Support NeoGAF

[Carlisle]

So far every review of the Wii version of a multiplatform game that I've read states "subpar graphics," compared with the X360 and PS3 versions, as a con. Is this what's going to happen with every multiplatform Wii game that ever comes out? Barred from a perfect score because of unrealistic standards? The Wii has different hardware, so why should it be subject to the same measuring stick as the other consoles?

The DS also suffers the same fate. Sure, many DS games are praised for great graphics, such as FF3, but the multiplatform games that appear on other systems as well get reamed in the graphics department for DS. Even though the graphics might be pretty darn good for DS standards, the game gets a lower review score by default because it doesn't look as nice as PSP or Xbox.

Game journalists have this overwhelming need to compare things to one another, even if they're apples and oranges. And its unfair.

 

[BrodiemanTTR]

Any review worth reading is written by a reviewer intelligent enough to not hold Wii graphics against the PS3 standard.

 

[unifin]

Maybe because *shock* the games actually look bad?

X360 had the same problem with many of its launch titles.

Mario Galaxy, even on a technical level, is still beyond any of these launch titles - the hardware's hardly being pushed, and the scores reflect that.

 

[Wollan]

None of the Wii games seem to take use of the hardware though. It has 80+MB of ram but still it's all on PS2 quality.

 

[DarkAngelYuna]

While the games might be fun to play the graphics are severly years behind. Just because a company claims they're not supposed to be great next gen graphics isn't a ticket for them to get away with it when they're being reviewed.

 

[jko]

Any review worth reading is written by a reviewer intelligent enough to not hold Wii graphics against the PS3 standard.

.

 

[usea]

So far every review of the Wii version of a multiplatform game that I've read states "subpar graphics," compared with the X360 and PS3 versions, as a con. Is this what's going to happen with every multiplatform Wii game that ever comes out? Barred from a perfect score because of unrealistic standards? The Wii has different hardware, so why should it be subject to the same measuring stick as the other consoles?

The DS also suffers the same fate. Sure, many DS games are praised for great graphics, such as FF3, but the multiplatform games that appear on other systems as well get reamed in the graphics department for DS. Even though the graphics might be pretty darn good for DS standards, the game gets a lower review score by default because it doesn't look as nice as PSP or Xbox.

Game journalists have this overwhelming need to compare things to one another, even if they're apples and oranges. And its unfair.

I'm not sure where this ridiculous idea of "fair" is coming from, but these reviews are (in theory) based in REALITY. The Wii doesn't get some kind of handicap on reviews to make it "fair." That is retarded.

 

[BocoDragon]

I'd feel more comfortable with reviewers withholding their opinion on this issue, yeah!

 

[Carlisle]

While the games might be fun to play the graphics are severly years behind. Just because a company claims they're not supposed to be great next gen graphics isn't a ticket for them to get away with it when they're being reviewed.

So we can never expect to see a perfect score for a multiplatform Wii game? Even if it's a perfect game by its own standards, it can't get a perfect score because it's not as pretty as PS3 and 360?

 

[Pureauthor]

Wait, wait, wait, you imply that there are such things as games reviewed fairly?

 

[KarishBHR]

Until the Wii's graphics are above that of an Xbox game (a good one) then I don't see why they should not be criticized. Like others have stated, the power is there and it has yet to be utilized.

Remember, Riddick and Halo 2 were on the XBOX, compared to those games, the Wii looks almost a generation behind.

 

[HAL_Laboratory]

Any review worth reading is written by a reviewer intelligent enough to not hold Wii graphics against the Xbox 360 standard.

Fixed.

 

[argon]

The vast majority of the Wii launch lineup thus far:

1) Is graphically inferior or mediocre, even for Gamecube standards. And through the entire gen it's going to be difficult not to contrast the graphics with 360/PS3, if only subconsciously.
2) Has no online component whatsoever, thanks to Nintendo.
3) In many cases was developed by B-teams of publishers looking for quick ports, often using shoehorned or unintuitive controls.

It's the same thing that happened with the DS in its first year.

The reviews are refreshingly honest and I hope both 3rd parties and Nintendo take the criticism to heart.

 

[usea]

So we can never expect to see a perfect score for a multiplatform Wii game? Even if it's a perfect game by its own standards, it can't get a perfect score because it's not as pretty as PS3 and 360?

That would be equally retarded. I don't get where the logic connect is between your two ideas. The conclusion doesn't logically follow.

No game is perfect anyway. Most reviewers don't save 10s for perfect games.

 

[Dilbert]

What the hell kind of damage control is this?

 

[Striek]

Seems to me most Wii review scores are well above what the body of the review would imply.

 

[skip]

I can't wait until you guys actually have games to play.

 

[Maridia]

I would assume that this will eventually stop. Wii owners will know the limited capabilities of the platform and will want to know where a particular title stands in comparison to other Wii titles, not in pointless contrast to games on more powerful platforms.

That said, if we're speaking only of multiplatform titles, graphics comparisons could help make informed purchases.

 

[Chichikov]

Game journalists have this overwhelming need to compare things to one another, even if they're apples and oranges. And its unfair.

How the hell is it apples and oranges?
I have 3 consoles, I play them all on the same TV, if the wii one looks crapier, should I give it some extra points because it tries really hard?

p.s.
**** fairness.

 

[Musashi Wins!]

I can't wait until you guys actually have games to play.

yea, that changes gaf opinions for the most part.


in bizarro world.

 

[OpinionatedCyborg]

If it looks good, it looks good. If it doesn't, it doesn't. A lot of Wii games look pretty damn average by Gamecube standards, if not below average.

The vast majority of the Wii launch lineup thus far:

1) Is graphically inferior or mediocre, even for Gamecube standards. And through the entire gen it's going to be difficult not to contrast the graphics with 360/PS3, even subconsciously.
2) Has no online component whatsoever, thanks to Nintendo.
3) In many cases was developed by B-teams of publishers looking for quick ports, often using shoehorned or unintuitive controls.

It's the same thing that happened with the DS in its first year.

The reviews are refreshingly honest and I hope both 3rd parties and Nintendo take the criticism to heart.

yes.

 

[Xeke]

What the hell kind of damage control is this?

Damage control? Come on man, this is a really really serious issue...

 

[xsarien]

p.s.
**** fairness.

...Which is why I stopped reading video game reviews when I was 12 and the fanboy dick stroking got a little old.

 

[Tabris]

Honestly, only one game looks good on the Wii so far and that's Zelda and god damn does it look good! That's what art direction can do for you and it's the reason that recent games like FFXII can compete "graphically" with games like Gears of War. (both of those games I'm loving right now)

 

[Zombie James]

Maybe because *shock* the games actually look bad?

X360 had the same problem with many of its launch titles.

Mario Galaxy, even on a technical level, is still beyond any of these launch titles - the hardware's hardly being pushed, and the scores reflect that.

I pretty much agree. The Wii's weak, but i don't believe it's as weak as these first batch of games indicate.

 

[Virgin Wii]

Journalists have to assume that they're writing for an uninformed audience (lowest common denominator and all that). A casual reading a review might not now that the Wii is graphically last gen, and since this information has a good possiblity of influencing his purchasing decisions, it's something worth putting into the review.

Besides that, despite the game being on 3 different platforms, they're all the same game at heart. As such, it just makes sense to compare them.

 

[HAL_Laboratory]

How the hell is it apples and oranges?
I have 3 consoles, I play them all on the same TV, if the wii one looks crapier, should I give it some extra points because it tries really hard?

p.s.
**** fairness.

That's it. Give all the Game Boy Advance and DS games a 4.5 because they should look as good as PSP games.

Maybe next time Nintendo.

 

[Linkup]

If the graphics look worse than an xbox game sure it should be considered sub-par. I doubt many are going to claim SMG looks subpar, though in the end all the Wii games are going to be sub-par on a tech level. I'm not even going to talk about price. inb4lock

 

[Edwood]

Let's be fair now.

Not everyone can drive a nice Ferrari.

Some people have to drive a Honda.




*Drives away in Ferrari* :lol

 

[Kai Dracon]

Reviewers trying to make direct comparisons to PS3/360 graphics should be keel hauled, unless they're talking about the player's spoiled expectations hampering the experience.

However, I agree that the launch games for the Wii aren't up to snuff with most of last gen's AAA games. Zelda is there thanks to design and art (come on, 4 freakin' years of development do that). The rest of the stuff is, in various ways, first-gen Gamecube save Red Steel which does look nice IMHO.

Technically, first-gen Gamecube graphics are disappointing in that developers SHOULD be able to transition their GC experience over to the Wii without missing a step. Methinks the visual quality of the early software is due mostly to limited budgets, limited time, or limited resources.

Now I wonder what Square Enix will turn out with Crystal Chronicles on Wii...

 

[Campster]

Part of the problem is that as an industry we're so technically oriented that graphics actually has a major slot on all review scoresheets. Animated films, an arguably comparable medium in this context, don't have critics berate Don Hertzfeld's stuff because it isn't as technically proficient as Pixar's stuff. There's an argument to be made, I think, that trying to hold something to a standard it doesn't hold itself to would be disrespectful to the work.

There's also the problem of art direction vs. technical proficiency. The sooner Wii developers stop trying to go for anything close to "realism," the sooner they'll all be better off. With less horsepower, art direction is going to have to take a step up. Make fewer Tony Hawk's Downhill Jam style stabs at semi-realism and make more Okami/Wind Waker/Wario Ware style games where art overrides technical achievement. And with that in mind, I'm going to come out and say that a lot of the Wii games (Madden, Tony Hawk, that awful Necro game, and others) currently look like total ass, while others (most notably Wario Ware, Rayman, and Monkey Ball) look very nice.

 

[Linkup]

Honestly, only one game looks good on the Wii so far and that's Zelda and god damn does it look good! That's what art direction can do for you and it's the reason that recent games like FFXII can compete "graphically" with games like Gears of War. (both of those games I'm loving right now)

I don't think a lot of gamers actually believe this.

 

[Bearillusion]

If every Wii game doesn't compare well to RE4 on GC there is problem. Too harsh?

 

[Ryudo]

Its a next generation machine, so why is it unfair to compare the graphics ? The price ?

 

[sprsk]

I would like to talk about this but not under the context of wii whining.

 

[Tabris]

I don't think a lot of gamers actually believe this.

I think both FFXII and Zelda compete asthetically with Gears of War and Resistance due to art direction and excellent use of the system's strengths.

 

[Aeana]

This reminds me of a review I once read for a Gameboy game (don't remember what) where its sound was compared to SNES games. The SNES is capable of 8-channel PCM sounds, and the Gameboy is not. SNES games will sound 'better' than Gameboy games by default, so if Gameboy sound was reviewed relative to SNES sound, Gameboy games would always receive a 2 in sound, which is ridiculous, because sound in a Gameboy game should be scored relative to sound in other Gameboy games.

 

[xsarien]

Let's be fair now.

Not everyone can drive a nice Ferrari.

Some people have to drive a Honda.




*Drives away in Ferrari* :lol

You're driving to the mechanic, right?

 

[Pureauthor]

Docking points in graphics because the Wii doesn't look as good as X360 or PS3 games is ridiculous.

Docking points for games that look like low-end PS2 games is perfectly justified.

That's just my take on it.

 

[Zombie James]

That's it. Give all the Game Boy Advance and DS games a 4.5 because they should look as good as PSP games.

Maybe next time Nintendo.

I think the point of this argument is that a lot of these titles (excluding Zelda, of course) look piss-poor for Gamecube games, and we all know that the Wii is better technically than a GC, even if it's just a bit. If the PS3 launched with games that looked worse than something produced last generation, would you still want to see 8 and 9's?

 

[the androgyne]

I think the number ratings have been pretty fair, in relation to what they're getting out of the system so far (not much, in most cases). But it puzzles me why they're comparing to 360/PS3... what, are they expecting one day Wii graphics WILL match 360/PS3?

 

[Scrow]

So far every review of the Wii version of a multiplatform game that I've read states "subpar graphics," compared with the X360 and PS3 versions, as a con.

Any review worth reading is written by a reviewer intelligent enough to not hold Wii graphics against the PS3 standard.

it's a perfectly fair comparison to make for multiplatform games.

the only thing is the comparison is redundant since we know what the result will be every time.

What the hell kind of damage control is this?

the only kind.

 

[Pureauthor]

Hey, Androgyne, could we have an official 'Wii prints money' gif?

 

[Nicktals]

I agree. If the Wii graphics aren't up to Wii standards, then dock it. But to dock it because it doesn't look as good as it's 360 or PS3 counterpart is indeed foolish.

How the hell is it apples and oranges?
I have 3 consoles, I play them all on the same TV, if the wii one looks crapier, should I give it some extra points because it tries really hard?

p.s.
**** fairness.

lol. Dumbest thing I've read in a long time. So all games should be reviewed with the strongest console in mind? Or the best PC?

What if Wii controls end up surpassing regular controls, should all games for the PS3/360 be docked drastically because of the limits of their hardware??

Anyone trying to argue reviewing a console against it's own merits is being foolish. Wii games should be reviewed against what the Wii is capable of.

With that said, most of the reviews have still been fair, because no Wii titles are really trying very hard in the graphics department.

EDIT: I retract my statements. I think I just said the dumbest thing ever. I think you're right. Because, ultimately, I want to know what a good game is. I don't think a Gizmondo or NGage game should score in the 8 or 9's because the hardware sucks so bad, rather I want to know if it's worth my money. However, as far as graphics go, they don't matter all that much for me, which is probably why I felt how I felt. I don't want Wii games getting knocked drastically because it has inferior hardware, unless they give a scale letting me know how well the best Wii game can possibly score on graphics, and how that affects the final score.

 

[Chichikov]

That's it. Give all the Game Boy Advance and DS games a 4.5 because they should look as good as PSP games.

Maybe next time Nintendo.

Oh sweet, my favorite game, hyperbolling!
Can I play too?

IWD2 should get 10 in graphics.
What do you mean HL2 looks better? It uses the infinity engine, how can you compare it to source.
THIS IS NOT FAIR!!!!
Think of the kids.

Sigh.

 

[miyuru]

In context, it's a fair point. I didn't read the whole thread (sorry), but the OP finds it unfair to state sub-par graphics as a con versus the graphically superior X360/PS3 versions of a game. When comparing a multiplatform game, it's perfectly fine to deem the inferior graphics of the Wii version as being a con - it's just as fair as saying the controls are superior (assuming they are for that game).

 

[DEO3]

I don't know. When you see images of Rayman, Super Mario Galaxy, Metroid Prime, and Super Swing Pangya Golf, it's clear the Wii can really put out some beautiful visuals. It's capable of far more than most of these launch titles are letting on, and so I don't think it unfair to give these titles poor graphics scores. I doubt you'll see Super Mario Galaxy or Metroid given bad marks for graphics once they're released, so why should these other Wii games be held to a different standard?

 

[Kuroyume]

The Wii has different hardware, so why should it be subject to the same measuring stick as the other consoles?

They should at the very least hold up respectably to late XBOX software. Have you seen Conker or Chaos Theory?

None of the Wii launch games (including Rayman) match the graphics of those games. Mario is the most respectable thing at this point.

 

[watership]

Oh come on... This is a new console. The console is cheaper, but it's still a new console. If your going to compare games from PS3 and Xbox 360, you have to compare the other new console, the Wii.

Nintendo said it's not trying to make a console about horsepower and graphics. That's good. That's honest. But when your a SmartCar and top speed is something thats rated and your not as fast as a Ferarri and someone writes a review, "Not very fast..", Suck it up, and deal with the low graphics scores.

 

[Xiaoki]

PSP games are compared to PS2 and Xbox games so is it suddenly a crime against nature that the same thing is happening to the Wii?

Reviewers like to make unfair comparisons, thats the simple truth. Why do they do it? Who knows. You can tell that many of them are trying to find something wrong when there is nothing wrong with the game and thats one of the easy ones.

Also, yeah, a majority of Wii's launch games are very quick and very dirty ports that were rushed out to capitalize on the large amount of Wii systems that will out at launch and during the Christmas season. Those are the 2 biggest times in a systems life where uninformed people are looking to buy any piece of crap they can.