Support NeoGAF

[hiro4]

I'd buy 10x more Nintendo first party games if they came out on 360/iOS.

I'm an adult, I don't want their hardware any more.

And yet you act like a spoiled little child.

 

[Rimfya]

And yet you act like a spoiled little child.

LOL, I do?

 

[hiro4]

LOL, I do?

Yes.
You don't want the hardware BECAUSE you are an adult?
That totally sounds like a spoiled little child to me.

 

[MaxwellGT2000]

LOL, I do?

They're saying that cause basing what you buy on some silly notion of how mature the hardware is/makes you look/perceived is itself immature and childish. A man should be able to read a childrens book and even enjoy it if so chooses, if someone else has an opinion that said man is immature for liking said book, then they're being a bit childish, if said man is shamed by someone else's opinions then he probably hasn't grown up enough to learn being who you are is the only way to really be happy with yourself... thus he's being a bit immature by letting another affect his decisions on what he likes and does not like.

To quote C.S. Lewis

"Critics who treat adult as a term of approval, instead of as a merely descriptive term, cannot be adult themselves. To be concerned about being grown up, to admire the grown up because it is grown up, to blush at the suspicion of being childish; these things are the marks of childhood and adolescence. And in childhood and adolescence they are, in moderation, healthy symptoms. Young things ought to want to grow. But to carry on into middle life or even into early manhood this concern about being adult is a mark of really arrested development. When I was ten, I read fairy tales in secret and would have been ashamed if I had been found doing so. Now that I am fifty I read them openly. When I became a man I put away childish things, including the fear of childishness and the desire to be very grown up."

 

[bomma_man]

Many gamers (a lot of them on GAF) actually believe that.

They don't love video games, exactly. They love it when video games overlap with "wowie!" spectacle, and they can't handle it when they don't. Weird and sad.

Even sadder, they'll irrationally accept lower-powered inferior tech in handhelds. They can play and enjoy those games. But not lower-powered consoles. For no real reason at all.



1) We're not talking about games you can get somewhere else. We're not talking about Wii downports or something. We're talking about games you can play on the Wii (or on a Wii emulator) or else you don't play them at all, like Xenoblade.

Preferring a better-looking game when you have options is one thing. I always got the Xbox ports of multi-platform games last generation because they were almost always better-looking and thus the definite console versions. But refusing to play a game you want to play because it isn't available on the "cutting edge" (derogatory console joke goes here) technology is pretty weird.

Chrono Trigger was close to my favourite game of this generation (hey it counts, it was never released here before). People probably think I'm some kind of freak.

Seriously though, my enjoyment of these forums (and by extension all gaming forums) is really reduced by people that care about specs over all else, istantally write off anything that uses a touchscreen or motion, and who proudly and unironically call themselves hardcore. It seems so juvenile, and somewhat reminiscent of the American lunatic right (the obsession with tradition, 'real' Americans/games, dismissal of history, meaningless buzzwords, "liberals/casuals are ruing my America/industry!!!, vilifying a perceived enemy etc etc).

 

[Rimfya]

Please.

I like Pixar films but that doesn't mean I want a device that only plays Pixar films. I bought a device (360) to play heaps of games. I'd love to play Mario Galaxy 2 but sold my Wii once it became clear those were the ONLY games I'd ever play (and while I could still make a profit on it to buy a 360).

They'd drop money on hardware but Nintendo would kill it on sales for multi plat software titles.

 

[Jac_Solar]

It's not shallow or superficial. It's a cultural acceptance of technological progress like sound or color in movies. Nothing speaks to the human condition like another human's experience and we still can't get that right in most games. IMO.

It does drive the progress of technology forward yes, and for that it is good, but so does war. And it being culturally accepted is pretty much what I was speaking to. Graphic quality itself does eventually boil down to beauty and a limited scope of preference, and preferring pretty things. I'm merely saying it's an integrated part of human nature, and it's a part of us. Besides driving technology forward, it's a mostly negative thing, as it puts a strict limit on what we can enjoy.

I'm not sure that humans can even overcome it, and enjoy 'everything', as contrast, or balance, is a key element of nature and the universe itself.

 

[SkyMasterson]

Please.

I like Pixar films but that doesn't mean I want a device that only plays Pixar films. I bought a device (360) to play heaps of games. I'd love to play Mario Galaxy 2 but sold my Wii once it became clear those were the ONLY games I'd ever play (and while I could still make a profit on it to buy a 360).

They'd drop money on hardware but Nintendo would kill it on sales for multi plat software titles.

Not sure what types of games you're into but good luck getting your fill of RPG's, Platformers and other odds and ends on the 360.

Don't get me wrong, I love my 360 and XBLA does help make the lineup of games seem more diverse, but you're getting heaps of FPS's and third person shooters on the 360 (not that theres anything wrong with that). I have my 360 for those great games and XBL.

My Wii is for games I can't get on the 360/PS3 or anywhere else for that matter really. Doesn't make you more of a man by not owning a Wii, smh. lol

 

[Metal Gear?!]

Don't really buy the Sterling 'it wouldn't be possible in HD!" bit. The folks interested in games like this don't exactly expect GoW level graphics to start with. It is much more the jaggies, blurriness and extreme clip distance that cause the problem. Something an HD console could fix without increasing costs much at all. FFX/FF12 HD are a good example, I think.

No publisher would have funded a game that looked exactly like Xenoblade but rendered in HD - that's the point. The only game that's really close to a PS2/Wii era game but in HD is Deadly Premonition and that was released at $20 - imagine the reception it would have encountered at $50 or $60.

 

[Mael]

Don't really buy the Sterling 'it wouldn't be possible in HD!" bit. The folks interested in games like this don't exactly expect GoW level graphics to start with. It is much more the jaggies, blurriness and extreme clip distance that cause the problem. Something an HD console could fix without increasing costs much at all. FFX/FF12 HD are a good example, I think.

AHAH, you act as if a game with the scope of FFX and FFXII would be reasonnably be made on an HD console.

 

[MYE]

I'd buy 10x more Nintendo first party games if they came out on 360/iOS.

I'm an adult, I don't want their hardware any more.

Christ... This thread, nuke it from orbit.

 

[aliencowz7]

No publisher would have funded a game that looked exactly like Xenoblade but rendered in HD - that's the point. The only game that's really close to a PS2/Wii era game but in HD is Deadly Premonition and that was released at $20 - imagine the reception it would have encountered at $50 or $60.

Uh, that's kind of untrue. There are an absolute ton of games on ps3 and 360 that are essentially a ps2 or wii game upscaled to HD and sold for full price.

Tales of graces F which just recently came out is that exact thing, a wii game that was Upscaled into HD for release on ps3. Not to mention who knows how many other japanese games that have done the same thing this gen.

This isn't some surprising revelation that lower tech means a lower hardcap on potential for a game, sure not every game is going to become a whole lot better from being made in HD but they certainly get far more potential room to be better. In a medium made for escaping from reality and using your imagination you would think that more potential would be encouraged.

 

[CoffeeJanitor]

I still am wowed by previous gen games though. That moment when you get on the knee in Xenoblade definitely wowed me, even though I'm not a huge fan of the game. Skyward Sword stunned me in places too. This is all on a Wii with a fucked graphics card so the IQ is even worse than normal. I understand that people like nice IQ, just like how'd I'd rather watch a blu ray than a DVD, bit beyond that I really don't care. ICO and SOTC are still two of the best looking games on my PS3 for example.

I think the argument that better graphics create more relatable characters is nonsense too. As long as a character is well written and graphically consistent it will be relatable. Your brain will fill in the gaps. I mean, are characters in Ghibli movies not relatable because they're unrealistic? Toy Story? Fucking books???

The bolded is the point. The question is, all things being equal, would one prefer better visuals?

I don't think you can relate this to something like studio ghibli movies...

1) We're not talking about games you can get somewhere else. We're not talking about Wii downports or something. We're talking about games you can play on the Wii (or on a Wii emulator) or else you don't play them at all, like Xenoblade.

Preferring a better-looking game when you have options is one thing. I always got the Xbox ports of multi-platform games last generation because they were almost always better-looking and thus the definite console versions. But refusing to play a game you want to play because it isn't available on the "cutting edge" (derogatory console joke goes here) technology is pretty weird.

I can go back and play NES and pre-NES games and enjoy the heck out of them. I know the hardware's limitations and I simply enjoy the games for what they are instead of crying about what they aren't. What's wrong with people who can't do that?

2) lol @ comparing PS3 and 360 titles to PC games. I play PC games all the time that look better than what the two HD consoles are capable of providing.

No one is refusing to play the game. You're putting words in my mouth (and the author of the article in question is playing the game right now).

I'm a big retro gamer, as well. There's nothing wrong with retro game visuals. The thing is, though, I can appreciate the titles for how they looked at the time of release. YI2 or Battletoads, whatever, I can appreciate it. But the Wii is a current gen console. It's jarring going from a current gen title from a more powerful console to SS. It doesn't get the benefit of the doubt because it's a current release, and the visuals disappoint because of that.

And I knew someone would nitpick about including PC...

I don't see how this thread got to 10 pages. I don't think anyone would disagree than great IQ is better than good IQ. And yet for some reason people get defensive about all of this. Irrational nonsense.

 

[mclem]

I'm a big retro gamer, as well. There's nothing wrong with retro game visuals. The thing is, though, I can appreciate the titles for how they looked at the time of release. YI2 or Battletoads, whatever, I can appreciate it. But the Wii is a current gen console. It's jarring going from a current gen title from a more powerful console to SS. It doesn't get the benefit of the doubt because it's a current release, and the visuals disappoint because of that.

This game was released in 1983. It came out at about the point the NES first appeared in Japan:

Now do you hate all NES titles? After all, the hardware was *clearly* behind the times.

I don't see how this thread got to 10 pages. I don't think anyone would disagree than great IQ is better than good IQ. And yet for some reason people get defensive about all of this. Irrational nonsense.

The problem is that you're making a false equivalence. Of *course* great IQ is better than good IQ. No-one is arguing against that. The people arguing against you are stating two things:

* The increase in IQ would have necessitated a tradeoff.
* The gains from the IQ increase may have been outweighed by the costs of the tradeoff.

 

[CoffeeJanitor]

This game was released in 1983. It came out at about the point the NES was released in Japan:

http://i.imgur.com/oYGmr.gif[IMG]
[IMG]http://i.imgur.com/bY2UL.png[IMG]
[IMG]http://i.imgur.com/3SkBz.jpg[IMG]

Now do you hate all NES titles? After all, the hardware was *clearly* behind the times.[/QUOTE]This is pointless. I'm not going to argue this because there's nothing to argue about.

I wish the Wii were more powerful so that titles that I loved on the console would look better. I don't care that it's been six years, it still sucks. That's all I have to say.

 

[Kevtones]

I'd buy 10x more Nintendo first party games if they came out on 360/iOS.

I'm an adult, I don't want their hardware any more.

Pretty sure I can masturbate to this post. It's that transcendent. Thanks bro!

 

[jimi_dini]

I'd buy 10x more Nintendo first party games if they came out on 360/iOS.

I'm an adult, I don't want their hardware any more.

Does not compute a bit. You want their software. Hardware itself CANT be kiddie. It's just hardware. Their software therefore is

Spoiler

not

. So you want to play "kiddie" games.

 

[Night_Trekker]

I'm a big retro gamer, as well. There's nothing wrong with retro game visuals. The thing is, though, I can appreciate the titles for how they looked at the time of release. YI2 or Battletoads, whatever, I can appreciate it. But the Wii is a current gen console. It's jarring going from a current gen title from a more powerful console to SS. It doesn't get the benefit of the doubt because it's a current release, and the visuals disappoint because of that.

And I knew someone would nitpick about including PC...

Nitpick? I pointed out how irrational and silly it is to whine out of one side of your mouth about less powerful tech and then to praise, out of the other side of your mouth, the outdated tech in the PS3 and the 360. Same deal with playing old tech handhelds while something infinitely "better" is available on higher-end consoles and somehow enjoying those handheld games while poopooing lower-end console hardware of equal strength!

The bottom line is that you and lot of so-called hardcore gamers have come to believe consoles have to and should visually deliver a huge leap with every new console release simply because 1) until this generation, that's the way it's always been and 2) that's the way they like it. Nintendo made hand over fist showing the world that the former isn't necessary, and now manchildren are pitching fits because reality doesn't meet up with their absurd expectations. "I want all games in THE HIGHEST FIDELITY POSSIBLE!" Boohoo.

Nothing is more amusing and disgusting than a person who won't accept a reality staring them in the face, instead choosing to whine and moan endlessly about how unfair things are, as if being an obnoxious, entitled crybaby makes any difference. (And shut up, GAF: I was calling people out for their entitled natures long before it became an annoying games journalism stock term/topic.)

Chrono Trigger was close to my favourite game of this generation (hey it counts, it was never released here before). People probably think I'm some kind of freak.

Seriously though, my enjoyment of these forums (and by extension all gaming forums) is really reduced by people that care about specs over all else, istantally write off anything that uses a touchscreen or motion, and who proudly and unironically call themselves hardcore. It seems so juvenile, and somewhat reminiscent of the American lunatic right (the obsession with tradition, 'real' Americans/games, dismissal of history, meaningless buzzwords, "liberals/casuals are ruing my America/industry!!!, vilifying a perceived enemy etc etc).

I will simply say I agree with your basic argument, but I will point out how hilariously myopic you are if you actually believe the right in America have a monopoly on delusion. Maybe step back and look around without the burden of partisanship, if you're able.

People of all types get flat out irrational when it comes to politics, and that happens far more often than anyone behaves rationally and reasonably. That's just the way it is.

 

[zoukka]

Night_Trekker; I understand your logic, but bringing handhelds to the discussion is just defensive measures from you. People don't view their handheld games on the same screen as they view Uncharted x and Xenoblade. The difference becomes much more noticeable on a big screen with Wii games.

I don't have a problem with Wii games and how they look, but I can see why some people prefer not to play them after getting used to something else. Just human nature.

 

[qq more]

I'd buy 10x more Nintendo first party games if they came out on 360/iOS.

I'm an adult, I don't want their hardware any more.

...

Yep. I think we've hit the low point of the thread.

 

[Night_Trekker]

Night_Trekker; I understand your logic, but bringing handhelds to the discussion is just defensive measures from you. People don't view their handheld games on the same screen as they view Uncharted x and Xenoblade. The difference becomes much more noticeable on a big screen with Wii games.

I don't have a problem with Wii games and how they look, but I can see why some people prefer not to play them after getting used to something else. Just human nature.

The screen size thing is true. And there's nothing at all wrong with preferring high end consoles and handhelds exclusively. But the bare truth is the same people who "can't" play games on weaker tech suddenly can when it's the weaker tech they prefer. It's got nothing to do with high standards or refined taste and everything to do with completely irrational bias. So just admit that, instead of trying to tell everyone your biases have something to do with better taste or objectively superior preferences, and everything's fine!

Just please don't fucking whine about reality when it doesn't meet up to your expectations. Or, alternately, wallow in your self-pity for a while, but try to get over it eventually. How many years are we into this generation and ostensibly adult posters are still butthurt like petulant toddlers over the Wii's success? A great game is Wii exclusive and the waterworks start? Would it kill some of you to try acting your ages?

tl:dr version (the above post could have used one, huh?): what Opiate said.

 

[mclem]

I don't have a problem with Wii games and how they look, but I can see why some people prefer not to play them after getting used to something else. Just human nature.

That statement casts the opinions of wealthy developers/publishers who want *extreme* power - that only they can really afford to tap - in the next generation in an interesting light, doesn't it?

 

[zoukka]

Just please don't fucking whine about reality when it doesn't meet up to your expectations. Or, alternately, wallow in your self-pity for a while, but try to get over it eventually. How many years are we into this generation and ostensibly adult posters are still butthurt like petulant toddlers over the Wii's success? A great game is Wii exclusive and the waterworks start? Would it kill some of you to try acting your ages?

Come on now, very few people in 1st world countries live in "reality". We block out all the shit not interesting/pleasing to us and follow brands in all fields of life. Very few people can be as open as to accept anything worthwile to us and ignore all cultural/social aspects of it.

Sure it's stupid, but it's the norm.

That statement casts the opinions of wealthy developers/publishers who want *extreme* power - that only they can really afford to tap - in the next generation in an interesting light, doesn't it?

Well sure you can believe these people push hardware and new platforms "because of the good of gamerkind" and look like an ass, but at the same time, if that's the kind of game you like, then you have a point supporting them.

 

[Night_Trekker]

Come on now, very few people in 1st world countries live in "reality". We block out all the shit not interesting/pleasing to us and follow brands in all fields of life. Very few people can be as open as to accept anything worthwile to us and ignore all cultural/social aspects of it.

Sure it's stupid, but it's the norm.

I can find nothing in this post I disagree even a little bit.

 

[Neon_Icarus]

My guess is that Monolith could easily have made "cutscene versions" of the character models with more polygons and higher res textures like Square usually does (as far as I know) but they didn't have the budget to pull it off. Another source of ugliness is the super low-res textures on some larger walls/floors and rock formations but I suppose you can't really do any better with the Wii's limited texture memory. But I agree, I don't think this ever hampered my enjoyment of the game.

Don't forget, they would have had to make a higher res version of each and every piece of armor too. This isn't FFXIII, where you're characters always look the same.

 

[bomma_man]

I will simply say I agree with your basic argument, but I will point out how hilariously myopic you are if you actually believe the right in America have a monopoly on delusion. Maybe step back and look around without the burden of partisanship, if you're able.

People of all types get flat out irrational when it comes to politics, and that happens far more often than anyone behaves rationally and reasonably. That's just the way it is.

Well yeah of course, they're just a contemporary and extreme example of the phenomena. The fact that I compared them to 'hardcore' gamers should tell you that I don't think they have a monopoly on reactionary thinking. Although I think you're make a false equivocacy if you think that the left and right in the US are equally as extreme at the moment. But that's a different topic.

 

[Durante]

No one is refusing to play the game. You're putting words in my mouth (and the author of the article in question is playing the game right now).

Misrepresenting people's position has been a mainstay of this thread from the beginning. Mainly on the Nintendo side.

But the bare truth is the same people who "can't" play games on weaker tech suddenly can when it's the weaker tech they prefer. It's got nothing to do with high standards or refined taste and everything to do with completely irrational bias.

No, that's not the "bare truth". That's the picture if the issue you would like to paint because it furthers your argument. Some of us dislike bad IQ regardless of which box produced it.

I don't see how this thread got to 10 pages. I don't think anyone would disagree than great IQ is better than good IQ. And yet for some reason people get defensive about all of this. Irrational nonsense.

Agreed.

 

[Alex]

Asset quality isn't that meaningful to me. I mean I want it to keep marching forward when it's viable, but about the last gen stuff specificly hit a threshold to me that remains pleasing if the art direction is there to support it.

Image quality and resolution, however, are a lot more meaningful to me. I can totally understand where some people are coming from when they struggle to play games directly off the Wii unless they're hugely clean and simple like Mario Galaxy, for example. It can really look like a scrambled mess. I don't think anyone is in the wrong for having issues with that and the solution to get an old CRT SDTV isn't exactly going to work with most people.

Xenoblade really does look like shit played directly on the Wii, so I agree there. Luckily I have a nice gaming PC and can run it on Dolphin flawlessly @ 4x the resolution. For the actual build quality, I think character and armor art are iffy but the game does have some nice environments for it's original hardware, nothing competing with like modern open world games or MMOs or anything but theres some nice art and scaling going on and it is overall a good looking game when scaled up.

Either way though, we're luckily about over the hump now, with the Wii-U coming out so everything should be coming in at a passable 720p in the future, which is something to look forward to. It'd be nice if we could see some 1080p stuff next cycle on consoles but I really, really doubt it.

Veering to the side a little, it really feels like Nintendo should make another Xenoblade or at least an enhanced port of it and sell it properly this time in the US. A lot of people liked this game, and it really feels like the bungled a decent little B-tier title that could have done much better, I don't think they can get much more out of that studio than what they got here.

 

[RedSwirl]

I think I understand now why people like this are so disappointed that a game like Xenoblade had to come out on the Wii: they want a good traditional JRPG with modern graphics, which has been all too rare this generation.

Here we have Xenoblade - a game that retains the elements of traditional JRPGs that made the genre popular, and actually fixes most of the things about JRPGs we got tired of. It plays like a traditional JRPG for the modern era, but it doesn't have modern graphics. I'll admit that when I landed in the first town in the Final Fantasy XIII-2 demo the first thing I said to myself was "Finally! A real JRPG with modern graphics!" (Mind you I still haven't played Tales of Vesperia or Lost Odyssey)

Outside of being published by Nintendo, I think Xenoblade's tech and design are really just a matter of budget. If it had the budget I think they could have made a game with the same scale as Xenoblade and the graphical fidelity of a current gen sandbox game like Assassin's Creed. I guess people who want this are just gonna have to wait for Ni No Kuni, which makes the 2013 delay sting even more.

 

[Barrel Cannon]

Wow that was a really bad article.

Nintendo has never had the most advanced console the market. They just make them really versatile by allowing various forms of attachments that developers can take advantage of.

 

[CoffeeJanitor]

The screen size thing is true. And there's nothing at all wrong with preferring high end consoles and handhelds exclusively. But the bare truth is the same people who "can't" play games on weaker tech suddenly can when it's the weaker tech they prefer. It's got nothing to do with high standards or refined taste and everything to do with completely irrational bias. So just admit that, instead of trying to tell everyone your biases have something to do with better taste or objectively superior preferences, and everything's fine!

Just please don't fucking whine about reality when it doesn't meet up to your expectations. Or, alternately, wallow in your self-pity for a while, but try to get over it eventually. How many years are we into this generation and ostensibly adult posters are still butthurt like petulant toddlers over the Wii's success? A great game is Wii exclusive and the waterworks start? Would it kill some of you to try acting your ages?

tl:dr version (the above post could have used one, huh?): what Opiate said.

No offense dude but this is embarrassingly defensive. Labeling posters is moronic--I'm a big Nintendo fan, and no I'm not obsessed with visuals, I just prefer better ones to worse ones.

Again, reread your posts and look at how defensive they are. Realize what you're defending.

 

[The Hermit]

Even without Dolphin, I still think the game looks amazing visually.

Maybe I'm alone on that notion, but whatever.

Nah, I played on my 46 LED screen and loved every minute.

 

[MisterHero]

Wow that was a really bad article.

Nintendo has never had the most advanced console the market. They just make them really versatile by allowing various forms of attachments that developers can take advantage of.

N64 would've been it, were it not for the cartridge medium. Still, I think it was more an excuse rather than devs just wanting to avoid the system.

But againt Arcade and PC, none of the respective consoles stood a chance.

 

[nincompoop]

No offense dude but this is embarrasingly defensive. Labeling posters is moronic--I'm a big Nintendo fan, and no I'm not obsessed with visuals, I just prefer better ones to worse ones.

I'd prefer if every game's visuals were as impressive as Avatar or the Lord of the Rings movies, but that obviously can't happen with current technology. So why not judge Xenoblade's visuals on their own merits rather than hold it up to a standard that it couldn't possibly obtain?

 

[CoffeeJanitor]

I'd prefer if every game's visuals were as impressive as Avatar or the Lord of the Rings movies, but that obviously can't happen with current technology. So why not judge Xenoblade's visuals on their own merits rather than hold it up to a standard that it couldn't possibly obtain?

Because better visuals are attainable with better hardware.

 

[NervousXtian]

AHAH, you act as if a game with the scope of FFX and FFXII would be reasonnably be made on an HD console.

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.

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.

 

[bjb]

Just watched some Xenoblade at a friends house. He's a self described anime lover with an extensive catalog of Wii games.

We both were in agreement that the game just looks like hell.

Smh Nintendo.

 

[mclem]

Because better visuals are attainable with better hardware.

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

 

[JimboJones]

Because better visuals are attainable with better hardware.

Even without Dolphin, I still think the game looks amazing visually.

Maybe I'm alone on that notion, but whatever.

No your not alone, what they achived with the Wii hardware was pretty amazing I thought. Apart from a few derpy looking faces the game is pretty impressive imo.

When I judge a games achievements and what the developers accomplished I have to take into account the hardware it's on, thats how I do things.

 

[nincompoop]

Because better visuals are attainable with better hardware.

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?

 

[RoninChaos]

AHAH, you act as if a game with the scope of FFX and FFXII would be reasonnably be made on an HD console.

Why not? Games like Skyrim, Fallout, and Kingdoms of Amalur came out this gen, and they aren't exactly small.

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.

And Nincompoop, c'mon son. PC graphics cards have been through like 4 generations since the Xbox 360, PS3 and the Wii came out. That's not even remotely the same thing. People are comparing the Wii, a current gen console, to the visuals they could achieve if the game was on something like the 360 or PS3, which are also current gen consoles.

 

[RoninChaos]

Wow that was a really bad article.

Nintendo has never had the most advanced console the market. They just make them really versatile by allowing various forms of attachments that developers can take advantage of.

The SNES was capable of better graphics and more colors than the Genesis, and had a superior sound chip.

 

[JimboJones]

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.

Indeed, it's just most people get it. It a dead horse thats been beaten over and over. The Wii is underpowered and will never look great on HDTV's most people have accepted it years ago and get on with playing a great game, or buy powerful PC's to make it look nice.

 

[Metal Gear?!]

Uh, that's kind of untrue. There are an absolute ton of games on ps3 and 360 that are essentially a ps2 or wii game upscaled to HD and sold for full price.

Tales of graces F which just recently came out is that exact thing, a wii game that was Upscaled into HD for release on ps3. Not to mention who knows how many other japanese games that have done the same thing this gen.

Tales of graces F does have improved textures and models, but you're right in that it is close enough to Deadly Premonition to be considered the closest thing we have to a straight upscale. It was also made for the Wii first, however. And there aren't exactly a ton more examples.

This isn't some surprising revelation that lower tech means a lower hardcap on potential for a game, sure not every game is going to become a whole lot better from being made in HD but they certainly get far more potential room to be better. In a medium made for escaping from reality and using your imagination you would think that more potential would be encouraged.

And the reality is that every time that "potential" hardcap is raised the cost of making games goes up. This is not a function of hardware directly but rather a sociological function that is enabled by hardware. There is no escaping this reality.

 

[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.