• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

Nintendo fans cry bitter tears.

Status
Not open for further replies.
It's because most of the launch titles look like shit even when compared to GameCube games. Only a few actually look like top end GC games or beyond (Zelda, Red Steel, Rayman).
 
on the Graphics points, you have alot of beautiful Gamecube games to live up to and out perform .
Alot of the graphicaly critiqued Wii games do not out perform the Gamecube's best right now.

Super Mario Galaxy, I'm waiting for you
 
Nicktals said:
Ilol. 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.
Click to expand...
Now don’t get me wrong, I personally think that grading game by averaging graphics, sound, control and value is retarded.
But we are talking about grading the graphics, right?
If a game control better on a wii than on the 360, I fully expect to get graded higher.
If a console RTS control poorly, I fully expect some points deduction.
And yeah, if a wii game looks like crap, I fully expect it get a low score on that department.
Even if the gpu is working in overdrive.
 
i always thought it was lame when a reviewer docks a game that has no online play or even no multiplayer at all buthas a strong single player story.

it seems even the non crossover titles are getting ragged on for not having 360+ graphics in the reviews. even if they look good they are still getting beat down it seems.
 
Wii is an Xbox when it comes to graphics. Please judge graphics as Xbox standards.

Seriously..Red Steel should get a 10 for graphics unless it has jaggies & Frame rate issues.. The same goes for RRR. I also don't see how SMB got low points for graphics..Its the best look of the series!
 
With regards to multi-platform games, I remember Genesis games used to get docked points because of inferior resolution/color palette/sound quality/whatever, compared to SNES. Only fair that sub-par graphics and aesthetics get less than stellar ratings.
 
there's two sides to this argument:

wii games should be compared to last-gen consoles (graphics-wise) because its a weak console intentionally


wii games should be compared to current-gen consoles because Nintendo made its console weak intentionally, and when you come down to it, Wii is going to be in competition with PS3/X360. Why shouldn't the graphics be graded down if that is the case? You're still spending 50/60 bucks on a Wii game, aren't you? Does the extra 10 dollars for a PS3/X360 game somehow give the Wii leniency for having games that look like they're last-gen?


i'm more on the side that Wii should be compared to current-gen consoles, but since it IS only comparable to a last-gen graphics, i would have to compare Wii to last-gen consoles from a reviewer's standpoint. But imo, that would affect the game's value, especially when they charge little less than current-gen games that have HD visuals, and higher production values than 80% of Wii games will have. barring gameplay factors, of course.
 
Campster said:
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.
Click to expand...

This is a great post, which needs to be read by the majority of GAF many many, times.
 
the Wii should be compared to the best of Gamecube's best and I have no sympathy for low graphics scores as long as Resident Evil 4, Metroid Prime, F-Zero GX, Rogue Leader and Super Mario Sunshine out perform graphicly the Wii's launch titles

fair is fair because the Gamecbue outputted graphicly kick ass looking games and there is no excuse to aim below what the Gamecube gave us
 
revolverjgw said:
With regards to multi-platform games, I remember Genesis games used to get docked points because of inferior resolution/color palette/sound quality/whatever, compared to SNES. Only fair that sub-par graphics and aesthetics get less than stellar ratings.
Click to expand...

That is a pretty bad analogy.
 
PSP games graphics get compared to PS2 graphics all the time. And the controls. And the loading times. If that is somehow a fair comparison, I hardly think it's out of line for the Wii to be compared to the GC or Xbox.

That said, people buying a Wii probably don't care about graphics, because otherwise they wouldn't have bought one.
 
gutter_trash said:
the Wii should be compared to the best of Gamecube's best and I have no sympathy for low graphics scores as long as Resident Evil 4, Metroid Prime, F-Zero GX, Rogue Leader and Super Mario Sunshine out perform graphicly the Wii's launch titles

fair is fair because the Gamecbue outputted graphicly kick ass looking games and there is no excuse to aim below what the Gamecube gave us
Click to expand...

Exactly. And the kicker is that developers have no excuse - this isn't exactly new architecture we're dealing with - it's a GC's architecture with more memory and a faster processor.
 
We know next to nothing about the Hollywood and Broadway chips in the Wii. So, how you state with certanity that the architecture is the same? (since it's using a different memory configuration that right there makes it a different architecture).
 
Carlisle said:
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.
Click to expand...


No, it's not unfair.


Games are reviewed based on what else is available on the market, at the time of their release.
 
Fatghost said:
No, it's not unfair.


Games are reviewed based on what else is available on the market, at the time of their release.
Click to expand...

So by that logic, we should rag on Corpse Bride because it isn't Cars.
 
Campster said:
So by that logic, we should rag on Corpse Bride because it isn't Cars.
Click to expand...

No, we need to compare DS games to PS3 games graphicswise. Thats not fair though because the DS doesn't have the 4D advantage that the PS3 has.
 
mrkgoo said:
this are a pretty bad grandma
Click to expand...

GNNS.gif
 
I'm picking up a Wii on launch as well as about 5 games. And what do I think of the reviews?

They all seem reasonably fair to me. Even Zelda doesn't look spectacular (graphicaly, obviously). And it shouldn't anyway. It's a Gamecube game running in widescreen. No game I've seen so far has, by which all accounts should be possible, slightly better graphics than a Gamecube game (I'd be using RE4 as a benchmark). So I don't think reviewers criticising the graphics is unfair.

To be totally honest Monkey Ball is about the best looking Wii game I've seen so far. But cel shading is cheating really.
 
Martoo said:
I'm picking up a Wii on launch as well as about 5 games. And what do I think of the reviews?

They all seem reasonably fair to me. Even Zelda doesn't look spectacular (graphicaly, obviously). And it shouldn't anyway. It's a Gamecube game running in widescreen. No game I've seen so far has, by which all accounts should be possible, slightly better graphics than a Gamecube game (I'd be using RE4 as a benchmark). So I don't think reviewers criticising the graphics is unfair.

To be totally honest Monkey Ball is about the best looking Wii game I've seen so far. But cel shading is cheating really.
Click to expand...

Art direction is only cheating if your only measure of success is technical proficiency.
 
gutter_trash said:
the Wii should be compared to the best of Gamecube's best and I have no sympathy for low graphics scores as long as Resident Evil 4, Metroid Prime, F-Zero GX, Rogue Leader and Super Mario Sunshine out perform graphicly the Wii's launch titles

fair is fair because the Gamecbue outputted graphicly kick ass looking games and there is no excuse to aim below what the Gamecube gave us
Click to expand...
Thirded. Zelda, and perhaps Red Steel (which I haven't seen since E3) are the only games that look like they do more than what the GameCube's best has to offer. But since the Wii is more capable than the Wii no matter how you slice it, Wii games should look better than GameCube games. Period. The excuse that developers haven't yet figured out the hardware is an invalid one. They've had five years to figure it out already.

However, I do believe reviewers have absolutely no business comparing Wii games to PS3/360 games. A game review should only compare games against those on systems of similar capabilities at the time of its release. Xbox/PS2/GC comparisons are valid because they all had about the same power. 360/PS3 comparisons are valid because they both have the same relative power (at least for now). If reviewers want to start comparing Wii games to games on the HD systems they'll need to start comparing PS2 and PS3 games to remain consistent. If people give Zelda a 7 in graphics and God of War 2 a 10 in graphics, something will be rotten in the state of videogames. (I feel that Zelda would be a 9 graphically, but I'm not reviewing it.)


Campster said:
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.
Click to expand...
Also thirded.
 
Hmm...Hurry up Red Steel review! ET got a good graphics score (mainly due to effects) at IGN.

TBH Wii games at launch look like crap except for the few good lookers. (what is it? Hmm..Zelda,RS,SMB:BB and RRR?) BTW..The title is misleading..You're only talking about graphics..

Off topic- Did anyone else think Excite truck would bomb because of the infamous "ET"?
 
WindyMan said:
The excuse that developers haven't yet figured out the hardware is an invalid one. They've had five years to figure it out already.
Click to expand...

True, but it's possible that developers of launch titles didn't have enough time to put the extra ram to good use. Wii development kits were simply gamecube hardware with the wii controller for a while, were they not? I mean, considering the extra disc space and ram, the textures should not be as bad looking as they are in some Wii games.
 
BrodiemanTTR said:
Any review worth reading is written by a reviewer intelligent enough to not hold Wii graphics against the PS3 standard.
Click to expand...

Actually, from one perspective, it's actually a valid argument. Nintendo made a choice to go this way and they're going to suffer the consequences (critically. i.e. in terms of critics etc.). You can't release a console with almost no new graphical tech and start making profits on each unit sold on day one and not have any thing going against you. Think about this in a Buddhist sense. It's kind ofl like Karma.

It's like your friend not studying for the mid-term exam but he receives twice the score you do (yes, that means you failed it...). He hasn't studied, and he's been profiting (having fun and partying) since the first day of the class (since Wii launch). However, you're always very studious; teachers find you to be the more amiable and knowledgeable student among the two -- your friend is a complete retard in class, but he sports one of the fanciest calculators in the world (Critics are "wowed" by the xbox 360/PS3(you) but they aren't so much by your fancy-calculator/stupid friend (wii). However, that fancy calculator sure is awesome!).



Damn, I got really carried away with that, and I'm not sure it makes complete sense....hell, I'll post it anyways. In a world with Kojimalogies, anything is possible...
 
Personally, I have a problem against them comparing Wii's graphics to 360/PS3.

But I have no problem with them bashing Wii's graphics.
 
Pimpbaa said:
True, but it's possible that developers of launch titles didn't have enough time to put the extra ram to good use. Wii development kits were simply gamecube hardware with the wii controller for a while, were they not? I mean, considering the extra disc space and ram, the textures should not be as bad looking as they are in some Wii games.
Click to expand...

Hence why most Wii games deserve low graphics marks. However, it should be for that reason and that reason alone. Not because PS3/360 games look better in comparison.

This is why I'm glad I work on a console-specific site. We don't see PS3 and 360 games every day, so we're in a better position to fairly judge Wii games on their own merits.


dirtmonkey37 said:
Actually, from one perspective, it's actually a valid argument. Nintendo made a choice to go this way and they're going to suffer the consequences (critically. i.e. in terms of critics etc.). You can't release a console with almost no new graphical tech and start making profits on each unit sold on day one and not have any thing going against you. Think about this in a Buddhist sense. It's kind ofl like Karma.
Click to expand...

The Wii is what it is. Reviews should still be grounded on the realistic capabilities of the system. You don't dock an individual game just because the hardware it is running on isn't as powerful as other systems are.
 
WindyMan said:
The Wii is what it is. Reviews should still be grounded on the realistic capabilities of the system. You don't dock an individual game just because the hardware it is running on isn't as powerful as other systems are.
Click to expand...
But you can dock a game for not looking as good as other games of the same price. If you want to use a PS2/Xbox scale for Wii games, then I expect the pricetag to be equally scaled (barring event-level games like Zelda, FFXII, and some niche titles like GH or JRPGs).

$50 can get me Tony Hawk Downhill Jam level visuals or Viva Pinata level visuals.
 
It's unfair that, with GameCube Princess being the greater twin, Banana Blitz is the only title worthy of being purchased at launch Wii extravaganza.

Of All Trades said:
But you can dock a game for not looking as good as other games of the same price. If you want to use a PS2/Xbox scale for Wii games, then I expect the pricetag to be equally scaled (barring event-level games like Zelda, FFXII, and some niche titles like GH or JRPGs).

$50 can get me Tony Hawk Downhill Jam level visuals or Viva Pinata level visuals.
Click to expand...
No. $300 can get you Tony Hawk. $390 can get you Viva Pinata.
 
Wii graphics should be reviewed based on what the hardware can deliver. I've said this a billion times befoer, but the problem I've seen isn't necessarily that Wii games don't just look worse than 360/PS3 games, they look worse than ****ing GAMECUBE games. Not all of course, but literally like 99%. I mean, look at the shock most people got when they saw those pics of Splinter Cell: Double Agent, and Mario Galaxy. Because garbage like Elebits was so bad, we were all impressed with DA and Mario Galaxy, even though DA and Galaxy are what actually represents the Wii's ability.

So basically what I'm trying to say is that Wii games should never be compared to 360/PS3 games. The benchmark should imo be Xbox games.
 
This looks bad, and I hope Nintendo gets its online act together sooner rather than later. So far, reviews reflect that Nintendo is still not getting the best port....and it could be Nintendo's fault.

I have a feeling American Wii games will reflect this for a while.




.....but who cares we all buy it for Nintendo games anyways.
 
What's hilarious is how usually, launch titles are always overhyped to death and getting crazy reviews even if they suck (bouncer, that car crashing game on the xbox, and so on)

but wii's lunch stuff is getting average reviews
 
it's not fair to compare them to ps3/360... but it is fair to compare them to other wii games in development and even by that standard most of them come up short... Only red steel, rayman and madden appear to be pushing the system at all. Even zelda (and it's very pretty) looks like a top tier GC game.

Mario galaxy, forever blue (or whatever that diving game is called) and MP3 show that the wii can do a lot better in the future.

most of these games deserve no better than an 8.0 on graphics... actually, most of them deserve graphics scores in the 6/7 range or even lower.
 
Oblivion said:
So basically what I'm trying to say is that Wii games should never be compared to 360/PS3 games. The benchmark should imo be Xbox games.
Click to expand...

i agree for the most part but... i think the best looking stuff we've seen out performs the xbox. imo galaxy looks a little better than the best looking xbox games like ninja gaiden, so i would expect future wii games to look even better than galaxy. I would say that any wii game that looks xbox level or lower shouldn't score above an 8.5 in graphics. The wii's hardware is a little better than the xbox and the graphics should reflect that. Even at this early stage i think it's fair to expect xbox+ on the top tier games.
 
Adagio said:
It's unfair that, with GameCube Princess being the greater twin, Banana Blitz is the only title worthy of being purchased at launch Wii extravaganza.

No. $300 can get you Tony Hawk. $390 can get you Viva Pinata.
Click to expand...

Stop saying that **** man. We ALL know by now that the Wii version is just as good, if not better than the Gamecube version.
 
shuri said:
What's hilarious is how usually, launch titles are always overhyped to death and getting crazy reviews even if they suck (bouncer, that car crashing game on the xbox, and so on)

but wii's lunch stuff is getting average reviews
Click to expand...

Its cause launch games are all we have for a while..
 
shuri said:
What's hilarious is how usually, launch titles are always overhyped to death and getting crazy reviews even if they suck (bouncer, that car crashing game on the xbox, and so on)

but wii's lunch stuff is getting average reviews
Click to expand...

Yeah, but they haven't been bad. In fact I'd say the Wii launch titles have been scoring better than the PS3 launch titles. By quite a margin.
 
Krowley said:
i agree for the most part but... i think the best looking stuff we've seen out performs the xbox. imo galaxy looks a little better than the best looking xbox games like ninja gaiden, so i would expect future wii games to look even better than galaxy. I would say that any wii game that looks xbox level or lower shouldn't score above an 8.5 in graphics. The wii's hardware is a little better than the xbox and the graphics should reflect that. Even at this early stage i think it's fair to expect xbox+ on the top tier games.
Click to expand...

Well what I meant was, Xbox should be a MINIMUM benchmark, since Galaxy does look quite better than most games on it.
 
Oblivion said:
Well what I meant was, Xbox should be a MINIMUM benchmark, since Galaxy does look quite better than most games on it.
Click to expand...

I agree with this.

Though Peer at IGN said he very much doubts Wii will ever have games that look as good as Chaos Theory or Chronicles of Riddick.
 
Of All Trades said:
But you can dock a game for not looking as good as other games of the same price. If you want to use a PS2/Xbox scale for Wii games, then I expect the pricetag to be equally scaled (barring event-level games like Zelda, FFXII, and some niche titles like GH or JRPGs).

$50 can get me Tony Hawk Downhill Jam level visuals or Viva Pinata level visuals.
Click to expand...
This argument doesn't work, because you're assuming everyone will have every system and therefore can base their purchasing decisions across all the platforms. People who own only one system looking to make an informed game purchasing decision would be much served if they got a review that judged a particular game against others on that console.

What good would a comparison between Downhill Jam and Viva Piñata do for someone if an Xbox 360 was out of their price range?
 
WindyMan said:
Hence why most Wii games deserve low graphics marks. However, it should be for that reason and that reason alone. Not because PS3/360 games look better in comparison.

This is why I'm glad I work on a console-specific site. We don't see PS3 and 360 games every day, so we're in a better position to fairly judge Wii games on their own merits.




The Wii is what it is. Reviews should still be grounded on the realistic capabilities of the system. You don't dock an individual game just because the hardware it is running on isn't as powerful as other systems are.
Click to expand...


Just curious, did you read the rest of my awful post? :lol
 
Alkaliine said:
Stop saying that **** man.
Click to expand...
The truth hurts. Let out your tears, O Alkaliine... BREEEAAATHE the sweet vapors...BREEEAAATHE the sweet vapors... Weep, O Son Of Sorrow. WEEP FOR THE ERROR OF YOUR WAYS!!!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Devil May Cry 5 Devil Hunter Edition Nintendo Switch 2 version leaked by Taiwanese Game Rating Board
Platform 
3
147
Red Crayon Aristocrat replied
[FT] Everyone loves Nintendo — except investors
Clickbait Business Cringe 
20
74
Sgt.Asher replied
Devil May Cry Season 2 releases May 12
4
142
Zephyranthes replied
Final Fantast XIV coming to Nintendo Switch 2 in August 2026
18
250
Deerock71 replied
Nintendo Extremely Rare FMV Arcade Game From 1974 Has Been Restored By A Dedicated Fan
Retro Trailer Game Dev 
3
115
midnightAI replied
Top Bottom