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

Forums - Nintendo - X's Graphics are just increibly amazing!!

twilight_link on 12 June 2013
twilight_link said:
MDMAlliance said:
twilight_link said:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lpgdkPxA0Kk

this is RDR in actual gameplay, X looks far superior


according to bloodninja here, your footage doesn't matter.  ONLY HD PICS.

what a joke he is, what about his "proofs" then

go play the game every object reflects realisticly http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pROWml_4sYQ here is proof, you think X looks better thats fine by, but some of u guys seem to have a problem with me because i think RDR looks better, when i gave clear reasons to why i think looks better.


his proofs are nothing but lies, from Eurogamer article

 

There's also the sense that this "vista mode" was designed as more than just a throwaway addition, it was a showcase for the engine and for the phenomenal world the Rockstar San Diego team created. View distances are of course immense, but also shadowmap detail in this mode is consistently high, whereas in-game a more dynamic LOD system seems to be in place.

source: http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-red-dead-redemption-time-lapse

What a dishonest clown



Around the Network
ninjablade on 12 June 2013
HoloDust said:
Rogerioandrade said:
Seriously... are people still worried about comparing graphics?

C´mon... we´re not in the 90´s anymore. Time to update concepts. We all know that graphics alone can´t do a decent game. A game basically is made of art style, gameplay, soundtrack, sound effects, level design. A great art style make for visuals much more than realistic graphics. We´re playing games, not watching movies.

People who judge games or systems only by their graphics simply are not real gamers.


True - that's why I was excited when I saw MGS V footage and after watching first gameplay vid, though I'm not a big fan of that IP, inFamous: Second Son...on the other hand, X did very little for me...but as I said earlier, different strokes for different folks when it comes to preferences, them being highly subjective. On the other, technical level of visuals....not so subjective really, and I believe that this thread is made, at least from its title, about "X's Graphics".

I really dont get why people keep talking about X being impressive techincally, it has a nice art but thats about it, oh and some nice draw distance, yet image quality, lighting, poly count, textures and AA are all below top tier current gen.



MDMAlliance on 12 June 2013
ninjablade said:
HoloDust said:
Rogerioandrade said:
Seriously... are people still worried about comparing graphics?

C´mon... we´re not in the 90´s anymore. Time to update concepts. We all know that graphics alone can´t do a decent game. A game basically is made of art style, gameplay, soundtrack, sound effects, level design. A great art style make for visuals much more than realistic graphics. We´re playing games, not watching movies.

People who judge games or systems only by their graphics simply are not real gamers.


True - that's why I was excited when I saw MGS V footage and after watching first gameplay vid, though I'm not a big fan of that IP, inFamous: Second Son...on the other hand, X did very little for me...but as I said earlier, different strokes for different folks when it comes to preferences, them being highly subjective. On the other, technical level of visuals....not so subjective really, and I believe that this thread is made, at least from its title, about "X's Graphics".

I really dont get why people keep talking about X being impressive techincally, it has a nice art but thats about it, oh and some nice draw distance, yet image quality, lighting, poly count, textures and AA are all below top tier current gen.


Hopefully you know that the game doesn't even have an announced title yet, and the overall quality of the games graphics have improved since we last saw it.  Not only this, but based off of so much of what I've seen you say you really aren't very qualified to be saying all these things considering when DF said that the Wii U version of NFS: MW looked better than the PS360's versions, you were like "I think it looks worse."  You were saying how you thought all those qualities were actually worse.  Also look at your sig, and you always seem to be in Nintendo threads whether or not they actually are about graphics, and I'm pretty sure "draw distance" is something to be impressed about in terms of technicality.  
If it weren't, then I wonder why so many open world games don't have the draw distance X has.



Cyborg13B on 12 June 2013

Incredibly amazing?  They are pretty advanced.  I'll give you that.  Especially given the cheap hardware of Wii U.



ninjablade on 12 June 2013
MDMAlliance said:
ninjablade said:
HoloDust said:
Rogerioandrade said:
Seriously... are people still worried about comparing graphics?

C´mon... we´re not in the 90´s anymore. Time to update concepts. We all know that graphics alone can´t do a decent game. A game basically is made of art style, gameplay, soundtrack, sound effects, level design. A great art style make for visuals much more than realistic graphics. We´re playing games, not watching movies.

People who judge games or systems only by their graphics simply are not real gamers.


True - that's why I was excited when I saw MGS V footage and after watching first gameplay vid, though I'm not a big fan of that IP, inFamous: Second Son...on the other hand, X did very little for me...but as I said earlier, different strokes for different folks when it comes to preferences, them being highly subjective. On the other, technical level of visuals....not so subjective really, and I believe that this thread is made, at least from its title, about "X's Graphics".

I really dont get why people keep talking about X being impressive techincally, it has a nice art but thats about it, oh and some nice draw distance, yet image quality, lighting, poly count, textures and AA are all below top tier current gen.


Hopefully you know that the game doesn't even have an announced title yet, and the overall quality of the games graphics have improved since we last saw it.  Not only this, but based off of so much of what I've seen you say you really aren't very qualified to be saying all these things considering when DF said that the Wii U version of NFS: MW looked better than the PS360's versions, you were like "I think it looks worse."  You were saying how you thought all those qualities were actually worse.  Also look at your sig, and you always seem to be in Nintendo threads whether or not they actually are about graphics, and I'm pretty sure "draw distance" is something to be impressed about in terms of technicality.  
If it weren't, then I wonder why so many open world games don't have the draw distance X has.

the the draw distance is impressive, for current gen but not having dynamic lighting and 2d foliage could be the trade off, and draw distance is something you can't judge from the trailer, you have to wait for a gameplay demonstration trailer,



Around the Network
Multimedialover on 12 June 2013

Its alright.

Sadly wii u was dwarfed this e3 in visuals.

But I hope the games aremgood.

Sadly windwaker hd is why I will never support nintendo ever again.

Why did they not use the visual style of their zelda demo.



JazzB1987 on 12 June 2013
VGKing said:
JazzB1987 said:
VGKing said:
curl-6 said:

I'd say this latest trailer destroys once and for all the idea that Wii U is graphically on par with or worse than PS3/360.

The scale and detail is really something.

But more importantly, the art direction looks great too, which will hopefully lead to vistas as memorable as Xenoblade's.

Not to poop on your parade but I think people are making too big a deal out of this. Does the game look good? Yes. Does it look mindblowing? I don't think so.

What game does exactly look mind blowing then?   Killzone Shadow fall? NOPE  It looks like Crysis in terms of polycount etc. (which is 6 years old) with lighting etc that didn't exist back then but became "standard with games" like Battlefield 3.  

So the conclusion would be: PS4 welcome to 2008-2009? = Mind fart NOT blow.

X looks great for the hardware it is running on. And especially because everyone tries to convice Nintendo gamers that WiiU has  Gameboy graphics.


And btw show me 1 non-MMORPG    JRPG that looks like X.    JRPG = Niche = low budet.  

Killzone looks next-gen. Sorry but it does. Not mind-blowing, but still next-gen.
inFamous SS looks incredible from all aspects. Look at a gameplay video of inFamous 2 then look at Second Son. That's the next-gen difference.
Did you not see Metal Gear Solid V? That was fucking insane.....

@bold
Final Fantasy XV easily beats X. This is another example of a mindblowing next-gen game.

I never said Killzone does not look next gen because next gen looks like parallel world PC gaming from 2009 = FACT! (parallel world where consoles didn't artificially slow down PC graphics evolution)

So you agree that there is no JRPG that looks better than  X  thank you!  FF15 is not as open world as X is.  So comparing those and saying FF15 looks shinier and has more poly's etc  especially when its on a more powerful console makes no sense.

You know the less one has to render the better it can look.

Mario 64's "floating head" you know the one you could manipulate also looked better than every other character on the console. Because there is not that much to render. Same goes for HeavyRain loading screenes etc...

Conclusion: if X does not look amazing for an jRPG then SecondSon also does not look amazing for an action(/adventure) game.
(Action games have bigger budget = usually look better) Compare SecondSon to GTA5 there goes your amazing difference.

I am not saying it does not look better but amazing / mind blowing is something else.




KHlover on 12 June 2013
Multimedialover said:
Its alright.

Sadly wii u was dwarfed this e3 in visuals.

But I hope the games aremgood.

Sadly windwaker hd is why I will never support nintendo ever again.

Why did they not use the visual style of their zelda demo.

Yeah, right...



Some useful VGChartz tweaks

Member of the "An Unbiased Review" Database team

ninjablade on 12 June 2013
MDMAlliance said:
ninjablade said:
HoloDust said:
Rogerioandrade said:
Seriously... are people still worried about comparing graphics?

C´mon... we´re not in the 90´s anymore. Time to update concepts. We all know that graphics alone can´t do a decent game. A game basically is made of art style, gameplay, soundtrack, sound effects, level design. A great art style make for visuals much more than realistic graphics. We´re playing games, not watching movies.

People who judge games or systems only by their graphics simply are not real gamers.


True - that's why I was excited when I saw MGS V footage and after watching first gameplay vid, though I'm not a big fan of that IP, inFamous: Second Son...on the other hand, X did very little for me...but as I said earlier, different strokes for different folks when it comes to preferences, them being highly subjective. On the other, technical level of visuals....not so subjective really, and I believe that this thread is made, at least from its title, about "X's Graphics".

I really dont get why people keep talking about X being impressive techincally, it has a nice art but thats about it, oh and some nice draw distance, yet image quality, lighting, poly count, textures and AA are all below top tier current gen.


Hopefully you know that the game doesn't even have an announced title yet, and the overall quality of the games graphics have improved since we last saw it.  Not only this, but based off of so much of what I've seen you say you really aren't very qualified to be saying all these things considering when DF said that the Wii U version of NFS: MW looked better than the PS360's versions, you were like "I think it looks worse."  You were saying how you thought all those qualities were actually worse.  Also look at your sig, and you always seem to be in Nintendo threads whether or not they actually are about graphics, and I'm pretty sure "draw distance" is something to be impressed about in terms of technicality.  
If it weren't, then I wonder why so many open world games don't have the draw distance X has.


i said it looked worst based off direct feed pics, and people agreed, it was cause of the way the gamma is set on the wiiu but really the upgrade was so small, that you coulld hardly see it in direct feed  pics.



MDMAlliance on 12 June 2013
ninjablade said:
MDMAlliance said:

Hopefully you know that the game doesn't even have an announced title yet, and the overall quality of the games graphics have improved since we last saw it.  Not only this, but based off of so much of what I've seen you say you really aren't very qualified to be saying all these things considering when DF said that the Wii U version of NFS: MW looked better than the PS360's versions, you were like "I think it looks worse."  You were saying how you thought all those qualities were actually worse.  Also look at your sig, and you always seem to be in Nintendo threads whether or not they actually are about graphics, and I'm pretty sure "draw distance" is something to be impressed about in terms of technicality.  
If it weren't, then I wonder why so many open world games don't have the draw distance X has.

the the draw distance is impressive, for current gen but not having dynamic lighting and 2d foliage could be the trade off, and draw distance is something you can't judge from the trailer, you have to wait for a gameplay demonstration trailer,

Just so you know, dynamic lighting takes a lot less than draw distance does.  Also, there was gameplay footage.  As for the pop-ins, we can't fully judge that but there are a LOT of things we can't fully judge yet as the game isn't completed yet.

As for the 2D foliage thing, it's the same thing.  However I am NOT saying "it will definitely be changed later."  I'm just saying it's likely they may change that as they further develop the game (as in making tweaks to the game).