Why Starfox Zero's graphics are bad

[silvergunner]

Miyamotoo said:

LipeJJ said:
Star Fox Zero's graphics are bad, period. I would buy it anyway but unfortunately I lost my gamepad charger so Splatoon was my goodbye to the U. And it was a beautiful one, but I can't say I'm gonna miss the system... I'm ready to move to NX, whatever it is.

That said, rendering 2 screens at 60fps is more than enough reason for the game's graphics being the way they are.

Star Fox graphics are not bad, just certanly not best looking Wii U game, period.

 

Star Fox Zero's graphics are unacceptable in this day and age unless you still consider the Playstation 2 to be high spec. There are a lot of last generation PS3 games that ran at 60fps with Graphics that blow away Star Fox Zero - Ratchet and Clank and Wipeout HD for example.

The performance hit thats supposedly due to running on twin screens at once isn't really the problem here. Although the game does run at 1920x1080 on the main display, the gamepad manages 854x480, a much smaller screen size. In addition the smaller screen simply clips part of the already-rendered main scene from the main display and adds a few HUD elements to it, with little theoretical performance hit.

From what i've seen, Nintendo have basically rushed Star Fox Zero when it comes to graphics, partially as they needed an AAA title fast and partially because getting graphics with actual detail would mean using a lot of tricks to execute on the Wii-U's hardware. I've said and proven before that the Wii-U's processor is an antiquated G3 from 1997 (Its an overclocked Wii CPU, which was an overclocked Gamecube CPU, which was a cut down PowerPC 750 (G3)), and the OS is so bloated it uses half the available memory (1gb of the 2gb free).

At the end of the day, as per normal Nintendo fans will be paying £40/$60 for a game that's got less than 2 hours gameplay and is as deep and technically adequate as a £10 PS2 bargain bin game.