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

Forums - Nintendo - Did Star Fox U get a major graphical overhaul? Looks great!

Ljink96 on 02 September 2015
Miyamotoo said:
Ljink96 said:

Still looks like Gamecube 1.5 to me. I've seen better looking games on Wii:(

Wait, why does the Starfox Segment in Bayonetta 2 look better than this? They could at least said, "we'll try to base the graphics around this". Man, usually it wouldn't bother me much about graphics. But with a game like Starfox, a game that always boasted great visuals as well as gameplay, it's kind of a setback. With the Scifi genre, it isn't necessarily difficult to create stunning graphics...I guess Nintendo just wasn't looking for that.

Do you realise that Wii is basically 1.5 Gamecube!?

Because Bayonetta 2 doesn't work in locked 60FPS on two screens.

Nah, Gamecube 2.0 Would be Wii. This is somewhere between Wii and Gamecube in some screens.

Still, there have been games that look just as decent as Bayo 2, XCX and MK8, of which MK8 runs at 60fps. There's no reason to justify the graphics other than it's a budget title.



Around the Network
Miyamotoo on 02 September 2015
Ljink96 said:
Miyamotoo said:
Ljink96 said:

Still looks like Gamecube 1.5 to me. I've seen better looking games on Wii:(

Wait, why does the Starfox Segment in Bayonetta 2 look better than this? They could at least said, "we'll try to base the graphics around this". Man, usually it wouldn't bother me much about graphics. But with a game like Starfox, a game that always boasted great visuals as well as gameplay, it's kind of a setback. With the Scifi genre, it isn't necessarily difficult to create stunning graphics...I guess Nintendo just wasn't looking for that.

Do you realise that Wii is basically 1.5 Gamecube!?

Because Bayonetta 2 doesn't work in locked 60FPS on two screens.

Nah, Gamecube 2.0 Would be Wii. This is somewhere between Wii and Gamecube in some screens.

Still, there have been games that look just as decent as Bayo 2, XCX and MK8, of which MK8 runs at 60fps. There's no reason to justify the graphics other than it's a budget title.

Mario Kart runs on 60 fps, but this runs 2x 60 fps.

Well if its a budget title Nintendo would price it like budget title, like Toads Treasure Tracker or Kirby with $39 price point not $59. Also Toads Treasure Tracker is one of the best looking games and it have price $39, why!? Because of content, not because a graphics.



MikeRox on 02 September 2015
spurgeonryan said:
Normchacho said:
Nope, still looks like a really good looking Gamecube game.


Which means it still looks pretty nice. Remember Rogue Squadron on GC?


Yup, it looked far better...



RIP Dad 25/11/51 - 13/12/13. You will be missed but never forgotten.

Ljink96 on 02 September 2015
Miyamotoo said:
Ljink96 said:
Miyamotoo said:
Ljink96 said:

Still looks like Gamecube 1.5 to me. I've seen better looking games on Wii:(

Wait, why does the Starfox Segment in Bayonetta 2 look better than this? They could at least said, "we'll try to base the graphics around this". Man, usually it wouldn't bother me much about graphics. But with a game like Starfox, a game that always boasted great visuals as well as gameplay, it's kind of a setback. With the Scifi genre, it isn't necessarily difficult to create stunning graphics...I guess Nintendo just wasn't looking for that.

Do you realise that Wii is basically 1.5 Gamecube!?

Because Bayonetta 2 doesn't work in locked 60FPS on two screens.

Nah, Gamecube 2.0 Would be Wii. This is somewhere between Wii and Gamecube in some screens.

Still, there have been games that look just as decent as Bayo 2, XCX and MK8, of which MK8 runs at 60fps. There's no reason to justify the graphics other than it's a budget title.

Mario Kart runs on 60 fps, but this runs 2x 60 fps.

Well if its a budget title Nintendo would price it like budget title, like Toads Treasure Tracker or Kirby with $39 price point not $59. Also Toads Treasure Tracker is one of the best looking games and it have price $39, why!? Because of content, not because a graphics.

Oh, believe me, I'm gonna buy it no matter what it costs. 60$ seems fair enough. I'm a 3D major so with the programs we have, it's natural for me to say a game like this doesn't look good. I mean, it's acceptable, gorgeous at times. But the graphics aren't what I'm really into. If the content and gameplay are great, i can stomach the graphics.



SJReiter on 02 September 2015
MikeRox said:
spurgeonryan said:


Which means it still looks pretty nice. Remember Rogue Squadron on GC?


Yup, it looked far better...

Yeah but that's not really fair. See what that game looks like running on a 55" flat screen. Pure garbage, that's what. Star Fox Zero will actually be playable on TVs that people use nowadays. 



Around the Network
Miyamotoo on 03 September 2015
Ljink96 said:
Miyamotoo said:
Ljink96 said:
Miyamotoo said:
Ljink96 said:

Still looks like Gamecube 1.5 to me. I've seen better looking games on Wii:(

Wait, why does the Starfox Segment in Bayonetta 2 look better than this? They could at least said, "we'll try to base the graphics around this". Man, usually it wouldn't bother me much about graphics. But with a game like Starfox, a game that always boasted great visuals as well as gameplay, it's kind of a setback. With the Scifi genre, it isn't necessarily difficult to create stunning graphics...I guess Nintendo just wasn't looking for that.

Do you realise that Wii is basically 1.5 Gamecube!?

Because Bayonetta 2 doesn't work in locked 60FPS on two screens.

Nah, Gamecube 2.0 Would be Wii. This is somewhere between Wii and Gamecube in some screens.

Still, there have been games that look just as decent as Bayo 2, XCX and MK8, of which MK8 runs at 60fps. There's no reason to justify the graphics other than it's a budget title.

Mario Kart runs on 60 fps, but this runs 2x 60 fps.

Well if its a budget title Nintendo would price it like budget title, like Toads Treasure Tracker or Kirby with $39 price point not $59. Also Toads Treasure Tracker is one of the best looking games and it have price $39, why!? Because of content, not because a graphics.

Oh, believe me, I'm gonna buy it no matter what it costs. 60$ seems fair enough. I'm a 3D major so with the programs we have, it's natural for me to say a game like this doesn't look good. I mean, it's acceptable, gorgeous at times. But the graphics aren't what I'm really into. If the content and gameplay are great, i can stomach the graphics.

Like I said numerous times in this thread, this isnt best looking Wii U game but certainly not worst, we already know it will run on 60FPS, we will have very different experience with two screens than any other game, game looks fun and we will probably have a decent content because Nintendo wouldnt price it $60.

So I really don't see any problem here.



LipeJJ on 03 September 2015

Looks the same, which is terrible news. I can't believe they'll release a game so weak technically. I mean, Nintendo at least usually produces decent-looking games (like Pikmin 3), some even great looking (like MK8). This one is just a shame, not matter how you look at it.

EDIT: It's embarassing watching people defending its graphics saying that it's because of 60fps. Really? Fast Neo Racing is 60fps too, but it looks 10000000x times better... and it's from an indie studio. There's no excuse, get real, gee!



Bet with Teeqoz for 2 weeks of avatar and sig control that Super Mario Odyssey would ship more than 7m on its first 2 months. The game shipped 9.07m, so I won

MikeRox on 03 September 2015
SJReiter said:
MikeRox said:


Yup, it looked far better...

Yeah but that's not really fair. See what that game looks like running on a 55" flat screen. Pure garbage, that's what. Star Fox Zero will actually be playable on TVs that people use nowadays. 


Get a better TV then ;) looks great in 480p via the component cable on a decent Panasonic plasma.



RIP Dad 25/11/51 - 13/12/13. You will be missed but never forgotten.

Goodnightmoon on 03 September 2015
LipeJJ said:

Looks the same, which is terrible news. I can't believe they'll release a game so weak technically. I mean, Nintendo at least usually produces decent-looking games (like Pikmin 3), some even great looking (like MK8). This one is just a shame, not matter how you look at it.

EDIT: It's embarassing watching people defending its graphics saying that it's because of 60fps. Really? Fast Neo Racing is 60fps too, but it looks 10000000x times better... and it's from an indie studio. There's no excuse, get real, gee!

Looks the same because is THE SAME build they presented on the E3, this whole thread makes no sense to begin with, and this game is moving the 60fps on 2 screens independently, remember.



SJReiter on 03 September 2015
MikeRox said:
SJReiter said:

Yeah but that's not really fair. See what that game looks like running on a 55" flat screen. Pure garbage, that's what. Star Fox Zero will actually be playable on TVs that people use nowadays. 


Get a better TV then ;) looks great in 480p via the component cable on a decent Panasonic plasma.


Plasma? Try an LED. It looks terrible. Any game of that era does since the aspect ratio was not meant for modern TVs. Everything looks stretched and awful.