By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Wii U Darksiders 2 graphics "at least as good" as PS3, Xbox 360 versions'

lilbroex on 24 May 2012
Bristow9091 said:
 

I'd actually argue that it's the art style of the SMG games that give it the nice visuals, just like Skyward Sword, but you've got to admit that there are games on the PS2 that look just as good as Wii games, maybe even better than most third party Wii games, God of War II for example. Each consoles best looking game tends to come from first party.

 And what you said about PS1 games looking better than PS2 games, you can't give any examples, and the hardware of the PS2 was MUCH better than the PS1 at the time, whereas the Wii is only slightly better than the PS2 (Yet the graphical increase is only shown on Nintendo games, and it's not that much different), not an entire generational leap, that's just dumb thinking on your behalf.

Whatever anyway, I didn't want to start an argument, I was just giving my opinion, and so far I've had two people tell me what I think is wrong, since I clearly stated that a lot of people base the power of a console on graphics alone.


What you are saying is saying absolutely nothing. He just countered that argument. Simply sayin that there are games on each system that looks like games on the others isn't saying nothign more than just that. It presuposess nothing of power.


Mario Galaxy looks the way it does becaus has a high polygon count and it uses  mulitute of texture effects. That simply isn't possible on the PS2 hardware by a long shot. Even Mario Sunshine would be impossible do to the use of EBEM and it own high polygon cont and lighting system. This should be beyond debateble.

Which games you prefer the look or design of means nothing in terms of the grahpical or system power. The Gamcube was far better than the PS2.

Capcom themselves said straight up that they had to cut the polygon count "in half" and remove a large amount of effects just to get RE4 to run on the PS2 as well as having increased load times. That wasn't a case of lazy developement because the PS2 version had far more content. It simply could'nt match the graphicical capabilities or processing capabilities of the GC.

Now you are trying to prove that a system that has twice the capability of the GC is on par with a system that has less than half of its performance?



Around the Network
superchunk on 24 May 2012
pezus said:
superchunk said:
pezus said:

I am still not 100% sure it will be more powerful though. I want to see what Nintendo have to say at E3 first

Have you completely ignored my comparison thread for the last month?

NEXT-GEN COMPARISON THREAD


Anyone who thinks that Wii U will be anywhere near the power levels of PS360 is completely bonkers.

Wii U >>>> PS360. Even the worst case rumors point to that.

What a coincidence! I just took you off 'ignore' for a sec because I was wondering if you had posted here.

Just more stuff to add to your "I was wrong all along" thread

Ah you're so cute when you're wrong.



lilbroex on 24 May 2012
Bristow9091 said:
lilbroex said:
Bristow9091 said:
 

I'd actually argue that it's the art style of the SMG games that give it the nice visuals, just like Skyward Sword, but you've got to admit that there are games on the PS2 that look just as good as Wii games, maybe even better than most third party Wii games, God of War II for example. Each consoles best looking game tends to come from first party.

 And what you said about PS1 games looking better than PS2 games, you can't give any examples, and the hardware of the PS2 was MUCH better than the PS1 at the time, whereas the Wii is only slightly better than the PS2 (Yet the graphical increase is only shown on Nintendo games, and it's not that much different), not an entire generational leap, that's just dumb thinking on your behalf.

Whatever anyway, I didn't want to start an argument, I was just giving my opinion, and so far I've had two people tell me what I think is wrong, since I clearly stated that a lot of people base the power of a console on graphics alone.


What you are saying is saying absolutely nothing. He just countered that argument. Simply sayin that there are games on each system that looks like games on the others isn't saying nothign more than just that. It presuposess nothing of power.


Mario Galaxy looks the way it does becaus has a high polygon count and it uses a mulitute of texture effectsl. That simplyh isn't possible on the PS2 hardware. Even Mario Sunshin would be impoosible do to the use of EBEM and it own high polygon cont and lighting system. This should be beyond debateble.

Which games you prefer the look or design of means nothing in terms of the systems power. The Gamcube was far better than the PS2.

Capcom themselves said straight up that they had to cut the polygon count "in half" and remove a large amount of effects just to get RE4 to run on the PS2 as well as having increased load times. That wasn't a case of lazy developement because the PS2 version had far more content. It simply could'nt match the Gamecube graphicical capabilities or processing capabilities of the GC.

Now you are trying to prove that a system that has the twice the capability of the GC is on par with a system that had less than half of its performance?

Graphically, yes, when I look at two games side by side, they're near identical, sure there's changes, but I don't care about the polygon count and whatever, they still look relatively similar to a point that I honestly wouldn't care which game I'm playing based on visuals alone... now if we were to go into all the tehnical stuff like how much ram or processor or whatever else, then it's obvious which is the more powerful console, but as I said before, the majority of people would base their decisions on which is the more powerful console by graphics alone. Anyway I'll continue this tomorrow since I'm working a 12 hour shift in an hour, lol.

Please show me some examples of this. I would love to see a PS2 game that looks as good as one of the better developed Wii games.



z101 on 24 May 2012

That is what you can say about almost every PS360 game that is ported to the PC, despite the fact that most PCs are more powerful than PS3 and Xbox360.



Things I like: Magic-Alchemist - The magic iPhone, Android and browser game:

www.magic-alchemist.com/

List of Nintendo Switch games (german):
http://www.zimmer101.de/nintendo-switch-spiele/

logic56 on 24 May 2012

why would anybody buy this thing to have slightly rezzed up versions of games that will either already be on the PS3 and 360, or also coming to the ps3 and 360



Around the Network
NintendoPie on 24 May 2012
ethomaz said:
NintendoPie said:
ethomaz said:
NintendoPie said:
Ethomaz, I have lost respect for you.

Why? That's not about success... the Wii U can be a commercial success as the Wii even though a old gen graphics.

People who think they have inferior graphics is a downside that will influence the success of a console are wrong... I think even with lower graphics (old gen) the Wii U can be a success as well as the Wii.

That's my point... I like graphics  but that's not a decisive factor.

IMO.

It's not old gen. I wish you would stop pointing that wrongness out.

The Wii has old gen graphics... sorry.

The Wii's graphics are better than the GC which is better than the PS2's. It was next gen. Sorry.



mantlepiecek on 24 May 2012
NintendoPie said:

The Wii's graphics are better than the GC which is better than the PS2's. It was next gen. Sorry.

Better doesn't mean next-gen though. The wii still renders at 480p, the same resolution last-gen consoles rendered at. Even the PS-Vita runs at a higher resolution than that, maybe even the 3DS. And those are handhelds which should be technically a bit inferior to home consoles.

The only perfect argument for calling wii a next-gen console is that it has next-gen controls which is understandable. But graphics? Nope. I doubt if it was even possible to buy a PC of that specs in 2006. The wii was that outdated.



superchunk on 24 May 2012
logic56 said:
why would anybody buy this thing to have slightly rezzed up versions of games that will either already be on the PS3 and 360, or also coming to the ps3 and 360

Why did anyone buy the 360 when many of its first games were ports had sligthly rezzed up versions that were already on Xbox?

Wii U is capable of a lot more and other launch games will prove that.

Wii U has a unique tablet that will be amazing on many games and add tons of depth and game play.

Wii U will have Nintendo games.



NintendoPie on 24 May 2012
mantlepiecek said:
NintendoPie said:

The Wii's graphics are better than the GC which is better than the PS2's. It was next gen. Sorry.

Better doesn't mean next-gen though. The wii still renders at 480p, the same resolution last-gen consoles rendered at. Even the PS-Vita runs at a higher resolution than that, maybe even the 3DS. And those are handhelds which should be technically a bit inferior to home consoles.

The only perfect argument for calling wii a next-gen console is that it has next-gen controls which is understandable. But graphics? Nope. I doubt if it was even possible to buy a PC of that specs in 2006. The wii was that outdated.

The Wii does have "next-gen" graphics, though. The only reason it looks as it doesn't is because everyone else went down the HD route, Nintendo didn't. That does not mean they are "last-gen", however. 

I was going to say something else.... I can't remember though! XD



NintendoPie on 24 May 2012
pezus said:

Imo the best looking Gamecube games look about the same as the best looking Wii games. Now if you use the dolphin emulator you could call them "next-gen"

So, you are buying Wii U, right?