WHY do Wii graphics look like GC?

That screenshot from Galaxy makes Mario look significantly better.  If you look at Mario himself on the GC version he is very jagged and not as rounded in areas as he is on the Wii.  That right there is a good jump in graphics. The environment is also much clearer on the Wii shot than the GC one. 

I'd say that the Wii is showing a leap in graphics over what the GC was.

I agree, I would have liked to have seen Nintendo come out with a more powerful system.With all this "next Gen" console speak, we, as consumers, expect to see advancment in graphical power. Then again, I'm not willing to shell out 600 for a playstation 3, nor am I willing to pay 1000 dollars for a HDTV. So at 250 $ the Wii was great. And I guess, in some fashion, thats the tradeoff. Having a system that is affordable, is a blast to play, is innovative, but not so hot in the graphics department. at some point I will get a 360 and im sure that will satisfy my urge for next gen graphics.

I guess the question for this generation of consoles, and for consoles in the future, will be which do people prefer, a graphics powerhouse or innovative gameplay. Are realistic graphics that realistic? or is the interaction with the game what gives it it's realism? As sales prices go, I would have to say the latter is true. That could change down the road. The Wii has won the battle, but it hasn't won the war....yet.

I thought we had seen the last of the Wii graphics threads. But alas no............

Early games on any platform never maximise the systems potential. Wii is not bad looking but will never reach the graphical heights of PS3 or the 360 due to its hardware restrictions. Instead it depends on art direction and style to produce its best visuals. It is however better looking than PS2 or GC and future games will look far better than launch games.

Can we give it a rest now please?

I thought we had seen the last of the Wii graphics threads. But alas no............

Early games on any platform never maximise the systems potential. Wii is not bad looking but will never reach the graphical heights of PS3 or the 360 due to its hardware restrictions. Instead it depends on art direction and style to produce its best visuals. It is however better looking than PS2 or GC and future games will look far better than launch games.

Can we give it a rest now please?

Eoghanpmr

I don't know about you but i see a significant difference

actually galaxy looks much better than sunshine. it's the same style ofcourse. Maybe you are just not capable of seeing the differences.. But i do agree that most wii games look horrific. But this is because developers don't give their best. edt: this is getting kinda old now...danneswegman

Yes Yes and Yes

They look like gamecube games because they are all ports of a gamecube or ps2 game. With a few minor exceptions here and there. It'll be at least a few more months before we see true developed for the Wii games.

Answer these questions...

How realistic a Mario and Link do you need? Why does Pokemon need HDR and high resolution textures?

My stance is that if I only buy games that are more artistic looking than realistic, the graphical power of the Wii is not a factor. Mario doesn't need a real time mustache, and Link does not need realistic sweat.

I'll buy my racing simulators and gore fest FPSs and massive free roaming world games on my 360 and PS3. When I want to play Mario or Zelda, or a game that could benefit from motion controls more that high res textures, like say baseball or kart racing, I'll get it for the Wii.

I know its been said a million times but im going to say it again, Wii is not about graphics, its about new inovative gameplay.. Look at Wii sports, Awsome in every way, everythign you want from a game and no need for graphical flair.. I didnt get my Wii to blow me away, I leave my PC to do that.. I got it for fun games...

All that said I did get Monkey ball at the weekend and Sega should hang there heads in shame, to say it looks poor is a understatement, it is just the cube/xbox game with the new control mechanism... why it received such good reviews I have no idea, OK the game is fun for a while but the 50 mini games are extremely poorly executed... I swapped Red Steel for it (which I though was pretty good on the whole)... What planet are these reviewers on, I'll be ditching MB for Excite Truck this friday...

If you think about it, since the wii doesn't share much in terms of hardware with the 360 and PS3, the software engines used to make 3D games on wii either have to be built from scratch, or licensed from a studio that has a pre-existing one. The reason for PS2 and GC quality graphics is probably because the only engines out now that the wii can handle are based on PS2 and GC architecture. It cost money to develop a 3D engine from the ground up, so most likely there was very little of that coming from devs making launch titles.Darth matt

Dude those people who posted the stuff about  mario and link shouldn't be too realistic are completley right. We don't really wan't those characters becoming to realistic. And at one point when I was playing Twilight Princess it looked really good. I can't remember which part it was but i was like woah, there's something different here.

But my question is still there - What is wrong with the Wii that the theoretical potential of the system is not being met? And, please, no ill-informed lunatic fanboy ranting.
hecklemonkey

I belive the theoretical performance is being met, its quite simple, the Wii is tecnologicaly weak, it is a low power low heat unit, look at the size of it and it has inbuilt WiFi, and Ati grapics chip to handle cube games and 4 cube ports and a memory slot... It has not been built with processing power in mind.. I wish I coudl find a interview for a year ago with one of the main hardware developers, it is not intended to compete with current generation hardware, it is going in a differnt direction... the reason the 360 and PS3 are so big and heavy is because to generate the power they need to run the games they do requires a lot of gubbins...

Anyone who is wanting a more visual experience that what is already available should trade for PS3/360 now... BTW Galaxy does look better than sunshine, you seem to have been selective in your screen shots.... not that Im bothered, just that I feel you have unfairly judged the small step forward with the pictures you have choosen.

I don't want to spend thousands of dollars on a console's launch day to just play games that in five years will make no differents anyways.

You can tell Mario looks better on Wii then on Gamecube just by looking at the pictures.

This is why wee games look like game cube games.

http://wii.ign.com/articles/762/762984p1.html

[QUOTE="hecklemonkey"]
But my question is still there - What is wrong with the Wii that the theoretical potential of the system is not being met? And, please, no ill-informed lunatic fanboy ranting.
JackSherbak

I belive the theoretical performance is being met, its quite simple, the Wii is tecnologicaly weak, it is a low power low heat unit, look at the size of it and it has inbuilt WiFi, and Ati grapics chip to handle cube games and 4 cube ports and a memory slot... It has not been built with processing power in mind.. I wish I coudl find a interview for a year ago with one of the main hardware developers, it is not intended to compete with current generation hardware, it is going in a differnt direction... the reason the 360 and PS3 are so big and heavy is because to generate the power they need to run the games they do requires a lot of gubbins...

Anyone who is wanting a more visual experience that what is already available should trade for PS3/360 now... BTW Galaxy does look better than sunshine, you seem to have been selective in your screen shots.... not that Im bothered, just that I feel you have unfairly judged the small step forward with the pictures you have choosen.

That screenshot from Galaxy makes Mario look significantly better.  If you look at Mario himself on the GC version he is very jagged and not as rounded in areas as he is on the Wii.  That right there is a good jump in graphics. The environment is also much clearer on the Wii shot than the GC one. 

I'd say that the Wii is showing a leap in graphics over what the GC was.

smileyryder34

I agree!

This is my opinion:

The whole time PS and XBOX was thinking how could we make this better... They were thinking about Graphics. Nintendo has made that stupid Duckhunt idea and transformed it into something someone hasn't even dreamed of. Yes, yes the graphics are far from 'Next-Gen'... And? Tell me how long the XBOX 360 was out before people stopped asking the question. And I believe the reason for the lack of game support this early is because they are finding a way to utilize the the controller. Although I will be pretty disappointed if Final Fantasy for the Wii isn't at LEAST as good in graphics as XII for PS2... It's not about the Wii's capabilities that I'm saying this though... It's about FF's reputation. I'm done ranting about FF now. lol

This is why wee games look like game cube games.

http://wii.ign.com/articles/762/762984p1.html

genfactor

Totally agree. Most devs haven't even come close to what Factor 5 did at the GC launch (Rebel Strike) . The GC could do normal mapping. There is no excuse. Last gen most devs were porting games from PS2, and not even exploting the GC at all. It's still happening

IGN: Resident Evil 4 was a beautiful GCN title. Rogue Squadron was doing things at launch that developers still haven't done on Wii. Why do you think that is? Are studios getting sloppy on Wii?

Julian: Yes. I'm so disappointed knowing exactly what the Wii can do -- and I still think nobody knows it better than we (no pun intended) [laughs]. I really have to say, boy, am I disappointed! They all have finally figured out, five years into the hardware's life cycle, how to do at least basic shaders and a rim light, but that's what everybody does. But I still don't see enough bump and normal-mapping, if any. I still don't see enough post effects, although you would have insane fill-rates with Wii. I don't see any of that. I was digging out Rebel Strike the other day and was looking at it, and we had some people who were visiting ask, "Why isn't anybody else doing this on Wii?" And I am at a loss. I really am.

if you care about graphics so much buy a ps3

many developers were still using the gc kits when they designed the games for the wii. maybe theyll stop now that they realize how many people are playing wii. also, you cant change mario too much without it not looking like him, how do you want a character like mario to look realistic? by making him look like a real person? that would ruinthe game. sometimes the style of the game is more important than how pretty it is. and by sometimes i mean usuallysoulsdeparting

Man, is everyone on this forum retarded? I mean, can any of you actually read, or did you all just get in a tizz as soon as someone was questioning your precious beloved console?

First off- The dude said right at the start that he could see that Mario Galaxy was "noticably better" graphically than Sunshine. So stop going on about how obvious the difference is, you're only argiung with yourself.

Secondly- As far as I remember, he didn't mention anything about wanting 'more realistic' graphics, so why keep going on about that?

Thirdly, the guy has every right to question the Wii's graphical performance- everyone keeps saying it's atleast twice as powerful as the GC, so why aren't we seeing twice as good looking games all the time? (THERE ARE SOME DECENT LOOKING GAMES ON THE WII, but not as many as there should be.)

It's now 2009 and we still haven't seen any games that have really surpassed SMG, and very very few that come close, and alot that are worse than PS2 / GC standards.

Now to make matters worse, forgetting about graphics for a second, there aren't many games of high gameplay standards coming out either- say, 1 every 4 months, if that.

Now, when the Wii is still £179, and a X360 is £129; and Wii games tend to be more expensive than X360 games, I really think these questions need to keep being asked.

tooplanx

[QUOTE="tooplanx"]

Man, is everyone on this forum retarded? I mean, can any of you actually read, or did you all just get in a tizz as soon as someone was questioning your precious beloved console?

First off- The dude said right at the start that he could see that Mario Galaxy was "noticably better" graphically than Sunshine. So stop going on about how obvious the difference is, you're only argiung with yourself.

Secondly- As far as I remember, he didn't mention anything about wanting 'more realistic' graphics, so why keep going on about that?

Thirdly, the guy has every right to question the Wii's graphical performance- everyone keeps saying it's atleast twice as powerful as the GC, so why aren't we seeing twice as good looking games all the time? (THERE ARE SOME DECENT LOOKING GAMES ON THE WII, but not as many as there should be.)

It's now 2009 and we still haven't seen any games that have really surpassed SMG, and very very few that come close, and alot that are worse than PS2 / GC standards.

Now to make matters worse, forgetting about graphics for a second, there aren't many games of high gameplay standards coming out either- say, 1 every 4 months, if that.

Now, when the Wii is still £179, and a X360 is £129; and Wii games tend to be more expensive than X360 games, I really think these questions need to keep being asked.

gamefan67

Galalxy an MP3 deffinately look a lot better than their GC counter parts.

The reason the wii graphics aren't as big a jumo ahead as the other 2 consoles are is because nintendo opted to advance the hardware less than Soniy and MS to keep the price down

Star Wars Rogue Squadron 3: Rebel Strike

Guns of Dubrillian

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AcTA7TkaDm4

Revenge of the Empire

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kFsKRIEew4Y

Triumph of the Rebellion

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4xq3D-yNujc

From Beyond3D forums:

Quote: Originally Posted by Mobius1aic

I think more GC games made me go wow than Xbox titles when it came to graphics technology and artistry. It's just too bad Wii devs don't really have the incentive to push the visuals close to what the GC could do.

Reply: Originally Posted by Squek

I think that's the trouble with a lot of development; mindset and attitude.
If you don't believe in something and/or don't understand the underlying concept and rationale, you won't get the best out of it. Double so if you are pressed for time.

Galalxy an MP3 deffinately look a lot better than their GC counter parts.

The reason the wii graphics aren't as big a jumo ahead as the other 2 consoles are is because nintendo opted to advance the hardware less than Soniy and MS to keep the price down

BuryMe

well the Wii is a GCN 1.5.

yes, i think they could've at least crammed more into the package, i think they played it WAY too safe.

Wii's cost around $150 to make in 2006, they could've but a HDD or more flash memory into it, at least netbook specs like 1.2Ghz-1.5Ghz CPU more RAM, more Video memory, and still could've been proftable at a selling point of $250 or $300 (plus putting more HDD or flash memory could've cut the wii sports shipping costs by putting it on the HDD or flash)

I see what you mean. But it only applies on some cases. Here's an example.

Fire Emblem: Path Of Radiance & Fire Emblem: Radiant Dawn

Can you spot the difference in graphics :P

So I see what you mean, but that truly does not apply in other situations.

Here are some examples. And yes the change is phenomenal, unlike what you stated.

Super mario sunshine/galaxy.
Metroid Prime 1/3

The bottom line is, the idea of the wii was the motion capabilities. And I am fully aware that not every game utilizes that. But truthfully, I didn't expect, nor want anything better. If your not satisfied, get a high-def tv and high-def wii cables, and that's the best you can do. Rather than criticizing masterpeices like Galaxy and MP3, go to the games that actually have to many graphic similarities. Galaxy and MP3 truly utilized the wii in the best way they could, as did many other games.

*just noticed that this is a thread from 2007, and I'm under the impression we aren't supposed to dig up old threads*

Man, is everyone on this forum retarded?tooplanx

This a 3 year old thread you just bumped.