By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
TheShape31 on 22 September 2012
Edit Thread
HappySqurriel said:
TheShape31 said:

First of all, you posted screenshots of games that are literally all 2D and 2.5D games.  Take a screenshot of Rayman Origins for PS3, same quality.

Technically Pikmin is a 3D game and the other two are 2.5D games, being that 2.5D game meains a game that is a 2D game that is rendered in 3D. See Viewtiful Joe

I don't doubt that there are similar looking PS3 games ...

Now answer the question 'Which one is showing that it is suffering from a lack of processing power?'

That's the point, if you can't say that they look like they're suffering from lack of proccessing power then obviously there really is no point in pushing graphics technology for these games beyond this point.

 

TheShape31 said:

"You need to get used to the fact that 90% of games released from this point forward will probably see no significant graphical improvements over what was possible on the HD consoles"

This is hogwash.  Every generation sees graphical improvement as technology progresses.  Higher resolutions, framerates, and polygon counts do not mean that every game has to look photo realistic.  There is plenty of room to make stylistic universes look more beautiful with more powerful hardware.  I am, of course referring to that Mario picture that was too ugly to repost.  Look at the Toy Story movies... just because technology allows you to make CGI like Avatar still means you can create unrealistically animated awesomeness.  And there was no better way to watch Toy Story 3 than on a 4K projector.  Resolution and the progression of technology matters, regardless of whether we're talking about movies or games.

Everything comes to an end ...

Nintendo can spend 4 times as much money making sure that the stitches in Mario's over-alls are rendered with appropriate detail, or they can continue releasing games that look (essentially) like New Super Mario U, and in either case they will get roughly similar sales.

'Which one is showing that it is suffering from a lack of processing power?'

Suffer?  No 2D games in the last 2 generations have suffered for a lack of graphical prowess.  But honestly they could always look better in some way, and it would actually be nice to have a native 1080p NSMBU game.  What you're essentially arguing is that games never need to look better.  And people have made that same argument every generation.  'Diminishing returns', 'the human eye can't see any better', etc.  I have no doubt that there will be many great-looking games on Wii U.  But when the other two consoles come out and there is a marked difference in graphical quality and immersiveness, there will be new things to appreciate.  There are always new things to appreciate from the newest round of more powerful consoles.  And I'm not trying to say that the next PS or Xbox will have better games than Wii U, but technical advances yield new gameplay experiences.

Your moot argument about graphics never having to get better is only being used to overshadow the fact that Wii U games don't look any better than PS3 and X360 games.  And within the next year or so, they could look slightly better, too.  But there's no plateau that gaming will hit where everything just stops.  There will be 4KTVs, and with those advancements in technology will come immersive games we can't imagine.  All of those advancements matter. 

For the moment, all of those 2.5D games will satisfy us.  But in 2-3 those games will inevitably look behind the times, just as the games for Wii did.  And once again, it will be Nintendo's older graphics and unique controller vs. Sony and MIcrosoft's more powerful systems.  Every kind of game can look better, and every 6 years or so we're reminded that those screenshots we used to oggle (*hint*) now don't look so great.