sc94597 said:
windbane said:
fazz said:
RolStoppable said:
windbane said:
fazz said:
windbane said:
LordTheNightKnight said:
polishforlife said:
stuff...
|
In short, the Wii of course can't match the PS3 and 360. Yet its specs are not as far behind them as systems an actual generation behind. |
If the system that more powerful than he GC and Xbox, then why do all the big Wii titles look like GC games? Galaxy is only marginally better than Sunshine, MP3 marginally better, Brawl the same, Zelda since it was just a port, etc. |
And this is where I saw that: A) You never played Mario Sunshine, or B) I can't take you seriously anymore. Seriously man, normal mapping, bump mapping, specular lights, specular reflections, fur simulation, bloom and 60 frames per second stable are are just marginally better? /facepalm |
Go to gametrailers.com and look at the comparison video of Sunshine and Galaxy. You can list all the features you want but those aren't translating into much better graphics. |
Play both games at home on your TV. If you can't notice a significant difference between SMS and SMG, then you definitely need glasses (or if you already have glasses, it's time for new ones).
|
QFT RolStoppable.
and @windbane: It seems I will have to take option B) I can't take you seriously anymore, because you just don't know what you are talking about. Those features are the ones that make graphics much better in any game.
If what you say was the case, Gran Turismo 5 wouldn't have much better graphics compared to GT4 because it only has shader effects, higher framerate, better models and better textures (just like SMG)... but I'm sure you would not apply that criteria to your beloved Sony. |
My point is that listing features does not change the fact that the game is no huge improvement over GC games. I understand new features improve graphics. |
Yeah but those features are what give the game better gfx. |
I just said that. New tech and methods improve graphics, but listing them does not.
