Forums - Nintendo Discussion - About Star Fox Zero graphics

Graphics are:

Amazing! 74 14.98%
 
Nice, just a bit outdated 221 44.74%
 
Pretty bad 86 17.41%
 
Terrible 67 13.56%
 
Do a barrel roll 46 9.31%
 
Total:494
Pemalite said:
curl-6 said:

The TEV unit was not as flexible or as capable as the newer shader systems used by PS3/360/Wii U. As such, there's a clear divide in shader tech between Gamecube and the aforementioned systems.

And again, did any actual GCN games ever use a HD internal resolution? Even if they did, the fact it can't output it means Zero's output resolution alone puts it beyond what Gamecube could do.

Resolution isn't really an "effect". It doesn't really require any specific instructions or hardware blocks.
The point was, that the Gamecube could render in High-Definition, just not output it. :P

You are right the TEV isn't as flexible as the newer systems, but it was still capable and in my opinion, punched above it's assumed weight.
It would be like comparing Direct X 8 games against Direct X 9 games. I.E. Morrowind (Direct X 8 SM1.0-1.4) vs Oblivion (Direct X 9 SM2.0) and then Skyrim (Direct X 9 SM3.0).
All have "shaders". - But varying use and quality of shaders... And as someone who used to write shaders for Oblivion and Fallout 3, it is possible to remake the shaders for those games to Xbox 1 levels of GPU hardware with only a minimal reduction in quality. (Performance not permitting.)

In the end, it shows with emulation... The games have aged surprisingly well and can be competitive with the PS3/360/Wii U with minimal effort.

I never said resolution was an effect. But Gamecube can't output HD, and Zero is HD, therefore by that criteria alone, it couldn't be done on Gamecube.

I agree with you that TEV punched above its weight, and games like Rogue Squadron 2/3, Mario Galaxy 1/2, Jett Rocket, etc, showed that it could produce very nice results. But ultimately it just wouldn't be able to produce the kind of shader usage we see in Starfox Zero. You could downgrade it and replace the shaders with simpler TEV equivalents, but in its current form, the game simply wouldn't be doable on GCN.



Bet with Liquidlaser: I say PS5 and Xbox Series will sell more than 56 million combined by the end of 2023.

Around the Network

Some parts look rushed like the characters mouth movements in that first cut scene and some textures look decent at best but overall its pretty good looking. Also Gigarilla's entrance cut scene looks like it used similar graphic styles as Splatoon's bosses. Just something I noticed.



curl-6 said:
kopstudent89 said:
 it doesn't look like it belongs to this generation or the last one 

There are tons of last gen games that look worse than this, including PS3/360 games.

People always remeber previous gens with way better graphics than they actually had, its a constant, thats why everytime something looks a gen outdated people says it looks 2 gens behind, and also they always use the best references of the gen to describe it, wich is utterly stupid in my opinion, yes there are amazing achievements on every gen but those are exceptions, just because The Last Of Us looked that good doesnt mean the average game last gen looked like that, 99.9% didn't. People also forget that most HD games last gen were struggling pretty hard to mantain 30fps, is like if memory erases those things.



curl-6 said:
Pemalite said:

Resolution isn't really an "effect". It doesn't really require any specific instructions or hardware blocks.
The point was, that the Gamecube could render in High-Definition, just not output it. :P

You are right the TEV isn't as flexible as the newer systems, but it was still capable and in my opinion, punched above it's assumed weight.
It would be like comparing Direct X 8 games against Direct X 9 games. I.E. Morrowind (Direct X 8 SM1.0-1.4) vs Oblivion (Direct X 9 SM2.0) and then Skyrim (Direct X 9 SM3.0).
All have "shaders". - But varying use and quality of shaders... And as someone who used to write shaders for Oblivion and Fallout 3, it is possible to remake the shaders for those games to Xbox 1 levels of GPU hardware with only a minimal reduction in quality. (Performance not permitting.)

In the end, it shows with emulation... The games have aged surprisingly well and can be competitive with the PS3/360/Wii U with minimal effort.

I never said resolution was an effect. But Gamecube can't output HD, and Zero is HD, therefore by that criteria alone, it couldn't be done on Gamecube.

I agree with you that TEV punched above its weight, and games like Rogue Squadron 2/3, Mario Galaxy 1/2, Jett Rocket, etc, showed that it could produce very nice results. But ultimately it just wouldn't be able to produce the kind of shader usage we see in Starfox Zero. You could downgrade it and replace the shaders with simpler TEV equivalents, but in its current form, the game simply wouldn't be doable on GCN.

It doesn't need to output in HD for it to be HD.
For example... You can take ANY old Xbox 360 and use crappy old component,  the Xbox 360 is still rendering internally at say... 720P, but the output image quality is only going to be 480P.
From a resolution perspective alone, the Gamecube can render Star Fox Zero just fine and output it just fine.

Converesly the same thing happens on the Xbox One... You could have a game running at 1080P and if your panel is only 720P, the game is still being rendered at 1080P, but it gets downscaled after the rendering.

Let's not forget either that resolution is a pretty arbitrary term, most people usually associate it to the pixel count of the final rendered image when in fact games are built from assets of all different resolutions. I.E. Textures with 1024x1024 resolution, light shafts that are 1280x720 when the game is being output to 1920x1080.




--::{PC Gaming Master Race}::--

Pemalite said:
curl-6 said:

I never said resolution was an effect. But Gamecube can't output HD, and Zero is HD, therefore by that criteria alone, it couldn't be done on Gamecube.

I agree with you that TEV punched above its weight, and games like Rogue Squadron 2/3, Mario Galaxy 1/2, Jett Rocket, etc, showed that it could produce very nice results. But ultimately it just wouldn't be able to produce the kind of shader usage we see in Starfox Zero. You could downgrade it and replace the shaders with simpler TEV equivalents, but in its current form, the game simply wouldn't be doable on GCN.

It doesn't need to output in HD for it to be HD.
For example... You can take ANY old Xbox 360 and use crappy old component,  the Xbox 360 is still rendering internally at say... 720P, but the output image quality is only going to be 480P.
From a resolution perspective alone, the Gamecube can render Star Fox Zero just fine and output it just fine.

Converesly the same thing happens on the Xbox One... You could have a game running at 1080P and if your panel is only 720P, the game is still being rendered at 1080P, but it gets downscaled after the rendering.

Let's not forget either that resolution is a pretty arbitrary term, most people usually associate it to the pixel count of the final rendered image when in fact games are built from assets of all different resolutions. I.E. Textures with 1024x1024 resolution, light shafts that are 1280x720 when the game is being output to 1920x1080.

Let's be realistic here; Gamecube couldn't even run Starfox Zero at 480p. Even if it had been capable of HD output, which is was not, Gamecube simply did not have the necessary graphics hardware to run a game with this kind of graphical makeup.

Let's not kid ourselves; we are talking putting a game built for hardware with 1GB of RAM and a better-than-PS360 GPU onto a system with 40MB of RAM and a worse-than-original-Xbox GPU. Yeah, I know its fun to exaggerate the game's graphical drawbacks, but calling this "Gamecube graphics" is a factually incorrect statement. 



Bet with Liquidlaser: I say PS5 and Xbox Series will sell more than 56 million combined by the end of 2023.

Around the Network
daredevil.shark said:
Despite a game looking visually ugly some people have taken a mission to prove this game looks good. And when visual comparisons are made they run and hide under the shield of gameplay. Lol. How lower the standards have fallen overall gamers and the thread quality of this site. When we can see the truth people will just shut their eyes. Well then. Back to other site. Since common logic won't work here (at least at current situation).

Please, watch this video gameplay, BUT, watch it calmly, paying close attention to textures, lighting, ambiance... think about it running at 50~60 fps on gamepad and TV, maybe you can fell it if you watch in 720phd resolution >

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rziicW7tzvQ

Now, tell me, with all this action going on in real time, exploring almost all graphical console capabilities, specific shaders... Do you really think it's ugly? I'm sorry, I think we have a problem of concepts or definitions of what is beautiful , I mean, of course there are lots of games with different artistic directions that may looks better for you, but it doesn't mean this game is ugly. To my eyes it looks amazing, better than Hyrule Warriors or Twilight Princess HD. About the comparison, c'mon, in my opinion people are joking or being stingy, lol... It can't be serious compare those games to SF0. Wrongs!



ThisanmU said:
daredevil.shark said:
Despite a game looking visually ugly some people have taken a mission to prove this game looks good. And when visual comparisons are made they run and hide under the shield of gameplay. Lol. How lower the standards have fallen overall gamers and the thread quality of this site. When we can see the truth people will just shut their eyes. Well then. Back to other site. Since common logic won't work here (at least at current situation).

Please, watch this video gameplay, BUT, watch it calmly, paying close attention to textures, lighting, ambiance... think about it running at 50~60 fps on gamepad and TV, maybe you can fell it if you watch in 720phd resolution >

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rziicW7tzvQ

Now, tell me, with all this action going on in real time, exploring almost all graphical console capabilities, specific shaders... Do you really think it's ugly? I'm sorry, I think we have a problem of concepts or definitions of what is beautiful , I mean, of course there are lots of games with different artistic directions that may looks better for you, but it doesn't mean this game is ugly. To my eyes it looks amazing, better than Hyrule Warriors or Twilight Princess HD. About the comparison, c'mon, in my opinion people are joking or being stingy, lol... It can't be serious compare those games to SF0. Wrongs!

First of all, if you are an alt (which is likely), get a life. There are lots of nice things to do in life instead of being an alt in a forum. Lol.

Second of all, the game looks like shit. A PS2 era game in 720p resolution. Compared to ratchet and clank visuals looks like boring, uninspired and cheap game. An yeah. My eyes are also ok. If a game looks bad I don't pretend that it's good only because it's in my preferred system. OP also knows it and indirectly acknowledged in his post.

- Moderated, Carl



Kirin_gaming said:
The game does indeed look better.Just a question...Why do you have to shoot the giant robot directly into his butt?

Shoot his weak spot for massive damage.



KLAMarine said:
Gameplay, gameplay, gameplay. That is all.

This! People often forgets for what games are made for ;) They are made to be played and not to be watched :D



daredevil.shark said:
ThisanmU said:

Please, watch this video gameplay, BUT, watch it calmly, paying close attention to textures, lighting, ambiance... think about it running at 50~60 fps on gamepad and TV, maybe you can fell it if you watch in 720phd resolution >

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rziicW7tzvQ

Now, tell me, with all this action going on in real time, exploring almost all graphical console capabilities, specific shaders... Do you really think it's ugly? I'm sorry, I think we have a problem of concepts or definitions of what is beautiful , I mean, of course there are lots of games with different artistic directions that may looks better for you, but it doesn't mean this game is ugly. To my eyes it looks amazing, better than Hyrule Warriors or Twilight Princess HD. About the comparison, c'mon, in my opinion people are joking or being stingy, lol... It can't be serious compare those games to SF0. Wrongs!

First of all, if you are an alt (which is likely), get a life. There are lots of nice things to do in life instead of being an alt in a forum. Lol.

Second of all, the game looks like shit. A PS2 era game in 720p resolution. Compared to ratchet and clank visuals looks like boring, uninspired and cheap game. An yeah. My eyes are also ok. If a game looks bad I don't pretend that it's good only because it's in my preferred system. OP also knows it and indirectly acknowledged in his post.

And why should we be comparing one of the very best looking 30fps games of Ps4 with a 60fps one on the WiiU moving 2 screens at once? Most Ps4 games dont look as good as R&C to begging with, why a game on a substantially inferior hardware with higher framerate and the dual screen setup should?

And yeah Ps2, some of you really love hyperboles or just have a terrible memory.