Based on a few threads where the graphics were brought up.

I'm not claiming the graphics in that game are the best on the Wii, but that the graphics are objectivly impressive even if someone is not subjectively impressed.

There is a difference. It's like not finding a Renaissance painting that pretty to look at, but still appreciating the artistic significance and craftsmanship of it. If you don't have the latter, you are juding it solely by the "wow" factor.

That is a problem, since it basically turns the value of graphics into showmanship and not craftsmanship. It also means that those claiming they want games to be art are juding the art of games based on the very opposite values that other forms of art are judged on.

But as to this thread, this came up in some discussions of the graphics of Crystal Bears, and some claimed that the graphics are less impressive than Final Fantasy XII. Perhaps by the wow factor, but in an objective sense that is false.

The polygon count is higher. You can see that in the character and enemy models. The textures are more detailes. There are better effects and shading. There is more detail in a given area. Enemies don't fade in and out. And what's most important is that it outclasses that game while using streaming instead of using traditional level loading.

Streaming is a very overlooked factor in games. It's rarely accounted for unless the game is an obvious sandbox game, but it's done in many games, since at least the introduction of optical discs. And you can see it in this game where the only loading times are in loading a game and warping, and they are about a second or two, while Final Fantasy XII has loading times averaging 5 seconds. Of course the latter is fine for games like that. The point is that it needs full loading to make graphics that show off the PS2 that well, while CB can top it with graphics that are held back.

Now the point is not telling you to like the graphics of this game, or even other such games, just to appreciate them.

This game has a great story line, but I'm not sure if I want it...

It's third party...
Yes there are several good third party games...
But Nintendo does it best

God damn it! I'm going to pick up FFCC today then =/ been hoping people would eventually shut up about it and I would forget... but people wont even shut up about Zack and Wiki and I got that.

I DONT EVEN LIKE PUZZLE games!

First though I will die some more on this boss in Castlevania order of ecclasia.

So it's better looking than a 4 year old game on the weakest last-gen platform?

Awesome!

How does streaming "hold back" graphics?  You do realize that many of the best looking games use stream heavy engines that require little visible loading, right?  Uncharted 2 has no loading whatsoever past the initial load upon startup.

Super Mario Galaxy and Twilight Princess also have vitually no loading, if I recall correctly.

Okay, not just any streaming, but streaming this fast. And Uncharted 2 doesn't have textures as detailed as some other PS3 games (especially with all that happens on screen).

Plus some developers admit they hold back graphics for some games to accommodate streaming. Insomniac said that was why the textures in Resistance (which I believe uses the same engine as Uncharted?) aren't as detailed as Gears of War (which also uses a bit of streaming but not as much).

Crystal Bearers is great looking, but FFXII is totally the wrong comparison the make. The games are almost completely different in terms of design, scope,budget and even genre. If you want to look at better PS2 comparisons, stuff like Kingdom Hearts, Code Age Commanders and Dawn of Mana would probably work better. And Crystal Bearers comes off pretty favorably against all of them visually, nevermind the physics at work.

I brought it up because others compared the two, like Torrilian who did this site's review of Crystal Bearers (the comparison was on a thread, not the review). So if you have a problem with that comparison, he's who you should take that up with.

What I was thinking.  Don't think we should give too much credit to a developer who is having issues making a game look better than a 4 yr old title using a system that is 3x more powerful.

Personally, I thought the graphics got the job done Crystal Bearers, but like the game as a whole, with just some more attention to detail and possibly more time (funny considering it took so long) the game could have been a wondeful title.  I enjoyed it but was not a great game by my standards nor a good looking one.  When games like Twilight Princess (launch title/GC port) and Galaxy (2007) exist on the system, we shouldn't be taking a step backwards. 

Again, take that up with those who claim the graphics aren't as impressive.

Also, the development time wasn't that long. I thought it was long as well, but I found out the announcement of the game was a couple years before they even knew what kind of game they were making.