WHY do Wii graphics look like GC?

  • 72 results
  • 1
  • 2

This topic is locked from further discussion.

Avatar image for jorler333
jorler333

891

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 5

User Lists: 0

#52 jorler333
Member since 2009 • 891 Posts

Just wait for Red Steel 2... and the Wii's graphics are steadily improving.

Avatar image for OreoMilkshake
OreoMilkshake

12833

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 13

User Lists: 0

#53 OreoMilkshake
Member since 2009 • 12833 Posts

if you care about graphics so much buy a PC

Keving7

Fixed.

Also, Monster Hunter 3

Mario in Mario Sunshine looked clayish to me. Much better in Galaxy.

Avatar image for Darkmagcite
Darkmagcite

460

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#54 Darkmagcite
Member since 2008 • 460 Posts
Wii is already noticeable for me. I mean, when developer's put their time into making the games look good, then it's definitely noticeable. Galaxy, Prime, Brawl and Monster Hunter 3 are great looking games. The argument over the Wii's graphics has long passed, but the Wii looks good enough for me. There are a lot of Wii games that aren't the greatest looking, but there are a number of Wii games that show off the graphical capabilities more noticeably.
Avatar image for DeeDeeDee-er
DeeDeeDee-er

1067

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 13

User Lists: 0

#55 DeeDeeDee-er
Member since 2006 • 1067 Posts
[QUOTE="styphin"]Hmm... well, I see your point, as no graphically impressive game has yet to be released for the Wii. And I agree screenshots to upcoming games are less than impressive. Like you said, the Wii is basically an overclocked Gamecube, so theoretically they should be able to take any GC and bump up the polygon count and smooth out textures. For $250, I expect the hardware to be capable of some powerful stuff. (Obviously not as powerful as the 360.) However, given the short amount of time the Wii has been available and the fact that screenshots rarely comminucate how well a game is ACTUALLY going to look, I'm going to give the Wii the benefit of the doubt and form my opinion on this subject 6 months or so from now. Just because developers know what GC hardware is like, maybe they still don't quite know how to utilze the Wii's supposed graphical power. I'm no graphic whore, but remember, even launch games for the PS3 look like crap. I'm sure, in time, both systems will realize their full potential.

If you can honestly say that Super Mario Galaxy wasn't graphically impressive.... that game was beautiful. Metroid Prime 3 was top notch too and The Conduit had some very impressive things about it, although as everyone knows art direction kinda killed it. I think a huge reason that the graphical potential is not being reached on the Wii is because with Nintendo their best games have rarely been ones aimed to look realistic. Sure Metroid Prime is supposed to look like a realistic future, and they've had their share of good FPSes in the past (Goldeneye, Perfect Dark, etc.), but the average game for Nintendo, like Legend of Zelda, a 3-D Mario game, is not intended to be realistic, nor should it be. Playing as a completely realistic Link wouldn't feel right, and a realistic Mario..........I don't even wanna know......... My point is basically that all the Wii's top games are not games that need realistic graphics, so they instead go the route of more "beautiful" and colorful graphics rather than truly realistic ones. On the other two consoles, many games are made that are intended to depict a real setting, while this is rare with Nintendo. I'm not saying that if the Wii had more war FPSes it would magically have graphics on par with PS360 graphics, that';s impossible, but more effort would definitely be put into graphics like the other consoles.
Avatar image for awssk8er716
awssk8er716

8485

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 6

User Lists: 0

#56 awssk8er716
Member since 2005 • 8485 Posts

I understand that the Wii isn't much more powerful than the Gamecube, but I think the Wii's are a lot better.

Avatar image for TheColbert
TheColbert

3846

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#57 TheColbert
Member since 2008 • 3846 Posts
I am hoping that the next Zelda game will really blow people away. TP was nice but it was only a gamecube game.
Avatar image for JuarN18
JuarN18

4981

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#58 JuarN18
Member since 2007 • 4981 Posts

Monster Hunter 3

/thread

Avatar image for darth-pyschosis
darth-pyschosis

9322

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#59 darth-pyschosis
Member since 2006 • 9322 Posts

Wasn't Metroid Prime 3 a GCN title early on in development? Didn't it start around 2005 on the Cube the making of it?

Avatar image for SolemnJedi79
SolemnJedi79

397

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#60 SolemnJedi79
Member since 2005 • 397 Posts
Developers have had 4 years or so on the Wii, so you can't use the excuse that Dev's are lazy or don't know how to push the Wii or just are pressed for time. That's garbage. Most Devs see the Wii as the perfect console for shovelware for a start, so no one expects shovelware to have good graphical capability. So far the only game I've seen that makes the Wii look better than the cube is Galaxy, MP3 I didn't really see much of a difference from MP1, the first one made me gasp and go 'wow' when it hit the cube. So far no games have made me do that on Wii. So yes, I think the general consensus is this is all the Wii has got graphically. You can't get blood out of a stone, you only have to look at the specs to know what to expect. But that doesn't mean it doesn't have some good games.
Avatar image for ramjam23
ramjam23

188

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#61 ramjam23
Member since 2009 • 188 Posts

I hate my Wii, but i thought Galaxy looked amazing, you can't even compare Sunshine to it.

Avatar image for maxgil2
maxgil2

785

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#62 maxgil2
Member since 2004 • 785 Posts

Devs are lazy, just look @ Disaster: Day of Crisis ..the character model looks ugly as *something from early PS2 games imo* compare that to RE4 character model, can't believe it look worse than RE4....its no wonder they don't release in NA.

Avatar image for mariokart64fan
mariokart64fan

20828

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 101

User Lists: 1

#63 mariokart64fan
Member since 2003 • 20828 Posts

well i got somthing to say to those who say - most wii games look horrific i have played an nes that was what was available at the time

oh in the 5th gen we had this thing calledp laystation ,

if people liked its graphics and how horible they were in comparision to n64,

lol , you guys have 0 to say that is void any more ,

since you trusted worst graphics in the gen above, ,

you shouldnt have problems trusting them now maybe its because you hate nintendo ,

face the fact,

and the answer to this question

is because nintendo didnt choose raw horspower this gen much like sony didnt inforce it 2 gens in a row , ,

its their strategy and its paying off big time

Avatar image for jorler333
jorler333

891

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 5

User Lists: 0

#64 jorler333
Member since 2009 • 891 Posts

I wouldn't say devs are lazy at all. They create games the best to their ability, some turn out better than others. I'm sure the Wii is going to have a surge of great looking games here soon. Like I said earlier, Red Steel 2 has welcome to this gen written all over it.

Avatar image for Pesantez
Pesantez

773

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#65 Pesantez
Member since 2008 • 773 Posts

Wow at the guy who bumped this thread.

Old topic is old.

Avatar image for xylophagous
xylophagous

295

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#66 xylophagous
Member since 2008 • 295 Posts

Many people probably played the GC on old style tv's and now many of us have moved on to hdtv. I think that's the biggest reason why the Wii appears to look worse than the GC - the screen is simply bigger and so looks much more pixellated.

Avatar image for Voyley
Voyley

28

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#67 Voyley
Member since 2009 • 28 Posts
Wii is so much better graphics than the Gamecube! Of course, the 360 & PS3 are dwarfing nintendo in terms of visuals, but the improvments are immense.
Avatar image for BrunoBRS
BrunoBRS

74156

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 6

User Lists: 0

#68 BrunoBRS
Member since 2005 • 74156 Posts
*suddenly stops and delete the whole post* FEB 13 2007?!?!?!!? seriously, why reviving it!?!?
Avatar image for gamenerd15
gamenerd15

4529

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#69 gamenerd15
Member since 2007 • 4529 Posts

Developers are cheap. Nintendo is cheap this generation. They sell you something that cost them $100 dollars to make for 250, it's that simple. The Wii's hardware is like GC+ it's like genesis to 32X in terms of hardware. If you want graphics go for 360 or even more so the PS3. Metal Gear, Uncharted, Motorstorm, Heavy Rain, Ratchet and Clank, Killzone 2 and Gran Turismo 5 blow everything else away.

Avatar image for oqvist
oqvist

25

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#70 oqvist
Member since 2003 • 25 Posts

Games look better then gamecube and such it´s just that people can´t help but comparing it to PC or the other consoles. Also as mentioned on the other consoles there is a lot of people buying games because of the visuals. So they have to spend a lot on that for those games or it won´t sell.

For Wii game developers get an idea that except for being for the casual gamers which are not picky at all there is little point spending millions on graphics that is still going to look crap in comparison to the other consoles/PC... That is what I believe. But really many games look fine by Wii standards but it´s just so much you can doo with a ridiculous max res of 640x480 and the lack of horsepower inside this little white box. The PS 3 or Xbox 360 would litterary melt if crammed into such little space ;)

Avatar image for DeeDeeDee-er
DeeDeeDee-er

1067

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 13

User Lists: 0

#71 DeeDeeDee-er
Member since 2006 • 1067 Posts

I know this thread needs to die, but I think I came up with a pretty valid point.

Watch a gameplay video of Metroid Prime (the original one on GC). Look at the charge attack when they use it.

Now go to a Metroid Prime 3: Corruption video. Look at the charge attack there.

I rest my case.

Avatar image for Noskillkill
Noskillkill

1116

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#72 Noskillkill
Member since 2009 • 1116 Posts
i think there is a noticeable difference between Sunshine and Galaxy. Sunshine looks a lot grainier than its sharper looking Galaxy counterpart, and just to nitpick, Mario in sunshine has polygons for shoes/pants compared to smooth look of Mario in Galaxy.

then there is also games like SSBB, that has much larger difference in graphics compared to SSBM. even though the designs are very different, the Link in SSBB looks graphically more realistic than Link in SSBM.




same goes for Mario:



c0mplex
The Melee to Brawl graphic changes look nice, but they are really just a bunch of textures instead of the solid color textures from the GC. but hey, thats good enough for us. but we still got far to go if Nintendo is taking shortcuts like that.
Avatar image for danger_ranger95
danger_ranger95

5584

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 5

User Lists: 0

#73 danger_ranger95
Member since 2006 • 5584 Posts

For the companies that have actually put time, effort, and $$$ into their products... it shows, if you actually look. The graphical jump isn't as big as the PS2 compared to PS3, obviously. But again, it is there.

I agree, it's not a huge difference, but you just have to look. It is there.

lol and, why did we bump this again?

Avatar image for DeeDeeDee-er
DeeDeeDee-er

1067

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 13

User Lists: 0

#74 DeeDeeDee-er
Member since 2006 • 1067 Posts

For the companies that have actually put time, effort, and $$$ into their products... it shows, if you actually look. The graphical jump isn't as big as the PS2 compared to PS3, obviously. But again, it is there.

I agree, it's not a huge difference, but you just have to look. It is there.

lol and, why did we bump this again?

danger_ranger95
No clue, I say we kill it with fire.
Avatar image for painguy1
painguy1

8686

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#75 painguy1
Member since 2007 • 8686 Posts

wow u rly burchered the wiis hardware in ur post. Get the correct wii specs then post something. As for PS2 vs GC the GC was better. If u must know ill tell u.

PS2's hardware was slower and was also designed very badly and was way to hard to program for. the most major problem was with its multi pass rendering gpu vs the GC's single pass. the PS2 had to do 8 times the work as the GC in order to get the same result (with slightly slower preformance). Its CPU was slow but had 2 extra chips that was supposed to give it a boost, but it was to hard to program for and even when it was used it still did not surpass the GC's 453mhz powerPC (rated at 800mhz to 1ghz)

Avatar image for danger_ranger95
danger_ranger95

5584

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 5

User Lists: 0

#76 danger_ranger95
Member since 2006 • 5584 Posts

wow u rly burchered the wiis hardware in ur post. Get the correct wii specs then post something. As for PS2 vs GC the GC was better. If u must know ill tell u.

PS2's hardware was slower and was also designed very badly and was way to hard to program for. the most major problem was with its multi pass rendering gpu vs the GC's single pass. the PS2 had to do 8 times the work as the GC in order to get the same result (with slightly slower preformance). Its CPU was slow but had 2 extra chips that was supposed to give it a boost, but it was to hard to program for and even when it was used it still did not surpass the GC's 453mhz powerPC (rated at 800mhz to 1ghz)

painguy1

my brain hurts because I have no idea what those numbers mean.

But!!!! GC was better than the PS2 (just not software wise)

Avatar image for painguy1
painguy1

8686

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#77 painguy1
Member since 2007 • 8686 Posts

[QUOTE="painguy1"]

wow u rly burchered the wiis hardware in ur post. Get the correct wii specs then post something. As for PS2 vs GC the GC was better. If u must know ill tell u.

PS2's hardware was slower and was also designed very badly and was way to hard to program for. the most major problem was with its multi pass rendering gpu vs the GC's single pass. the PS2 had to do 8 times the work as the GC in order to get the same result (with slightly slower preformance). Its CPU was slow but had 2 extra chips that was supposed to give it a boost, but it was to hard to program for and even when it was used it still did not surpass the GC's 453mhz powerPC (rated at 800mhz to 1ghz)

danger_ranger95

my brain hurts because I have no idea what those numbers mean.

But!!!! GC was better than the PS2 (just not software wise)

hehehe its ok, most people dont so do not put ur selfdown:P Do u know what i just relized? this thread is 3 years old and someone bumped it for some reason. .......oh well