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

Forums - Nintendo Discussion - ( PCWorld ) Why The Wii Needs an HD Visual Upgrade

blunty51 on 19 November 2009
Kasz216 said:
blunty51 said:
Kasz216 said:
blunty51 said:
Well I agree to be honest. He's not saying that gaming as a whole needs to be HD, but if you want to whine about why you're not getting these core, graphically-dependent franchises, then you need to beef up. You all won't admit it, but there are certain games out there that need good graphics. "Graphics isn't everything" is getting old. It is sometimes a necessary complement.

If there are there have yet to be any actual real examples given. 

Well it's subjective. For me, if we have a multiplatform game where the gameplay on the Wii doesn't benefit from motion controls, I can't help but feel like I'm cheating myself by playing the Wii version only. I mean if you have two of the same thing when one looks clearly better....why not go for it? At least that's the way I think

That's not even remotely close to your original post.

You said that certain games NEED good graphics.

You've fallen off that point now... and gone only with "Well it's exactly the same... it's better if it's clearer."

More often then not i'd pick up the HD version as well... but when it comes to FPS i'd take those on the Wii over HD any day.

The IR motion controls are so much more of an advantage then slightly more defined graphics.  Which is what it is, not really "clearer".

Well that is... assuming there isn't a PC version.  Since i'd get the PC version since MK is even better then IR pointer.



Really, your second post illustrates the matter though.  Graphics due matter... the only thing is.  They matter ONLY when all other things are equal. 

Which isn't really going to be the case real often.

The bolded alone there is the response to the previous post....I didn't want to elaborate there cuz it would have just boiled down to a matter of personal opinion and that would have been that. I went off rambling after that sorry if I didn't structure it to make it seem like two separate points...

edit: In my opinion FPSs on Wii kinda trumps HD as well. It's only if the immersion level is really set by the environment, explosions, physics, etc, that I might choose the HD version. (eg. Red faction guerilla) But yes, I'd take a PC version anyday over the others.



Around the Network
LordTheNightKnight on 19 November 2009
blunty51 said:
LordTheNightKnight said:
blunty51 said:
Well I agree to be honest. He's not saying that gaming as a whole needs to be HD, but if you want to whine about why you're not getting these core, graphically-dependent franchises, then you need to beef up. You all won't admit it, but there are certain games out there that need good graphics. "Graphics isn't everything" is getting old. It is sometimes a necessary complement.

That comment assumes we are claiming graphics are irrelevant, which is untrue.

And the claim about getting all the games isn't true either. They could have suppoted the GC far more, and very few games from that gen couldn't have worked with multiple discs. Developers aren't going to flock to the Wii HD. They just want Nintendo to stop proving them wrong about HD being the obvious future of gaming.

Ok I'm glad you cleared that up.

But didn't the GC get more support for multiplatform games? Splinter cell, dead to rights, resident evil, metal gear solid, final fantasy, killer7, soul caliber, prince of persia, burnout, turok, hulk....some of these franchises won't find the light of day on the wii now unless it's some dumbed down port that might get bad reviews...

First of all, the reviews have mattered less on the Wii as the other systems. Check out user score discrepencies with regard to Wii games.

Second, the GC didn't get as much as it could have. Splinter Cell was based off the PS2 version, when it could have handled the Xbox version (or at least something closer to it). Metal Gear Solid was a remake on the GC, not a multiplatform game. Final Fantasy wasn't a multiplatform series until XIII; Crystal Chronicles was an exclusive action adventure game, which Ctystal Bearers still is. Soul Calibur only got the second game, when the third game was dropped from multiplatform. Killer 7 was going to be GC exclusive, so became multiplatform in detriment to the Wii (although was a niche game anyway), same with RE4 (which wasn't niche).

Third, being dumbed down only matters if the game has something the Wii can't handle as well, like as many AI enemies. Modern Warfare shows that isn't the case. The  main reviewers are calling that dumbed down more for spite than any flaws in the game.



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

noname2200 on 19 November 2009
theRepublic said:

Article said:

Games like Assassin's Creed 2 or Modern Warfare 2 almost depend on higher-definition visuals. When you're rendering complex 3D environments like gutted war zones in Iraq or full-fledged Italian Renaissance cities and asking players to keep track of multiple objects in those environments, visual clarity--in particular, clarity at great distances--becomes advantageous, verging on paramount. Assassin's Creed 2 doesn't render complex landscapes to drain performance budgets or high-five videophiles.

I call bullshit.  Here is the proof: http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2009/07/half-of-next-gen-console-owners-are-playing-on-standard-def-tvs/
Half Of Next-Gen Console Owners Are Playing On Standard-Def TVs

It’s easy for those of us with HDTVs to forget that not everyone has them yet. And Epic’s Mark Rein’s stat that over half of Gears of War 2 players played it on an SDTV really brings that home.

If you’re wondering why Microsoft and Sony are going to drag this current generation of consoles out for as long as possible, look no further than this:

Over half the users who played Gears of War 2 so far do not have HDTVs…My point is, of the systems that are out there now, the majority of them aren’t plugged into HDTVs. So there’s no way we’re ready for the PlayStation 4 or the Xbox Whatever.

That's a good response, but a better would would be this:

It gets hard to buy that certain games are "not possible" on the Wii when they apparently "are possible" on the PSP. Which is especially odd since the PSP's software sales are far beyond pathetic, but whatever.



blunty51 on 19 November 2009

^^ It DID get some poor reviews to be fair..



blunty51 on 19 November 2009
LordTheNightKnight said:

First of all, the reviews have mattered less on the Wii as the other systems. Check out user score discrepencies with regard to Wii games.

Second, the GC didn't get as much as it could have. Splinter Cell was based off the PS2 version, when it could have handled the Xbox version (or at least something closer to it). Metal Gear Solid was a remake on the GC, not a multiplatform game. Final Fantasy wasn't a multiplatform series until XIII; Crystal Chronicles was an exclusive action adventure game, which Ctystal Bearers still is. Soul Calibur only got the second game, when the third game was dropped from multiplatform. Killer 7 was going to be GC exclusive, so became multiplatform in detriment to the Wii (although was a niche game anyway), same with RE4 (which wasn't niche).

Third, being dumbed down only matters if the game has something the Wii can't handle as well, like as many AI enemies. Modern Warfare shows that isn't the case. The  main reviewers are calling that dumbed down more for spite than any flaws in the game.

 

Yup, I agree. But, can we also agree that if the Wii had horsepower along the same lines of the HD systems, it would have dramatically increased the chances of a multiplat game being released on it? This is in line with the OP of course. They might still have the 3rd party syndrome, but at least the port would have been a bit more up to mark, and no publishers/devs would have the excuses they have now. I guess they'll go back to the 'this can't sell on a nintendo platform' saying.



Around the Network
LordTheNightKnight on 19 November 2009
blunty51 said:
LordTheNightKnight said:

First of all, the reviews have mattered less on the Wii as the other systems. Check out user score discrepencies with regard to Wii games.

Second, the GC didn't get as much as it could have. Splinter Cell was based off the PS2 version, when it could have handled the Xbox version (or at least something closer to it). Metal Gear Solid was a remake on the GC, not a multiplatform game. Final Fantasy wasn't a multiplatform series until XIII; Crystal Chronicles was an exclusive action adventure game, which Ctystal Bearers still is. Soul Calibur only got the second game, when the third game was dropped from multiplatform. Killer 7 was going to be GC exclusive, so became multiplatform in detriment to the Wii (although was a niche game anyway), same with RE4 (which wasn't niche).

Third, being dumbed down only matters if the game has something the Wii can't handle as well, like as many AI enemies. Modern Warfare shows that isn't the case. The  main reviewers are calling that dumbed down more for spite than any flaws in the game.

 

Yup, I agree. But, can we also agree that if the Wii had horsepower along the same lines of the HD systems, it would have dramatically increased the chances of a multiplat game being released on it? This is in line with the OP of course. They might still have the 3rd party syndrome, but at least the port would have been a bit more up to mark, and no publishers/devs would have the excuses they have now. I guess they'll go back to the 'this can't sell on a nintendo platform' saying.

The thing is even though the next Nintendo system will likely handle all those games, I doubt developers will flood it with the games the Wii should have had.



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

blunty51 on 19 November 2009

^^ sounds like what Malstrom was saying



theRepublic on 19 November 2009

@noname2200

Good point. I didn't even know that game existed.



Switch Code: SW-7377-9189-3397 -- Nintendo Network ID: theRepublic -- Steam ID: theRepublic

Now Playing
Switch - Super Mario Maker 2 (2019)
Switch - The Legend of Zelda: Link's Awakening (2019)
Switch - Bastion (2011/2018)
3DS - Star Fox 64 3D (2011)
3DS - Phoenix Wright: Ace Attorney (Trilogy) (2005/2014)
Wii U - Darksiders: Warmastered Edition (2010/2017)
Mobile - The Simpson's Tapped Out and Yugioh Duel Links
PC - Deep Rock Galactic (2020)

Smidlee on 19 November 2009
noname2200 said:
 

That's a good response, but a better would would be this:

It gets hard to buy that certain games are "not possible" on the Wii when they apparently "are possible" on the PSP. Which is especially odd since the PSP's software sales are far beyond pathetic, but whatever.

First, it's not the same game which happen to take a hit in the reviews compared to AC2.

 Nothing about something been impossible  but the statement was

"Games like Assassin's Creed 2 or Modern Warfare 2 almost depend on higher-definition visuals"

 Notice the word "almost." as someone mention you can play PS3/360 on a SDTV. It's just like PC games has a minimum system requirements and a recommended system requirements. 

 There is a huge improvement when I play Forza 3 on a HDTV compared when I played it on SDTV. It's not just about graphics it's about resolution. The better the resolution the better I can see farther ahead up the road. Now something like Mario Kart  with all the colors in the rainbow SDTV is fine but with a sim like Forza 3 it almost depends  on higher resolution.



noname2200 on 19 November 2009
Smidlee said:

First, it's not the same game which happen to take a hit in the reviews compared to AC2.

I'll stipulate to that if you'll stipulate that Ubisoft has demonstrated more willingness to move the franchise to the weaker-in-nearly-every-way PSP than to the more powerful and successful Wii.

Smidlee said:

 Nothing about something been impossible  but the statement was

"Games like Assassin's Creed 2 or Modern Warfare 2 almost depend on higher-definition visuals"

 Notice the word "almost." as someone mention you can play PS3/360 on a SDTV. It's just like PC games has a minimum system requirements and a recommended system requirements.

Yes, I noted the weasel word. I also noted that the author is clearly arguing in a manner that makes the "almost" meaningless.

The article said:

"When you're rendering complex 3D environments like gutted war zones in Iraq or full-fledged Italian Renaissance cities and asking players to keep track of multiple objects in those environments, visual clarity--in particular, clarity at great distances--becomes advantageous, verging on paramount."

The article said:

Assassin's Creed 2 doesn't render complex landscapes to drain performance budgets or high-five videophiles. Every square meter of the game's been carefully crafted with discrete game mechanics in mind...Spying any of this stuff without poring over buildings or other structures up close and personal requires visuals crisp enough to let you pick out arm-sized objects four or five rooftops over.

The article said:

Dealing with enemies benefits from spying whether distant rooftop guards are packing bows or swords--drop the resolution to 480p and the same guards become indistinct, jaggy blurs.

The article said:

Point is, visual clarity affects gameplay in measurable ways. That gets lost in kerfuffles over polygon and pixel counts as contests of muscularity. The corrective requires thinking about gameplay in a more broadly spatial and perceptive sense, then thinking about reaction time in terms of an environment's visual intelligibility.

The article said:

...it'll probably dog arguments to port games like Assassin's Creed 2 and Modern Warfare 2 over until Nintendo recognizes that HD-gaming is more than just aesthetic fluff and antes up.

It's a common rhetorical technique to dance on the edge of a conclusion, hoping that your reader will fall over said edge, while still leaving yourself enough wiggle room to plausibly say "that's not what I said!" In this case, I applaud the author: he walked the fine line VERY well. Nevertheless, his argument is clearly stated: he is saying that HD visuals are "verging on paramount" and that "visual clarity affects gameplay in measurable ways." According to the author the lack of HD "dog[s] arguments to port games like Assassin's Creed 2."

However, this does not prevent Ubisoft from making a similar game for the weaker PSP, while ignoring the Wii. And note that Reggie isn't asking for direct ports of games like Assassin's Creed 2: his direct quote is the he wants "this type of content."

Smidlee said:

 There is a huge improvement when I play Forza 3 on a HDTV compared when I played it on SDTV. It's not just about graphics it's about resolution. The better the resolution the better I can see farther ahead up the road. Now something like Mario Kart  with all the colors in the rainbow SDTV is fine but with a sim like Forza 3 it almost depends  on higher resolution.

Forza 3 can't be played on SDTV's? Ah, you said also "almost." In that case, it doesn't depend on higer resolutions, and thus CAN be done in Standard Definition. Glad we (and that includes the article's author) agree!