as long as the FPS does not dip below 30 its not bad. 60 is just so silky smooth and IMHO makes a deffernce. to me prime 3 was great. thay went the right rout. clean high res textures and good AA,AF. I would rather have a game look nice and clean even at the sake of simplicaty rather than a game that has a tons of stuff on screen and super high polly count but low res textures and a blurry/grainy picture "like RE4" sure the charicters such as leon looked very realistic and life like but the enviroment looked horrible "IMHO" as it was so grainy and low res.
Wild_Card
Ulgh the textures in MP3 looked like they were running bilinear filtering, right in front of you the texture looked all blurry. I didn't like that one bit. And it there didn't seem to be much in the way of discernable AA running at all.
[QUOTE="TacticalElefant"]How about just forgetting Zelda, and make a new game for once, that isn't the same damn thing for the 4th time when it comes to 3D Zeldas?!?!?!
Sepewrath
How about No, also not to be mean but I am glad that alot of you arent game developers.
Same to you, as you'd make the same crap over and over again.
I play alot of PC games so for me, framerate disambiguation is quite prevelant for me. Despite that, I'd be more than willing to sacrifice 60 fps for 30 or 40 fps in order to get alot more on screen at once. Actually for MP3, I would've recommended it in order to get more per frame.
Eh probably not. It'll surely suffer a fate on the likes of Vanguard and Alien Syndrome, looking closely like their counterparts on other systems. I look at the pictures of the game, and I think to myself: "wow this game looks like it belongs on a PSP". Seriously, the Wii can do much better, where are the bump maps, normal maps, emboss maps, environmental bump maps, decent dynamic shadowing, self shadowing, and other higher level features we should be expecting from this console, especially as it's MORE THAN CAPABLE OF DOING IT.
[QUOTE="robzan"]I read in a paper that Nintedo was so tired of hearing people complaining about the bad graphics on Wii games, that they were discussing to get together with Factor 5 and make a Star Fox game on the Wii. I'm not kidding. :)sonic_rusher
No cables can improve graphics. But they will improve the resolution.BubbyJello
They don't improve it, they provide a means to deliver the amount of data needed to display higher than 480i. Resolution is truly dependent on the GPU.
I'm not to sure, but it is technically possible to do 720p with the Wii, just not feasibly practical. I don't know if the resolution is either locked in the hardware and dev kits or if devs have the option of using higher resolution, even though it would stupid to run a game at higher than 480p on the Wii. Now, why is the Wii not good at higher resolutions you ask? It's easy to explain. On the GPU die there is 3 MB of embedded memory to act as a quick storage buffer. 1 MB of this is used as a quick store for textures and the other 2 is the frame buffer. That 2 MB isn't enough to really allow for higher resolutions. It can be done, but it'll be slow and inefficient. I'm not to sure if the 24 MB of VRAM built directly into the Hollywood GPU can be used for framebuffer purposes (probably not), but currently the Wii is best as just a 480p machine.
Sure Wii may be fun, but there are little issues strung about in the system that are quite questionable with the way things are going in the games industry. Especially since the main ratio of GC to Wii specs is a 1:2 or 1:3 ratio, it surprises me that Nintendo didn't add another MB or 2 to make sure 720p was feasible. I wish Nintendo would shed some more light on the actual specs of the system, not simple crap like memory sizes and clock speeds. I want number of pipelines, GFLOPs, and other real numbers that mean something. LOL I'm crazy.
So in conclusion, Wii doesn't do 720p, be it locked in firmware, hardware, or in dev. SDKs. Not to bad though I don't think, I don't have an HDTV anyways XD
Log in to comment