LOL at "teh last gen grafix!"

Honestly, do you Wii haters think "last-gen" games look "ugly" and that no one will play them ever again because they aren't in HD?

We've reached the point where artistry, not hardware, is the primary means of making a game that looks good. You don't need monster hardware to have beautiful, epic, cinematic graphics, and here is the definitive proof:

*Note: I copied this thread from another thread from about two months ago. I just thought it deserved being reiterated.

God of War II - PS2


Shadow of the Colossus - PS2

Chronicles of Riddick: Escape from Butcher Bay - Xbox

Halo 2 - Xbox


Resident Evil 4 - GameCube


And finally:

The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess - GameCube and Wii

Looks good to me

needs more ninja gaiden. last gen graphics were great and still are. Kook18

Agreed. I think that last gen will have a longer life span than the previous one. I have a hard time playing some of the original PSone and N 64 games because of the huge jaggies (i.e. FF 7).

Those games are great because they pushed the current technology to its limit. Technology and artistry doesnt sit still. It is always changing and growing. Those games are great but that doesnt mean that if the devs had the capabilities they have now, it couldnt have been even better. Thereis always room for improvement and if you give an artist better quality tools and more time they can create even bigger and better works of art. Limiting an artist is never a good thing just like being satisfied with limitations in hardware is bad.

Those games you listed are classics of last gen that was an improvement from the gen. before and so fourth. We can enjoy those games because console developers werent afraid to push the hardware and give devs the tools to creat masterpieces. Its better to have and not need then need and not have.

We've reached the point where artistry, not hardware, is the primary means of making a game that looks good.

mjarantilla

I agree. My favorite games graphically are Wind Waker, Okami (which I just finished), and Odin Sphere (which I just started). IMO, a clearly defined art style is much more aesthetically pleasing than a game that strives for realism.

I see alot of 1st party games.Capt_Tenneal

Sadly someone is going to post a photorealistic model of a car from some crappy racing sim, and try to ruin this thread.ZebethOrZebes

not if can help it :x

[QUOTE="Capt_Tenneal"]I see alot of 1st party games.Medjai

And last gen games are pretty ugly if they're not 1st party.

At the time they looked incredible, but that's the problem with graphics.... as time passes and you've seen better things the things that used to look good no longer do.

When I played the original Half Life on PC it looked absolutely stunning, there was nothing like it. Now go back and play it, it doesn't look1/50th as good as it the day of original release.

RE4 looked stunning back in the day... but now that we've all seen Gears and other such games new games with RE4-like graphics aren't going to have the same impression that RE4 had on us when it was first released. This is the complaint with the "last gen" look.

Thereis always room for improvement and if you give an artist better quality tools and more time they can create even bigger and better works of art.Javy03

You're assuming that giving the artist "bigger tools" will even have a tangible effect on the quality of his art. I disagree.

Its better to have and not need then need and not have.Javy03

Nice slogan, but irrelevant when the tools you have suffer from diminishing returns.

[QUOTE="Medjai"][QUOTE="Capt_Tenneal"]I see alot of 1st party games.Capt_Tenneal

And last gen games are pretty ugly if they're not 1st party.

And yet, two of those games are third party and considered to be among the best looking games on their respective systems (Chronicles of Riddick and RE4).

You know that if I had tried, I could've added half a dozen third-party games that also look amazing.

[QUOTE="mjarantilla"]

We've reached the point where artistry, not hardware, is the primary means of making a game that looks good.

Kestastrophe

I agree. My favorite games graphically are Wind Waker, Okami (which I just finished), and Odin Sphere (which I just started). IMO, a clearly defined art style is much more aesthetically pleasing than a game that strives for realism.

I agree about a clearly defined art style being important but that doesnt mean it couldnt be done better with better and newer tools. I see alot of those games and I cant help but notice they are games released later in the life cycle of the consoles.I am a huge fan of GOW and Shadow of the Colossus, and cant wait to see what these devs can do with less restrictions and more technology at their hands.

[QUOTE="Medjai"][QUOTE="Capt_Tenneal"]I see alot of 1st party games.Capt_Tenneal

And last gen games are pretty ugly if they're not 1st party.

Umm no

RE:4, Ninja Gaiden, Riddick, Splinter Cell:CT, MGS

[QUOTE="Kestastrophe"][QUOTE="mjarantilla"]

We've reached the point where artistry, not hardware, is the primary means of making a game that looks good.

Javy03

I agree. My favorite games graphically are Wind Waker, Okami (which I just finished), and Odin Sphere (which I just started). IMO, a clearly defined art style is much more aesthetically pleasing than a game that strives for realism.

I agree about a clearly defined art style being important but that doesnt mean it couldnt be done better with better and newer tools. I see alot of those games and I cant help but notice they are games released later in the life cycle of the consoles.I am a huge fan of GOW and Shadow of the Colossus, and cant wait to see what these devs can do with less restrictions and more technology at their hands.

It doesn't matter if they were released later in the life cycle. My point was that so-called "last gen hardware" can still deliver great visuals because art style matters a hell of a lot more than pixel pipelines.

[QUOTE="Capt_Tenneal"]

[QUOTE="Medjai"][QUOTE="Capt_Tenneal"]I see alot of 1st party games.mjarantilla

And last gen games are pretty ugly if they're not 1st party.

And yet, two of those games are third party and considered to be among the best looking games on their respective systems (Chronicles of Riddick and RE4).

You know that if I had tried, I could've added half a dozen third-party games that also look amazing.

And I could come back with 30 games that look like crap. Your point?

needs more ninja gaiden. last gen graphics were great and still are. i don't see why people ***** about it so much.Kook18

NG, yes NG.

[QUOTE="mjarantilla"][QUOTE="Capt_Tenneal"]

[QUOTE="Medjai"][QUOTE="Capt_Tenneal"]I see alot of 1st party games.Capt_Tenneal

And last gen games are pretty ugly if they're not 1st party.

And yet, two of those games are third party and considered to be among the best looking games on their respective systems (Chronicles of Riddick and RE4).

You know that if I had tried, I could've added half a dozen third-party games that also look amazing.

And I could come back with 30 games that look like crap. Your point?

point being that not all talented Dev's are 1st party and you initial assertion is faulty

[QUOTE="mjarantilla"][QUOTE="Capt_Tenneal"]

[QUOTE="Medjai"][QUOTE="Capt_Tenneal"]I see alot of 1st party games.Capt_Tenneal

And last gen games are pretty ugly if they're not 1st party.

And yet, two of those games are third party and considered to be among the best looking games on their respective systems (Chronicles of Riddick and RE4).

You know that if I had tried, I could've added half a dozen third-party games that also look amazing.

And I could come back with 30 games that look like crap. Your point?

My point is that third party devs have just as much talent as first party. What's YOUR point in trying to bring up the WORST looking games? Both of the so-called "true next gen" systems have games that look as bad as the worst looking games from last gen.

used a bad pic of gow2.:evil: anyway im fine with wii graphics as long as they look as good or better than those games.AsadMahdi59

Well you shouldn't complain, the TP and RE4 pictures are a lot worse :P. I never really cared that much about graphics, so I agree with the TC.

[QUOTE="Capt_Tenneal"][QUOTE="mjarantilla"][QUOTE="Capt_Tenneal"]

[QUOTE="Medjai"][QUOTE="Capt_Tenneal"]I see alot of 1st party games.Medjai

And last gen games are pretty ugly if they're not 1st party.

And yet, two of those games are third party and considered to be among the best looking games on their respective systems (Chronicles of Riddick and RE4).

You know that if I had tried, I could've added half a dozen third-party games that also look amazing.

And I could come back with 30 games that look like crap. Your point?

point being that not all talented Dev's are 1st party and you initial assertion is faulty

Oh, my bad. Would it make you feel better if I said MOST look like crap?

not bad for a 5yr old game :D

[quote="Javy03"]Thereis always room for improvement and if you give an artist better quality tools and more time they can create even bigger and better works of art.mjarantilla

You're assuming that giving the artist "bigger tools" will even have a tangible effect on the quality of his art. I disagree.

Its better to have and not need then need and not have.Javy03

Nice slogan, but irrelevant when the tools you have suffer from diminishing returns.

How can you disagree? I have yet to hear devs complain about have bigger and better hardware to push. You need to give devs challenges so some can meet them and shine like those games you have listed. If you noticed most of those games are late in the life cycle of the consoles, after devs have pushed the console to its limits. Again art is always changing like technology. If devs had your mentality of "just good enough" most of those games wouldnt be here. In fact the PS2 worked hard to push graphics that the PS1 couldnt do and it worked and you can see the results in those games. The same goes for theXbox. Why is it enough now? Sitting still leads to mediocrity, which those devs that made those games you admire chose not to do.

Its easy to look back fondly on those games this early in the next gen. But in a couple years when those devs have released sequels to those franchises or new IPs with this new technology, I will be happy they chose to meet the challenge rather then stay with whats comfortable.

This looks pretty epic to me. It's has good technical graphics and good artistic graphics at the same time. I would much rather look at this game then most of the ones you posted. By the way this is the Prey demo on my PC, and this part is not a cutscene, you can look around while this is happening.MIYAMOTOnext007

That's not art style. That's pure technology. A steel catwalk and some superstructure does not constitute "art style."

I do like Prey's art style, but TBH Prey doesn't look very different from Quake 4 in art style. It's only slightly different.

Oh, my bad. Would it make you feel better if I said MOST look like crap?Capt_Tenneal

My point is that third party devs have just as much talent as first party. What's YOUR point in trying to bring up the WORST looking games? Both of the so-called "true next gen" systems have games that look as bad as the worst looking games from last gen.mjarantilla

My point is that it's stupid to show a few games that are either 1st party or exclusive and lump them in with the trash games.

I'll agree that quite a few next gen games look like crap. (Tenchu Z) That doesn't mean thatthe majority ofnext gen games don't look good.

Its not always all about the graphics and I have had fun with several of the Wii games.... however, the real issue I have developed with the wii games is the complete lack of features. The xbox live experience cannot be beat... example forza 2 modding and editing cars, uploading the photos to the forza internet site and displaying them online in a minute.

When you play games like shadowrun compared to halo 2.... halo 2 is just inplayable. The grahpics werent considered bad, but its like trying to play in black and white...

Anyway you spin it, God of war 2 just looks bad by today's standards....last gen was a decent leap in graphics, but in comparison horrible resolution, textures, phsyics, destructable environments... these are the things that really stand out playing games now and I dont know how I ever played without them. At least the Wii does give a new experience.

Prey picture

This looks pretty epic to me. It's has good technical graphics and good artistic graphics at the same time. I would much rather look at this game then most of the ones you posted. By the way this is the Prey demo on my PC, and this part is not a cutscene, you can look around while this is happening.MIYAMOTOnext007

I don't know really. It looks from the screenshot that your graphics card doesn't do AA (or at least not efficiently), so I'd guess you'll be missing on a lot of other effects as well, especially since Direct X has been more GPU orientated again instead of CPU orientated. I couldn't care less really for PC games, but that does mean that Wii graphics can be better than the graphics on your PC (not taking into account resolution though).

[Edit] Maybe this could be a little unclear, but I do care a lot about PC games. It's just I don't care about the very advanced effects (16x anisotropic filtering and the likes).

[/Edit]

[Edit 2]

Okay, forget about this post lol. I saw your image loading again when I reentered the thread and it appears the jaggies are there due to image compression.

[/Edit 2]

[QUOTE="Javy03"][QUOTE="Kestastrophe"][QUOTE="mjarantilla"]

We've reached the point where artistry, not hardware, is the primary means of making a game that looks good.

mjarantilla

I agree. My favorite games graphically are Wind Waker, Okami (which I just finished), and Odin Sphere (which I just started). IMO, a clearly defined art style is much more aesthetically pleasing than a game that strives for realism.

I agree about a clearly defined art style being important but that doesnt mean it couldnt be done better with better and newer tools. I see alot of those games and I cant help but notice they are games released later in the life cycle of the consoles.I am a huge fan of GOW and Shadow of the Colossus, and cant wait to see what these devs can do with less restrictions and more technology at their hands.

It doesn't matter if they were released later in the life cycle. My point was that so-called "last gen hardware" can still deliver great visuals because art style matters a hell of a lot more than pixel pipelines.

Yes but art style is limited to the hardware you have available. Even the best art style couldnt make a PS1 game better looking then a PS2 game. Technology is about progressing. Even devs compete with eachother to bring out the biggest and best looking games. I am well aware that Last gen deliveredand am a huge fan of many of those gamesbut I am also confident that those devs can deliver even more this gen with more resources. Your assumptions are that these devs have peaked and that would be an insult to these gaming developers. I think they can improve year after year and new devs can come and blow us away showing us games like SOTC that nobody ever saw coming.

In case anyone here has not heard about this game yet, this is Odin Sphere:

Screenshots do not do this game justice, so here is a video review.

[QUOTE="MIYAMOTOnext007"]

Prey picture

This looks pretty epic to me. It's has good technical graphics and good artistic graphics at the same time. I would much rather look at this game then most of the ones you posted. By the way this is the Prey demo on my PC, and this part is not a cutscene, you can look around while this is happening.dirktu

I don't know really. It looks from the screenshot that your graphics card doesn't do AA (or at least not efficiently), so I'd guess you'll be missing on a lot of other effects as well, especially since Direct X has been more GPU orientated again instead of CPU orientated. I couldn't care less really for PC games, but that does mean that Wii graphics can be better than the graphics on your PC (not taking into account resolution though).

[QUOTE="dirktu"]

I don't know really. It looks from the screenshot that your graphics card doesn't do AA (or at least not efficiently), so I'd guess you'll be missing on a lot of other effects as well, especially since Direct X has been more GPU orientated again instead of CPU orientated. I couldn't care less really for PC games, but that does mean that Wii graphics can be better than the graphics on your PC (not taking into account resolution though).

MIYAMOTOnext007

Woah, what? Wii graphics will never look better than graphics from an 8800GTS. It just ain't gonna happen.

[QUOTE="MIYAMOTOnext007"]

Prey picture

This looks pretty epic to me. It's has good technical graphics and good artistic graphics at the same time. I would much rather look at this game then most of the ones you posted. By the way this is the Prey demo on my PC, and this part is not a cutscene, you can look around while this is happening.dirktu

I don't know really. It looks from the screenshot that your graphics card doesn't do AA (or at least not efficiently), so I'd guess you'll be missing on a lot of other effects as well, especially since Direct X has been more GPU orientated again instead of CPU orientated. I couldn't care less really for PC games, but that does mean that Wii graphics can be better than the graphics on your PC (not taking into account resolution though).

[Edit] Maybe this could be a little unclear, but I do care a lot about PC games. It's just I don't care about the very advanced effects (16x anisotropic filtering and the likes).

[/Edit]

[QUOTE="dirktu"]

[QUOTE="MIYAMOTOnext007"]

Prey picture

This looks pretty epic to me. It's has good technical graphics and good artistic graphics at the same time. I would much rather look at this game then most of the ones you posted. By the way this is the Prey demo on my PC, and this part is not a cutscene, you can look around while this is happening.MIYAMOTOnext007

I don't know really. It looks from the screenshot that your graphics card doesn't do AA (or at least not efficiently), so I'd guess you'll be missing on a lot of other effects as well, especially since Direct X has been more GPU orientated again instead of CPU orientated. I couldn't care less really for PC games, but that does mean that Wii graphics can be better than the graphics on your PC (not taking into account resolution though).

Yeah I believe you. I saw a really crisp image when the image loaded when I reentered the thread. Because it loads pretty quick I didn't know it was due to image compression (as I only saw the version with all the jaggies) ;)

Honestly, do you Wii haters think "last-gen" games look "ugly" and that no one will play them ever again because they aren't in HD?

We've reached the point where artistry, not hardware, is the primary means of making a game that looks good. You don't need monster hardware to have beautiful, epic, cinematic graphics, and here is the definitive proof:

*Note: I copied this thread from another thread from about two months ago. I just thought it deserved being reiterated.

God of War II - PS2


Shadow of the Colossus - PS2

Chronicles of Riddick: Escape from Butcher Bay - Xbox

Halo 2 - Xbox

mjarantilla

Secondly, I think you're missing the whole point of graphics technology: to give artists better tools with which to create art. Sure, an artist could create "art" with the NES and 4 colors per sprite. But there's no doubt in my mind that (in most cases) an artist is able to better match his or her artistic vision with a better tool than an NES. Its the same as assuming that an artist could do better with a paint brush and palette than with using a stick to draw in the mud.

[QUOTE="mjarantilla"]

Honestly, do you Wii haters think "last-gen" games look "ugly" and that no one will play them ever again because they aren't in HD?

We've reached the point where artistry, not hardware, is the primary means of making a game that looks good. You don't need monster hardware to have beautiful, epic, cinematic graphics, and here is the definitive proof:

*Note: I copied this thread from another thread from about two months ago. I just thought it deserved being reiterated.

God of War II - PS2


Shadow of the Colossus - PS2

Chronicles of Riddick: Escape from Butcher Bay - Xbox

Halo 2 - Xbox

Teufelhuhn

Even the pics you showes still look good to me.

[QUOTE="MIYAMOTOnext007"] This looks pretty epic to me. It's has good technical graphics and good artistic graphics at the same time. I would much rather look at this game then most of the ones you posted. By the way this is the Prey demo on my PC, and this part is not a cutscene, you can look around while this is happening.mjarantilla

That's not art style. That's pure technology. A steel catwalk and some superstructure does not constitute "art style."

Honestly, do you Wii haters think "last-gen" games look "ugly" and that no one will play them ever again because they aren't in HD?mjarantilla

Aren't most of those in HD? I heard God of War II has some upscaling thing, and Chronicles of Riddick and Halo 2 can do 720p...

[QUOTE="MIYAMOTOnext007"]

Prey picture

This looks pretty epic to me. It's has good technical graphics and good artistic graphics at the same time. I would much rather look at this game then most of the ones you posted. By the way this is the Prey demo on my PC, and this part is not a cutscene, you can look around while this is happening.dirktu

I don't know really. It looks from the screenshot that your graphics card doesn't do AA (or at least not efficiently), so I'd guess you'll be missing on a lot of other effects as well, especially since Direct X has been more GPU orientated again instead of CPU orientated. I couldn't care less really for PC games, but that does mean that Wii graphics can be better than the graphics on your PC (not taking into account resolution though).

[Edit] Maybe this could be a little unclear, but I do care a lot about PC games. It's just I don't care about the very advanced effects (16x anisotropic filtering and the likes).

[/Edit]

[Edit 2]

Okay, forget about this post lol. I saw your image loading again when I reentered the thread and it appears the jaggies are there due to image compression.

[/Edit 2]