encephalon
Member
Part of the blame should go to Monolith, given the character models with pasted on face textures are hardly a problem with the Wii's hardware. Monolith can and has done much better (impressive, even).
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."
That is what they should have done... if they wanted to languish in last place again instead of beating the crap out of the other systems for the first four years of the generation.The problem is Nintendo used to care about releasing somewhat powerful, competent hardware. Now they don't. The Wii is a souped up GameCube, for fucks sake. The Wii U is what they should have released alongside the PS3 and Xbox 360 in terms of power.
That is what they should have done... if they wanted to languish in last place again instead of beating the crap out of the other systems for the first four years of the generation.
The problem is Nintendo used to care about releasing somewhat powerful, competent hardware. Now they don't. The Wii is a souped up GameCube, for fucks sake. The Wii U is what they should have released alongside the PS3 and Xbox 360 in terms of power. They can get away with stuff like the DS and the 3DS because they really have no competition, where as in the home console department, they have PLENTY of competition. What's worse, is Nintendo is most likely going to end up in the same position with the Wii U, that the Wii ended up in if the system isn't powerful. 3rd parties will stop making shit for the system because it's under powered. And that's a shame.
I would love to go back to a time where Nintendo was in the position it was with the Super NES but we probably won't ever see something like that, because Nintendo is content to act as if there isn't any competition from anybody else. Keiji Inafune has said this is THE problem with the game industry in Japan, that they act as if there isn't any competition. That same thought process is why Microsoft was able to push into the market against Sony. Sony literally thought that there was no one that could give them any competition. Look what happened.
Final Fantasy XII would've looked so much better on the Gamecube. Thanks a lot Square.
This example would work if 3D actually added to image quality instead of taking away from it.Sure... but to hate Nintendo for it is like hating Chris Nolan because Inception wasnt in 3D...
Well, I don't think Nintendo expected Wii to be as successful as it was. It was more likely a stopgap measure intended to reverse the negative image they created with the GCN in preparation for an HD console which they would release once it became financially feasible and the HDTV market grew to sustain them. Wii took off like crazy and they pushed back their plans.The problem is Nintendo used to care about releasing somewhat powerful, competent hardware. Now they don't. The Wii is a souped up GameCube, for fucks sake. The Wii U is what they should have released alongside the PS3 and Xbox 360 in terms of power. They can get away with stuff like the DS and the 3DS because they really have no competition, where as in the home console department, they have PLENTY of competition. What's worse, is Nintendo is most likely going to end up in the same position with the Wii U, that the Wii ended up in if the system isn't powerful. 3rd parties will stop making shit for the system because it's under powered. And that's a shame.
I would love to go back to a time where Nintendo was in the position it was with the Super NES but we probably won't ever see something like that, because Nintendo is content to act as if there isn't any competition from anybody else. Keiji Inafune has said this is THE problem with the game industry in Japan, that they act as if there isn't any competition. That same thought process is why Microsoft was able to push into the market against Sony. Sony literally thought that there was no one that could give them any competition. Look what happened.
Now with Nintendo, they've continued to act as if they don't have competition, but the software attach rate with the Wii compared to the other consoles is smaller, and points to an audience that has moved on from Nintendo's home consoles because there isn't any value there, with the exception of Nintendo releases. Reggie came out and said "We need to beef up the hardware next time around because there were games that we weren't able to put on the Wii because it wasn't powerful enough." If you look at the Wii U, supposedly it's comparable to current gen hardware. My guess is they're going to end up in the same position next gen as they are now- they'll have sold a lot of consoles, but there won't be a lot of support.
And that's a shame, because Nintendo is awesome.
Anyway, back to the main point, better image quality would be nice for Xenoblade. It would be nice if I didn't have to play it on PC because the Wii hardware isn't actually strong enough to not make shit look like a jagged mess. The game informer article might not have been the most articulate, but people coming in here and saying 'Graphics don't matter!" obviously didn't get the point that folks are trying to make, and probably won't going forward because they can't understand how Xenoblade looking like a jagged mess would hinder some peoples' enjoyment of it.
This example would work if 3D actually added to image quality instead of taking away from it.
What's worse, is Nintendo is most likely going to end up in the same position with the Wii U, that the Wii ended up in if the system isn't powerful. 3rd parties will stop making shit for the system because it's under powered. And that's a shame.
Now with Nintendo, they've continued to act as if they don't have competition, but the software attach rate with the Wii compared to the other consoles is smaller, and points to an audience that has moved on from Nintendo's home consoles because there isn't any value there, with the exception of Nintendo releases.
l'eclisse said:The author of the article was basically pissed that the game could have been far more immersive with cutting edge technology... so in that context despite what you and I may think of 3d, its a valid example.
Better graphics would have caused the game to have the same problems that Final Fantasy XIII had. After playing the game one should be able to see the game as it is now wouldn't have been possible. It being on lesser tech is actually a big advantage in it's favor. Prettier graphics isn't always best. If Nintendo were to make a sequel with graphics that were just sharper but similar on the Wii U I'd be happy. When you make something like Xenoblade there has to be a trade off if you want to make it with a budget that is anywhere close to being reasonable and in a timely manner.
So 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.
Better graphics would have caused the game to have the same problems that Final Fantasy XIII had. After playing the game one should be able to see the game as it is now wouldn't have been possible. It being on lesser tech is actually a big advantage in it's favor. Prettier graphics isn't always best. If Nintendo were to make a sequel with graphics that were just sharper but similar on the Wii U I'd be happy. When you make something like Xenoblade there has to be a trade off if you want to make it with a budget that is anywhere close to being reasonable and in a timely manner.
Yeah, cause FFX and X-2 were such wonders of open world game design with literally hundreds of hours worth of content.
This seems to be the popular argument how xenoblade would be a lesser game if it were targeting ps3 spec instead of wii. You're opening up a whole can of worms if you go down that road.
So someone is an idiot for having standards? lol
So if next Gen makes current Gen look like shit, I'm an idiot for thinking this?
Man, you guys will say anything to justify your way of thinking.
So you know, for a fact, that xenoblade would have experienced horrible production and development issues if it was produced in HD? That's not saying much about Monolith if you really believe this.
So is it a coincidence that you guys keep picking same game with a troubled dev cycle, even after people tell you how it's a flawed argument, or are you just ignoring all the other content filled games?
Considering the budget and scope of the title, I'd like for someone to tell me otherwise. Producing assets at a much higher quality would eat into both, one way or the other. One can say "so don't produce assets at a much higher quality, simply render the exact same game at a higher resolution" - but there are plenty of threads on GAF and elsewhere and plenty of press reviews and gaming "journalists" out there that would pounce on "n64 textures in my HD game" ad nauseum. This thread is a testament to it.
So you know, for a fact, that xenoblade would have experienced horrible production and development issues if it was produced in HD? That's not saying much about Monolith if you really believe this.
So is it a coincidence that you guys keep picking same game with a troubled dev cycle, even after people tell you how it's a flawed argument, or are you just ignoring all the other content filled games?
Considering the budget and scope of the title, I'd like for someone to tell me otherwise. Producing assets at a much higher quality would eat into both, one way or the other. One can say "so don't produce assets at a much higher quality, simply render the exact same game at a higher resolution" - but there are plenty of threads on GAF and elsewhere and plenty of press reviews and gaming "journalists" out there that would pounce on "n64 textures in my HD game" ad nauseum. This thread is a testament to it.
Yes, yes. I think it would. Xenoblade was already behind schedule that developers were contemplating cutting down contents before Nintendo told them to forget about the deadline. It's not as if Monolith was some studio with a very high budget and staffs of several hundreds. A prettier HD Xenoblade could have been made, but would it sink Monolith, that is the question.
That all would depend on Nintendo if they were funding the project.
So you're stating categorically that you do not believe enough money was spent on making Xenoblade?
Do you also believe that spending more money on the game would have increased the sales figures?
Not sure what any of this has to do with my point that it should be acceptable for people to want/wish for better graphics and that graphics do matter.
Yeah, but I don't believe it's okay to want/wish for better graphics if that would force the project to make a loss. We don't know that's the case here, but it's possible, we know the game didn't do brilliantly.
Yeah, but I don't believe it's okay to want/wish for better graphics if that would force the project to make a loss. We don't know that's the case here, but it's possible, we know the game didn't do brilliantly.
The characters are a bit on the low-polygon side, but it's not offensive at all. Their textures are acceptable and the resolution problem can be "fixed" with Dolphin and an i5 2500K.
It can be "fixed" using a fairly cumbersome emulator on an entirely different system? I guess it doesn't matter that it looks so poor on its native console then!
The game does look great on Dolphin, but that isn't a counter-argument to the article which is mostly talking about how the Wii hardware lets Xenoblade Chronicles down. Dolphin really just drives the point home: the game could have looked amazing if the Wii was released with with some thought given to HD support.
Just because it's been six years doesn't mean it doesn't suck.But that Wii doesn't support HD has been known for over six years. It seems pretty silly to bitch about it at this point, now that there's even a solution for people so hung up on graphics that it impedes their enjoyment of the game.
Getting Dolphin to work is piss-easy,
It should've been enough time for you to get over it.Just because it's been six years doesn't mean it doesn't suck.
Better graphics would have caused the game to have the same problems that Final Fantasy XIII had. After playing the game one should be able to see the game as it is now wouldn't have been possible. It being on lesser tech is actually a big advantage in it's favor. Prettier graphics isn't always best. If Nintendo were to make a sequel with graphics that were just sharper but similar on the Wii U I'd be happy. When you make something like Xenoblade there has to be a trade off if you want to make it with a budget that is anywhere close to being reasonable and in a timely manner.
That's not true at all. You have to mess with configs for diff games and even use different builds of the emulator. Sure it will work eventually, but piss easy it is not. In the end I couldn't be bothered with all the bullshit and just stuck the disc in the Wii and played. I'm not a graphics whore though so it didn't really worry me.
This is the biggest accidental indictment of Japanese game development I've seen in a while.
That expansive games cost a lot to make in HD is hardly an indictment of Japanese game development unless Western developers have secretly discovered a tree that produces money.
Replace "FFXIII" with "Dragon Age" or "Mass Effect" if you'd like. The latest incarnations of both of those had high sales expectations and still suffered from obvious budget limitations. DA2 in particular is basically the polar opposite of an expansive game.
How many of those other developers did so with Xenoblade's budget? How many of them made a reasonable profit with that venture?Saying that using extremely dated hardware is what it takes to make an expansive game possible ignores the fact that other developers do it with current-gen graphics all the time. You're basically holding Japan to indie developer standards at this point.
Saying that using extremely dated hardware is what it takes to make an expansive game possible ignores the fact that other developers do it with current-gen graphics all the time. You're basically holding Japan to indie developer standards at this point.
If Skyrim looked like shit because Bethesda couldn't handle making such a large game with contemporary graphics, they'd be rightfully scolded for overreaching. If a developer can't make a large game without using 10+ year old technology, then they need to scale back their ambitions to be in line with their capabilities.
Not that I'm saying games shouldn't be developed for the Wii. People are proposing that using old tech is necessary to make the game, and this is what I think of that.
OK. What does that have to do with it?But Xenoblade is among the Wii's best looking games.
You can save your faux condescending pity. I'm simply saying that if underpowered hardware is a blessing/makes the game possible, then that doesn't say much for the developers. It's not a game that can't be pulled off on better hardware. So therefore it's just a case of this specific developer not being able to do it, according to this defense.This Laser guy is arguing that a great game without top of the line graphics would be better off not existing.
I genuinely pity him.
I'm just saying what I think of that particular defense. Do you have a serious question or point, or are you just trying to troll?Do you honestly not know what money is?
OK. What does that have to do with it?
You can save your faux condescending pity. I'm simply saying that if underpowered hardware is a blessing/makes the game possible, then that doesn't say much for the developers. It's not a game that can't be pulled off on better hardware. So therefore it's just a case of this specific developer not being able to do it, according to this defense.