Most technically advanced game on Wii?

[lilbroex]

JazzB1987 said:

Your God of War thing is totally valid because it wouldnt look that good with a fully controlable camera  and if it wouldn't be constantly zoomed out. (I wonder why mods dont get banned for trolling lol)

There is another thing ALOT (NOT ALL!!!) PS fans dont want to realize which is  alot of games use prerendered videos that run in 1080p because the PS3 can utilize its bluray player. They are faking in game cutscenes with prerendered highres, high poly etc videos... And alot of things like the close up faces in heavy rain or the (loading/install? screen) of metal gear4 put all the hardware power into 1 face/ 1 character. The real game models look far worse. 

People you dont believe me? Go back to the N64  and Look at super mario 64.  Intro floating Mario face   SUPER COOL  VS  ingame mario face  ugly with texture eyes not even really modelled etc.     Reason?  Intro face was a closeup model with nothing else just the face. The only purpose of stuff like this is to show of and create a fake image of the whole package.  This is also why devs use bullshots to manipulate the reception of the games.  Think about it.

Other than that I have to agree that the Wii was crippled by lazy devs.  I mean even Splinter Cell on Gamecube looks better than COD etc on Wii because instead of trying to make the best of it  devs just  crippled the 360/ps3 version and removed everything the Wii couldnt handle instead of coming up with replacement effects etc.  

Reginleiv really looks awesome I have to give it a try I hope It deosnt need to much knowledge of the japanese language.

 

Thank you. I'm starting to wonder if you can even point stuff out like that if it relates to Sony. The bias I encounter is almost unreal.

I still remember when people were slamming the 360 and saying it lead to the graphics of FFXIII being "downgraded" because the design wasn't as good as the early trailers. Nothing you said could convince them that those early trailers were CG and that no aspect of it being ported to th 360 would lead to them going back and putting such a huge downgrade on the already finished PS3 version or completely redesigning it to have towns taken out. They were certain that the first trailer was actual PS3 gaphics. I would say they didn't know what they were looking at but making that observation about a Sony game is considered trolling by the mods on here apparently. Honestly, I would be scared to make the comments you gave given recent events.

 

It was the same with MGS4 and its early trailers. People thought the system's graphics would look like that but it was just target rendered CG just like the FFXIII trailer. If you read the comments, you can see that some people still think that the 2006 trailer was in game graphis being rendered, but I see geometry, effects and high quality lighting/shadows that were completely removed in the actual game. Like on the tomb stone at 0:46-0:50 and his collar at 0:57. The collar protruted and you can see shadows under it on the 2006 target rendered build, but its flat and drawn on in the final version. Then there is more the fluidity and frames of animation when the Gekko moves from 1:25-134.

The final build does have some things that look better design wise and I prefer it overall, but on technical level, the video on the left would be impossible to produce in realtime on the PS3 in the same manner that the final game was delivered. Its too much for the pool of resources

Same with this one. I wish the guns in the final build of MGS4 looked as good as they do in the trailer to the right and the dust effects. There is no shift in lighting on Mk. II from 1:27 to 1:30. The shadow the gun casts on his leg at 1:35 and all of the animation that the Mk. II makes right afer is just gone. It was all scaled down or removed.