shaped right" levels of nonsense.

 

[beast786]

LOL at the criticism of the graphics of a game that isn't even close to finished yet. Is that where we're at now?

Who is criticizing the graphics?

discussion is this game better than anything on twins HD.

to me is easily within this gen , as one of better looking games .

 

[Plinko]

WiiU doesn't get special treatment just like we have Digital Foundry or threads to discuss visuals. I think that falls in line with the overall discussion. Of course it's early and I have no doubts the game will look better.

Today, the game looks likely a decent looking current gen game.

I agree it looks like a decent-looking current gen game. I have no arguments with that statement.

I just don't understand the criticism of a game that isn't even close to finished. That post above with the pictures and "breaking down" the graphics is extremely laughable. I mean, how many people honestly care about that? How many people are going to be playing that game and looking at a particle and say, "Oh man--that looks 64x64! Better shut this crap off!"

It's mind-boggling.

 

[King_Moc]

LOL at the criticism of the graphics of a game that isn't even close to finished yet. Is that where we're at now?

If they've decided to show it off, then it's perfectly reasonable to judge it based on what they've shown.

 

[phosphor112]

LOL at the criticism of the graphics of a game that isn't even close to finished yet. Is that where we're at now?

Take a look at the thread title, read the OP.

Then get back to me.

 

[Captain Smoker]

Man, you people are awful, I just don't understand how you can debate about this.

All these games look very good, I don't sit in front of a game and wonder why it doesn't look like Crysis 3 and I don't care actually.

 

[TheGreatMightyPoo]

I could give a shit about the "it does/doesn't look next gen" nonsense.

Do the games look fucking awesome???

For the most part, yes.

 

[omonimo]

Yes I think that's the issue. Some people are REALLY trying hard to convince others that "no you only THINK it looks great! It really doesn't!". I find it interesting that these self styled savior of "amazing looking" games have taken up their crusade to prove other people wrong.

Again it's a great looking game, does it compare with the highest level PC games? LOL of course not... but guess what neither will Durango or PS4. And considering it's still in development and is being compared to the highest level current generation games says something. And when people have to nitpick angular water effects, then you know it's getting to the point of "that pixel there, its not shaped right" levels of nonsense.

The topic is about the graphic of the 'second wave' of games on WiiU. I don't think anyone here has said are bad when claims tech wise are nothing of hyperbolic.

 

[one_kill]

I don't really care about graphics as I do about gameplay, but I do like what I saw.

 

[Bjoern the Smexy]

Some people REALLY are in denial here.

It's like they've never seen an HD game before.

Some people compare an alpha build from a newly shown and announced game to screenshots from final builds of games that are at least one year old.

So yeah, it's not really denial, it's more along the lines of "common sense".


EDIT: There's a VERY good post in the actual thread for this X game, which shows why we shouldn't base our assumptions of how this game will look on what we saw yesterday and that the game is very clearly in alpha status.
Sadly I can't find that post right now.

 

[phosphor112]

lol?

I mean, it's easy to point out small flaws in anything. 3D graphics are all smoke and mirrors - and tradeoffs. Look too closely at individual details and everything that isn't a carefully crafted techdemo falls apart. You always have to look at the result as a whole.

You're 100% correct. This game has great draw distance.

The trade off?

There is practically nothing in the environment.

 

[Plinko]

Take a look at the thread title, read the OP.

Then get back to me.

Doesn't common sense play into this at all? We've got a game that isn't even close to release and they show what is clearly an early trailer and we've got people in here doing a breakdown on aspects of screenshots that 99% of people won't even bother to notice while playing. I guess my frustration isn't really, "Why are people doing this?" It's more, "What has this industry and market become?"

If they've decided to show it off, then it's perfectly reasonable to judge it based on what they've shown.

I get that. But that one post above, as wsippel said, is ridiculous.

Who is criticizing the graphics?

discussion is this game better than anything on twins HD.

to me is easily within this gen , as one of better looking games .

Are you serious?

 

[beast786]

I agree it looks like a decent-looking current gen game. I have no arguments with that statement.

I just don't understand the criticism of a game that isn't even close to finished. That post above with the pictures and "breaking down" the graphics is extremely laughable. I mean, how many people honestly care about that? How many people are going to be playing that game and looking at a particle and say, "Oh man--that looks 64x64! Better shut this crap off!"

It's mind-boggling.

When someone makes a claim that this game have better graphics than any ps3/360 games. how else are you going to discuss graphic comparison!

the damn thread title is about graphics, what do you expect to be discussed?

 

[GhostTrick]

They really come from Wii, seems. No one said graphically is bad, but tech wise is nothing of better which we have yet seen ps360 & to be honest, X shows a lot of smart tricks very cheap.

Wrong, come from high end PC. Played GTA4 with ICEnhanced, Battlefield 3 to the max, Chivalry Medieval Warfare, Witcher 2, Crysis 2 and others great looking game, at 1080p. Never said the game looks "OMG AMAZING IT BLOWS EVERYTHING !"
Never said either the game is impossible to make on PS360, or the game feels next gen. I just said it looks slightly better than anything on PS360, considering it's detailled, on a big scale, and with really good draw distance. If people can't accept a simple fact like this, I think they have some problems. Maybe they can't accept that a 2012 console is doing a bit better than their actual consoles, 7 years consoles, I dunno.

 

[LiquidMetal14]

Man, you people are awful, I just don't understand how you can debate about this.

All these games look very good, I don't sit in front of a game and wonder why it doesn't look like Crysis 3.

Of course we don't. This game is nowhere near that level so let's get that out of the way.

We can discuss graphic because this is asking what we think about them. In most every regard, these games are decent looking by current gen standards.

In their current form they may not look as good as the finished product but that doesn't mean we can't call it like it is right now.

It's actually more rational discussion to break things down than to just come in here and say OMG and claim this to be one of the better looking games on the 3 current platforms. That's when things have to be brought back down to earth and I can see that's already been done. Some have a hard time accepting that.

The game looks like it will be cool (I hope) but the graphics leave something to be desired (not from an art perspective).

 

[omonimo]

Some people compare an alpha build from a newly shown and announced game to screenshots from final builds of games that are at least one year old.

So yeah, it's not really denial, it's more along the lines of "common sense".

Thread title:
What does NEOGAF think of the graphics on Wii U's second wave of games

What the hell it's the point to talk of gameplay, but it's a prealpha etc etc... why people are so defensive?

 

[GhostTrick]

You're 100% correct. This game has great draw distance.

The trade off?

There is practically nothing in the environment.

Nothing in the environnement, except lot of folliages, monsters, really nice detailled landscapes.

 

[wsippel]

You're 100% correct. This game has great draw distance.

The trade off?

There is practically nothing in the environment.

So it's the same as every other open world game then?

 

[ugoo18]

They really come from Wii, seems. No one said graphically is bad, but tech wise is nothing of better which we have yet seen ps360 & to be honest, X shows a lot of smart tricks very cheap.

Wii owners didn't live in a vacuum where PS360 games ceased to exist.

 

[omonimo]

Wrong, come from high end PC. Played GTA4 with ICEnhanced, Battlefield 3 to the max, Chivalry Medieval Warfare, Witcher 2, Crysis 2 and others great looking game, at 1080p. Never said the game looks "OMG AMAZING IT BLOWS EVERYTHING !"
Never said either the game is impossible to make on PS360, or the game feels next gen. I just said it looks slightly better than anything on PS360, considering it's detailled, on a big scale, and with really good draw distance. If people can't accept a simple fact like this, I think they have some problems. Maybe they can't accept that a 2012 console is doing a bit better than their actual consoles, 7 years consoles, I dunno.

It's not a fact, it's your opinion; why you can't accept the others different opinions?

Nothing in the environnement, except lot of folliages, monsters, really nice detailled landscapes.

Lot of bitmaps folliage, monsters (?) where? It's a desert landscapes, yeah it appears very detailed at the first glance but goind deeper it's just... excellent art (from what we've seen until now).

 

[revolverjgw]

LOL at the criticism of the graphics of a game that isn't even close to finished yet. Is that where we're at now?

Yes, that IS where we're at, actually. What else are we going to criticize? The game isn't done yet. We'll criticize and analyze what we see for now.

 

[GhostTrick]

It's not a fact, it's your opinion; why you can't accept the others different opinions?

Well call this an opinion that no one could have showed it's wrong in this thread then.
Because all I saw was people calling this game empty when showing emptier RDR environnements, or less detailled Just Cause 2 environnements.

 

[Bjoern the Smexy]

Thread title:
What does NEOGAF think of the graphics on Wii U's second wave of games

What the hell it's the point to talk of gameplay, but it's a prealpha etc etc... why people are so defensive?

People like me are defensive because other people give statements about how this game looks like crap when these statements are actually worthless because they don't take into account at which state this game is yet. They're basically comparing apples and oranges.

People like me just try to point out their illogical reasoning.

Also there's a lot of WOLOLO involved, at least sometimes.

EDIT: Maybe if they'd word their posts a little more accurately (as instead of "This looks like crap" they could write "Right now this looks like crap") there'd be less of bitching and moaning.

 

[phosphor112]

So it's the same as every other open world game then?

There are plenty of games that have much more going on in terms of level design.

I'll post this again for you because I'm sure you missed it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i5TQDeoump4

Running on 360. Amazing draw distance, high foliage draw distance (PS3 isn't nearly as good on this part because of alphas), shadow maps from dynamic clouds, God rays and other lighting effects, AI doing it's thing instead of just walking around like an idiot, dust rolling over hills... there is so much going on in comparison to the X trailer.

Doesn't common sense play into this at all? We've got a game that isn't even close to release and they show what is clearly an early trailer and we've got people in here doing a breakdown on screenshots that 99% of people won't even bother to notice. I guess my frustration isn't really, "Why are people doing this?" It's more, "What has this industry and market become?"

It's a graphics thread man. It's in the freaking title. What else am I to look at? Is this a "What does NEOGAF think of the art design on Wii U's second wave of games" thread? Nope. So I'm going to pick it apart just like anything else put on the screen for a "graphics" discussion.

 

[VariantX]

Looks pretty good to me. The only negative i would mention is that it needs alot more color. Since the game isn't final, I would assume its going to look better as they reveal new environments and polish the game further.

 

[AltogetherAndrews]

Nice tiny pictures

 

[GhostTrick]

There are plenty of games that have much more going on in terms of level design.

I'll post this again for you because I'm sure you missed it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i5TQDeoump4

Running on 360. Amazing draw distance, high foliage draw distance (PS3 isn't nearly as good on this part because of alphas), shadow maps from dynamic clouds, God rays and other lighting effects, AI doing it's thing instead of just walking around like an idiot, dust rolling over hills... there is so much going on in comparison to the X trailer.

Ah yes ! This video again ! Supposed to claim it's more detailed while it's less detailed ) The only thing that looks better in RDR is water effects.

 

[papercamm]

They look nice. The Wind Waker HD screens reminded me a lot of Link's Adventures. Even more so on the Gamepad I'd imagine. The X game looked great as well.

 

[ugoo18]

You're 100% correct. This game has great draw distance.

The trade off?

There is practically nothing in the environment.

Going by the radar shots in some parts of the video there are a multitude of enemies around, also if it's anything like Xenoblade then the environment is far from empty.

 

[Projectjustice]

It's more like people are personally offended just because a single Wii U game has a better combination of draw distance, overall iq, detail than comparable efforts on the HD twins.. Wii U is marginally more powerful than the last gen and X shows.

Deal with it.

Can't wait till they released more footage with improved graphics. Heads are going to explode around here.

 

[phosphor112]

Nothing in the environnement, except lot of folliages, monsters, really nice detailled landscapes.

Foliage with poor draw distance, landscapes that are no more detailed than other games (texture filtering seems better though, which I'll give it that), and oh my, monsters. AI for monsters don't compare to games with characters that walk around doing an activity that isn't walking around aimlessly with a random grazing animation here and there.

Ah yes ! This video again ! Supposed to claim it's more detailed while it's less detailed )

Lol. Yeah ok.

 

[omonimo]

People like me are defensive because other people give statements about how this game looks like crap when these statements are actually worthless because they don't take into account at which state this game is yet. They're basically comparing apples and oranges.

People like me just try to point out their illogical reasoning.

Also there's a lot of WOLOLO involved, at least sometimes.

EDIT: Maybe if they'd word their posts a little more accurately (as instead of "This looks like crap" they could write "Right now this looks like crap") there'd be less of bitching and moaning.

wat? where?

 

[Bjoern the Smexy]

There are plenty of games that have much more going on in terms of level design.

I'll post this again for you because I'm sure you missed it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i5TQDeoump4

Running on 360. Amazing draw distance, high foliage draw distance (PS3 isn't nearly as good on this part because of alphas), shadow maps from dynamic clouds, God rays and other lighting effects, AI doing it's thing instead of just walking around like an idiot, dust rolling over hills... there is so much going on in comparison to the X trailer.

That video is equally barren and empty.
It's got trees and clouds, that's all I see in there. No wildlife or anything, you know.
EDIT: Talking about the non-town-stuff of course.
EDIT 2: This is getting ridiulous. I'm leaving this thread now.

 

[GhostTrick]

Foliage with poor draw distance, landscapes that are no more detailed than other games (texture filtering seems better though, which I'll give it that), and oh my, monsters. AI for monsters don't compare to games with characters that walk around doing an activity that isn't walking around aimlessly with a random grazing animation here and there.



Lol. Yeah ok.

Funniest thing is that you're making the assumption that the entire game will be about huge monsters and only landscape, with no cities or anything else.
Also, more folliage as I already said, and more detailled too. Only thing you shown is a desert. Also, some people showed Gran Pulse from FF13 and trying to argue it's the same... yeah, minus the folliage, the creatures and real time fighting.

 

[Captain Smoker]

Of course we don't. This game is nowhere near that level so let's get that out of the way.

(...)

The game looks like it will be cool (I hope) but the graphics leave something to be desired (not from an art perspective).

Noone analyzes still images in real-life, you play the games and see the visual as a complete package.

The only purpose of this discussion is that some people want to tell others that "their" console can do some nice graphics, because some "tech-group"-knights (most of them not even interested in the system) don't think so.

And what if you conclude that a game has some pop-ups? You're right? Ok, who cares.


For me, as a gamer, this is just useless, sorry.


If the games would look like N64-games, ok, but this is just getting ridiculous.

 

[SerOnionKnight]

I love how smooth 101 looks. I am on the hype train now. Choo Choo!

 

[Easy_D]

I can't tell if that is supposed to be a joke post or not.

"Low polygon terrain" = one obvious corner

"Sun height doesnt affect shadows at all. Here sun is about in 30 degree, but shadow is cast from 80 degree. So lighting is static, mostly prebaked."

The only shadow I can make out in this picture is of the vehicle which obviously isn't pre-baked. Someone already pointed out a shadow from the environment casing onto an enemy. There is probably some amount of pre-baking - just like there is in KZ2 and Rage among a million other titles.

"Particles quality is on pair with pre PS2 era, alpha texture resolution 64x64?" - ok yeah, this is a joke post.

Good one, you had me going for a while.

Not to mention the fact that the game isn't releasing any time soon. And Xenoblade looked like absolute trash when it was initially revealed as Monado, look where that ended up. This doesn't look anywhere as bad as Monado-Blade did though, so it probably won't look that much different, but shit like shadows and weird shorelines will certainly be fixed.