Just wait for Red Steel 2... and the Wii's graphics are steadily improving.
This topic is locked from further discussion.
Fixed.if you care about graphics so much buy a PC
Keving7
Also, Monster Hunter 3
Mario in Mario Sunshine looked clayish to me. Much better in Galaxy.
I understand that the Wii isn't much more powerful than the Gamecube, but I think the Wii's are a lot better.
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?
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
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.
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.
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.
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 ;)
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.
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.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.
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
For the companies that have actually put time, effort, and $$$ into their products... it shows, if you actually look. The graphical jump isn't as big as the PS2 compared to PS3, obviously. But again, it is there.
I agree, it's not a huge difference, but you just have to look. It is there.
lol and, why did we bump this again?
No clue, I say we kill it with fire.For the companies that have actually put time, effort, and $$$ 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
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)
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)
[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
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment