Support NeoGAF

[brain_stew]

I guess the textures are strictly kept in the 1T SRAM for the game. Obviously for performance reasons.

Textures can be stored in any pool, in fact its usually more common for them to be stored in the GDDR3 from what I've gathered from various comments. You can do quite a lot with that, you only really need to look at Brawl for the evidence, where the textures only really show up their detail when its rendered in "HD" through a PC emualtor.

You're not going to be applying a normal map for increased detail on top of that ofcourse (the Wii can do normal mapping but it doesn't really make much sense) but there's no reason to leave out some embossed bump mapping as the Wii is super quick at that and its not going to eat into your memory budget all that much.


Couple examples:

Better than some textures in some HD games? Yep, I think that's a fair comment.

 

[TTP]

One poster says that the best looking wii games like SMG and MP3 have better textures than some HD games and people get all defensive and post pictures of the best looking HD games...

seriously...

He brought up MGS4 to prove his point tho. That's honestly hilarious.

 

[Rush2thestart]

Did anyone even realize that a Treyarch dev that worked on MWR posted in here?

Just wondering cause no one gave him any attention.

 

[Thunder Monkey]

You realize we have an executable to run too, right? Every single data structure, library work buffer, and stream buffer allocation has to come out of those same two memory pools. More memory has to be set aside on top of that for common assets (font textures, etc.). That 25mb is all we have left over for the assets associated with the level data.

I just want to say how much I appreciate the work you guys do.

I don't tend to like shooters that much, but I didn't realize exactly how difficult it was making a low poly model (1,000 to 5,000 poly's) look good while limiting the strain on the hardware until I started trying my hand at it.

 

[[Nintex]]

Assassin's Creed, GRAW 1&2, RSV 1&2, Prince of Persia, and Far Cry 2 don't have better textures than Metroid Prime 3?

Are you guys playing the same games I am?

I didn't say that...

The only thing I said is that Ubisoft uses lighting and blur effects to cover up bad textures and that their textures are just bad in general. The bolded games pretty much proof my point when you compare them to other HD games. I don't think anyone would be stupid enough to compare the Wii with the PS3 or Xbox 360 in 2009.

One poster says that the best looking wii games like SMG and MP3 have better textures than some HD games and people get all defensive and post pictures of the best looking HD games...

seriously...

I call them

The Keighley Generation.

 

[brain_stew]

He brought up MGS4 to prove his point tho. That's honestly hilarious.

There's plenty shitty textures in MGS4 though.....

He didn't say they all sucked.

Is that from COD4? I never played it so I wouldn't have a clue if it is.

Edit: Question for those that have played COD4 and World At War, would you say one is more graphic intensive than the other or are they about the same?

World at War pushes a lot more effects at once, and performance is noticeably worse accross all platforms.

 

[Haunted]

Textures can be stored in any pool, in fact its usually more common for them to be stored in the GDDR3 from what I've gathered from various comments. You can do quite a lot with that, you only really need to look at Brawl for the evidence, where the textures only really show up their detail when its rendered in "HD" through a PC emualtor.

You're not going to be applying a normal map for increased detail on top of that ofcourse (the Wii can do normal mapping but it doesn't really make much sense) but there's no reason to leave out some embossed bump mapping as the Wii is super quick at that and its not going to eat into your memory budget all that much.


Couple examples:

Better than some textures in some HD games? Yep, I think that's a fair comment.

Why can't CoD Gag Reflex have textures like that? Who's the Treyarch guy someone said was in here?

 

[fyzxwhyz]

Why can't CoD Gag Reflex have textures like that? Who's the Treyarch guy someone said was in here?

Do you really not think there might be a difference in the technical requirements between a fighting game, on a small platform-based stage that only has to draw 4 cartoon characters, and a FPS pushing 32 human AI chars at once? Really?

 

[Thunder Monkey]

Do you really not think there might be a difference in the technical requirements between a fighting game, on a small platform-based stage that only has to draw 4 cartoon characters, and a FPS pushing 32 human AI chars at once? Really?

Haunted mocks.

He is a mocker.

Pretty damn good at it too.:lol

 

[Vagabundo]

Do you really not think there might be a difference in the technical requirements between a fighting game, on a small platform-based stage that only has to draw 4 cartoon characters, and a FPS pushing 32 human AI chars at once? Really?

I guess your that guy ..

And it is a fair point.

 

[[Nintex]]

Do you really not think there might be a difference in the technical requirements between a fighting game, on a small platform-based stage that only has to draw 4 cartoon characters, and a FPS pushing 32 human AI chars at once? Really?

It's great that you give us information and all and first I'd like to thank you for that but...

I recall a certain company build a game in just 9 months with 3 Star Destroyers and 40-50 Tie fighters and a dozen of Rebel ships on screen at once with every graphical effect the GameCube could handle.

I'm sure the process of porting is different and all that, but don't try to defend the graphics with the myth of demanding COD AI and don't blame the Wii hardware for the obvious shortcomings of the software. Unless the final product is way better than what we've seen so far but I doubt it is worth showing considering we still haven't seen a screenshot yet and I simply don't buy the: "the publishers hate the Wii!" excuse.

 

[fyzxwhyz]

Haunted mocks.

He is a mocker.

Pretty damn good at it too.:lol

Oh. If he was being facetious, then well, "whoosh."

It is pretty silly though when people try to do a graphical comparison between call of duty and something like mario galaxy (with what are effectively cartoon characters), without acknowledging that realistic human characters require an extra level of system resources. A HUGE chunk of our memory is taken up by character animation data for each of the thousands of different body and facial poses that our characters can be in. Each character has 100+ individually animated bones and has to be prepared to play any combination of thousands of animations. This is especially true in MP - if someone tries to fire an rpg while leaning left, aiming upwards, and jumping off a building, we need to have a realistic-looking human animation ready to handle that. Altogether, human character animations comprise an enormous amount of data.

A lot of shooters opt to use aliens, animals, or stylized figures rather than humans just to avoid the skinning and animation problems that come up. Even games that do go with human characters often cover up the faces with masks, or similar, to get around having to do facial animation. The memory they save on animations and character models can go straight toward texture or fx resolution. Galaxy is a fantastic looking game, but you're not really comparing apples to apples when you ask why captain price doesn't look quite the same as mario or bowser.

 

[[Nintex]]

Even games that do go with human characters often cover up the faces with masks, or similar, to get around having to do facial animation.

I want to believe, but it doesn't even look like this guy has a face so how will we even notice this incredible facial animation?

 

[fyzxwhyz]

It's great that you give us information and all and first I'd like to thank you for that but...

I recall a certain company build a game in just 9 months with 3 Star Destroyers and 40-50 Tie fighters and a dozen of Rebel ships on screen at once with every graphical effect the GameCube could handle.

I'm sure the process of porting is different and all that, but don't try to defend the graphics with the myth of demanding COD AI and don't blame the Wii hardware for the obvious shortcomings of the software. Unless the final product is way better than what we've seen so far but I doubt it is worth showing considering we still haven't seen a screenshot yet and I simply don't buy the: "the publishers hate the Wii!" excuse.

See the note I just posted regarding character animation and why it sucks system resources away from other things that might make the screenshots look better. It doesn't take much to run the logic and animation for a tie fighter - even 40 or 50 of them. From what I remember of that game, the tie fighter AI was limited to flyovers and short dogfights, and the models didn't have more than a few individually moving parts. Operating and animating a human AI is at a completely different level of complexity.

But the bigger issue is that you are comparing a game designed around last-gen hardware with a game designed for the xbox 360 that had to be shoehorned into what the Wii could realistically handle. The development challenges couldn't be more different.

And I know the screenshots suck, but the game looks a lot better than that, and it will have to speak for itself when it comes out. Until then, if you still really get a kick out of reposting those old screens, then I can't do much about that.

 

[Anony]

i;m sure if there were screenshot worth posting, activision would have posted it already
the game does come out in a few weeks i think

we have nothing to grasp on other than those shitty screens that they released
since they are the only thing we have, there is only that in which we can compare

 

[Dabookerman]

And I know the screenshots suck, but the game looks a lot better than that.

Why were they released?

 

[[Nintex]]

See the note I just posted regarding character animation and why it sucks system resources away from other things that might make the screenshots look better. It doesn't take much to run the logic and animation for a tie fighter - even 40 or 50 of them. From what I remember of that game, the tie fighter AI was limited to flyovers and short dogfights, and the models didn't have more than a few individually moving parts. Operating and animating a human AI is at a completely different level of complexity.

But the bigger issue is that you are comparing a game designed around last-gen hardware with a game designed for the xbox 360 that had to be shoehorned into what the Wii could realistically handle. The development challenges couldn't be more different.

Fair enough but it seems to me that the COD AI isn't much better. I recall Infinity Ward using infinite spawns to keep the difficulty up in veteran because the AI surely wasn't any better than Call of Duty 2 or even the original.

And I know the screenshots suck, but the game looks a lot better than that, and it will have to speak for itself when it comes out. Until then, if you really get a kick out of reposting those old screens, then I can't do much about that.

I'll take your word for it and no I don't get a kick out of that but after Quantum of Solace, COD3 and Dead Rising: Chop Till You Drop I'm burned out on Wii ports. Capcom also said that the final Dead Rising game would look and play better than the first shown footage and it certainly didn't. I'm sure you guys put alot of work into those games but don't be surprised when Wii owners are sceptic about third party games, especially when they're ports.

 

[Xeke]

Why were they released?

He's not in the PR department.

 

[Cant0na]

threads missing some Killzone2 gifs

 

[boiled goose]

See the note I just posted regarding character animation and why it sucks system resources away from other things that might make the screenshots look better. It doesn't take much to run the logic and animation for a tie fighter - even 40 or 50 of them. From what I remember of that game, the tie fighter AI was limited to flyovers and short dogfights, and the models didn't have more than a few individually moving parts. Operating and animating a human AI is at a completely different level of complexity.

But the bigger issue is that you are comparing a game designed around last-gen hardware with a game designed for the xbox 360 that had to be shoehorned into what the Wii could realistically handle. The development challenges couldn't be more different.

And I know the screenshots suck, but the game looks a lot better than that, and it will have to speak for itself when it comes out. Until then, if you still really get a kick out of reposting those old screens, then I can't do much about that.

The game looks like shit. There are reasons for that. Short development time, downport and not ground up, etc.

Still the game looks like shit. For a wii game.

The Conduit gets a lot of criticism, but it did look quite good for the wii, especially the textures on the characters, which is where CODMWR looks particularly bad.

Reflex is a subpar product. I am sure the individuals working on it are doing the best they can, but that won't change the fact that if the game were given the proper treatment, it could look a hell of a lot better.

 

[fyzxwhyz]

I'll take your word for it and no I don't get a kick out of that but after Quantum of Solace, COD3 and Dead Rising: Chop Till You Drop I'm burned out on Wii ports.

Fun fact: cod 3 was literally ported to the wii by two guys, using ps2 assets. I'm not even exaggerating. So cut us a break on that one.

 

[Durante]

The Conduit gets a lot of criticism, but it did look quite good for the wii, especially the textures on the characters, which is where CODMWR looks particularly bad.

The Conduit wasn't designed to run on hardware an order of magnitude more powerful. This point was brought up by fyzxwhyz repeatedly but I think people still don't fully realize its importance. Why do you think direct ports of the exact same game to Wii are almost never attempted?

 

[aeolist]

The Conduit wasn't designed to run on hardware an order of magnitude more powerful. This point was brought up by fyzxwhyz repeatedly but I think people still don't fully realize its importance. Why do you think direct ports of the exact same game to Wii are almost never attempted?

So we should buy the game because it's unfair to be prejudiced against it? Whether there's good reasons for it or not the game still looks like shit.

 

[[Nintex]]

Fun fact: cod 3 was literally ported to the wii by two guys, using ps2 assets. I'm not even exaggerating. So cut us a break on that one.

What the hell... seriously, how does shit like that even fly.

 

[nightside]

I want to believe, but it doesn't even look like this guy has a face so how will we even notice this incredible facial animation?

why is pax in WM?

 

[Durante]

So we should buy the game because it's unfair to be prejudiced against it? Whether there's good reasons for it or not the game still looks like shit.

Not at all. (Really, nothing could be further from me to suggest) I just tried to explain why it looks like it does.

 

[magash]

Fun fact: cod 3 was literally ported to the wii by two guys, using ps2 assets. I'm not even exaggerating. So cut us a break on that one.

Unfriggin believable...and the retards running game studios wonder why people dont buy their shit.

 

[Ghnvt]

Talk about being scaled back. Those lines just look harsh. Ouch!

 

[boiled goose]

The Conduit wasn't designed to run on hardware an order of magnitude more powerful. This point was brought up by fyzxwhyz repeatedly but I think people still don't fully realize its importance. Why do you think direct ports of the exact same game to Wii are almost never attempted?

From my previous post:


The game looks like shit. There are reasons for that. Short development time, downport and not ground up, etc.

Still the game looks like shit. For a wii game.



I explicitly said there are reasons why it doesnt look great. Doesnt change the fact that it doesnt look great. By sending out a product that looks like crap you are sending a message.

Unfriggin believable...and the retards running game studios wonder why people dont buy their shit.

As surprising as this might seem COD3 sold quite decently on the wii. Better or just as much as the PS3 version, which is why people were surprised there was no CODMW announced for wii when other versions came out.

The individuals who did the port of COD3 to wii are extremely hard working individuals, it doesnt change the fact that activision put 2 people to work on the port, and that CODMWR doesnt look much better even though it is coming out three years later and after CODWAW sold over a million copies on the Wii.

 

[Scrubking]

See the note I just posted regarding character animation and why it sucks system resources away from other things that might make the screenshots look better. It doesn't take much to run the logic and animation for a tie fighter - even 40 or 50 of them. From what I remember of that game, the tie fighter AI was limited to flyovers and short dogfights, and the models didn't have more than a few individually moving parts. Operating and animating a human AI is at a completely different level of complexity.

But the bigger issue is that you are comparing a game designed around last-gen hardware with a game designed for the xbox 360 that had to be shoehorned into what the Wii could realistically handle. The development challenges couldn't be more different.

And I know the screenshots suck, but the game looks a lot better than that, and it will have to speak for itself when it comes out. Until then, if you still really get a kick out of reposting those old screens, then I can't do much about that.

Word of advice: Stop wasting your time with the morons who are talking shit about the game and can't comprehend that the screens posted don't represent the final game. Half of them are idiots who can't read and the other half are stupid trolls who don't really care what you have to say and will twist and attack every one of your posts.

 

[Yagharek]

Fun fact: cod 3 was literally ported to the wii by two guys, using ps2 assets. I'm not even exaggerating. So cut us a break on that one.

Same as the old ET 2600 game, its impressive if someone can do it, but its still a shit game.

You can argue for cutting the devs a break on it, but there is no way the publisher gets a free ride for showing utter contempt for customers.

 

[boiled goose]

Word of advice: Stop wasting your time with the morons who are talking shit about the game and can't comprehend that the screens posted don't represent the final game. Half of them are idiots who can't read and the other half are stupid trolls who don't really care what you have to say and will twist and attack every one of your posts.

Most people are saying one of two things

If the game looks better now, why not release new screens????!!

or

The game looks bad, regardless of the reasons (excuses?)
Most people know it is not the devs fault, as they know they are working within the constraints given to them by the publishers.

 

[fyzxwhyz]

From my previous post:


The game looks like shit. There are reasons for that. Short development time, downport and not ground up, etc.

Still the game looks like shit. For a wii game.



I explicitly said there are reasons why it doesnt look great. Doesnt change the fact that it doesnt look great. By sending out a product that looks like crap you are sending a message.

Do those screenshots look bad? Yes. Does the game itself look bad? No. I'm not defending those screenshots, because they aren't accurate in the first place. No, I don't know why Activision released them. No, I don't know why they don't release new media already. But at least let the game come out before you dismiss it out of hand. The press's impressions of the graphics at the Gamescom demo were all positive, which should at least give you a hint that the game looks a lot better than those screens suggest.

 

[[Nintex]]

Word of advice: Stop wasting your time with the morons who are talking shit about the game and can't comprehend that the screens posted don't represent the final game. Half of them are idiots who can't read and the other half are stupid trolls who don't really care what you have to say and will twist and attack every one of your posts.

To be fair it's a heated debate on a touchy subject but to label everyone as trolls or idiots is just wrong. In fact most of us make clear that we do appreciate that fyzxwhyz gives us some insight on how these ports are made.

 

[Gospel]

While I think this game looks like balls, given the fact that it's a downport rather than a product built with the intended hardware in mind is a factor that should be considered.

With that said, everyone here should at least be able to comprehend that much. Especially since it's the Wii. If we should blame anyone, it should be the publisher for deciding tactfully on initiating work on a port instead of something different that can stand on its own in the series (But not a guided first-person experience rail shooter)

 

[scobur]

Who is this for?

 

[GDGF]

No, continue arguing. You are finally convincing me of the PS3's graphical superiority to the Wii, about which I was previously unaware.

:lol

Yeah, this thread got pretty stupid for a while there didn't it?

 

[Kibbles]

I can't wait to see how the nuke scene looks. Hopefully they aren't using cutscenes recorded from the xbox 360 version. :lol

 

[J-Rock]

Fun fact: cod 3 was literally ported to the wii by two guys, using ps2 assets. I'm not even exaggerating. So cut us a break on that one.

Good old Activision. Disgusting.

I know some of you want to give Treyarch shit but you need to remember that Activision tells them what to do.

 

[Anony]

Fun fact: cod 3 was literally ported to the wii by two guys, using ps2 assets. I'm not even exaggerating. So cut us a break on that one.

...
yet cod3 is a million seller on wii i believe
free money

guess this is why no resources goes to wii

 

[Jocchan]

...
yet cod3 is a million seller on wii i believe
free money

guess this is why no resources goes to wii

Activision probably used that money to expand the Wii port team to four people and a half, so they could tout they're more than doubling their efforts.

 

[beef3483]

So we should buy the game because it's unfair to be prejudiced against it? Whether there's good reasons for it or not the game still looks like shit.

Because there's more to a game than just graphics. If this game retains all the gameplay that people praise COD4 for, then it can look like Doom 1 for all I care. Wii FPS controls own dual analog and they alone have the potential to make a game worth owning.

It's not a FPS, but I recently finished playing Dead Space on PS3, and all I could think about was how IR pointing coupled with tilt functionality would've made the game so much more fun. But most people don't compare that way. I think it's unfair how Wii games get crapped upon for not living up to HD systems standards, but HD games never get contrasted to Wii's strengths.

 

[Haunted]

The last two pages had the most interesting insight this thread has provided so far, thanks to fyzxwhyz. As usual, we'll be respectful to developers

Spoiler

that aren't called Dyack

and wait for new media before mocking the game any further.

It should look better than WaW, at least.


edit: hot damn @ the "2 people ported WaW Wii" comment. That's like a fourth of the size of the Okami Wii team!

Haunted mocks.

He is a mocker.

Pretty damn good at it too.:lol

*salutes*

 

[Jocchan]

Poor

Spoiler

Denis

.

 

[fyzxwhyz]

edit: hot damn @ the "2 people ported WaW Wii" comment. That's like a fourth of the size of the Okami Wii team!

Cod3. Not WAW. Not that WAW was well-staffed either, but it was a step above what we had for cod3.

 

[Anony]

no, we should continue mocking until we get some new footage
THEN, depending on what we see, if we should retract everything, or mock more

maybe this will make them release footage faster

 

[AceBandage]

The last two pages had the most interesting insight this thread has provided so far, thanks to fyzxwhyz. As usual, we'll be respectful to developers

Spoiler

that aren't called Dyack

and wait for new media before mocking the game any further.

It should look better than WaW, at least.


edit: hot damn @ the "2 people ported WaW Wii" comment. That's like a fourth of the size of the Okami Wii team!


*salutes*

Actually, it was CoD3, not WaW.
But yeah, Okami was also kind of a quicky port job (Capcom wouldn't even give RAD assets to the game for a long time).
Really is amazing how third parties expect Wii owners to just lap up this crap... but I guess that it is just free money.

 

[Blackbird|]

Hahaha. The Wii produces textures, and not the artist. Brilliant!

The point is, the Wii has much greater limits in texture space than that of the other two + PC. You have much more creative freedom when presented with a texture space of 1024x1024 rather than 256x256.

This is precisely why realism or similar art styles are so futile on the Wii.

It's like asking Michaelangelo to paint the roof of your local bus stop rather than his crescendo at the Sistine Chapel.

The wii can do 512X512 textures

 

[Haunted]

Cod3. Not WAW. Not that WAW was well-staffed either, but it was a step above what we had for cod3.

Oh right, my bad. Doesn't make the process any better, though! Maybe Activision will grant the Wii a real development team in two or three years, that would be exciting.

And I guess they're not releasing new screens because people in Activision marketing are focused on MW2. I would expect Reflex to be treated as an afterthought in all development stages.


edit: oh my, that came out harsher than I intended. Oh well.

 

[Fersis]

Mad props to fyzxwhyz for being so open about the development.
It must suck for the team reading forums with impressions about screenshots from an alpha build.
Mad props.