ninjablade said:
BlueFalcon said:
cyberninja45 said:
I'm glad you posted those pics cause it kinda proves what people are saying about a massive technical visual difference compared to their personal artistic preferences for how a game should look. |
That's how those 2 games compare for me. Witcher 3 looks like a next generation game. Zelda in that pic looks like a 2007 PC game at best. Artistic preferences are different. I prefer Journey and Trine 2 artistically but games like Witcher 2/3/Metro 2033 blow those games away graphically. Technical graphics complexity is completely different from artistic preferences.
The point is if you wanted to make Zelda to look mature like that Witcher 3 shot, you couldn't do it. It would not be possible on the Wii U.
If you wanted Zelda's water temple levels to look like this, it wouldn't be possible.
I'd rather have the option for developers to choose between artistic graphics representation and trying to make games look as close as possible to real life:
With the Wii U, there will be no such option because the console is underpowered. This means that developers won't really have a real choice to make due to Wii U's gimped hardware.
|
you also have to consider that this is an open world game 20% bigger then skyrim, i would imagine zelda not even being 30% as big as skyrim, and even then when you see the pic in high resolution, it looks so much better then zelda wii graphiclly, and zelda wii u graphics are from a cutscene, not actual gameplay as well.
|
I have to ask do you consider the difference in graphics between these pics and zelda wiiU tech demo the same between say skyrim and twilight princess?
