It usually makes it up with artstyle.
why does the wii looks so horrible graphicly?
This topic is locked from further discussion.
I posted those in a similar thread
developers need to try harder, that's all
laus_basic
Those screens look fine, but I have to say they don't look like that on my monitor. Twilight Princess looks awful on both my monitor and normal TV. Mainly there's so many jaggies during the normal world, and WAAAAY too much bloom during the wolf parts. It just takes a really long time to get used to after playing in HD.
Mario Galaxy still looks fine, it has jaggies but nowhere near as much as Twilight Princess and I can deal with it. I like the way Galaxy looks. I LOVE the way Red Steel 2 looks. I think all "realistic" Wii games should look like this. This art st yle is perfect for Wii and it looks gorgeous, but like Twilight Princess we don't know how it's going to look on a TV. These screens and videos are nice but i have a feeling it's going to look awful on TV like No More Heroes which was one of the ugliest games i've ever seen.
I play PS2 games on my PS3 and even those look better than the majority of Wii games, i'm talking about old ones too like MGS2 and FFX. The Wii has yet to produce a game better looking than MGS3 imo, and still doesn't have a game with the scale and detail of San Andreas. Why not? We should be getting those games already, and not from 3rd parties but from NINTENDO. They're making truckloads of cash and they're just putting out linear platformers, WHERE'S THE MASSIVE SCALED ADVENTURE GAMES. This is my major gripe with the Wii, Nintendo is not putting in the work that Sony puts into their games this-gen, and it shows big time when Sony keeps getting GOTY awards from everywhere and massive acclaim from fans and Nintendo isn't getting anything (because their games are not up to par anymore). Nintendo used to win tons of awards and used to make GOTY-type games, now we only get those from Nintendo maybe once every 4 years, and Sony puts atleast 2 out every year.
I don't know why people complain about Wii graphics. It is not an HD console. Let me see, what would a 360 graphic look like in 480P? Well, take a 360 screen of Modern Warfare 2 and blow it up 225% That would bring its resolution down to that of a Wii. For all of its graphic power, the 360 wouldn't look any better at Wii type resolutions.
Beautiful isn't it.
Let's go the other direction. Take a Wii develper screen from a higher resolution, (that means Wii graphics at HD resolutions) and you get this:
The Wii can do dynamic lighting/shading, bloom lighting, and has decent texture mapping capabilities. None of those will make the Wii look like an HD console. However, if you ran the HD systems in SD resolutions, they wouldn't look much better than the Wii.
HD consoles are not God's gift to gaming. They were graphically the next step for consoles, but PCs had those resolutions way before the consoles did.
[QUOTE="laus_basic"]
Sandvichman
Your kidding yourself if it's going to look like those shots, with 16 AA.
Yea Only on the pc would it look like this where you can play it at 1080p with 16xAF and.9xSSAA On the wii console it with not look as good. If the wii supported 1080p and say 2xAA and 8xAF at least for me it would look great.
I don't know why people complain about Wii graphics. It is not an HD console. Let me see, what would a 360 graphic look like in 480P? Well, take a 360 screen of Modern Warfare 2 and blow it up 225% That would bring its resolution down to that of a Wii. For all of its graphic power, the 360 wouldn't look any better at Wii type resolutions.
Beautiful isn't it.
Let's go the other direction. Take a Wii develper screen from a higher resolution, (that means Wii graphics at HD resolutions) and you get this:
The Wii can do dynamic lighting/shading, bloom lighting, and has decent texture mapping capabilities. None of those will make the Wii look like an HD console. However, if you ran the HD systems in SD resolutions, they wouldn't look much better than the Wii.
HD consoles are not God's gift to gaming. They were graphically the next step for consoles, but PCs had those resolutions way before the consoles did.
mrfokken
You're telling me that killzone 2 would be the same as metroid primed 3 if it was in the same resolution? :S
heres Super mario Galaxy in lame SD with 0 AA and 0 Af
Heres Super mario galaxy in sexy HD and 16xAA and 16xAF 8)
[QUOTE="mrfokken"]
I don't know why people complain about Wii graphics. It is not an HD console. Let me see, what would a 360 graphic look like in 480P? Well, take a 360 screen of Modern Warfare 2 and blow it up 225% That would bring its resolution down to that of a Wii. For all of its graphic power, the 360 wouldn't look any better at Wii type resolutions.
Beautiful isn't it.
Let's go the other direction. Take a Wii develper screen from a higher resolution, (that means Wii graphics at HD resolutions) and you get this:
The Wii can do dynamic lighting/shading, bloom lighting, and has decent texture mapping capabilities. None of those will make the Wii look like an HD console. However, if you ran the HD systems in SD resolutions, they wouldn't look much better than the Wii.
HD consoles are not God's gift to gaming. They were graphically the next step for consoles, but PCs had those resolutions way before the consoles did.
Sandvichman
You're telling me that killzone 2 would be the same as metroid primed 3 if it was in the same resolution? :S
he doesn't know what he is talking higher resolution can make a game look quite a bit better but there more to graphics then just resolution(in which case breath of fire 3 for pc would beat uncharted 2!) texture detial,shaders,lighthing effects,particle effects, shadows,etc are much higher quality on the hd consoles play the wii and then a ps3 on a SDTV and the ps3 will look alot better graphically.
Ahh, i'm so happy my standards are low enough to be absolutely delighted by these graphics...
Maybe someday my simple mind will evolve to be on par with the upper echelon of the videogame elite that roam these boards, but until then, this will be the most visually awe-inspiring game to come out this gen, and one of then best made...ever.
And part 2 is just around the corner!!! *girly scream*
[QUOTE="mrfokken"]That is, an HD signal displayed on an SD screen should still look good. The problem is going the other direction. A Wii's 480P signal is about 852 x 480 in resolution.RuprechtMonkey
An HD signal can NOT be displayed on an SDTV by definition. When you play a PS3 or 360 on a SDTV the systems output 480i signals, the identical output resolution the Wii outputs when playing on an SDTV. When playing on SDTV's the PS3 and 360 do not output HD signals.
The reason they blow away the Wii when playing on an SDTV is the same reason the PS1 blew away the SNES (when the same resolution was outputted by both systems.) The 360 and PS3 are able to generate far more polys/richer textures/more complex lighting systems/etc. List goes on and on.
The increase in potential resoution has very little to do with why the other two systems look so much better - they STILL look much, much better when they're outputting SD and played on an SDTV. Many games on 360 are generated in 576p, and are upscaled by the 360's scaling chip after they are rendered, not the far off from the 480p Wii games can render in (which are later upsacled by the TV set itself if playing on an HDTV.) The lower-res 360games absolutely blow every other Wii game out of the water. For a recent example FFXIII is rendered in 576p on ther 360 and even so is light years beyond the Wii's visual capability. You don't need an HDTV to make the difference between the PS3/360 and theWii blatant. Games like Gears 2 or Uncharted 2 when played on an SDTV make Wii games look three generationsold on the same TV by comparison.
Pardon me for not being as precise with my wording. I should have said an HD signal downgraded to display on an SD screen should still look good. I am sure no one actually thought you can make an SD screen display in HD resolutions.
Again, I disagree. The resolution has everything to do with it. If the Wii could produce better textures and more complex lighting and (make your list as long as you want) it wouldn't look significantly better unless it ran in a resolution that could show the difference in the detials.
Look: Increase the resolution, not the polygons, not the lighting effects, not the textures, and you get this
and this
I don't know why people complain about Wii graphics. It is not an HD console. Let me see, what would a 360 graphic look like in 480P? Well, take a 360 screen of Modern Warfare 2 and blow it up 225% That would bring its resolution down to that of a Wii. For all of its graphic power, the 360 wouldn't look any better at Wii type resolutions.
Beautiful isn't it.
Let's go the other direction. Take a Wii develper screen from a higher resolution, (that means Wii graphics at HD resolutions) and you get this:
The Wii can do dynamic lighting/shading, bloom lighting, and has decent texture mapping capabilities. None of those will make the Wii look like an HD console. However, if you ran the HD systems in SD resolutions, they wouldn't look much better than the Wii.
HD consoles are not God's gift to gaming. They were graphically the next step for consoles, but PCs had those resolutions way before the consoles did.
mrfokken
Is blowing it up the same as changing the resolution? Why not just change the output to 480P on the 360, it'd stil give better picture. I don't know why your zooming in.
[QUOTE="RuprechtMonkey"]
[QUOTE="mrfokken"]That is, an HD signal displayed on an SD screen should still look good. The problem is going the other direction. A Wii's 480P signal is about 852 x 480 in resolution.mrfokken
An HD signal can NOT be displayed on an SDTV by definition. When you play a PS3 or 360 on a SDTV the systems output 480i signals, the identical output resolution the Wii outputs when playing on an SDTV. When playing on SDTV's the PS3 and 360 do not output HD signals.
The reason they blow away the Wii when playing on an SDTV is the same reason the PS1 blew away the SNES (when the same resolution was outputted by both systems.) The 360 and PS3 are able to generate far more polys/richer textures/more complex lighting systems/etc. List goes on and on.
The increase in potential resoution has very little to do with why the other two systems look so much better - they STILL look much, much better when they're outputting SD and played on an SDTV. Many games on 360 are generated in 576p, and are upscaled by the 360's scaling chip after they are rendered, not the far off from the 480p Wii games can render in (which are later upsacled by the TV set itself if playing on an HDTV.) The lower-res 360games absolutely blow every other Wii game out of the water. For a recent example FFXIII is rendered in 576p on ther 360 and even so is light years beyond the Wii's visual capability. You don't need an HDTV to make the difference between the PS3/360 and theWii blatant. Games like Gears 2 or Uncharted 2 when played on an SDTV make Wii games look three generationsold on the same TV by comparison.
Pardon me for not being as precise with my wording. I should have said an HD signal downgraded to display on an SD screen should still look good. I am sure no one actually thought you can make an SD screen display in HD resolutions.
Again, I disagree. The resolution has everything to do with it. If the Wii could produce better textures and more complex lighting and (make your list as long as you want) it wouldn't look significantly better unless it ran in a resolution that could show the difference in the detials.
Look: Increase the resolution, not the polygons, not the lighting effects, not the textures, and you get this
and this
Well that doesn't really work right now either, because to output at high resolution while keeping the same graphical fidelity would require more horsepower than the Wiis GPU has, unless it too gets a scaling chip.
Either way it doesn't have a method of producing these higher resolutions, so whats the point of this. It doesn't change the argument, it just says this is what the Wii could look like. But when I go back to it, it won't.
Mr. Fokken, that's just not true. The particle effects, shadow effects, texture quality, lighting quality, etc. cannot be improved by merely upping the resolution. Those resolutions near Link are horrible at any resolution-- it has to be mapped in a complex manner to look realistic, it's not just the texture concentration. Notice that Link isn't casting a shadow-- this can't be fixed by upping the res.
Your whole argument is completely bogus. It could not, under higher resolution, produce better lighting than say Uncharted. That's just not possible-- the graphics processor does not allow for complex lighting, and no amount of increase in resolution will make that lighting look complex.KristoffBrujah
You keep straying from the point. This is not a compare the consoles thread. The question was why does the wii look horible (read the topic). The original poster wasn't complaining that the lighting/shading/polygons/etc looked bad. He said the jaggies bothered him. That problem is related to antialiasing and resolution.
Are you really arguing that neither of the HD consoles benefit from higher resolutions? You may be able to tell the difference between good and bad lighting and shading in the Link picture, but most people just look at it and think, "wow, that looks pretty good." Personally, I thought the textures were poor.
Do you really believe that the most noticealbe problems shown on this screenshot are the result of lighting, or shading, or particle effects, or polygon count, etc. more than resolution and antialiasing? I don't.
Log in to comment