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

Forums - Nintendo - About X for Wii U, I was just thinking.

bonzobanana on 18 January 2014

Xenoblade Chronicles was absolutely amazing for the wii but up close some of the textures were incredibly low res. However you just can't knock how impressive it is for a wii game. I fully expect the X to be very impressive but I think when you start analysing the engine you will see how they have achieved it on humble hardware.

It's important to point out that many of the wii u multiformat titles are weak because of its slow cpu, slower than ps3 and 360 but a carefully crafted game that does not need such high cpu resources but fully exploits the wii u gpu really should be something special. Nothing that will impress PC, PS4 or Xbone owners but something that looks a little better than ps3 and 360 games.



Around the Network
PhantomLink on 18 January 2014

Monolith Soft is faithful to what they show at first

Fruits are still flat in the final product

And I doubt that X is still in pre development



Why don't you make like a tree and get out of here?

DevilRising on 18 January 2014
kupomogli said:
forest-spirit said:

How many examples are there of Nintendo games ending up looking noticably worse than the previews?

How many examples are there of Nintendo games that ended up pushing the hardware to its limits even remotely?

Also, hasn't there been a Zelda game that looked no where near as good as its prerelease visuals?


Can't tell if you're being serious or not.........but just for fun.

 

NES: Punch Out, Super Mario Bros. 3, Kirby's Adventure, Star Tropics 2.

SNES: Super Metroid, Star Fox, DKC 1-3, Yoshi's Island

N64: Ocarina of Time/Majora's Mask, Diddy Kong Racing, Goldeneye, Perfect Dark, Star Fox 64 (arguably)

GC: Metroid Prime 1 & 2, Pikmin 1 & 2, Twlight Princess

Wii: Super Mario Galaxy 1 & 2, Xenoblade, Skyward Sword (in certain respects)

 

Just saying.



DevilRising on 18 January 2014
bonzobanana said:
Xenoblade Chronicles was absolutely amazing for the wii but up close some of the textures were incredibly low res. However you just can't knock how impressive it is for a wii game. I fully expect the X to be very impressive but I think when you start analysing the engine you will see how they have achieved it on humble hardware.

It's important to point out that many of the wii u multiformat titles are weak because of its slow cpu, slower than ps3 and 360 but a carefully crafted game that does not need such high cpu resources but fully exploits the wii u gpu really should be something special. Nothing that will impress PC, PS4 or Xbone owners but something that looks a little better than ps3 and 360 games.


True, but there are PS4 games that STILL have "not so good looking textures" up close.



Viper1 on 18 January 2014
Egann said:
spemanig said:
Metroid33slayer said:
spemanig said:

No offense, but this is Nintendo we're talking about. They aren't like other companies. If they have an ugly game, they will gladly and gleefully show you that ugly game because you'll end up loving it anyway. This is the company that actually still proudly shows gameplay in their reveal trailers. Nintendo is shit at business, not at making games. What you see has always been what you get.

I'd love to see one case where Nintendo has false advertised the visual quality of any of their game before release.
Just one.
Only one.
One, PLEASE.

The 2004 and  the 2005 gdc trailer of twilight princess showed far superior visuals than the final product


No it didn't. Twilight Princess was always an ugly game. It just looked "good" in the trailers because there was no "next gen" to compare it too. Twilight Princess has aged terribly.

To be fair, most of the hype around Twilight Princess was over motion controls because, well, this was before we realized motion controls for swords is a terrible idea. It looked good for its time, but no more. It certainly hasn't aged like Wind Waker.

Are you thinking Skyward Sword?



The rEVOLution is not being televised

Around the Network
Viper1 on 18 January 2014
kupomogli said:

From what we've seen of X, graphically it looks amazing.  Better than most PS3 and 360 titles, but it's only in pre development.  It's fairly common in the gaming business that first, second, and third party developers show off a game that really pushes the console, and then when it's finally released, it's nowhere near as good looking as we were shown.

Forza 5 still looks good, but no where near as good as when it was first shown, Aliens Colonial Marines, Killzone 2, many different Ubisoft games, White Knight Chronicles, etc.

X may look like its prerelease videos, it might also not even be close to looking that good. 

While it's clear the gameplay would have never played like this, here is a video of White Knight Chronicles and how good it looked.  The final version is a great looking game, but in comparison to the original "gameplay" we saw.  Not even close. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oEXvnoY-KoU

A lot of games are built around what the hardware can probably do and then if there are framerate issues and what not, they need to scale it down a bit.  Just saying maybe Nintendo fans should tone down the hype, because the drop might be too much for you guys to bear.  Don't want any suicides going on.  Nintendo needs your support.

I'm kidding about the suicide thing, but serious about everything else.

Nintendo doesn't release bullshots and fluff videos.  In fact, their image capture system is jpg and low bit rate video.  That means the final products will already look better.   I have had access to their press site for the past 11 years.  What they show you and what you get always end up for the better, not worse.



The rEVOLution is not being televised

Mr Khan on 18 January 2014

Nintendo doesn't do bullshots or anything like that, period. Their games always end up looking better (if there's any change) as they approach release. Never worse.



Monster Hunter: pissing me off since 2010.

Frogger on 18 January 2014
Scisca said:
spemanig said:
Metroid33slayer said:
spemanig said:

No offense, but this is Nintendo we're talking about. They aren't like other companies. If they have an ugly game, they will gladly and gleefully show you that ugly game because you'll end up loving it anyway. This is the company that actually still proudly shows gameplay in their reveal trailers. Nintendo is shit at business, not at making games. What you see has always been what you get.

I'd love to see one case where Nintendo has false advertised the visual quality of any of their game before release.
Just one.
Only one.
One, PLEASE.

The 2004 and  the 2005 gdc trailer of twilight princess showed far superior visuals than the final product


No it didn't. Twilight Princess was always an ugly game. It just looked "good" in the trailers because there was no "next gen" to compare it too. Twilight Princess has aged terribly.


I love Twilight Princess, I've played it this Christmas and it still looks very good. Don't know why everyone keeps saying it has aged terribly. To me it still looks so much better than Wind Waker, which has aged much worse than TP. I can't imagine playing the original WW now - there is a reason why they remade it instead of TP.

 

OT: I hope X looks better than what was shown, cause the trailer really isn't all that impressive. It may be at first, but the more I see it, the more "meh" it is.


I loved twilight princess too, but it's visuals are a shit stain compared to Wind Waker. The entire game is foggy, it has a terrible color pallet, I won't even bring up it's textures. They remade Wind Waker because not only was in not playable on the wii u, but the game required the LEAST work to look good, which was the only reason Miyamoto allowed it to be made. Wind Waker is universally agreed to be the best aged Zelda. They could have left it alone for 50 years, and it would have STILL looked amazing. Compare Twilight Princess to the Wii U tech demo which used Twilight Princess as it's base. Now look at wind Waker compared to it's remake. The Wind Waker is objectively the better aged game. 



Egann on 18 January 2014
Viper1 said:
Egann said:
spemanig said:
Metroid33slayer said:
spemanig said:

No offense, but this is Nintendo we're talking about. They aren't like other companies. If they have an ugly game, they will gladly and gleefully show you that ugly game because you'll end up loving it anyway. This is the company that actually still proudly shows gameplay in their reveal trailers. Nintendo is shit at business, not at making games. What you see has always been what you get.

I'd love to see one case where Nintendo has false advertised the visual quality of any of their game before release.
Just one.
Only one.
One, PLEASE.

The 2004 and  the 2005 gdc trailer of twilight princess showed far superior visuals than the final product


No it didn't. Twilight Princess was always an ugly game. It just looked "good" in the trailers because there was no "next gen" to compare it too. Twilight Princess has aged terribly.

To be fair, most of the hype around Twilight Princess was over motion controls because, well, this was before we realized motion controls for swords is a terrible idea. It looked good for its time, but no more. It certainly hasn't aged like Wind Waker.

Are you thinking Skyward Sword?

No. Twilight Princess had a good bit of hype around the motion-control swordplay, even though it was basically a gamecube button press translated to a flick of the wrist. That was when motion controls were so new even that little token addition was considered great.



Viper1 on 18 January 2014
Egann said:
Viper1 said:
Egann said:

To be fair, most of the hype around Twilight Princess was over motion controls because, well, this was before we realized motion controls for swords is a terrible idea. It looked good for its time, but no more. It certainly hasn't aged like Wind Waker.

Are you thinking Skyward Sword?

No. Twilight Princess had a good bit of hype around the motion-control swordplay, even though it was basically a gamecube button press translated to a flick of the wrist. That was when motion controls were so new even that little token addition was considered great.

I think the problem I am having is you said "MOST of the hype..." .   My understanding is that "most" of the hype surrounding Twilight Princiness was the art style given what WW shown before it.   While some hype came about with the motion controls, it was small by comparison...whereas motion controlled sword action for Skyward Sword was indeed what most of that game's hype centered on.



The rEVOLution is not being televised