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

Forums - Nintendo - Why doesn't Nintendo make a game that looks like Uncharted 2/3??

 

What do you think?

You're an idiot, Breath ... 96 43.05%
 
#720p Master Race 32 14.35%
 
whoooo lets the dogs out? WHO? WHOHOWHO? 28 12.56%
 
Oddysey? Lost Legacy? I c... 15 6.73%
 
Mark Serony is busy, call... 13 5.83%
 
Knack. 39 17.49%
 
Total:223
HoangNhatAnh on 27 October 2017
Dr.Vita said:

Because these games are far better than what Nintendo is capable of.

Yeah, all Sony games including Knack are GOTY with 99-100 on metacritic,everyone who don't see that have mental issue 



Around the Network
HoangNhatAnh on 27 October 2017
betacon said:
Mnementh said:
Why doesn't Sony makes a game with great gameplay like Zelda?

Did Zelda have great game play? Design sure but I'd say the combat system was damn right awful.

Exactly, Zelda wish to have the physics flexible good as half as Horizon 



Carl on 27 October 2017

The simple answer is because they don't need to.



                            

HoangNhatAnh on 27 October 2017
StreaK said:
There's no question that Uncharted 2 still technically looks better than BotW...just goes to show ya the kind of people that are on here hahah.

Yeah, Uncharted 2 is a big world with a lot physics combined with any action while Zelda is just a small world with typical Zelda gameplay. Zelda should learn from Uncharted 2 to have a world at least big as half as Uncharted 2



Kai_Mao on 27 October 2017
DonFerrari said:
Miyamotoo said:

8x more memory is just one point (for games is actualy 6x more RAM), fact is taht GPU is much stronger even if you look just through numbers (but comparing buy numbers tech/architecture with hole decade difference doesn't make any sense) and add to that difference in tech/architecture (PS3 GPU  tech/architecture is from 2004/2005. while Switch GPU  tech/architecture is from 2015.), and at end with all points difrence is around 3x. Thats not true, PS3 CPU is better than PS4 in just some operations, but offcourse that PS4 is much more capable, newer and much more efficient GPU for modern games than PS3 CPU from 10 years ago. I dont need to go back, we have specs in front of us. Switch is around 3x stronger than Switch and PS4 is around 3x stronger than Switch, with difference that PS4 and Switch both have new tech/architecture and support for all modern engines and APIs compared to PS3.

Of Course, just look previous 3D Zelda and previous 3D Mario, but they cant have exactly technical side when they have weaker hardware.

Thats wha I said, Nintendo sticked to cartoons graphics even when they had stronger hardware (GC for instance).

So you can't use the reviewers giving good scores to Nintendo as a way to say Nintendo games have great graphics or that graphics doesn't matter (because for PC, PS and Xbox they are sure to take out score on graphics) it is more like that reviewers give a free pass to these games and change the scope of evaluation.

I think reviewers take a game's graphics for what they are instead of what they could've been, at I would like to think that. Just because the graphics aren't as clean or as enhanced or as realistic as other games in stronger hardware, doesn't mean the scores have to be significantly changed. It doesn't make a game like Mario 3D World an 8 compared to UC4 getting a 9 or something just because, technically, UC4 looks better. I mean, Sonic Mania has been praised from the heavens in 2017 and in a technical sense, its within the style of 16-bit Sonic/Sonic CD, games that were released in the 90s. Just because a game like Mario Odyssey, BotW, Splatoon, etc. aren't great looking games on a technical standpoint compared to say Uncharted 4, Last Guardian, The Witcher 3, Final Fantasy XV, etc., doesn't mean they aren't great to look at in general. I think Odyssey looks incredible, both in presentation and in gameplay, and I've played games like Uncharted, Overwatch, Gears of War, Street Fighter, and the what not. If you don't think so, then that's fine; you judge it the way you want to judge the game. If you think games like Odyssey or BotW should be docked significantly just because, technically and graphically, they aren't up to par to Titanfall, Uncharted, Overwatch, etc., then more power to you.



Around the Network
DonFerrari on 27 October 2017
HoangNhatAnh said:
Dr.Vita said:

Because these games are far better than what Nintendo is capable of.

Yeah, all Sony games including Knack are GOTY with 99-100 on metacritic,everyone who don't see that have mental issue 

Knack is the only Sony game that deserve 100.

And you are confunding graphical prowess with game quality. So your retort is completely out of point.

HoangNhatAnh said:
StreaK said:
There's no question that Uncharted 2 still technically looks better than BotW...just goes to show ya the kind of people that are on here hahah.

Yeah, Uncharted 2 is a big world with a lot physics combined with any action while Zelda is just a small world with typical Zelda gameplay. Zelda should learn from Uncharted 2 to have a world at least big as half as Uncharted 2

You are taking things to personally and emotive.

The size of the world have basically no relevance with the physics. And not to come here and piss on the emptiness of Zelda world or that if you were to pick the variety of scenarios and the time to finish on linear gameplay, what would be the world size of an Uncharted.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

HoangNhatAnh on 27 October 2017
DonFerrari said:
Miyamotoo said:

First Ratchet and Clank on PS4 is 30 FPS game, Odyssey is almost locked 60 FPS, so you obviously have different priorities with those two games. Nintendo were always making more cartoonish games, even when they had stronger hardware (for instance GC), so saying that Nintendo is making cartoonish games just to hide shortcomings of HW is totally wrong. I mean Switch is several times stronger than PS3, so if they wanted they could easily make more realistic game.

The game is 30 fps by choice. Because even if they choose 60fps they would still have more HW prowess than Switch (and obviously WiiU). Because R&C came at the time WiiU was the main Nintendo HW.

Switch should be stronger than PS360 (many times? Not at all, even PS4 isn't much more than 5-6x stronger than it), yet any game Nintendo make for realism today would have to compare to PS4Pro and X1X, and on that they would be a lot behind and besides they not having experience the HW limitations would be an issue. But since Nintendo fans say graphics aren't important, so a UC2 level of graphic would already be plenty satisfactory on Switch.

On Nintendo doing more cartoonish, that depends. They done what would be the best possible at the time. And Donkey Kong and Killer Instinct at SNES were "photorealistic" approach allowed at the time. So for before 3D and the first 3D gen there really wasn't much anyone could do to push photorealism. I remember that when PS2 came the thing everyone was looking at was cellshaded and how some fighting games were looking almost as good as their anime version.

From GC forward it was already possible, but Nintendo stick to their gun for one they are more proficient on cartoony, it cost less. demand less and all other things that can make people come to VGC of all places and because they preffer cartoon or like Nintendo games more put a comparison on the graphic level.

Sorry but most Nintendo games I see have very blend textures, they look colorfull and vibrant, but very little detail compared to the other platforms. And that is why I mentioned RC. Besides the 30fps not bothering me at all.

Switch is 393 GFLOPS when docked with 1 GFLOPS Tegra is 30% faster than 1 GFLOPS ARM. Switch can run Unreal Engine 4, PS3 is not but i think PS3 is around as Switch power because you said so



DonFerrari on 27 October 2017
Kai_Mao said:
DonFerrari said:

So you can't use the reviewers giving good scores to Nintendo as a way to say Nintendo games have great graphics or that graphics doesn't matter (because for PC, PS and Xbox they are sure to take out score on graphics) it is more like that reviewers give a free pass to these games and change the scope of evaluation.

I think reviewers take a game's graphics for what they are instead of what they could've been, at I would like to think that. Just because the graphics aren't as clean or as enhanced or as realistic as other games in stronger hardware, doesn't mean the scores have to be significantly changed. It doesn't make a game like Mario 3D World an 8 compared to UC4 getting a 9 or something just because, technically, UC4 looks better. I mean, Sonic Mania has been praised from the heavens in 2017 and in a technical sense, its within the style of 16-bit Sonic/Sonic CD, games that were released in the 90s. Just because a game like Mario Odyssey, BotW, Splatoon, etc. aren't great looking games on a technical standpoint compared to say Uncharted 4, Last Guardian, The Witcher 3, Final Fantasy XV, etc., doesn't mean they aren't great to look at in general. I think Odyssey looks incredible, both in presentation and in gameplay, and I've played games like Uncharted, Overwatch, Gears of War, Street Fighter, and the what not. If you don't think so, then that's fine; you judge it the way you want to judge the game. If you think games like Odyssey or BotW should be docked significantly just because, technically and graphically, they aren't up to par to Titanfall, Uncharted, Overwatch, etc., then more power to you.

The issue on that is the complete lack of standard for reviewers.

To ignore all the shortcomings in the Nintendo games to them bitch and moan on the other games is obtuse. Also on the "what could have been", a lot of reviewers don't evaluate what the game is or try to accomplish, but what they wanted the game to achieve. Both aren't present when they give plethora of high scores for some Nintendo games.

On the case of BTOW it became so ridiculous that some reviewers pointed to several down points on the game, with severe criticism, and still gave a 10. Not a 9.5 (like, it is almost perfect, but have these big issues) but a 10. And for other games they will pick minor nitpicks and down the score to 80. In both cases "because of reasons". And that is why it's useless to discuss reviewers. Same on discussing GOTYs. A game can win the "game of the year" award on the platform and lose on the category it represents for a game that is on the same platform.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

DonFerrari on 27 October 2017
HoangNhatAnh said:
DonFerrari said:

The game is 30 fps by choice. Because even if they choose 60fps they would still have more HW prowess than Switch (and obviously WiiU). Because R&C came at the time WiiU was the main Nintendo HW.

Switch should be stronger than PS360 (many times? Not at all, even PS4 isn't much more than 5-6x stronger than it), yet any game Nintendo make for realism today would have to compare to PS4Pro and X1X, and on that they would be a lot behind and besides they not having experience the HW limitations would be an issue. But since Nintendo fans say graphics aren't important, so a UC2 level of graphic would already be plenty satisfactory on Switch.

On Nintendo doing more cartoonish, that depends. They done what would be the best possible at the time. And Donkey Kong and Killer Instinct at SNES were "photorealistic" approach allowed at the time. So for before 3D and the first 3D gen there really wasn't much anyone could do to push photorealism. I remember that when PS2 came the thing everyone was looking at was cellshaded and how some fighting games were looking almost as good as their anime version.

From GC forward it was already possible, but Nintendo stick to their gun for one they are more proficient on cartoony, it cost less. demand less and all other things that can make people come to VGC of all places and because they preffer cartoon or like Nintendo games more put a comparison on the graphic level.

Sorry but most Nintendo games I see have very blend textures, they look colorfull and vibrant, but very little detail compared to the other platforms. And that is why I mentioned RC. Besides the 30fps not bothering me at all.

Switch is 393 GFLOPS when docked with 1 GFLOPS Tegra is 30% faster than 1 GFLOPS ARM. Switch can run Unreal Engine 4, PS3 is not but i think PS3 is around as Switch power because you said so

Anyone here saying PS3 = Switch? Are you high or what?

The discussion is PS4 being 10x higher than PS3 and/or Switch being 3x over PS3. From being equal to being 3x over is a lot of room don't you think?



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

HoangNhatAnh on 27 October 2017
DonFerrari said:
HoangNhatAnh said:

Switch is 393 GFLOPS when docked with 1 GFLOPS Tegra is 30% faster than 1 GFLOPS ARM. Switch can run Unreal Engine 4, PS3 is not but i think PS3 is around as Switch power because you said so

Anyone here saying PS3 = Switch? Are you high or what?

The discussion is PS4 being 10x higher than PS3 and/or Switch being 3x over PS3. From being equal to being 3x over is a lot of room don't you think?

I think it's limited and Knack is the best thing ever happen on the Earth, anyone don't play it have no right to play any game. A miracle that can change fate of people, everyone including non-Sony fans love it a lot more than their family