Support NeoGAF

[GANGSTERKILLER]

The Wonderful 101 looks incredible! Never seen anything like it. The other games don't impresse me. The new 3D Mario could also blow me away at E3.

I think I will have to buy a Wii U this year. I can not resist the exclusive games.

 

[Mondriaan]

Good game design trumps hardware power; I can overlook a game's graphical inferiority as long as the aesthetics and gameplay hold up. It's obviously too early to tell if Monolith Soft will reach its goals of delivering a truly impressive looking game, both technically and artistically, but one thing I still cannot fathom is why on Earth they'd want to aspire to be like Bethesda. That's even more nonsensical than Monolith's storytelling!

I think it's natural that there are Wii U fans will want an open world game that they can use as a poster child for Wii U graphical performance being superior to that of the PS3 and 360.

X will probably be a good game, but I think in the future it's going to be considered an example of really good art direction rather than a technical showpiece.

 

[shouamabane]

Some people REALLY are in denial here.

It's like they've never seen an HD game before.

It's almost like they've never seen a guy jump into a sword-wielding flying mech that turns into an off-road motorcycle. Ho-hum.

 

[Oblivion]

Btw, was Lair actually an impressive game on the graphical front? I know it was Factor 5, I know that the first screenshots showed some absolutely sick looking dragons, but I thought the final game was an absolute mess that wasn't worthy of the kind of things you expect from F5.

Note: I'm specifically talking about the graphics.

Still want an answer, peeps. Just want to make sure I'm not misremembering what happened back in those days.

 

[Margalis]

By the way that PC Far Cry video that guy keeps linking to? It has tons of pop-in during the hang gliding section. If you watch things in the background entire chunks of geometry boil and appear out of thin air, and some of the middle level of detail things that appear don't seem to match the higher LODs much at all. When he lands the glider the patch of grass he lands in is all billboarded sprites. When he stands on rock to snipe people the rock has polygonal corners just as obvious as the lake in X. The SSAO around dead bodies on the ground (or is that supposed to be a shadow???) looks atrocious.

There are flaws all over the place in that video. It's doesn't mean it's a bad game - the overall package looks great. But if you are going to say that X looks average because of billboarded grass and sharp polygonal corners you have to say that FC3 PC looks average as well.

 

[nephilimdj]

It's almost like they've never seen a guy jump into a sword-wielding flying mech that turns into an off-road motorcycle. Ho-hum.

sounds like a challenge, make a mech for just cause 2 and a dinosaurs, recreate x trailer in a week

 

[ozfunghi]

By the way that PC Far Cry video that guy keeps linking to? It has tons of pop-in during the hang gliding section. If you watch things in the background entire chunks of geometry boil and appear out of thin air, and some of the middle level of detail things that appear don't seem to match the higher LODs much at all. When he lands the glider the patch of grass he lands in is all billboarded sprites. When he stands on rock to snipe people the rock has polygonal corners just as obvious as the lake in X. The SSAO around dead bodies on the ground (or is that supposed to be a shadow???) looks atrocious.

Yup. The popping was much more noticable and intrusive than in X for me. I was bothered by it the first time i saw the clip, while i only noticed it on X after others specifically mentioned it. Could also be due to the fast cut trailer.

 

[meta4]

I cant believe that we are discussing whether a game on a console released in 2012 looks better than the previous gen consoles. The fact that so many people are not convinced just shows that what has been shown is in the same ball park as current gen. Infact I think GTA5 might smoke this in scale and detail if previews are to be believed.

Talks of how gameplay is more important than graphics in a graphics thread is irrelevant to the topic. Every fan of games in general whether on 360 or ps3 or Wii/U love games because of the gameplay. They are enjoying playing those games. There is nothing specifically special or unique about WiiU fans enjoying gameplay.

Having said that I think this game looks current gen based on what is shown it is beautiful and I think there is a special game in the making.

 

[Steve Youngblood]

I think it's natural that there are Wii U fans will want an open world game that they can use as a poster child for Wii U graphical performance being superior to that of the PS3 and 360.

X will probably be a good game, but I think in the future it's going to be considered an example of really good art direction rather than a technical showpiece.

I continue to not understand why any emphasis is placed on this. Personally, I won't be surprised if Retro or EAD, or maybe even the finished X might be able to impress us visually. However, I think the launch window was a solid indicator to me that the ship has sailed on this being a meaningful step up technically from the 360/PS3. I'm sure there'll be some "this isn't possible in its current form on the 360" Wii U games from first parties, but I find the notion that they're going to blow misconceptions out of the water to be a puzzling suggestion based on what we know and have seen.

Further, even if it does transpire, the time when it would have mattered will have passed. "Wait for E3!" some suggest. Are we referring to the same E3 where everyone is expecting Sony and Microsoft to reveal their new consoles? Even if the new Wii U software has upped its game, the window for showstopping will have passed.

 

[plagiarize]

I cant believe that we are discussing whether a game on a console released in 2012 looks better than the previous gen consoles.

and I can't believe this is still somehow surprising to people. the Wii U is more powerful than the 360 and PS3, but only by a small margin. It will almost certainly be a larger margin behind Durango and Orbis.

What else should we discuss about a game where we've seen a short video of graphics (like X) or a game where what we've been shown is quite literally a tech demo (Wind Waker)? X does look very good for an open world. Possibly beyond what 360 and PS3 can do, possibly not... but as of yet I haven't seen anything quite as impressive in the genre on those consoles... but that's just my opinion and it acknowledges that PS3 and 360 might be able to do it.

Are we not allowed to discuss Wii U games graphics? And if we are, given that some games are going to look inferior to the best games on 360 and PS3 and some games are likely to look better, how is that not a pretty good benchmark to consider when deciding on whether or not a Wii U game is technically impressive given it's hardware.

We've known where the Wii U was going to fall power wise for quite a while now. Discussions like this are going to continue until 360 and PS3 game releases are rare.

 

[FlashbladeGAF]

No, Xenoblade is technically impressive, X is not.

What in that X trailer is impressive? There is grass pop in, poly count is EXTREMELY low. LOD for "accessible areas" at that distance are often rasterized into 2D backdrops and as you get closer LOD into 3D. SotC used the exact same technique. It worked extremely well. It worked extremely well in Xenoblade, and it works extremely well in X.

It's not a technically demanding feature.

Want to know why Skyrim looks like shit at a distance and runs like shit? Because they don't do these tricks.

JC2 also uses this trick IIRC.

Check out my previous post

The grass pop in is likely because the game is incomplete. Not even Xenoblade suffered from that, as it employed a graceful fade in approach for its LOD models.

Anyway, if you think it's not a technically impressive game, that's good and all, but I beg to differ. Take this shot for example:

For one, the draw distance is as good as it gets. It's clear as daylight with no standard current-gen fog to cleverly limit the draw distance. It also doesn't look sparse like many games with high draw distances. Sure, it uses LOD, but the majority of open world games in existence, whether console or PC, utilize LOD, or else you'd be stuck with crappy pop ins. It's not really a 'trick', but a standard design choice employed to maximize performance.

Another thing to note is the high quality self shadowing. The sword is casting a smooth shadow on the player's back. A lot games now do employ self shadowing though only to a certain extent, as the majority of its implementation is limited to main characters only and a limited amount of props. Take a look at the following GIF:

Pay attention to the smaller enemy. Not only is there self shadowing, but there is also a highly detailed shadow cast from the tree above onto the enemy, meaning there's dynamic projective shadowing cast from static environment objects onto dynamic objects. It's all realtime. When taking into account the scale of the game, that's bloody impressive. Also, as mentioned in my other post, the foliage is marvelous.

I also just realized the environment casts a reflection onto the water in both GIFs. Not a big deal at all, but at least we're gone from the awful Xenoblade water

This screen capture also shows that high-resolution normal maps and specular maps are being used, since even at that close distance, the detail on the enemy still holds up well.
Guess that's where the added RAM comes in handy. If the game manages to keep a locked framerate and a minimum 720p resolution, it will certainly be a lot more than just decent in comparison to PS3 and 360 titles.

Time will tell I guess.

Also, IIRC, Skyrim does use LOD, though probably not as effectively as some would've hoped.

.

 

[Darkangel]

I think the graphics look good enough for me to be satisfied. Just because PS4/720 games will look BETTER, doesn't mean that Wii U games will look BAD.

 

[Chû Totoro]

I think the graphics look good enough for me to be satisfied. Just because PS4/720 games will look BETTER, doesn't mean that Wii U games will look BAD.

I was about to make a very big post wanting to explain this but you did it better so

Edit : here it is

This have been said like a thousand times but graphics are of course important and I'm glad Nintendo finally is in the HD era but this is not mainly for this purpose that they conceive their systems so how could you expect the Wii U to have the best graphics vs next Sony's and Microsoft's systems. Of course it won't happen and if you want the best graphics just go PC.


Top 10 PS3 (metacritic) : 2 exclusives + 1 not on PC.. everything else is also on PC so best version : PC
Top 10 Xbox 360 (metacritic) : no exclusives + 1 not on PC.. everything else is also on PC so best version again : PC
Top 10 Wii (metacritic) : 6 exclusives + 3 not on PC but other systems.. everything... hum, I mean 1 game also on PC so best version : PC (and this is World Of Goo)

I'm going to play good games that's all I'm saying... keep speaking about specs and graphics when you play on console instead of PC and you'll always make me laugh.

Wii U may not be interesting for now because the lack of games but if you're waiting to be impressed by the graphics to buy one then you'll wait a very long time. If you look at the whole game and you don't compare with PC or other next gen games (actually there's none for now but we have teasers so...) you can enjoy what they achieve because there is in fact very good graphics in a lot of games. And we're at the first batch.. sorry but I don't think we can say that 6 months after the release there was a big gap vs launch games for any console.

 

[ozfunghi]

I cant believe that we are discussing whether a game on a console released in 2012 looks better than the previous gen consoles. The fact that so many people are not convinced just shows that what has been shown is in the same ball park as current gen. Infact I think GTA5 might smoke this in scale and detail if previews are to be believed.

Talks of how gameplay is more important than graphics in a graphics thread is irrelevant to the topic. Every fan of games in general whether on 360 or ps3 or Wii/U love games because of the gameplay. They are enjoying playing those games. There is nothing specifically special or unique about WiiU fans enjoying gameplay.

Having said that I think this game looks current gen based on what is shown it is beautiful and I think there is a special game in the making.

We are actually coming from people trolling the WiiU as being somewhere in between xbox and xbox360. Bullshit about "horribly slow CPU", the amount of "lol, RAM twice as slow" (than current gen) etc... All these things were indications that the hardware is inferior. The fact that it has 3.2x as much eDRAM, double (possibly more in the future) the RAM, about two generations of evolution in featureset and likely double the raw power in GPU performance... all that on the other hand does not seem to count. Even when the CPU was later to be revealed by Marcan to not be inferior in game-related operations, and actual developers claimed the bandwidth numbers spread for WiiU seem wrong (as in too slow) etc.

The fact that a game in full development, after the console has only been out for 2 months, has to be compared to Far Cry 3, RDR etc... is already a huge victory over the trolls of months passed.

 

[Shadow of the BEAST]

I think it looks good. But i love japanese games.

but its not that technically impressive.

both red dead and infamous 2 smokes it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MOeX4ia8-7c

Ok, time to open some eyes i think.

------
Very low polygonal terrain

Sun height doesnt affect shadows at all. Here sun is about in 30 degree, but shadow is cast from 80 degree. So lighting is static, mostly prebaked. Shadow resolution looks like 1024k.

Particles quality is on pair with pre PS2 era, alpha texture resolution 64x64?

Water rendering is very simple, there is no refraction or distortion and no reflections from objects. Also next example of very low resolution alpha textures.

Foliage is completely sprite based, same as in Xenoblade

LOD is very aggressive, even for sprite based foliage and that means bandwidth problems of WiiU

Yeah, its on pair with midtier current gen open world games, but even that is generous. What is good in this footage? Characters/NPCs models, materials and HDR.

good solid analysis.

 

[FlashbladeGAF]

Water rendering is very simple, there is no refraction or distortion and no reflections from objects...

good solid analysis.

looks like all of the above in that water to me?

 

[javac]

infamous 2 smokes it.

Wait, what? You want to compare a MASSIVE open world game with beautiful vistas, amazing draw distance to...infamous 2? And you want to prove your point with THAT trailer?

You want good analysis? Here

 

[ironcreed]

Really dig the mist from the waterfalls. It's nice little touches like that which can really tie a world together for that immersion effect.

 

[neo-berserk]

are you trying to say that monolith is incompetent?

 

[Shadow of the BEAST]

Wait, what? You want to compare a MASSIVE open world game with beautiful vistas, amazing draw distance to...infamous 2? And you want to prove your point with THAT trailer?

You want good analysis? Here

infamous 2 is open world game.

 

[Oblivion]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MOeX4ia8-7c

Infamous 2 seems cool, but those character models are shite.

 

[SmokyDave]

looks like all of the above in that water to me?

"Sire! I have found the shores of Toblerone Beach!"

 

[SteeloDMZ]

infamous 2 is open world game.

How does this game "smoke" X? Lol

 

[KageMaru]

Dropping truth bombs. I hope the (formerly graphics don't matter) wii crowd noticed this.

That is what bothers me most about this group on GAF. They shun or downplay graphics for years, then all of a sudden with the Wii-U they are experts with trained eyes on what makes "great" graphics.

The game looks good, but it's not beyond current gen standards at all.

 

[M°°nblade]

How does this game "smoke" X? Lol

Compared to infamous 2, X does look pretty empty, has way less interactivity and physics going on. Characters and textures look better though.

 

[Shadow of the BEAST]

Infamous 2 seems cool, but those character models are shite.

much higher quality than say rdr.

 

[OG_Original Gamer]

We are actually coming from people trolling the WiiU as being somewhere in between xbox and xbox360. Bullshit about "horribly slow CPU", the amount of "lol, RAM twice as slow" (than current gen) etc... All these things were indications that the hardware is inferior. The fact that it has 3.2x as much eDRAM, double (possibly more in the future) the RAM, about two generations of evolution in featureset and likely double the raw power in GPU performance... all that on the other hand does not seem to count. Even when the CPU was later to be revealed by Marcan to not be inferior in game-related operations, and actual developers claimed the bandwidth numbers spread for WiiU seem wrong (as in too slow) etc.

The fact that a game in full development, after the console has only been out for 2 months, has to be compared to Far Cry 3, RDR etc... is already a huge victory over the trolls of months passed.

I find it strange that there aren't any apparent complaints from devs about bandwidth. Its a far from complete game, with nice shadows, high resolution textures. I don't know, for a game this early in a consoles life cycle to showcase the draw distance, self shadows, and scale to me is impressive.

 

[Captain Smoker]

/whatever

 

[SteeloDMZ]

Compared to infamous 2, X does look pretty empty, has way less interactivity and physics going on.

Could it be because Infamous 2 takes place in a city, which gives it the illusion that there's more stuff going on the screen than an outdoor environment like X? Hmmmm.....

 

[RM8]

That is what bothers me most about this group on GAF. They shun or downplay graphics for years, then all of a sudden with the Wii-U they are experts with trained eyes on what makes "great" graphics.

The game looks good, but it's not beyond current gen standards at all.

They -may- not be the same people, you know. I legit don't care one bit about graphics, as a PS3 owner (with a PC that outperforms it) and a future PS4 owner.

But back on topic, I think Yoshi and W101 look fantastic.

 

[Blinck]

I think they are looking good!

However, "X" is looking a bit "too good". There will have to be a catch for it to have those visuals - either sub-HD, low framerate, or something else. This is what I think, not what I hope for, though. Maybe it will surprise me!

 

[pixlexic]

Can we not just agree the games look good and move on?

 

[Oblivion]

Can we not just agree the games look good and move on?

Nope.

 

[FlashbladeGAF]

Compared to infamous 2, X does look pretty empty, has way less interactivity and physics going on. Characters and textures look better though.

Not a city, but there is some kind of structure/base with a turret.

 

[M°°nblade]

Could it be because Infamous 2 takes place in a city, which gives it the illusion that there's more stuff going on the screen than an outdoor environment like X? Hmmmm.....

It's not an illusion when there are actually are more and physics-driven objects in screen.

Not saying X looks bad, but it is doing less than infamous 2.

 

[SteeloDMZ]

Can we not just agree the games look good and move on?

Looks like shite. Did you see the flat textures on that dinosaur's dick? Unacceptable.

 

[Zips]

Looks pretty. Other games also looking pretty does not change this.

 

[KageMaru]

They -may- not be the same people, you know. I legit don't care one bit about graphics, as a PS3 owner (with a PC that outperforms it) and a future PS4 owner.

But back on topic, I think Yoshi and W101 look fantastic.

IMO many of them are the same people because they are the types to make or believe hyperbolic claims that don't make sense from a technical POV. The same people who are ignorant about technology are generally the same people who actually believe things like the Zelda tech demo is beyond PS360 level graphics.

 

[MickeyPhree]

They look good but in no way are convincing me to buy the system. If I am going to pay 300 plus dollars for a new system it better be out putting graphics, features, etc that are amazing, not a little bit better retread of stuff that I have already had for 8 years.

 

[phosphor112]

Could it be because Infamous 2 takes place in a city, which gives it the illusion that there's more stuff going on the screen than an outdoor environment like X? Hmmmm.....

What illusion? There is more stuff going on screen in Infamous 2. The draw distance is balls, but you can destroy a whole lot of shit.

 

[SolarPowered]

We are still in the middle of Nintendo's first wave and it looks pretty promising. The second wave will probably be their stuff for 2014 and beyond. That is where the secret sauce lies. It includes Mario Kart, Mario 3D, Xeno____, Legend of Zelda and Smash. Stuff like Xeno_____ is on display now and it already looks like your mid tier current gen game. Who knows what kinds of improvements will be added by launch sometime in 2014(with some luck).

Edit: We got some real suckers in here if people think the Wii U already has games that look better than the 360 and PS3's best.

 

[KageMaru]

What illusion? There is more stuff going on screen in Infamous 2. The draw distance is balls, but you can destroy a whole lot of shit.

Everything related to graphics can be considered an illusion. ;p

Infamous is no different. The city environment makes it easier to occlude geometry and even when you're high enough to see the draw distance, LOD would be used to keep it under control.

 

[neo-berserk]

only thing that stops him are SE design decisions. the landscape is already 3D.

yeah,but not in the far end,it looks small in scope.Oh,and the ground texture is not as details.

 

[Herb Alpert]

I think the graphics look good enough for me to be satisfied. Just because PS4/720 games will look BETTER, doesn't mean that Wii U games will look BAD.

Totally agree.
For me it looks beautiful, the world seems very open and gigantic and we can ride mecha. At this point, the angle of the water or the pop of bush doesn't bother me, especially in a early version.

 

[Steve Youngblood]

Can we not just agree the games look good and move on?

It depends on what kind of conversation you're interested in. If you're simply invested to the point where you look at a screen in passing, shrug your shoulder, and think it looks good without caring about the technical aspects, then sure. Even in the hypothetical situation where the tech gurus come in and tear a game to shreds, that's hardly in and of itself an indication that end users still won't think it's good looking game. In that regard, I agree with what you're getting at.

But if you want to venture into the realm of tech enthusiasm, then no. You can't just shrug your shoulders and agree that the games look good and move on. There's a lot of depth in the conversation that can be traversed if one so desires. There's nothing wrong with comparing and contrasting in great detail nuances that may go unnoticed by most of the public.

The only problem that arises is when people don't understand the parameters of the conversation. In a conversation about what looks good to the casual observer, in-depth tech analysis can be unnecessary and obnoxious. In a conversation about technical merit, reactions that amount to "I don't know; looks good to me" can be considered substantively lacking.

 

[Oppo]

Everything related to graphics can be considered an illusion. ;p

Infamous is no different. The city environment makes it easier to occlude geometry and even when you're high enough to see the draw distance, LOD would be used to keep it under control.

That might be true, if you couldn't zip around that city at high speed grinding power lines, but you can, which sort of flattens that argument.

Not sure how one might take the position that "more stuff" is easier to calculate than "open vista".

 

[fuzzyreactor]

what is this and why does it look so bad?

 

[Demoncarnotaur]

New games look very nice, but nothing that's jaw dropping..rather they are all fueled by a great art direction. The Wii U very much seems to be on PS360 level, nothing more, nothing less.

X is a great looking game. That said, I wouldn't say it looks like something unobtainable on the PS360 consoles. Now, don't get me wrong, X may be doing things in a way that wouldn't quite work on those consoles, but I have no doubt a port would be possible.. still, it makes me want a Wii U, but that has nothing to do with the power of the system.

My biggest issue with X is the entire image looks washed out.. I can't tell if its bad IQ or bad trailer quality or what.

 

[phosphor112]

what is this and why does it look so bad?

Windwaker HD: Bloom Edition.

Seriously though, the new textures and crisp edges look nice, but the bloom is retina burning levels.

 

[BareKnuckle]