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

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Rotten Graphics, is it the Wii's Fault, or Lazy Sloppy Programming?

NJ5 on 29 May 2008
RolStoppable said:

Wii graphics actually aren't that bad, if half of the screen is black and unused.

You're right, that must be why :P

 



My Mario Kart Wii friend code: 2707-1866-0957

Around the Network
Shameless on 29 May 2008
RolStoppable said:
NJ5 said:

Looks like Fatal Frame IV will have truly rotten graphics, just in a good way ;)


Wii graphics actually aren't that bad, if half of the screen is black and unused.

Why post psone screens in a Wii graphics thread!?



ToastyJaguar on 29 May 2008
NJ5 said:
ToastyJaguar said:
We all know the Wii isn't about graphics, but people keep on saying "look how good SMG looks", well to my eyes it looks only slightly better than Mario Sunshine.

So i don't know how good the graphics on the Wii can get but at the moment i'm not so optimistic.

Post the best Mario Sunshine screenshot you can find.

 


 

 

 

SMG looks only slightly better to my eyes. And i have also played both games




NJ5 on 29 May 2008
Shameless said:

Why post psone screens in a Wii graphics thread!?


Who said they're from psone? It's not the best Fatal Frame IV screenshot there is, and I think it's from a magazine scan which doesn't help, but it's not that bad...

 



My Mario Kart Wii friend code: 2707-1866-0957

LordTheNightKnight on 29 May 2008
ToastyJaguar said:
NJ5 said:
ToastyJaguar said:
We all know the Wii isn't about graphics, but people keep on saying "look how good SMG looks", well to my eyes it looks only slightly better than Mario Sunshine.

So i don't know how good the graphics on the Wii can get but at the moment i'm not so optimistic.

Post the best Mario Sunshine screenshot you can find.

 


 

 

 

SMG looks only slightly better to my eyes. And i have also played both games


Screencaps, not a compressed video. And your subjective opinion about TWO GAMES is not proof the Wii can't have great graphics. 



A flashy-first game is awesome when it comes out. A great-first game is awesome forever.

Plus, just for the hell of it: Kelly Brook at the 2008 BAFTAs

Around the Network
Viper1 on 29 May 2008
greenmedic88 said:
That is backwards thinking to say that the graphical quality of games is ultimately determined by the non-gaming stockholders.

If the stockholders in question are non-gamers, then they neither know, nor care about such technical aspects so long as the producing company continues to post profits and growth.

What next? Stockholders are ultimately the ones who determine how "fun" a given producer's games are?

No. It's the people playing and buying them who determine what sells, whether it's dreck or quality product. The companies are only responsible for keeping production costs in check and producing projects in time to maintain profitability. Stockholders will follow by investing in the companies with the strongest financials or most promising upcoming product line ups.

There are no "suicidal moves" being committed here if the games, regardless of how they look, or what demographic they're targeted at, continue to sell, even if they're being "snuck by" a less savvy demographic that isn't as discriminating about what they play so long as they're having fun. There is no dictating what a player/consumer enjoys playing.

You are correct, it is not the shareholders.  However, it is the publishers.   They fund the project, they determine the direction of the project.  

Publisher direction is the biggest cause of crapware in the entire industry.  They waltz in, lay down the money and proceed to tell the developer how THEY want the game. 

This doesn't mean they demand crappy graphics but they post impossible deadlines, underfund, alter development priorities and enforce TRC that at times just don't make sense.

 



The rEVOLution is not being televised

NJ5 on 29 May 2008

@ToastyJaguar: The shading effects, textures, lightning, bump mapping are much better than those in Sunshine...

If you can find me a single Mario Sunshine screenshot which comes close to these two, I'll admit you have a case.

 



My Mario Kart Wii friend code: 2707-1866-0957

Grampy on 29 May 2008
greenmedic88 said:
That is backwards thinking to say that the graphical quality of games is ultimately determined by the non-gaming stockholders.

If the stockholders in question are non-gamers, then they neither know, nor care about such technical aspects so long as the producing company continues to post profits and growth.

What next? Stockholders are ultimately the ones who determine how "fun" a given producer's games are?

No. It's the people playing and buying them who determine what sells, whether it's dreck or quality product. The companies are only responsible for keeping production costs in check and producing projects in time to maintain profitability. Stockholders will follow by investing in the companies with the strongest financials or most promising upcoming product line ups.

There are no "suicidal moves" being committed here if the games, regardless of how they look, or what demographic they're targeted at, continue to sell, even if they're being "snuck by" a less savvy demographic that isn't as discriminating about what they play so long as they're having fun. There is no dictating what a player/consumer enjoys playing.

That's very charmingly innocent of you to think that major stock holders are not aware of what's going on and don’t have an influence. Consumer influence is less than you think and is slow in developing. Did Toyota call you up and ask you what kind of car you wanted made next year? Nope, me neither. If I owned about 5 or 10% of their stock do you think they would keep me in the loop?

One thing investors look for is rapidly growing markets. One thing they hate is early fading (bad news for the Xbox). To an investor momentum is everything. They are always looking for a big wave to ride. You don’t stop current projects underway because you need to recoup the development costs. You do reevaluate future directions. Don’t think that process has started? Read between the lines. One game developer today said that there would not be any new high budget FPS in the future, because the market was too small. Hmm, which consoles practically live for big expensive FPS.

By this time next year we’ll be up to our eyeballs in fitness games because when you can move $89 games like cotton candy, it will be noticed. It is just sinking in that Nintendo games are multimillion sellers not just because of Mario. I don’t give a rat’s ass about cute Italian plumbers; I buy almost every Nintendo game because they play well and look good.

Miyamoto was interviewed and asked why 3rd party developers couldn’t compete with Nintendo. He said that it was obvious to them that most developers were putting in their third string team. He said Nintendo always used their first string. That pretty much matches my observations.

But don't take my word for it because you won’t anyway. Let's wait about six months and take another look. It will be a rather different landscape emerging.

 

 



LordTheNightKnight on 29 May 2008
RolStoppable said:
Viper1 said:

You are correct, it is not the shareholders. However, it is the publishers. They fund the project, they determine the direction of the project.

Publisher direction is the biggest cause of crapware in the entire industry. They waltz in, lay down the money and proceed to tell the developer how THEY want the game.

This doesn't mean they demand crappy graphics but they post impossible deadlines, underfund, alter development priorities and enforce TRC that at times just don't make sense.

Didn't the guys from High Voltage Software say that this is the reason they haven't chosen a publisher yet? Because they want to make the game like they have envisioned it.

Also, let's pretend for a second that I don't know what TRC means.


Tender, Roving Care? 



A flashy-first game is awesome when it comes out. A great-first game is awesome forever.

Plus, just for the hell of it: Kelly Brook at the 2008 BAFTAs

Viper1 on 29 May 2008
RolStoppable said:
Viper1 said:

You are correct, it is not the shareholders. However, it is the publishers. They fund the project, they determine the direction of the project.

Publisher direction is the biggest cause of crapware in the entire industry. They waltz in, lay down the money and proceed to tell the developer how THEY want the game.

This doesn't mean they demand crappy graphics but they post impossible deadlines, underfund, alter development priorities and enforce TRC that at times just don't make sense.

Didn't the guys from High Voltage Software say that this is the reason they haven't chosen a publisher yet? Because they want to make the game like they have envisioned it.

Also, let's pretend for a second that I don't know what TRC means.

Indeed that is exactly the case.

TRC = Technical Requirements Checklist.

This is given by the publisher or even the console maker to a developer.  It's a list of demands that must be included in the game.   If you don't meet the entire TRC, you don't get published or licensed to publish on their game system.

 



The rEVOLution is not being televised