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

Forums - Nintendo Discussion - Why Starfox Zero's graphics are bad

torok on 18 June 2015
burninmylight said:

I'm not expecting it to suddenly look like a PC game from Crytek on a monster rig with max settings. I'm quite certain that the final game won't blow anyone's hair back from a graphical standpoint. But if you think that Corneria level is indicative of the final product, then I think you're the delusional one. To say that Nintendo, the publisher notorious for taking that extra bit of time to fine tune a game no matter how much we groan, won't polish the game is really showing your unmindfulness. You're making it sound like the game is shipping out on Friday.

Were you saying the same thing about Super Mario 3D Land during its reveal trailer? I seem to remember that game looking much better upon release. Same with Pikmin 3 (which also began life as a Wii game).

Here, I'll go ahead and type your response: "The game is fugly, Dreamcast has better graphics, nothing else matters, _____________ looks better, it won't be polished, not even worth playing." If you were going to type something resembling that, then no need to waste your time. Your mind is made up, so we can end this conversation.


It's better to end that than read you being delusional. It's not just the level. The ship's model is bad, the space part is bad, the vehicles look bad, trees look bad, nothing look decent on that trailler. The lightning is ridiculously simplistic, so we can assume that then engine can't do a lot of interesting stuff. That's the point. Everything is horrendous. It's not "fine tune", the game has deep technological issues.

Either way, you can expect your miracle and keep taping their head each time they offend a franchise like that.



Bet with jetforcejiminy: PS4 will pass the Wii lifetime numbers.

Around the Network
Nintation360 on 18 June 2015

They look great... they're just not realistic...  



burninmylight on 19 June 2015
torok said:
burninmylight said:
 

I'm not expecting it to suddenly look like a PC game from Crytek on a monster rig with max settings. I'm quite certain that the final game won't blow anyone's hair back from a graphical standpoint. But if you think that Corneria level is indicative of the final product, then I think you're the delusional one. To say that Nintendo, the publisher notorious for taking that extra bit of time to fine tune a game no matter how much we groan, won't polish the game is really showing your unmindfulness. You're making it sound like the game is shipping out on Friday.

Were you saying the same thing about Super Mario 3D Land during its reveal trailer? I seem to remember that game looking much better upon release. Same with Pikmin 3 (which also began life as a Wii game).

Here, I'll go ahead and type your response: "The game is fugly, Dreamcast has better graphics, nothing else matters, _____________ looks better, it won't be polished, not even worth playing." If you were going to type something resembling that, then no need to waste your time. Your mind is made up, so we can end this conversation.


It's better to end that than read you being delusional. It's not just the level. The ship's model is bad, the space part is bad, the vehicles look bad, trees look bad, nothing look decent on that trailler. The lightning is ridiculously simplistic, so we can assume that then engine can't do a lot of interesting stuff. That's the point. Everything is horrendous. It's not "fine tune", the game has deep technological issues.

Either way, you can expect your miracle and keep taping their head each time they offend a franchise like that.

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/thread.php?id=204802

How does this level compare to the Corneria level?



torok on 19 June 2015
burninmylight said:

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/thread.php?id=204802

How does this level compare to the Corneria level?


It looks better, they did a more detailed job with the sand specifically. The enemy ships models are still mediocre and the destruction isn't on par with 2012 games (again, Twisted Metal). It looks like a 2009 game instead of a 2006 one, so it's an improvement.



Bet with jetforcejiminy: PS4 will pass the Wii lifetime numbers.

SPIRIT6666 on 19 June 2015

The game looks bad because most texture are a bit too bland giving them that plastic look.
As I posted in an other thread :



Around the Network
globalisateur on 19 June 2015
curl-6 said:

Assuming it runs at 720p on the TV and 854x480 on the Gamepad, that's effectively the equivalent of running in 2-player split screen at 900p/60fps, all the time.


 720p + 480p = 1331520 pixels

 900p = 1440000 pixels

Yep, 900p is only ~8% more pixels indeed. It would explain why the game looks like this.



bowserthedog on 19 June 2015

I think they look decent and I love the art style. Personally I wouldn't even suggest that Mario Galaxy looks bad. Nintendo games hold up visually over time except for maybe the N64 era. I'd love for the game to be pushing the Wiiu fully but I think they would have needed to delay the game for a year in order to acheive that and I don't think it would have been worth it.



https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC0JquK6FGR6O-0O-6L-VAuw

Angelv577 on 19 June 2015

it looks fine, it just doesn't look like a $60 game.



Illusion on 19 June 2015

I think the graphics look good. I would rather that they focus on developing a really good story with lots of levels and (even more importantly) getting the gamepad to work seamlessly. To me, these things are much more important in a Star Fox game.



Airaku on 20 June 2015
SPIRIT6666 said:

The game looks bad because most texture are a bit too bland giving them that plastic look.
As I posted in an other thread :


Game Cube had tons of realistic looking games. Ever since the Wii Nintendo went for more cartoony looking games. Star Fox should always look more like the first image.