The Wii does have good graphics; it just takes a lot of work to make its games look good, but it is nowhere near the graphical capabilities of the other two consoles. No matter what High Voltage says, the Conduit won't look better than Halo.
ill never be wow'ed by wii graphics in the technical aspects, but theres no reason why wii games cant have great art styles.
LoG-Sacrament
This. Really, the technicalgraphical abilityof the Wii matters far less than the art style of the individual games, which is not entirely dictated by processing power. Several games are good looking thanks to the talent of the graphic designers, and I never understood the obsession with ultra-high resolution or stuff like that. Maybe "realistic" graphics are not so much my thing.
The only graphics i like on the wii are Metroid and Galaxy! All the other games have horrible graphics!
AmayaPapaya
I don't know. Rune Factory Frontier and Punch-Out!! have nice art styles, and Muramasa: The Demon Blade looks to be pretty as well. I thinkmany Wii fanstend to be overly prejudiced towards first-party games over others.
But Wii games SHOULD look somewhrere right in the middle between Last Gen and Next Gen. Which only a few games fill this spot. Spacificly, Mario Galaxy, Metroid Corruption, and soon to be the Conduit.
I judge graphics relative to the system they're on. So, the wii can have bad graphics but I think that there are some nice games all things considered.
I think that games like Super Mario Galaxy, Punch Out, SSB:Brawl show what the Wii can do. Probably the best graphics you can have designed for a standard480iTV.
Unfortunatly for now only 1st party games seem to be doing something with the hardware. The Wii seems to suffer from PS2itis in a much more serious way than the Xbox and the GC suffered. Game developers just make their new games and ports in the same PS2 engines they were using years ago, looking for a faster profit i'd say.
I hope this year and next Wii will get cured and recover :P thanks to a new wave of 3rd partygames like The Conduit or Red Steel 2 designed with it's hardware in mind. Also hope that EA will notice how good Grand Slam Tennis and Tiger Woods are selling compared to the other systems and bring us new better games from other genres... hum... knowing EA maybe i am hoping too much lol :P
The Wii's graphics would look great so long as everyone wasn't comparing them to the PS3 and 360.
A concept that too many morons are incapable of comprehending is that just because another system's graphics are better doesn't mean that the first system's graphics are bad.
Wii can't produce games with 'good' graphics (mostly referred to photorealism), but like Team Fortress 2 on the PC it has many games with a nice art design such as Zelda, SMG, SSBB, ect.
just to be clear.... the topic is "who thinks the wii has good graphics" not "who thinks the wii has better graphics than ps3/360" so fanboys, stop comparing... and yes, i do think they're good....
They're good, but not outstanding. I personally am more concerned about art direction and style rather than realism, and the Wii has a lot of artsy looking games--which I love. The Wii has some really great looking games, and they are under-rated, but I'm not going to argue that it can compete with the PS3 and 360 in the graphics department, because it can't.
just to be clear.... the topic is "who thinks the wii has good graphics" not "who thinks the wii has better graphics than ps3/360" so fanboys, stop comparing... and yes, i do think they're good....
The Wii's graphics would look great so long as everyone wasn't comparing them to the PS3 and 360. A concept that too many morons are incapable of comprehending is that just because another system's graphics are better doesn't mean that the first system's graphics are bad.
That is a completely blank statement. The Atari 2600 didn't have "bad" graphics... I mean, as long as you aren't comparing it to anything... right? First of all, whether or not graphics are "good" or "bad" is wholly subjective. It is totally within logic and reason for a 360 fan to say that the Wii has "bad" graphics. It is not, however, within logic or reason for someone to call anybody a moron just because they did not agree subjectively with them. Second of all, the issue of graphics is often used in comparison. You can't determine whether or not the graphics are good or bad without comparing them to something. It makes no sense. The graphics are good. Well, what is bad? Often times, we make up a comparison in our heads. When the 360 fanboys say that the Wii has horrible graphics, they are comparing it to the 360 even though they don't say it. When we say that the Wii has "okay" graphics, we are comparing it to the 360/PS3 or even the PS2/GC/XBox, and have determined for ourselves that the difference between the Wii and the graphics that we have previously enjoyed is insignificant. It's like food critics, they can't say such food is "good" or such food is "bad" until they have eaten a lot and can compare what they have previously tasted to the food they are tasting right now. Someone who has never eaten, lets say, fries, cannot say it is good or bad, unless they compare it to the food they have previously eaten. Try it yourself. Do you think pencil sharpeners are good? Well, you can lie and say yes or no, or you can waggle your way out of it by saying "Yes, I think pencil sharpeners are good for the economy" (which then, you would be comparing pencil sharpeners to whatever object that is worst for the economy), but you cannot form an opinion without misunderstanding the question because pencil sharpeners is not being compared to anything, implied or expressly stated. Bottom line is, there is no "good" or "bad" without comparison, and even when there is it is all subjective. Don't call another person a moron just because they disagree with you. People who do that are the reason for the degradation of online forums. And yes, the Wii graphics are okay. I don't notice the difference between Crysis and any Wii game when I'm playing, so I'm happy with the Wii's capability.
I think the graphics for some games a rather "fair" then others. Mario probably has the best so far iv'e seen. Some of the sports games are just horrible! I think the graphics on the wii deserve a 8/10
The Wii is capable of displaying beautiful clean artistic graphics. I regularly switch between old virtual console, DS, PS2, Wii, X360, and PS3 games so graphical disparity doesn't really affect me much as I'm used to it. Recently I was playing both Twilight Princess and Metal Gear Solid 4 and I thought both games were pretty. I still think Mario Galaxy is beatiful even after playing a game like Resident Evil 5 in HD. Wii games can look great if a developer keeps the limitations in mind and finds clever ways around them. The best looking Wii games are stylistic and clean (or simple looking) with lots of color. Realistic games can look good but it takes a lot of effort.
When done right the graphics on the wii can amaze me (super mario galaxy, red steel 2, NMH,super paper Mario...ect ect) Its up to the dev's if they wana pour time and resources into making a game on the wii visually appealing.
The Wii is certainly capable of good graphics, Mario Galaxy, Metroid Prime 3 and Other M, Dead Space and others have proven this. The problem is that those games are an exception to an unspoken rule by devs and pubs, that graphics do really matter on Wii. it's really sad, no matter what the hardware, people should be pushing it from all fronts including graphically.
just to be clear.... the topic is "who thinks the wii has good graphics" not "who thinks the wii has better graphics than ps3/360" so fanboys, stop comparing... and yes, i do think they're good.... HOMIE_G64
The Wii's graphics would look great so long as everyone wasn't comparing them to the PS3 and 360. A concept that too many morons are incapable of comprehending is that just because another system's graphics are better doesn't mean that the first system's graphics are bad.
That is a completely blank statement. The Atari 2600 didn't have "bad" graphics... I mean, as long as you aren't comparing it to anything... right? First of all, whether or not graphics are "good" or "bad" is wholly subjective. It is totally within logic and reason for a 360 fan to say that the Wii has "bad" graphics. It is not, however, within logic or reason for someone to call anybody a moron just because they did not agree subjectively with them. Second of all, the issue of graphics is often used in comparison. You can't determine whether or not the graphics are good or bad without comparing them to something. It makes no sense. The graphics are good. Well, what is bad? Often times, we make up a comparison in our heads. When the 360 fanboys say that the Wii has horrible graphics, they are comparing it to the 360 even though they don't say it. When we say that the Wii has "okay" graphics, we are comparing it to the 360/PS3 or even the PS2/GC/XBox, and have determined for ourselves that the difference between the Wii and the graphics that we have previously enjoyed is insignificant. It's like food critics, they can't say such food is "good" or such food is "bad" until they have eaten a lot and can compare what they have previously tasted to the food they are tasting right now. Someone who has never eaten, lets say, fries, cannot say it is good or bad, unless they compare it to the food they have previously eaten. Try it yourself. Do you think pencil sharpeners are good? Well, you can lie and say yes or no, or you can waggle your way out of it by saying "Yes, I think pencil sharpeners are good for the economy" (which then, you would be comparing pencil sharpeners to whatever object that is worst for the economy), but you cannot form an opinion without misunderstanding the question because pencil sharpeners is not being compared to anything, implied or expressly stated. Bottom line is, there is no "good" or "bad" without comparison, and even when there is it is all subjective. Don't call another person a moron just because they disagree with you. People who do that are the reason for the degradation of online forums. And yes, the Wii graphics are okay. I don't notice the difference between Crysis and any Wii game when I'm playing, so I'm happy with the Wii's capability.
Let me just point out the flaw in your argument right that (that you yourself illustrated for me, in fact).
"Compared to the Atari 2600, NES, and PSX, the Wii's graphics are AWESOME!!!!"
Anyone who can't make the distinction between something being inferior in a legitimate comparison vs something being flat-out "bad" is, like I said, dense. That's like me saying that, because ice cream taste better than a rib eye steak, the steak automatically sucks.
While might not be next gen HD graphics I still think they are an improvement over last gens. People seem to think that the wii isn't capable of producing good graphics because so far it hasn't done too much we haven't already seen. That being said there is a difference between can't (Phyiscally impossible)and won't (just dosen't want to). I think with time the wii will produce higher graphics that people will still be stunned to look at.
graphics are in the eyes of the beholder. just becuase you can get more detailed with yours doesnt mean you will do better then someone that put effort into it.
i do think the wii is very capable of delivering a very nice visual presentation. the wii has my fav looking games this gen on any platform. okami is out and out eye candy. obhiously other games are far more advanced (even on the wii) but okami is just gorgeous and will remain gorgeous 10 years from now.
people always complain that the Wii has horrible graphics compared to the 360 and PS3, but they fail to realize that the Wii's graphics aren't HD, they won't look like what they play on the other consoles usually. The graphics are good, indeed.
Log in to comment