Support NeoGAF

[Marky Mark]

The. Game. Is. A. Year. Away.

I was laughing at the comment of "thick woodlands". It's. Not. Thick. Who cares how far away it is. They commented on it in its current state as having thick woodlands.

I dont see texture issues here

I wasn't even talking about textures in that GIF.

 

[KingSnake]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bW1fu4DBMoU
At that point, the game was 1.5 years away and the textures didn't improve.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2dYgrMz_XBI
At that point, Skyward Sword was 1.5 years away from release. Did the graphics improve? Not noticeably.

If the last 3 Zelda console games are any indication, then it's that this year's footage provides a good hint at what the final game will look like.

You realistically think that the last 3 Zelda could have had better textures? Knowing you and what you post I'm confident that even you know that this is not a good comparison. SD vs HD development.

Nintendo in HD era (Wii U) improved the visuals for several games in the last months before finishing.

 

[ScepticMatt]

I just got done complaining about the crappy wall texture in this Witcher 3 scene. All games need work.[/IMG]

This isn't The Witcher 3.

 

[Rainy Dog]

Seriously? You discuss the quality of textures from a gameplay video which was miles away from the camera? In my opinion this is absolutely pointless

Yeah, I feel that this is all there is to it too.

Posted it in the other thread but the off screen footage gives the false impression that the rock textures are a poor quality attempt at realism. Direct footage would reveal that they're actually of the painted, cell shaded look as per the initial E3 reveal so probably look fine and actually very nice for their intended art style.

 

[AmyS]

Compare it to Kameo where the rocks were not only not low quality, but had some absolutely kickass parallax mapping. And that was done on weaker hardware than the Wii-U.

Thoughts?

I wouldn't call Xbox 360 weaker than Wii U. Less modern, sure, but Wii U isn't as powerful, overall.

http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articl...ess-powerful-than-ps3-xbox-360-developers-say

Nintendo's upcoming Wii U console may generate full HD graphics, but it's not up to the graphics power of the Xbox 360 or the PS3, according to developers familiar with the hardware who spoke on a condition of anonymity to GamesIndustry International.

"No, it's not up to the same level as the PS3 or the 360," said one developer who's been working with the Wii U. What does that mean? "The graphics are just not as powerful," reiterated the source.

This developer is not alone in their opinion. Another developer at a major company confirmed this point of view. "Yeah, that's true. [bIt doesn't produce graphics as well as the PS3 or the 360," said the source. "There aren't as many shaders, it's not as capable. Sure, some things are better, mostly as a result of it being a more modern design. But overall the Wii U just can't quite keep up."[/b]

IIRC the Latte GPU has 160 shader ALUs whereas the Xenos GPU has 240 shader ALUs within the 48 shader units.

The Expresso CPU is clocked far lower than 360's Xenon CPU. Each use different PowerPC architectures, even though both have 3 cores.

Main memory bandwidth of Xbox 360 was 22.4 GB/sec and Wii U's bandwidth is only 12.8 GB/sec. Both GPUs have higher speed eDRAM / EDRAM to ease the bandwidth limitations of the main memory.

Wii U's main advantages over Xbox 360 is the more modern, more efficient GPU and double the RAM (for games).

 

[Tchu-Espresso]

Threads like this remind me of why i never come here anymore. Jesus H Christ.

 

[GuessMyUserName]

I really can't believe people are discussing the image quality of a game that was being shown in a tiny and angled off-screen recording. Do people also judge screenshots by their Google Image Search thumbnails?

 

[Herb Alpert]

I wouldn't call Xbox 360 weaker than Wii U. Less modern, sure, but Wii U isn't as powerful, overall.

http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articl...ess-powerful-than-ps3-xbox-360-developers-say



IIRC the Latte GPU has 160 shader ALUs whereas the Xenos GPU has 240 shader ALUs within the 48 shader units.

The Expresso CPU is clocked far lower than 360's Xenon CPU. Each use different PowerPC architectures, even though both have 3 cores.

Main memory bandwidth of Xbox 360 was 22.4 GB/sec and Wii U's bandwidth is only 12.8 GB/sec. Both GPUs have higher speed eDRAM / EDRAM to ease the bandwidth limitations of the main memory.

Wii U's main advantages over Xbox 360 is the more modern, more efficient GPU and double the RAM (for games).

the power gap between ps360 and WiiU is like the godwin point of every WiiU game discussion.

 

[pottuvoi]

I really can't believe people are discussing the image quality of a game that was being shown in a tiny and angled off-screen recording. Do people also judge screenshots by their Google Image Search thumbnails?

Indeed we have blurry 542x387 screenshot with smallest detail being ~> 3 pixels wide making true/visible resolution of image to be around 180x128.
Also the image is most likely from video source etc, so even those blurry details have gone trough some heavy compression..

 

[Hystzen]

No it's fair to point it out why should this game be singled out when pretty much every game is ripped apart for textures and other things no matter how early it is in development. Plus it not like the games have good history of high quality textures or interesting overworlds since shift to 3D. So no it not unreasonable to point out things and why should this 1 game be ignored and view as unreasonable

 

[ahm998]

I will wait for HD trailer to compare.

 

[666]

*OP bookmarks thread for release 'told Ya so' review*

 

[Green Yoshi]

Let's wait until E3 2015 before complaining.

I wasn't so convinced with the graphics of Skyward Sword. Looked quite outdated for a 2011 game.

 

[Percy]

Yeah, those ground textures looked a bit off to me as well, but I'm prepared to give the benefit of the doubt for now seeing as the game is so far off.

 

[bomblord1]

Rock simulation is one of the most important aspects modern of gaming so yes it's reasonable to be worried about the textures on the rocks.

 

[Chû Totoro]

Is it unreasonable to complain about the new Zelda's textures?

No when the game will be presented in its almost final build or when you have actually seen the game yourself.

Is it unreasonable to complain about textures of an off screen 1 meter distance filmed alpha version gameplay presentation of the next Zelda?

Yes. And read my quote should make people realize how it's stupid.

 

[nullset2]

Well, first thing you know people are going to be complaining about the fact that the world doesn't look "lived in".

 

[SphericalCrusher]

Yes. Looks amazing.

 

[Exterminieren]

"The graphics are just not as powerful," reiterated the source.

Ah, I'd forgotten how much I loved this.

 

[old manatee]

Nintendo games are often kind of ugly.

 

[Uncle Rupee]

I would rather there be at least 8 dungeons and have worse textures than have great textures but only 5 or 6 dungeons.

 

[thekiddfran]

Well fools are ripping uncharted 4 apart so why not Zelda?

 

[Tertullian]

Of course it's reasonable. It's a public preview specifically designed to show off the game's world and environments.

The fact that the game's still in alpha is more reason to complain, not less. That means Nintendo still has time to do something about it. Once the game is out, complaining probably can't do any good.

Of course to make you complaint useful you should probably direct it to Nintendo, not to us.

 

[Chû Totoro]

Well fools are ripping uncharted 4 apart so why not Zelda?

Zelda is not about realistic chest hair.

 

[takriel]

For me it's all about the art style. I don't really care about low-res models, as long as the overall picture seems nice to look at. That said, those stones in the ground did look really bad, but I'll withold proper judgment until we see more direct footage from the game.

 

[E-Cat]

Kameo's not open world... and it was done by Rare, who are graphics kings.

 

[Harmen]

I think it is reasonable to say the textures are not that hot, because they aren't. Nintendo decides to show it in this state, so we are allowed to give out opinion on it. That goes for every game out there. It is also reasonable to wish that the final product will look better.

It is unreasonable, however, to state that this is surely representative of the final product, because nobody here can possibly know that. As people said, the game is still a year away.

Zelda is not about realistic chest hair.

That is still no reason to free this showing of the game of all graphics related criticism though.

 

[Somnid]

Whining about ground textures is consistently the most pathetic thing in gaming. It misses the point so hard because it's literally the last thing any game should worry about. It could be solid green or brown polygons for all I care, the game just needs to play well.

 

[Amir0x]

I think it is reasonable to say the textures are not that hot, because they aren't. Nintendo decides to show it in this state, so we are allowed to give out opinion on it. That goes for every game out there. It is also reasonable to wish that the final product will look better.

It is unreasonable, however, to state that this is surely representative of the final product, because nobody here can possibly know that. As people said, the game is still a year away.

yuppers. The only people saying it's unreasonable are people who don't want to hear mean things about games they like. Everyone knows when you criticize a game that is far from release there's an implied acknowledgment that the problem might not even exist when the game finally releases.

That's why people complain now rather than wait until the game is too far along to even do anything about it.

And the other thing people have to consider is that it's not like Zelda is unknown for weak textures and barren, boring overworlds. Past Zelda games have been criticized for it. So it makes sense someone would see this, perk their ears up and say "oh I hope that's not the case again" and criticize the state it's in currently.

People don't have to find textures important, that's fine. People don't have to want to complain, that's also fine. People need to stop trying to police the complaints of others or shame people into falling silent.

Whining about ground textures is consistently the most pathetic thing in gaming. It misses the point so hard because it's literally the last thing any game should worry about. It could be solid green or brown polygons for all I care, the game just needs to play well.

Other people find different things in games important than you, news at eleven.

 

[Chû Totoro]

That is still no reason to free this showing of the game of all graphics related criticism though.

Sure but I explained why I find it stupid :
- it's an off screen demo
- never Nintendo had put major efforts into making graphics one of the main selling point of their games. If you don't know this you'll wait a long time before having what you expect them to do...
- my last answer was regarding the "people are doing it for UC 4 so it's ok" but it's not the same. ND are always talking about graphics and specs like a lot of other devs. Nintendo are talking about the "spirit" of the game, gameplay or how they'll try to make something different. They don't talk about anything too detailed regarding graphics. Res and fps are what they're talking about when they think it's needed and even when they do this it's clearly not what they want people to focus on.

So of course people can talk about what they want but imo it's being stubborn and trying to look at things not how they should be looked at.

If people don't like Nintendo games for this particular reason they have the right to, and they can complain too but it's not productive, it's useless and they miss the point.

That's just it.

Also people may say why I joke about AC 4 while I say people are loosing their time complaining about graphics in an off screen footage of a Zelda game then I'll answer that I may also lose my time but if I'm not wrong UC 4 is still a game so graphics can be as pretty as fuck the game can still be bad or not that good... and I would like to know more about the game (it's the same regarding next Zelda) not about facial animations or chest hair...

 

[Somnid]

Other people find different things in games important than you, news at eleven.

Right, I'm just saying it says more about the person than the game.

 

[Orniletter]

No it's fair to point it out why should this game be singled out when pretty much every game is ripped apart for textures and other things no matter how early it is in development. Plus it not like the games have good history of high quality textures or interesting overworlds since shift to 3D. So no it not unreasonable to point out things and why should this 1 game be ignored and view as unreasonable

Because we have...like... 4 minutes sub N64-resolution off-screen- and angled footage .

Tell me a single instance where people judged a game like this that was at the same time a year away.

I literally can´t think of a single one.

Edit: And the waterboarding U4 receives right now is unfair too, before someone comes in here calling me a chill or whatever.

 

[BluePigGanon]

I'm still sorta stuck on the idea that people are clenching about or criticizing offscreen, small and at-an-angle video. I didn't miss some second video that's direct feed, did I?

 

[Amir0x]

Right, I'm just saying it says more about the person than the game.

No, it doesn't. It says more about you complaining about what other people find important than it does that other people have unique priorities for games.

That you think criticizing the visual presentation in a game and pouring over the minutiae of its presentation is silly is on you; stop trying to shame people into thinking they shouldn't appreciate or find these things critical.

Tell me a single instance where people judged a game like this that was at the same time a year away.

I literally can´t think of a single one.

Are you new to GAF? We do this with every game ever. Literally every game ever.

 

[veloxStrix]

No, it is perfectly reasonable.

About 90% of GAF is people bitching about graphics on games that are in early dev anyways. What's one more person?

Edit: I love you all anyways.

 

[Somnid]

No, it doesn't. It says more about you complaining about what other people find important than it does that other people have unique priorities for games.

That you think criticizing the visual presentation in a game and pouring over the minutiae of its presentation is silly is on you; stop trying to shame people into thinking they shouldn't appreciate or find these things critical.

You're free to be who you want to be, Amirox. Don't let anyone tell you you shouldn't. I'm free to judge you for it though.

 

[Amir0x]

You're free to be who you want to be, Amirox. Don't let anyone tell you you shouldn't. I'm free to judge you for it though.

If it wasn't already clear how absurd your position is, ta-da!

 

[shiftplusone]

It also might be the case that Nintendo doesn't give a fuck about your rock texture complaints.

"It's off screen rocks!" yeah but the grass looked good and the characters looked pretty good even off screen, and the ground/rocks looked bad.

"It's a year away!" This is what they decided to release as a next look on their game. regardless of the time until release, Praise and criticism are both valid. And if they were really concerned with ground textures (based on the last few games I doubt it) they might not have shown it off at all.



Nintendo people get so defensive about Zelda though

Zelda fans are unreasonable.

 

[Kurdel]

You're free to be who you want to be, Amirox. Don't let anyone tell you you shouldn't. I'm free to judge you for it though.

Shit like this is why I tend to avoid posting in these threads.

 

[Munkybhai]

If it wasn't already clear how absurd your position is, ta-da!

To be fair, the OP's question wasn't whether the textures are bad, but whether or not we should be critical of people who are saying they are bad. So... kinda the whole point of this discussion, wouldn't you say?

 

[Psycho_Mantis]

Of course its perfectly reasonably to criticise a game that has been shown.....the devs would not have shown it in a game show if they deemed it not ready.

We just need to understand the context in each case. Do I really need a 1080p video to see that the geometry is basic and the world is kind of barren........no, do I need a 1080p video to judge textures......I'm going with yes.

Some of the criticism stands despite the circumstances and some of it does not due to the circumstances. Same with Uncharted 4.

 

[UrbanRats]

Right, I'm just saying it says more about the person than the game.

Texture artists around the world, your work is useless!

 

[Amir0x]

To be fair, the OP's question wasn't whether the textures are bad, but whether or not we should be critical of people who are saying they are bad. So... kinda the whole point of this discussion, wouldn't you say?

I mean that's the title, but if you read the OP itself it's all about analysis of the texture work. And then tons of people in this thread not only try to shame people into silence, but try to act like people should somehow feel bad or embarrassed for having different priorities than they do.

If others don't care about that stuff, fine. Nobody is asking them to. I don't think people who think that way are wrong at all, it's just another unique perspective on what's important in games. And I want all these perspectives shared, not told they're being judged or tried to paint as if they're insane for thinking this way.

Everyone knows this is early footage. Everyone who complains understands this is almost certainly not going to be what it looks like in its final form. But it's better to complain while something still appears to be an issue than after; because then it's folded into an evaluation of how good the game is or not, whereas here it could potentially be picked up by people who are listening (as has happened before) and maybe focus a little extra improvement there before it even releases. Not that I think this is a likely case for that, of course, but it doesn't change the merit of the complaint.

 

[Kurdel]

To be fair, the OP's question wasn't whether the textures are bad, but whether or not we should be critical of people who are saying they are bad. So... kinda the whole point of this discussion, wouldn't you say?

You must have read different OP then us then...

 

[Chû Totoro]

You must have read different OP then us then...

See OP

Is is unreasonable to complain about the new Zelda's textures?

You find it reasonable. Some don't. That's it.

And actually it should've been a survey thread with no posts. Now it's starting to be... well nothing interesting to read (on both side).

 

[Kurdel]

See OP

I was replying to this person:

To be fair, the OP's question wasn't whether the textures are bad, but whether or not we should be critical of people who are saying they are bad. So... kinda the whole point of this discussion, wouldn't you say?

To imply the title was to incite discussion about what is reasonable is changing the goalposts. He asserts with the content of the OP that it is reasonable, and points out examples why we should have higher standards. Then asks if we agree with his position, not if we should be critical of people like him.

Then people ignore what he said, and pretend this this about whether or not we should judge people who find them substandard?

Mental gymnastics, as always.

 

[Peltz]

I don't think criticizing the textures is unreasonable. They were flat.

But I'd question your priorities to let that single fact destroy your hype for the game, especially at this stage.

Worst case scenario: rocks look flat. But the rest of the game looks quite gorgeous.

 

[Windom Earle]

Please Tell me this isnt a serious question.

You should know by now how the system is designed by now. How it handles memory, the way the GPU interacts with its CPU and the embedded EDRAM. How fast it can handle data loading and how to take advantage of that by now. (Particularly if, you know, you've worked on the system. Have you?)

Yes, it was a serious question, but judging from your posting style in this thread (calling people a bitch) I am not sure I want an answer from you...

Anyway, I guess my question is, how easy is it to stream high resolution textures on the U? Bringing up the old NFS:MW example, I guess it can be done... Even though it can be argued how "high res" the textures in this game really are.

 

[SquiddyCracker]

No, they are very flat textures.
I need some badonk in my games, if you know what I mean.

 

[Zing]

I don't really think it's worth getting up in arms about textures or anything like that yet. The game has a while to go still.

I don't think it's getting up in arms about simply because nothing anyone here thinks or says will result in any change to the final output of the game.

Just enjoy the damn game. Super Mario 64 and Ocarina of Time are still two of the highest quality games ever made, and are enjoyable to play almost twenty years later, despite having the lowest quality textures seen in most GAF users' lifetimes.