i don't think anybody is defending the wii version.

BTW, the company that did the Wii version also did the PS2 version (Vicarious Visions), and it looks a LOT more crap than the Wii version ever could. IGN scored it 3.5/10 as well...

(OMG - its a crap PS1 game - rip my eyes out now!)

why are we having such a discussion on a game that is crap. I basically see some people saying that THE GAME MAY be crap, but at least it is crap with decent graphics!!! crap is crap, and doesn't need to be discussed like this. These devs didn't put any time into either version of this game, and this game is nothing for any of the 3 systems to be proud of.

Final note on the subject... Vicarious are not exactly renouned for their 3D/console work. They have done a lot of GB/GBA/DS titles, and a few PS2/Xbox ports (etc...) - plus probably something else.

They should never have worked on such a high-profile title such as this.

(note - Activision actually bought them, so its an internal studio working on it... no wonder some resources were shared!).

http://au.games.ign.com/objects/025/025232.html

I simply think that people are in a little shock that such a HIGH profile title could come out so CRAP. Esp. with Spiderman 2 being so excellent, and a lot of potential for this title.

And I don't see anyone defending ANY graphics - including the PS3/360 versions ;)

(and this is a general warning for people NOT TO BUY THE GAME!!). 

im curious as to why activision have the rights to make spiderman anyways? surely sony would of wanted it to be at least an amazing looking game on the ps3 so they could advertise it along with the movie???

Let me explain what people mean when graphics don't matter over gameplay. Graphics are designed to allow clear distinction between foreground, subject, object, & background. People who say graphics don't matter over gameplay do NOT want Atari 2600's Combat graphics because those graphics limit the depth of the gameplay. Starfox on SNES Vs. Starfox 64 on N64 was a needed upgrade in graphical content in order to allow easier recognition of differing ships in the heat of a fast-paced battle. The stuff done on Starfox 64 wasn't quite possible on SNES because when explosions went off on N64 your ship sort of got lost in the white flash. It took you a second to reorient yourself. Starfox 64 had much faster gameplay than SNES Starfox did because of its graphical distinction allowing more depth. Graphics are RELATED to gameplay and when people focus on the graphics solely for the graphics sake THAT'S what people object to. Because many times graphics are not tied to gameplay but just to presentation by many developers. The 6th gen took care of virtually all graphical issues and that level of output is acceptable for most people. Some games need more graphical flair than others and this realistically drawn Spiderman 3 would be one of them. The webs Spidey swings from are white lines and without graphical distinction being strong either the gameplay will be slowed down in order for you to follow the web against the buildings or you won't be able to orient yourself as quickly distracting you from the game you are supposed to be playing. AND presentation IS somewhat important. No super HD HD HD isn't the issue but graphical touchup means care taken with product. They are lazy here and are insulting the Wii audience. I guess they saw Wii Sports & Wii Play and said that's how they want their games. Difference being that art style was chosen for a reason to make it more accessible and inviting. AND STILL the graphical distinction is clear there. Those graphics suited that game. I played Star Fox Adventures which was graphically brilliant but the gameplay was ho-hum. THAT'S an example of graphics never outdoing gameplay. But that doesn't mean Metroid Prime had to look like Space Invaders either. Spiderman 3 is based on a rich detailed world so graphics ALSO make the world more real and inviting. Twilight Princess's graphics were great because of the attention to detail. The dust blowing to give the effect of a dry land to make you feel an emotion in the game when you're in that area. The lush ponds that make you feel watery. The hard pavement when Epona gallops on the field of the ruins. The sound it makes. Graphics are mainly for gameplay for distinctive purposes. That's their primary functional use. The secondary auxilliary use is immersion and presentation. That doesn't mean everything has to be shiny shiny but that some care needs to go into the presenation to make the world worth delving into. And the degree varies by title depending on artstyle chosen. Wii is not a weak system. Only in comparison does it look feeble. The Gamecube did better than this and dare I say it even the N64. They coulda worked harder than this. The Spiderman 2 pics someone showed were great. A simplistic artstyle? No problem. Doing it cel-shaded or with a more comic-book look? No problem. This is neither of those. It's pure laziness and shoddy work thumbing its nose at the Wii and Wii buyers. Technical limitations of the past produced the games we had and they pushed those limited systems to create great works. Ninja Gaiden trilogy on NES showed it. That's art style overcoming technical limitations. The way it's supposed to be done. They had better not release this on the market like this. That's a rush job. This better be the work-in-progress screens because releasing this would be absolute stupidity on everyone's part. John Lucas

johnlucas, every version of the game is pretty bad.  Not everything is about Nintendo and someone's bad game for them, heh.  But hey, at least you are one of the few that argue that graphics matter for gameplay.

Windbane, you gotta understand something. I'm not a Nintendo fan out of being a herded sheep. I'm a Nintendo fan for the decades of good work they have done and continue to do. And if you look at my post history you'd realize that I know not EVERYTHING is about Nintendo (I've played and enjoyed plenty of systems). I just recognize that the game industry exists because they are still here. Just know my history, that's all. No one has shown up who could fill the position to carry the industry like they have so until that happens if the foundation ever leaves so goes the industry.

I hope that makes my position on Nintendo clear because I've seen you get a little agitated in the past when I talked about them.

I had to clarify the graphics argument because a lot of people don't recognize what graphics are for.

I explain it here as well.

Why Graphics Don't Mean As Much Anymore

http://www.popzart.com/?page=view&topic=73

Keyword being "ANYMORE". They DID matter at one time but that time of their monumental importance is on the wane now. And most of that had to do with how graphics influenced gameplay and the types of games that could be produced. They ARE important, yes. But the priority isn't with them anymore like it once was. That's the position I wanted to explain. We can't be using Atari Jaguar graphics because it limits the gameplay as well as the presentation.

Tetris doesn't need much more than a little shine and gloss. There's only so much you can do with a block.

Artstyle is REALLY what makes graphics graphics. Did Miyamoto and Co. need to put those happy smiling eyes on the clouds and bushes of Super Mario Bros. 1? No. But that little touch made the bushes more noticeable and enhanced the relevance and distinction of the ground and sky which we had to focus on running and jumping. There's a technical reason for it as well as the pretty pretty reason. (Humans relate to human based things so putting eyes and smiley-faces, humanizing objects is one way to make us care about them more). Bland backgrounds/foregrounds harm immersion and depth of gameplay.

I can't focus as well on the buildings because they look like hunks of rectangular faceless carbon. I don't feel I'm on a building so my reaction to climbing the building won't be the same. You put a little texture and gloss on it and I know when I'm on a glasswindow building, when I'm on a concrete building, when I'm on a marble building. Can I break through this window, can I break through this wall? How much force would I have to use to do it depending on structure? And I can recognize my place in my travels if I had to go backtrack. Little neon signs and flags and plants and delapidated looks create more distinction and a more immersive world. Different building numbers may aid in adventures where you have to pinpoint what building to stakeout. Landmarks.

See? All that? Gameplay as WELL as presentation.

Yes, graphics matter. HD graphics debatable at this point. And 7th gen isn't much more over 6th gen in distinction so it's lost its importance as far as THAT comparison goes. But they DO INDEED make a difference and depending on art direction chosen graphics must be made well enough to get point across. That is what is meant by "good enough". More realistic looking ventures need more detail. Cartoony ones need more vivid distinct color. That's graphics too you know.
Graphics don't ALWAYS mean anal-retentive detail on grains of sand. It doesn't ALWAYS mean greyed-out, browned-out, toned-out layout. It's about creating a distinct look based on artstyle chosen to make gameplay more inviting and easier to follow.

Why was Pac-Man chosen to be yellow? Why not blue? Why not gray? Why not white? That's graphics too. The ghosts were vividly different colors denoting their attack style. Dots and power pellets were differently sized to show distinction in purpose. And the power pellets flashed to draw your eyes toward them more. That's graphics too. Ghosts were given eyes to give cues on direction they were headed in as well as making humans take notice (ghosts with faces make people recognize them better than ghosts without faces in this type of game).

I hope this clarifies what the purpose of graphics is. So many people talk about the issue backwards or omit the important details.

John Lucas

delete (posted twice)