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

Forums - Nintendo Discussion - Wii could support hd.

sc94597 on 17 February 2008
Sqrl said:
sc94597 said:

I think the wii could pull of alot of those but maybe not all at high res.


Like I said one or the other, but not both.

Honestly, they will get better results from putting in the time to develope the techniques properly...especially if they can re-use the engine in other projects. And as I said higher resolutions are overrated by graphics whores. Thats not to say they are useless but they are given far too much credit when its not deserved.

Here is a decent example:

Crysis Pic Low Res 1200x800

Crysis Pic High Res 2560x1600

 

Which one looks better? Which one looks more realistic?

To my eyes at least the first one looks more realistic but you can see more detail in the second one. Which is what I'm trying to illustrate. With a game like Crysis where the detail is being properly rendered you can get some gain out of stupid high resolutions like 2560x1600..but even on a modest resolution it still looks stunning. A sort of diminishing returns to be sure.

Now honestly I think if you showed the pictures to people on the street the higher res pic would more easily be identified as a rendered shot. Now why is that? The answer should be obvious that it is the high quality BM on the leaves (and to a lesser extent in this shot the trees) with amazing lighting and shading techniques that would ring true for most people.

 


 It would be nice if you showed the same pic but yeah there barely is a difference. This doesn't change the fact that all the sony/ms fanboys bitch about the wii not having hd. The only reason the wii doesn't have hd is because nintendo doesn't want it to. So this is to silence them. 



Around the Network
Sqrl on 17 February 2008
sc94597 said:
Sqrl said:
sc94597 said:

I think the wii could pull of alot of those but maybe not all at high res.


Like I said one or the other, but not both.

Honestly, they will get better results from putting in the time to develope the techniques properly...especially if they can re-use the engine in other projects. And as I said higher resolutions are overrated by graphics whores. Thats not to say they are useless but they are given far too much credit when its not deserved.

Here is a decent example:

Crysis Pic Low Res 1200x800

Crysis Pic High Res 2560x1600

 

Which one looks better? Which one looks more realistic?

To my eyes at least the first one looks more realistic but you can see more detail in the second one. Which is what I'm trying to illustrate. With a game like Crysis where the detail is being properly rendered you can get some gain out of stupid high resolutions like 2560x1600..but even on a modest resolution it still looks stunning. A sort of diminishing returns to be sure.

Now honestly I think if you showed the pictures to people on the street the higher res pic would more easily be identified as a rendered shot. Now why is that? The answer should be obvious that it is the high quality BM on the leaves (and to a lesser extent in this shot the trees) with amazing lighting and shading techniques that would ring true for most people.

 


It would be nice if you showed the same pic but yeah there barely is a difference. This doesn't change the fact that all the sony/ms fanboys bitch about the wii not having hd. The only reason the wii doesn't have hd is because nintendo doesn't want it to. So this is to silence them.


The point of showing a different scene was to show that rendered effects can make a lower res pic look as good or almost as good as pic with 4x as many pixels on screen when the effects are done right. So I picked a scene with a low res and some good lighting and BM going on and another scene with a very high res and a lot less lighting and arguably better BM going on to try and illustrate it.

As for the fanboys...I couldn't care less what they think...but thats just my opinion. I like the console and play it pretty much every day. If they don't want to because its doesn't output in a resolution defined as being high def then thats their loss as far as I'm concerned.

I agree it would be fairly trivial to allow full HD outputs but I think their is a reason they have restricted it. They want people to focus more on the gameplay than the graphics and for some folks thats a mistake and for some folks its the right call...thats really a matter of opinion and a whole other topic.



To Each Man, Responsibility
fkusumot on 17 February 2008
sc94597 said:
fkusumot said:

I don't understand. The Wii works just fine on my HDTV.

When you have hd output it increases picture detail and stuff. Im trying to say is that if hd is introduced to the wii it woud cause developers to actually work on graphics.


 I don't follow your reasoning.



I Blame Wii Fit!

sc94597 on 17 February 2008

^ Alright everybody thinks higher resolutions=better graphics. Developers underestimate the wii in hardware. So if the wii shows that it could produce hd like the other consoles it doesn't look as inferior as it used to. Meaning devs would actually try to make the game look better.



Faxanadu on 17 February 2008

rather give me better textures, more polygons and a better draw distance than HD.



Any message from Faxanadu is written in good faith but shall neither be binding nor construed as constituting a commitment by Faxanadu except where provided for in a written agreement signed by an authorized representative of Faxanadu. This message is intended for the use of the forum members only.

The views expressed here may be personal and/or offensive and are not necessarily the views of Faxanadu.

Around the Network
sc94597 on 17 February 2008

^ I agree.



Troll_Monster on 17 February 2008
sc94597 said:
^ Alright everybody thinks higher resolutions=better graphics. Developers underestimate the wii in hardware. So if the wii shows that it could produce hd like the other consoles it doesn't look as inferior as it used to. Meaning devs would actually try to make the game look better.

 AA, higher plogygon count, hi rez textures, all these make better graphics as well as having a higher resolution. 

One key the thing the wii lacks is ram, their simply isnt enough for hi res textures and their isn't a work around for this no matter how telented a developer is.

The wii is simply an SD console, and it's great at what it does but this by no means mean that it's capable of HD graphics as we've come to see on PC/PS3/360



sc94597 on 17 February 2008
Troll_Monster said:
sc94597 said:
^ Alright everybody thinks higher resolutions=better graphics. Developers underestimate the wii in hardware. So if the wii shows that it could produce hd like the other consoles it doesn't look as inferior as it used to. Meaning devs would actually try to make the game look better.

AA, higher plogygon count, hi rez textures, all these make better graphics as well as having a higher resolution.

One key the thing the wii lacks is ram, their simply isnt enough for hi res textures and their isn't a work around for this no matter how telented a developer is.

The wii is simply an SD console, and it's great at what it does but this by no means mean that it's capable of HD graphics as we've come to see on PC/PS3/360


 Didn't we already go over this before. Also didn't the original xbox and ps2 have far less ram than the wii.



Troll_Monster on 17 February 2008
sc94597 said:
Troll_Monster said:
sc94597 said:
^ Alright everybody thinks higher resolutions=better graphics. Developers underestimate the wii in hardware. So if the wii shows that it could produce hd like the other consoles it doesn't look as inferior as it used to. Meaning devs would actually try to make the game look better.

AA, higher plogygon count, hi rez textures, all these make better graphics as well as having a higher resolution.

One key the thing the wii lacks is ram, their simply isnt enough for hi res textures and their isn't a work around for this no matter how telented a developer is.

The wii is simply an SD console, and it's great at what it does but this by no means mean that it's capable of HD graphics as we've come to see on PC/PS3/360


Didn't we already go over this before. Also didn't the original xbox and ps2 have far less ram than the wii.


 yes the PS2/xbox has less ram than the wii, but I wasn't talking about them I was only refering to the PS3/360 and PC, so really I have no idea why you even brought up the xbox and PS2. o.0



sc94597 on 17 February 2008
Troll_Monster said:
sc94597 said:
Troll_Monster said:
sc94597 said:
^ Alright everybody thinks higher resolutions=better graphics. Developers underestimate the wii in hardware. So if the wii shows that it could produce hd like the other consoles it doesn't look as inferior as it used to. Meaning devs would actually try to make the game look better.

AA, higher plogygon count, hi rez textures, all these make better graphics as well as having a higher resolution.

One key the thing the wii lacks is ram, their simply isnt enough for hi res textures and their isn't a work around for this no matter how telented a developer is.

The wii is simply an SD console, and it's great at what it does but this by no means mean that it's capable of HD graphics as we've come to see on PC/PS3/360


Didn't we already go over this before. Also didn't the original xbox and ps2 have far less ram than the wii.


yes the PS2/xbox has less ram than the wii, but I wasn't talking about them I was only refering to the PS3/360 and PC, so really I have no idea why you even brought up the xbox and PS2. o.0


 Oops I read it wrong I thought you meant the wii doesn't have enough ram for high resolutions but you said high res textures.