By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Nintendo Discussion - Seems Mistwalker is going to be back on board for the Wii U

Torillian said:
Conegamer said:

Very true, but that's upscaled rather than being built around the HD Hardware, hence it still looks very ropey in places. 

Both Monolith and Mistwalker said the game would only be possible on the Wii because of the finite budget, and many things would have been missing from Xenoblade had Nintendo not been there to give them the opportunity to finish it. 

I'm not denying that FFXIII would probably have been the same game, but if Monolith wished to make Xenoblade exactly as it is on the HD consoles, they'd need a much larger budget, so it would only be feasible on the Wii.

I'll try and find sources.

But there is nothing specifically more expensive about developing on HD consoles.  Development usually gets expensive if you go for higher fidelity art but there isn't anything that magically means drawing the same models in Wii is cheaper than they'd be to make on 360 or PS3, it's just that developers usually shoot significantly higher because they can, but there's nothing that requires it.

The PS3 is pretty darn hard to work with, I always thought...

However, whilst i's true that it wouldn't be significantly more expensive, if it were on a HD console and merely had the upscaled graphics of the Dolphin, it'd have been mocked because of 'not having up-to-standard' graphics. If they don't shoot higher 'because they can' and merely stick with OK, then people would be turned off it because there's better looking games. So, it'd be a tricky one. 

Perhaps it could be ported across with only a minimal cost increase, but would it havemade the game 'better'? I don't think so. Nothing would be gained, bar HD graphics, from it being on the other consoles. It wouldn't be anymore enjoyable because the faces look more realistic, for example. 

The only things it could possibly gain, in my eyes, would be the extra RAM producing more enemies on-screen, and also to stop pop-up of plants in some occasions. Aside from that, it'd merely 'look pretty', and I don't think anyone wouldn't play it because of low-res textures.



 

Here lies the dearly departed Nintendomination Thread.

Around the Network
lilbroex said:
Turkish said:
I'd rather want them to make a game for the next gen PS4/nextbox consoles tho :/


He refuses to work for Sony, so you can kiss that fantasy goodbye. Though it funny how people can show so much love and favoritism for something that doesn't even exist yet. Nintendo hate is something else.


I want to play my JRPGs with a simple controller, I dont like playing games on the Wii and probably wont on the WiiU. Because the controls are different, yes there is the classic controller, but I wont shelve extra money for a controller just to play a game.



Conegamer said:
Torillian said:
Conegamer said:

Very true, but that's upscaled rather than being built around the HD Hardware, hence it still looks very ropey in places. 

Both Monolith and Mistwalker said the game would only be possible on the Wii because of the finite budget, and many things would have been missing from Xenoblade had Nintendo not been there to give them the opportunity to finish it. 

I'm not denying that FFXIII would probably have been the same game, but if Monolith wished to make Xenoblade exactly as it is on the HD consoles, they'd need a much larger budget, so it would only be feasible on the Wii.

I'll try and find sources.

But there is nothing specifically more expensive about developing on HD consoles.  Development usually gets expensive if you go for higher fidelity art but there isn't anything that magically means drawing the same models in Wii is cheaper than they'd be to make on 360 or PS3, it's just that developers usually shoot significantly higher because they can, but there's nothing that requires it.

The PS3 is pretty darn hard to work with, I always thought...

However, whilst i's true that it wouldn't be significantly more expensive, if it were on a HD console and merely had the upscaled graphics of the Dolphin, it'd have been mocked because of 'not having up-to-standard' graphics. If they don't shoot higher 'because they can' and merely stick with OK, then people would be turned off it because there's better looking games. So, it'd be a tricky one. 

Perhaps it could be ported across with only a minimal cost increase, but would it havemade the game 'better'? I don't think so. Nothing would be gained, bar HD graphics, from it being on the other consoles. It wouldn't be anymore enjoyable because the faces look more realistic, for example. 

The only things it could possibly gain, in my eyes, would be the extra RAM producing more enemies on-screen, and also to stop pop-up of plants in some occasions. Aside from that, it'd merely 'look pretty', and I don't think anyone wouldn't play it because of low-res textures.

If it were true that looking better with less jaggies didn't make the game "better" than Dolphin wouldn't exist.  I know that visuals aren't that important to everyone but they obviously are to some and if you could get better graphics without losing anything else I really don't see a downside.  You can say that the standards of HD gamers would work against them, but then I could say that not being a Mario game would work against it on Nintendo.  While that's probably true on both sides for some of the userbase obviously Xenoblade didn't sell gangbusters anyway, and I don't recall many people passing on any JRPG because of visuals specifically.  Hell Xenoblade in Dolphin would almost certainly look better than the Atelier games from a 3D modeling standpoint and those games do just fine.  I don't think there's any real reason to think that upscaled Xenoblade couldn't sell just as well on the HD consoles except for the fact that there probably wouldn't have been a Operation Rainfall type push since it'd probably get localized without problem.

Here's a question for you I guess, the Wii U is obviously atleast as powerful as the PS3 and 360 and probably noticeably more so.  Do you think that Xenoblade 2 (or whatever they end up making) will be a 20 hour long corridor-fest?  Hell, The Last Story was on Wii and that was actually one of the more corridor like JRPGs I've played in a while and short to boot.  



...

Torillian said:

If it were true that looking better with less jaggies didn't make the game "better" than Dolphin wouldn't exist. 

It certainly would. Not everybody has a Wii. In fact, it exists predominately for the people who don't have a Wii. 



Boutros said:

Meanwhile at Mistwalker:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EXAr6mjC40E


Looks pretty fun.

 

Also, I always look forward to what Mistwalker is up to. They need a few big hits, so that they can expand into AAA games.



Around the Network
darkknightkryta said:
theARTIST0017 said:
darkknightkryta said:
lilbroex said:
Turkish said:
I'd rather want them to make a game for the next gen PS4/nextbox consoles tho :/


He refuses to work for Sony, so you can kiss that fantasy goodbye. Though it funny how people can show so much love and favoritism for something that doesn't even exist yet. Nintendo hate is something else.

I agree with him.  I mean it won't be nearly as bad as wii to ps3, but when you have RPGs with these huge stories and lore, graphics play an important part.  I mean; wouldn't you want the best possible graphics when watching frequent and long cutscenes? Or traveling around the world and towns?

the BEST rpgs didn't rely on graphics fyi. If we had that kind of mindset people wouldn't be playing 20+ yo classic rpgs.

Yes they did.  RPGs generally had the best graphics at the time.

oh really? 32 bit rpg games had the best graphics? Nah I would say at that time graphics was not something that differed between games like they do now. They shared similar graphics to platformers, sidescrollers, etc. And then not to talk about PS1, PS2, days they definitely didn't have the best graphics. Now of course, more recently there are a few exceptions, but generally speaking rpgs are not known for having the best graphics in gaming, especially today.



NINTENDO

nintendo forever . . .

Conegamer said:
darkknightkryta said:
lilbroex said:
Turkish said:
I'd rather want them to make a game for the next gen PS4/nextbox consoles tho :/


He refuses to work for Sony, so you can kiss that fantasy goodbye. Though it funny how people can show so much love and favoritism for something that doesn't even exist yet. Nintendo hate is something else.

I agree with him.  I mean it won't be nearly as bad as wii to ps3, but when you have RPGs with these huge stories and lore, graphics play an important part.  I mean; wouldn't you want the best possible graphics when watching frequent and long cutscenes? Or traveling around the world and towns?

If that happened, then the best JRPG of the past decade, Xenoblade, would be nothing like it is now. It'd be shorter, smaller, and generall less-fun, simply so it could look a little better. I'd rather have my 100-hour story with 450 sidequests, open areas and stunning scenery, than a 20-hour corridor crawler which looks good like FFXIII...

So the least important thing in huge RPG's is most certainly the graphics. It's why FFVII is still loved, whilst FFXIII is not. 

This is one of the dumbest things I've heard in a long time.

Developers make all sorts of compromises regarding the game dependant on budget, time, and the console they're working with. Naturally, developers should want to push every boundary, while some do, others can't. You have small developers who regularly put out great games on PS3 like Gust and NIS. They don't push the graphically boundary (never have honestly), but no compromises have been made to content or gameplay because it's on the big, bad PS3.

You shouldn't make assumptions based on no information really. I could say "X would be so much better on Y console, because of speculation". We don't know how it would have turned out, but we certainly do know that it's not 100 hour game. It's the same standard length as every other JRPG. Sure, it has a ton of content that you can do, but it's not all necessary to complete the game. The same could be said of FF13 (which you give a nice exagerration as well). It takes about 30-35 hours to beat the main story, but the late game content and other extras can give you well over 100 hours of gameplay.

And you're absolutely crazy if you think one of Square's main goals with FF7 was to push graphics. It was as it was showcased as the first grand 3D RPG to the world. Square has always been about outdoing themselves in all areas, and that includes graphics (certainly did not start with FF13).



"We'll toss the dice however they fall,
And snuggle the girls be they short or tall,
Then follow young Mat whenever he calls,
To dance with Jak o' the Shadows."

Check out MyAnimeList and my Game Collection. Owner of the 5 millionth post.

Boutros said:

Meanwhile at Mistwalker:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EXAr6mjC40E

Lol, maybe that can be a launch title for Wii U.  Obviously a system seller...

Okay, well maybe that sweet sweet music they have in the game, if nothing else.



MrT-Tar said:
darkknightkryta said:
theARTIST0017 said:
darkknightkryta said:
lilbroex said:
Turkish said:
I'd rather want them to make a game for the next gen PS4/nextbox consoles tho :/


He refuses to work for Sony, so you can kiss that fantasy goodbye. Though it funny how people can show so much love and favoritism for something that doesn't even exist yet. Nintendo hate is something else.

I agree with him.  I mean it won't be nearly as bad as wii to ps3, but when you have RPGs with these huge stories and lore, graphics play an important part.  I mean; wouldn't you want the best possible graphics when watching frequent and long cutscenes? Or traveling around the world and towns?

the BEST rpgs didn't rely on graphics fyi. If we had that kind of mindset people wouldn't be playing 20+ yo classic rpgs.

Yes they did.  RPGs generally had the best graphics at the time.

Not really, only Squaresoft RPGs really pushed the graphical limits of platforms.

The Pokemon RPGs  don't push graphics at all

Dragon Quest pre-VIII didn't either (VII was probably the worst looking high profile PSX games)

Tales doesn't really (though Symphonia, minus the overworld, looked pretty good for a GC game)

The first Wild Arms was very basic looking, even by PSX standards

 

Even those RPGs which had fantastic graphics for their platform (Chrono Trigger, FFXII, etc), didn't rely on them.  To say so is completely overlooking the gameplay that made such games legendary.

Also important to note that even if the RPGs of old pushed the limit of their respective systems it would probably still be cheaper and less time consuming than pushing the limit of a current gen console.  There are just so many more minute details you can bother with on current systems as compared to a 16-bit system, for instance.



Oh Boy!!

I wonder what western shooter they are going to rip off this time?

Maybe we'll get a JRPG set in World War 2



Until you've played it, every game is a system seller!

the original trolls

Wii FC: 4810 9420 3131 7558
MHTri: name=BOo BoO/ID=BZBLEX/region=US

mini-games on consoles, cinematic games on handhelds, what's next? GameBoy IMAX?

Official Member of the Pikmin Fan Club