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

Exion8 on 20 October 2015

The graphics aren't that bad. I think it's the under-polished textures that make the visuals look bad as a whole. Additionally, I'm generally more tolerant towards Nintendo's graphics since it's never really been their main focus.



Imagine the Impossible

Around the Network
nanorazor on 20 October 2015

Looks pretty bad in this one. the ones on marketing material looks better though.



Exion8 on 20 October 2015
nanorazor said:

Looks pretty bad in this one. the ones on marketing material looks better though.


It could definitely use a little anti-aliasing. The shaders could also be touched up. Come to think of it though, SF (except for Adventures) has never really met the graphics capabilities of the console it played on. The one exception was the SNES debut (where it basically broke new ground).



Imagine the Impossible

DonnyOnzlo on 20 October 2015
nanorazor said:

Looks pretty bad in this one. looks better on marketing material though.


That's screencapped from a very compressed Youtube video and you know it.



Exion8 on 20 October 2015
nanorazor said:

Looks pretty bad in this one. the ones on marketing material looks better though.


It could definitely use a little anti-aliasing. The shaders could also be touched up. Come to think of it though, SF (except for Adventures) has never really met the graphics capabilities of the console it played on. The one exception was the SNES debut (where it basically broke new ground).

 

[EDIT]: Sorry, duplicate thread. Can a mod delete this?



Imagine the Impossible

Around the Network
Nem on 20 October 2015
Captain_Yuri said:
Cause it was (most likely) developed in about a yearsh... Last time we saw it, it was in its experimental stage and then one year later, its ready to play? Yea.... not unless they had to cut corners


I count 1.5 years since the first announcement. For that demo shown at E3 in closed doors, at least 6 months development time isnt unreasonable.

I think you are completely wrong. The game has had a 2 year development cycle. You would fare better in determining how big the team is.



Frogger on 20 October 2015
hershel_layton said:

Starfox just won't live if this game is a huge failure. Games such as Mario can have less-successful titles because more than one game comes per console generation.

 

the last starfox game(besides 3D remake) was the one on the 64. Starfox isn't fortunate enough to have multiple chances.

 

Starfox Wii U failure= rapid decline of starfox.


The last Star Fox game was Command. And before that there was Assault. And before that there was Adventures. 64 was far from being the most recent Star Fox.

I still have hope that Star Fox will appear on the NX after this one fails. Hopefully with the quality the series deserves this time.



midrange on 20 October 2015
DonnyOnzlo said:
midrange said:


Game performing well =/= Game looking great.

Both things can exist. Unfortunately not the case for this starfox


How much more clear does this have to be? The Wii U is rendering every texture double. Every polygon. It's not just the game on the TV like a normal game.

When SEGA Genesis had 2 player for Sonic 2 it rendered the game twice and kept the same visuals but reduced the framerate a ton. WHen Hyrule Warriors in in mutliplayer with Gamepad it renders the game twice and both visuals and framerate take a hit. The visuals in Starfox are not bad. Just not impressive on it's own, there is a difference. Considering what the hardware is doing it is impressive however.

 

Besides why does it matter everyone who played it said it plays great. All I care about because I'm not shallow.

I said that the game performs well. Has a solid framerate. However, that does not translate to it looking well. Reducing the gamepad functionality (similar to DK country tropical freeze or mario kart 8), could have been a valid solution to increase in gameplay in functionality.

Having a second screen is not the only way the could have added to the gameplay. Putting that cpu power to render more enemies, teammates, power-ups, on screen action would have really added to the gameplay, because as it stands, starfox zero looks pretty baren.

Also, while people play the game itself, I doubt people will say "given that the game is being rendered on 2 screens at 60 fps, I can accept this game looking bad," instead people will just say "this game looks awful."

The fact that starfox's graphics constantly need to be defended as opposed to those of mario kart, smash bros, and xenoblade chronicles X should really say something about starfox's graphics



midrange on 20 October 2015
mZuzek said:
midrange said:

I played the original starfox and thought it was great. Looking at this new one hurts given how rushed it feels. The textures themselves are really hard to look at.

Yes, it was indeed being rushed.

Then it got delayed.

delay is for polish, not for graphical revamp. It was a good move to delay it, not a good one to delay it for only 5 months



DonnyOnzlo on 20 October 2015
cycycychris said:

Just out of curiosity. Isn't Mario 3D world rendering 2 screens(60FPS) at once and still looks great?

If I remember right, Mario Kart 8 also has the same option to have it on the TV and gamepad at the same.

If true. Star Fox should look better that it what we have seen.


Nope. In fact MK8 is just a horn and a map.