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

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Why i was disappointed by MK8's graphics.

mine on 11 May 2014
Zekkyou said:

That's assuming MK8 is indeed 1080p/60fps. If it's actually still 720p/60fps then i'll be back to disappointment (720p/60fps is less resource intensive than 1080p/30fps from a flat view).


Thats not true.

To archive 1080p/30 you need just more GPU power. Nothing else.

But for 720p/60 you need to faster calculate the scene. You might even have to rework your entire engine to be that fast.

And having 60 fps is a much smoother experience for the player. 

We all didn't expect being the Wii U a graphics powerhouse as the Wii wasn't. Nintendo got off the graphics race.

But truth is: Sony and Microsoft dropped off too. Their consoles simply don't provide enough power to give the player an 1080p/60 experience on every game. This is as they know that CPU and GPU power will advance in the near future so much that they can't recoup their investments fast enough! Todays PC already provide the same power for the same amount of money. In 6 months they are faster and each day passing makes them even more favorable when comparing performance/price. And Nvidias Pascal will put the PC onto a whole new GPU level - within the next 18 months...



Around the Network
theRepublic on 11 May 2014
Zekkyou said:
the_dengle said:

I don't believe you can have a conversation about graphics without including performance in the discussion. Anyone can make a game that looks pretty in screenshots but that frequently falls below 20 fps and suffers from rampant screen tearing and the like, and many developers do in fact make such games.

Part of what makes Mario Kart 8 technically impressive is its locked high frame rate even during 2-player splitscreen, all while the Wii U is wirelessly streaming a video feed to a second screen at a higher refresh rate than many HDTVs.

Anyone who is attempting to argue that Mario Kart 8 is graphically impressive purely on the basis of its character models, textures, and lighting is making a terrible error.

For the sake of simplicity, in this thread:

Graphics: The polygon counts, anti aliasing, anisotropic filtering, shading, shadows, textures and so forth. 

Performance: Frame rate, resolution, screen tearing.

Art direction: Kind of speaks for itself. 

Something like MK8 excels in performance and art direction, but is lacking graphically. It seems to be the opinion of some Nintendo fans that MK8 is a graphical, performance and artistic power house, which is frankly not true. The limitations of static console hardware essentially means that the developer has to swap between graphics and performance, so believing any game excels in all three is willful ignorance.

Just like how you could say MK8 is lacking graphically, but excels in performance, you could likewise say DC excels graphically, but is lacking in performance. Just pinpointing out nothing can hit the full potential of both ^^ People will then also debate about what balance of the two works best for what types of games, but this isn't the place for that type of discussion.

This whole thread has not made much sense to me and this is why.

What you are trying to separate as "graphics" and "performance" are inexorably linked.  I see it as there being two factors in how a game looks: technical and artistic.  I have no idea why you are trying to split it into three categories.



Switch Code: SW-7377-9189-3397 -- Nintendo Network ID: theRepublic -- Steam ID: theRepublic

Now Playing
Switch - Super Mario Maker 2 (2019)
Switch - The Legend of Zelda: Link's Awakening (2019)
Switch - Bastion (2011/2018)
3DS - Star Fox 64 3D (2011)
3DS - Phoenix Wright: Ace Attorney (Trilogy) (2005/2014)
Wii U - Darksiders: Warmastered Edition (2010/2017)
Mobile - The Simpson's Tapped Out and Yugioh Duel Links
PC - Deep Rock Galactic (2020)

bigtakilla on 12 May 2014
theRepublic said:
Zekkyou said:
the_dengle said:

I don't believe you can have a conversation about graphics without including performance in the discussion. Anyone can make a game that looks pretty in screenshots but that frequently falls below 20 fps and suffers from rampant screen tearing and the like, and many developers do in fact make such games.

Part of what makes Mario Kart 8 technically impressive is its locked high frame rate even during 2-player splitscreen, all while the Wii U is wirelessly streaming a video feed to a second screen at a higher refresh rate than many HDTVs.

Anyone who is attempting to argue that Mario Kart 8 is graphically impressive purely on the basis of its character models, textures, and lighting is making a terrible error.

For the sake of simplicity, in this thread:

Graphics: The polygon counts, anti aliasing, anisotropic filtering, shading, shadows, textures and so forth. 

Performance: Frame rate, resolution, screen tearing.

Art direction: Kind of speaks for itself. 

Something like MK8 excels in performance and art direction, but is lacking graphically. It seems to be the opinion of some Nintendo fans that MK8 is a graphical, performance and artistic power house, which is frankly not true. The limitations of static console hardware essentially means that the developer has to swap between graphics and performance, so believing any game excels in all three is willful ignorance.

Just like how you could say MK8 is lacking graphically, but excels in performance, you could likewise say DC excels graphically, but is lacking in performance. Just pinpointing out nothing can hit the full potential of both ^^ People will then also debate about what balance of the two works best for what types of games, but this isn't the place for that type of discussion.

This whole thread has not made much sense to me and this is why.

What you are trying to separate as "graphics" and "performance" are inexorably linked.  I see it as there being two factors in how a game looks: technical and artistic.  I have no idea why you are trying to split it into three categories.

Exactly. I could make a thead of every PS4 game and write how their games dissapoint because of performance, but there's a reason why most games that say they are 60fps only run about 45 when played.