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

Forums - Nintendo - Does Metroid Prime 3 REALLY have that much worse graphics than HD games?

outlawauron on 31 December 2008

It does look worse than most (if not all) HD games, but that's to be expected.



"We'll toss the dice however they fall,
And snuggle the girls be they short or tall,
Then follow young Mat whenever he calls,
To dance with Jak o' the Shadows."

Check out MyAnimeList and my Game Collection. Owner of the 5 millionth post.

Around the Network
Snake612 on 31 December 2008

Well, I got the chance to play Metroid Prime at Gamestop once. Ihave to say the graphics are pretty decent for a game on the Wii.



TO GOD BE THE GLORY

Slavedemonxi on 31 December 2008

I can't stand graphics whores. Metroid Prime 3 doesn't look as good as an HD game, but it looks amazingly good, the game is beautiful. Anyway, sucks for him, this game is amazing. It's one of the best games i've played this gen.



~Currently Playing Zelda: Phantom Hourglass, Uncharted, Ratchet and Clank: FTOD, and Resistance: Retribution~

--OkeyDokey-- on 31 December 2008
TWRoO said:
--OkeyDokey-- said:
I think it looks fine. Parts of it are genuinely impressive, even by today's standards.

But to answer the question in the thread titles: yes. Graphics have taken a HUGE leap forward this gen (well, 2/3rds of this gen..)

Were you not around for the transistion between 5th and 6th gen, or even greater, 4th and 5th gen?

 

Where in my post did I say biggest generational leap in graphics ever?



hsrob on 31 December 2008

Prime looks awesome. Of course not as technically sound as most/all HD games but as everyone has said the art style is incredible and it runs silky smooth.

Also anyone who's judging it from screenshots needs to go and play the game. Prime games have nevered looked good in screenshots, in fact they have tended to look particularly bad, not really sure why.



Around the Network
TWRoO on 31 December 2008
--OkeyDokey-- said:
TWRoO said:
--OkeyDokey-- said:
I think it looks fine. Parts of it are genuinely impressive, even by today's standards.

But to answer the question in the thread titles: yes. Graphics have taken a HUGE leap forward this gen (well, 2/3rds of this gen..)

Were you not around for the transistion between 5th and 6th gen, or even greater, 4th and 5th gen?

 

Where in my post did I say biggest generational leap in graphics ever?

It is implied.

The word "Huge" coupled with "this gen" gives only a few other comparative leaps, those being the leaps between previous generations.... if the leap this gen is smaller than other generations then it kind of stops it being huge.

 



Griffin on 31 December 2008
TWRoO said:
--OkeyDokey-- said:
TWRoO said:
--OkeyDokey-- said:
I think it looks fine. Parts of it are genuinely impressive, even by today's standards.

But to answer the question in the thread titles: yes. Graphics have taken a HUGE leap forward this gen (well, 2/3rds of this gen..)

Were you not around for the transistion between 5th and 6th gen, or even greater, 4th and 5th gen?

 

Where in my post did I say biggest generational leap in graphics ever?

It is implied.

The word "Huge" coupled with "this gen" gives only a few other comparative leaps, those being the leaps between previous generations.... if the leap this gen is smaller than other generations then it kind of stops it being huge.

 

I would be willing to say this gen has by far the greatest increase in graphics over the previous gen.   Look at GT4 to GT5p, 4k polys to 200k per car on average.   look at CoD on the PS2 compared to KZ2 on the PS3.

 



hsrob on 31 December 2008

^^I am not saying you are necessarily wrong but you are comparing last gen's weakest console to this gen's arguably stongest console.

Also most people forget there was also a resolution jump from the PS1 gen to the PS2 gen as many games in the PS1 era ran in 320*240. Furthemore, even lowballing Gamecubes poly count at 15 million/second, N64 apparently could only do about
150 000/second. That is purely from memory so i could be wrong but if they are right then at least from a numbers point of view it would make the jump at least comparable to this gen.



Oyvoyvoyv on 31 December 2008

Most people think FAD means For A Day. You're wrong. Other people (the ones you have called fanboys) knew it didn't mean that.

It meant

For A Decade

 

They were really praising the Wii, saying it had a 10-year plan.



http://www.vgchartz.com/games/userreviewdisp.php?id=261

That is VGChartz LONGEST review. And it's NOT Cute Kitten DS

fazz on 31 December 2008
hsrob said:
^^I am not saying you are necessarily wrong but you are comparing last gen's weakest console to this gen's arguably stongest console.

Also most people forget there was also a resolution jump from the PS1 gen to the PS2 gen as many games in the PS1 era ran in 320*240. Furthemore, even lowballing Gamecubes poly count at 15 million/second, N64 apparently could only do about
150 000/second. That is purely from memory so i could be wrong but if they are right then at least from a numbers point of view it would make the jump at least comparable to this gen.

Indeed. 100x the polygons + better textures, etc. in the case of N64 to GC.

Versus Xbox's 30M polygons against 360's 500M (raw), that means about 17x