mutantsushi said:
It's just embarassing how people respond to this, when you're explicitly breaking out technical details distict from the enjoyability of the art, which you state looks good. If they have an argument on technical details, that should include actual technical details like textures, lighting, shadows, AA, occlusion... But no, they will incessantly argue a topic they apprently have no interest in, because they emotionally feel it is a dig on Nintendo. WTF? Agreed on repurcussions of lack of 1st party ambition... Nintendo should be pushing to limit there, and sharing their work with all 3rd parties, that's how to get full optimization of Wii U across the board. Sony did similarly with PS3. Nintendo's games are ultimately not dependent on technical ambition, but that is not to say that they could still not benefit from it: lighting for one. Not being dependent on it, Nintendo can freely push teams to push the limit, and if they don't achieve it 100%, that's OK the game still works fine. But anything they do achieve can be harvested for future games. Now Nintendo may very well see that as not ultimately being a worthwhile thing to invest in... but if so, I hope the Wii U fans can stop playing victim about how 3rd parties won't fully optimize to leverage Wii U's secret sauce. |
Indeed :/ It's not like i'm even insulting the games, I've explicitly said they look good, which is all that really matters. I'm just disappointing by their lack of effort into pushing their graphics, which could make their games look even better. I'm essentially describing the WiiU's games how Nintendo fans praised the Wii's last gen, but suddenly that's bad?
It's no different than me saying Ryse and Killzone have great graphics, but mediocre art styles. They still look brilliant, but in the reverse to Nintendo's games, it can be mostly credited to graphical prowess rather than artistic.
