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!!

outlawauron on 12 June 2013
twilight_link said:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lpgdkPxA0Kk

this is RDR in actual gameplay, X looks far superior

 

the guy ninjablade is a joke just look at what he wrote

 

"WII on par with current gen"

what a mess he is unable to get even elementary shit straight

I'd hope a brand new Wii U title with very high production values would look better than a 3 year old 360/PS3 title that didn't have very good graphics to begin with.....

I don't get the comparison.



"We'll toss the dice however they fall,
And snuggle the girls be they short or tall,
Then follow young Mat whenever he calls,
To dance with Jak o' the Shadows."

Check out MyAnimeList and my Game Collection. Owner of the 5 millionth post.

Around the Network
ninjablade on 12 June 2013
Mr Khan said:
ninjablade said:
keroncoward said:
 


So in other words you will just saying anything to downplay the visual quality of the game. You were wrong about the hardware so just get over it. Everyone is wrong at least once in their life.

They did nothing to prove me wrong today. People hyping X and Mario Kart graphics are largely basing it off of the crappy video and filling in the blanks from there. here is a hd pic of a so called nextgen game to prove my point
 X will have the same crappy image quality of current gen, same jaggies same textures, still waiting for those X HD pics, that nintedo will never release.

You're acting like Nintendo's trying to hide something. Nintendo's not releasing HD pics because A: Nintendo really doesn't care about graphics wars and B: the game is still, in all likelihood, a year or more away from release.


still X has been anounced for months now and not even one single proper HD pic of X has been released.



Mr Khan on 12 June 2013
ninjablade said:
Mr Khan said:

You're acting like Nintendo's trying to hide something. Nintendo's not releasing HD pics because A: Nintendo really doesn't care about graphics wars and B: the game is still, in all likelihood, a year or more away from release.


still X has been anounced for months now and not even one single proper HD pic of X has been released.

Because that's not how Nintendo operates. That's why they never released (and will never release) official Wii U specs. Polygon-counting is well outside their sphere of concern.



Monster Hunter: pissing me off since 2010.

ninjablade on 12 June 2013
Mr Khan said:
ninjablade said:
Mr Khan said:
 

You're acting like Nintendo's trying to hide something. Nintendo's not releasing HD pics because A: Nintendo really doesn't care about graphics wars and B: the game is still, in all likelihood, a year or more away from release.


still X has been anounced for months now and not even one single proper HD pic of X has been released.

Because that's not how Nintendo operates. That's why they never released (and will never release) official Wii U specs. Polygon-counting is well outside their sphere of concern.


nintendo started operating this way only after the wii, the reason they hide  the specs is because they are insanly low specced consoles.



dahuman on 12 June 2013
ninjablade said:
MDMAlliance said:
ninjablade said:

I hate gifs they make a game look so much better then it really does, it hides all the flaws,  crysis 2 looked mind blwong in gifs on 360, when i played the game a week ago its looked horrible. hd pics or bust.


Seriously?  #1 *than #2 screen shots show a LOT less to determine graphics/technical feats than gifs #3 you're obviously trying to skew this in your favor because saying it "hides all the flaws" is not true and the "hiding flaws" thing is 100% equally relevant to still HD pics.

no direct feed captures are 100% what the game looks like, you can check teXture quality/image quality and AA, GIFS are good for checking lighting and getting an idea of how the game looks in motion.

No it's never 100%, the real thing usually look better actually. Streams suffer from limited bandwidth and youtube compressions make the games look worse as well, and the GIFs make them even worse unless you make them into tiny pictures that nobody can watch with sanity from the original but still with tons of missing details and fugly colors(you are basically super sampling doing that though so I guess it's a kind of AA.) In short, game captures generally look like shit unless you are playing it. I'd know this better than you because I've live streamed and captured raw videos for a long time by now. Basically, I'm saying that you are about 1% correct and 99% wrong, everything make the source look worse in general, GIFs are no exception.

 

I have concluded that your eyes are broken and you are not one to talk about graphics and need to go train in PC school.



Around the Network
ninjablade on 12 June 2013
dahuman said:
ninjablade said:
MDMAlliance said:
ninjablade said:

I hate gifs they make a game look so much better then it really does, it hides all the flaws,  crysis 2 looked mind blwong in gifs on 360, when i played the game a week ago its looked horrible. hd pics or bust.


Seriously?  #1 *than #2 screen shots show a LOT less to determine graphics/technical feats than gifs #3 you're obviously trying to skew this in your favor because saying it "hides all the flaws" is not true and the "hiding flaws" thing is 100% equally relevant to still HD pics.

no direct feed captures are 100% what the game looks like, you can check teXture quality/image quality and AA, GIFS are good for checking lighting and getting an idea of how the game looks in motion.

No it's never 100%, the real thing usually look better actually. Streams suffer from limited bandwidth and youtube compressions make the games look worse as well, and the GIFs make them even worse unless you make them into tiny pictures that nobody can watch with sanity from the original but still with tons of missing details and fugly colors(you are basically super sampling doing that though so I guess it's a kind of AA.) In short, game captures generally look like shit unless you are playing it. I'd know this better than you because I've live streamed and captured raw videos for a long time by now. Basically, I'm saying that you are about 1% correct and 99% wrong, everything make the source look worse in general, GIFs are no exception.

 

I have concluded that your eyes are broken and you are not one to talk about graphics and need to go train in PC school.

i'm talking about direct feed captures and  youtube videos make games look better in the sense they hide all the flaws, just watch a video of crysis 2 on youtube or gears of war 3 and play it on your set, the jaggies really are an eye sore, im talking about current gen consoles, even in the poor youtube video of X you can see jaggies every where.



dahuman on 12 June 2013
ninjablade said:
curl-6 said:
superspeedybull said:

The Point I am trying to make is the graphics are old by PS3 and 360 standards, it's not impressive looking in the graphics region because we have PS3 games that look better than this but for argument sakes if we put FF13-2 against X, they visuall difference is minimal. 

X looks far better than FF13-2, and no, Uncharted/Last of us/Beyond don't look better than X. They have better character models, but the overall level of detail is lower than X.

And for Pete's sake people, stop replying to Ninjablade. You're only fuelling his sad little crusade.


you have to be kidding if you think X is more detailed then last of us and uncharted2/3.

They are entirely different game designs so they are detailed in different ways, Uncharted and The Last of Us are very controlled environments in specific set places where you are restricted to a smaller zone. An open world game like Skyrim, Firefall, Planetside 2, The Witcher, Oblivion, Infamous, GTA, Saints Row, MMORPGs in general and X require a complete different kind of detail as the world being crafted is much larger than more controlled smaller environments like TLoU and Uncharted. Dev time and budget comes into mind as well, it's not like they just go "plug and play!" in game dev.



ninjablade on 12 June 2013
dahuman said:
ninjablade said:
curl-6 said:
superspeedybull said:

The Point I am trying to make is the graphics are old by PS3 and 360 standards, it's not impressive looking in the graphics region because we have PS3 games that look better than this but for argument sakes if we put FF13-2 against X, they visuall difference is minimal. 

X looks far better than FF13-2, and no, Uncharted/Last of us/Beyond don't look better than X. They have better character models, but the overall level of detail is lower than X.

And for Pete's sake people, stop replying to Ninjablade. You're only fuelling his sad little crusade.


you have to be kidding if you think X is more detailed then last of us and uncharted2/3.

They are entirely different game designs so they are detailed in different ways, Uncharted and The Last of Us are very controlled environments in specific set places where you are restricted to a smaller zone. An open world game like Skyrim, Firefall, Planetside 2, The Witcher, Oblivion, Infamous, GTA, Saints Row, MMORPGs in general and X require a complete different kind of detail as the world being crafted is much larger than more controlled smaller environments like TLoU and Uncharted. Dev time and budget comes into mind as well, it's not like they just go "plug and play!" in game dev.

i already know this dude,  but he said its more detailed and its not, the model in the last of us alone has more detail then anything in the whole trailer.



Zekkyou on 12 June 2013

I've been watching the Final Fantasy XV trailer on repeat so i'm completely biased... However ignoring that and comparing it to current gen, it does look fantastic. Shows the WiiU can hold it's own.



dahuman on 12 June 2013
ninjablade said:
dahuman said:
ninjablade said:

no direct feed captures are 100% what the game looks like, you can check teXture quality/image quality and AA, GIFS are good for checking lighting and getting an idea of how the game looks in motion.

No it's never 100%, the real thing usually look better actually. Streams suffer from limited bandwidth and youtube compressions make the games look worse as well, and the GIFs make them even worse unless you make them into tiny pictures that nobody can watch with sanity from the original but still with tons of missing details and fugly colors(you are basically super sampling doing that though so I guess it's a kind of AA.) In short, game captures generally look like shit unless you are playing it. I'd know this better than you because I've live streamed and captured raw videos for a long time by now. Basically, I'm saying that you are about 1% correct and 99% wrong, everything make the source look worse in general, GIFs are no exception.

 

I have concluded that your eyes are broken and you are not one to talk about graphics and need to go train in PC school.

i'm talking about direct feed captures and  youtube videos make games look better in the sense they hide all the flaws, just watch a video of crysis 2 on youtube or gears of war 3 and play it on your set, the jaggies really are an eye sore, im talking about current gen consoles, even in the poor youtube video of X you can see jaggies every where.

My solution is don't sit like 2 feet away from your TV, shit will fuck up your eyes. I think the problem right now is that it's still relatively new and Nintendo hasn't developed an AA solution like FXAA or MLAA in general yet into their kits and devs need to implement this themselves if they want it in the game and that'd require more budgetting so they might just be leaving it out for the most part, I'd just give it more time.