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

Forums - Gaming - Wii U VS 4BONE graphics

fordy said:
JoeTheBro said:
fordy said:
JoeTheBro said:

Well I was assuming you meant a hypothetical camera.

Otherwise your question would have been beyond stupid in the sense that both photography and painting are legit art forms. Choosing one over the other as being more "artistic" is not something we can do.

Thank you for admitting that the Wii can have just as visually stunning artwork as any other console...

I've admitted that before... You're welcome?

 but everyone can agree that art on the right is a much more impressive accomplishment of getting the idea from head to work.

It's not as impressive of an accomplishment if it's done with skeletal suits and motion cameras. This is my point. This is what your analogy fails to pick up.

An individual cel shaded 2D game may have had a LOT more visual effort put into it than say, a 3D based game on a HD console...

Surely you're comparing two different art forms again?

Motion capture and and skeletal suits take just as much effort if not more, but not in terms of an animator getting the animation to look crisp. Mo-cap is closer to theatre or acting which are both considered performing arts. This is then combined with the animators skills, but this process in no way diminishes the performance and artistic merits of the actors in performing the animations, the director in guiding the performance or the animator in bringing them together in a functional form for the game.

When a game has used mo-cap for animation, you're seeing the culmination of multiple performers and artists; that in itself is as impressive as a single animator working away on a game.



Around the Network
curl-6 said:
Kane1389 said:
curl-6 said:

Doesn't matter, beauty transcends hardware capability. 

You're confusing graphics with aesthetics. One is objective, one is subjective. Thus,  aesthetically beautiful Wii games cant be counted among best looking 7th gen games

Graphics are not just tech. They're the marriage of tech and art. You don't necessarily need amazing tech to look among the best.


Graphics are only about tech. Art is about aesthetics.

Watch this video



Mr Khan said:
Kane1389 said:
DevilRising said:
Kane1389 said:
Whats the point of this thread? We all know the graphical difference between Nintendo and everyone else will insanely huge, as always.


Except that this time around they literally aren't. If you want to talk pure graphics, the Wii U will be able to pull off pretty much every single graphical trick and effect that the other two systems can.

Ok, then where is Battlefield 4 with 64 players on 60FPS on WiiU? Where is Frostbite enginge? Where is Unreal Engine 4? Wheres Witcher 3? All of those games and engines dont exist on WiiU because of its massive hardware limitations. And if i compare the launch U games with PS4 launch games,,

The only area where Wii U could wind up lacking in certain cases, are things that involve tons of shit happening in a given game world at once, or advanced physics effects that might have to be scaled down a bit. It was a joke when it was originally stated, but the meme is now going to ring true, that in the next gen "graphics whores will become physics whores instead". As someone else in here mentioned, it is going to become all about the nuances.

If thats the only thing you think WiiU was lacking, then i dont wanna have this conversation with you...

Every single thing you've seen from Wii U thus far, even Mario Kart 8, is just "first generation" Wii U software. No console puts forth it's best looking games in the first gen. Give it a couple years, and you will see games on Wii U that will make you say "wow", no matter how jaded you are. And by the end of the gen, there will (gauranteed) be Wii U titles that will be counted among the best looking graphically of the entire console generation. Wii accomplished that being a much weaker SD console with several titles. Wii U will surely accomplish the same with much more modern hardware.

There are no Wii games among the best looking titels this gen, not even close. And i doubt we'd see a Wii U game among the best looking titles in 2018 or even 2017. Wii U is a buffed PS3 at best, and i doubt it gonne come anywhere close to being competitive later on during the next gen

Frostbite isn't on Wii U because of EA's spite. No more, no less.

This ''argument'' is getting old and holds no ground



Kane1389 said:
Mr Khan said:

Frostbite isn't on Wii U because of EA's spite. No more, no less.

This ''argument'' is getting old and holds no ground

Funny. I'd say the same thing about the argument that it has anything to do with power (given that, you know, the engine's on PS360).



Monster Hunter: pissing me off since 2010.

Kane1389 said:
curl-6 said:
Kane1389 said:
curl-6 said:

Doesn't matter, beauty transcends hardware capability. 

You're confusing graphics with aesthetics. One is objective, one is subjective. Thus,  aesthetically beautiful Wii games cant be counted among best looking 7th gen games

Graphics are not just tech. They're the marriage of tech and art. You don't necessarily need amazing tech to look among the best.


Graphics are only about tech. Art is about aesthetics.

Watch this video


One problem with using this video to support your case. It not only claims that aesthetics should be used to measure how good a game looks, but actually values aesthetics over graphics.



3DS Friend Code: 0645 - 5827 - 5788
WayForward Kickstarter is best kickstarter: http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1236620800/shantae-half-genie-hero

Around the Network
Kane1389 said:

Graphics are only about tech. Art is about aesthetics.

Watch this video

"Graphics" just means "visuals". If you meant tech, you should have said tech.

And better tech doesn't necessarily correlate with a game actually looking better.



curl-6 said:
Kane1389 said:

Graphics are only about tech. Art is about aesthetics.

Watch this video

"Graphics" just means "visuals". If you meant tech, you should have said tech.

And better tech doesn't necessarily correlate with a game actually looking better.


Graphics means both!



JoeTheBro said:
curl-6 said:
Kane1389 said:

Graphics are only about tech. Art is about aesthetics.

Watch this video

"Graphics" just means "visuals". If you meant tech, you should have said tech.

And better tech doesn't necessarily correlate with a game actually looking better.


Graphics means both!

That's my point; both aesthetics and tech.



Kane1389 said:
Mr Khan said:
Kane1389 said:

Frostbite isn't on Wii U because of EA's spite. No more, no less.

This ''argument'' is getting old and holds no ground

EA has already said the Wii-U is perfectly capable of running Frostbite, but that it's just not a priority for them. 



F0X said:
Kane1389 said:
curl-6 said:
Kane1389 said:
curl-6 said:

Doesn't matter, beauty transcends hardware capability. 

You're confusing graphics with aesthetics. One is objective, one is subjective. Thus,  aesthetically beautiful Wii games cant be counted among best looking 7th gen games

Graphics are not just tech. They're the marriage of tech and art. You don't necessarily need amazing tech to look among the best.


Graphics are only about tech. Art is about aesthetics.

Watch this video


One problem with using this video to support your case. It not only claims that aesthetics should be used to measure how good a game looks, but actually values aesthetics over graphics.


I dont disagree with those points. However, the fact that therei are NO Wii games which have best graphics this gen remains true