Quantcast
Why i was disappointed by MK8's graphics.

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

radioboyxxxartz said:
BenVTrigger said:

Why would using higher fidelity assets change the art style......

A game can be 4k with insane texture quality and still be highly stylized. There is no negative result of higher fidelity graphics.


FPS


My comment was made to someone who said he doesnt want higher fidelity in Mario Kart because it would look bad and lose its style. It would look too realistic.

I was saying there is no negative in terms of impact on art style with higher fidelities.



Around the Network
ktay95 said:

This almost made me go buy a WiiU !!  <3



Zekkyou said:

 Then we turn to MK8 and see very low res textures (especially on the floor), awful AA, and visible polygon counts (the exact opposite of graphically impressive).


Would you mind counting them for me please? I would like to know the games poly/sec but I myself am unable to count individual polygons from that screenshot.



Fancy hearing me on an amateur podcast with friends gushing over one of my favourite games? https://youtu.be/1I7JfMMxhf8

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.



Mario Kart by raw graphics is not in the same league as games like Driveclub, that doesn't really matter though the game looks great enough to be a next gen title and it's going to be fun.



Around the Network
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.


But 4k res games running at 5fps make for some amazing screenshots and are super fun to play!



Fancy hearing me on an amateur podcast with friends gushing over one of my favourite games? https://youtu.be/1I7JfMMxhf8

BenVTrigger said:
KHlover said:
Tbqh I wouldn't even want Kart models with that level of details in Mario Kart. Like all Mario games (and most Nintendo games) Mario Kart has a very stylized artstyle. Having stylized characters sit in overly detailed karts would look...jarring to say the least.


Why would using higher fidelity assets change the art style......

A game can be 4k with insane texture quality and still be highly stylized. There is no negative result of higher fidelity graphics.

Exactly, lol. It's like some people think it's either art OR technical details. Can't have both...Why would Nintendo even need to upgrade their systems then.
Tech doesn't have to equal realism...



Conegamer said:

Apologies; I didn't realize that Mario Kart was only accessible for children. Guess that makes me and millions of others children for wanting to play (what appears) to be an excellent title. 

 

OT: I don't think it's fair to compare a realistic game to a cartoony one; obviously the realistic one will loo better (initially) but it doesn't mean you can downplay the other title. Super Mario Galaxy and Wind Waker are good examples of this.

Like i said to someone else, it's not a genuine comparison. I'm just using DC and MK8 as points of reference for comparison of the universal graphical aspects of almost all 3D games, such as the polygon counts, textures, AA, AF etc. For example I wouldn't criticize MK8 for not having realistic road textures, but i would criticize it for them being low rez/murky.

As an overall package i do find MK8 a lot more pleasing on the eyes than DC, but this was a comparison of the technical side of things. The thread was primarily about the willful ignorance of some Nintendo fans here, which wasn't much of an issue during the 7th gen.

In the 7th gen Nintendo had to rely on art direction to make their games look great. When the WiiU was released i was exited to see how good a game could look with a combination of Nintendo's artistic skill and high end console graphics. It's a hope that started with 3D Mario then moved to MK8 and now lays in the hands of Zelda >.< 

Regardless to my ranting, MK8 itself will no doubt be great ^^



Why don't we compare Pixar's The Incredibles to Marvel's Avengers while we're at it?



Twitter: @d21lewis  --I'll add you if you add me!!

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.