TheRealMafoo said:
MadHatter said:
TheRealMafoo said:
MadHatter said:
DMeisterJ said:
The second and fourth pic are from the 360 version.
|
It's not possible to have such a big difference. Check how Mario&Sonic looks.
Do not panic! This difference is only because the 'wii' images are scans from second or third source material (who knows). Can you imagine how this quality would look if you stretch it to fill a TV screen? There will be a blur thing with no clarity at all. Even if the quality of Wii is lower than XB360 these small size images should look almost identical in this 72-dpi resolution.
|
Oh com on, are you saying that if the devs used all the power of the 360, and all the power of the Wii, they will get a game that looks the same?
In these screens the 360 looks a LOT better, and I am sure when the game comes out, it will look a lot better.
|
No, what I'm saying is that even if the XBox has higher resolution than the Wii, these SMALL SCREENSHOTS (at 72dpi - this is the resolution we have in our PC/MAC monitors) should look nearly the same - because after this resizing all the details would blend and the final image would look about the same, no matter if one of them came from a higher resolution...
|
It's not the resolution. It's the lighting, the textures. It's still very hard to make a video game look like real life, even at 300x300 resolution. That has nothing to do with pixel count, and everything to do with all the other effects needed to make things look great.
The 360 has more capability to do these other things (lighting, shaders, AA, etc)
|
The resolution and the quality of the scans is a huge factor. Sonic looks more fake in the HD version though. More plasticy.
Also, it has bee brought up multiple times that with the Wii (and GC's) custom programming (including shading), anti-aliasing is not necessary.
